If you are an honest seeker and have questions concerning what Arminians or Calvinists believe then please leave your question in the comment box below. If you have a question concerning a certain passage of Scripture which relates to either the Calvinist or Arminian view of salvation, feel free to ask.
We will try to answer questions in a timely manner. Please understand that our time is limited and that it may be a while before we can leave an answer. Sometimes we may direct you to posts here or off-site that may provide answers to your specific questions. Sometimes our answers may be brief and other times our answers may be more detailed and comprehensive. This will mainly depend on how much time we have to devote to it. As the comments and answers grow you may be directed to previous comments and answers which have already addressed your question.
This page is not for convinced Calvinists who want to debate. It is for those who are exploring various approaches to soteriology and would like some guidance in specific areas.
May God bless you as you seek His truth.
Note: Please be sure to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the comments thread and leave your question in the comments box provided. Please do not use the “reply” buttons at the bottom of comments already made. Thank you.
[...] ??Questions?? [...]
Ben,
Thanks again for the blog, including the links you’ve provided to other resources. I didn’t know what a deep well I was jumping into when I began studying the Calvinist belief system, but your information has been instrumental at providing me both a framework and history to the different arguments and positions or both sides.
I have some questions for you regarding the condition of man as it relates to total depravity, and the ability of man to respond to the gospel. I’m not sure if I should just post it here, or if it would be easier to continue via my email address. Either way will be fine with me
Steven,
Go ahead and post it here. If the discussion gets long and cumbersome then we can always move the discussion to e-mail. I hope I can be of some help.
God Bless,
Ben
Much has been said in your previous posts and links about man being dead in sin. I agree with what I have been reading, that dead in sin does not necessarily mean incapable of doing anything good. I do not agree with the Calvinist view of Romans 5, regarding the total depravity of man, and our associated “guilt” by way of Adam’s sin.
That being said, what really happen to mankind when Adam sinned? How am I different than I would have been, had not the first humans disobeyed God? Is it that I now have the ability to discern good and evil? Am I more aware of sin because their eyes were opened? Is it my nature, that is bent toward evil?
Rather than muddy the water further, what I am trying to determine is – when are people separated from God spiritually? Is it the first time I sin? Was I born separated from God?
If I need to give you more detail about my question, just let me know!
Steven,
That is a good question and there are many different opinions among Arminians.
Most Arminians see total depravity as the corruption that was passed down to us from Adam as a result of his disobedience in the garden. This means that we are bent towards sin from birth and will eventually actualize sin ourselves.
This is how Arminians understand total depravity. Our depravity makes sinning inevitable and makes it impossible for us to seek God without God’s gracious intervention. On this Calvinists and Arminians agree. Calvinists see this intervention as irresistible regeneration. Arminians see this intervention as resistible prevenient grace. Both affirm inability. The disagreement lies in how God enables the sinner to believe.
Being dead in sins is further describing inability to a Calvinist since they correlate spiritual death with the inability of a corpse. Arminians see spiritual death as a state of separation and condemnation which results from actual sin. We do not believe that there is Biblical reason to correlate spiritual death with the inability of a corpse since Scripture never makes that comparison and because it would lead to absurdities (i.e. those who are “dead in sin” in this case should not be able to resist the Spirit or reject the gospel either). Arminians also believe that the Bible clearly teaches that faith precedes regeneration.
Arminians are divided with regards to original sin. Some Arminians affirm racial guilt (that we are born guilty of Adam’s sin and are condemned for that sin). They generally see that God’s grace is imputed in such a way that infants and small children benefit from the atonement automatically, or that they are counted as innocent based on identification with Christ in the incarnation.
Other Arminians, who reject the imputation of racial guilt, believe that God does not count sin against us until we consciously sin in a manner in which it constitutes a fully moral decision. They would then maintain that children, though they sin from an early age, are not counted as sinners (i.e., their sin is not counted against them) until they reach an age when they become morally accountable (this “age” could vary from child to child depending on the circumstances). In this view children are in a state of innocence, not because they do not sin, but because God does not count their sins against them. They would have a special relationship with God in this sense but this relationship would not be the same as the relationship one attains when they put faith in Christ and come to be in union with Him. It may be that this state of grace prior to an age of accountability is what Paul was describing in Rom. 7:9-11. This “life” would probably be something less than the full spiritual life that we enjoy in Christ through faith.
Arminians and Calvinist are all over the map on this question because the Bible does not speak very clearly about it. I personally reject racial guilt because I just don’t find the concept clearly taught in Scripture. I do believe that the Bible views children as in a state of grace prior to sinning at an age when they become morally aware enough to be held accountable for that sin. How all this works or exactly how we should define this state of grace/life is mostly speculation.
The gospel was written and preached with those who are morally accountable for their sins and dead as a result, in mind. They are separated from God in the strongest sense of the word and can only be reconciled to God and enjoy the life that flows from Him through faith and consequent union with Jesus Christ.
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Steven,
Here is a link to an excellent essay which argues strongly for the Arminian perspective that rejects racial guilt and interacts with the relevant passages. I think you will find it helpful.
http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/original.html
Ben,
Both your answer and the article were very helpful in explaining some of the basic thought processes behind the opposing views. Not being trained in a seminary, the various terms for belief systems and the like are foreign to me. All I know are the things I have learned and studied from the word, so the nuances about what people believe aren’t easy for me to understand.
I see Calvinists referring to Arminians on these blogs as Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. While I understand the basics behind Pelagian thought, I do not know how men would classify me. As to one of your comments:
“This is how Arminians understand total depravity. Our depravity makes sinning inevitable and makes it impossible for us to seek God without God’s gracious intervention.”
What do you mean by “impossible to seek God without God’s gracious intervention”? I have found in scripture that God holds all men accountable for their actions, especially their failure to seek Him even though He is near to us, and we should see His existence from the created world. (Acts 17; Romans 1) I believe that men can do good and do “Godly” things, by obeying the “natural laws” that God placed in the hearts of man according to their conscience. I see Noah finding grace in the eyes of God in spite of an otherwise wicked humanity, and I know that God says he who seeks shall find.
My understanding is that the power of God is found in the word. It is how the spirit cuts us to the heart, it is how men were convicted of their sins in Acts 2. The gospel needed to be carried into all the world because that’s where the power was. In the words of God through His Son, and through His ambassadors the apostles.
Is the prevenient grace you describe different from the word of God? Are you implying God changing someone’s heart apart of the word in some miraculous way? Or when Arminians describe prevenient grace, is what I described what they are implying? I’ll be happy to clarify if I need to do so.
Thanks again!
-steven
Steven,
Arminians simply affirm that God must do a work in the heart before one can put faith in Him for salvation. We find support for this in passages like John 6:44; 12:32; 16:8-11; Rom. 2:4; 3:9, 10; Titus 2:11, etc.
God’s grace can work apart from the gospel enabling a hostile sinner to seek after God (Cornelius would seem to be an example of this, cf. Acts 17:27), but primarily works through the power of the gospel as you have suggested (Hebrews 4:12; Rom. 10:17).
So God works in many ways to draw us unto Him but we cannot approach Him prior to His gracious initiative.
Pelagian= no grace needed to seek God and put faith in Him
Semi-Pelagian= man takes the first step (initiative) and then God’s grace intervenes
Arminianism= man cannot approach or believe in God apart from His prevenient enabling grace
Calvinism= God must irresistibly regenerate the “dead” sinner and faith inevitably results
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks as always for your reply. I guess I still don’t understand the view that it is impossible to seek God without some level of enabling on the part of the sinner, from God. You said above that “God’s grace can work apart from the gospel enabling a hostile sinner to seek after God…”
I know you mention Cornelius, and I can also think of the Ethiopian Eunuch, but in both of those cases God puts an evangelist in their path to explain to them the Way. The same is true for the apostle Paul – God didn’t save him apart from the message from Ananias. These people had in every case demonstrated a desire to follow God previous to their conversion. I guess my question is, what did God perform on their heart separate and apart from His revelation, prior to their hearing it?
Your cross reference to Acts 17:27 also points out that God placed all of mankind on equal footing. He desires each of us to reach out to him, and even their own poets viewed themselves as children of some greater being. Is there anything needed before man can reach out to God?
Reply at your convenience good sir, and thanks again for your work.
-steven
I think I’ve fallen out of God’s grace. Long story, but I had a vision of the heavens tearing and a bright light obliterating me from a picture of my family. Torment has followed me since. Watched the Spirit leave me… my personality, ability to sense God and the Holy Spirit, sense of time and space, all normalcy… gone… constant accusations, no sense of forgiveness… have I become apostate somehow, and is it reversible? I’ve prayed, repented, sought counseling, been hospitalized, had deliverance done… nothing relieves it and it continues… I’m exhaused. Almost two years without a good night’s sleep, losing weight, unable to focus on the positive… isolated from friends, family…
Why won’t God answer my prayers and break the torment?
Christi
Only sin separates us from God. Once you have turned from the wrongs you have done in the past, and have asked for forgiveness, then God remembers them against us no more.
You may not have a “sense of forgiveness”, but that is actually lingering guilt and sorrow for what you have done. God has promised to provide you actual forgiveness through His mediator, Jesus Christ. You can take that to the bank
As far as the torment you say you experience, I do not think that is God working to give you sleepless nights.
We have peace from our relationship with Jesus. Not peace like the world gives, but real peace – knowing that whatever happens in this life, angels will carry us into the next. Go read Psalm 127:2. Meditate on it. God wants you to rest easy, while every one else is so busy with things that don’t really matter.
Aside from your relationship with God which you can take confidence in, you may have imbalances in your body that require medical attention. Though you should always go to the Father first for your needs, checking it out at the doctor second might shed some light on why you are feeling so down. Know that Jesus walked this earth, and know our weaknesses. He and your brothers and sisters here on earth will be glad to help wherever we can!
-steven
Steven,
Very good advice for Christi.
Christi,
If you would like to talk I think it would be better if we did it through e-mail.
God Bless,
Ben
Steven,
Regarding your question,
These people had in every case demonstrated a desire to follow God previous to their conversion. I guess my question is, what did God perform on their heart separate and apart from His revelation, prior to their hearing it?
I don’t know exactly what God performed in their hearts but if their hearts are bent towards sin and rebellion (the doctrine of total depravity) then their needs to be a work of God in order for them to re-orient themselves towards God in any meaningful way (which would include any kind of “seeking”). Cornelius had responded to the prevenient grace of God under the old dispensation and God did not leave him without the further revelation of His Son. He was one of the “other sheep” that Christ spoke of in John 10 and in that context Christ’s “sheep” are those who are in right covenant relationship with the Father. These are “given” to the Son by the Father (John 6:37).
It still seems to me that God was at work in Cornelius heart prior to him hearing and accepting the gospel. The reference in Acts tells us that God does indeed intend for His creatures to seek after Him that they may find Him. The Arminian only asserts that man cannot even begin to seek God in His depraved state without God’ prevenient grace intervening.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks as always for the response. I guess I need to understand “prevenient grace” a little better. From the surface view, it almost feels like the Calvinist view of regeneration preceding faith. Trying to fit this into what I understand the word to teach, would prevenient grace be found in the following:
Teaching of the word (1st Timothy 4:16)
A person’s conscience (Romans 2:15)
God’s creation (Romans 1:20)
I’m not quite sure I understand the entire concept of the need for pre-grace. I’ll keep reading up on it through things I find, but for now maybe you can answer me on the above. I’m not try to beat a dead horse, and I am as honest a seeker as I can be, so don’t feel like you are wasting your time on our dialogue
I’m just trying to learn!
-steven
Steven,
I think all of those passages give us clues as to what prevenient grace is and how it works. Wesley saw the conscience as nearly synonymous with prevenient grace and did not see it as a natural endowement. I think God’s Spirit works through our conscience to recognize our need for Him so that we might begin to seek Him (the law makes us conscious of sin and our need for a Savior, etc.).
Maybe the case of Lydia will help. Lydia heard the gospel but the Lord still needed to “open her heart” to receive and benefit from what she heard,
“The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” (Acts 16:14)
And notice Acts 18:27,
“On arriving he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.”
I could refer you to some articles and posts on prevenient grace if you like. Let me know and feel free to ask for more clarification if needed.
God Bless,
Ben
I am a member of a Bible church where the elders recently proposed becoming a member of the Fellowship of Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE) (www.firefellowship.org)
Our Elders say that our church’s Articles of Faith are in full and complete agreement with the FIRE Doctrinal Statement. In my opinion, the FIRE DS represents giant leaps forward, far beyond our A of F.
I personally can agree with everything in our A of F, except for one clause of seven words. But there are many things in the FIRE DS that I strongly disagree with.
I assert that our A of F clearly teaches that faith preceds regeneration. The Elders interpret our A of F differently and assert that regeneration preceds faith both logically and temporally.
The Elders say that regeneration sometimes preceds faith by months or possibly years. I suspect that this position is more or less a new or renewed feature of Calvinism, since I know that some Calvinists believed differently. I’m curious about what experts on the history of Calvinistic thought would say about this.
I recently read several articles from your blog and from other sister sites, especially on the topic of regeneration and faith. I agree wholeheartedly. Now I can just pass on your excellent work without trying to re-create the wheel.
I believe that theologians like yourself and Robert Picirilli would agree with my opinions stated above. I’m looking for some volunteers who would read and comment on our A of F, the FIRE DS, and the analytical document that I am preparing.
Are there any volunteers?
There are a significant number of non-calvinists in our church, a lot of people with little knowledge of the issues, and a lot of people who are strongly calvinistic. In my opinion, this issue should not be a test of fellowship or a test of church membership. I believe it is possible to achieve unity in spite of this diversity in theological opinion. Currently this outcome seems very unlikely in light of the recent calvinistic emphasis and the FIRE membership proposal. I would appreciate hearing advice and experiences regarding attempts at unity with this type of theological diversity.
Hello,
I have been interested in the idea that much of the Calvinist’s thinking is shaped by Greek philosophers such as Plato. Now Open Theists are arguing the same concerning the Arminian perspective of omniscience, omnipresence, etc. I tend to agree concerning the Calvinist interpretation but want to stop short of indicting the Arminian in the same way. I feel as if I am being biased in my judgment (because I am not in agreement with Calvinism or Open Theism). Could you please comment on this? Thank you for your time!
Max,
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get to your question. I would start by praying about the situation (as I am sure you have) and then ask to meet with the leadership, particularly those elders you mention. Let them know where you stand on the issues that concern you and ask them if they are willing to embrace members with different views like yourself. If you are not very active in the church it may not matter much. But if you are active in ministry and especially in teaching, the issue becomes magnified if, for instance, you are asked to teach on doctrines you do not agree with.
I would say that remaining in the fellowship should be your goal if at all reasonable, but if you begin to feel like the church is moving in a direction, as a whole, that you do not feel you can follow, then I would consider breaking fellowship and finding a church that agrees with your basic views of soteriology, or at least does not take a stand against them. Really, it is up to you. If the elders express to you that they want to emphasize Calvinist doctrines then it may be impossible for you to remain.
Not sure if that helps but that would be my approach. The most important things should be to pray and meet with the leadership and find out whether or not you can continue to fellowship there in good faith. I would say that leaving the church should be a last resort and should not be a rash decision. May God lead you in your decision.
God Bless,
Ben
Lyn,
One can find such concepts as foreknowledge and omniscience expressed in Scripture well enough without the need to appeal to any Greek philosophy. I personally came to believe these things about God from reading the Bible long before I ever heard any such thing from Greek philosophy.
Some OT’s focus more on immutability as being a Greek development. I believe the Bible is clear that in God’s essential nature He does not change and that this is rather clearly taught in Scripture. However, I do believe that God can genuinely interact with His creatures in the sense of influence and response. I think OT’s generally take this interaction too far in denying God the ability to know the future but I don’t think the Bible presents a static Deity either. There are aspects of God that are dynamic while His essential nature remains unchanged. It may come down to how we define “perfection” but that might take us too far afield.
OT’s are generally concerned that God becomes depersonalized in certain definitions of immutability and I share that concern as well. But again, I think they go too far in the other direction. Arminianism presents a more balanced view while OT and Calvinistic determinism would be considered by Arminians to be too extreme in opposite directions. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Yes,
I would like to know about more reading materials from the Arminian perspective.
Can you recommend books and audio tapes/cds?
Some on eschatology as well?
With every good wish.
All the systematic theologies are calvinistic, where are the arminian ones? Or least non-calvinist ones?
Sincerely,
Donald
p.s.
you can correspond privately as well.
my email address
galatians2_6@yahoo.com
please place your blog address in the subject line. Thank you God Bless!
joyfulfreedom1,
There are quite a few resources at this site. If you look at the side bar on the right you will find numerous links to articles from an Arminian Perspective. There are also recommended books and numerous blogs and web-sites written from an A perspective. I would also recommend you visit SEA for a wealth of Arminian links, articles, posts, and resources. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
I am on a quest to find a new Bible. My ideal Bible would be a single-column, text-only, wide-margin, no references, non-study Bible. Good, large print. No “section headers.” I kind of like red-letter, but I’m open. Smyth sewn binding. Very supple calfskin or similar. Over a year ago I purchased a TNIV Books of the Bible, which doesn’t even have verse or chapter numbers, which is ideal, but it is only paperback, and it has almost no margins. I am also open to a number of translations. My “main” current Bible is NASB, but I regularly refer to KJV, TNIV, NIV, Tanakh, Jewish New Testament, New English Bible with Apocrypha, RSV… Basically, I just want the Word of God by itself as close in format to early manuscripts as I can get. I don’t want anybody else’s theology or “dividing” the Word for me. I have read good things about the ESV, but I do not own one… Would somebody like to offer a recommendation that will satisfy as many items on my “wish list” as possible? This site seems like a good place to seek assistance. My sincere, humble thanks for all who respond.
Kimble,
I am sorry but I don’t think I am the best person to ask that question. I rarely shop for Bibles. I have a few and make do with what I have. As far as translations I think the NASB is very close to the Greek and also very readable. The NIV is even more readable, but a little less precise. The RSV is a very strict translation and not as readable. I haven’t read much from the ESV yet so I really can’t comment on that. If you want something that really tries to be faithful to the Greek, you might like Young’s Literal translation.
As far as different packaging styles, I really know as little or less than you do. I would look to Zondervan or CBD or other places that sell or manufacture Bibles for those kinds of specifics. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.
God Bless,
Ben
Kanga, as an Arminianist, you may be able to direct me to a translation that at least isn’t forcing Calvinist/Darbyite/Scofield theology on the reader through its scriptural cross-referencing and “study” notes. That’d be refreshing for a change. Bless you, brother.
Kimble,
I am not a huge fan of study Bibles, but I was given a Life in the Spirit study Bible and have enjoyed it very much. It is written from a Pentecostal Arminian perspective. It has good notes and some very good articles (especially on election/predestination and apostasy). Like any study Bible, I don’t agree with everything, but it is still a good resource.
Also, you may be interested in the newly released Wesley Study Bible. I haven’t read it, but I assume it is close to what you are looking for. Definitely written from an Arminian perspective.
Hope that helps.
