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] So there is, to use, GNB’s term, an “additional something” that accounts for one heeding and another not heeding. So what is it?
I feel like an additional possibility is just slightly out of reach of my mind but getting closer.
[ Aaron Blumer]For awhile it looked like this central question that many posts are focusing on could have some interesting possibilities for discussion. Now it seems to have gotten shut back down to a dichotomy of only two either/or possibilities, again:
… 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?
Either, A) God does everything;
or, B) the sinner “produces” something himself and thereby takes some kind of boast-worthy credit for his own salvation.
[G. N. Barkman] 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.I am wondering what part some other “things” may play in all this, particularly the role of Christians/saints:
Why, for example, do we pray for the lost? With stories of grandmothers praying for the salvation of their grandchildren for years and years, to finally see their subsequent salvation? We credit them with perseverance and a heart of prayer and intercession; and we claim that prayer affects God somehow. What part does prayer actually play, what part can it play (other than changing the one praying), when God has pre-ordained the elect? …Without getting into existential questions of how the elect were chosen because God fore-knew who was going to pray for whom and how fervently they were going to pray (and that begs the related question, what makes one saint’s prayer different from another saint’s prayer since all those ever prayed for do not necessarily become Christians).
What, for example, is the purpose of apologetics or, in fact, “learning” how to make an gospel presentation at all? Surely, quoting John 3:16 or similar verses, or the passing on of a simple tract, is more than sufficient for the Holy Spirit to use in every case. If a Christian engaging in evangelism is wooly on some of the details, or if he doesn’t himself have a fully developed soteriology or eschatology, or if he uses a particularly “childlike” presentation with simple terms, is the Holy Spirit less likely to use this “catalyst” (if you will), and therefore the hearer is less likely to be converted? Is this because God in His foreknowledge knew who would receive a “proper” gospel presentation in which the correct versions of scripture were used and all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s crossed?
It sounds a bit like the conservative Calvinist position wants to have its cake and eat it too.
And the “act of believing”? Whether it is a gift or not, is this a one-time, completely understood, fully-informed and fully-formed instantaneous event? It seems that the Calvinists want to imply that it is. Certainly, I see much more in the United States a tendency to focus on a day and hour of conversion, with a testimony to the words used and the thought processes and the feelings of conviction at the moment of conversion. No-where else, among Calvinist or non-Calvinist groups have I seen such a focus on the moment of conversion itself.
I can certainly understand the need to discuss timing and the process of salvation — and whether the sinner was regenerate or unregenerate at the moment of “believing”. But it seems to me, that the view or assumptions of what constitutes a man’s decision for Christ, the believing, affects the answer that a conservative Calvinist wants to give to the question about what the “something” is that man must not be allowed to add. If one has to point to a moment in time and say, that is the moment I “received” Christ because that is when I consciously understood the various aspects of the Gospel (like Atonement and Propitiation) and the implications of it for my life, then it certainly seems like the Holy Spirit must provide all the resources for that ability to believe. Who would know otherwise? We have all kinds of people giving all kinds of Gospel presentations, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or accidentally, faithfully or unfaithfully, child-like or doctrinal, apologetically or otherwise. The Holy Spirit must provide that ability to believe, and obviously, to the elect alone. If believing, or the “something” apparently required of the Arminian, is akin to complete understanding. Perhaps some of these semantic tangles should indeed be laid at the door of Calvinists who seem to be willing to manipulate various definitions (as a previous poster suggested) depending on what they are arguing — in this instance “believe”.
But I wonder if a human response to God, of some kind, one that says in effect, “I don’t understand, Lord, but I want what you seem to want to give me”, may be teased out from the above kind of definitive and complete understanding of one’s position before an Almighty God that seems to accompany the “saving decision” that Americans like to put in their testimonies.
Is “believing” truly dependent upon either a) the Lord doing everything and giving no part in the ministry of reconciliation to his saints through praying for years, say; or b), “something produced” within the believing man that he himself could take credit for, but which must be equally present in all other human beings, lest it be “unfair”. Could there not be these elusive other “things” that Aaron is seeking? Could not prayer of the saints, and witnessing, and opportunity and evangelism, and sensitive conscience, and natural revelation, and life-changing event such as a car-wreck, ALL have a Spirit-orchestrated impact? One begins to wonder if engaging in prayer and evangelism are solely for our own benefit. It does seem that a bit of heart toward evangelism is lacking in some ultra-Calvinists; is this because a fore-gone conclusion is assumed?
There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit convicts prompts our spirits and causes the seed to germinate. But I am wondering if the Lord allows the state of the ground, the soil, to be influenced by the person dwelling there and by his neighbours as well? Are all humans equally stony by nature? Is this what unregenerate or fallen means — that all men are all equally incapable of making any response to their creator? If so, then why do we speak of the benefits of Christian families or heritage; why might we speak of an “unreachable” state in which certain unrepentant persons habitually engaged in certain kinds of sins (such as homosexuality for instance) may find themselves, and by this utter rejection of the Lord be “given over”? No-one is “unredeemable” by the Lord. I think this may be a “problem” that Calvinism faces. I think this is why it was mentioned (Dan/Don?) as it being a question of men by default universally rejecting Christ who has by His death made it possible that no-one has to reject Him; rather than it being a question or problem of what that something is that men must produce in order to be able to believe — a “something” which, apparently, must be equally applicable and efficacious for all men in the interest of fairness as GNB seems at pains to repeatedly point out.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that “something” must indeeds be produced, but by the sinner’s regenerate grandmother working in concert with the Holy Spirit, rather than by the man himself. Moreover, that “something” or “somethings” could be prayer, the fruits of the spirit, witnessing, opportunity, love, etc. — all the things commanded of us toward others because God somehow involves us in His ministry of reconciliation. How awesome is that?
