Wanted: More Arminians
It has become a bit routine:
- Email arrives from someone assuming I am (or everybody at SharperIron is) a Calvinist.
- Email poses question believed to be incriminating of Calvinists or unanswerable by them.
- Response from me offers biblical answer that is not especially calvinistic.
- Questioner ignores most of the particulars, broadly condemns “Calvinism.”
- Discussion becomes repetitive, overly heated or both, ends.
A recent example appears below, with details removed to avoid identifying the sender. I’m including the exchange because, this time around, a reality hit home to me that hadn’t before: apparently, many fundamentalists think that anti-Calvinism is a complete doctrine of salvation.
But anti-Calvinism is, at best, a thoughtful rejection of one particular doctrine of salvation. More commonly, it’s nothing more than a feeling of hostility toward doctrines only partially understood. As a result, many anti-Calvinists have no coherent doctrine of salvation at all. They have rejected lasagna from the menu but have walked away without ordering any alternative.
If the emails I get are any indication, most anti-Calvinists are completely unaware that they have an empty hole where their soteriology ought to be.
So this essay is a plea for more Arminians. Love it or hate it, authentic Arminianism offers a thoughtful, self-consistent set of Bible-based answers to all the same questions Calvinism wrestles with. And the cause of the gospel would be far better served if more anti-Calvinists would embrace some kind of coherent soteriology. Classical Arminianism is not the work of slouches and is far better than the semi-Pelagian, Finneyist confusion that came along later—and way, way better than the self-contradictory, quasi-Pelagian mush many anti-Calvinists settle for nowadays!
The conversation
Anti-Calvinist (1)
How do you theologize away “…was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance?”. And, just so I know, are you a Calvinist who opines that, in John 3:16, that when God so loved the world, it was the world of the elect……..and whosoever actually means “whosoever of the elect”? Just wondering, because my 3rd grade sunday school students read it and believe it means all inclusive.
Me (1)
Hi, [name removed].
Since all do not actually come to repentance, and God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph.1), that verse requires an explanation regardless of whether one identifies more closely with a Calvinist, Arminian or quasi-Pelagian approach—or none of the above.
In short, “not willing that any should perish” has to be “theologized away” by everybody in one way or another. The question is how to harmonize it with what is revealed elsewhere. A sort of short answer, from my point of view, is that unless we say those burning in Hell for eternity are there against God’s will, we have to understand “not willing” in 2 Pet. 3:9 to be either (a) describing God as conflicted on this point or (b) having a narrower meaning based on the context. As for (a) the idea would be that He wants them there perishing in some sense but doesn’t want them there in another. It is part of His plan to reveal His righteousness through “vessels of wrath” (Rom. 9:22), yet He is grieved that this part of the plan brings suffering to His creatures (“endured with much longsuffering” - also Rom.9:22).
But the other possibility is that (b) the verse should to be read in context as an explanation for why He delays His coming (see 2Pet.3:4ff), that is, He delays because He is not willing to end His plan early and leave those who would have believed stranded without their day of opportunity. In short, Peter is saying “God has a schedule, and His coming is right on time. There are still those He plans to save.”
I can see merits in both (a) and (b), though I’m still not entirely confident I correctly understand Romans 9. But other passages do indicate He does not take pleasure “in the death of one who dies” (Ezek 18.32). So a scenario where He is “willing” and yet “not willing” at the same time doesn’t seem out of the question to me. All the same, as far as 2 Pet. 3 goes, (b) handles the context better.
Hope that helps. I’m not speaking for others at SharperIron. There would be a variety of answers to that question from folks on the team, not to mention those who would join in discussion.
Anti-Calvinist (2)
See your quote below.
In short, “not willing that any should perish” has to be “theologized away” by everybody in one way or another. The question is how to harmonize it with what is revealed elsewhere. A sort of short answer, from my point of view, is that unless we say those burning in Hell for eternity are there against God’s will, we have to understand “not willing” in 2 Pet. 3:9 to be either (a) describing God as conflicted on this point or (b) having a narrower meaning based on the context. As for (a) the idea would be that He wants them there perishing in some sense but doesn’t want them there in another.
No point in arguing with you, however, I will point out, that it appears that you do not believe people can refuse salvation, and go to hell for their unbelief…..and this is what God desired all along. To put the thought process simply: God created a man, desiring that the man would go to hell, thus not granting him “elect” status, which you oh-so-conveniently purport to possess…..lucky you, that you aren’t part of Gods big ant-squashing rumpus room, right?