Kimble,
BTW, the Pentecostal Life in the Spirit Bible is definitely influenced by Darby/Scofield with regards to eschatology (as far as pre-trib secret rapture, etc.). That is one of the parts I disagree with. But I still think it is a great study Bible.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi Ben, I am really shaken right now. I was raised in a Christian household, but never really fully trusted and surrendered everything to God even though I had asked Him into my life. I worshiped and believed in Him. But then in my early 20s something really heart wrenching happened that caused me to in essence turn my back on Him and I fell into sin(sexually) for a couple years. I never denied Him but largely ignored Him. I returned to the faith but still struggled with sexual sin and was always losing the battle. Finally, dr’s found a tumor in my neck. It turned out to be a benign one that could eventually come back and be malignant. During the six weeks of wondering what it was, God fully broke me. I was on my knees every day crying and repenting. Early in my Christian life I wanted Him to do things for me, but now I only want Him. Since that scare everything has changed in my life. I no longer has a desire for sin. I am reading the scriptures non stop and finally finding out what they all say. I can across the troubling verses in Hebrews and was shocked and am terrified that they are talking about me when I turned my back on Christ and sinned. How do I know that it is not too late for me? I was brought up with a once saved always saved mentality that led to complacency and now I am terrified because I didn’t know those verses in Hebrews.
Thanks
William
Samuel or William (?),
I recommend that you read my post on the nature of apostasy in Hebrews:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-11-can-apostates-be-restored/
From what I have read of your experience you have not committed apostasy as described in Hebrews 6 and 10. That apostasy is the result of a heart so hardened by sin that repentance is impossible. Those who commit such apostasy will never again desire a relationship with the Lord. This is not the case with you. Your writing this post to me and the concern you have over your spiritual state is clear evidence that you have not commited apostasy as described in Hebrews 6 and 10. If you had, you would not want anythng to do with God and you would not be concerned about your spiritual condition. Here is a quote from that post,
Sin can lead to apostasy by hardening the heart to the point of unbelief. That is why sin is such a dangerous thing and should never be trivialized in the life of the believer. If believers persist in sinful living and refuse to repent, irrevocable apostasy may be just around the corner. This “sinning” could be the unrepentant indulgence of the flesh, or the gradual tolerance of false teaching. There is still hope of restoration and repentance prior to the decisive act of willful unbelief. We can therefore be sure that if one desires to repent and be restored to right relationship with the Lord that irrevocable apostasy has not yet occurred.
Here is another quote that I took from F. Leroy Forlines,
I believe that we can rest assured that the person who comes to talk to us about his or her fears of having committed the unpardonable sin does not fit the description of the people described in 2 Peter 2:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4-6; and 10:26-29. If there is concern to be restored to a right relationship with God, such a person has not committed apostasy. (The Quest For Truth, pg. 284)
If you are truly desiring a relationship with God as you indicate then my advice to you would be to rest assured in the promise that those who come to Christ will not be cast out or turned away (John 6:37), and continue to draw closer to God in faith and love (again, if you are desiring a relationship with the Lord then that is clear evidence that you have not committed irrevocable apostasy). I would pray that God replaces your fear with assurance and comfort in His love and acceptance, that you might experience the peace of God which transcends understanding (Phil. 4:7). I will be praying for you as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben, thanks for the reply. I have read just about every commentary I could get my hands on on this subject matter. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my concerns.
I’ve read your post on the matter several times through and it seems very reasonable. The areas which you have just quoted for me have been my greatest comfort because they essentially say that if you want to repent, if you want Christ to be your Lord, if you want to love Him then that is proof that you have not committed irrevocable apostasy. I just wish there was something biblical that says this instead of a commentators opinion.
What still concerns me is the issue off not being able to be renewed to repentance. Now I am not a greek scholar so I go by what commentaries might say. In one, the author stated that the impossibility is not in the apostate’s ability to repent, but that it will avail nothing to God. He further went on to give the example of Esau who weeped and still found no place for repentance.
How does one draw the line between being the irrevocable apostate and the wanderer of James 5:19? Biblically speaking. Do I have a misunderstanding about Esaus wanting to repent?
Thanks for your time,
William
Therefore when I take a verse such as John 6:37 my min
William,
Considering the context of the passage, and the overall view of apostasy throughout the epistle, I think the example of Esau poses no real problem to the view of apostasy I have described as consistent with the inspired writer’s view. It seems to me that Esau is used as an example, in that passage, for three reasons. First, he is used to show that the inheritance of salvation is precious and should not be treated lightly (as Esau despised his birth right). Second, to show the great disparity in value between salvation in Christ and the emptiness of Judaism without Christ (contrasting the value of Esau’s birthright with a bowl of soup- also the need to endure suffering for the sake of something greater, just as Esau should have endured his hunger a little longer for the sake of preserving his birth right, cf. 12:1-4). Third, to show that once salvation has been despised, it cannot be recovered. Esau’s tears were not tears of repentance, but tears of regret for forfeiting his inheritance once that became a reality to him. In that sense, we might see it in an eschatological sense for the apostate. His tears will come when he stands before the Lord and fully realizes what he has lost. I think the eschatological emphasis really fits the context, as the writer emphasizes final salvation throughout the epistle. Also, the “repentance” could refer to Isaac, and not Esau. In that sense, it would mean that Isaac would not change his mind (repent) and give Esau the inheritance he lost.
So it is not a case of wanting to return to the Lord, and not being allowed to (as the one commentator apparently suggested). Rather, it is a reminder of the finality of the apostate’s decision being fully realized at judgment, when nothing more can be done to change the eternal loss of inheritance. The apostate would never seek a lost inheritance with tears in this world, since he is convinced that no such inheritance exists for him.
Repentance has to do with a change of attitude and heart (Heb. 6:1). It is a spiritual re-orientation. That is how the term is used and understood in the epistle with regards to salvation. So just the basic meaning of repentance removes any possibility that one can want salvation and simply be denied by God (unless that person is seeking salvation on his own terms, i.e., not according to faith in Christ). Therefore, when the writer says one cannot be renewed again to repentance, it includes the reality that the person will not ever again desire to be reconciled to God through faith in Christ. Such a desire would constitute the change in spiritual orientation that largely defines “repentance”. So the fact that you desire a relationship with Christ underscores the fact that you have not committed apostasy as defined in Hebrews (though, if you read my post, I wouldn’t necessarily say that you did not commit a lesser form of apostasy, described elsewhere in Scripture, that is remedial). So when you write,
The areas which you have just quoted for me have been my greatest comfort because they essentially say that if you want to repent, if you want Christ to be your Lord, if you want to love Him then that is proof that you have not committed irrevocable apostasy. I just wish there was something biblical that says this instead of a commentators opinion.
…I think the Bible does address it in the very way the writer of Hebrews defines and uses “repentance” in the context of Heb. 6:1-6. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Thank you very much Ben for clearing this up. I’ve struggled with this for a long time and now I can finally put it to rest. The one thing I can see is that God then never gave up on me and that he chastised me to bring me to repentance which I now genuinely have. I am still sifting through both doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism. If its not to much to ask could you point me toward some trustworthy resources that address certain aspects of Arminianism.
1. When Christ says that no one can pluck us out of his hand. I’m not worried about anyone taking me out of his hand, but rather the devil through deception. Doesn’t the Arminian view kind of make this statement powerless?
2. Also something on Romans 9 that you trust.
I don’t expect you to answer these, but if could point me in the right direction I’d be much obliged.
Thanks
Wiliam
William,
I would be happy to answer your questions and point you in the right direction, but I won’t get to it until Monday at the earliest. There are plenty of links to Arminian interpretations of Romans 9 here on the right side bar under “Election/Predestination”, and I can point you to more on Monday, or shortly thereafter.
God Bless,
Ben
From an Arminian perspective, I am wondering:
1. How does the concept of prevenient grace appear in the O.T.? Or does it?
2. How does the arminian concept of God’s sovereignty apply to the myriad of texts that refer to God stirring up people to war or bringing things to pass through all sorts of means (natural disasters, to random arrows accomplishing the death of someone, etc.) I’m sure you’re familiar with some of the common texts used to ask this question.
I’m really giving arminian perspectives a fresh look and am genuinely curious about many things.
thanks
William,
You wrote,
1. When Christ says that no one can pluck us out of his hand. I’m not worried about anyone taking me out of his hand, but rather the devil through deception. Doesn’t the Arminian view kind of make this statement powerless?
I am not sure I know what you are asking here. I guess you are thinking that if the devil could pluck us out through deception, that would render the promise meaningless. If that is the case, then I think the concern is invalid.
Believers are given all that they need to continue in the faith and remain in Christ (2 Pet. 1:3-11). The devil cannot deceive them irresistibly. We do not have to give in to the devil’s deception, so he is powerless to pluck us out of God’s hands. The only way we could view deception as negating this promise is to view deception as impossible to resist or overcome through the grace of God. Arminians do not hold to this, so their view does not negate the promise here.
We need to remember that the promise is given only to Christ’s sheep, who are presently trusting in Christ (“following” and “listening” to Him, verse 27). So long as we are trusting in Christ, nothing can remove us from Him (since we are united to Him through faith). However, the promise does not extend to unbelievers. God does not hold unbelievers and unbelievers can have no union with Christ. If a believer ceases to “listen” and “follow”, and turns to unbelief, then the promise of John 10:27-29 simply does not apply. It is not a matter of a promise failing or becoming powerless. It is a matter of who the promise is directed to. It is directed to believers and believers only. For more on this and similar passages that Calvinist appeal to in order to support inevitable perseverence, see here.
God Bless,
Ben
To add to Ben’s reply, saying that Jesus’ promise that no one can snatch us out of his hand would be meaningless if we could follow Satan’s deception away from the Father’s hand of our own free will would be like saying that the promise of 1 Cor 10:13 is meaningless, which promises that we never have to succumb to temptation but always have God’s power to resist it. That is one of the most precious promises in all of Scripture, a real bedrock of practically living the Christian life. I would find it incredible if anyone could consider that promise empty or meaningless. The promise in John is similar. It is comforting and assuring to know that nothing can overpower us to forsake the Lord or to take away our blessing in him. The issue was even more pressing in the first century world in which many feared supernatural powers and magic (you can see this type of concern come out especially in Ephesians and Colossians). While succumbing to Satan’s deception is a possibility by our own free choice–remember Paul concern for the Corinthians: “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3)–by God’s grace and protective hand we never have to fall to Satan’s deception, but rather we are protected by the power of God *through faith* (1 Pet 1:5) (i.e., as we continue to trust in him). Thanks be to God!
Mike,
You wrote,
1. How does the concept of prevenient grace appear in the O.T.? Or does it?
I think the concept of prevenient grace does appear in the OT, though, as with many doctrines, it is not as developed as in the NT. The same could be said of the doctrine of the Trinity, the final resurrection, and eternal punishment for the wicked. Arminians see John 6:44, and John 12:32 as teaching prevenient grace. Both passages speak of being “drawn” to God, and John 6:44 presents this drawing as necessary for anyone to come to Christ. An Old Testament parallel to this concept of drawing would be the Lord’s words to Israel in Jeremiah 31:3,
“I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore, I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”
Truly, God worked to draw Israel to Himself, and fully enabled His people to respond in faith and love (see here for a closer look at God’s prevenient grace in Israel through the perspective of Romans 9). Yet, just as today, not all of Israel responded positively to the Lord’s drawing. The Lord says in Isaiah 5:1-2 that He had carefully prepared Israel to produce fruit. Yet, in verse 4, the Lord complains,
“What more was there to do for My vineyard that was not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?”
It seems clear from this passage that God carefully and thoroughly worked in His people that they might produce the fruits of love and faithfulness (characterized by justice and righteousness, verse 7). Despite this work, His people still responded in rebellion and idolatry. This presents a strong picture of resistible prevenient grace from the OT. The Lord Himself said that He had done enough in His people for them to produce the desired fruit. He was therefore justified in His anger and judgment towards His people, who had spurned His work in them (verse 3). In verses 5-6 the Lord pronounces judgment on His people for spurning His grace. It seems that a part of this judgment consisted of a removal of that prevenient grace that they had continually spurned (verses 6, cf. 6:9-12). God would remove His gracious intervention, thereby allowing them to be hardened in their unbelief and rebellion.
2. How does the arminian concept of God’s sovereignty apply to the myriad of texts that refer to God stirring up people to war or bringing things to pass through all sorts of means (natural disasters, to random arrows accomplishing the death of someone, etc.) I’m sure you’re familiar with some of the common texts used to ask this question.
As far as your second question, each case needs to be examined exegetically. In general, God is certainly in control of His creation. Nothing happens that he does not directly cause or permit. God can certainly direct the path of a random arrow, and God can use physical disasters for His purposes. He can also use one nation to bring judgment on another nation, if He so pleases. Arminians do hold that God endows man with a measure of free will, and holds him accountable for how he uses that freedom. God may even override the will on occasion, but God does not control the will to evil, nor does He cause His creatures to irresistibly love Him and trust in Him.
God Bless,
Ben
William,
Here is a link to several Arminian resources on Romans 9.
God Bless,
Ben
How does the Arminian understanding of soteriology deal with the text of 1 Thessalonians 1:2-4?
Thanks
Mike
Mike,
What do you see in this passage that is supposed to be challenging to Arminian soteriology?
God Bless,
Ben
I suppose the notion of Paul being certain God had chosen them because of the power of the Spirit resulting from the gospel?
Mike,
Thanks for the clarification. You wrote,
I suppose the notion of Paul being certain God had chosen them because of the power of the Spirit resulting from the gospel?
…or their receiving the message with joy, i.e. because they believed the gospel? (verse 6)
Verses 6-10 are a continuation of Paul’s expression of confidence in verses 4 and 5, and clarify that Paul’s confidence in their election was based on their receiving the gospel in faith and demonstrating this faith through faithful service. This perfectly fits an Arminian soteriology which teaches that election is conditional on being joined to Christ (the “elect One”), and that the condition for being joined to Christ is faith.
The great conviction, or assurance, could mean several things. It could be that the apostle’s preaching was full of conviction (i.e. they preached with great confidence in the message, and that message was confirmed with demonstrations of power). It could mean that the Thessalonians received the message as a direct result of the Spirit’s conviction (though this would not necessitate that the conviction caused their faith irresistibly). It could mean that the apostle’s assurance or conviction of the effectiveness of the gospel, was simply that they believed (i.e. received the message in the joy of the Spirit; became imitators of the apostle’s faith and service; turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven who rescues them from the coming wrath, etc.).
The main point is that there is nothing in this passage that necessitates an unconditional election interpretation. A Calvinist could read that into the text, but the passage alone can be easily understood in ways that are in perfect harmony with Arminian soteriology.
BTW, Calvinists contend that election cannot be certain until one perseveres to the end in saving faith. They maintain that many seem to receive the gospel and even live with impressive testimonies, but ultimately prove that they were never elect when they eventually fall away. This would make it impossible for Paul to be certain of their elect status simply because they seemed to initially receive the gospel.
However, if my interpretation is correct and election is conditioned on faith union with Christ, then Paul could express confidence in their election based on their initial response to the gospel. Furthermore, if Paul had full confidence in their election based solely on their initial reception, why then does he tell them that after that event he feared that they might not have continued in the faith (3:5)?
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks Ben.
Ben
I have really appreciated your patience and willingness to answer my questions I’ve had up to this point. They’ve been very valuable in me processing through some of this stuff…
A couple years back, I heard Tim Keller give this example of two people who for all practical purposes shared a very similar life/background and attended the same college. After hearing the same gospel presentation, one repented and believed the other did not. The question was in regards to election, so he began to work back to answer why one believes and one does not.
The girl who believed could say–because I repented and believed. The question is why did you and not your college roommate? The reasons would continue until maybe she would say “I humbled myself–or I applied wisdom” etc. To which Keller infers that ultimately someone’s salvation is because they are more humble or wise, if they are to reject unconditional election.
So, it seems that he’s saying salvation is conditional upon repentance and belief but election is not.
Have you heard this type of example? What do you say to these types of analogies from a Scriptural perspective?
Thanks
Mike,
This argumentation is very popular and has convinced many to embrace Calvinism. I personally find it very weak, but many people find it compelling. A few observations,
1) This is purely a philosophical argument. There is nothing wrong with philosophical argumentation if it is sound, but Calvinists often chide non-Calvinists for relying too much on philosophy- yet the single most used Calvinist argument is purely philosophical!
2) How many believers do you know who boast about being more humble or wise than the unbeliever? My guess is none. The best a Calvinist can do is claim that the person “could” boast, even if he doesn’t. But that is easily reversible. A Calvinist “could” boast in the fact that God hand-picked him from all eternity to be saved, while passing over so many others.
The typical response would be that the person was not chosen based on anything about that person, or any response made by that person. Well, then why did God choose that person? Surely He had a good reason, didn’t He? Surely His choice was not arbitrary, was it? The response will be that God did have a reason, but it is hidden in God and has nothing to do with us. Well, doesn’t God choose according to His infinite wisdom? Wouldn’t God’s choice of the person then be an infinitely wise choice on the part of God? Truly it would be hard for someone handpicked by God according to His infinite wisdom, to not feel a little better than those who were passed over, correct? And we could go on and on (you might also find this post
helpful with regards to this topic of unconditional election).
3) The issue is not whether or not someone might possibly be able to boast, but whether or not a person has legitimate grounds for boasting. Many Calvinist are very arrogant and boastful. Many Calvinist tend to look down on anyone who disagrees with them. The same could be said of Arminians (though I think to a lesser extent).
The Bible is clear that one cannot boast in salvation due to the law of faith. And why is that? Because faith is simple trust in another. I cannot legitimately boast in my salvation, because I can do nothing to save myself. I cannot forgive myself, or justify myself, or atone for myself, or regenerate myself. Only God can do those things. All I can do is trust in Him to do what I cannot. It is simply the receiving of a free and unmerited gift according to the Biblical principle (or law) of faith,
“Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:4, 5)
Paul’s point is simple and purposeful. Faith is not a work and is non-meritorious for the simple fact that it receives a free and unearned gift from God. It should also be pointed out that anyone can trust. You don’t have to be especially wise to trust. All kinds of people can trust and do trust in various ways every day. So to say that if one person trusts God and another does not it means that one is smarter than the other, is simply not in harmony with everyday experience
So according to Paul, there is no “legitimate” grounds for boasting (though people can still boast in things illegitimately), since salvation is not earned (we do not deserve it), but freely received by faith. It is this fact that establishes salvation as gracious (since we do not deserve it or merit it by simply trusting God),
“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace…” (Rom. 4:16)
So, it seems that he’s saying salvation is conditional upon repentance and belief but election is not.
That is what it seems to come down to, but I think such a distinction is illogical. Let me paste in some portions of a conversation I had with someone in the combox of “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?”,
Me: It seems like double talk to say that faith is the condition for salvation and to say that Christ meets that condition for us. If Christ fulfills the condition for us then for us it is unconditional because we do not need to fulfill the condition. Does that make sense? Are you suggesting that Christ believes for us? Of course not, so I don’t see how even a Calvinist can say that we do not need to meet the condition of faith unless they want to say that Christ or God believes for us.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/does-regeneration-precede-faith/#comment-1596
Her: It is still conditional. The only person who is saved is the one who possesses faith, if they don’t have faith, they are not saved.
Allow me to illustrate: A rich man’s son has given out index cards to some of his father’s servants. His father stands before the servants and says , some of you will be given an inheritance, but you will only be given an inheritance if you have a card given to you by my son.
That is conditional. They are given the inheritance on condition that they possess a card given to them by the rich man’s son. The servants are only given the inheritance if they fulfill the condition, if they possess the card.
Same thing with faith. If a person dies without possessing faith, they are not saved. I am sure you would agree with that statement.
Me: The Bible does not describe faith as an object that God just drops into our head or heart. It is an act of trust. It is an act of submission and surrender. It is the receiving of a free gift. It is not a thing. In your example they are given an inheritance not based on whether or not they have a card, but whether or not they were “chosen.” The card is simply a symbol of their election. It is not a condition for being chosen. The choosing is arbitrary and the inheritance is given because of an unconditional choice.
