Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 4

Read the series so far.

The Calvinism/Arminianism debate considers three essential issues: (1) The degree of God’s activity in human salvation, (2) the degree of human culpability, and (3) the degree of human activity in salvation. Historically Calvin placed strongest emphasis on God’s activity in salvation, whereas Arminius tended towards emphasizing human volition over God’s volition. Ultimately the two theological traditions are trying to resolve the apparent conflict between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, and they both attempt resolution by means of extra-biblical rationalistic constructs. I suggest it is due to the artificial nature of these arguments that there has been no historical resolution to the debate. Because the base of authority for both sides is subjective (rationalistic theology) rather than objective (exegesis), neither side can, in my estimation, claim the full authority of Scripture. Hence, the longstanding and unresolved debate.

In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul expresses his desire that the Corinthians “learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” In order to maintain the proper humility (and to ensure the highest degree of accuracy), it is best when dealing with the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1) not to expand their definitions beyond what God has revealed. This is an important principle broadly applicable throughout the Christian life, and certainly in resolving any theological difficulty.

Therefore, preferring an exegetical approach to a strictly rationalistic one, I am willing to endure some uncertainly in theological conclusions insofar as the Bible does not address certain details, rather than to build a theological construct that answers every detailed inquiry but which is not grounded on the certainty of revelation. In other words, where the Bible is silent, I prefer to be silent rather than trying to extrapolate a theological system that can’t be exegetically defended. Still we are left with the question: if neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is sufficient explanatory devices, then how can we explain the biblical data? Answering that question is the task of parts 4 and 5 in this series. A simple series of biblical assertions is sufficient to accomplish that task.

  • Assertions #1 and #2 provide foundational data to address the questions.
  • Assertion #3 answers the Calvinistic concept of total depravity.
  • Assertion #4 answers the Calvinistic concept of unconditional election and the Arminian concept of conditional predestination.
  • Assertion #5 answers the Calvinistic concept of limited atonement and the Arminian concepts of universal atonement and saving faith.
  • Assertion #6 answers the Calvinistic concepts of irresistible grace and perseverance of saints, and the Arminian concepts of resistible grace and uncertainty of perseverance.
  • Assertion #7 answers the rationalistic premise underlying the entire Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

#1 The Biblical God Exists, and He is Holy

  • In the beginning God… (Genesis 1:1)
  • In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)
  • and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:3)
  • Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last…And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (Isaiah 48:11, 16)
  • “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” (Isaiah 6:3)
  • “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.” (Revelation 4:7)

#2 He Has Revealed Himself Authoritatively

  • Then God said … (Genesis 1:3)
  • that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)
  • God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2)
  • No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten one (monogenes) who is God, in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18)
  • All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
  • But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
  • For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)

#3 He Has Described the Human Condition as Universally Fallen

The descendants of Adam did not choose to be born, and yet we are all held accountable for his sin—we are all condemned. The human condition was not chosen by anyone after Adam, yet we prove we are in Adam’s likeness and image by adding our own sin.

  • for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
  • she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)
  • When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image… (Genesis 5:3)
  • Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
  • through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…by the transgression of the one the many died…through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men… (Romans 5:12, 15, 18)
  • For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
  • both Jews and Greeks are all under sin… as it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” (Romans 3:9-12)

(Next, Assertions 4-7)

Discussion

It might be helpful if we define our terms a bit.

A Pelagian is someone who believes that men are born in a state of spiritual neutrality and must earn salvation through good works.

A Semi-Pelagian is one who believes a person is born in a state of spiritual neutrality, but uses his free will to accept the gospel for salvation. This person still believes that God offers salvation by grace, but denies that man is born in original sin or in a dead spiritual state. Someone with this view might believe that all babies who die go to heaven because they have no sin. These folks usually believe that everyone sins because sin is so prevalent in the world, but we are not born sinners. I believe ana-baptists and a lot of the early 19th Century revivalists held this view.

A Weslyan believes that Christ’s atonement removes the stain of original sin so that everyone comes into the world in a state of moral and spiritual neutrality. I think these folks usually have some sort of ‘age of accountability’ view of children. Each person is given the light of nature and the drawing work of the Holy Spirit. As men cooperate with this drawing work, they are led to salvation. As men resist this work, they are hardened in their sins.

The Arminian views are similar to the Calvinist, except that he grounds eternal election on God’s foreknowledge that those He chooses would accept Christ if they were neutral.

The Calvinist believes that a man enters the world spiritually dead, and so the gospel is preached to all, but only the enlivening work of the Spirit will enable the man to believe.

I don’t have enough experience with hyper-Calvinists to comment on their beliefs.

This is the way I see it (in a nutshell). Much more could be said. I’ve known believers and attended churches that taught most of these. I think the Weslyan view is the most prevelant in American Evangelicalsim and Fundamentalism (though I’m aware of and have heard some Semi-Pelagians preach).

