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
[Aaron Blumer]I completely agree with the use of Deuteronomy 29:29; there are certainly many things that God has not revealed. However, God has revealed to us Ephesians 2:8. Without going into great detail in argument, if “this” is referring to the previous clause (for by grace are you saved through faith), then faith is a subset of the whole of what is not sourced in self (this is based upon the use of “ek” with a genitive as indicating a “source” idea.) Certainly, faith is an action of which a person does, but it is not ultimately sourced in self. Hence, grace is guarded against man’s taking to himself too much credit for his salvation and having room to boast. This is the point of my asking the questions you are responding to. Certainly, God is not believing for the person in a pantheistic sense, but it must be understood that this does not make man an ultimate source of his faith. I’m fine answering the question with “no” in both cases, but the question/dilemma can also be used to imply to much, and this is what I was aiming against. It is the self-sufficient assumption that often gets smuggled in by an improper answering of the question.-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.
If not, it may be the Calvinist who is equivocating.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
2 a : of uncertain nature or classification b : of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing : undecided c : of doubtful advantage, genuineness, or moral rectitude
I was surprised to see Webster be so imprecise… but shouldn’t have been. The def. reflects usage.
In any case, when I use the word “equivocate” I mean using a word or phrase with one meaning in one part of an argument and then altering the meaning somewhat in another part of the argument. Maybe Webster is right and I’m wrong (imagine that!). (: But just explaining myself for what it’s worth.
I don’t know if Arminius puts things in terms of caused and uncaused. From what I’ve read so far, it looks like he had a very high view of the activity of God in every part of salvation. But he was zealous to avoid making God “the author of evil.” It seems like his main beef with Calvinism was that—in his view—it made God the author of sin.
Of course, Calvinists deny this, just as Arminians deny that their view makes man a co-worker with God in salvation or nullifies depravity.
So… much of the debate over the years seems to be fueled by what each believes the others’ view necessarily implies.
To Arminians, Calvinism necessarily implies that God authors evil/sin. To Calvinists, Arminianism necessarily implies synergism (in the sense of man “contributing something” to salvation).
FWIW, I tend to agree with the Calvinists on this point, because the sinners choice to believe must ultimately have some cause. There are only a few possibilities I can think of…
- God causes it by arranging circumstances that certainly lead to that result
- “Luck” causes it as conditions occur randomly that lead to that result
- The universe causes it (a kind of pantheism… some would say “b” is also pantheism)
- Something mysterious in the man himself enables him to choose in an “uncaused” way?
It seems to me that Arminianism’s core weakness is explaining what causes one sinner to believe and another to reject when both have been enabled to believe by prevenient grace and both have heard the gospel with equal clarity.
(I think Kevin Bauder pointed this problem out in a Nick post some months ago… I think he talked about a continuum of beliefs in that one… “Electorum”?)
On the other hand, Arminians would probably say that Calvinism’s core weakness is that it seems to make God the cause of everything, including sin.
So far, I have found the calvinistic/Augustinian approach to be able to deal more convincingly with its weaknesses. But I continue to hold rigorous Arminianism in very high regard both for what it attempts to do and for how thoroughly it attempts to do it.
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.
[Aaron Blumer] In any case, when I use the word “equivocate” I mean using a word or phrase with one meaning in one part of an argument and then altering the meaning somewhat in another part of the argument. Maybe Webster is right and I’m wrong (imagine that!). (: But just explaining myself for what it’s worth.You’re both right. Webster defined the word as used in every day English. You’re using it as defined in logic as a fallacy, as was I, and I assume Caleb.
What I meant was the equivocation may have been created indirectly by the Calvinist by defining terms and then imposing them on Arminius in such a away that it appears that Arminius equivocated when he actually did not (if Arminius did not use those terms himself). It would have been more accurate for me to call it a strawman rather than equivocation.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t know if Arminius puts things in terms of caused and uncaused. From what I’ve read so far, it looks like he had a very high view of the activity of God in every part of salvation. But he was zealous to avoid making God “the author of evil.” It seems like his main beef with Calvinism was that—in his view—it made God the author of sin.I’m not certain that he did not use those terms, but the earliest I’m aware of the terms “caused will” and “uncaused will” occurring in connection with the name Arminius was in a criticism of Arminianism by Jonathan Edwards.
As for caused or uncaused, it seems to me much ado about nothing. Regardless of one’s theology, how could anything other than God be uncaused? Even Richard Dawkins, celebrated evolutionist and atheist believes everything has a cause. He says there is no free will because every choice we make is the result of random interactions. Even if God created the universe, put things in motion, then left, everything had a cause. Whether the direct cause is a deity, genetics, the environment, upbringing or indigestion, no decision springs into existence without some relationship with other things that preceded it. Strictly speaking, only God is “uncaused.”