Now if the rich man offered a card to everyone and they chose whether or not to receive the card, then we would say that having the card (or receiving the card) is the condition for receiving the inheritance (and imagine the silliness of someone receiving the card and then claiming that they gave the inheritance to themselves). In the Bible the condition is faith because by faith we receive the free gift of salvation. In Calvinism salvation is irresistibly given and faith is just a result, part of the salvation package.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/does-regeneration-precede-faith/#comment-1607
Here are some other posts that might help with your overall question,
Is Arminian Theology Synergistic?
The Nature of Saving Faith
Examining Inconsistencies in Calvinistic Monergism Part 2: Sanctification
Hope that helps,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks a lot for those resources. I’ve been reading through the evangelicalarminians.org website. Everything makes sense to me but why do I get the feeling that we or those that hold to an arminian theology are in an extreme minority. Is that true?
Also, a quick question about the prodigal son. In looking for books on the arminian perspective I stumbled upon a book online called “The Believers Conditional Security,” by Dan Corner. I looked up the reviews on amazon.com and saw 45 5 stars and two 1 stars so I naturally looked at what the one stars had to say. Something that stood out was a critic on how the author and arminians use the prodigal son story to say salvation could be lost and then be gained back. I’ll quote him here:
Another example of logic would be his position on the prodigal son. Here is a parable that pictures the love of God as well as a rebuke to the Pharisees that stood there complaining that Jesus receives sinners. I love setting up Dan Corner disciples when I come across them as I ask them if the Pharisees were saved people in that chapter and they all answer no to that. My question then is if they realize that the hateful son in this parable is Jesus referring to the Pharisees standing there? Surprisingly, Dan Corner disciples say that they know that Jesus parable was referring too to the Pharisees standing there to rebuke them. However, they fail to think through this one as well. If Dan is going to argue his logic then we are going to have problems in interpreting this passage. Just a minute ago, I had a Dan Corner disciple admitting that Pharisees are not saved and then telling me that the hateful son was a rebuke to the Pharisee standing there. How then is the one son picturing salvation as he comes running home and the unsaved Pharisee standing with him in the same kingdom? Confused? Well, according to Dan, this shows a man that was saved and then lost it and was saved again later. Let’s use that same logic and see if you can spot the problems. 1st, both sons are always referred to as “sons” and never was he described as anything other than a son. 2nd, if you pay attention to that passage then you notice that he got it better the second time he supposedly got saved. He got a ring and a robe and new sandals and God kissed him and prepared a fatted calf for his return. Wow! I say that we all lose our salvation so that we can have it better the second time around!! This is why reading logic into Scripture can be dangerous.
Sorry Dan, the prodigal son parable is not a picture of how God saves a man twice but to expose the hearts of the Pharisees who professed to be righteous and strict law abiders. It showed the Pharisees how they were hateful and against God’s love, mercy and grace. This passage is dealing with Jewish people who were in a covenant relation with God, which made THEM ALL children of the covenant (covenant children and not children of grace) as this was not the case for Gentiles at this time. This is why an unsaved hateful Pharisee during this time was called a son (by covenant and not by grace). Remember, arguing by Dan’s theology, no man that hates his brother is saved as he abides in death according to 1st John, but he conveniently doesn’t point out that the Pharisee here was referred to by Jesus as a son. Keep this in mind those of you that believe you can lose your salvation so that you can tell someone that asks you why Jesus referred to the Pharisees as sons as referring only to the covenant made to the children of Israel that today is put aside for an age.
This kind of threw me off because as a backslider myself, I found comfort in the fact that the prodigal was a son like me who then left and backslid but then was able to come back. How do you view this verse? Thanks so much for your time and help
William
William,
I read Dan’s book and thought that much of it was excellent in refuting unconditional eternal security. Some of his arguments are not as strong as others, and some of them may be simply wrong. All in all, he does a fine job in defending conditional security.
I personally do not reference Dan or his book on this site because I think he can be a little extreme in viewing those who hold to eternal security as unsaved (some of what he writes, especially at his site, would at least suggest this).
Anyway, I don’t necessarily disagree with him on this parable. I think the reviewer, and some of “Corner’s disciples”, have made some assumptions that are not supported by the text. He assumes that no Pharisees were ever saved. It is true that much of the opposition Christ faced came from the Pharisees, and many of those Pharisees were not saved because they did not do the will of the Father, but this text doesn’t seem to be dealing with those Pharisees.
Notice the conversation between the father and the elder brother at the end of the parable,
“Look! For so many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends…And [the father] said to him, “My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.” (Luke 15:29-32)
So in this context the elder brother is pictured as one who is in right relationship with his father. He obeys the father’s commands, enjoys his presence and relationship, and shares in all that the father possesses. That is not a picture of someone who is unsaved.
Now this guy might try to say that the elder brother was just reporting his view of things, but really didn’t have a right relationship with his father. But that doesn’t work since the father doesn’t challenge his sincerity, service, obedience or his relationship, but rather affirms it. All the father does is point out that his present attitude is out of line, in not rejoicing with the father in the return of his brother. There is nothing in this text to suggest that the elder brother represents an unsaved Pharisee.
The further comments about how we should all lose our salvation so we can get more is just ridiculous. If someone turns away from God, there is no guarantee that he will return. The point of the parable isn’t getting more (after all, the elder son gets the greater inheritance and the prodigal squandered his in loose living). Rather, it is rejoicing in a restored relationship and the right of the father to receive back the sinner who repents, all of which serves to highlight the wrong attitude of the Pharisees in Luke 15:1.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben thanks for the informed answer. Sometimes its easy to overlook the obvious. I still don’t understand why it seems like Arminians are in the minority. It seems like everyone holds to a Calivinist or OSAS viewpoint. What are your views as to when a person loses their salvation. There is that long list of things in Galations which if you practice them you will not be saved. So how long does it take before you lose your salvation. How long can you get angry before you no longer are saved? I’m perplexed by this.
Thanks
William
William and Ben,
Do you hold that Galatians 5:19-21 is about believers? (the works of the flesh) When I compare this passage with Romans 8:1-14 or so, it seems that Paul is speaking of 2 groups:
Group 1: those who do not have the Spirit of Christ, but walk according to the flesh (v4), have their mind on fleshly things (5), they’re hostile toward God (7, characteristic of believers before Christ–Colossians 1:21)–their end is death (8:6) and not the kingdom of God;
Group 2–those who have crucified the flesh and walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:24). There’s no condemnation for them (Rom 8:1), their mind is on things of the Spirit (8:5), they belong to Christ and his Spirit dwells in them (8:9) and will certainly be resurrected because of their unity with Christ (8:10; also Rom 6:4-5).
I don’t believe Romans teaches that there are “carnal Christians,” though I do agree that Christians are capable of sin, even seasons of sin (or backsliding); that’s not what either passage is saying. The true children of God will persevere until the end and will not live in the flesh (Col 1:22-23 teaches that continuing in the faith proves that you’ve been reconciled, not that you will be reconciled because you continue). Those who profess faith but live in the flesh and don’t persevere, at least in my understanding, prove themselves to be hypocrites and not children of God. And Paul says hypocrites won’t inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11), but the good news is that “such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
Thanks be to God for his great mercy to a sinner like me! While I struggle with sin daily, I have nowhere else to go but to the Savior for hope. And I know he will keep me from falling away because as Ben has said (and I know it’s not the exact context), that salvation is “a work of God alone. God alone forgives…regenerates…sanctifies….We are not capable of making ourselves holy. All these are monergistic acts of God.” (from “Examining Inconsistencies in Calvinistic Monergism pt 1″). And I’d add that we’re also not capable of persevering in our own strength. How holy do I have to be to finally get in to heaven? How sinless? If I have a certain measure of anger, will the Lord reject me after justifying me and sanctifying me? What if I haven’t conquered lust? I don’t think so–if he truly saved me while I was yet a sinner, he won’t abandon me if I haven’t attained sinless perfection by the end of my life.
In summary, I believe that Galatians 5:19-21 is sort of an aside when Paul says, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident:” He’s not saying here that they could give in to the flesh too much and lose their standing, because right after he says, “those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” It’s a done deal–we’ve crucified the flesh, not attained perfection, though we must still strive toward mortifying the flesh and seeking the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Ben thanks for the informed answer. Sometimes its easy to overlook the obvious. I still don’t understand why it seems like Arminians are in the minority. It seems like everyone holds to a Calivinist or OSAS viewpoint. What are your views as to when a person loses their salvation. There is that long list of things in Galations which if you practice them you will not be saved. So how long does it take before you lose your salvation. How long can you get angry before you no longer are saved? I’m perplexed by this.
Not sure if I can give the solid answer you desire here, as the Bible probably doesn’t give a clear cut answer to this question. I think the first thing we need to do is recognize that Christians do struggle with sin. The key would be struggle (as in struggle against). As long as the believer is struggling against sin, though he may fail, he is living by faith. If a believer begins to not take sin seriously by not repenting of it when the Spirit convicts, or ceasing to struggle against it (by essentially giving in), then that person is not really living by faith, and would have good reason to question his salvation.
Sin leads to a heart that is hardened against God, but only if it is no longer resisted. The soul that continues to resist and battle sin, and call out to God for victory, is living by faith in (and love for) God. The soul that no longer resists and gives up the battle, is no longer living by faith in (and love for) God. Are we satisfied with our sin, or do we despise it and struggle against it? In the realm of continued sinning, I think that is the main difference between faith and unbelief. As we struggle against sin, we will slowly gain the victory, and our lives will be less and less characterized by sin and more and more characterized by holy living. A life of no change at all, likely reflects a life of no faith at all. Paul is giving an example of a life that is characterized by sin and unrepentance, a life that has fully surrendered to sin. Such a person will certainly be excluded from the kingdom of God.
The point of these warnings is to help believers to always take sin seriously and never become comfortable with sin in their lives. Ignoring the dangers of sin will allow sin to flourish and ultimately lead to a life surrendered to it (rather than God), and that is a life of unbelief, rather than faith. Does that make sense?
God Bless,
Ben
Gene,
Thanks for your thoughts. This is not the place for extensive debate, so I am not going to get into great detail, except to point out where I disagree with you.
Galatians is definitely directed to believers and 5:19-20 is not just a description of unbelievers, but also a warning towards believers that if they live by the sinful nature, rather than the Spirit, to the point of a life characterized by unrepentant sin, they will not inherit the kingdom of God (cf. verses 16-18, see my comments to William above). The believer has the responsibility to live by the Spirit and put to death the deeds of the flesh (6:7, cf. Rom. 8:12-14). The fact that this is a warning passage directed towards believers is very obvious since Paul explicitly says,
“I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (v. 21)
As far as Col. 1:21-23, I think you have read inevitable perseverance into a passage which actually argues against it. The “if” is clearly conditional. If they continue in the faith, they will be presented holy and blameless. To read this as a guarantee of perseverance is to turn the passage on its head.
For more on this, see my series on perseverance.
God Bless,
Ben
ok next question. ^_^
What do you think is the best Arminian article or best explain our refutation of the Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48?
Thanks,
rex
rex,
I might not get to this till tomorrow, but it is a good question, and I think Arminians have more than one good answer.
God Bless,
Ben
Rex,
Some of the debate concerning Acts 13:48 centers on the Greek word Tetagmenoi (tasso- “ordained”, “appointed”) and how it is being used in the passage. There are questions concerning the meaning of the word as well as the Greek voice (middle or passive). For instance, can Tetagmenoi (tasso) mean something like “being disposed” towards eternal life, or “set in line” for eternal life? If so, who or what set them in line, disposed them to life, etc? Did God do it? Did the Gentiles do it? Did the preaching of the gospel or the hearing of the gospel do it? For now, I will leave those questions to the scholars (and I have heard that there will be some scholarly publications forthcoming from the Arminian side on this passage, the meaning of Tetagmenoi, the voice, etc.).
For now, I am happy to take the word as ordained or appointed. I understand this passage in the same way I understand passages in John 6 and 10 with regards to those who are given to Christ (John 6:37), and those who are considered Christ’s “sheep” (John 10:14-16, 25-39). I will paste in below some comments I have made in other posts concerning the John 6 and 10,
[Concerning John 10] “The Calvinist might object that verse 25 is not in harmony with the above interpretation due to the fact that Jesus tells the Jews that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. It could be argued that verse 25 refers to a predetermined and unconditional election: The sheep are those who were elected by God prior to creation and then given faith to believe in Christ. The problem with this suggestion is that there is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus is describing a pre-temporal election of certain individuals for salvation. Such an eternal decree must be first assumed and then read into the text.
A more plausible interpretation is to understand Jesus’ words in John 10:27-29 in the context of the unique historical situation taking place at the time of His ministry with regards to the transition from the old dispensation to the new. The passage has a secondary application to believers of all ages (as described above) but the primary application concerned only the Jews who were alive during Christ’s ministry and were specifically being addressed in this and other similar chapters in John (John 5:24-27; 6:37, 40-44, 65; 8:12-59).
The “sheep” in this context are the Jews who are currently living in right covenant relationship with the Father during the time of Jesus’ ministry. The Jews that Jesus is addressing in this discourse and others like it throughout John’s gospel are not in right relationship with the Father during the time of Christ’s ministry. Since they do not know the Father (are not “of God”) they cannot recognize the perfect revelation of the Father in the Son (Jn. 7:16, 17; 8:19, 42-47). They reject the Son and refuse to trust in Him because they have rejected the Father. Therefore, they are not Christ’s sheep and cannot be given to the Son (John 6:37). If they had known the Father they would have recognized the Son as their Messiah and would have been given to Him.”
[Concerning John 6] “We dealt briefly with the context of this passage [John 6:37, 44, 65] above when discussing John 10:27-29. Jesus is speaking to Jews whose hearts are not right with God. They are not faithful Jews and do not know the Father. Because they are not in right covenant relationship with the Father, they cannot recognize the perfect expression of the Father in the Son. Since they are not willing to do the Father’s will they cannot properly discern the truth of Christ’s words (John 7:17). Those who know the Father will recognize the truth of Christ’s words and be “drawn” to Him (6:44, 45). They will be given to the Son and come to faith in Him as a result (6:37). To them alone has the Father granted access to the Son (6:65).
The passage has to do with the Father giving the faithful Jews to their long awaited Messiah. It has nothing to do with a pre-temporal unconditional election of certain sinners to come to faith in Christ. This is a conclusion that many have read into this passage according to a prior commitment to a theological system without any contextual warrant.
Jesus assures anyone who would come to Christ in faith that they will not be rejected. They will be accepted in the Beloved One of God (6:37). The Father will not fail to give all the faithful Jews to Christ and Christ will not fail to receive them to Himself. Christ will “raise them up at the last day.” These Jews can be sure that their destiny is secure in Christ. However, the promise is only for those who are presently and continually “eating”, “drinking”, “believing”, “coming”, “listening”, “following”, and “beholding.” Only those who persevere in saving faith will be raised up at the last day (6:40). There is no promise here for those who stop believing and no guarantee that those who begin to believe will inevitably endure in that faith. The “all that” in verse 39 is the sum total of believers. It is the corporate body of Christ and that body will certainly be “raised up at the last day” because that body is comprised of those who are presently and continually “believing” in the Son (vs. 40).” Both quotes from: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-12-examining-passages-commonly-appealed-to-by-the-advocates-of-unconditional-eternal-security/
This view of the John passages gives us insight into the historically unique salvation setting that Luke was describing in Acts 13:48. The Gentiles in Acts 13 were among the “other sheep” that Christ spoke of in John 10:16. In that context these would be Gentile’s who were in right relationship with the Father but had not yet been given to the Son because they had not yet been given the opportunity to believe in the Son (and the Acts passage tells us that these Gentiles were “God fearing Gentiles”, vs. 16). Since they knew the Father they were “ordained to life” and only needed to here the gospel to recognize its truth in Christ. So the order makes sense in that context. “Ordained/appointed to life” because they were already in right relationship with the Father and were His “sheep” and then “believed” upon hearing the gospel and recognizing their shepherd, the perfect revelation of the Father.
F. Leroy Forlines takes this approach to Acts 13 without any regard to a similar interpretation of John 6, 10, etc. (I am not sure how he would handle those passages) in The Quest For Truth (pp. 388, 389). He writes,
“The ‘had been appointed to eternal life’ or the ‘appointment to eternal life’ had occurred before they heard and believed the gospel that was presented by Paul and Barnabas. However, the wording does not require [nor suggest] that this appointment to eternal life must be a reference to eternity past. I think what the verse is telling us is that all of those who had been saved prior to their hearing the New Testament gospel [through faith in the Father] subsequently believed when they heard the gospel being presented by Paul and Barnabas. At the moment of their salvation in the past, they were appointed unto eternal life. When they heard about the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah, they believed and became a New Testament believer. (390)
I.H. Marshall also suggests this interpretation of Acts 13 in his commentary:
“It could be taken in the sense that God had predestined certain of them to believe (cf. 16:14; 18:10). But it could also refer to those who had already put their trust in God in accordance with the OT revelation of his grace, and were enrolled as his people…” (pg. 231)
Forlines goes on to make an important point concerning the Calvinist view of this passage, which serves to underscore the unreasonableness of that interpretation,
“The verse says, ‘As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.’ If it is a reference to an unconditional appointment in eternity past, it would then mean that of the group present that day ‘as many as’ or ‘all among them’ that would ever be saved were saved on that occasion. I would doubt that those who believe in unconditional election believe that. It is hard to believe that, of that group, from among those who did not get saved on that occasion no one ever got saved later.” (390)
God Bless,
Ben
whoa. hehe ok ill read this up. .. iam just concerned since i already read, i think 2 Calvinist writers saying that this verse is what started the journey for them to become a C.
Ok thanks again.
Hi! I want to ask something about atonement.
If Jesus made atonement for all sins (He died for all sins) doesn’t that mean that some sins (sins that are not forgiven) are payed for twice once by the death of Jesus and second by the death of the sinner?
Thank you!
Phileo,
The short answer is that the atonement is both provisional and conditionally applied. Christ made satisfaction for sins, but only those who come to be in union with Him through faith benefit from that satisfaction. Double payment would only follow if the atonement was unconditionally applied.
F. Leroy Forlines writes,
“The Scriptural evidence is clear that it is through union with Christ that the benefits of Christ’s atonement, by which we are justified, are applied to us: ‘Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom. 6:11). ‘Through’ in this verse translates the Greek preposition en. It is better to translate it ‘in.’ It is ‘in Christ Jesus’ that we are to consider ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to God. Again Paul says, ‘There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). The grounds for ‘no condemnation’ is being ‘in Christ Jesus.’ “(The Quest For Truth, 192- emphasis his)
He continues,
“Prior to union with Christ on the condition of faith, a person could not say, ‘I died with Christ.’ Immediately, upon union with Christ a person can say, ‘I died with Christ.’ The history of the cross became his history, not in the experiential sense, but by identification so that he received full credit for that death….On the condition of faith, we are placed in union with Christ. Based on that union we receive His death and righteousness. Based on the fact that Christ’s death and righteousness became our death and righteousness, God as judge declares us righteous….atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to deny the provisionary nature of the atonement is to consider all people for whom Christ died to be justified before they experience faith. Once it is accepted that atonement is provisionary, the objection, which states that penal satisfaction leads to either universalism or limited atonement, is seen to be invalid. Atonement is provisionary until it is applied. It can be applied only on the condition of faith and on the grounds of union with Christ. When applied, atonement becomes efficacious. Then and only then is atonement efficacious. The objection that the penal satisfaction view requires either universalism or limited atonement fails…The discussion above about provisionary atonement and union with Christ answers the objection [of double payment]. The death of Christ is not on the sinner’s account who goes to Hell. His account does not show a double payment. It is true that his sins were paid for provisionally, but there is no double payment as long as there is no double entry on the person’s account. No person will go to Hell with the death and righteousness of Christ on his account.” (194, 196, 207- emphasis his)
For more on this, you may want to read the following posts,
Provisional Atonement Part 1: Dealing With John Owen’s Arminian Dilemma
Provisional Atonement Part 2: Provision is Consistent With Foreknowledge
hey! I don’t know where to put this, you can delete this afterwards, but the links on the right side of the page is wrong… it should be
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
not .NET.
rex,
That’s weird. I just checked them and they both say .org.
hi,
I am trying to contact your friends at the “society of evangelical arminians” but i am unable to see the “math question” necessairy to send them my comments and question. i only see “captcha” rather than the image.
i am sure you must have a direct access to tell them about this problem. can you help with this?
serge poirier
I’m having the same issue as Serge. Do you know their direct email address, Ben?
