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]Right but that wasn’t my argument which was the point of my response to his first response. You’re still not on the bus as it relates to my initial argument.[Alex] But it is not surprising to find a Calvinist, when encountering such a forward use of the active voice in reference to faith, to dismiss it in this manner. And again, this is why I believe exegesis is Calvinism’s enemy and not its friend.First, Charlie’s point is solid. He’s not talking about English except to explain what the meaning of a passive verb would be. You have to translate to explain it. The fact is that in any language the meaning of a passive voice version of “believe” would come out either as something like “to be believed” or “object was believed by subject.”
In any case, as Charlie accurately pointed out, Calvinism teaches that the sinner is the subject of “believe.”
[Aaron Blumer] Second, I think the history of Calvinist and Arminian study is pretty clear that both sides employ a good bit of exegesis and regard it as their friend. In modern times we have a great deal of neglect of exegesis by non-Calvinists and not so much by Calvinists. But there are serious and studious Arminians as well who strive to properly understand the details of the key texts. At at rate, generalizations like “exegesis is on our side” are pretty useless for either side. Might as well just say “our view is better than yours.” Well, it kind of goes without saying that each perspective believes that about it’s own view.General statements serve a purpose if they are revealed to be valid. One must first, however, understand what a general statement is and is not and when and where it may be used. I believe many people miss this important element in objecting to the use of general statements by others.
I do believe, myself, through my own studies and ample studies by others, that exegesis is not the friend of Calvinism’s proprietary doctrines, hence the general statement is valid. Clearly you do not agree, that is fine. It is impossible here to demonstrate this general principle in a single text of even in a thread without some exhaustive exegetical treatment of which discussion boards are not conducive for such nuanced and voluminous necessities. However, text my text, word by word, study by study, I believe this is borne out in many places. As to Arminians, I agree they have their own set of problems.
[Greg Long] Alex, I’ve heard a lot of arguments against Calvinism, but that’s not one of them…and I think for good reason.Pick a response (tongue in cheek of course):
1. I give, you win, refutation insurmountable.
2. Are you introducing a new rule that only existing arguments against Calvinism are permitted and no new discoveries permissible? Where is this written?
3. What is someone else has heard this but not you, is it permitted?
4. Which one of my points are you specifically rebutting with this and where is the body of your rebuttal to demonstrate where I am in error grammatically?
Feel free to demonstrate with an argument your rebuttal. I understand that you object, now make your case.
Two things.
1. I believe you still are not understanding my case. I am not accusing the many Calvinists I have in mind of denying that the that the sinner himself believes but that which the active voice vs the passive voice, in relationship to their belief system, implies. What is the implication (I have already discussed this)? Namely that the use of the active voice in the Acts passage conflicts with classic Calvinist teaching. Why do I say this (again already addressed)? Well let me quote Charlie, for my case in point #2.
2. That “the sinner himself believes, not God”, is not what creates the conflict. Again, I am not addressing the what, rather I am addressing the why (the what=the sinner believes, the why=the cause of his belief) as well as the theological disposition and its implications as articulated by Charlie in referencing John Murray (emphasis mine):
[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.If, in the atonement as specifically articulated here, our Lord provides for the elect “all that the sinner exercises” then the fundamental grammatical construct would be articulated with the passive voice and not the active voice since the believer would be receiving the action of the verb and not performing it.
This is a subtle but critical grammatical point. In the passive voice, while “you” are still the subject of the verb in the sentence, your relationship to the verb’s performance is not the same as in the active voice. You are the subject but you are subordinate to the verb’s action in that, instead of you performing the action of the verb you receive it while remaining the subject in the sentence.
Its implications (the verb voice), in spite of an earlier claim, are often more than appreciable but cardinal for understanding the nature of the action of the verb; who performs it and why. I will give you a prime example of what I am talking about to illustrate the critical role of the voice of a verb.
In Ephesians 5:18b we are commanded, “be ye filled with the Spirit”. The command be filled is the word plērousthe which is a present passive imperative. That means it is a command but uses the passive voice (and present tense which means continuous action but this is not relevant to the argument however, cited for the record). The passive voice means you, the subject, receives the action of the verb, not perform it. And what you are being commanded to do? To be filled with God’s Spirit. But clearly you cannot make yourself on your own be filled with the Spirit, hence no active voice. The filling is done by God’s Spirit but you must yield for the verb to be performed. Kind of synergistic, eh? LOL.