Me (2)
Eph2, Romans 3 are clear that people do not want to believe. This is why God must graciously bring conviction to them first. No one comes except the Father draws him. It’s not about luck. It’s called grace. There are ultimately only two possibilities: either I am chosen on the basis of some quality I possess or I am chosen graciously apart from any merit of my own (what you are calling “lucky” here). So which do you choose to believe? If you decide for “merit,” you have rejected the gospel. (This is not a “Calvinist” idea. Even Arminians affirm that human beings do not, on their own, possess any inclination to believe the gospel. An act of Grace by God is required.)*
So in your view, is God’s will eternally flouted by the existence of sinners in Hell? Is He standing helplessly by as His will is defeated by millions who reject His offer of salvation? If so, as the old saying goes, your God is too small.
Anti-Calvinist (3)
Do you believe that it is God’s desire that some people go to hell?
Me (3)
Tell you what, I’ll answer that after you answer my questions. :)
Anti-Calvinist (4)
Its been the basic question all along. Does God desire that certain people go to hell? (His will).
Me (4)
I shouldn’t answer your questions if you won’t answer mine. But I’ll let Scripture answer them…
He “works all things according to the counsel of His own will.” Eph.1.11
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ (Isaiah 46:10)
But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. (Psalm 135:6)
Anti-Calvinist (5)
Almost as if you are afraid to answer yes, so instead you dance.
In order for Calvinism to be true, God must desire (will) that some boys and girls die and go to hell someday.
Me (5)
Quoting Scripture is dancing? I’m happy to be dancing in that case. When you have something to say about the verses I’ve quoted and the questions I’ve raised, I’d be happy to discuss the matter further.
Anti-Calvinist (6)
There is nothing to discuss, because you are wrong. In typical fashion, a calvinist must engage in long drawn-out searching in order to understand salvation.
Yes, you danced. I asked a question about what you believe. Instead of giving a simple response, you attempted to deflect “blame” for your position of predamnation to the Bible.
Your hateful self-important heresy rears its ugly head up every few decades, and gains momentum….only to once again be slapped down with: “For God so loved the WORLD…that WHOSOEVER..”, “..not our sins only..” Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.
Sir, a child hearing the Gospel, can understand these verses, and understand that God wants to save everyone.
Im glad that you are wrong, and that everyone can be saved. You believing the world is flat, does not make it so.
A plea for seriousness
The exchange above is shortened slightly, but even in the full length version the anti-Calvinist offers no explanation for how it is that people can spend eternity in Hell contrary to God’s will, how a God who “wants to save everyone” fails to do so, how a God who wants all to be saved could ever return (thus ending the opportunity of salvation for many), or even why there should be any eternal Hell at all.
To all anti-Calvinists everywhere: I respect your right to reject Calvinism—more than you know! But if you’re going to be anti something, please be for something else. Develop a studious, serious, thoughtful and—yes, systematic—set of answers to the issues of God’s sovereign plan; the phenomenon of human choice; the reality of Hell in God’s plan; the nature of depravity, election and grace; and the extent and application of the atonement. For my part, I’d be thrilled if more of you picked up a copy of Roger E. Olson’s Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and became full-blown Arminians.
*The references to sovereign grace as luck and divine wrath as ant squishing, etc. disoriented me for a bit here, I guess. My counter-argument is pretty much a calvinistic one, since the belief-enabling grace in Arminianism is not granted individually but rather preveniently to all who hear the gospel.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 38 views
My attitude though is that both systems have places where one idea seems to cancel out another. (Though I can’t remember the Calvinist examples at the moment). To me, what’s most important is effort to work through what’s revealed far enough to have a coherent set of answers to the top level questions, the questions a layer down, and a layer or two deeper still before shrugging and saying “I’m a biblicist” and teaching one thing one day and quite another on another day.
Admittedly, how many “layers” there are and whether the answers are “coherent” or not is somewhat subjective, but there are obvious examples a plenty nowadays of not really thinking things through much at all.