Hey guys,
I passed along your concern to SEA. I will let you know if I hear anything. I don’t know about a direct e-mail. I passed along your question by way of the private google group discussion thread (only for members). My advice, in the meantime, would be to just type in the word (if there is one) and keep trying. I have had similar problems and I am pretty sure that when when I typed in the word and tried a few times, it would eventually go through.
God Bless,
Ben
I hope my brief statement and question is clear. I am Arminian, and believe that the New Covenant is a conditional covenant while faith in Christ is the condition. For example, John 3:16: God loved the world and gave his Son while believing is the condition for eternal life. And justification by faith is a major theme in Romans. And everything in Romans about “election” not resulting from works is in the context of justification by faith. Likewise, how to Calvinists teach unconditional election within a conditional covenant?
I used to consider myself a Calvinist but walked away from it once I understood what unconditional election, irresistible grace, and limited atonement really meant. I do believe that we are depraved and need a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to enable us to respond to the gospel. I also do believe that once God saves you that you are His forever and that He will not let you become unregenerate again. What is the Armenian view on “once saved always saved”?
Joseph,
Thanks for stopping by. Please ignore the “reply” button and leave any further comments at the bottom of the thread. Thanks.
As per your question: Just in case it wasn’t a typo, I should point out that it is “Arminian” and not “Armenian” (big difference). There is some debate over the issue of once saved always saved among Arminians. Arminius did not specifically declare himself one way or the other in his writings, though he seemed to lean in the direction of the possibility that true believers could fall away. Likewise, the Remonstrants (his followers) did not immediately declare themselves on the issue in their “Five Articles of Remonstrance”, but rather stated that it was an issue that required more investigation.
It wasn’t very long, however, before the Remonstrants did take a stand and argue forcefully for the idea that true believers can indeed fall away from the faith and that many do, in fact, fall away (you can find this in the “Opinions of the Remonstrants”). This has come to be the standard Arminian view, but one could call themselves Arminian and hold to once saved always saved since Arminius did not write anything definitive on the issue (he was more concerned with Calvinism making God the author of sin and taking the focus off of Christ in their decretal view of election).
Personally, I reject once saved always saved on exegetical grounds. If you want to read why I reject it you can check out my 13 part series on the topic:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance-series/
God Bless,
Ben
James,
Good question. I think the Calvinist answer is basically to insist that the new covenant is unconditional. I have heard some Calvinists argue that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant primarily because the new covenant is unconditional. Where they get that idea in Scripture is beyond me.
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks, Ben.
If indeed all Calvinists appeal to an unconditional New Covenant, then I see that as the central battleground of the debate.
Blessings,
Jim
From: An honest inquiring Calvinist.
Romans 8:30 Says “those whom he justified he also glorified.”
How do you understand this verse if, infact, you can believe and be Justified, and then not believe and not be Glorified?
Is this verse teaching that all who are justified will be glorified?
Thank you kindly for your response
Victor,
As I said to Joseph above, please respond at the bottom of the thread (go to the end of the comments section and respond in that box), rather than use the “reply” button. I will respond to your question at the bottom of the thread. Again, if you respond further, please just use the box at the end of the comments thread and do not hit the “reply” button.
Thanks,
Ben
Victor,
You wrote:
From: An honest inquiring Calvinist.
Romans 8:30 Says “those whom he justified he also glorified.”
How do you understand this verse if, infact, you can believe and be Justified, and then not believe and not be Glorified?
Is this verse teaching that all who are justified will be glorified?
Thank you kindly for your response
Arminians answer this question in a variety of ways. The main issue is that there is nothing in the verse that says the process is guaranteed from beginning to end. In other words, it speaks from the perspective of those who are already glorified and simply retraces that process, a process that all believers must go through in order to reach their final destiny. However, I think the corporate election view deals with this text even as the Calvinist typically understands it (as a guaranteed process from beginning to end), without the necessary implication of inevitable perseverance.
Paul is speaking of the corporate elect body of believers (cf. vs. 33). This is clear through Paul’s use of the plural throughout. The church (the elect body of Christ that draws its election and identity as God’s children from Christ) will certainly be glorified. The body of Christ is predestined to ultimate conformity to the image of Christ (i.e. glorification). This is a guarantee. But individual participation in the elect body is conditioned on faith and requires perseverance in faith (cf. 8:25) and love (vs. 28).
This is brought out plainly in Romans 11:16-24. Here the elect body is pictured as an ancient olive tree. It represents the covenant people of God throughout the ages (those who participate in that covenant through faith). One can only participate in the new covenant and be the people of God at this present time through faith in Christ. Those Jews who rejected Christ have been broken off from the election and those Gentiles who have put faith in Christ have been grafted in to the elect body (the body of Christ). Yet, even those Gentiles who are grafted in to the elect body through faith in Christ may yet be cut off again if they do not continue in that faith (11:22). So the body of Christ is destined for glory, but one comes to be a part of that elect body through faith and remains a part of that body through continued faith, and Paul himself makes it clear that those who are now “standing by faith” (vs. 20) may yet be “cut off” if they do not persevere.
So Paul is telling the Romans in Rom. 8:30 that the elect body of Christ is destined for glory and that they should find comfort in that during trying times, knowing that they are a part of that body through faith. But Paul is not guaranteeing them that they will inevitably remain a part of that elect body, for that depends on their continued perseverance in faith.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
I have several questions but I’ll just ask them in one post because they are related questions. I’m trying to understand what Arminians believe about the natural condition of man and about grace. In my understanding, Arminius believed in prevenient grace and common grace. Prevenient grace is only available to those who hear the Word. Common grace is available to all. Common grace cannot lead to salvation but prevenient grace can (but can be resisted). But then I know that some Arminians (would these be called Wesley-Arminians?) believe that prevenient grace has been given to all so that essentially common grace and prevenient grace are the same thing. Am I right about these things? What are the main differences between Arminians and Wesley-Arminians? Do all Arminians (i.e., Remonstrant Arminians and Wesley Arminians) believe in the bondage of the will? I know this is a handful, but do your best. Also, if you could reference sources (published or not) as you give me answers that would be most helpful.
Thanks,
Dan
Hey there
Are you (or anyone) aware of catechism that has historically been used like the heidelberg but that is more “arminian”?
Thanks
Dan,
I don’t really have time right now to give you the documentation that you are asking for but I think I can answer your question fairly well and later provide documentation if you still think it necessary.
In my understanding, Arminius believed in prevenient grace and common grace. Prevenient grace is only available to those who hear the Word. Common grace is available to all. Common grace cannot lead to salvation but prevenient grace can (but can be resisted).
What you say about Arminius’ view of prevenient grace I believe is correct though I don’t know as much about his view of common grace or the difference between them.
But then I know that some Arminians (would these be called Wesley-Arminians?) believe that prevenient grace has been given to all so that essentially common grace and prevenient grace are the same thing.
Again, I think you are basically correct here. Wesley seemed to plainly teach that everyone was graced with a sufficient restoration to the corrupted will so that all are capable of responding to God’s drawings. Basically, this prevenient grace overrides much of the effects of total depravity so that total depravity really describes a person devoid of this grace which is not really the case with anyone since God gives this grace to all (though those who continually spurn this grace may have it removed so that they would essentially return to a natural state of total depravity devoid of this grace). In other words, in our natural state we are totally depraved, but all of us exist in a “supernatural” type of state due to the universal effects of God’s prevenient and enabling grace. I think that Wesley probably saw part of the function of common grace to be essentially the same as prevenient grace as well.
What are the main differences between Arminians and Wesley-Arminians?
Not much beyond the basic differences in how prevenient grace may function in the depraved and the Wesleyan emphasis on entire sanctification (though one could argue that Arminius held to a similar view of sanctification based on some of his writings). Also, some who call themselves “Arminian” still hold to some form of eternal security while Wesleyan Arminians uniformly reject any form of unconditional security.
Do all Arminians (i.e., Remonstrant Arminians and Wesley Arminians) believe in the bondage of the will?
Yes, if they are to be properly called Arminians (since Arminius held to such bondage). Otherwise, they should just be called “non-Calvinists” in my opinion.
update:
Dan,
I just caught wind that SEA will soon be publishing a post that deals specifically with the differences between Wesleyan and Classical Arminianism. I will give you a heads up when it is published.
God Bless,
Ben
Mike,
Sorry, can’t really help you with that one but if anyone can help you they are welcome to leave a response.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks for the response to my questions. I did find documentation to the fact that all “true” Arminians believe in the bondage of the will in Roger Olsen, Arminian Theology–he documents this well. (I also sent an email to Roger regarding the same questions I asked you.) Maybe the SEA will provide good documentation on my questions about prevenient grace, as it seems like I’m “generally” right, but I want to make sure I get all the nuances and details correct.
In terms of not holding to the bondage of the will, I think a better term would be Semi-Pelagian, but only in the respect to man not grace. I recently ran across some fascinating articles about “views of salvation” that stimulated my thinking in this. http://cbounds.blogspot.com/2006/10/four-major-views-of-christian_23.html
As far as an answer to Mike’s question about a historical confession/document, wouldn’t you say that the Remonstrant articles (though not a catechism) would provide a good understanding of historic Arminianism. Maybe Mike really wanted a catechism.
When you do let me know about the SEA posting re: differences between Remonstrant Arminians and Wesley Arminians, please have Word-Press notify me via email because I don’t always remember to check your blog.
Blessings,
Dan
Dan,
I will check out the site. I have read the article at SEA and it really doesn’t get into prevenient grace. It deals more with other differences. I really think that it is hard to say exactly how prevenient grace works and for that reason there are diverse opinions on the matter held by many Arminians of various flavors. The agreement is that it enables sinners to respond positively to God. Baiscally, any act of God towards sinners and for the sake of leading sinners on to salvation would be considered prevenient grace by all Arminians.
As for Mike’s question the Articles of Remonstrants did seem to me to be a little leaner than what he was after. The “Opinions of the Remonstrants” are a little more detailed and might fit the bill as you suggest. They can be read at SEA here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/784
God Bless,
Ben
Mike,
The closest you will probably find is the “Opinions of the Remonstrants” which can be found at SEA here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/784
Hey! Just a quick question here. Are there any pastors that you can recommend that I might perhaps be able to listen to? I could read sermons too if your recommendations don’t have any audio. It seems to me that in our day, there aren’t too many sophisticated and logical pastors. R.C Sproul, John Macarthur and John Piper are people that I do listen to but I was hoping for some good arminian pastors to add to the mix.
Thanks!
burybrutal,
Here is a good place to start:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/20
God Bless,
Ben
I can’t figure out John 6:37 it is proof of to Calvin augmenters but I cant find a good explanation that it is not true.
Collin.v,
Collin,
Here are two good articles that I basically agree with:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_37.html
Much more could be said, but this is a good place to start. I hope to write some more on the subject in the near future. I think the Calvinist interpretation is very problematic and question begging.
God Bless,
Ben
Could you explain from an Arminian perspective what you believe regeneration entails and how, if regeneration is a work of God, it can be ‘un-done’ if/when a believer forsakes the faith.
Thanks
Greg,
You wrote,
Could you explain from an Arminian perspective what you believe regeneration entails and how, if regeneration is a work of God, it can be ‘un-done’ if/when a believer forsakes the faith.
Theologically speaking, regeneration typically refers to the beginning of spiritual life. It is the new birth, the point at which one comes to be a child of God (John 1:12-13). Biblically, the word “regeneration” is used but once in the sense of personal soteriology (Titus 3:5). In that passage, regeneration is synonymous with salvation.
Regeneration is certainly a work of God that begins in us the moment we are joined to Christ through faith, at which point His life flows into us and transforms us. As long as one is joined to the source of life (Christ), one will experience all of the spiritual blessings that abide in Him (Eph. 1:3, 13), including new life. If a believer forsakes the faith, he or she will be cut off from Christ and the elect people of God (John 15:5-6; Rom. 11:17-22). As long as one remains in Christ through faith, that person will experience spiritual life. If one fails to remain and abandons the faith, the Father will cut that person off from Christ and he or she will “wither” and die. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi, I have been struggling with Salvation concerns, and being ready for the rapture as I know its a small number will be ready. I am/was a fairly mature Christian who stumbled into an old sin. It somewhat compromised my witness and shortly after, an unrelated fluke of a thing happened and my life started to completely fall apart. Lost a good job of 20 years and my home.I then tried to deal with stress and circumstances very much in the flesh and I know God was unhappy with me. I am concerned about verses like Hebrews 6:4-8, and 10:26-39. Luke 12:45-47 and others. I am hoping my salvation is not lost or not being ready for the rapture. Luke 12:45 especially bothers me because this is describes my situation. Very concerned about being a branch cut off-John 15:1 Also in the OT it says a person can be cut off from his people, and I feel pretty much that way now. I am not a blessing to others anymore, but rather a burden. There is no purpose in my life now-
no chance now to be productive.
So the Arminian believes in total depravity and bondage of the will. Also it was quoted on this website that TULIP is an interlocking logical unit in that if you are a one point Calvinist you are a 5-point Calvinist. Or, if you deny one you deny them all.
Isn’t there a contradiction then?
To me it seems it does not matter much the slight difference between prevenient grace of the Arminian and the unconditional saving grace of the Calvinist as long as both hold that God does the first step. The only difference would be this grace is resistible for the Arminian.
Paul, the ‘interlocking unit’ comment was from a commenter. As far as I understand, it’s possible to accept less than all 5 points of TULIP without internal contradiction (e.g. 4-point Calvinists).
Jeff, understand that nobody believes that you are lost and will never be saved. I am personally Calvinistic in my belief about salvation and I cant tell you if you are elect or not. But what I can tell you is to repent and believe the Gospel the good news that Jesus died for you and that you can be justified by faith alone.
Having said that, you are struggling with a particular sin, the only thing I can tell you is do not despair and believe that you will never find freedom. The devil wants you to buy into the lie that you are lost for good and that God will never look upon you with grace. The Bible clearly teaches the opposite, there is forgiveness in Jesus Christ and there is true liberty from sin in Jesus. Look to the Cross where Jesus made atonement for the sins of all who would believe trust in his work alone and turn from your sin. Its very important that you not isolate yourself from the church you were attending.
About your rapture concerns. The Bible says we should be eagerly awaiting his coming 2Tim 4:8. This is the heart of every true believer, you want to see the Lord. But you do not feel adequate right now. The only way you will eagerly await his appearing is if your confidence is in the Cross of Christ, and being sanctified by the Spirit.
I will be praying for you, God bless you.
Jeff, I’ve responded to you by email.
Jeff I just pray for you. The LORD is our strength, and I know the feeling you feel. My advice to you is to thLEAN on Christ. Have you ever heard the little story Footprints? Here’s a nice link to it:
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t10/jc022095/footprints.jpg
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
How come it says, “you don’t believe because you are not my sheep,” instead of, “you are not my sheep because you do not believe?”
Debra,
Good question. I recommend you read the following article. It is a long read, but well worth the time:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282
Hi Arminian friends. I am sorry to burden you, but I am afraid one of the peple who used to bea friend to me now believes I am a lost heretic becasue I have told him plainly: “I reject Calvinism.” Now after about a week, I assume he has been quite troubled. He has sent me this list of why Arminainism is irrational and foolish. Could you answer His objections please? Thankyou.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• An arminian who affirms that someone can lose their salvation is delving into very dangerous waters because this means they believe Jesus is not sufficient to save completely, but that we must somehow maintain our own just standing before God.
• If man chooses God at any point, he then has merit to boast of the choice he made.
• If God knows all things, then when he made a man he knew whether or not he would choose him or reject him. Why did he still make him, unless it was unto damnation? The arminian has the same problem as the Calvinist, only the Arminian sacrifices the sovereignty of God at the altar of mans freedom. And so we step back into the garden, which is going to play God?
• If the trinity submits to the choices of man then God is not omnipotent.
• If God does not know the choice then he is not omniscient.
• If God desires all men to be saved in regards to his perfect/secret will and yet not all men come, then God will be unsatisfied for all eternity.
• If the spirit does not solely provide us repentance, faith and perseverance without the help of man, then faith is by works.
• To deny that God will finish his “good work that he started” is to make God out a liar. Such a notion is a complete denial of God’s faithfulness and of God’s character.
• If the Gospel call is universally effectual and a portion of the spirit is given to all men then why do not all men come?
• If the body of man is the temple of God where the spirit dwells and if every man is given a portion of the spirit, then the spirit will end up in hell with these men.
• If God cannot interfere with the “will” to make it free, then why do we pray for God to soften hearts?
• If man can choose to either follow God or reject him, then the arminian is responsible for lost souls on the account of not giving enough convincing evidence.
• If the arminian is ultimately responsible for the choice of another towards salvation, then it is no more a work of God.
• No man can ultimately trust on Christ alone for their salvation and so faith becomes “void”.
• If Christ died for “all” men, then he loses the ones he saved?
• If God desires all men and is omniscient and yet not all men come, God is irrational.
• For saving grace to be grace it must be unwarranted.
• If God cannot force people to do anything and cannot mingle with the freedom of man, if man has a complete “free will”, that is to say that if we hold to libertarian free will; then how can we trust that the bible is the word of God? The prophets could have made the choice to write literally anything because God could not have controlled what they would write.
• Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting. It provides atonement for all, but then withholds the means of grace that would make that salvation effectual in all lives. Are we to believe that Christ died for everyone in the deepest jungle and the darkest city, but his love doesn’t provide the missionaries, preachers, or sermons that would make his death effectual?
• It slanders God’s wisdom. Why would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would he be so foolish as to have his Son pay for the salvation of all if he knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what he paid for? Some say he didn’t realize the consequences; he saw far enough to provide atonement, but couldn’t see that some wouldn’t take it. Does not that assertion slander the wisdom of God? Could God plan and provide atonement, but not realize that his atonement would not be accepted?
• It undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just as parents must work together to run a family effectively, so the triune God co-labors in each of his persons with identical purposes and goals. One person cannot possibly have in mind to save some that another person has not determined to save, but Arminian universalism implicitly teaches just that. It denies the Father’s sovereign election, since Christ would have died for more than God decreed to save, thereby making Christ seem to have a different agenda from that of the Father. That would have been anathema to Jesus, who asserted that his entire redemptive ministry was consciously designed to carry out a divinely arranged plan (John 6:38-39).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see, he doesn’t reall undertsand Arminian theology all that well. Nevertheless, if you would be so gracious, could you send your answers to these objection to brendan_27@hotmail.com ? Thanks.
Hey guys,
I kind of a Christian. Used to be more fervent but now I’m in loads of doubt.
