"Barely Christian" – R.C. Sproul on Arminianism
I first encountered the term “High Calvinism” when I read Lewis Chafer’s systematic theology. This term is a bit old-fashioned now, of course. If someone is a “High Calvinist,” it means he’s very Reformed in his soteriology. This surely described R.C. Sproul!
In a book entitled Willing to Believe: Understanding the Role of the Human Will in Salvation, Sproul provided a short historical theology of this topic by examining nine different theologians and their soteriological positions. In this excerpt, Sproul frames one part of this important issue:1
This classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?
Monergistic regeneration means regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the actions of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some form of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is usually dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.
The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.
According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.
Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation, but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it …
I agree with Packer and Johnston2 that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians. I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.
What is this inconsistency? Arminians affirm the doctrine of regeneration by faith alone. They agree that we have no meritorious work that counts towards our justification, that our justification rests solely on the righteousness and merits of Christ, that sola fide means justification is by Christ alone, and that we must trust not in our own works, but in Christ’s work for our salvation. In all this they differ from Rome on crucial points.
Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism “in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.”
We notice that this charge is qualified by the words “in effect.” Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would explicitly be denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command.
But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exert the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. They I inquire why they believe and others do not. “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the answer is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace.
But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has “in effect” merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.
Notes
1 R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: Understanding the Role of the Human Will in Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 22-27.
2 Sproul is referring to an introduction J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnson wrote for an unnamed edition of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, which Sproul quoted in his own book. For sake of space, I removed these quotations for this excerpt.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 1474 views
Kind of what I was getting at earlier.
There are passages where you can see a regenerate person who does not yet believe if you want to see it there. But I think there are no passages that unambiguously feature such a phenomenon.
So there is really no solid biblical evidence of a category of “regen but not yet believing.”
The question seems to me to be unanswerable. Logically, both of these statements must be true:
- You cannot believe unless you are alive to do so (regenerate)
- You cannot be granted life unless you believe.
We’ve heard some theories that propose to solve the puzzle in one way or another, some with more merit than others, but none that can be proved with a high level of certainty seems to me. It’s pretty chicken and egg.
What’s much more clear is that nobody is regenerated or comes to faith by their own virtue and wisdom or by the power of mere human persuasion. So any humble answer to this question leads to very similar ministry methods. (and attitudes)
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.
One has to go back to 1 Cor 2:6 to begin to understand the “things” referred to in v.14. There it is clear that Paul is speaking of a particular type of “wisdom” that is only for those who are “mature,” which wisdom had been hidden (v.7). Then Paul is very explicit in what he is speaking of in 1 Cor 2:9 (NKJV, bold added)
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
God is speaking of things related to those already saved, of the ones who already “love Him.” He is not speaking of any and all things, and he is specifically not speaking about things related to coming to faith, but rather things prepared for those that have already so come.
So of these things “prepared for those who love Him,” they are now no longer a mystery, but revealed by God’s Spirit (v.10-11), in order that the “mature” who already “love” God may “know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (v.12).
These things that are for believers are spiritual (v.13), and they are not things that the natural man will receive (v.14), as such things are foolishness to him since such a one does not yet “love God,” and so he will not “know” what these things really are, being incomprehensible to him without first loving God and thus having His Spirit in them. Only after belief, when one does love God, is it possible to rightly judge what these spiritual things are and be in alignment with what the mind of Christ is concerning what is prepare for those that love Him (v.15-16).
So the wisdom and the things spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-16 is not the totality of God’s wisdom and things related to Him, and specifically not related to any wisdom or things affecting one’s entering into salvation, but rather is speaking of those things which are to come upon those already loving God, already saved.
Therefore, 1 Cor 2:14 is not a verse that can argue against God bringing illumination to the unregenerate.