So I’m willing to cut the Arminians some slack on how they deal with depravity provided they start out with what’s clearly revealed. I’d hope for the same from them in dealing with problems like all those pesky “alls” and “whosoevers.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[dan] I think it’s amusing that Calvinists use the term “Sovereign Grace”, as if implying only they believe God is sovereign, yet they object to non-Cavlinists using the term “Biblicist”, claiming it implies only non-Calvinists believe the Bible. :)Dan, I use the term Sovereign Grace as meaning God’s grace is bestowed by his sovereignty ALONE (thus unconditional election). It is true that Arminians believe God is sovereign, and it is true that they believe he is gracious. But “sovereign grace” is more about what is NOT there, namely, man’s free response as a determining factor of who “gets” the grace. I do not like to call myself a Calvinist; for one thing, I reject limited atonement; for another, I don’t sprinkle babies and am (progressive) dispensational and premillennial. My view of the church is not really calvinistic. Although I do not think it is wrong for one to call himself a Calvinist, in an argument it is better not to identify with any man (your opponents will use the “I am not following any man, only the Bible”), and I would rather preclude the whole self-righteous diversion. I could say I believe in “election,” but so would an Arminian (he would define the idea differently). I guess I could say I am an “unconditional electionist,” but that sounds like I’m a precinct captain at the polls.
In the past when I got involved in discussions of alternatives to Calvinism here, the Calvinists (not the best representatives) involved would not acknowledge such a thing as Classical Arminianism, insisting all arminianism is pelagian, or semi.
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian (of any kind), but am probably closer to a Classical Arminian than a Calvinist.
Nor is my soteriology random.
Terminology IS a problem. That’s why we endlessly discuss what a fundamentalist is. Have a little sympathy on us!
As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, I am with Aaron. God is desiring an extended period of harvest. The “you” in the text (not willing for any of YOU to perish) is probably used generically for the elect, the same type of people for which Paul endured hardship (2 Timothy 2:10). Looking at it as prefigured by the feasts, the era from Penetcost to Trumpets is a long one!
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] Dan, I use the term Sovereign Grace as meaning God’s grace is bestowed by his sovereignty ALONE (thus unconditional election). It is true that Arminians believe God is sovereign, and it is true that they believe he is gracious. But “sovereign grace” is more about what is NOT there, namely, man’s free response as a determining factor of who “gets” the grace.Seems to me “Sovereign Grace” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means? Maybe I’ll stick with “Biblicist” after all. :bigsmile:
[Ed Vasicek] I do not like to call myself a Calvinist; for one thing, I reject limited atonement; for another, I don’t sprinkle babies and am (progressive) dispensational and premillennial.This is off-topic, but in my limited exposure to progressive dispensationalism it has always been associated with a premillenial posttribulation view of eschatology. Are you posttrib?
[Ed Vasicek] As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, I am with Aaron.My view of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is that it means God is longsuffering toward us (humans), not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would prefer that the wicked turn from his ways and live (Eze 33:11). Allowing the wicked to choose to remain wicked is in conflict with desiring all to come to repentance. I don’t think it’s necessary interpret any to mean any of the elect or to define two wills of God in order to resolve the conflict.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Absolutely some of them are.
But some of what’s being called synergism is so qualified that when you put it next to versions of monergism that are also thoroughly nuanced, the difference seems to be mainly semantic.
What’s clear to me:
1. All the resources of salvation come from God, including the ability to believe
2. Faith is not a work in any biblical sense
3. Faith is an act
4. The act of faith is performed by the sinner not by God
So in Arminianism, the ability to believe is granted graciously to all. Even if some argue that this nullifies depravity entirely, I think we can’t deny that the difference between “ability in ourselves as sinners” and “ability granted graciously to overcome our sinfulness” is significant… regardless of how many are included in the scope of the grace.
(That said, I am not convinced that any such prevenient grace exists. But the concept doesn’t really deny depravity, it just remedies it in one respect—a really big one—comprehensively).
Some Calvinists seem to almost say at times that God does the actual believing for the sinner. But in Scripture, it’s always the sinner who believes and “his faith” that is counted for righteousness.
So if we define synergism as “God and man working together in salvation” and mean “working” in the sense of Eph.2.8 we are clearly describing a serious error. If we define it as “God and man acting together in some respect in salvation” we do not. Faith is an act and only the sinner can perform it.
