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
[Charlie] Alex, I’m not sure that I ever agreed with your interpretation of Eph. 5. If I did so, it was hasty of me. The undoing of your assertion lies in the very verse you quoted.Charlie
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.)
1. You have made a statement that critically misunderstands my view of the general rule of the passive. You stated that my general position is “the passive imperative instructs the recipient to allow someone to perform an action upon them”.
Wrong.
You only yield to someone if someone is being commanded to be yielded to. Therefore your response with regard to Eph 5:18a is built on an assumption that I always have a someone in view. I do have an external force in view but the agent is not always a someone.
In Ephesians 5:18b it is a someone, namely God the Holy Spirit. However, in Eph 5:18a it is not a someone it is a something, and that something specifically is wine. So your rebuttal is in response to an argument I did not and am not making. If, somewhere, I stated that a someone is always in view (giving the impression that a person is always in view to which the subject is yielding), that certainly is a statement I do not remember making. If it appears I have implied this then show me the implied statement and I will correct it. However, I do believe you jumped the gun on that one with an assumption on your part.
As to the translation, yours is certainly acceptable, I would prefer it another way so as to emphasize all the elements of the verb with as much nuance as possible. I would translate it most technically without concern for reading value, “Always do not allow yourself to be made drunk by wine”.
2. On the issue of “be silenced” in Luke in pursuit of your argument, again you have (in your argument) employed a reasoning or position of the passive I do not hold but happily you have picked a verse with which I might demonstrate something you missed and actually injures your exegesis.
You state that it does not mean “allow someone to muzzle you”,” rather it means “shut up”. The problem with your assertion is that when someone is given the passive imperative command such as “Be silenced”, it does not merely mean shut up because shut up does not reflect the appropriate appreciation for the passive nuance. The use of the passive does mean, in fact, to yield to a something, here and in fact it just happens that this something turns out to be a someone!
Now it is true the translation should not be “allow someone to muzzle you” but it may be translated, “Be muzzled by me”. Who is the “me”? Our Lord.
What is occurring here in the context is our Lord speaking and doing so with authority. He has the floor so to speak and they are interrupting. He commands them to yield to Him, hence the passive voice.
Again, let me be clear, it is not always a someone but it is always a something to which one must yield in the passive imperative. It just happens here that the verse you chose in hopes of proving a point ended up making a point that you are missing about the passive.
(BTW when our Lord commands the devils to depart the man He uses the active voice. That is, they are to depart of their own volition but in obedience to our Lord. It is an interesting side study).
3. And as to the development of the passive voice. Its history is interesting but it is irrelevant to its reality and distinction and clear employment in Koine Greek. The passive voice has a distinct use and is not diminished somehow by the historical process of its eventual proprietary value.
Finally let me tackle this last response:
[Charlie] 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.Again, in the latter part of this post you are rebutting a position it appears you assume I am making, which I am not. The passive voice, which carries with it the principle of having to yield to a something, is indeed true in both the first and second parts of the verse in Eph 5:18. We are not to yield to wine which will make us drunk and we are to yield to the Spirit which will fill us. The principle that the subject receives the action of the verb and the action of the verb is performed by another something is consistent in both parts.
So I will forgo dealing with the claim I have read anything into the interpretation since you made that based on the erroneous belief I was arguing something else. As to what Ephesians means, I can state dogmatically due to the Greek construct of every word. It is unfortunate that others believe it can mean one or more things and cannot teach its meaning it with authority. This is necessary for sound instruction. But of course the passage is not the issue at hand; it has simply been serving as a tool for reference to a larger point. However, that is the point of exegesis and the results it should render, clarity, not obfuscation.
[Bob T.] The discussion regarding the voice of the Greek verbs is interesting but perhaps not the heart of the argument regarding faith.You are right, Bob, it is not the heart of the argument, just one of many observations that collectively form a natural exegetical rebuttal (so to speak) to some of the proprietary assertions of Calvinism. But no, it is not the heart of the argument.