What the man is responsible for is his believing response in which he “surrenders” his “autonomy” given the opportunity (which is by no means assumed to be equal for all men). Why must GNB seem to insist that this “something” that Arminianism apparently requires must be equal and fair to all persons; when the Calvinist doctrine of Election itself is often seen as “unfair”? It seems to me that any balance, were it possible, would be formed of the best of elements of both (in this instance God’s Sovereignty). [Surely balance can be a good thing without necessarily being the same as a luke-warm camp which believes little and has nothing to put forward but an ill-considered mess.]
But what a mystery which we can’t delineate in a seminary text book, eh? How do we precisely articulate such a doctrine? For if “other things” are admitted of, we must know their precise proportions and relationships and composition so we that can construct a formula for it; if only in order to avoid a charge of having a less than satisfactorily articulated soteriology or some such? One begins to wonder if the point of everything is to have clear definitions for the sake of it.
I can certainly understand the need to discuss timing and the process of salvation — and whether the sinner was regenerate or unregenerate at the moment of “believing”. But it seems to me, that the view or assumptions of what constitutes a man’s decision for Christ, the believing, affects the answer that a conservative Calvinist wants to give to the question about what the “something” is that man must not be allowed to add. If one has to point to a moment in time and say, that is the moment I “received” Christ because that is when I consciously understood the various aspects of the Gospel (like Atonement and Propitiation) and the implications of it for my life, then it certainly seems like the Holy Spirit must provide all the resources for that ability to believe. Who would know otherwise? We have all kinds of people giving all kinds of Gospel presentations, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or accidentally, faithfully or unfaithfully, child-like or doctrinal, apologetically or otherwise. The Holy Spirit must provide that ability to believe, and obviously, to the elect alone. If believing, or the “something” apparently required of the Arminian, is akin to complete understanding. Perhaps some of these semantic tangles should indeed be laid at the door of Calvinists who seem to be willing to manipulate various definitions (as a previous poster suggested) depending on what they are arguing — in this instance “believe”.
But I wonder if a human response to God, of some kind, one that says in effect, “I don’t understand, Lord, but I want what you seem to want to give me”, may be teased out from the above kind of definitive and complete understanding of one’s position before an Almighty God that seems to accompany the “saving decision” that Americans like to put in their testimonies.
Is “believing” truly dependent upon either a) the Lord doing everything and giving no part in the ministry of reconciliation to his saints through praying for years, say; or b), “something produced” within the believing man that he himself could take credit for, but which must be equally present in all other human beings, lest it be “unfair”. Could there not be these elusive other “things” that Aaron is seeking? Could not prayer of the saints, and witnessing, and opportunity and evangelism, and sensitive conscience, and natural revelation, and life-changing event such as a car-wreck, ALL have a Spirit-orchestrated impact? One begins to wonder if engaging in prayer and evangelism are solely for our own benefit. It does seem that a bit of heart toward evangelism is lacking in some ultra-Calvinists; is this because a fore-gone conclusion is assumed?
There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit convicts prompts our spirits and causes the seed to germinate. But I am wondering if the Lord allows the state of the ground, the soil, to be influenced by the person dwelling there and by his neighbours as well? Are all humans equally stony by nature? Is this what unregenerate or fallen means — that all men are all equally incapable of making any response to their creator? If so, then why do we speak of the benefits of Christian families or heritage; why might we speak of an “unreachable” state in which certain unrepentant persons habitually engaged in certain kinds of sins (such as homosexuality for instance) may find themselves, and by this utter rejection of the Lord be “given over”? No-one is “unredeemable” by the Lord. I think this may be a “problem” that Calvinism faces. I think this is why it was mentioned (Dan/Don?) as it being a question of men by default universally rejecting Christ who has by His death made it possible that no-one has to reject Him; rather than it being a question or problem of what that something is that men must produce in order to be able to believe — a “something” which, apparently, must be equally applicable and efficacious for all men in the interest of fairness as GNB seems at pains to repeatedly point out.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that “something” must indeeds be produced, but by the sinner’s regenerate grandmother working in concert with the Holy Spirit, rather than by the man himself. Moreover, that “something” or “somethings” could be prayer, the fruits of the spirit, witnessing, opportunity, love, etc. — all the things commanded of us toward others because God somehow involves us in His ministry of reconciliation. How awesome is that?
What the man is responsible for is his believing response in which he “surrenders” his “autonomy” given the opportunity (which is by no means assumed to be equal for all men). Why must GNB seem to insist that this “something” that Arminianism apparently requires must be equal and fair to all persons; when the Calvinist doctrine of Election itself is often seen as “unfair”? It seems to me that any balance, were it possible, would be formed of the best of elements of both (in this instance God’s Sovereignty). [Surely balance can be a good thing without necessarily being the same as a luke-warm camp which believes little and has nothing to put forward but an ill-considered mess.]
But what a mystery which we can’t delineate in a seminary text book, eh? How do we precisely articulate such a doctrine? For if “other things” are admitted of, we must know their precise proportions and relationships and composition so we that can construct a formula for it; if only in order to avoid a charge of having a less than satisfactorily articulated soteriology or some such? One begins to wonder if the point of everything is to have clear definitions for the sake of it.
I think two general categories of answers to the “what is the something additional” is pretty valid because either you believe God is ultimately in control of who believes or you don’t.
Most of the possibilities under the “you don’t” heading are quickly ruled out if you believe the Bible.