My point is that switching the debate to “synergism” vs. “monergism” doesn’t solve everything. I think we’re better off using the term “synergism” to refer to “works” in the biblical sense, which would mean that it is not a view that is held by classical Arminians—maybe not even by Wesleyan Arminians (though I think we’re well into that territory with Finney et. al.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Basically, the question of monergism/synergism has a lot to do with your view of depravity. If you believe man has nothing good within himself to will to embrace the word and work of God, and you believe God somehow gives man this power, then this is monergism. On the other hand, if you believe there is power within your will to will to embrace the word and work of God, and God does something, this is synergism. The act of believing, at least from what I have read of dead theologians, is still done by the believer. Luther and Pink both do a good job explaining how the power to will to embrace… can come from God while belief is our choice fit within C.
So, in the classical Calvinist system, what does the death of Christ provide for the elect? Everything. All that the sinner exercises, including faith in repentance, is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s work. So, monergism.
In the Arminian systems, what does the death of Christ provide for all people? Prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is what is actually secured by the atonement. But, prevenient grace by itself doesn’t save anyone. Faith must be added to prevenient grace to make it efficacious, and this faith comes from within the sinner, in no way gifted by the Holy Spirit. So, the death of Christ provides the opportunity for man to complete the saving transaction. So, Arminianism, even if it doesn’t consider faith a meritorious work, is still synergistic.
In other words, simply saying “God grants the ability to believe” doesn’t make it monergistic. If that were so, Catholicism also would be monergistic, in that sacramental grace grants the ability to fulfill the requirements of salvation. In fact, that’s exactly what Catholics say about their own theology, and why they distinguish between condign and congruent merit.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Charlie]I don’t think this is necessarily true.
So, in the classical Calvinist system, what does the death of Christ provide for the elect? Everything. All that the sinner exercises, including faith in repentance, is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s work. So, monergism.
In the Arminian systems, what does the death of Christ provide for all people? Prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is what is actually secured by the atonement. But, prevenient grace by itself doesn’t save anyone. Faith must be added to prevenient grace to make it efficacious, and this faith comes from within the sinner, in no way gifted by the Holy Spirit. So, the death of Christ provides the opportunity for man to complete the saving transaction. So, Arminianism, even if it doesn’t consider faith a meritorious work, is still synergistic.
Even in Classical Arminianism, the atonement still provides everything. The difference is that Arminianism says all men retain the capacity to resist God’s grace. Man plays no part in accomplishing his own salvation, only in avoiding it. Calvinism says the elect have no capacity to resist God’s grace.
Either way, salvation is still monergistic, at least in some forms of Arminianism.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
This is correct.
John Wesley (Arminian) would not have agreed with Joseph Smith (Pelagius). Pelagius rules the religious I-15 Corridor. Those who believe that men are born in sin (whether Calvinistic or Arminian) are the biblical outposts.
[Charlie] So, in the classical Calvinist system, what does the death of Christ provide for the elect? Everything. All that the sinner exercises, including faith in repentance, is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s work. So, monergism.In your understanding then, who believes and repents? I’m assuming the answer is that the sinner does. Prior his believing and repenting he must have become able to do so. Yet, going back a bit further, there was a point at which he was not able to do so, his natural condition.
I don’t see where the trouble here is. Both classical Arminianism and Calvinism hold that God graciously enables the sinner to repent and believe. The Calvinist also holds the effectual calling is irresistable (which I don’t personally take to mean that the sinner is forced, but rather that he is freed to believe what any freed creature will certainly believe. There is no longer any desire or inclination in him to “resist.”)
My understanding of Arminianism on this point is that being enabled by Prevenient Grace, sinners may also choose to believe… but may choose not to. This is a major problem with the system in my view, but my purpose here hasn’t been to defend Arminiansm so much as to show that it—in its truest form—it doesn’t reject that salvation is all of God. At least, it doesn’t intend to.
Obviously I still have much to learn. This was interesting from http://www.theopedia.com/Synergism] Theopedia …
Regarding the doctrine of salvation, this is essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual. This is the view of salvation found in Arminianism and its theological predecessor Semi-Pelagianism. John Hendryx has stated it this way. Synergism is “…the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.” [1]
In other words, God has done His part, and humanity must do theirs. This is opposed to the monergistic view [2] , held by Reformed, Calvinistic [3] [4] and Lutheran [5] groups where salvation is seen as the work of God alone.