First, I contacted Carl Conrad today, and he confirmed my earlier analysis that the imperatives in view are not true passives but rather middles that instruct a person to undertake an action terminating upon himself - much like “Shut up!”
Second, the imperatives in Eph 5:18 must be middles since in NT Greek, the bare dative does not express agency, but rather means. Wine is dative. That means wine is not viewed as an agent acting upon the subject, but as the means by which the subject accomplishes the action for himself. Likewise, the Spirit is governed by the preposition “en”, which communicates instrumentality, not agency (see Wallace, GGBB, 372ff). So, since the grammatical forms rule out agency, they also rule out a passive understanding of the verbs. (BTW, the grammatical form is ambiguous, middle-passive.)
So, a conceptually accurate way to express this might be, “Don’t get yourself drunk using wine, but fill yourself using the Spirit.” I find confirmation of this in the next verse, which is not a separate sentence in Greek, but rather a participial clause. With this understanding, the participle can be taken as a “means” participle, telling us how we are to fill ourselves using the Spirit.
Third, I offer a simple challenge. Write a sentence, in either Greek or English, that you think accurately communicates the Calvinist notion of belief. The only rules are that the sinner must be the subject, and you must use the word “believe” in the passive voice. If you could do that, I’d be about 80% of the way to converting.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I, for one, am reading this exchange, and find it helpful. I hope I can remember this information the next time I deal with Eph. 5:18.
With appreciation,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Sorry to be repetitious, and in the process, apparently tedious. I know from personal experience that sometimes the same concept, stated in slightly different terms can become more clear. I fear that in your case, it simply became irritating. My apologies.
However, I gather that you are asking me for my definition of grace. So, hoping to be helpful and not tedious, here’s my response.
In this thread, I have used “Grace” to indicate the ability given by God to enable sinners to understand the gospel and believe in Christ. “Prevenient” (preceding) indicates that grace is given in advance, that is, before the exercise of faith is posssible. This is the most narrow definition of grace. In a broader sense, grace can include everthing God does to secure salvation, including the atonement, but that is not the way I used the word in this thread.
Thanks for the discussion.
G. N. Barkman
[Charlie] I offer a simple challenge. Write a sentence, in either Greek or English, that you think accurately communicates the Calvinist notion of belief. The only rules are that the sinner must be the subject, and you must use the word “believe” in the passive voice. If you could do that, I’d be about 80% of the way to converting.Thanks for the interaction. I have read Conrad’s proposals and work. It is very thoughtful and his scholarship exemplary in many areas. And without longer focus on Ephesians I will simply disagree right now what you believe are implications of the middle (middle passive) since, even in Conrad’s approach where the middle passive emphasizes the subject not acting with self-interest so much (which he accepts as a general concept) but the subject experiencing the action of the verb and the nature of that experience, it leaves room for conceptual arguments of precise context. And as Conrad concedes, though he prefers to approach all such verbs as middle passive it is context that sometimes makes the final vote and I believe in Ephesians this is still debatable and in fact is being debated by exegetes now. And of course Ephesians 5:18 and its surrounding text already has a giant body of some very strong and lengthy exegesis so in order to avoid sinking here into this and getting permanently off course I will move back to the my observation.
As to the question, in the Greek it simply would be written as a passive imperative to believe. But it seems that you cannot simply be asking for a passive imperative command to believe since it is quite obvious as the answer. Maybe I am missing something but when one asks me to write in the Greek a passive imperative command to believe and they know Greek and all I have to do is write it down, it seems I have to be missing something in the question. Because if I write it in the passive, then the passive voice would contain or carry with it the Calvinist notion of belief based on your statement that within the atonement is even the exercise of our faith. Now you might disagree with my view that this implies a passive voice is required or should be used and I understand disagreeing with the implication I am suggesting but it certainly is true in other circumstances in the use of the passive where one receives the action of a verb.