Suppose for a moment that faith does come from the person who believes, in response to the Holy Spirit and prevenient grace. The Calvinist says that would mean the man saved himself, he has reason to boast, his faith is a meritorious work. I say that’s nonsense. Jesus is the one who left heaven, was born of a virgin, lived as human, was tempted in all things as we are tempted, was scourged, crucified, separated from the Father, buried and rose from the dead. He’s the one who did all that, not me. There’s no way to make faith into a meritorious work, or something that gives me opportunity to boast.
Romans 2, 3 and 4 are foundational. No one can earn salvation though meritorious works. Abraham had no basis for boasting, why? Because Abraham’s faith, not works, was credited to him as righteousness. This is true whether you’re a Calvinist, an Arminian, or something in between. There is still no synergism.
Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man can seek God without any need for prevenient grace or drawing from the Holy Spirit. This is synergism.
I’ll repeat that I’m neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I need to learn to let it go, but it bothers me when Calvinists (some, not all) redefine Arminianism in order to call it semipelagian when it so clearly is not (I’m not suggesting that you, Aaron, have done that).
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Surely it both true and obvious that Christ is responsible for most of what is necessary for salvation. However, if man can boast in any part, no matter how small, it is not all of grace. If what makes me to differ from another is not God’s sovereign grace that worked in me in a way it did not in another, then I can, and very well may boast. I can say, “Christ did almost everything necessary for my salvation, but I supplied the final ingredient, I exercised my free will to believe the gospel. My neighbor did not have the good sense to do so, though he could have just as easily as I, if he was wise enough. The reason I am saved and my neighbor is not is because I had better sense than he.” That’s boasting, even if it is only contemplated and left unspoken. That is what Calvinism eliminates. That is also what the Scripture eliminates, if I understanding it correctly.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Surely it both true and obvious that Christ is responsible for most of what is necessary for salvation. However, if man can boast in any part, no matter how small, it is not all of grace. If what makes me to differ from another is not God’s sovereign grace that worked in me in a way it did not in another, then I can, and very well may boast.I didn’t intend to suggest there is no harm if only a little boasting is justified. My contention is that in either Calvinist or Arminian soteriology, there is no room for boasting.
[Rom 4:1-8 (NAS77)]The fact that Abraham was NOT justified by works eliminates anything to boast about. An Armininian can no more boast about having faith than a Calvinist can boast about being one of the elect (and I have known a Calvinist or two that did).
(1) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
(2) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.
(3) For what does the Scripture say? “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
(4) Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
(5) But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,
(6) just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
(7) “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
(8) “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
There is just no way to make faith into a meritorious work. The Bible is very clear that justification by faith is something completely separate and distinct from justification by works.
Updated: I also wanted to mention earlier (but forgot) that I agree with what you said about free will in http://sharperiron.org/comment/29839#comment-29839] post #43 .
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
But do not hazard into either of these unless you are willing to look honestly at your particular belief system (i.e., the real Gospel). What has happened to American churches since the late 19th century or what has befallen European evangelicalism even earlier? What did the Puritans give us in the face of rampant hatred for truth and treacherous times of persecution? Oh, we confidently say liberal theology brought down the churches power and influence (and it has some merit). But Spurgeon dealt with the Downgrade Controversy issue way before we met it full force.
Arminianism (or its other disguises) is not a sufficient proclamation of the whole truth. We are now saddled with easy-believism, with pragmatism, with relativism and conversely, we have a strict dividing line on Calvinism because the opponents cannot bear to lose what is not present in God’s eternal plan or the fact that man has some role in his justification, i.e., free will. A previous post adequately discussed it — we are sinners by nature, dead in sin, and as Romans 5 notes boldly that Christ died for the UNGODLY, ENEMIES, SINNERS, AND THE WEAK. Not very flattering, yes?
Man has a moral obligation to come to Christ BUT HE CANNOT UNLESS HE IS DRAWN BY THE SPIRIT THROUGH THE GOSPEL!!!! We were not left with a spark of spiritual light to allow us to chose — election is a choice BUT IT IS GOD’S ALONE. And we, as evangelical Calvinists do not go “looking for the elect” because that is not our task. 1 Cor 3 makes God’s plan of preaching and evangelizing clear - one plants, another waters, and God grants the increase. The time to stop defending the indefensible and the petty bragging of “my way” [Arminianism] is better than yours, blah, blah, blah.