My question is related to the question “Why would God create people whom he perfectly foreknew would reject Him and go to hell?” I understand that this question is answered here
http://evangelicalarminians.org/bossmanham.Is-There-Trauma-in-Sovereignty.A-Response-to-James-Swan-by-Brennon-Hartshorn
though I have trouble understanding why God can’t know what a hypothetical person might do, even if there is no person to know about.
I think my question at the moment is ultimately about freewill and our responsibility. With libertarian free will, we are sent to hell for our free choice to reject God. Why then, do some choose God and others reject Him? If they all have the same ability to choose freely, and are all given the grace of a choice to accept Christ, and yet some accept and others reject, what is the cause? If it is external factors (influence from environment, time period, family, etc.) it seems unfair that the only difference between the one in hell and the one in heaven is that one had better environment. If you say, however, that the cause is something in us, rather than external factors, why are we that way in the first place? Did not God create us the way we are?
I’ll try to put it another way… This is my dilemma. If person A chooses God and person B rejects Him, is it because of their differing environments or because of the way they are? And if it is the way they are, how is God not responsible for creating them that way?
TDC,
Thanks for stopping by. I don’t have time to go back and forth with you, and this is not really the place for that, but I will try to give you some answers that I hope you will find satisfying. You wrote,
…though I have trouble understanding why God can’t know what a hypothetical person might do, even if there is no person to know about
Because there is no person to know anything about, just as you said. That seems plainly absurd to me. How can God know what a person (and remember there is no “person”, nor will there ever be) would freely do in a situation when the “person” will never exist to make the free choice or be in that situation? If God could know such a thing it would only be possible within the framework of determinism where God could know what such a person would choose simply because God would know what He would cause the person to choose. But the Arminian is operating from the perspective of freedom, and not determinism. For that reason, the objection, based on the presupposition of determinism, cannot succeed. It is simply question begging.
Also, if God did foreknow what a person would freely choose and then not create that person based on that knowledge, God would falsify His own foreknowledge by not creating that person. God would essentially make Himself wrong by making something He foreknew happening as not happening, or making a person He foreknew as existing, never to exist. Since God cannot be wrong, He cannot not create someone based on what He knows this “person” (who will actually never exist) would do or choose. Do you see the problem?
I think my question at the moment is ultimately about freewill and our responsibility. With libertarian free will, we are sent to hell for our free choice to reject God. Why then, do some choose God and others reject Him?
For a multitude of reasons. No one is denying that we make choices for reasons or in accordance with motives. Arminians only deny that such things irresistibly cause our decisions. When we choose in accordance with a motive, or for a reason, we do so freely, rather than by necessity. The free agent weighs the motives and chooses accordingly. Motives do not irresistibly dictate choices.
If they all have the same ability to choose freely, and are all given the grace of a choice to accept Christ, and yet some accept and others reject, what is the cause?
The cause is the God given power and capacity to make a free choice (or, as you say, “the ability to choose freely”). The cause is the agent himself and the agent’s will is a full and adequate cause in itself, needing nothing more to make (or cause) a choice, in accordance with whatever reasons or motives it deems important.
If it is external factors (influence from environment, time period, family, etc.) it seems unfair that the only difference between the one in hell and the one in heaven is that one had better environment.
Influences are factors, but they are not irresistible factors. That is all the Arminian is saying.
If you say, however, that the cause is something in us, rather than external factors, why are we that way in the first place?
Yes, it is the God given alternative power of the will that is in us. We are that way because God created us with the power to make free unnecessitated choices. It was His good pleasure and sovereign right to do so.
Did not God create us the way we are?
Absolutely. He created us as free moral agents.
I’ll try to put it another way… This is my dilemma. If person A chooses God and person B rejects Him, is it because of their differing environments or because of the way they are?
Ultimately, neither. Those things factor in to our choices, but they do not irresistibly cause us to choose a certain way. The reason for the choice is ultimately the agent himself who freely decides what he or she will do and why he or she will do it, in accordance with the God given power of free will. You would probably do well to read this series by J.C.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics/
God Bless,
Ben
Two comments, or questions. First, I was thinking about the analogy that I have heard Calvinists use about free choice. I have heard a comparison being made like, “What if you wanted to be 8 ft. tall?” You are 5 ft. tall, no choice there. Then that is likened to the choice to choose God. What occurred to me is that I have never seen anything in Scripture that shows God holding me accountable for being 8 ft. tall. In fact, every analogy used for this, can be shown to show that God does not hold us accountable for things that are not in our control at all. Also, I was thinking of the passage of Scripture where Jesus says that all men have been given a measure of faith. Is this not the grace that allows us to be able to choose to respond to God’s love?
Pam,
Thanks for stopping by. I don’t have a lot of time, but wanted to quickly address your question. I think this post will answer your question about God holding us accountable for our choices and the nature of choices in general:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Henshaw-Determinism-Free-Will-The-Reality-of-Choice-and-the-Testimony-of-Scripture
As for the measure of faith, I believe that is Paul who said that and not Jesus (I do not have a reference handy). That passage is more in the context of believers and does not seem to be addressing God giving all men the ability to believe the gospel. However, there are plenty of passages that do speak to God giving all people such an ability when confronted with the gospel as well as a general grace that leads all people to the point where they can make that choice.
May God bless you as you continue to seek Him.
Ben
[...] would post the short correspondence on the main page. You can read the original question in full here (which might provide some helpful context concerning the first question). The inquirer’s [...]
Thanks Ben! That was really helpful. I was thinking as well, that being able to imagine something, is in itself a choice of sorts. In the case of accepting God’s grace, one needs to be able to perceive His offer. That person doesn’t need to be good, but he only needs to be able to understand God’s offer. He needs to understand what God says about him, and his sin. Since the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, wouldn’t this mean that a convicted person would understand? Back to the choice to be 8 ft tall. If I can imagine or perceive being 8 ft tall, I don’t have to have the ability to grow myself there, if this is an offer God has made. If He said you can be 8 ft tall if you trust me to grow you that tall, then it comes back to faith. I hope that made sense.
Hello Ben,
My name is Drew. I’ve been an Arminian for a while but as of late I’ve had a deep fear in the pit of my stomach from time to time that Calvinism might be true. My fear is that God only gives some the GIFT of belief and withholds it from others. I’ve been pondering this due to fact that so many people can look at the same evidence (in a variety of different fields) and come to RADICALLY different conclusions. This becomes even harder to deal with when the opposing party has very reasonable answers to counter ones arguments. This troubles me deeply when I actually think about it. Why? In the words of Rachel Evans commenting on her post “Why Calvinism Makes Me Cry”,
“It’s a post about how our loudest protests and most passionate tirades tend to reflect our insecurities rather than our convictions.”
If I’m honest, I would hate to think that God creates disposable people. How could God be like that? That seems utterly cruel and vindictive to me.
But sometimes I wonder if that is true even if I would hate that and eventually find God unworthy of worship. Calvinism doesn’t “feel” right to me in my heart, but I can’t stop wondering about why people have such radically different views. I understand that there are other factors that play an important role in how we come to believe things.
This particularly hits home for me when I stop and think about the stories I’ve read about people de-converting and walking away from the faith. My cousin might be one of them. He is leaning toward an open agnosticism right now and has told me on numerous occasions that he would love to come back to faith in God if he was so persuaded. He is open. This is heart renching for me. My fear is that “persuasion” is solely God’s doing. My cousin is brilliant and looks at the same evidence I do, yet he comes to some radically different views to the point that if he comes back to God, his faith will look little to nothing like he grew up believing.
All this to ask: How do you understand the radical diversity of beliefs from some well intentioned/thoughtful/generally good people who want to believe but can’t bring themselves to commit to belief? Why do some long to believe but seem always just out of reach?
Thanks.
Drew,
I have very little time, so I can’t give your question the attention it deserves right now. Still, I wanted to briefly address your questions.
I think that the fact that people come to different opinions regarding Scripture and interpretation lends strong support to Arminianism. If it is true that God has given us a measure of free will and has made it possible for us to resist His drawing and leading in a variety of areas, then it makes a lot of sense why people disagree. While the Spirit is leading all Christians into His truth, it is possible for the believer to resist that leading. Why do people resist that leading? For a variety of reasons. Why do some people desire to believe but ultimately resist? For a variety of reasons. Many want to believe, but want to believe on their own terms and not on God’s terms, so they are conflicted and may never come to faith unless they decide to believe on God’s terms. This doesn’t mean that God is not working in such people to bring them to repentance and total surrender to God. What it means is that God’s work is resistible, just as Arminianism (and the I am convinced, the Bible) teaches.
But imagine if Calvinism was true. How then would we explain such things? God would have decreed everything that everyone will ever think or decide. This is very hard to make sense of in the context of believer’s coming to different interpretations on Scripture. It would be a case of God causing all that confusion by way or an irresistible eternal decree. Why does the Calvinist disagree with the Arminian? Because God decreed it. Why does the unbeliever who “desires” to believe ultimately continue in unbelief? Because God decreed it and ultimately desires to leave that person without hope (since His decree trumps any “desire” God may have for their salvation). Why are you so confused about these things? Because God decreed it, even though the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion.
Much more could be said, but hopefully this will help you see why it seems that Arminian theology makes far better sense of what we read in Scripture and experience in our daily life than Calvinism does.
For those who are resisting but seem to have some desire for faith, I recommend that you pray hard for them. God is personal and desires for us to be a part of the process of bringing people to Him. Your prayers could eventually make the difference. This doesn’t mean that God will irresistibly bring someone to faith because you pray, but it does mean that He will continue to work in that person powerfully to bring that person to faith. It was God’s sovereign desire for people to put faith in Him freely just as it was my desire for my wife to willing accept me as her husband. This doesn’t mean I wasn’t actively persuading her with my love and pursuit. I truly desired to have a permanent intimate relationship with her. But more than that, I desired for that relationship to be based on her willingly desiring the same. I think it is the same with God, and for that reason He does not work irresistibly to bring us to faith, nor does He cause us to love Him.
Also, I do fear that many walk away from the faith because they have become convinced of Calvinism. Eventually, the logical implications may drive some people away from God. Also, the obvious contradictions inherent in Calvinist theology may lead people to abandon Christianity (since they have come to equivocate Calvinism with true Christianity), because they come to find and admit that Calvinism is incoherent, giving them good reason to walk away. Thankfully, many Calvinists find ways to ignore these problems and remain faithful.
God Bless,
Ben
For Brother Drew,
Greetings, brother. You comment and Ben’s response came through on my email feed of things going on in the Arminian internet world, and I’d like to give you some help. You know, I was pondering just yesterday a typical Calvinist challenge to the Arminian idea of libertarian free will which goes a bit like this:
Say persons “A,” “B” and “C” go along to a Church service, and they all hear an evangelical sermon from a pastor on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After that sermon we find that:
1) Person “A” commits his life to Jesus Christ there and then.
2) Person “B” does not commit his life there and then, but then does a few years down the track.
3) Person “C” does not commit his life to Christ at all, and continues the same way until his death.
The challenge is thus: “Now why did three people who heard the exact same message from the exact same person come to very differeny conclusions and/or have completely different reactions?”
But I would like to show you the circular fallacy in the assumptions behind this challenge:
1) Are we really to say that these three people are EXACTLY the same with the exact same life experiences and ways of thinking? It’s too presumptious and theoretical to be a serious representation of actual human life and experience. But even if we assume so for the sake of argumentation;
2) The argument is circular, because what the Calvinist puts forth with one hand, they draw away with the other. The start off by assuming “these three are the same to begin,” but end up by saying, “so they qere not were not the same in the first place!” But if this is so, then it is inexplicable why they came to different conclusions!
The Calvinst must say that person “A” was effectually and irresistibly caled and drawn by the Holy Spirit, person “B” was non-effectually called then but was later (for whatever reason) and person “C” was in fact reprobate–his going to that Church could not have done anything one way or the other; he will now face torment for God’s pleasure.
The Arminian however would simply say that person “A” responded by free-willingly placing his faith* in Christ, person “B” struggled with the world and the Spirit and after a while overcame the flesh by placing his faith in Jesus, but person “C” who was also called and drawn by God ultimately and free-willingly resisted the Holy Spirit and now faces severe and just judgement.
* Now the problem the Calvinist will have with the Arminian idea here is that the human action of “placing of faith” in Jesus. Theyassert that this is synonomous with a meritrorious work. Doubtless you have been challenged with the scripture of Ephesians 2:8-9, which says,
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Now, the common assertion here from a superficial reading will say that it is “FAITH” to which the “gift of God” refers to, which would lead to you fear that “God only gives some the GIFT of belief and withholds it from others.”
However, as the Arminian writier, Robert E. Picirilli notes excellently in his book “Grace, Faith, Free Will,” gramatically this CANNOT work. I am not excellent in Greek, but Picirilli is, and he notes very well that the word “pistis” which means “faith” (used in Eph 2:8) is a FEMININE article, yet the conjunction in the passage (“and this”) is a NEUTER particle. Therefore, THE NEUTER CONJUNCTION “AND THIS’ CANNOT REFER BACK TO THE FEMININE OBJECT “FAITH”– IT MUST ACTUALLY GRAMATICALLY REFERS BACK TO BEING “SAVED.”
Let me use an illustration of the importanceof this. I’ve studied German for about six years now, and the role word-gender grammar plays in sentence structure is very important as it gives you alot of information about wo is talking about what .
If I am using a sentence conjunction (a linking word) such as “which,” “when,” “and,” “but” (etc), THE GENDER OF THAT CONJUNCTION I AM USING MUST CORRECTLY CORRESPOND TO TE GENDER OF THE THE OBJECT I AM REFERRING TO IN THE PREVIOUS CLAUSE.
For exmaple, in German, the word used for “the Bible” is “die Bibel.” Now, “die” is the feminine word for “the” and so we call “the Bible” a “feminine noun.”
Now, if I want to say a phrase such as, “The Bible that I am reading looks good,” then the word “that,” which refers back to “The Bible,” must also be feminine.
We have a selection of three genders in German, the word “the” which can be either “der”, “die” or “das”:
“der” for masculine.
“die” for feminine.
“das” for neuter.
OK so if “die Bibel” is a “feminine noun,” which one of the three above conjunctions should I use? Well the feminine one of course!
“Die Bibel, {die}* ich lese, sieht gut aus.” =
“The Bible that I am reading looks good.”
It would be incorrect in German if the *{conjunction} I used was “der” or “das,” becasue they would be the wrong gender.
The same goes for ancient Greek, however, this is exactly the error Calvinists make with Ephesians 2:8-9. They assume that the “and this” refers back to the “faith”! This cannot be.
We find that the neuter “and this” according to Greek grammar refers back to the noun “saved”–not to “faith.”
So Eph 2:8-9 is actually saying that:
1) Salvation is not of yourselves — sola deo gloria
2) Salvation is the gift of God — solus christus
3) Salvation is not of works — sola gratia, sola fide
Makes perfect sense, right? We are saved THROUGH faith and this placing of faith is the free-will decision of the creature (John 6:29). But let’s consider for the sake of argument, what has now been shown to be the linguistically impossible, the Calvinist assertion that the “and this” refers back to “faith” in Eph 2:8-9. We actually end up with a bigger problem anyway, for it would say:
1) Faith is not of yourselves — logically possible in the reading.
2) Faith is the gift of God — what is most commonly cited as argumentation, possible.
3) Faith is not of works — this phrase would become tautology; a meaningless repetition. Of course “faith” would not be “of works” … that’s why it is called “faith”!!
After making this point, the Calvinist assertion may be that, “If the human being can free-willingly place faith in Christ, then this is a meritorious work.” But hold on, this is not biblically grounded. It is going “beyond what is written”(1 Corinthians 4:6). Faith is always CONTRASTED with works in the Bible. See for example the entire book of Galatians!
Why did persons “A” and “B” above place their faith in Christ and person “C” not do so? The simple answer is that they free-willingly chose to (or not to). “This is arbitrary” the Calvinist might then say. We reply, “No. God created ex nihilio (from nothing)–is this arbitrary?” Certainly not. God has free-will, and He makes choices (even sovereign choices according to Calvinists) which are ex nihilio–forced or compelled from nothing other than His will alone.
Were not human beings in the beginning created in the “amargodae” — the image of God? Were not human beings given the gift of self-determination in the Garden, just as God had within His own being? Did not human beings choose to disobey? Is not every human heart desperately wicked and yet the Spirit of God convicts the heart of each one today calling all men everywhere into repentance and loving, lasting relationship with Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30b)?
If so, then it is inexplicable as to why the human being should not be able to make a free will decision for (or rejection of) Christ ex nihilio!
This is where I believe the supernatural, mysterious, spiritual aspect of the created order comes into play. To deny this possibility, the Calvinst must assert that the human will and the image of God itself is completely marred as if to not exist before sovereign, irresistible regeneration.
Yet the biblical Arminian affirms in all confidence the totally depraved sinner’s illumination to the Gospel by the conviction of the Holy Spirit of Christ in the soul of the sinner, making them able to believe and repsond to the free grace that is offered. That is what prevenient grace is all about. It is te primary work of God in the heart to draw us lovingly to Himself.
But ten the accusaton might be: “You restrict God’s sovereignty.” No! God is still absolutely sovereign in this sense: He has decided that it is through faith in Jesus Christ alone that we shall be reunited to Him in relationship and cleansed from sin by His blood only to be forgiven.
God has also sovereignly decided to reveal this absolute truth through His inspired word, the Bible, alone, not in the religious tradtions of men.
The ultimate expression of the Sovereignty of God is not found in doctrines of the TULIP, but in the very conditons of salvation itself, and in the delcaration of judgement upon those wicked men and women who refuse to meet thee conditions God has placed down.
Why does one accept and the other reject? He makes a mystical ex nihilio decision for his Creator at the loving call of Almighty God. Is it an issue of sovereignty or of divine ability on God’s part? No. It is a matter of love and of relationship between a loving Heavenly Father and His prodigal sons and daughters.
Therefore, brother Drew, we can have confidence that at long as our friends and family draw breath, they CAN be saved. The offer is REAL. God really DOES love them, and He HAS expressed it on the cross. You can tell them that.
In case of your cousin, I know how you feel and so does the Apostle Paul (see Romans 10). Your godly concern shows the heart of Jesus (Matthew 23:37).
As some general advice to you in this regard, why don’t you introduce your cousin to some good, evangelical Christianspeakers and philosophers? I recommend Ravi Zacharias, a world-known Christian philosopher who has spoken in over fifty countries worldwide. He has some excellent books such as “Beyond Opinion” and “Jesus Among Other Gods.” You can also look him up on youtube as well, and also hear his radio broadcast “Let My People Think” at http://www.rzim.org (go to the “Resources” tab).
I also recommend Dr William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher of science, arguably one of the best speakers today. He has books such as “Reasonable Faith” and also for yourself the book “On Guard,” which is an apologetical training manual! Please look up his website http://www.reasonablefaith.org for some of his work. He has some fabulous debates with people like Christopher Hitchens and Dr Peter Sleazack.
Introduce your cousin to Christian thinkers and literature to show him/her that Christianity isn’t a faith for air-heads but is a logical, thinking and reasonable faith which can be evaluated and found firm under the evidence.
Lee Strobel found out this very thing after two years of vigorous research into biblical credibility as an Atheistic journalist for the Chicago Tribune. He is now one of the most renowned evangelican Christian apologetical speakers today. An excellent book by him is “The Case For Christ.” Look up some of his works too.