Christians must reject the idea that the universe itself pushes some to believe while others don’t—the pantheistic solution.
That leaves either “something in the sinner himself” or “luck,” unless I’ve forgotten an option.
The latter should be abhorrent to all believers… but isn’t—though few want to call it “luck.”
As for “something in the sinner himself”… it’s kind of just backing the problem up a step. Where did the something in the sinner himself come from?
In some kind of blended soteriology—neither Calvinist nor Arminian—someone might suggest that there is a prevenient grace given to all that enables all to believe and then there is a bit more grace given those that actually do believe. But why would we need this complication? Either people believe because grace brings them to faith or they believe as a result of some cause not linked to God. I can’t see how the latter can accommodate the biblical idea of a God who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
The Westminster Confession speaks of “secondary causes.” If I remember right, speaking of decrees, it allows that God decrees all that comes to pass but also decrees secondary causes. So the lightning strikes the barn, but complex interactions of atmospheric phenomena still “caused” the lightning to strike when and where it did. It seems to me that this ought to be a suitable explanation for how the elect believe without being forced—and how sin occurs without God being the author of sin.
But if—for some—Calvinism doesn’t seem adequate to account for biblical things like the general preaching to all to believe the gospel and the sinner’s responsibility for his own rejection of the gospel, maybe the blended idea I described above has some appeal. Grace for all, more grace for those who believe.
I think it’s fair to say also that not all Calvinists have the same idea of what “irresistable” means. I think most do not mean that the decision to believe is forced. Rather, that the sinner is freed to see things as they are. Thus freed, he is no longer “able to not believe.”
Imagine a blind man who does not believe you are holding a beautiful jewel in front of his face. Someone performs a surgery and now he can see the jewel. He is no longer able to not believe the jewel is there.
I don’t get why this idea is so troubling to so many.
Most of the possibilities under the “you don’t” heading are quickly ruled out if you believe the Bible.
Christians must reject the idea that the universe itself pushes some to believe while others don’t—the pantheistic solution.
That leaves either “something in the sinner himself” or “luck,” unless I’ve forgotten an option.
The latter should be abhorrent to all believers… but isn’t—though few want to call it “luck.”
As for “something in the sinner himself”… it’s kind of just backing the problem up a step. Where did the something in the sinner himself come from?
In some kind of blended soteriology—neither Calvinist nor Arminian—someone might suggest that there is a prevenient grace given to all that enables all to believe and then there is a bit more grace given those that actually do believe. But why would we need this complication? Either people believe because grace brings them to faith or they believe as a result of some cause not linked to God. I can’t see how the latter can accommodate the biblical idea of a God who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
The Westminster Confession speaks of “secondary causes.” If I remember right, speaking of decrees, it allows that God decrees all that comes to pass but also decrees secondary causes. So the lightning strikes the barn, but complex interactions of atmospheric phenomena still “caused” the lightning to strike when and where it did. It seems to me that this ought to be a suitable explanation for how the elect believe without being forced—and how sin occurs without God being the author of sin.
But if—for some—Calvinism doesn’t seem adequate to account for biblical things like the general preaching to all to believe the gospel and the sinner’s responsibility for his own rejection of the gospel, maybe the blended idea I described above has some appeal. Grace for all, more grace for those who believe.
[dan] 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.There has to be an additional something. Dan, it sounds like you’re taking the view that the difference between those who believe and those who do not is uncaused. It just happens? But nothing in the universe—apart from God Himself—works that way. Only God is non-contingent.
There is no “additional something.”
I think it’s fair to say also that not all Calvinists have the same idea of what “irresistable” means. I think most do not mean that the decision to believe is forced. Rather, that the sinner is freed to see things as they are. Thus freed, he is no longer “able to not believe.”
Imagine a blind man who does not believe you are holding a beautiful jewel in front of his face. Someone performs a surgery and now he can see the jewel. He is no longer able to not believe the jewel is there.
I don’t get why this idea is so troubling to so many.
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.
Sorry to double post but I’ve been chewing on this analogy to try to see what people who do not believe in individual, irresistible grace and favor something like the Arminian idea of comprehensive prevenient grace.
Suppose you have a ball rolling downhill to the east. It’s rolling down in unbelief toward damnation. This is the condition of depravity. It is unable to stop rolling downward and eastward.
The west side of the hill is faith and salvation.
Imagine that there are hundreds of balls rolling down identical hills.
In this analogy, does prevenient grace take the balls to the apex and balance them there so that they may easily go one way or the other?
If some balls roll west and some east, what made some roll west?
In more pelagianistic versions of prevenient grace, each ball comes into existence at that apex, already poised between life and death, faith and unbelief. In Arminius’ version, the ball is definitely rolling downhill eastward, but I’m not clear on what exactly he believes prevenient grace accomplishes. Does it merely enable the ball to roll uphill to the apex?
Even so, if we say that P.grace gives all the balls the ability to roll toward faith uphill, why do only some actually do so?
I’m not trying to find fault here… just to understand.
On another subtopic…
Suppose you have a ball rolling downhill to the east. It’s rolling down in unbelief toward damnation. This is the condition of depravity. It is unable to stop rolling downward and eastward.
The west side of the hill is faith and salvation.
Imagine that there are hundreds of balls rolling down identical hills.
In this analogy, does prevenient grace take the balls to the apex and balance them there so that they may easily go one way or the other?
If some balls roll west and some east, what made some roll west?