In fact, 1 Cor 2:1-6 declares that it is not even “wisdom” that is specifically what God uses in generating faith, it is “power” through the gospel proclamation coupled with the Spirit. Going a bit further back in the book, it is the power (1 Cor 1:18) of the call of God (v.24) through the gospel to the unregenerate so that they reach a state of belief (v.21) that turns them into those who are saved, who love God, and can then understand the “things” then prepared for those who love Him.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
I’m fine with Tyler’s answer to Kevin’s question, which also addresses Paul’s comments in part. I don’t think we will get much further in this discussion. I haven’t taken up Paul’s specific texts in Galatians because I don’t have time just now. I’m getting ready to preach tomorrow. I did preach expositionally through Galatians a few years back. I have pretty extensive notes on the verses Paul cited. I don’t remember anything in my understanding of Galatians that called into question the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith. So I’ll just have to let it go at that for now.
Thanks for a good discussion.
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer]The question seems to me to be unanswerable. Logically, both of these statements must be true:
- You cannot believe unless you are alive to do so (regenerate)
- You cannot be granted life unless you believe.
I would disagree with the first bullet point, if by “alive” you mean regenerate (as you have stated), as I do not find that clearly taught anywhere in Scripture, but I do find the opposite, that regeneration and the Spirit’s renewal results in salvation (Titus 3:5), which the Spirit’s work to seal is part of His indwelling (2 Cor 1:22), and is after belief (Eph 1:13), after one has been exposed to the truth of the gospel (also Eph 1:13) and evidenced in part by a person calling on God out of that true heart of faith (Rom 10:10, 13-14).
What I would agree with is that one must be “alive” (as in not yet physically dead) for God to act upon the heart/mind of the unregenerate to bring them to faith.
The process does not appear “unanswerable” at all, but is simply:
(1) A current believer (a preacher) brings the message of truth that is the good news, (2) which God uses to elicit a call to faith in the unregenerate, who (3) now believing calls on God in response, while also obtaining the regeneration, Spirit’s renewal, Spirit’s sealing, and imputed righteousness, and all other things pertaining to salvation that hinges on that belief being present, and in summation is that “granting of life,” specifically eternal life, from that belief.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
This cannot be, and for the same reasons that I have given above
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I am fine with leaving things as they are. I wish Bro Barkman God’s power as he preaches tomorrow! I respect and appreciate many if not all of those who write here. Still, there has been a lot of question-begging in this discussion. Folks saying things that they think are logical, but which they cannot and will not back up with Scripture. When challenged they back away and make bland assertions. Remember, God doesn’t have to say anything but what He says. Our job is to think His thoughts after Him, not think His thoughts for Him.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Just so I understand, in what sense is someone “dead in trespasses and sins” actually “dead”? He is not physically dead, clearly, so if we say “spiritually,” what do we mean by that? In what way(s) is he different from one who is not dead?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I brought up this point earlier. I’ve always understood “spiritually dead” to mean “separated from God.” I know some people add “unable to function” to the spiritual meaning, but I don’t see that definition applicable to the statement about death that Paul makes in Romans 6:2. He says “We are those who have died to sin.” That is not talking about physical death, so it must be a spiritual meaning of death. It can’t mean we are “unable to function” sinfully, since we do still sin as believers. It means we are separated in some way from sin. As verse 6 says, we are no longer slaves to sin.Just so I understand, in what sense is someone “dead in trespasses and sins” actually “dead”? He is not physically dead, clearly, so if we say “spiritually,” what do we mean by that? In what way(s) is he different from one who is not dead?
Thanks. I have always seen the death in Rom 6 as forensic/positional through our union with Christ. So dead to sin would be essentially synonymous with “justified.”
But either way, it’s clear that one can be “spiritually dead” in more than one sense… Which would seem to topple the first of my two logically inescapable statements (that you have to be “alive” in order to believe).
But it might not. Maybe I missed a reference to this already up the thread, but what would be interesting to read at this point is a thorough study of all of Paul’s uses of “dead” and “alive” to see what different contexts, grammar etc might require/suggest about the relationship between deadness and ability to believe.
… but the argument from “dead” is only one strand in the total inability rope. I rephrase the horns of the dilemma (so it appears to me) like this:
- You cannot believe until you are no longer totally depraved
- You cannot cease to be totally depraved until you believe
Some may say this is something completely different, but I’m not persuaded that total depravity is very different from total inability (or “dead”).