Also, don’t ignore the existential aspect of your cousin. You may not know fully whether or not one’s waning faith is due to an intellectual problem or an emotional one. You must not be dismissive of existential problems, as some people are. A typical existential problem would be “If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then why is there so much evil in the world?” This not a logical “brain-question” in the usual sense; it is a question from the heart. Learning apologetics from people such as those mentioned above will help you to address such issues.
Most of all though, pray. You can have all this logical, apologetical knowledge, but what does that mean if you’re not trusting in God? Perhaps invite your cousin to read one of the Gospels for him-/herself. I recommend John. You could perhaps say, “Hey have you ever read the story of Jesus for yourself in your own time?” See what he/she says.
Another cool trick you might like to try is this: Leave every now and then little Bible verses in, say, his/her schoolbag or room or wherever–somewhere you know they will find them–e.g., you might leave a little John 3:16 note with the scripture on it that he or she can read.
Be patient and kind, for God will be calling them through your small works of kindness and endurance. I’ve seen it work in my own life, and a person with whom you are patient and who you allow good time to think and figure it out for themselves make decisions to become disciples, not just decisions.
It will take time, but wait on the LORD. Be like the Prophet Jeremiah, to whom God said, “I am with you and will rescue you,” (Jeremiah 1:19).
God bless you and you discover God’s truth and His ways all the more.
Brendan.
Hey Brendan,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to write out such a thoughtful response. Concerning the sources you mentioned above, my cousin used to have and read many of their works. At one time, ( for him it was about 7 or 8 years ago, he’s 30) found their arguments convincing. He does no longer ( at least when it comes to traditional understandings of theodicy, Scripture etc..) I too am familiar with Ravi, Craig, and Strobel and used to appeal to a lot of their work. I still do find some of their material stimulating and helpful, but not as much as I used to when I first started studying apologetics. That was about 8 years ago (I’m 28).
I guess the heart-renching aspect is that my cousin was once a strong believer, but has struggled with many intellectual problems with Christian theism. I can sympathize with him to a certain extent. I look back on some of the books and people I listened to and sometimes now ask myself “how did i ever find some of their arguments and reasons convincing” in the light of recent arguments that I sometimes find more convincing. Sometimes its the KINDS of questions that are asked of traditional belief that makes me have to rethink some things.
My cousin was a biblical studies major (trained in both Hebrew and Greek) and now has a Masters in Biblical Studies from Emory University. He is an open agnostic now. I too took Hebrew and Greek and am working on my Masters at an Evangelical Seminary, yet I still believe. We all have to be honest with ourselves to the best of our ability. I just wonder why my cousin feels self-honestly leads him his position. He genuinely believes he is being honest with himself, no matter what the consequences. Are we only interested in the pursuit of truth if it leads to or reinforces what we already believe? That is an important question and one I know my cousin has taken very seriously. I guess what I’m saying is that I am troubled by the fact that my cousin knows as much and even more about Scripture, hermeneutics, etc… and once believed strongly and now does not. It’s hard for me to see a discernable difference in how he lives as opposed to most Christians I know, so I tend to chalk up his struggles as mostly intellectual. Granted, I do not know his heart, but outside appearances do not seem to be much different. Anyway…thanks for caring and responding.
If God has from eternity know who would go to hell and ho would be saved, yet he still created the men who he knew would go to hell, did not God seal their fate by His own foreknowledge of their damnation? God made them knowing they would perish in eternal hell fires.
Ben,
@did not God seal their fate by His own foreknowledge of their damnation?
God’s foreknowledge itself isn’t causative. His creating a person is causative of the person’s capability to reject Him, but the fact of that rejection is rooted in the person’s own will, not God.
Hi there, I just have a couple of questions regarding the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.
I think that I may have refuted this doctrine by using the ‘denying the consequent’ [if p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.] form of argument. My reasoning was as follows:
________________________________________
CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES OF ELECTION & REPROBATION REFUTED
Calvinistic Doctrine of Reprobation Defined:
The Calvinistic Doctrine of Reprobation is the flipside to the Calvinistic Doctrine of Election. The Doctrine of Election concerns those who are predestined to salvation; the Doctrine of Reprobation concerns those who are predestined to Hell.
Boettner explains,
“The doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms “elect” and “election” imply the terms “non-elect” and “reprobation.” When some are chosen out others are left not chosen. The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared with the latter…Those who hold the doctrine of Election but deny that of Reprobation can lay but little claim to consistency. To affirm the former while denying the latter makes the decree of predestination an illogical and lop-sided decree. The creed which states the former but denies the latter will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with but one wing. ” [Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.104-5.]
Calvin says,
“There could be no election without its opposite reprobation.” [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.23.1]
The Westminster Confession says,
“The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised [sic] of His glorious justice.” [WCF, Ch.3 Sec.7]
Calvin goes on,
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death.” [Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.5]
So the Calvinistic Doctrine of Reprobation can be defined as:
The doctrine that teaches that God, for His own good pleasure, predestined some individuals to eternal damnation in the fires of Hell.
In determining the truth of this doctrine, it first needs to be established whether God can or cannot lie:
1) God Cannot Lie:
Premise #1: By nature, God is a God of truth (Deut. 32:4).
Premise #2: By nature, God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13).
Premise #3: Lying is contrary to truth.
Conclusion: God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).
Now that it has been established that God cannot lie, it can be established that God cannot predestine anyone to Hell for His own good pleasure:
2) Calvinistic Doctrine of Reprobation Refuted:
Premise #1: By nature, God has no pleasure in the death of people, even the wicked (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11). (Remember: God cannot lie – therefore, when He says that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, He means it!)
Premise #2: For God to unconditionally predestine some people to Hell for His own good pleasure requires God to take pleasure in the death of people.
Premise #3: For God to take pleasure in the death of anyone, He would have to act contrary to His own nature.
Premise #4: God cannot act contrary to His own nature (Num. 23:19; 2 Tim. 2:13).
Conclusion: God cannot unconditionally predestine anyone to Hell for His own good pleasure.
3) Calvinistic Doctrine of Election Refuted:
Now that it has been proven that God cannot unconditionally predestine anyone to Hell for His own good pleasure, it can also be proved that God cannot unconditionally predestine anyone to Heaven by using the argument called ‘denying the consequent’.
Denying the consequent is this: “If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.”
Translating this into Calvinistic terms, then:
Premise #1: If the Calvinistic doctrine of election is true, then the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation is true.
Premise #2: The Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation is not true.
Conclusion: The Calvinistic doctrine of election is not true.
________________________________________
My first question is: am I misrepresenting Calvinism in any way, shape, or form? [The last thing I want to be doing is wrestling with straw men.]
And my second question is: is my reasoning sound? Or in other words, have I made any errors in reasoning? [The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard anyone use a similar sort of argument against Unconditional Election, which makes me worry whether I've actually come up with a valid argument or not.]
Any help you could give would be much appreciated.
BTW, thanks for the great site!
Blessings,
Matthew
P.S. Where did the name ‘Kangaroodort’ come from?
Matthew,
I do not have time to review this argument right now, though I promise to get to it eventually. Maybe JC would like to comment on it as well.
The name comes from my basic feeling that the Synod of Dort (where Arminianism was condemned as heretical by a bunch of Calvinists) was much like a kangaroo court (hence- kangaroodort), and really irrelevant to the question of which view should be considered orthodox (since many Calvinists point to the synod of Dort as some sort of evidence that Arminianism is unorthodox).
God Bless,
Ben
No worries
I look forward to hearing what you or JCT have to say.
Thanks for the reply.
Matthew
Hello Ben,
I am in the process of putting together a Biblical/Arminian catechism for my children and our local church. Are you aware of anything like this which has succinct statements/definitions regarding the true doctrines of grace? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. May God continue to bless your labors.
Because of Jesus,
Charlie
Charlie,
I don’t know of anything comprehensive. If you want to get to the origin you could go with the Opinions of the Remonstrants, or something like that. There are Arminian books listed at my site as well as many more resources at the SEA site that might help. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Charlie,
Yes, here is a classic Arminian catechism:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/William-Burt-Pope.A-Higher-Catechism-of-Theology
There is also this catechism that is a thorough revision of the Free Methodist Church’s
catechism of 1890: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Catechism-Russell-J-Veldman/dp/089367284X/ref%3Dsr_1_2%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1239623218%26sr%3D1-2&usg=AFQjCNHoMEr1pj_HbwYXAAGPMZZoCdXGEA. It is Wesleyan-Arminian.
Greetings! Thank you for this outlet in which we may ask questions.
I have been studying the Arminian / Calvinist / Open Theism debate for years now and clearly lean toward the Arminian perspective. I currently am studying the idea behind freewill, specifically pertaining to children and/or those who, because of mental impairments, would not be considered accountable.
While, I understand that we all have a sin nature, I don’t believe that we are held accountable for Adam’s sin but our own; therefore, I certainly don’t think such individuals are in Hell. I understand the Calvinist argument to be that those who are “elect” are in Heaven, while those not elect are in Hell. I’ve seen two main arguments on the other side of the spectrum: (a.) God knows how the individual would have decided and thus judges accordingly -or- (b.) all individuals unable to make a choice are in Heaven .
With (a.), such is a bit of a play in a realm beyond my comprehension. I understand that God not only knows what our ultimate choices would be, but also all of the possible choices. I also have no problem understanding that just because God foreknows the future, He doesn’t necessarily CAUSE the future. Is this where this theory comes into play–that God knows how an individual would have decided? Such to me is a bit “out there” as such a future does not exist and since God is omniscient, He clearly knows it didn’t exist. This idea also brings into question other theological ideas…Since God knows how one would have decided about any little thing, why not just wrap up “life” right now and get on with eternity? Why allow sin to enter our nature through Adam in the first place? For instance, why does God unleash Satan at the end of the Millennium? Most of what I’ve read says it is to allow those who are living in a practical paradise under God’s rule to be tempted by Satan and fall away (or those eternally secure folk would say that they never really believed, but just went along with a “good thing” under God’s rule). If God knows these individuals’ true hearts, why go through the trouble of releasing Satan?
With (b.), it seems that God is denying the freewill choice to individuals. Indeed, such a theory would make it almost “kind” (God forbid) to kill children before they reach an “age of accountability.” As Scripture states at times, it’d be better if one had died in the womb than to face the possibility of Hell. (I think that perhaps this was part of Andrea Yates feelings as she drowned her own children.) I have to admit to help myself deal with the horrors of abortion, I think, “Well, at least the baby is in Heaven,” whereas if the child had had the chance to grow-up, he or she may have not decided for Christ.
A couple of other minor possibilities that I’ve heard: Those not given a choice will actually be given a chance to decide during the Millennium or at the Judgment Seat or someplace else. -or- In a similar way to how John leapt in Elizabeth’s womb, God provides a sub-conscience way to individuals who we don’t think can make a choice. Neither of these points are as plausible as the others listed above in my mind.
My question:
Possibility (b.) seems most biblical to me. If accurate in your understanding, since God does not want “robots” in Heaven and provides us with freewill, why would He deny this choice to stillborn children, young children who die before they understand such a choice, or to those mentally impaired individuals who cannot make such a choice?
Thank you for your time.
Lori,
I have very little time at the computer these days. I will give you a short take and if there is something more you need, let me know and I will try to get to it when I get the chance.
The nature of your questions is mostly speculative. The Bible just does not address much of what you want to know. I do think the Bible plainly teaches that we are free moral beings that God holds accountable for our choices. I also believe that the Bible makes it clear that God only holds those accountable for their actions that can properly be called to account, in accordance with His wisdom and justice, etc. So I agree with you that God does not hold small children or certain mentally challenged individuals accountable. Still, life is precious and man never has the right to end another life. Therefore, regardless of what we may think, God knows what He is doing and it is only up to Him to decide what is best for one of His creatures (with regards to whether they should continue living or not).
I think we need to leave such things to God’s wisdom and discretion. We are not in a place to make those decisions for God.
I also agree with you that God does not hold us morally accountable for Adam’s sin, though I do think that the corruption that results from that sin (and other factors) will eventually cause us to sin. This is why we need Christ and this is why God ultimately judges His creatures based on their response to His grace, which unless continually resisted, will lead the person to the remedy (Christ). This is why we are ultimately judged for rejecting Christ. We will also be judged for all of our sins that could have been forgiven, had we not resisted God’s grace to our own self-destruction.
I hope that helps. I don’t think it necessary to delve into middle knowledge and such things (what someone might have done or chosen had they continued to exist, etc.), though such things can be very interesting. Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Howdy, I’m open to correction, but I believe that there is good Biblical precedent to support the idea that God will not hold infants or mentally impaired people accountable. I believe the Bible does mention [albeit vaguely] an ‘age of accountability’, or as I prefer to call it, a period of innocence.
If the child dies while in the state of innocence, then solely by the grace of God, that child is saved. Deuteronomy 1:39 talks of God not punishing ‘little ones’ who have no knowledge of good and evil. Jonah 4:11 displays God’s kindness as He pities those ‘who cannot discern between their right hand and their left’. In Isaiah chapter 7 verse 16, there is an indication that there is a period of innocence in a child’s life. These verses seem to indicate that when a person does not have the mental or moral capacity to actually make a choice, God will be gracious and save that person.
It must be remembered that these children will not be saved because they have some right to salvation – no one has such a right. The child/mentally impaired person is saved solely because the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting. God is a gracious God, and He will save those who die before they have the mental and moral capacity to make a choice.
The condition for salvation is repentance/faith (Luke 13:3, 5; John 3:16; Rom. 10:9, etc.); an infant cannot meet that condition; therefore, when an infant dies, God will save him – not because He is under obligation, but because of who He is.
Where little is given, little will be required.
God bless,
Matthew
Here is my question. This has to do more with free will and whether God controls everything. I want to say for the record, I don’t believe he does. I think there are things on earth that God doesn’t like and doesn’t want them to happen. My arguement is with a hyper-calvinist. This was his question to me…
What about King Saul? I Samuel 16:14 “Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord began to torment him, so Saul’s servants said to him, “You see that an evil spirit from God is tormenting you.” God does not cause evil but he does allow it to occur. To say that God is not in charge of certain areas means they are outside of his control.
There’s a difference between God being in control of everything and God exercising meticulous control over everything.
If God in His sovereignty decides to do nothing, that decision is itself an exercise of His sovereign control.
“To say that God is not in charge of certain areas means they are outside of his control.”
This is a false dilemma. As far as I know, no Arminian claims that God is not in charge of certain areas. The issue between Arminians and Calvinists is not whether God is sovereign in everything or not, but rather, the issue revolves around the question of how God exercises His sovereignty. To the Calvinist, God exercises meticulous control; He causes all things. To the Arminian, God can, and occasionally does, exercise meticulous control, but the way He normally deals with men is by allowing them to make their own decisions, which are free from necessity.
Do some Christians believe God first regenerates you and then you are still able to reject or accept Christ?
Or does regeneration mean you will automatically accept Christ? I am confused.
Paulette,
While Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith, I don’t know of any that would say that one so regenerated could then reject the gospel. They believe that regeneration causes faith in Christ. Not only is this unbiblical in my opinion but leads one to wonder why regeneration should guarantee a faith response. Why doesn’t regeneration also guarantee a life time of sinless living? Why doesn’t the regenerated nature always cause us to choose to do right just as it caused us to believe? That is a question that I have never seen a Calvinist grapple with. Maybe I should pose the question in a post and see what responses we get.
Some Calvinists are speculative in saying that one may be regenerated for quite some time before coming to faith. Some have said that there may be people who are born regenerated. Recently, I read a Calvinist (on the internet) speculate that some might die in a regenerated state without having come to saving faith. This seemed to be an attempt to give hope to people who had lost unbelieving loved ones in that they may be saved without them knowing it (not sure if this view means that such people will come to faith after death, or are just saved apart from faith simply because they were regenerated). I think this causes numerous theological absurdities, is contrary to “sola fide” and means that some die in unbelief and still escape condemnation, contrary to numerous plain Scriptures to the contrary.
Hope that helps, but you are probably more confused than ever
God Bless,
Ben
Ben – I am wondering if you can provide, or point me to, an Arminian exegesis of 2 Tim. 2.25-6? This scripture is often used by Calvinists as a counter to 1 Tim. 2.3, as well as to advance the idea that God has two wills, one of universal love to mankind, another more narrow in which He controls who will and won’t repent unto salvation (the latter underscored by 2 Tim. 2.25-26). I am looking for a good Arminian analysis here. Thank you. Tom
Tom,
Sorry it took me so long to get to your question.
I don’t see anything in these verses that should lead one to the conclusion that the repentance spoken of here is irresistibly “given” or “granted”, nor that this is meant to convey the idea that God arbitrarily decides to cause some to repent while denying repentance to others (which would, as you point out, contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 2:4 that God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth).
Rather, the natural reading seems to simply be that through Timothy’s careful and gentle correction, those who oppose Timothy and sound teaching may find the ability and opportunity to “come to their senses” (literally, wake up as from a slumber or drunkenness) and repent as God empowers them through Timothy’s efforts. The idea is that through Timothy’s obedience in trying to reach these deluded individuals with the truth, they might come to repentance as God grants them the power and ability through Timothy’s words and the working of the Spirit that would accompany these words (as is always the case when men turn from error and turn towards God in faith). God’s use of Timothy and his gentle corrective teaching may lead them back to God in turning them from their false beliefs towards embracing again the saving “knowledge of the truth.”
The technique Paul advocates seems to be tailored towards reaching these specific individuals. They are described as oppositional and “quarrelsome”, people who enjoy contesting the claims of others. Such people would likely respond to a strong rebuke with great resistance, but it may be that if they are approached in a gentle, careful and loving manner, that they will let down their guard long enough to actually consider a different view and possibly receive the saving instruction that they need (much like the old adage of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar- a lesson we would all do well to remember). Timothy’s gentle approach may also serve to shame them with regards to the very behavior that is causing them problems and creating a barrier for them to receive vital instruction and truth.
Paul’s instruction to Timothy concerning the way he approaches them also underscores Paul’s desire for them to be saved, rather than just put in their place. This concern parallels God’s concern for all to be saved as Paul made clear in 1 Timothy 2:4. Any uncertainty with regards to God granting them repentance primarily lies in their potential response to Timothy’s corrective efforts, whether they will receive his correction (and as a result be led by God to repent) or resist his correction (thereby effectively shutting themselves off from this God given opportunity to rethink their situation and repent).
It would really be no different than saying something like, “If you go and speak to that person, lovingly correcting her false perceptions of God and His word, God may use that to lead her to repentance.” However, we would never assume from this that God would lead her to repentance through that correction in an irresistible manner, nor would we assume that this means that God only desires to lead some to repentance, or causes some to repent irresistibly, while purposely denying this ability or opportunity to others. Rather, God’s desire is for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). So there is no inconsistency between 2 Timothy 2:25, 26 and the plain declaration of God’s desire for all to be saved through the Mediator who gave Himself as a ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:1-6, cf. 4:10). The teachings of these passages are perfectly harmonious.
Hope that helps,
Ben
I’m not sure if this is the proper place to ask the following question, but I’m sure someone can point me in the right direction.
Do Arminians generally accept the idea that while God is over all, He has ordained specific jurisdictions for government (a civil government sphere, a family government sphere, and a church government sphere)? This makes sense to me and I see it played out in Scripture and even in how America’s founders set-up our government. I read a lot of information about this in Calvinist circles, but wondered if this idea is accepted as a whole in larger segments of Christianity as well. Side note: Within a smaller segment of Calvinism, I’ve understood that some (theonomists / reconstructionists) labor to bring back the penalties of the Old Testament, not separating civil law from moral law (while doing away with the ceremonial law) while the larger segment of Christianity seems to separate the O.T. civil law from moral law. Personally, I find it difficult to separate any laws as stated in the O.T into neat categories as they are interspersed and aren’t separated from one another in Scripture itself. I prefer to look at the principle behind the law and reason from there, applying it to modern-day life.