What you must now notice is the why, not the what. The what is that you are commanded to be filled and that is not in question but the why answers how you are filled with the Spirit and here the answer comes from the voice of the verb which is the passive voice. That means that you are to yield to, acquiesce or receive the action of being filled. In other words God’s Spirit does the filling, you are simply yielding to His control (I am making a grammatical point here and I am sure some would like to discuss the detailed mechanics of this particular theological concern and certainly it is one many critically miss and have bad ideas about but it is not germane to the issue at hand).
The point is that the passive voice is used in commands but the action of the verb is performed differently than in the active voice depending on who performs the action of the verb. Here we are commanded as the subject to actually receive the action of the verb, while remaining the subject, since the verb itself is not actually performed by us but by another which we are receiving. It is almost like being a direct object but we are not and that is for a reason, we are still the subject and our participation with the verb is still different in nature than that of a direct object as well as the implications that rest on our retention as the subject.
So again, to Charlie’s statement. If contained in the atonement is the actual exercising of our faith (just as he articulated is the classical Calvinist position) then there not much better a case in Koine Greek to use the passive voice. But it is not used.
Remember above how the grammar of Ephesians lines up with theology? The passive voice command to be filled means God’s Spirit does the filling, even though as the subject we are given this command. It is done this way because we receive the action of the verb but also participate in the action of the verb different than a direct object, hence we remain the subject. Both the grammar and the theology (we cannot fill ourselves with the Spirit of God by doing anything we yield to His control) line up.
If the action of our faith or the exercise of our faith has already been provided in the atonement then the passive voice should be used and there should be a theological and grammatical alignment. But there is not this alignment or compatibility and that is a problem; one of many exegetical problems for Calvinism (one caveat grammar contains a limited number of exceptions so at times one must discover why certain unusual forms are used which may not appear to line up with orthodox views. However, the exceptions and their explanations do not lie in theology or rationalism but in grammar. So if one wishes to explain why exceptions are used they will provide grammatical arguments and citation, not theological or rationalistic ones that, in truth, act as eisegesis.).
But to be frank, IMO, if there ever was a conceptual construct that begged the use of the passive voice it would be this, where the believer is commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. And again it would be due to just what Charlie has stated, that the very exercising of our faith was already accomplished in the atonement by our Lord (it wasn’t but for the sake of argument I accept it to make the grammatical point) hence, we would not be commanded with the active voice but the passive voice since the action or exercise of faith (believing), which was already accomplished (again as Charlie articulated), is one in which the subject would receive the action of the verb which is the passive voice.
One last moment of clarity, however. Remember I began this case with the following statement:
It is rather interesting (an elementary but pivotal point )It is not a mountain upon which Calvinism’s errors are slayed. I have made that clear, it is an elementary point. But it is still a critical one and one of the many smaller exegetical indictments against Calvinism. Therefore, I don’t imagine this rationalistic system to be have been dealt a nullifying blow, that isn’t the intent or posture.
In fact, your argument is theologically misguided as well. Faith being purchased by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit in no way detracts from the sinner being the one who actually exercises it.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Here’s a key portion: “These verbal forms make no sense whatsoever if conceived as orders to the persons involved to suffer a fate inflicted upon them by some external source.”
BTW, Carl Conrad is a classicist who has spearheaded efforts to raise awareness of biblical Greek. Oh, and he’s also written professional publications on Greek voice.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Let me illustrate why your quote of Conrad fails to make your argument. Here is your quote:
Here’s a key portion: “These verbal forms make no sense whatsoever if conceived as orders to the persons involved to suffer a fate inflicted upon them by some external source.”Never minding that this is simply an informal exchange by Conrad and another person you have contradicted your own position in agreeing with the point in Ephesians while using this quote.
If, as Conrad is suggesting, we conceive the commands to be fates one experiences (he uses suffer but that word is quite biased implying such a context is fundamentally negative and it isn’t) which is inflicted (again his biased negativity) by some external source and to do so makes no sense whatsoever, then the view of Ephesians with which you agreed (the one I made) is also made invalid. By way of Conrad you have invalidated your own view which agreed with mine about Ephesians.