Our nation is a cesspool of dead churches and not because of Calvinism but just the reverse. The sacrifice of expository preaching that is embedded with doctrinal truth has given way to our insatiable need for numbers, money, book sales, bus ministries, and all other forms of entertaining the goats which has borne its fruit in believers(?) being numb spiritually. We have churches full of babies, those who profess a spurious faith, and those who cannot even find the Sermon on the Mount in their Bibles. Thank you my Arminian brothers. Thank you for leaving churches who are more interested in lunch at noon instead of being hungry for the Word. Sermons with psycho-babble that are supposed to help those in conflict or make them feel better are loaded with wood, hay, and stubble and have greatly contributed to at least 2 generations of Biblical illiterates.
Thank the Lord that His people have not all collapsed under the weight of the now. A resurgence of Biblical preaching and teaching (nicknamed Calvinism) is moving across our land, through our denominations, and into the churches. People are almost shocked when they hear more about the person and eternal work of Christ. Diminish the Gospel in any way, and you have no Gospel. I love 1 Cor 1:30 — the source!! And, last, learn how to be an interpreter — 2 Peter 3 is about the Flood; the “all” and “whole world” verses are clearly understood in context. Either Christ died for someone or no one. The historical view is that the non-Calvinist leads to Unitarianism which leads to Atheism. But even Paul said in Phil 1:15-18, that even bad preaching can reap some results BECAUSE OF GOD ALONE. Peace, ya’ll.
Bob
My point is that if man is able to take credit for his own faith, he has reason to boast. It is only if faith is the gift of God that man has no cause to boast. I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you are saying:
1) Man is, in some little way, responsible for his own faith.
2) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
3) Therefore, inherent faith does not allow men to boast.
My contention is:
1) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
2) If man is responsible for his own faith, it is a work.
3) Therefore, man cannot be responsible for his own faith.
Remember that old saw, “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?” (attributed, I believe, to Abraham Lincoln. Answer, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Calling faith a non-work, after defining it in such a way as to make it a work, does remove the obvious conclusion that a human generated faith IS a work, no matter what you call it.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] My point is that if man is able to take credit for his own faith, he has reason to boast. It is only if faith is the gift of God that man has no cause to boast.Yes, that’s what I understood your point to be. I believe many (maybe all?) Calvinists agree with that.
[G. N. Barkman] I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you are saying:That is not what I am saying. I have not asserted 1).
1) Man is, in some little way, responsible for his own faith.
2) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
3) Therefore, inherent faith does not allow men to boast.
What I’m saying is:
- The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
- Therefore, faith does not allow men to boast.
My contention is that the above is true whether faith itself is a gift.[G. N. Barkman]
Yes, I disagree with this.
My contention is:
1) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
2) If man is responsible for his own faith, it is a work.
3) Therefore, man cannot be responsible for his own faith.[G. N. Barkman]
I believe it is the Calvinist who redefines faith in such a way as to make it appear to be a meritorious work if man has it.
Remember that old saw, “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?” (attributed, I believe, to Abraham Lincoln. Answer, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Calling faith a non-work, after defining it in such a way as to make it a work, does remove the obvious conclusion that a human generated faith IS a work, no matter what you call it.
Is man justified by works if you call faith a work? No. Calling faith a work doesn’t make it one. :)
Regarding Eph 2:8,- Is salvation a gift? We both say yes.
- Is grace a gift? We both say yes.
- Is faith a gift? You say yes. I don’t say no. I say it doesn’t matter.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
But it does matter. If faith is not a gift, then man can boast. He can boast that he produced the required faith. It is Only if faith is not a gift that man has no cause to boast.
G. N. Barkman
The problem is at least two-fold. One piece of it has to do with timing—are we talking about ability to believe given individually at the moment of conversion or ability to believe given to all some time earlier?
The second piece is what we mean by “faith”—do we mean “ability to believe” or “the act of believing”?
Here’s what we know:
Apart from grace a man does not believe.
When he believes, it is not a “work.” (In Scripture, there is zero possibility of any kind of “faith” being a “work.” They are always opposites.)
The result is that for both classical Arminians and Calvinists…
- Faith in the sense of “ability to believe” is granted as a gift
- Faith in the sense of “the act of believing” is what the sinner does
- Faith in neither sense is a “work” and in neither sense it is ground for boasting
- This is true regardless of whether the ability to believe is granted individually close to conversion or preveniently to everybody.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]Thank you!
