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
“His faith is counted for righteousness.” It’s not “God’s faith is counted for righteousness.” I believe the faith does come from God, but to me this is two things a) the ability to believe and b) the consciousness of the truth. How the latter is distinct from “the act of believing” is, frankly, pretty hard to say, but I’m sure guys have written whole chapters on it.
Maybe a better way to say it is that the Eph.2.8 gift includes
a) ability to believe
b) a set of conditions that makes “seeing” the truth inevitable
It’s important to me, personally, to avoid saying or suggesting that anybody but the sinner does the actual believing.
[G.N. Barkman] 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 doneYes, I agree there is still a problem here. I have not read a satisfactory Arminian explanation for what determines why one faith-enabled sinner chooses to believe and another does not. I think I posted about this earlier.
This is one reason why I am not an Arminian. To me, what happens is that the Eph.2.8 gift includes a sovereign choice by God to awaken an individual sinner in such a way that he will certainly believe (though his belief is not forced on him against his will. He has no desire to do otherwise at that point. His will is repaired, so to speak, and a properly functioning will makes the right choice.)
But I’ve been trying to point out where classical Arminianism and Calvinism agree so that it’s more clear where the real differences are—as opposed to differences that are so often inaccurately alleged. (But I do this with the knowledge that there are still some pretty big gaps in my understanding of both systems.)
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.
Not to get into a big discussion, but simply to state my view succinctly. Salvation is the gift, not faith.
Anyway, I have discussed this one so many times in so many places, I hesitate to jump back in anywhere. Just occasionally dipping my oar in! So I’ll bow back out now…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] Well, I don’t believe that Eph 2.8 teaches that God awakens a sinner, gives the gift of faith, etc. The antecedent’s are not correct. Faith is feminine, ‘this’ is neuter.In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronoun.
In http://youtu.be/QsPzSKI6jvY] this YouTube video Piper shows how regeneration produces faith (with hand motions)! In essence, ‘Faith’ is the natural response of a dead heart being made alive.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[G. N. Barkman] Aaron,I think I am failing to understand something here (or before):
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
Does “…lest any man should boast” mean that God must completely forestall or negate the merest possibility that any single man at any point in history could have a go at attempted boasting, no matter how unsubstantiated his boastful claims may be? Must God make it a logical and causal reality that there is no part in the whole process (and little do we understand of that process) that man can play or take, and thereby quash the merest hint that there could be anything that a man could have “contributed” to the process and of which he could even unjustifiably boast in his wildest dreams, let alone justifiably boast?
- Man can and does boast, all the time, about the littlest thing.
- Can men boast of matters regarding salvation? They do in this life. There is lots of pride over having a corner on the truth, the correct interpretation, the inside track, enlightenment, tradition, scholarship…
- Do men boast about what or “who makes them to differ from another?” Indubitably.
Rather, I take “lest any man should boast” to be more about how man will have no leg to stand on, should he boast. That man will, in fact, have nothing of which to boast. Does the dying man boast of taking his reviving breath? Or, when he is “terminal” and is subsequently granted a reprieve through a miracle treatment, does he boast that he signed the release form? It is quite another thing to demand or expect that reprieve or treatment due to who he is or how much money he has; with Salvation, everyone is in the same boat on that score.
Even when Arminianism is revealed to be the more accurate portrayal of the reality wrought by God ;), a man will have nothing of which to boast, because God has provided the means of Salvation in Christ. Claiming he has two legs does not mean a man has two legs (my version of the dog analogy), when in fact he has none before the throne of Grace. In the meantime, he may yet tell everyone he meets that he has two legs — despite his crawling around with the rest of us.
But I think most people who have “received” a real gift understand the true nature of gifts and how gifts are undeserved. If they don’t understand that, then have they truly received or accepted it (an action)? And if not, then how has it benefited them, and of what may they boast? Having received it, they may yet “boast” that the giver loves them — but I think that is a legitimate boast, as Paul boasts of Christ.
Therefore, I don’t think Armenians are any more or less likely to boast in anything than anyone else. It was brought up in a previous comment (by Dan?) that Calvinists have at least as many opportunities to boast (and all just as unfounded). See, I think you have posed a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question, framing it in such a way that it draws the conclusion you want to reach about Arminianism. This kind of distorts the reality and does some injustice to the Arminian position by stereotyping it a little. One can just as easily ask hypothetical questions of Calvinists…
Why this question: “Who makes you to differ from another?” [which is interesting given the equal-rights versus equal-opportunities debate that often preoccupies American Christians]
Why not this question: “What makes your Gospel presentation result in a “won” soul in one case, when another man’s Gospel presentation (an Arminian’s, say) did not in a similar case?”