Lori,
I do believe that God delegates authority if that is what you are asking. I think that is rather standard thinking in all circles of Christianity and has tremendous Biblical support. This began with God giving Adam, and by extension, all of mankind, dominion over the earth in Genesis.
I do not agree with theonomy. I think it is very problematic. I do think the ceremonial law has reached its fulfillment in Christ. The moral law remains the same, but now finds its fulfillment in the context of a love relationship with the Messiah, through whom we are empowered by His Spirit to obey the law and please God. I do not think that civil penalties attached to moral laws for the nation of Israel carry over to the new covenant. They were for the nation of Israel alone for specific reasons that applied only to Israel under that covenant. I don’t have the time to get into a lot of detail right now, and it is not really an area of study that greatly interests me or that I have spent a lot of time on. However, I hope that answers your question in general. I think your last sentence sums things up well.
God Bless,
Ben
Thank you for responding, Ben. I agree that theonomy is problematic.
My main question is if other segments of Christianity outside of Calvinism group government into three different categories (the civil sphere, the familial sphere, and the ecclesiastical / church sphere). For instance, they point to Ephesians 6:4, Psalm 78:1-8, and Deut. 6:4-7 to show that the home sphere has the responsibility to nurture and educate children and provide for other family members. Based upon Matthew 28:18, the church sphere is to fulfill the great commission; educate parents and assist them in training their children; provide church doctrine, sacraments, and administer church discipline; provide for corporate worship; and administer help / welfare to the community through service. The civil sphere is to protect the innocent by punishing evil (Romans 13 and Genesis 9:6). All 3 of these spheres are under God, yet God has separated them from one another for specific purposes. (Think of 1 Sam. 13 when King Saul, a civil leader, performed the duty of a priest.)
I understand that we are called to work to make a positive difference in an imperfect world, but based upon these Scriptures, they say that the civil government should not be providing welfare as that is the church’s job (or the family’s job to provide for their own family). They also say that it is not the government’s job to provide for public education as that is the responsibility of the family and/or of the private church school if delegated by the family.
All this makes sense to me as I’ve come to see that education cannot be neutral as it is philosophical / religious in nature. When God is removed from any subject (history, math, science, etc.) it is inevitably replaced with another religion (socialism, humanism, etc.). As I am not a Calvinist, I just want to make sure that I’m not buying into a theological argument which is promoted by a system with which I do not agree.
Lori,
You don’t have to be a Calvinist to accept any of the theological ideas you have enumerated. Many fine theological concepts have come from the Calvinist camp that are useful to other groups of Christians. For example, I prefer to use a “transcendental” apologetic method even though it has mainly been popularized by Calvinists like Van Til and Bahnsen.
Likewise, I think many Arminians would agree with you that church, state, and family are divinely-ordained spheres of government and that certain of their functions should not overlap – e.g., the state shouldn’t be the one excommunicating unrepentant sinners. But I’m not sure that we should limit the spheres of government to just three. For example, employees are to some degree governed by their employers, and slaves by their masters (leaving aside the thorny question of the precise biblical position on slavery).
Furthermore, though Calvinists are the most vocal homeschool advocates, many Arminians advocate homeschooling as well. (I have known some personally). But we tend to be less dogmatic about it. For example, I don’t know that atheist math and Christian math are terribly different from one another, although atheist social studies and Christian social studies often are.
Political theology is not discussed as frequently in Arminian circles, as Arminians are generally less politically savvy than Calvinists. I think this can be chalked up to the fact that postmillennialism is very popular among Calvinists, and that the Calvinistic understanding of the New Covenant is friendlier to theonomic ideas. Unfortunately the marriage of Calvinism and politics has sometimes borne bitter fruit, such religious persecutions, the South African apartheid, and “kinism.”
For a good Arminian work on political theology, see Grotius’s “On the Law of War and Peace.” And also note that other non-Calvinists throughout church history have made important contributions to political theology – Augustine with his “City of God,” Alfred the Great, etc.
Thank you for your comments, Dave. I will look into your reading suggestions. I happen to be a promoter of homeschooling as I am a homeschooling mom myself. The problem I’m finding with the idea of a public school education is that it cannot be neutral. Even subjects, such as geography, literature, and math cannot be taught apart from God’s influence upon the subject . (Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel). When one religion is removed from a classroom, another worldview such as socialism or humanism inevitable takes its place. I can understand why the Catholics protested that their children were being indoctrinated by Calvinists in the taxpayer-funded schools and wonder if the Puritans opened a bit of a Pandora’s box by suggesting education be paid for by public funds.
Hey,
I just found your site. What a great resource! I’m wondering how you deal with the calling of 1 Corinthians 1:23-24.
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
The called (v24) seem to be distinct from those “called” through the general call of the preaching of Christ crucified (v23). Do you explain this by saying they are those who have been effectively called by their belief (v21. God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe)?
Thanks,
Gary
Hey Gary,
Check out the following post. I think the articles linked to there will help you with your question.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/what-does-callingcalled-refer-to-in-the-bible/
God Bless,
Ben
I’ve been studying original sin. I understand that Adam (and Eve collectively, I suppose) brought sin into this world of ours, but sin was already somewhat “around” because of satan’s fall. I also understand the theology behind the idea of bearing the actual guilt of Adam’s sin vs. bearing the sin nature. What I don’t understand is, why do theologians say that we are more predisposed to sin than Adam? He sinned just fine on his own given his free will (and his “perfect” nature). I can’t see myself doing any better given the chance, even in a perfect, paradise setting. Why is it said that we’ve inherited a sin nature? Has our free will been clouded that much more because of the generations upon generations of sinners (and thus, sin in the world) before us? I see this played out practiacally….one need not teach a toddler to sin. Unborn babies die in the womb even before given the opportunity to sin; death is one of the effects of the sin in the garden. Are my thoughts leading dangerously into semipelagianism territory? Please throw no stones; I’m not promoting this theology, just trying to wrestle with these thoughts. Thanks!
Lori,
I am not sure I am fully understanding your question. Could you be more specific as to what you want me to address?
Thanks,
Ben
Why is it said that we’ve INHERITED a sin nature rather than being born in a “good” state or even a “neutral” (neither good or bad) state? Why is it said we are PREDISPOSED to sin? Adam and Eve were not predisposed to sin, yet they easily sinned on their own without having inherited such a nature. Is it because we can see the effects of sin upon the earth even upon the “innocent” (a child dying in the womb)?
Lori,
It is true that Adam and Eve sinned without a sinful nature, but that doesn’t really argue against our having one. I do think we can draw the conclusion of a corrupt nature from experience as you point out, but Scripture does seem to strongly support the idea of a corrupt fallen nature that tends towards sin. Portions of Romans chapters 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are a good place to start.
God Bless,
Ben
I was doing some studying in Hebrews, and I hit what appears to be a snag, and wanted your insight. In Hebrews 12:14-17 we see the following
“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done”
The snag I hit is when I went to Genesis to reference this event, i.e. the sale of Esau’s birthright and the attempt at repentance, I can’t find where Esau tried to undo what he had done. I do find a reference to Esau not getting his blessing from his father, but I can’t see any connection between that event, and the sale of his birthright. Is there a mistake in the Bible?
Matthew,
It has reference to Esau trying to get Isaac to give him the blessing after the blessing had already been given to Jacob. The “repentance” most likely has reference to not being able to change Isaac’s mind about the blessing.
God Bless,
Ben
Oh, the connection is simply that Esau sold and despised his birthright when he sold it to Jacob for a bowl of soup. Later, as the writer notes, he still tried to receive the blessing, but the blessing had already been given to Jacob.
I am young and new to the concept of predestination and am having trouble with it. I cant accept that God would create a being destined for hell, or that He would choose some for salvation and not others when their choices and actions are his doing, as expressed by Calvinism.
But I accept that in his sovereignty He can reject anyone and save anyone as He so wills.
But he is all loving, I believe this to death, I believe there isn’t a soul in all creation he doesn’t love. I believe he hates sinners as well. In my view “hate” doesn’t imply “does not love”, belief in Christ clears us of the tittle “sinner” though we may sin, when judgement comes it will not be counted against us but rather righteousness.
After being presented with strict Calvinistic views on predestination without another view, and then quoted at with lists of scripture, that I didn’t know at the time was quoted out of context, I was deeply depressed. I’d been told that the love of Jesus, the love my life was held up by, was a lie, and that was, apparently, biblical. It made me doubt my faith and God’s love.
THIS IS THE DANGER OF STRICT CALVINISM.
I believe that it was only the blessing that i am surrounded by christian friends that helped me through. If I was told that God only loves some and chooses to leave others to eternal damnation upon creation, and then shown (albeit out of context), where it was in the bible a year ago, when my faith was much younger, I highly doubt that I would have kept faith.
After much research and digging my bible, I believe God predestined the followers of Christ, not the individual, to receive salvation through his son. Weather we follow Christ is entirely our free will, but that doesn’t mean that we gained it by any of our works because even if we made the choice to follow Christ God ultimately makes the choice to save those who make that choice. A choice is not a work. When I’m in heaven and I’m asked, by what means am I there? I will not be able to answer, “by my choice”, but the only answer I can rightly give is “by Gods grace and love”.
But I am still having trouble with a few things, I have views on them but I’m not convinced of them:
1) Romans 9:17. Did God create Pharaoh to display his wrath? Was there hope for Pharaoh.
I like to think that there was. When the bible says “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” I do not think it means
“For this I created you, that I might display my wrath”,
as many have tried to convince me, but I think it means,
“For this purpose I made you Pharaoh, that i might bring you down to display my power”.
2) Even if we must choose Jesus to be saved, are we able to make that choice without God’s intervention in their hearts? If not, then doesn’t God still choose who to make come to Christ. The corollary being that God looks upon a completely deprived world, where all are sinners, and for some reason picks and chooses who will be saved, and therefore who will be left for hell.
Currently I think that God presents the gift of faith to all but not all receive it. I do not believe that some are incapable of receiving it, but that in our sin some refuse it. But i cant elaborate on how one would be moved to accept faith without God intervening in their hearts?
3) Why would God create beings he knew would not choose his son, and therefore be destined for hell?
I believe Satan corrupted his creation, but this just creates more questions, like: Why did God allow this? Why did god create Satan knowing he would rebel and corrupt man, dooming some of the children God loves so much to an eternity in hell?
I’m very confused on these matter and they have been really affecting my life?
May God bless you all,
Aaron
I have struggled with that idea of predestination as well. On the one hand, I believe that the Calvinistic idea of God choosing people to go to hell is offensive and seems cruel, but on the other hand, even as an Arminian, we still have the basic problem of God choosing to allow people to be born when He knows they will refuse to accept Jesus, and they will go to hell. The bottom line is that when we are given a choice, and we refuse Jesus, that’s on us. If we were to simply be born into sin, and have no hope of ever accepting Jesus or being saved, then that makes God the bad guy, and the author of sin. Arminianism makes man the bad guy, Calvinism makes God the bad guy. You mentioned that we can only make the choice to be saved if God calls us, and that is true. One thing Calvinists miss is that the Bible tells us that God is calling ALL mankind to Himself. They think that if that were true, NOBODY could resist, but I don’t believe the HS is a dictator, but a gentle and firm guide, exposing our state of sin and fallness to us, and giving us the choice. I do NOT believe God hates sinners, that is an understandable but bad mistake that Calvinists make. It’s not the sinner that God hates, it’s the sin. The Bible tells us plainly that the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, not the men themselves. The thing to remember is that when someone willfully stands in rebellion and sin, they are placing themselves in what God hates, so in essence He hates them; not the people themselves, but their attitude and lack of humility. If God literally hated any sinner, He would not warn them to repent, and I see NO EVIDENCE that any sin is worse than any other, in the sight of God. God allowed Satan to sin for the same reason He allowed us to sin, because He wants beings to worship and serve Him willingly, so without the possibility of rebellion, true worship is not possible.
Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. The “Gift of faith” is not the same as saving faith. The gift of faith clearly is something that only one who is already saved by faith in Jesus can receive, and it is on the same level of the other gifts, i.e. tongues,healing, etc.
Thank-you very much Matt for responding to my previous comment
. I thought about this till stupid’o'clock in the morning for the past few days now and one thought has been, God created man knowing him, he created the earth and it inhabitants and our relationship with him was perfect before the fall. So upon creation we were all destined to be with him. I believe our reason for creation was to have an eternal relationship with God, that we might love Him and He might love us. Upon creation of Adam and Eve he knew their descendants, he created them (us). Maybe if the fall never happened we would be here and we would all know God, everything would still be “good” Genesis 1:34. But the fall happened when Satan tempted eve, but Satan fell outside of the creation of earth therefore possibly outside the creation of time, and also in the heavens. We can have no idea what God has already done and enacted or why, neither can we know how things and logic works outside time and in the heavens. He’s clearly done creation before us, hence angels, was was can’t know. All we can know is that god doesn’t want any of us to go to hell, he want us all in heaven. 1 John 3:9
I feel much more confident in what the bible says predestination is. That God has not predestined the individual but the Christians, he has predestined the salvation of Christians, and all are welcome to be christian through his son. I’m still not sure what to think of election? what is it and what does it mean. How does it fit with the fact that God loves all?
Aaron,
You wrote,
After much research and digging my bible, I believe God predestined the followers of Christ, not the individual, to receive salvation through his son. Weather we follow Christ is entirely our free will, but that doesn’t mean that we gained it by any of our works because even if we made the choice to follow Christ God ultimately makes the choice to save those who make that choice. A choice is not a work. When I’m in heaven and I’m asked, by what means am I there? I will not be able to answer, “by my choice”, but the only answer I can rightly give is “by Gods grace and love”.
This is basically correct in my opinion. I hold to corporate election which describes this basic view in a more precise manner. It holds that when the Bible speaks about election unto salvation it is speaking of the elect body of believers, those joined to the chosen (elect) covenant Head- Jesus Christ. We are elect “in Him” (Eph. 1:4) and not elect “to be in Him” as Calvinism essentially teaches. Jesus is the elect One and we become elect by being in Him. So the individual’s elect status is dependent on being joined to the Elect covenant Head and His covenant people, and we are joined to Him by faith. Predestination has to do with the predetermined destiny of Christ’s covenant people. They will share in Christ’s inheritance and life, but only so long as they remain joined to Him (John 15; Rom. 11). Rom. 11 makes this point very clearly in the imagery of the olive tree. The tree represents God’s elect throughout the ages, culminating in those who are elect by being in Christ. Israel used to draw there elect status through identification with the covenant heads, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But now they must come to identify with Christ and be joined to Him since He is the promised “Seed”. Therefore, many have been “broken off” through unbelief (since many Jews rejected Christ as God’s ultimate covenant Head), while others were grafted in (and thereby became elect) by faith.
That is what Rom. 9-11 is primarily concerned with. It is about God’s right to make Christ His covenant Head and to make the condition for being His covenant people faith, rather than works or ancestry, which has opened the door for Gentiles to become God’s elect people as Gentiles, rather than as Jews. That is what the Jews had a problem with and that is why so many had been “broken off”.
Here is a link to some good resources on the corporate election view that I think will really help you along:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination
And here is a short post on Rom. 9 I wrote that may help as well:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
Currently I think that God presents the gift of faith to all but not all receive it. I do not believe that some are incapable of receiving it, but that in our sin some refuse it. But i cant elaborate on how one would be moved to accept faith without God intervening in their hearts?
Arminianism teaches that God must intervene in our hearts to make faith possible. The only difference between Arminianism and Calvinism on that score is that in Arminianism we can resist God’s work and continue to reject Him.
God Bless,
Ben
Thank-you Ben,
After thinking long and hard about the biblical stance I think arminian views are the closest of all the “ism”s so far. I think when people say the aren’t biblically correct because they imply that man contributes to his salvation through works i think there misinterpreting ariminianism. In no way is a choice a work and I don’t think God sees it that way either “by faith and not works” and at the end of it all God provided the way and he ultimately choose’s to save those who choose him (predestination and election)
I’ve been researching like mad since and I’m much more comfortable with the words predestination and elect. I can now equate Gods almighty sovereignty with his unending unlimited love rather than contemplating they contract as i was told
Why cant god in his truly almighty sovereignty create man with real free will, that we can do things without him making us, without him even having to plan it. HE knows what we will do of course, but he didn’t have to plan it. To say that he has to plan everything, or else he’s a week God, is to deny his true almighty power in creation to make anything.
I’m not worried about friends and others being dammed to hell with no hope anymore.
2 Peter 3:9 is clear, anything that contradicts that is probably out of context, and even if its not 2 Peter 3:9 still stands.
I even get Romans 9: 14-25, were not the pots, were the clay, (Jeremiah 18) and we’ve all spoiled so it is fitting that god makes us into common vessels as he see fit. But in Christ were not spoiled (fallen sinners) were righteous, so God makes us into vessels of special use as he sees fit
As for why God allowed the fall I reckon the bible doesn’t say. God has clearly done creation before, hence angels. The bible is about his relationship with us and so we cant even begin to comprehend anything outside of time or this world that has, is or will happen, or why it happened and what happens because of it. But what we can know is there’s a reason god allowed the fall and 2 Peter 3:9
I looked into every single proof text that Calvinists use and found the true context. There is just one that I’m having trouble with,
2 Timothy 2:10,
and a good brake down of the chapter including that verse is not on the internet or in any books i know that i know of? Can anyone help on this?
God bless,
A much happier Aaron
A few mistake in that:
contract instead of contradict
HE or he instead of He
and I looked into every Calvinist proof text I could find
There’s probably a lot more as well.
Here’s a slightly off topic question. Were people predestined to heaven or hell before the cross? I hear a lot of people say that before Jesus came, people were saved by trusting in the coming Messiah, or that they had the gospel preached to them in the underworld, but the evidence is sketchy at best for these ideas.. What was God’s way of salvation before men had missionaries bringing the gospel to them?
We’ll i dont think God predestines anyone for heaven or hell, but that he predestines christians as a people. A christian being someone who believes in Jesus our Lord, but I guess in the OT what the Lord had revealed to man of himself was different so faith would be different. I dont know how God has set it up but I know its his will that all should reach repentance.
Possibly Genisis 15:6 gives a bit of an insight into faith back then. God is timeless and unchanging so I feel like the hope we have today was open to all even in the OT. I’m really intersted in this question.
could someone please tell me an arminian interpretation of 2 timothy 2:10?
Hey aaron,
Did you see that Ben said he would address that text in his upcoming series on Calvinist proof texts in response to your request?
Aaron: the best way to think about 2tim 2:10 is Corporate Election. Nothing in the text says that the elects were unconditionally chosen – and even, how Paul knows the “chosen ones”?
My question is: how I can refute the Vincent Cheung’s text about Matthew 23:37?
Here is the PDF: http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/matt23-37.pdf
I have read the exposition of James White, but the most difficult part is the “Jesus was not a God” argument.
Please sorry about my bad English…
credulo,
I think Cheung’s exegesis is wrong. I wrote a post on that interpretation a long time ago. Much could be added to the points I made in that post, but it is a good place to start: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/calvinism-and-free-will-an-exegetical-vindication-of-matthew-2337/
As far as the “Jesus was not God” argument, I am not sure what you are referring to.
God Bless,
Ben
Many Thankz, Kangaroodort!
Basically, Cheung states that Jesus was talking the sermon like a man, and not like God. This is the textblock:
“And since the gathering is referring to the ministry on a human and external level, it does not demand a divine subject. The fact that a ministry is resisted on a human level says nothing about divine sovereignty or human freedom on a metaphysical level.”