I don’t think these labels are pejoratives, but some are guilty of being overzealous in their use of labels…

See the doctrinal statement of the Hyper-C
Gospel Standard Churches in England
and note especially Article’s 26 and 29:

Article 26
We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and savingly repent and believe.

in direct opposition to Acts 17:30

Article 29
While we believe that the Gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world, as in Mark 16. 15, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.

Regular Calvinists MIGHT affirm the rest of their doctrinal statement but would deny both of these.

C’s agree with A’s that all men everywhere are commanded to repent, but disagree on the ability of natural man to repent.

C’s agree with H/C’s that natural man lacks the ability to repent but disagree that such lack means he is not required to repent.

When non-C’s refer to C’s as H/C’s it is most often because C’s do evangelism differently. I cover that difference in my Preaching and Evangelism article.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[Larry]

I agree. But often people who are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian don’t know it because they don’t know what it means. They take great offense when someone calls them what they are. Again, the point is that the label has a meaning, whether or not someone knows what that meaning is.

But the problem is that usually those using Semi-P as an insult are doing so to people who deny the core doctrine of Semi-Pelagianism. It makes me suspect that it is the insulter who doesn’t know what the term means, not the insultee.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I don’t think I’ve met anyone yet that likes being characterized as hyper anything. Usually “hyper” means “in my opinion extreme and promptly dismissable as extreme.”

So on a practical level, I don’t care much for it. It’s mostly emotive. But avoiding it is difficult because often a more extreme variant of A doesn’t have a good name for itself… they just call themselves A (or “true A,” “genuine A,” “authentic A” etc.) even though there are important differences. The fight between a view and the “hyper” version of the view is often over who can make a rightful claim to being the genuine article.

All of which distracts from looking at the evidence and reasoning and understanding what view is true and in what ways.

As for semi-pelag. etc., similar problems. Once a term gets used pejoratively too much, even folks who might have gladly owned it previously start to take offense. So is there a shorthand for “folks who reject several of Pelagius’ points but accept a couple of them, in particular these…” ?

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.

I don’t know anyone who accepts any of Pelagius’ theology, especially those who are smeared with his name. If you look at Andrew’s “continuum” above, there are clear distinctions that can be identified along the line. Usually, the Semi-P smear is attached to anyone left of Calvin. It’s just not right.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

James White famously says any “true” Arminian is an Open Theist! So, anyone to the left of Calvinism is a heretic in his view. To be fair, I think James thinks most “non-Calvinists” are just “in denial Calvinists”.

What are we to call those who say that God would not command men to do something they are incapable of doing?

What are we to call those who say that God, in His grace, has enabled all men capable of repenting and believing?

What are we to call those (like some at a Christian institution) who believe that all children are born innocent with a natural ability to believe?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

But the problem is that usually those using Semi-P as an insult are doing so to people who deny the core doctrine of Semi-Pelagianism. It makes me suspect that it is the insulter who doesn’t know what the term means, not the insultee.\

Quickly, I can’t comment on that because I don’t know enough to say what is in the mind of those who usually use “Semi-P” as an insult, nor have I read many who I think were using it as an insult. Here, I can only speak for myself since I often known what I am thinking, and speaking for myself, I did not use it as an insult.

Here’s one statement to which I referred: “What I mean is do I believe men are totally sinful? Yes. Do I believe they are depraved in the way that Calvinist books mean it? Not exactly because I do not think that man is so sinful that he does not respond to the Spirit and Word of God, especially after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Several things led to my statement about being Arminian or possibly semi-Pelagian. If the “man” here is referring to all men without exception, and asserting that all men without exception are morally able to respond, then it sounds like either (1) the Arminian view in which total depravity of all men is met by prevenient grace given to all men without exception which restores the ability to respond (or not) to God, or (2) the semi-Pelagian view in which the affects of Adam’s fall are not passed down to all men totally, rather the will is only weakened by sin making man able on his own to cooperate with God’s grace in salvation. Perhaps there’s a third option, or perhaps his statement is just awkwardly worded and didn’t communicate what he really believed. But there is no denial of a core tenet of semi-Pelagianism here. Again, the person is not the issue and so he is not identified by me; the comment is the issue, and my comment is that this person denies being Arminian while embracing at least one and perhaps two of the key defining tenets of Arminianism, or perhaps semi-pelagianism.

I think a lot of people believe things that have historical labels of which they are not aware. So they deny being something primarily because they don’t know what the something is that they are denying. And I think a lot of people are perhaps a bit oversensitive about these things. Let’s get over ourselves. If you are tagged with a label, then explain why you don’t deserve, or if you don’t care, then ignore it. But let’s not get bent out of shape over it, particularly in these kinds of situations.