In more pelagianistic versions of prevenient grace, each ball comes into existence at that apex, already poised between life and death, faith and unbelief. In Arminius’ version, the ball is definitely rolling downhill eastward, but I’m not clear on what exactly he believes prevenient grace accomplishes. Does it merely enable the ball to roll uphill to the apex?
Even so, if we say that P.grace gives all the balls the ability to roll toward faith uphill, why do only some actually do so?
I’m not trying to find fault here… just to understand.
On another subtopic…
And the “act of believing”? Whether it is a gift or not, is this a one-time, completely understood, fully-informed and fully-formed instantaneous event? It seems that the Calvinists want to imply that it is. Certainly, I see much more in the United States a tendency to focus on a day and hour of conversion, with a testimony to the words used and the thought processes and the feelings of conviction at the moment of conversion. No-where else, among Calvinist or non-Calvinist groups have I seen such a focus on the moment of conversion itself.I’m a bit surprised to see this. Romans is quite clear that everyone is either justified or not. There must be a moment when one, in Jesus’ words, passes from death to life (John 5.24).
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.
RRobinson,
I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you mean, but I can address one issue. I think you misunderstand the issue of fairness.
The Calvinists prefers to think in terms of “justice” rather than “fairness.” What is “fair” is more subjective than what is just. Justice demands that all men go to Hell. If God were only just, none would be saved. Thankfully, God is also merciful, and in His mercy has dispensed grace to save an innumerable company of sinners from their deserved condemnation.
God’s mercy is sovereign mercy, and is not dispensed to all alike. It is dispensed to the elect alone.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15, quoting Exodus 33:19) God makes no claim to “fairness” as men may view the matter. That is the point of the parable in Matthew 20:1-16, where the laborers grumbled because the Master was more generous to some workers than to others. It concludes with, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong…Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?”
Sinners in Hell have no one to blame but themselves. They have received what was agreed, and are suffering the just wages of their sin. Saints in heaven owe everything to sovereign mercy. They know what justice demands. They know where they deserve to be. They know themselves to be the objects of great grace, sovereign grace. They have no cause to boast, but only to give God eternal glory for their undeserved salvation.
It is the Arminian who labors to make grace “fair” by making it universal rather than particular. The Calvinist has no such delusions.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you mean, but I can address one issue. I think you misunderstand the issue of fairness.
The Calvinists prefers to think in terms of “justice” rather than “fairness.” What is “fair” is more subjective than what is just. Justice demands that all men go to Hell. If God were only just, none would be saved. Thankfully, God is also merciful, and in His mercy has dispensed grace to save an innumerable company of sinners from their deserved condemnation.
God’s mercy is sovereign mercy, and is not dispensed to all alike. It is dispensed to the elect alone.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15, quoting Exodus 33:19) God makes no claim to “fairness” as men may view the matter. That is the point of the parable in Matthew 20:1-16, where the laborers grumbled because the Master was more generous to some workers than to others. It concludes with, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong…Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?”
Sinners in Hell have no one to blame but themselves. They have received what was agreed, and are suffering the just wages of their sin. Saints in heaven owe everything to sovereign mercy. They know what justice demands. They know where they deserve to be. They know themselves to be the objects of great grace, sovereign grace. They have no cause to boast, but only to give God eternal glory for their undeserved salvation.
It is the Arminian who labors to make grace “fair” by making it universal rather than particular. The Calvinist has no such delusions.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Until believers are entirely sanctified (in heaven), they still posses Adam’s fallen nature with it’s bent toward sin.Thanks. That’s exactly the answer I was looking for. Adam’s nature remains. The believer retains the ability to disobey God. The believer has a choice whether to be filled with the Spirit, or to quench the Spirit.
So, according to Calvinism, grace is irresistible, but only a the point of regeneration resulting in belief. After that it becomes resistible again. At least the Arminian is consistent here.
[G. N. Barkman] The question is not why do believer’s quench the spirit.Actually, that IS the question I asked. The “why does a believer NOT quench the spirit” really has the same answer in both Calvinism and Arminianism.
[G. N. Barkman] 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.Agreed.
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.
[G. N. Barkman] 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.Prevenient grace not being irresistible is only a problem if you assume Calvinism is correct. There is no problem whatsoever for Arminianism explaining why someone believes. The explanation is essentially the same in both Calvinism and Arminianism. It is a work of the Holy Spirit that precedes faith. Your argument here assumes that regeneration must precede faith rather than demonstrating that it must be so.
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
I’m merely suggesting the possibility that the same Adamic nature that makes it possible for a believer to reject the Holy Spirit’s leading might also make it possible for an unbeliever to reject the Holy Spirit’s leading.
Is the issue really that Calvinism can not abide man having a choice?
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
[Aaron Blumer]No, I’m not.[dan] 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.There has to be an additional something. Dan, it sounds like you’re taking the view that the difference between those who believe and those who do not is uncaused. It just happens? But nothing in the universe—apart from God Himself—works that way. Only God is non-contingent.
There is no “additional something.”
It seems to me that what is being implied by the caused/uncaused line of reasoning is that there are two choices:
- God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time (caused).
- Things (at least some things) randomly happen with no connection to anything that has ever happened before (uncaused).
This seems a false dichotomy since there could be many alternatives, but perhaps I don’t fully understand what “caused” and “uncaused” mean.
It seems to me that a foundational concept is Calvinism is that unless “God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time” then He can not be sovereign. Is this what the caused/uncaused idea is getting at?