I wonder what might be some stereotypical answers to that question.
[rrobinson] Does “…lest any man should boast” mean that God must completely forestall or negate the merest possibility that any single man at any point in history could have a go at attempted boasting, no matter how unsubstantiated his boastful claims may be?Glad you asked that.
I don’t believe this is the point of the verse or the statement. Some interpretations I’ve seen definitely have the tail wagging the dog. Paul’s emphasis there is that salvation is a gift of God (to me, if the faith is a gift this is still subordinate to the point that salvation is “by grace through faith,” i.e., a gift), so that man does not save himself and has no grounds for boasting.
So “lest any should boast” should be understood as “lest anyone have legitimate grounds for boasting.”
You’re right that people do boast all the time all about things they have no valid basis for boasting about. Like the kid who brags to his classmate “I’m taller than you are!” So Paul is not saying that God has some obligation to prevent boasting, but rather that His plan for saving people is such that there is in reality no basis for boasting.
[Don] Well, I don’t believe that Eph 2.8 teaches that God awakens a sinner, gives the gift of faith, etc. The antecedent’s are not correct. Faith is feminine, ‘this’ is neuter.I’m familiar with that view and I think it has merit. I’m pretty sure classical Arminians take the view that the faith is not a gift in Eph.2.8, though not all use a gender pronoun argument.
Not to get into a big discussion, but simply to state my view succinctly. Salvation is the gift, not faith.
I’m really trying to argue that point one way or the other here… just wanted to explain my own understanding of it as a way to sharpen distinctions about what we mean by “faith.” Often, in the Calv. vs. Armin. debate, people mean different things when they say “faith” (i.e., for some = “ability to believe,” others “the act of believing” … and some equivocate, meaning “ability” sometimes and “act” other times).
I also believe that the point of the two verses (Eph.2:8-9) is that salvation is a gift—completely gratuitous, in no way earned or deserved, though I think P. specifically identifies “faith” as a gift in that statement. But it’s not something I’m dogmatic about. In preaching I usually briefly mention both possibilities, then return to emphasizing what the point of the whole passage is.
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.
[JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronounBalognah! (or to put it in the Heb. plural “Balognim” — because that argument is worth at least two Balognah)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Well![JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronounBalognah! (or to put it in the Heb. plural “Balognim” — because that argument is worth at least two Balognah)
That’s certainly a solid refutation of his point, and your exegesis is unparalleled!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Aaron Blumer] I also believe that the point of the two verses (Eph.2:8-9) is that salvation is a gift—completely gratuitous, in no way earned or deserved, though I think P. specifically identifies “faith” as a gift in that statement. But it’s not something I’m dogmatic about. In preaching I usually briefly mention both possibilities, then return to emphasizing what the point of the whole passage is.Well, the neuter antecedent argues against the view, but so does the use of “through faith”. The use of ‘dia’, I think is agency or means. So faith isn’t the gift itself.
But here is Wallace on ‘touto’. He doesn’t settle the question syntactically, but he puts to rest the specious argument JohnBrian referenced above.
This is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, touto. The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as antecedent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”).So, the speaker in JohnBrian’s link is in error. He is trying to express the third view and link “grace”, “saved”, and “faith” individually to “that not of yourselves”. That is not what the third view is saying. The third view is “grace-by-faith salvation” as an undivided concept is the referent for “touto” (and that).
The first and second options suffer from the fact that touto is neuter while cariti and pistews are feminine. Some have argued that the gender shift causes no problem because (a) there are other examples in Greek literature in which a neuter demonstrative refers back to a noun of a different gender, and (b) the touto has been attracted to the gender of dwron, the predicate nominative. These two arguments need to be examined together.
While it is true that on rare occasions there is a gender shift between antecedent and pronoun, the pronoun is almost always caught between two nouns of different gender. One is the antecedent; the other is the predicate nom. In Acts 8:10, for example (outos estin h dunamis tou qeou), the pronoun is masculine because its antecedent is masculine, even though the predicate nom. is feminine. In Matt 13:38 inverse attraction takes place (the pronominal subject is attracted to the gender of the predicate nom.): to de kalon sperma outoi eisin oi uioi ths basileiaj (“the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom”). The construction in Eph 2:8, however, is not parallel because dwron is not the predicate nom. of touto, but of the implied “it” in the following clause. On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either “faith” or “grace” is the antecedent of touto.