Because in the active voice there is a complete absence of recognition of any other agent but the subject in Acts where that person is commanded “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. And that certainly is not true of Calvinism’s view in the process of one’s coming to believe.
But I still think you’re conflating voice with broader considerations. Not everything that happens in a given situation is expressed in a single sentence. Consider this sentence. “The Egyptians built the pyramids.” Now, imagine someone arguing that this sentence, if true, disproves the use of slaves. After all, grammatically, the subject identifies who performs the action of the verb, and there is NO recognition that anyone else is involved.
Or, “The slaves built the pyramids.” Now, someone argues that they must have done it of their own volition without any coercion, because, after all, if they had been forced or prompted to do it, the author would have used the passive voice. (I think this is analogous to your argument.)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
And this is why the active voice is used to command us to believe, because we, our volition, controls the event. The active voice reflects the one that performs the verb.
Now one might argue that it disproves the use of slaves and they would be wrong but I never made the argument of disproving Calvinism with this single observation, simply that the active voice is interesting with regard to believing when it is allegedly God’s work (our believing) and when we speak of other contexts where it is God’s work such has “you have been saved” or commands to ” be filled” or “be transformed”, we find passives again (or at least for argument’s sake middle passives but clearly not active voices) which reflects God doing the work. But I never said anything about disproving
Let me address your “be believed”. Unfortunately that would be how it would come out in the English. But remember, that isn’t because I think “be believed” is a great way to say something but if the passive were used we would, long ago, have accepted this as the way to say in English what the Greek is saying due to importing in the passive the idea that you have stated is the classic Calvinist view which is that the exercise of our faith was accomplished in the atonement (it wasn’t).
However, because no one has secured our belief before it occurred as it is being suggested, we see the active voice being used. There is no receiving the exercise of our faith that was accomplished in the atonement because that is not true, hence no need for the passive. But it certainly could be used. It doesn’t sound good in English but many Greek constructs do not. But if someone has already accomplished something for you, if your faith has already been exercised (and that is how you said it) then the action of the verb, believing on Christ, has already been performed and we can only receive or yield to this action. Unless you are saying that the action of the verb is performed twice, once at the atonement and once when we believe. That would be interesting.
As to regeneration before faith someone nullifying the argument. Though it is, in my view, an errant one, it is irrelevant. Again, if as you said, even the exercise of our faith (which would be the verb being performed) was accomplished in the atonement then it is not going to be exercised again (active voice), it is going to be received, even if one holds to regeneration before faith, and that would be a passive or at least (for argument’s sake) a middle passive and not an active voice which is exactly what is used.
I have stated twice, now a third time, it is not a mountain, merely one observation. I doubt from here we will go much further. Thanks.
[Charlie] Aaron, the monergism/synergism is not semantics, nor are Arminians monergists. Let me try to put it another way. John Murray wrote a book entitled Redemption Accomplished and Applied. That title is, quite literally, the classic Calvinist doctrine of salvation. Redemption, every facet of it, is something Jesus accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection. Everything else is application. So, what is faith? A benefit purchased once for all by Christ’s work and applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit in time. The same is true of calling, regeneration, sanctification, etc.I thought that it would be good to quote part of the post to which is being referred. By way of explanation, one can see that redemption is accomplished by Jesus. These are clearly active. Jesus was certainly active in what he did on the cross (as well as the passive obedience). The point being is that redemption was accomplished by the Trinity. One of those things that was purchased, was faith. It is applied by the Holy Spirit, so that the person actively believes. I certainly hope that I’m expressing things they way that Charlie would. I mention these things because I think that there may be an explanation stating one thing and a reading that is going another. Now, I’ll quote part of Alex’s post to me.
So, in the classical Calvinist system, what does the death of Christ provide for the elect? Everything. All that the sinner exercises, including faith in repentance, is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s work. So, monergism.