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
[Bob T.] The philosophical construct of monergism v. synergism is not seen in the New Testament or the Old Testament. In salvation faith is not an attribute of the soul. In salvation it is contrasted to works (Rom. 4:5-8); and in sanctification is that which again is the means through which assurance and enablement are given. with a result that may see works (Heb. 11:1-39). For us to talk of monergism or synergism is to impose human thinking upon divine perspective. Faith alone is alone that works may not be in view. Reformed soteriology constructs false scenarios which cloud the simplicity of biblical salvation through true grace. Actually, the use of the word grace with faith does away with any concept that would make faith an attribute of the soul which man contributes to salvation his salvation. [emphasis mine]Amen. I could not agree more.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
[Aaron Blumer]Don’t be too concerned — I’m not really saying anything otherwise. Clearly, everyone is either justified or not, and for those who are, there would be an actual moment. What I am saying is that, that actual moment of conversion is not necessarily at twenty-past-eleven on the Sunday morning when a person goes forward in a public display of faith and prays after the pastor a formulaic prayer containing certain doctrinally acceptable phrases. The conversion may have occurred the previous week when his spirit was touched by the Holy Spirit in concert with a particular conversation, event or as a result of a particular prayer from the other side of the world. Who knows? I said it seems to be a peculiarly American tendency to emphasise a particular moment as something to look back at, embuing it with a certain color (such as the emotions of the nearest public meeting) and remembering certain phrasing.
I’m a bit surprised to see this. Romans is quite clear that everyone is either justified or not. There must be a moment when one, in Jesus’ words, passes from death to life (John 5.24).
That being the case, I was merely raising the question of what “belief” or the “ability to believe” may actually constitute as it has been a focus of many of the posts. Does the Holy Spirit convert one in a moment according to one’s heart response to the person and work of Jesus, whether we can yet articulate the ins and outs satisfactorily; i believe so. Or, is belief and thus conversion deemed to have taken place when complete understanding can be articulated in a testimonial sense? And then it happens again, when the believer seeks assurance at the next revival meeting?
It may seem to be a rabbit trail, but I only ask because a lot seems to be hanging on what response an unregenerate man may or may not be able to make “on his own”. But since we don’t know how the Holy Spirit works in a given heart at a given time, nor what prayer and circumstances are uniquely used, then I lean with Dan toward a prevenient grace that allows all men to respond initially, and more grace to those who do in fact respond. And of course additional grace during our process of sanctification that helps us to not quench the Spirit, and leads to our greater understanding day by day of the mystery and wonder of our Salvation.
BTW, thanks Dan for the last two comments: a couple of your thoughts are exactly what I was tying to get at in my two long posts.
GNB, re: Fairness vs Justice:
I am fully with you on God’s Sovereignty and justice that says HE need not save ANYONE; who are we to say otherwise? I wanted to observe that since this view that is precious to the Calvinist is NOT about “fairness”, why act as though the Arminian position must[/I] provide some measure of Fairness, just because Prevenient Grace is available to all men and yet not all men accept and receive Christ? Your constant reference to “something” that makes one man different from another as something special “about that man” implies, to me, that you think there cannot or should not be anything that can constitute a difference whereby one is ultimately saved and another is not.
As Dan has said, why should there be “anything”. I ask why the prayers of others, numerous conversations and interactions with faithful witnesses, heritage and early training in “spiritual” sensitivity, events, etc, etc. Could not be used of the Holy Spirit and account for the fact that one man believes and another does not? If not, what place do these things thus have (prayer for and witnessing to the lost)? That was a question in among my too long posts.
The discussion regarding the voice of the Greek verbs is interesting but perhaps not the heart of the argument regarding faith.
Likewise it may not be relevant whether faith is “an additional something.”
How does the New Testament regard faith overall? What is that words theological meaning as gained from its meaning and use?
May I again post the statement by J. Gresham Machen.
. Gresham Machen said:
Perhaps we will admit that Machen was possibly a Greek scholar and also an adequate Reformed theologian of the Princeton school.
Faith is not a work or attribute of the soul and gives nothing to the believer that may be seen as merit in any way. If I have a broken leg and lean upon a crutch for support am I to be congratulated, or given merit for “leaning?” The support is based on the ability of the crutch. I doubt if anyone would come forward and say; “what a wonderful thing you do in leaning on that crutch.” One might say; “it’s too bad you have a broken leg that disables you but it is good that you have such a sturdy crutch to give you support and mobility.”
In arguing theology we often construct concepts and scenarios that are beyond common sense. Based on Hebrews 11 and other NT passages, Faith is seen as coming from man and toward God. It is possible because of the Grace of God which may be the persuasive work of the Spirit upon the human soul, using the word of God, that arouses the soul to lean upon God and thus bring from God the benefits of Christ which some of which are Justification, Redemption, Forgiveness, Regeneration, Adoption, Sanctification, and Glorification. They are bestowed by our position “in Christ.” None can be bestowed without such union and the eternal life it brings. Regeneration is seen as connected with the indwelling of the Spirit and the impartation of divine nature to the human soul. All are “in Christ.”
There is a clear work of the Spirit upon the soul of all men (John 16:5-11) but that is especially there when the word of God is spoken. But is not a revealed as pre salvation regeneration. It is also resistible since we are still in the image and likeness of God though marred and fallen. We are admonished to believe as the first act which precedes conversion of the soul. Unlike the Angelic creatures, we are potentially redeemable.
Could it be that since it is an eternal God that elects that His election does not, and cannot, precede His foreknowledge. All has existed without beginning. It is therefore, from all eternity, not unconditional just as foreknowledge is not ever alone without election. Just as the Godhead is mystery with glimpses revealed by revelation, so election and salvation is mystery, only partly seen by the fleeting glimpses in God’s revelation. The construction of theology made in European Calvinism and Arminianism are interesting but inconclusive with conjecture beyond simple Biblical truth given.