A distinction is to be made, however, between Calvinism and Lutheranism. Calvin seems to have held that God’s calling to faith is irresistible, and is the result, not of God’s mercy and grace in Christ, but rather flows out of God’s divine decree of election. [6]. The Lutheran Church, however, holds that a person may choose to resist the work of the Holy Spirit. [7] [8]
We’ve got some terminology problems here because it’s really not possible to make sense of these statements unless there is some equivocation or something with the expression “work of God alone.”
Arminius did not teach (nor did Grantham) that any part of the sinner’s salvation is his own “work” or “that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.”
As for anti-Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism, yes, I chose the term “anti-Calvinist” intentionally. Before we started digging into particulars, the thrust of the OP was that we seem to have alot of folks who have put their soteriological passion into being anti- something rather than into studying the doctrine out thoroughly. I know lots of non-Calvinists who are not like that at all, and a few anti-Calvinists that aren’t either. But the last few years, all the feedback I get from anti-Calv’s has been pretty consistently of a sort that revealed huge holes in their own handling of Scripture. They had no answers of their own and seemed to think it was good enough to reject what they thought (often mistakenly) were Calvin’s answers.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is off-topic, but in my limited exposure to progressive dispensationalism it has always been associated with a premillenial posttribulation view of eschatology. Are you posttrib?It probably is true that most Progressive Dispensationalists are post-trib, but not all. I am among those who consider myself pretrib, although I am lenient toward other views. Saucy is a big Progressive Dispensationalist who is clearly pre-trib.
…
My view of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is that it means God is longsuffering toward us (humans), not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would prefer that the wicked turn from his ways and live (Eze 33:11). Allowing the wicked to choose to remain wicked is in conflict with desiring all to come to repentance. I don’t think it’s necessary interpret any to mean any of the elect or to define two wills of God in order to resolve the conflict.
__________________
As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, Dan, you may be right. But the term “us” or “you” (I think there is a manuscript difference here but I might be wrong — I am not in my office now to check) does not necessarily mean we humans, as pointed out in posts above. But, either way, I agree with you that the Ezekiel passage and others teach that God does desire all to come to repentance, at least in some sense.
Earlier I think you mentioned the boulemai vs. thelo difference. I taught that for years until I did a little research in Colin Brown. He claims that this difference in Greek terms is not legit. You might look Colin Brown over on this. Again, I am out of my office!
This thread has so many avenues to it, including monergism vs. synergism. I did want to make a comment about something not quoted in this post, the whole idea of prevenient grace. Wasn’t that a Wesleyan innovation? That’s how I recall it. Wesleyan Arminianism, while the most popular in our day, is not the only Arminianism. Good discussions, all.
Incidentally, those of us who are 4 pointer believe that Christ’s death provided satisfaction for the sins of the world, not prevenient grace. The elect person believes, but he is first regenerated and coaxed along by Holy Spirit. We would not say, as 5 pointers do, that the death of Christ secured the salvation of the elect. We don’t usually say anything, but I would say much of anything about when the salvation of the elect was in fact, secured. I say God’s choice, not the atonement, secured the salvation of the elect, with the atoning providing propitiation and expiation (the only method of salvation) made active upon belief (a condition that God causes to be fulfilled, although the newly-regenerated person does the believing).
"The Midrash Detective"
I’m writing this to express an appreciation for the opening post. It is a great example. I appreciate the call to really discern the meaning of the passage, as opposed to only “knowing” what it absolutely cannot mean. This much is exceedingly important; it is not enough to just simply have a negative hole; but one needs to discern the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding Terminology:
Personally, I do not like the terms “monergism” and “synergism” because of their lack of communicative value or clarity (for many are just not historically conscious). When someone is talking about “monergism,” it is not as though God is the only One in the universe who is doing any kind of action. There are two persons involved. There is a synergism of sorts. However, it is the “kind” of synergism that is at issue. Do God and man approach the synergism as two ultimate contributors toward salvation? Or do God and man approach the synergism as One ultimate contributor with two participants.
My personal preference is that one will not understand the issue until the issue of the will is discussed. It is at this point that I’m going to oversimplify, for the sake of space, two understandings of the will. One version is causeless or uncaused. It is not determined by anything. Therefore, it can be said to be ultimate in a sense, since nothing goes beyond it. On the other hand, another version/understanding of the will sees the will as always being caused; hence, it is never ultimate but rather secondary or proximate. The second corresponds to the providence of God and the mere fact that man is a creature who is always sustained.