There’s probably already an answer to this earlier in the discussion, so I need to see if I can find it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]… but the argument from “dead” is only one strand in the total inability rope. I rephrase the horns of the dilemma (so it appears to me) like this:
- You cannot believe until you are no longer totally depraved
- You cannot cease to be totally depraved until you believe
We are no longer totally depraved after we believe? I’d like to see the actual theology behind that, i.e., the exegesis. I think you are just playing with words trying to escape the error. Saving faith is our own faith, we can exercise it if we will, and the truth of that does no damage to the doctrine of depravity or salvation by faith alone without works.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
In your view does anything change at all in the nature and character of a believer? If he is still “totally depraved,” it’s hard to see how he has changed at all. In what sense could he be said to be “growing” or being transformed? (Don’t you have to begin to grow before you can continue to grow?)
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.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Thanks for that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Just so I understand, in what sense is someone “dead in trespasses and sins” actually “dead”?
Personally, I take the Eph 2:1 reference to be proleptic, referring all inclusively to both the first death (our physical death), the penalty against sin, and the second death (one’s casting into the lake of fire), the consequence of not being as designed to be, that is being righteous like God, because of our unrighteousness. So I see the phrase as referring to being in the state of both coming deaths.
But assuming one does take it the way you note—
He is not physically dead, clearly, so if we say “spiritually,” what do we mean by that?
—then “spiritual death” means separated from God (this is the same as Kevin Miller noted). Physical death separates immaterial from the material body and the “person” from those other persons still physically alive, but it does not keep one from interacting with those who can perceive the spiritual realm (including other dead; Luke 16:22-31). Spiritual death separates the unrighteous from the righteous One and the “person” from God, but it does not keep one from interacting with God.
In what way(s) is he different from one who is not dead?
The differences are many, but particularly with reference to death and life, (1) the penalty of the first death is nothing to fear, for Christ has paid it on behalf of all people, conquering it, so that the resurrection will come, alleviating “physical death,” (2) the final destination in that resurrection changes from a second death to an eternal life, so there is a “continuing life,” and (3) the unrighteous are accounted righteous now, and to be made righteous in the resurrection, so they are no longer “spiritually dead” by a separation from God (hence why #2 does not come about), and are able to be completed in their being remade like him (through both 1 & 2).
But what is clear is that God can speak to the dead and have them hear in their state of death in order to obey. For physical examples of this, there is the boy in Luke 7:14-15 ; there is the girl in Luke 8:54-55 (her spirit returned after hearing the command to arise); there was Lazarus, who was called then raised (Jn 12:17). But this is explicitly stated as the pattern in John 5:25, 28—the dead can hear and will respond in obedience to the command to live. It follows that the parallel would be that that the spiritually dead can be “called” by God, “hear” that call in their unregenerate state, and “respond” to the call in their will, while being then empowered by God (i.e. made alive) to actually do that which they have been called to and desire to do in their new faith.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
That’s an interesting perspective, Scott, and some things for me to think about. Thanks for that.
About my earlier post on total depravity. Technically, the term means that every part of our being is tainted to some degree by sin. While that precise reality may still be true of the born again believer, most of the theologies I’ve seen closely link natural man’s innate condition of rebellion toward God to his depravity: the degree of depravity is sufficient to make him fundamentally opposed to God. Calvinists of course link “inability” to make progress toward salvation to depravity of the will.
Both inability and rebellion are gone from the heart/mind of the believer, and he/she has begun a journey of transformation into the likeness of Christ. At the very least, whatever remains of depravity must be slowly lessening in severity.
In any case, my point was that in our natural state we can’t believe until we stop being rebellious toward God but we also can’t stop being rebellious toward God until we believe. That transformation is always after faith, but faith also cannot occur before it.
I’m not trying to say that there is a problem in Scripture here. I don’t think there is. I believe that in our study of God’s saving work (as well as other studies) we should expect to occasionally bump against realities we can’t completely comprehend. This particular bit of ordo salutis seems to be a good candidate for that category.
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.
Discussion