More plausible is the third view, viz., that touto refers to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the NT is not addressed by this.
A fourth view is that kai touto is adverbial, though this view has surprisingly made little impact on the exegetical literature. If adverbial, kai touto is intensive, meaning “and at that, and especially,” without having any antecedent. It focuses on the verb rather than on any noun. In 3 John 5 we see this usage: piston poieis o ean ergash eis tous adelfous kai touto xenous (“you do a faithful [deed] whenever you render service for the brothers, and especially [when you do it] for strangers”). If this is the force in Eph 2:8, the text means “for by grace you are saved through faith, and [you are saved] especially not by your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
The issues here are complex and cannot be solved by grammar alone. Nevertheless, syntactical considerations do tend toward one of the latter two views.
And, as Wallace says, one can’t solve the issue by grammar alone. However, I think the grammar proves that we can’t dogmatically assert faith as a gift from Eph 2.8. That much at least is clear.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[JohnBrian]I am quite proud of it, myself![Don Johnson]Well![JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronounBalognah! (or to put it in the Heb. plural “Balognim” — because that argument is worth at least two Balognah)
That’s certainly a solid refutation of his point, and your exegesis is unparalleled!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
If God enables everyone equally (Prevenient Grace), it is obvious that man must add something from within himself to lay hold of Christ for salvation. Otherwise, everyone would be saved by God’s enabling act. Since that is not true, Prevenient Grace restores to all men the capacity to believe, but falls short of bringing them to saving faith. Man must add something that does not come from God. That’s what makes the difference between those who are saved and those who are not. God, according to this view, rendered all men equally able to believe. Some men actually do believe, and others do not. Whatever makes the difference, that is what man contributes to his own salvation. Quibbling over whether faith is the ability to believe or the act of believing is not the issue. Whatever you call this “something,” it comes from man, not God, and it gives those who believe a legitimate reason to boast, since they are alone responsible for whatever it was that made them differ from their neighbors who do not believe. (Thank you Aaron, for clarifying that boasting does not mean man can boast, even illigitimately. Men boast illigitimately all the time.) The Bible teaches that God has removed from salvation every legitimate opportunity for man to boast. Hence, the Arminian concept of Previenent Grace cannot be correct.
Only the Calvinist view leaves men with no room to boast, because the Calvinist believes that God does something for the elect that He does not for the non-elect. God enables the elect to believe. The elect believer cannot say that he differs from his neighbor because he added the necessary “something” to God’s grace that makes the difference between believeing and not believing. The Calvinist acknowledges that the only reason he believed, and other did not, is because God did a work in his soul that was not done in others. No boasting here. All the credit for the Calvinist’s salvation goes to God alone.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[GNB] If God enables everyone equally (Prevenient Grace), it is obvious that man must add something from within himself to lay hold of Christ for salvation. Otherwise, everyone would be saved by God’s enabling act. Since that is not true, Prevenient Grace restores to all men the capacity to believe, but falls short of bringing them to saving faith. Man must add something that does not come from God. That’s what makes the difference between those who are saved and those who are not.I would agree that there seems to be a problem here that Arminianism—the old kind—does not seem to have a solution to. But it’s also not as obvious as you might think that “man must add” something. I couldn’t cite sources at the moment, but I’ve read some who try to locate the “something” outside man and yet continue to deny that God arranges the conversion of the individual.
God, according to this view, rendered all men equally able to believe. Some men actually do believe, and others do not. Whatever makes the difference, that is what man contributes to his own salvation.
They were not very persuasive, but it was interesting that they perceived a problem in the idea of “something from man.”
[GNB] Quibbling over whether faith is the ability to believe or the act of believing is not the issue.I think the language we use is pretty important. That is, arriving at language that is clearly understood by “both” sides is important.
Even in your “something from man” expression we have an ambiguity problem.
You may have clarified this somewhere already in the thread, but I don’t recall: is it your view that it is the sinner who believes or would you take the position that God believes for him?
If we say the sinner believes, then clearly “something from man” does indeed occur. We don’t need to panic about that. What we need to do is take the texts at face value and recognize that that “something” does not count as “works.” It is not meritorious.
But, as I’ve said before, I can’t see any way to do justice to the texts involved and simultaneously make God the subject of the verb “believe” rather than the sinner… in, say, John 3:16 for example.
So I don’t see any way of escaping the idea that man must do something in order to be saved. What must he do? Repent and believe the gospel. But the Scriptures are clear that this act is not meritorious. His act of believing does not earn his salvation. It’s “by grace…through faith” not “by faith” in the sense of “my faith earns me the right to be saved or pays some part of my sin’s penalty.” Rather, when we say “by faith” we mean “through the instrumentality of faith” not “on the merits of faith.”