In Ephesians where we are commanded to “be filled” the passive imperative is a command in which we receive the action of the verb and that action (the filling) is indeed performed by an force other than ourselves (the subject of the command) namely God the Holy Spirit.
Conrad can call it an “inflicted fate” if he wishes but his colorful language does not undo the fact that right here, in the Bible, our being filled by the Spirit is done by an an agent other than the subject and it is determined by the passive imperative and corroborated theologically.
I, too, have things taking my attention but later will approach the translational claim you made in your first post asserting that the passive imperative, if it were used, would have to be translated as you state and certainly I disagree with that fully.
In opening, I apologize for this post being long; however, I find it necessary to explain a great deal in order to adequately deal with the issues. I could resort to a short post, but then it would only serve the purpose of people talking past one another. Perhaps, we will still talk past one another, but this is my attempt to get to the core issues.
Every person brings in their assumptions about reality when doing exegesis, otherwise exegesis would not be possible. It would not be possible because then there would be no reality with which to make sense of the happenings in Scripture. You could call this assumption something akin to the basics of language needed to understand words, letters, and communication. For further on this point, please see the following link to a post made in the theology forum.
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-assumptions-data-and-their-relation…
What the above cuts against is the pretended neutrality that many seem to naïvely hold on to. The truth of the matter is that all exegesis involves some sort of assumption, and none is so determinative as one’s assumption about the nature of reality. Philosophically, this is often described in terms of one’s metaphysic.[1] Philosophical categories are often a part of Scripture. When one mentions that God created the heavens and the earth, then he is stating an element of the Christian metaphysic. He is talking about the nature of reality. The problem with philosophy is that it often begins to determine what the text can say, rather than it being determined by what the Scripture says.
Now, why was all of that mentioned? What does all of that have to do with the discussion so far? For starters, this gives one a handhold on which to grasp how people can use the biblical languages, and yet they still differ in interpretation.
Second, (and this will be a major point) the first two paragraphs serve the purpose to begin an introduction of the proper categories of thought in which to understand the following points. The above also serves to begin making key unconscious assumptions much more of a conscious matter.
Thesis
Where is this going? It is at this point that I would like to make a thesis statement, so the following sentence is exceedingly important for one to pick up. Given a certain metaphysic in addition to the active voice/passive voice, then the point is potentially made. However, given a different metaphysic in addition to the active voice, then the point of post 95 & 100 is not made.
What is the metaphysical difference? Stated another way, what are the two differing views concerning the nature of reality? First, one view assumes some measure of autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence. Second, the other view does not grant autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence; rather, this view sees all things in dependence upon God for their moment-by-moment existence.
First View
Regarding the first view, the following quotation gives this view a voice.
Please take note that the position being advocated is that man has an autonomy or independence from God’s causality with respect to believing. It is supposed by the statement above that this is an “implication” from the voice used. However, in due course this will be strongly contested.
At this point, it is necessary to address a potential objection. I would certainly raise it if I were on the other side of the fence. I would object to the previous by stating that this is an improper framing of the issue, for it makes assumptions of reality more determinative than the text of Scripture. I would also object that this therefore demonstrates that the very framing of the issue in the above way constitutes a staw man fallacy. In rebuttal to this, the following needs to be restated. This writing is seeking to make conscious what is often left unconscious and unstated. Second, this is not a straw man unless one can demonstrate how the data of Scripture can be understood without a preunderstanding of the nature of reality. The key question then that one has to surmount is this. How then can the data of Scripture be understood without any kind of understanding of the nature of reality? Finally, this writing will continue to address the biblical view of the nature of reality. There are several passages that describe for the reader how reality should be viewed.
At this point another quotation needs to be observed.
Certainly, this is definitely true. Human volition is being addressed; this is the focus. However, the question then becomes “what kind of volition is being addressed?” All too often people assume certain things of volition that are absolutely nowhere found in Scripture. Since this writing is still dealing with the autonomous or independent view of reality from God, in the sense described in the first quotation, then it should be clear that human volition is being understood in an autonomous or independent sense. This perfectly mirrors libertarian freedom. This is the metaphysical assumption being employed here. Perhaps a modified view of libertarian freedom is being employed; however, the essential point is that it is still autonomous and independent from God’s causation. At this point the definition of libertarian freedom is being left assumed as understood by the reader so as to shorten this writing. Perhaps the “label” will be argued against as a misrepresentation; however, this comment will ultimately fail unless the issue of “autonomy/independence” of volition is addressed. The label only serves to identify the obvious categories.