The result is that for both classical Arminians and Calvinists…
- Faith in the sense of “ability to believe” is granted as a gift
- Faith in the sense of “the act of believing” is what the sinner does
- Faith in neither sense is a “work” and in neither sense it is ground for boasting
- This is true regardless of whether the ability to believe is granted individually close to conversion or preveniently to everybody.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
You analysis is thorough, and thought provoking. However, there is, it seems to me, a significant difference between the Arminian and Calvinist view. If faith, the ability to believe, is given to everyone equally, but some exercise this ability, and some do not, we are left with the same result. Those who choose to exercise their God-given ability have done something by themselves that others have not done. Since the choice to believe comes from man, not from God, this choice gives man a reason to boast. In answer to the question, “Who makes you to differ from another?” The Arminian answers “I did,” but the Calvinist answers, “God did.” Or the questions, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (I Cor. 4:7) yields opposite answers. The Arminian answers, “My decision to exercise the faith given to me by prevenient grace.” The Calvinist answers, “Nothing, since God gave me the faith and the ability and desire to exercise it.”
Am I still failing to understand something here?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
For example, we wouldn’t translate Rm 3.28 this way:
NAU Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by the ability to believe apart from works of the Law.
(Note, all but the bolded section is NAU - the NAU says ‘faith’ there.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Aaron Blumer]Yes. And even when we speak about Faith “in the sense of ‘the act of believing’ “, we always use terms like “accepting Christ as personal Saviour”. We always emphasise how True Faith must always be oriented to the correct object of Faith; and how Faith is not conditional on the “strength” of the believing that we can drum up by screwing our eyes shut until steam comes out of the top of our heads, as though one could make the application of God’s Grace any more or less real through the urgency of our wishing it.
Here’s what we know:
Apart from grace a man does not believe.
When he believes, it is not a “work.” (In Scripture, there is zero possibility of any kind of “faith” being a “work.” They are always opposites.)
Gifts are accepted; any “action” in believing is simple acceptance.
I guess it is just a semantic tangle: an “act”, such as it is, has been mistakenly equated with “work” because Work is an action, or necessarily involves Action. True, accepting gifts or opening one’s mouth to receive a sip of water from a good Samaritan also require an action; but are they “work”? I think “Work” is a subset of “Action”, not the other way around. Furthermore, I think what constitutes “work” is a little fluid: Christ wasn’t “working” on the Sabbath when He healed (an action). In fact, the nature of “Work” may be less about a given action or series of actions, and more about its purpose, motivation or accomplishment. Carpentry would have been work for Christ. And we speak of His “work” accomplished on the Cross. And perhaps things like His travail in the Garden and His temptation in the desert were work of sorts. But did Christ work at the things we commonly “work” at? Some extended effort toward an uncertain outcome is implied there. Did He have to work at preparing a better sermon than the week before? Not only was He infinitely capable, but I don’t think He had to preach or heal in exchange for bread or lodging. A machine may “just work” because that’s the purpose for which it was created; and similarly, someone may work out of simple pleasure or in order to accomplish a worthy goal. But, “working” usually implies some kind of necessity or compulsion to work, in order to live or to get ahead. On the other hand, “good works” are expected of us, precisely because they are performed without any thought of personal gain (interestingly, the “ability” to do such works are a gift, too; and if we were to boast about the doing they may cease to be Good Works because we would be looking to gain favor from men).
Another contribution to the semantic tangle:
To turn “the act of believing” into “work”, one must add further action to it: such as, Mr Barkman’s “he produced the required faith.” Producing in this sense is like creating ex nihilo, and no-one said anything about that. True Faith is produced by God because it requires a True Object; there would be no Faith otherwise. Man acts in or responds by Faith at the moment of Salvation. That act, perhaps more passive than producing said faith, is required of man. This is his part. And yet insisting on the Arminian’s “producing” faith implies the view faith as a kind of “screwing-our-eyes-shut” endeavour which is clearly at odds with Scripture, because, as Aaron noted, “in Scripture, there is zero possibility of any kind of ‘faith’ being a ‘work’.” We rightly act on this very assumption when, every other day of the week, we are all (Calvinists and Arminians alike) at pains to deny that a “screwing-our-eyes-shut” kind of faith is a true, saving Faith. But apparently it is OK to invoke this view of faith as a straw man when arguing against Classical Arminianism.
In any case, Christ overturned some common conceptions and misconceptions of “Work”; so, unless we are going to parse “works” out to every degree to which we may or should perform a given action on a given day, we had better leave Faith right out of any equation involving Work. Certainly, “Works Salvation” (in which one may boast) implies performing an action or actions for recompense or reward (Salvation); and thus any “ ‘good’ works” thereby done cease to be good works; furthermore, the outcome is, without exception, never in any way considered assured — there is yet some weighing of the works to be done. In contrast, the “act” of believing involved in accepting Christ by definition acknowledges the underserved, assured and effective Gift.
Discussion