We need more who are neither Calvinist or Arminian. We should be aware of their history but very discerning in acceptance of their influence.
Likewise it may not be relevant whether faith is “an additional something.”
How does the New Testament regard faith overall? What is that words theological meaning as gained from its meaning and use?
May I again post the statement by J. Gresham Machen.
. Gresham Machen said:
“The efficacy of faith, then, depends not upon the faith itself, considered as a psychological phenomenon, but upon the object of the faith, namely Christ. Faith is not regarded in the New Testament as itself a meritorious work or a meritorious condition of the soul; but is regarded as a means which is used by the grace of God: the New Testament never says that a man is saved on account of his faith, but always that he is saved through his faith or by means of his faith; faith is merely the means which the Holy Spirit uses to apply to the individual soul the benefits of Christ’s death.” (p. 180-181, “What is Faith,” 1937, Banner of Truth Trust edition, 1991).
Perhaps we will admit that Machen was possibly a Greek scholar and also an adequate Reformed theologian of the Princeton school.
Faith is not a work or attribute of the soul and gives nothing to the believer that may be seen as merit in any way. If I have a broken leg and lean upon a crutch for support am I to be congratulated, or given merit for “leaning?” The support is based on the ability of the crutch. I doubt if anyone would come forward and say; “what a wonderful thing you do in leaning on that crutch.” One might say; “it’s too bad you have a broken leg that disables you but it is good that you have such a sturdy crutch to give you support and mobility.”
In arguing theology we often construct concepts and scenarios that are beyond common sense. Based on Hebrews 11 and other NT passages, Faith is seen as coming from man and toward God. It is possible because of the Grace of God which may be the persuasive work of the Spirit upon the human soul, using the word of God, that arouses the soul to lean upon God and thus bring from God the benefits of Christ which some of which are Justification, Redemption, Forgiveness, Regeneration, Adoption, Sanctification, and Glorification. They are bestowed by our position “in Christ.” None can be bestowed without such union and the eternal life it brings. Regeneration is seen as connected with the indwelling of the Spirit and the impartation of divine nature to the human soul. All are “in Christ.”
There is a clear work of the Spirit upon the soul of all men (John 16:5-11) but that is especially there when the word of God is spoken. But is not a revealed as pre salvation regeneration. It is also resistible since we are still in the image and likeness of God though marred and fallen. We are admonished to believe as the first act which precedes conversion of the soul. Unlike the Angelic creatures, we are potentially redeemable.
Could it be that since it is an eternal God that elects that His election does not, and cannot, precede His foreknowledge. All has existed without beginning. It is therefore, from all eternity, not unconditional just as foreknowledge is not ever alone without election. Just as the Godhead is mystery with glimpses revealed by revelation, so election and salvation is mystery, only partly seen by the fleeting glimpses in God’s revelation. The construction of theology made in European Calvinism and Arminianism are interesting but inconclusive with conjecture beyond simple Biblical truth given.
We need more who are neither Calvinist or Arminian. We should be aware of their history but very discerning in acceptance of their influence.
[dan] It seems to me that what is being implied by the caused/uncaused line of reasoning is that there are two choices:Well, I’ve listed several possibilities a couple of times. It’s valid to lump them all under “1. Ultimately caused by God or 2. Ultimately caused by something else.” But if that’s distracting, I can list again what sub-options might be under the second heading.
God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time (caused).
Things (at least some things) randomly happen with no connection to anything that has ever happened before (uncaused).
This seems a false dichotomy since there could be many alternatives, but perhaps I don’t fully understand what “caused” and “uncaused” mean.
It seems to me that a foundational concept is Calvinism is that unless “God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time” then He can not be sovereign. Is this what the caused/uncaused idea is getting at?
If, as Arminianism holds (as I understand it), prevenient grace equally enables all sinners to believe, what causes some to believe while others do not?
The possibilities… in no particular order (I think my may be growing a little!):
- Something in the sinner himself
- Random circumstances/luck
- More grace from God provided individually
- All of reality (sort of pantheistic)
- Something that is somehow uncaused
It seems to me that Arminians want a. to be the same as e. but it can’t be. The “something in the sinner” must come from somewhere. I can only see a few possibilities for that:
1) Something he possesses by nature
2) Something God gave him along the way of his life
3) Something he acquired on his own
But it seems all three of these have to “come from” somewhere too. Have to have some cause. What ultimate cause can there be besides God?
I don’t see how anything in the universe besides God can be uncaused. This is part of the definition of what God is… self-existent.
On the grieving the Spirit question
I do think that line of questioning is interesting and worth taking some time to gnaw on.
I would question the assumption though that there is a consistency problem if a believer is able to resist the Spirit after conversion but not able to resist before.
There are multiple ways to account for the difference. The “irresistible” drawing is specific: that is, it has to do with the drawing to faith in the gospel, which is a particular set of ideas that, believed, have a specific consequence. The body of Christian truth—and particular applications of that truth that Spirit takes to the hearts of believers—is much larger and more complex.
But I would argue that, ultimately, the Spirit is irresistible to the believer as well. “Ultimately” is an important word in this whole conversation.
What I mean by that is that the believer’s experience is one of gradual conforming to the image of Christ. He slowly experiences a oneness of his will with that of God and a oneness of his character with that of Christ. He is initially credited with righteousness, then slowly becomes actually righteous. As that happens, he is less and less able—by nature—to resist the Spirit. He has less and less interest in doing that. In the end, his will is one with the Spirit’s will.