This paragraph will serve to simply summarize what was stated. It is not the intent to misrepresent, but this will hopefully restate the rest of the point argued. The active imperative is used with regard to the verb “believe”, and the future passive indicative is used with “will be saved”. The biblical author understood the differentiation between the two as he wrote the verse. This creates a bifurcation between God’s causality and man’s, since one is active, and the other is in the passive voice. It is this last sentence that I hope has not been a misinterpretation. If this is the point of the argument, then it is again demonstrating a certain understanding of the nature of reality. It is also making the assumption that if this verse is stressing the relationship between two individuals, then this verse must be indicative of how every verse should be understood (at least in terms of the negative, meaning that man’s faith can never be caused).
The summary of this is that whenever a passage of Scripture is encountered which indicates man’s volition, then this volition must be completely severed from God’s causal activity to maintain man’s autonomy or independence of being. A bifurcation will be observed between God’s working and man’s working on account of this view of reality.
The second view needs to be given a voice. First, it needs to be restated because there has been a lot of material between the first statement of it and now. The other view does not grant autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence; rather, this view sees all things in dependence upon God for their moment-by-moment existence. Obviously, this entails a much different view of the metaphysics of human volition and providence.
Quite a few passages can be appealed to. First, a well known passage will be appealed to. God used Assyria (Isaiah 10:5) and specifically the Assyrian king (Isaiah 10:12) to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 10:5-6). The king and his armies conquer, and they become proud (Isaiah 10:13-14), thinking that their success comes from their self-sufficiency (which mirrors the autonomous/independent assumption). God then proceeds to speak of their acts (their volition) in terms of a tool in God’s hands (Isaiah 10:5,15). They are BOTH acting, using their volition; AND they are under the causal hand of God. Further, they are both a tool in the hand of God, and they are responsible. Scripture here is asserting both. There is no bifurcation.
The second passage comes from Hebrews 1:3. The verse states that “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The verse describes Him in terms of One who is upholding the created order by the word of His power. Not only does creation owe the beginning of its existence to God; it also owes its continuing existence to its Creator. The obvious point here is that if God were to take away His upholding, sustaining hand, then all of creation would simply not be in existence.
The third passage comes from Paul’s discussion in Athens in Acts 17:15-34. Paul gives to the Athenians a necessary worldview through which to view the resurrection of Jesus. He explains to them the nature of God and his relationship to the created order. In this section one comes upon Acts 17:24-25. In this passage one finds God as understood in terms of being all-sufficient as based upon the fact that He is the Creator, and it is based upon the fact that He gives to all mankind life, and breath, and everything. The point of these various passages (a small sample) is that Scripture nowhere allows for the assumption that man is independent or autonomous. Man is continuously in need of God for his moment-by-moment existence; he is dependent. Hence, a biblical metaphysic or a biblical understanding of the nature of reality endorses a both/and view of man’s action and God’s with respect to man’s ultimate being. It is within that sphere, then, that one understands verses like Acts 16:31.
Visiting Acts 16:31
Acts 16:31 is then understood as indicating that man is active in his believing, just like the grammar of the passage states. One can also state with Ephesians 2:8 that man is also passive in his believing, since there is no necessary bifurcation created by man’s willing and God’s sustaining; ann in the case of Ephesians 2:8, God’s gifting of an action takes place. Certainly, it is not as though God is believing for the person in a pantheistic sense; however, neither should man’s believing be assumed as coming completely from himself as if he were autonomous and independent from God. The fact that man is not the ultimate source of his own faith no more demeans his volition than that Adam’s existence was demeaned by God’s creation of him. The value or meaning of existence is not determined by one’s independence/autonomy from God; rather, the opposite is true. The value or meaning of existence is determined by one’s dependence upon God, since God is the ultimate focal point of meaning.