What in the world does all of this have to do with Calvinism and Arminianism? Arminianism adheres to a will that is bound/in bondage/unable/depraved. I can pull up a quote of Arminius himself here if needed. In short, the will is determined by the depraved nature. However, prevenient grace comes along and makes a person able to accept or reject. It is here that the will is uncaused; it is supposedly lifted up out of its nature to make an uncaused choice between “A” or “notA” (libertarian freedom). It is ultimate then once it reaches this point. What does this mean? It means that the Arminian system equivocates on the definition of the will (from caused to uncaused). While this is a critique of Arminianism, I still wish to say that I appreciate it much more than Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Finneyism. It, at the very least, adheres to the language of depravity.
The Calvinist view of the will never makes the will “ultimate” in any sense. It is always caused. By “what” exactly it is caused changes, but the will is never “God like” in terms of ultimacy. Hence, the Calvinist can rightly say that salvation is all of God (as its ultimate causal source), but at the same time there is a unequal synergism between God and man (Creator/creature distinction). However, the Arminian has to allow for man to be ultimate in sense described above. Therefore, at the point of decision, which God’s grace leads man to, man has the ultimate say. God is necessary, or man would never be brought out from his depravity; and man is equally as necessary, for God is not behind man’s will at the point of decision. The synergisms differ VERY significantly.
-Given an uncaused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be answered as a “no”.
-Given a caused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be a more nuanced “yes” and “no”. The nuancing would be found in a further/more detailed description of the will than what has been given so far. “No” in the sense that God is not pantheistic; He is distinct from His creation. He and the man are not one in a Pantheistic sense. However, the answer is “yes” in the sense that God is the ultimate causal source of man’s salvation.
I hope that this adds to clarity, as opposed to muddying the waters.
-Given an uncaused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be answered as a “no”.Seems to me it has to be “no” either way. Even if one takes the view that the decision is fully “caused,” it is still the sinner who believes, otherwise, vast chunks of Romans (and lots of other passages) make no sense at all.
-Given a caused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be a more nuanced “yes” and “no”.
I don’t personally see what’s wrong with saying “We don’t know what the mechanism of choice really is, ultimately, but it is not a choice a sinner has any interest in making apart from grace, nor is it one he is “able” (I would say is not able because he has no interest) to make apart from grace.”
Add to that “No work on the sinner’s part contributes at all to salvation, but it is the sinner who repents and believes.”
A big part of the controversy over the centuries (at least among non-scholars) has centered on the question how far do we need to go in working through answers to the hard questions? Obviously as far as Scripture (thoroughly studied) can take us. Beyond that can be helpful—it’s often useful to have a theory—but we need not fault anyone for drawing the line there and pleading Deuteronomy 29:29.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ed Vasicek] It probably is true that most Progressive Dispensationalists are post-trib, but not all. I am among those who consider myself pretrib, although I am lenient toward other views. Saucy is a big Progressive Dispensationalist who is clearly pre-trib.I was just curious - I’m post-trib and I don’t personally know anyone else who is. :)
[Ed Vasicek] As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, Dan, you may be right. But the term “us” or “you” (I think there is a manuscript difference here but I might be wrong — I am not in my office now to check) does not necessarily mean we humans, as pointed out in posts above. But, either way, I agree with you that the Ezekiel passage and others teach that God does desire all to come to repentance, at least in some sense.You are correct that some manuscripts say “us” and some say “you”, and I agree that it does not necessarily mean what I say it means. But, I think it’s far more likely than limiting the scope of “us” or “you” based on the scope of “us” in 2 Peter 3:9, as I explained briefly in the 2 Peter 3:9 thread.
[Ed Vasicek]That must have been someone else.
Earlier I think you mentioned the boulemai vs. thelo difference. I taught that for years until I did a little research in Colin Brown. He claims that this difference in Greek terms is not legit. You might look Colin Brown over on this. Again, I am out of my office!
[Ed Vasicek]Jacobus Arminius taught prevenient grace, though I don’t know enough about Wesleyan Arminianism to say how Wesley’s view may have differed.
This thread has so many avenues to it, including monergism vs. synergism. I did want to make a comment about something not quoted in this post, the whole idea of prevenient grace. Wasn’t that a Wesleyan innovation? That’s how I recall it. Wesleyan Arminianism, while the most popular in our day, is not the only Arminianism. Good discussions, all.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Discussion