So all resistance is temporary for the Christian.
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, I agree with you here, that all resistance is temporary for the Christian. Likewise, all resistance is ultimate for the unbeliever. Likewise, the “irrestible” part of grace for the believer is usually generously mixed with resistance. Irrestible Grace does not mean never resisted. It means not ultimately resisted. Resistance is the normal response of fallen men. That resistance is effectually and gradually overcome by the irresistible power of God’s Spirit until the elect sinner is brought to surrender and faith.
It is a mistake to equate resistance and irresistance as equal. Man is not born neutral, he is born fallen. Therefore, he always resists God’s grace. The effectual call of God’s Spirit overcomes man’s natural resistance for the elect. The lack of the effectual call for the non-elect leaves them continuing to resist. The reason a sinner resists God’s spirit? Because he is a sinner. Likewise, because he is a depraved sinner, he cannot not resist. Resistance is his only “choice” because it is the normal response of his fallen nature.
So Dan, yes, you are exactly right. The fallen Adamic nature not only enables, but assures that the sinner will resist, reject, and refuse to believe. So again, the question is not why does the sinner resist? The question is why he surrenders? That cannot be explained by anything within a fallen son of Adam. As has been said several times on this thread, that can only be explained by grace, prevenient grace, that is grace that precedes faith and enables and causes faith. But don’t you see the problem? The Calvinist prevenient grace is effectual grace. It accomplishes it’s goal. It always succeeds. It is irresistible. Once that enabling grace is bestowed, it becomes the cause of faith within the one upon whom it is bestowed. Arminian prevenient grace is not effectual. It helps the sinner, but does not guarantee anything within the sinner. It may or may not result in faith. If the sinner rejects it, it accomplishes nothing. If the sinner chooses to yield to it, it accomplishes something.
So, we are right back to where we started. What is it within some sinners that cause them to yield to this Arminian prevenient grace? It could have been just as easily resisted as received. By itself, this grace does not bring the sinnner to faith in Christ. Something else must be contributed by the sinner before this grace becomes effective. What is that, and where did it come from? If from God, then God, evidently, particularized additional grace for those who believe, something He did not grant to those who do not believe. If so, you have the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace to those whom God chooses to save. (the elect) If this did not come from God, it must be something the sinner adds from within himself. Without that component, God’s grace is not effectual. With the sinner’s contribution, faith is exercised and salvation is secured. So the final component to accomplish salvation comes from man, not God, and is not owing to God’s grace. That’s the issue. That’s the problem.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
It is a mistake to equate resistance and irresistance as equal. Man is not born neutral, he is born fallen. Therefore, he always resists God’s grace. The effectual call of God’s Spirit overcomes man’s natural resistance for the elect. The lack of the effectual call for the non-elect leaves them continuing to resist. The reason a sinner resists God’s spirit? Because he is a sinner. Likewise, because he is a depraved sinner, he cannot not resist. Resistance is his only “choice” because it is the normal response of his fallen nature.
So Dan, yes, you are exactly right. The fallen Adamic nature not only enables, but assures that the sinner will resist, reject, and refuse to believe. So again, the question is not why does the sinner resist? The question is why he surrenders? That cannot be explained by anything within a fallen son of Adam. As has been said several times on this thread, that can only be explained by grace, prevenient grace, that is grace that precedes faith and enables and causes faith. But don’t you see the problem? The Calvinist prevenient grace is effectual grace. It accomplishes it’s goal. It always succeeds. It is irresistible. Once that enabling grace is bestowed, it becomes the cause of faith within the one upon whom it is bestowed. Arminian prevenient grace is not effectual. It helps the sinner, but does not guarantee anything within the sinner. It may or may not result in faith. If the sinner rejects it, it accomplishes nothing. If the sinner chooses to yield to it, it accomplishes something.
So, we are right back to where we started. What is it within some sinners that cause them to yield to this Arminian prevenient grace? It could have been just as easily resisted as received. By itself, this grace does not bring the sinnner to faith in Christ. Something else must be contributed by the sinner before this grace becomes effective. What is that, and where did it come from? If from God, then God, evidently, particularized additional grace for those who believe, something He did not grant to those who do not believe. If so, you have the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace to those whom God chooses to save. (the elect) If this did not come from God, it must be something the sinner adds from within himself. Without that component, God’s grace is not effectual. With the sinner’s contribution, faith is exercised and salvation is secured. So the final component to accomplish salvation comes from man, not God, and is not owing to God’s grace. That’s the issue. That’s the problem.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer] What ultimate cause can there be besides God?I think last week some time, if not earlier, I made the point that this is so. Whether you’re Calvinist, Arminian, or (like me) neither, God is the ultimate cause of everything. This is even true if you believe that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock, and then left. Still, God would have been the ultimate cause of everything. I just don’t see the point in that line of discussion.
[Aaron Blumer] But I would argue that, ultimately, the Spirit is irresistible to the believer as well. “Ultimately” is an important word in this whole conversation.I agree resistance is temporary, but not in the way you describe. Here’s one reason:
What I mean by that is that the believer’s experience is one of gradual conforming to the image of Christ. He slowly experiences a oneness of his will with that of God and a oneness of his character with that of Christ. He is initially credited with righteousness, then slowly becomes actually righteous. As that happens, he is less and less able—by nature—to resist the Spirit. He has less and less interest in doing that. In the end, his will is one with the Spirit’s will.
So all resistance is temporary for the Christian.
[] 1Co 5:3-5I think perhaps this (faith is a work discussion) is becoming a “yes it is”, “no it’s not” circle.