“I was not addressing the what but the why. That is why do they believe? If it is because of another agent (God) then the passive voice would be required.” This is false. One can speak of an agent’s action in both active and passive terms at different times and in different ways. The quoted statement is endorsing a false bifurcation between God’s activity and man’s. Now certainly the passage does speak to a certain aspect of God’s activity and man’s, but it does not address the whole, nor does it allow the autonomous/independent assumption. Further, the term “salvation” is used in many different senses with respect to believers and unbelievers (ultimate eschatological salvation, a present salvation, a future salvation, a past salvation, etc.). The consistency with which people make this false assumption (of a uniform understanding of “salvation”) forces me to make this comment, whether relevant to this discussion or not. The point of the paragraph then is to point out that “yes” man is active in his faith; however, the passage’s use of “will be saved” does not eliminate God’s activity with regard to man’s faith. It only means that a certain aspect of the total process of a multifaceted “salvation” is being emphasized.
Conclusion
Certainly, it is a necessary implication that there be a bifurcation given an independent/autonomous metaphysic; however, given a both/and metaphysic it is no longer an implication, nor is it even a justifiable potential inference (Eph 2:8). On account of the previous reasons, this author is unconvinced by the argument made.
I sincerely hope that this has been helpful; I am not planning on getting involved in an extensive back and forth discussion, but if the situation requires it and the time and energy is available, then I will continue. But it is not my plan to continue past this posting.
[1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 181-183. For a more thorough description of the term, these pages are a good source.
Your example works well in Ephesians 5, but not in the exercise of faith. To be filled with the Spirit is an activity of the Spirit, not man. To believe is an exercise of man, not the Spirit. For you to say that the passive should be used if the position of Calvinism were true is not a valid statement. The only way to properly represent the Calvinist position (rightly understood) is to use the active voice. If you think the passive is appropriate, you do not understand the Calvinist position. In other words, your theological understanding does not appear to be cogent, not to mention the grammatical impossibility.
To put it another way, the reason the passive is used in Ephesians 5:18 is because the Spirit does the filling, not man. The reason the active is used in Acts 16:31 is because man does the believing, not the Spirit. The active voice in Acts 16:31 accurately represents the Calvinist view. It may not represent what you believe to be the Calvinist position, but that reveals a misunderstanding on your part. I’m afraid you are building an argument against Calvinism on faulty logic, but thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Eph 5:18 - And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,
You have asserted that the passive imperative instructs the recipient to allow someone to perform an action upon them. In some cases, that may be plausible, but it is NOT the meaning encoded by the passive voice. Both of the Greek verbs in this sentence are passive imperatives. The first one, translated “do not get drunk” (“get” being the closest English can come to a passive imperative), obviously does not mean, “Do not allow someone else to pour alcohol into your gullet as you yield yourself.” It means, rather, “Do not drink to the point of entering a drunken state.”
This is where Conrad’s point becomes useful. I know I quoted an informal exchange, but it is in line with his published work on the middle/passive voice. This grammatical construction occurs when the fulfillment of the command will accomplish a change in state. For example, in the Gospels, see Jesus’ “Be healed” (which may not really be a command at all, but more of a performative). Also, it’s common in Greek to say “Be silenced” instead of “be silent.” (See Luke 4:35.) Again, the meaning of that is not, “Passively allow someone to muzzle you,” but “Shut up!” The middle/passive is used to indicate the change in state. (This is, in fact, strong evidence in favor of Conrad’s (and other’s) theory that Greek was originally an active/middle language, and that the passive voice derived from the middle.)
So, “Be filled with the Spirit” may indicate a passivity on the part of the so commanded, but it may not. The voice alone does not encode that meaning. Linguistically it means, “Enter a state in which you are filled with the Spirit.” That could mean that the Spirit fills a person as he yields, or it could mean something else. What we cannot do, and what you have done, is read your theological interpretation of a command back into the grammatical category of voice. The meaning encoded by the passive voice has to be equally true of the first verb in the sentence as the second.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Thanks for the Greek lesson. My two and a half years of Greek have gradually drifted away over the years. I didn’t have a strong grasp then, and find myself with even less now. I depend heavily upon others to explain the nuances and implications of the original language. I know it’s important, so I try to inform myself, and I depend upon the competence of others. I learned a long time ago that a little Greek can be dangerous! I’ve heard too many preachers tossing Greek around like it was their second language, only to draw completely erroneous conclusions. I appreciate your expertise on this thread. Again, thanks!