I’m drawing fine lines, but sometimes they matter, don’t they? That yellow one down the middle of a two lane highway is relatively fine but we can’t shrug it off.
Anyway, to wander back to where I started, I am increasingly convinced that a whole lot of this ages old debate is fueled by misunderstanding of what each side is saying because of the lack of the same referents/meanings for the terms each is using.
Of course, we know how the later Arminianism solves the “something from man” problem. It simply says that man was never quite so fallen in the first place. The “something” (that differentiates those who believe from those who don’t) doesn’t have to be all that big because there is a) no original sin to remedy and b) the fallenness itself is not so comprehensive.
But this was not Armininus’ idea.
So… just so I understand what you mean, by “something from man,” I’m supposing that you mean something besides the act of believing itself. Some cause of his believing?
I agree that this is a problem for Arminianism… because some condition that results in believing must occur, and either God arranges that, or random chance does, or some quality in the man does. I can’t see any other possibilities. (And only the first option seems at all viable to me! … http://sharperiron.org/comment/30028#comment-30028] starting to get repetitive. See this post above )
I hope I’m not fueling alot of confusion here. I’m not confused myself but I realize my thoughts aren’t really well organized here!
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.
[1Th 5:19] Quench not the Spirit.What causes one believer to quench the Spirit and another believer to not quench the Spirit?
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
This is apples and oranges to the soteriology under discussion. You are dealing with regenerate issues. The question here pertains to the abilities the unregenerate man has to believe.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
How can you know it’s apples and oranges without knowing what the comparison might be?
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Yes, man does the believing, not God. Man does something. He repents. He believes. The issue that you did not seem to address in your last post is the difference between what God does to everyone (Arminianism) vs. what God does only for the elect (Calvinism). In the Calvinist understanding, man’s ability to believe comes from God, enabling the sinner to believe, as well as giving him the desire to believe. When regenerated by God, the elect sinner cannot fail to repent and believe, for his nature has been changed, and now he sees what he could not formerly see, and desires what he did not formerly desire. When a sinner understands his true condition as a condemned sinner, and the beauty and sufficiency of Christ, he is irresistibly drawn to Christ. The sinner himself repents and believes, but the ability to understand his need and desire to believe comes entirely from God. The Calvinist understanding of “Prevenient Grace” is the grace that precedes the sinners faith, the divine operation that raises a spiritually dead sinner to life, which begins the work of salvation, in time, in the individual sinner’s soul. (Ignoring, for the moment the work that predates time.)
The Arminian scheme, in it’s effort to defend universal ability, has a different understanding of “Prevenient Grace,” already discussed above. Because this grace is (supposedly) granted to everyone equally, it clearly does not inaugurate a chain of events which always culminates in salvation. Rather, it simply renders the sinner, formerly ruined by Adam’s fall, capable of trusting Christ, if he so chooses. Since this grace is not necessarily effectual, it leaves the last essential component in saving faith up to the sinner. He supposedly has within him “something” that he can exercise, or not, to believe or not believe. Yes, I am somewhat ambiguous about this “something” because I do not find it in the Bible. I’m not sure what it is. The Arminian must tell us. I certainly cannot. Nor can I find anything in Scripture that teaches the Arminian version of Previent Grace. It seems to be a logical necessity, not a Biblically explicit doctrine.
Whatever this “something” is, is the part man contributes to his own salvation, and that is what enables the Arminian to boast. He added the “something” that God did not perform. It is true, as you said in the OP, that both Calvinists and Arminians teach that salvation is by grace through faith, and both teach that man, not God, exercises saving faith. However the Calvinist does not have a “something” that some men produce and others do not. Calvinists recognize that God regenerates the elect alone, enabling them to believe. Arminians believe God enables all men equally. At this point, salvation is of God alone. But as soon as one man exercises his God-given ability, and another does not, you are faced with the question of what made the difference? Not God. The difference is within men. Those who “improve” their prevenient grace are saved. Those who fail to do so are damned. Those who respond positively will, no doubt, give 99% of the credit to God, since He did almost everything necessary to their salvation. But 1% (or whatever), is not from God. It is solely from the sinner who did not refuse Christ and chose to believe. That “something” is what made the difference between the saved and the lost. God did not make the difference. Man did, and therein lies the legitimate basis to boast, and therein lies the fatal problem.
Thanks for a wonderful discussion!
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Discussion