(3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
(4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. G.K. Chesterton
[G. N. Barkman] So, we are right back to where we started. What is it within some sinners that cause them to yield to this Arminian prevenient grace? It could have been just as easily resisted as received. By itself, this grace does not bring the sinnner to faith in Christ. Something else must be contributed by the sinner before this grace becomes effective. What is that, and where did it come from? If from God, then God, evidently, particularized additional grace for those who believe, something He did not grant to those who do not believe. If so, you have the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace to those whom God chooses to save. (the elect) If this did not come from God, it must be something the sinner adds from within himself. Without that component, God’s grace is not effectual. With the sinner’s contribution, faith is exercised and salvation is secured. So the final component to accomplish salvation comes from man, not God, and is not owing to God’s grace. That’s the issue. That’s the problem.Yes, here we are again. Thank you for your patient repetition (I think we did “get it”).
Now I have another observation/question: what is the Grace you are talking about?
It seems it is used in various posts in at least a couple of different ways.
1) Prevenient Grace, as it has been discussed, seems to be about the “ability to believe”.
2) “Additional Grace” on the one hand and perhaps Irresistible Grace on the other seem both to pertain to the “working” of God in our lives such that His Holy Spirit grants wisdom and understanding, strength to overcome the naturally tendency to resist or quench Him, circumstances and moments of clarity in which our hearts are pricked or drawn to respond to Him, etc.
3) the Atonement that secures our Salvation (I guess “Effectual” Grace to the Calvinist?)
It is the second that can be said have some kind of different measure in different person’s lives. We can talk about “more” or “less” of this kind of Grace because God can grant more or less to us, we can ask for more, we can intercede on behalf of others for them to be granted more, etc. God dispenses this out of His abundant treasures.
However, I don’t think we can talk about the third kind in terms of amounts. Either Christ paid the price for all sin and death for all time, or He did not. His death secured our Salvation. No, GNB, I don’t think that the exercise of our faith secured salvation. I think the exercise of our faith secured justification (Aaron and I had a little exchange on this).
The Calvinist has to consider that He paid for only the sins of the Elect. I guess the argument goes something like this: if Christ did die for all, then it would have been “Effectual” for all, for how could any work of God be anything less than “complete” or “perfect”? So, since we know that some men go to hell, His atonement must not have been Effectual for All, therefore He died only for the Elect. I guess my understanding would be that justification is secured by those who believe, [I] out of[/I] the matchless, infinite, complete, ultimate, price that Christ paid. Either Christ paid an infinite price or He did not — we don’t have to worry about some of it going to waste, or being “ineffectual”.
So, really, where we are “right back to” seems to be “whosoever believeth” and whom exactly did Christ die for.
Caleb,
Thank you for the lengthy post. I appreciate you interest in being thorough.
As to causality, this does depends on how one defines and applies causality but in my case I do not have a unique view of it but I do have a distinct view of its application, however I do not believe it interferes with understanding or relating to its general use.
Now, Calvinism, with respect to the function of human volition and the exercise of faith, does not view causality as secondary, rather as primary. As Charlie stated in effect we believe because it was accomplished in the atonement (of course I disagree). It is primary as the cause for our believing (among other things that Calvinism asserts as to the primary cause of our believing but I am only treating Charlies’ statement which represents classical Calvinism as he states). Therefore because of this assertion and how the passive voice is used in the great it is my observation that it is expected to be found in our the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in Acts. If it were secondary then I more expect the active voice which is what is used.
As to human volition and divine causality, I do not hold to a bifurcation. There is a relationship between human sovereignty and divine sovereignty. It simply is, in my view, not as Calvinism asserts. And this does include various forms of causality but with differing values. So the term bifurcation would not be apt. However, the term libertarian might be somewhat okay for a loose term but certainly one used very casually and not formally since it cannot represent all elements of human sovereignty (volition) and divine sovereignty and their relationship.
You made the following statement in quoting me:
Thank you for the lengthy post. I appreciate you interest in being thorough.
As to causality, this does depends on how one defines and applies causality but in my case I do not have a unique view of it but I do have a distinct view of its application, however I do not believe it interferes with understanding or relating to its general use.
Now, Calvinism, with respect to the function of human volition and the exercise of faith, does not view causality as secondary, rather as primary. As Charlie stated in effect we believe because it was accomplished in the atonement (of course I disagree). It is primary as the cause for our believing (among other things that Calvinism asserts as to the primary cause of our believing but I am only treating Charlies’ statement which represents classical Calvinism as he states). Therefore because of this assertion and how the passive voice is used in the great it is my observation that it is expected to be found in our the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in Acts. If it were secondary then I more expect the active voice which is what is used.
As to human volition and divine causality, I do not hold to a bifurcation. There is a relationship between human sovereignty and divine sovereignty. It simply is, in my view, not as Calvinism asserts. And this does include various forms of causality but with differing values. So the term bifurcation would not be apt. However, the term libertarian might be somewhat okay for a loose term but certainly one used very casually and not formally since it cannot represent all elements of human sovereignty (volition) and divine sovereignty and their relationship.
You made the following statement in quoting me:
“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.No one is arguing that. Of course an agent can be spoken of in active and passive voices but when, as Charlie stated, our believing is done in the form of acquiescing to what has already been done by another agent (remember he stated that even the exercise of our faith was secured in the atonement) the grammatical construct calls for our exercising it in the passive voice seeing that we are yield to that which is done by another and we are receiving the action of the verb. Now, I understand some may disagree with this analysis and application of what I believe the implications are of what Charlie stated but I believe they are ignoring the implication combined with the grammatical norms.
Discussion