The man who wrote that is me…you could just ask rather than wonder at a label.

…to be able to neatly pigeon-hole a theology.

But as I say, the use of Semi-Pelagian in particular is used with one purpose, to shut down discussion of the point and force your opponent to the defensive. It isn’t right and it is rarely, if ever, accurate.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

Most conservatives we know in Baptist circles fall into the Calvinistic or Arminian side of the theological continuum. I don’t know too many who would say that man is born neutral. I know many who hold to prevenient grace, however. I hold to total depravity and that man must have a effectual work of grace in order to truly come to Christ. That would be a Calvinistic view. I think the total depravity doctrine is key and the easiest to demonstrate from Scripture. Read the NHBC on this. It is very clear. Most conservative/fundamental Baptist organizations use the NHBC as a foundational doctrinal commitment. We have used it for decades in the IFBAM. The problem I come across is that many Baptist pastors are so ignorant of systematic theology and historical theology, they don’t even know what these confessions mean when they read it.

Pastor Mike Harding

The man who wrote that is me…you could just ask rather than wonder at a label.

I could, but remember, the reason I didn’t mention your name is because I had no desire to make it about a person, or to make it about a particular label. I wanted to keep you out of it so perhaps we could focus on the issues at hand. I don’t wonder at a label. I don’t really even want to discuss the comment because it doesn’t matter to me what you believe. You are welcome to believe what you want, and I mean that sincerely. It really makes no difference to me. My point was different.

My point was merely to talk about the usefulness and propriety of labels in contrast to Don’s assertion. I think they are helpful and I think they should be used accurately. When someone says, “I believe X,” there is quite often a long historical trail of that belief. It is quite often identified with someone (Calvin-ism, Wesleyan-ism, Pelagian-ism, Lutheran-ism, etc.), even though that person may not be a full representative of what it later came to mean. It is true that labels only mean accurately to people who understand the label. But that’s the way all language works. And I think Mike is right that a lot of people simply don’t know historical theology. I admit that it’s not my strongpoint.

In the end, my only point was that labels are useful and should be used accurately, even if the person who deserves the label doesn’t know what it actually means.

You’re good my man. You labeled me as a potential heretic, then said it wasn’t personal. Then you said people who reject being labeled are too sensitive. You also said more than once people who don’t like labels are ignorant of theology. So, anything I say makes me look like an idiot… Well played.

[Mike Harding]

Don,

Most conservatives we know in Baptist circles fall into the Calvinistic or Arminian side of the theological continuum. I don’t know too many who would say that man is born neutral. I know many who hold to prevenient grace, however. I hold to total depravity and that man must have a effectual work of grace in order to truly come to Christ. That would be a Calvinistic view. I think the total depravity doctrine is key and the easiest to demonstrate from Scripture. Read the NHBC on this. It is very clear. Most conservative/fundamental Baptist organizations use the NHBC as a foundational doctrinal commitment. We have used it for decades in the IFBAM. The problem I come across is that many Baptist pastors are so ignorant of systematic theology and historical theology, they don’t even know what these confessions mean when they read it.

Well, I am not really debating the terminology here, although I don’t really like even using Calvinist or Arminian, because if these terms are strictly defined, most of us are neither. I think I’ve heard you describe yourself as Calvinistic, which is accurate, but it isn’t the same as Calvinist.

What I am objecting to is the constant use of Semi-Pelagian (and sometimes Hyper-Calvinist) as a slur to shut down debate.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Mark, Let me try to end and bow out with this:

I didn’t label you anything. I did not use the word heretic. I said that a person claimed to be neither of two options and then identified himself by two beliefs that were clearly at least one option and perhaps a third option. In other words, the beliefs espoused already had a label. I didn’t make it up. And remember, I intentionally did not mention you, because it wasn’t about you and it isn’t personal. It still isn’t about you. You are the one who called attention to yourself, not me. My point was and is about the usefulness of labels.

I do think that some are too sensitive (and might you be showing that here?). You believe what you believe and I am okay with that, even if I think it is wrong. If you don’t like the name that has been used historically, that’s fine. But it still has a name. If you object to the label because you don’t think it fits, that’s fine too. But make the case. Show us why you don’t deserve that label.

I didn’t say people who don’t like labels are ignorant of theology. I said some people who deserve a label sometimes don’t know what that label means. Is that really disputable? Someone may know much about theology, but not know historical theology. Mike said the same thing.

If you would like to explain what you meant, I will probably read it. I doubt I would respond because, as I said, it doesn’t really matter to me.

At the end of the day, my point is that labels are useful precisely because they mean something. Most of us accept that (even insist on it) when it comes to things like “Baptist” or “Presbyterian.” To omit the label is, for some, compromise and weakening, hiding what we really believe. I just don’t see the big deal.