[Alex] 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).Perhaps, “purchased” in the atonement would be a little bit better wording if we are talking about the faith of the elect. Are you reading Charlie as saying that our believing was accomplished (the act of believing was actually done by God) in the atonement? Are you reading Charlie as saying that God believes for us? Because I would read him as saying that the faith was purchased in the atonement, applied by the Holy Spirit, and then we actively believe, which would make your point with the verse in Acts quite moot.
I have to mention this because I think that I MAY be seeing where some misunderstanding is resting.
Again here is the quote:
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.When he states that “All that the sinner exercises (this is verb action), including faith…is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s Work” it is rather clear to me that it is not just accomplished but exercised (his word, not mine). It is unambiguous.
And then to say it is the Spirit’s application, even our faith, the implication is, to me, staggering.
When we believe the Spirit’s application of the atonement and the reference to our being saved is found in the passive voice, exactly because of that. That Christ does the work and we receive its benefits.
If this includes the exercise of our faith within the atonement then we should be receiving the action of the verb already performed and being applied. In fact, now that I revisit this, it calls for, with the word application, even more so for a passive context.
So there is a causal connection. However, causality doesn’t necessitate a passive voice. Take this sentence: “He mashed the gas pedal, and the engine roared.” Active verbs. Even though there is a clear causal connection, a passive doesn’t even make sense: “The engine was roared.”
Take another example: “The magician made the rabbit disappear.” “Disappear” is active. Saying “to be disappeared” is extremely awkward, if not outright wrong.
BTW, Greek uses actives the same way. From Mark 7:37 - ” τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ [τοὺς] ἀλάλους λαλεῖν.” [He makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.]
To put it another way, an active voice does not signify intention, volition, or the lack of caused or instrumental action. “The key turned in the lock.” Yes it did, but who made the key turn?
So, I think you have just made an incorrect connection between a logical concept and a grammatical form.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
As to the rabbit, if we remove the subject of the magician and make the rabbit the subject so that it may receive the action of the verb in a passive context we may say, “The rabbit was removed”. That is a passive form (btw your sentence is constructed with the subject being the magician and the rabbit being the direct object, hence the change).
Yes the word disappeared isn’t there but that word itself is seldom used passively so indeed it sounds awkward, as you noted, but replacing it with a synonym of sorts helps you understand that the passive, itself, can and is used. You simply are not used to the word disappear being used that way. It does not make the passive wrong, it just makes the way disappeared awkward since it is not commonly employed this way. That is an English language limitation either due to lack of use or simply its properties but it is not a factual or conceptual one.
Your reference to Mark has Jesus as the subject who is performing the action to the deaf and dumb who are the direct objects. Jesus is in view performing the action of the verb and is introduced as the subject. There is no dispute that the active voice is to be used. Now if the deaf and dumb were the subjects then I would expect a non-active voice to be used in reference to their being made to hear (I say non-active simply to drop the passive, middle-passive issue for the moment since either would suffice because we are talking about active voice).
As to volition, a key is not a volitional being. You have distinct objects. Nouns have properties and when those nouns perform actions we include in view those relevant properties with respect to the verb. So to say “The key turned the lock”, it is with the awareness that a key all by itself cannot turn a lock so volition is out of the picture as it relates to the key. However, when we construct sentences with volitional beings or those that can perform the action of the verb itself, that is in view.
But that smaller issue aside and to the casual connection and causality. When we speak of causality and connections, while casual may not (and likely does not but I don’t say this is an absolute) call for a passive voice, the view of the Calvinist as it pertains to our believing and as stated by you is not casual, it is quite formal and direct.
Now again, you don’t agree with the connection fine. We disagree. However it does seem quite convenient that you now qualify that causality of our believing on Christ as a casual relationship and not direct in order to make a case. If you are going to insist on our believing having been exercised in the atonement, I certainly object that the relationship between that and our believing is casual. These appear to be conceptual contradictions.
Again, I do not see any coming to terms here and I suspect there are just a few pitches and hits left on this microcosmic discussion. Thanks again.
Discussion