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Charlie] “Enter a state in which you are filled with the Spirit.”This is a useful way to put it. Thanks, Charlie.
To generalize it more, a passive often means “Subject1 enters into state/condition where action/verb is performed on him by subject2”
At least, I
thinkI got that right.
Somewhere along the line, though, I’ve completely lost what relevance verb voice has to the whole question of faith, who believes, what causes his belief, etc.
If the Calvinist believes that God causes the belief but it is the sinner who actually believes, I can’t see how any verb voice makes any difference for or against that view.
… and the remaining problem—of all the non Calvinist views I’m aware of—is that we don’t have an explanation for what finally brings one sinner to repent vs. another.
- Is it luck?
- Is it something in the sinner that is completely independent of any cause? (We are contingent creatures… how can anything we do be ultimately uncaused?)
- Is it “everything” coming together in some way to get us to say “yes”?
- Is it some bit if wisdom in the sinner?
- Or is it, as Calvinists say (and—I’m pretty sure—Augustine before them), God working all things according to the counsel of His will?
Just as a review: the main idea in the OP was that Arminianism is much better than incoherent soteriological soup, and that many, many (most?) anti-Calvinists (not same as “non calvinists”) have no coherent soteriology at all… even calling it “soup” would be generous.
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] So there is, to use, GNB’s term, an “additional something” that accounts for one heeding and another not heeding. So what is it?Part of the problem is the insistence on identifying an “additional something” that accounts for the believing, which then leads to the conclusion that the “additional something” creates a legitimate reason for man’s boasting. Arminiansim and Calvinism both include prevenient grace, regardless of its name. The important difference is that in Calvinism prevenient grace is only given to the elect and is irresistible.
I feel like an additional possibility is just slightly out of reach of my mind but getting closer.
There is no “additional something.”
As for my earlier question, I’ll rephrase:
Why is it possible for a believer to quench the Spirit?
[Aaron Blumer] Of course, this thread really didn’t start out as any effort to argue one way or the other for a Calv. or Armin. perspective. But I did pretty much expect it would go there eventually. It’s a mercy that it took a while!I believe the thread is still about that, but the other Calvinists are working to prove you wrong.
Just as a review: the main idea in the OP was that Arminianism is much better than incoherent soteriological soup, and that many, many (most?) anti-Calvinists (not same as “non calvinists”) have no coherent soteriology at all… even calling it “soup” would be generous.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
Until believers are entirely sanctified (in heaven), they still posses Adam’s fallen nature with it’s bent toward sin. The question is not why do believer’s quench the spirit. The question is why they don’t do so at all times. The answer, of course, is the new life given them by the Holy Spirit, which enables them to please God, and grants them the desire to do so. That desire will be perfect and unchallenged in heaven. Until then, it will be punctuated by sinful desires.
The real question is why does any sinner ever please God? The answer is that God quickens dead sinners to life, and gives them such desires. Otherwise, they never would.
The problem withe Arminian prevenient grace is that it is not irresistible. If it were, there would be no problem explaining why sinners believe. However it would raise another problem, namely if prevenient grace is given to all, and is irresistible, all would be saved. Calvinist prevenient grace (preceding grace) quickens the elect sinner, enabling him to believe. Arminian prevenient grace does not quicken the sinner to life. It reverses enough of the effects of Adam’s fall to enable him to believe, if he chooses to, but also leaves him able to refuse. Since new life is not bestowed, we are left with the problem of why some believe and others do not. What causes sinner A to believe, and sinner B to refuse, when both have been given the same grace? That is the “something.” It is “something” that is Not the same in Calvinist theology. In Calvinism, the “something” is Holy Spirit wrought new life that enables men to believe. In Arminian theology, new life does not come until after the sinner believes. You have omitted a third essential difference, the timing of faith. Arminianism has the unregenerate sinner believing before he is regenerated. Calvinism teaches that prevenient grace regenerates, and is the source of repentance, and faith.
So back to the question, what causes sinner A to believe? It has to be something within himself. If not, then sinner B would believe as well, since both have the same prevenient grace.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Discussion