Credulo,
I thought that may have been what you were referencing, but the way you initially put it made me wonder. Someone who read your comments sent me an e-mail addressing the issue and I think it is spot on. Here is the comment:
“I think this is a simplistic and artificial argument, though it might have some rhetorical effect, sort of like the dead in sin C argument. I think it is problematic for Christology. (1) As the God-man, Jesus desired Jerusalem’s repentance. It’s not like his will as God was different than his will as man. There might even be some heresy in there from Cheung. (2) Scripture tells us Jesus always did what the Father wanted him to do, represented the Father perfectly, only did what he saw the Father doing, etc. As the God-man, if Jesus willed to eat, then it was also God’s will for him to eat. So although the Father might not have desired to eat, Jesus’ will to eat entails that it was God’s will for him to eat. Similarly, even if any sort of difference between the divine and human wills of Jesus were intended, it would still prove God wanted Jerusalem to come to Jesus, which is the very thing Cheung is trying to deny and refute. And of course, coming to Jesus is coming to God anyway! (3) Even if a lot of Cheung’s unsound argument were granted for the sake of argument, it seems like special pleading to take bodily, physical desires of Jesus inherent to him being human, and then equating them to moral desires. The latter are exactly the types of things we would expect to be the sort of things in which the divine and human natures of Christ would be united on. (4) Jesus was the official representative of the Father and acting as a prophet. His actions toward Israel were representative of God in way they would not be in satisfying his physical desires/needs. (5) Various other passages reveal God’s will not being done, being resisted etc. Esp. powerful are ones that speak of God’s purpose not being done, such as the one in Neh 9.”
I would add that it is interesting that Cheung uses another sort “two wills” argument here while blasting the typical Calvinist “two wills in God” argument as nonsensical (and I agree with him on that).
I am the one who sent Ben the email.
I want to make sure that the impression is not given that Jesus had only one will. That is the heresy of monothelitism.
Jesus did have a divine will and a human will. But the human will always subjected itself to the divine will. So even when Jesus said to the father, “not my will, but yours be done”, he was indicating that he actually willed for the Father’s will to be done over his good and holy desire not to suffer. Indeed, we must assume that God also did not want Christ to have to suffer, but that given it was the only way to save us, he willed it, just as Christ did not want to have to suffer, but since it was the Father’s will and the only way to save us, he submitted his will to the Father’s and willed to suffer and die for us too.
This seems similar to the issue of us having multiple desires, yet our “will” may be called that desire which we choose above all competing desires (so the strongest desire, not inherently, but by our assignment). I was using “will” in this sense in my comments. Jesus may have had any number of good and holy desires which he did not will in that sense. But none of them were at odds with God’s will in general (i.e., none of them were sinful). And his final will so to speak was always in harmony with God’s final will. But it is highly improbable that Jesus is basically saying: “One of my desires among my varying desires was that you would come to me [but I would not have actually chosen for you to come to me; I actually wanted you *NOT* to come to me more] yet you were not willing to come to me.” His focus is on his will vs. their contrary will. It is implausible to suggest that we are to assume that his comments are actually to be understood as implying that he and they ultimately willed the same thing, that they not come to him.
So Cheung’s view is just a mess. It seems he has a dilemma: (1) Ascribe to a traditional Calvinist 2 wills theory in God here, which he rejects for being nonsensical (cf. Ben’s comment), or (2) hold that Christ’s human will was not always submitted to his divine will so that God willed one thing and Christ willed contrary to that.
Cheung’s possible heresy is at the point at which he might suggest that Jesus’ human will was actually contrary to his divine will, desiring one thing most whereas his divine will desired something else most. The NET Bible note captures the sense of the text much more reasonably and exegetically: “Jesus, like a lamenting prophet, speaks for God here, who longed to care tenderly for Israel and protect her.”
Many thankz, boyz!
Ops, another thing: can I translate to my native language some of your posts, Ben and Thibodaux?
Hey
A few comments back i asked again for an explanation of 2 timothy 2:10 i didnt see that Ben said he would answer it in his series :S (has that been completed yet? i look forward to reading it but i haven’t found it yet)
Thank-you for the answers, but I think the way its confusing me is a little different. The issue im struggeling with is not the word elect but rather the order implied when Paul says he endures all thing for the elect that they may be saved. This to me at the moment this is impling that the elect are elected before they are saved, but i thought in corporate election the elect are the same as the saved? It seems to imply that some have been chosen before hand, before they are saved? It seems like Paul is talking about unbelievers that are destined to be believers?
God bless
Aaron
Aaron,
I have been really busy lately. I do intend to address the passage in detail in a future post but haven’t gotten to it yet. I will give you a brief explanation here without having looked closely at the passage in a while.
First, it is problematic for the Calvinist position since the elect are either already saved or certain to be saved in Calvinism. Yet Paul’s words indicate uncertainty. It is similar to when Peter warns his readers to make their election sure. I think the passage fits better with the corporate view. Paul is speaking about those who are in Christ by faith and are therefore “the elect” presently. But since election does not guarantee final salvation, since those who are in the elect body can still be broken off through unbelief (Rom. 11), Paul is speaking about his struggle to keep the elect in the faith until they reach final salvation. So Paul’s focus is on perseverance in faith and not on how one becomes elect or at what point one can be considered elect, though his words imply that election is based current faith in Christ and not on a secret eternal selection of certain sinners to eventually come to faith. Hope that helps.
credulo,
Go for it.
Hello again!
What about this calvinist exegesis of 2 peter 2:1?
http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/exegesis-of-2-peter-21-dr-matthew-mcmahon/
and
http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html
Many thankz in advance!
Hi,
Does anyone know of a good book that gives both a biography of Augustine and his theology? I am looking for a book that will give me an in-depth understanding of how he came up with the doctrines that both Luther and Calvin came to embraced.
Dale
Credulo,
I have seen both of those and I find them both very weak and problematic. The one at AOM admits that it can only work against Arminians who hold to eternal security (though I am not sure that is entirely accurate). Since I do not hold to eternal security, his argument has no force against my view. The other one is very weak as well, if not more so, in suggesting that being bought was only how they perceived themselves to be and not true of them in reality. That is strongly against the language of the passage. Peter is clearly speaking of things as they are and not how things may only appear to them. Would we likewise see the rest of how Peter describes them as only how they perceive themselves to be, but not in reality how they are? Of course not. Such attempts to get around this passage show just how devestating it is to Calvinism.
Dale,
You could buy his primary works and try to see how they developed over time. If you want to see an Arminian work that traces his beliefs and how his theology developed and influenced the early Reformers, I highly recommend God’s Strategy in Human History (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Human-History-Roger-Forster/dp/1579102735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327419896&sr=8-1). They have a very good and detailed chapter on the subject.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll check into the book.
Dale
I don’t believe in Calvinism at all to the point of it being blasphemy against God, because it directly goes against “God is love”. However, this morning I read a scripture that I have no answer for -1Co 1:8. “Confirm” is future active indicative, which means this is something that is fact and has to come to pass. How is this viewed in light of Armenianism? Thanks for your response.
Also, can you direct me to any articles you (or anyone else) has on “called” and “chosen”? Thank you.
Many thankz!
My doubts are about the ‘commercial theory’ of Atonement: if Christ paid your sin, you will be saved. It is against the Provisional Theory – but the Bible use the commercial analogy sometimes, and I was confused.
Ans, what about Thibodaux? He is no more posting?
What about this ‘limited atonement’ verse: 1Samuel 3:14?
I thunk that it is because Eli, Hophni and Phineas committed very hard sins, and no atonement are for ‘un-atonable’ sins. That is right?
Paul,
I don’t see a problem with 1 Cor. 1:8. Paul can be using this in a conditional sense in assuming they will continue to believe. In other words, though the end result is guaranteed, it is only guaranteed to those who continue to believe. Also, it should be noted that this can be taken as referring to the church, the corporate body of Christ (as the context would suggest, cf. vs. 2). In that case, the certainty can apply to the corporate body of believers while the individuals’ participation in that certainty is contingent on remaining in that body through faith (cf. Rom. 11 and the imagery of the olive tree, etc.).
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
I hope to get to some of these other questions in a few days.
Okay. Thanks for responding.
Paul,
Concerning calling and being called, I would check out the articles linked to here:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/what-does-callingcalled-refer-to-in-the-bible/
Concerning chosen, or election in general, I recommend the corporate view. Here is a link to an article that will give you several links to check out on the subject after a short concise description of the view. The links go to some scholarly works that are very detailed.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination
credulo,
Could you be a little more clear as to what you are looking for in your question about 1 Samuel 3:14? Thanks.
Kangaroodort: the verse says:
For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
1 Samuel 3:13-14
I think that this verse can be used to defend the Limited Atonement. My response to tis pressuposed challenge is that the sins commited by Eli and his sons will not be purged because God would not apply the atonement to him.
Is this a right reasoning?
credula,
With regards to the passage concerning Eli, it may imply a measure of limiting to the atonement. However, it is far from what Calvinists claim concerning the limited atonement in which God decreed from all eternity who would be saved and made atonement through Christ only for them. In the case of Eli it is an issue of severe judgment on Eli’s sons for spurning God’s grace and insulting God and His people through their actions as priests.
The point to keep in mind is that the passage nowhere says that there was never any atonement available for them, only that there would no longer be consequent to God’s judgment (which actually implies that sacrifices could make atonement for them prior to that time). God certainly has the right to withdraw further opportunity for atonement and to refuse to forgive in bringing appropriate judgment on His people for certain sins. The OT speaks of the presumptuous sin for which there was no forgiveness. Such sins cut one off from the covenant community making it impossible for them to benefit from the sacrifices of God’s people. Some scholars believe that irrevocable apostasy in the NT is in the same category of presumptuous sin in the OT. As in Hebrews, the writer states that for the apostate, “there remains no more sacrifice for sins.”
But again, that God at some point refuses to work any longer with a rebellious sinner or denies that person further opportunity for atonement (which assumes that such a person would take advantage of such an opportunity, which may not be the case at all), does not mean that God did not make a provision for them that they could have taken advantage of (and in the case of the apostate, did indeed take advantage of prior to rejecting it).
Oh, I should also point out, with regards to Eli’s household, it may be a reference not so much to them not being able to receive any forgiveness for their actions, but to the irrevocable consequences to the family despite any of them being personally forgiven. Either way, it is hardly a support for the Calvinist conception of limited atonement.
God Bless,
Ben
I have found very little regarding the Aminian interpretation of the following passages of Scriptures….Perhaps you can help me:
1 Cor. 6:9,10
Gal. 5:19-21
Eph. 5:5-7
1 Jn. 3:5-9 (especially 6 & 9)
1 Jn. 5:18
Thank You
Steve,
It might be a little while before I can get to this.
God Bless,
Ben
Thank you
Just another thing: how I can refute the ‘two calls’ argument of Calvinists? It is very intricate – and the ‘but there is no indicative of irresistibility of grace in the case of Cornelius’ is not so compelling…
In fact, even Cheung uses it in Matthew 23:37, in the ‘Jesus was not God’ argument
credulo,
The so called “two calls” is a total invention of Calvinism. It is not drawn from Scriptures and cannot be proved from Scriptures. The Bible nowhere says anything about two different calls, one general to all and one effectual to some. That is something that Calvinists have read into Scripture to make sense of their system and to deal with the many passages that plainly show God calling on all to repent and believe the gospel.
Why should you feel compelled to “refute” something that the Calvinist cannot demonstrate from Scripture? It is not up to you to refute the “two calls”, it is up to them to show that it is a Biblical teaching. That is something they cannot do without massive question begging (assuming the two calls are true and then reading that into passages that do not actually state such a thing). In other words, it is just an assertion by Calvinists for the sake of keeping their system from falling apart in the face of so many passges that teach that God is calling all to repentence so that all will be saved (with the obvious implication that God wants all to be saved and makes it possible for all to be saved). Is there a particular argument you have heard that you feel you need answer or refute?
God Bless,
Ben
BTW, if you want to better understand what the Biblical meaning of “called” and “calling” is, be sure to read the two articles linked to in this post: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/what-does-callingcalled-refer-to-in-the-bible/
I am currently searching the Scriptures on the doctrines of grace and while I have been raised in what may be described as an Arminian background, a lot of the strong Christian influences God has brought into my life have Calvinist beliefs. This has caused me to re-examine my own beliefs and I realize that I’ve never done a good job of deciding why I believe what I believe on many doctrinal issues. What I have tried to do is find decent books on theology as a whole (since soteriology is not the only doctrine I want to study) from both major camps. I currently have “Systematic Theology” by Wayne Grudem and “Grace, Faith, and Holiness” by H. Ray Dunning. While Dunning’s work has been very helpful in understanding some aspects of theology and in building up my faith, I am tired of a theology text that quotes John Wesley more than the Bible and it has been insufficient to answer some of the greatest objections Calvinists have.
So my question is this: Are the members of this site aware of any Bible-based (by which I mean it derives doctrine from direct scriptural support) exhaustive theology texts comparable to Grudem’s work in scholarship and readability? If not, I really hope J.C. might consider writing one, because I have certainly appreciated his depth of knowledge and succinctness in explaining issues of faith.
Thanks
You may enjoy reading some works from Free Will Baptists like F. Leroy Forlines and Robert Picirilli. Picirilli wrote, Grace, Faith, Free Will, and Forlines wrote a sytematic called The Quest For Truth. That last book was recently reprinted and edited to focus only on the material addressing the A/C debate (which is extensive). The new edited version is called Classical Arminianism. I. Howard Marshall has recently written and published a systematic theology as well (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/pocket-guide-new-testament-theology/i-howard-marshall). He is a major Arminian scholar. I also highly recommend reading Abasciano’s many articles and publications dealing with corporate election and especially Romans 9. You will find all of his available works at the Society of Evangelical Arminians. His doctorate, which was edited into his first book on Romans 9, is available to read on line for free. Here is a link to tons of resources and books that would probably help you out:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/94
Hope that helps.
Ben
Thanks for the suggestions. I will definitely check them out!
How would you interpret John 6:44,45 from an Arminian perspective? I had a pastor who told me that it was verse 45 that convinced him to switch sides and become a Calvinist.
Steve S.
Steve,
You should ask your pastor why that verse sealed it for him. I find that strange. I think verse 45 explains verse 44 in a way that supports Arminianism rather than Calvinism. I will comment further when I get a little more time.
God Bless,
Ben
That was many years ago….We are long out of touch now.
Is there a particular argument you have heard that you feel you need answer or refute?
Nothing in special. The two-calls, two-wills arguments are very common, and the Calvinists are very lavish when use them. There is a video of John Piper about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Ux7S50zAI) – but your ‘shift the burden of proof’ approach is good enough. Many thanks!
Another thing: can you recommend something about Molinism?
I have certainly enjoyed the fellowship here with serious disciples of the Word. Thank you for allowing me access. We have just recently become aware of this,”another Gospel”! We’ve been reading your site with great anticipation. From time to time, I do have questions that may help to understand God’s Word better. It would be beneficial in this quest to find an exegeses on Ephesians 2: 8,9, and determine if the gift of God is referring to salvation or faith and to me it makes a big difference. Faith, I believe is given to everyone to answer our God-given “conscience,which either accuses or excuses our thinking and actions.
credulo,
I am not a Molinist, though I do hold to middle knowledge. I would recommend reading Molina or William Lane Craig. Craig is probably the biggest proponent and defender of Molinism in Christian circles today. He has many articles at his site.
God Bless,
Ben
Steve S.,
The short answer is that those who come to the Son are those who learn from the Father. Those who learn from the Father will naturally recognize the Father in the Son and in His words and be drawn to Him. Only those who learn from/know the Father are given to the Son. Here is something I wrote in another post that might be helpful:
“Not of God” [in John 8] simply means that these Jews were not in right covenant relationship with the Father when they encountered Christ and His claims. Since they didn’t know the Father they naturally would not recognize the perfect expression of the Father in the Son, nor would they recognize the Father’s teaching in the Son’s words (John 8:19, 20, 42, 54, 55, cf. John 5:37-40; 7:16, 17 12:44, 45). As long as they reject the Father and refuse His teaching, they will reject the Son and His teaching (which is also the Father’s teaching, John 12:49, 50) and will not be given to the Son (John 6:37, 44, 45). None of these passages say anything about an unconditional eternal election being behind the description of these Jews as “not of God.” Such an idea is only read into these passages by Calvinists…. Second, as mentioned above, their inability to hear was not because God wasn’t working, but because they were resisting that working. Clearly, Jesus is still trying to reach them (8:27-31, 36, cf. John 5:44; 10:37, 38), which would be senseless if He viewed them as hopeless reprobates. This is especially evident in Christ’s statement to the same sort of resistant Jews in John 5 where Christ both declares their inability and yet tells them, “…not that I accept human testimony, but I mention it that you may be saved”, vs. 34. This is especially relevant to my point since the “testimony” Christ refers to is the prior testimony of John the Baptist. Christ then points them to other “testimonies” like His miracles, the Scriptures in general, and Moses, obviously implying that through the acceptance of these testimonies they may yet be enabled to “come to” Him and be “saved”, cf. vss. 39, 40.
Jesus’ method of discourse is actually a rather common teaching technique used for the purpose of admonishment in order for the “students” to fully realize their situation with the hope that in realizing it (coming to grips with this important revelation) they will be spurred on to change (i.e. repentance). I work in schools daily and see this type of teaching technique used all the time. It is similar to a Math teacher saying, “how can you expect to do division when you haven’t even learned your times tables? You can’t do division while you remain ignorant of multiplication.” Such instruction is not meant to highlight a hopeless state. It is not meant to express that the student can never do division. Rather, it is intended to get the student to re-examine the reality of their current state and how it makes further progress impossible, with the hope that they will learn what is required in order to move forward (e.g. John 5:41-45).
Likewise, Jesus is actually using much of what He says for the purpose of getting those who are listening to re-examine their present relationship to the Father and thereby realize that they are not in a proper position to be making such judgments about Christ and His claims, with the hope that they will yet “learn” from the Father so that they can come to a place where acceptance of Christ and His words is possible (e.g. John 5:33-47; 10:34-39, cf. John 6:45, etc). Had they already learned from the Father (been receptive to God’s grace and leading through the Scriptures, the prophets, the ministry of John the Baptist, the miracles of Christ, etc.), they would have immediately recognized that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, Shepherd and King of God’s people, and been given to Him. Yet, not all hope is gone, for they may yet learn if they stop resisting the Father’s leading.
Christ’s teaching on drawing in John 6:44, 45, therefore, is not just descriptive, but for the purpose of admonishment, that they might be careful not to spurn and resist this drawing and miss eternal life and the promise of resurrection. God’s working in prevenient grace and drawing can be complex and operate in different ways depending on the person and the situation. God approaches us from a variety of angles. These passages illustrate that. Yet, we dare not assume that because the operation of prevenient grace on the human heart and mind doesn’t necessarily reduce to a simple equation or formula, God is not still working. Indeed, God is always working (John 5:17). There is much more that could be said on this, but this alone is sufficient to overturn your objection to prevenient grace based on these various passages in John.
From: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/%e2%80%9csaved-by-grace%e2%80%9d-through-faith/
Yochanan,
Thanks for stopping by. The language is probably inconclusive, but it is generally held that the Grammar doesn’t really fit the idea that the “gift” is faith. However, it could refer to the whole economy of salvation by faith through grace. There is some debate on those issues. Still, given the context, it seems that the gift most likely refers to salvation, and it is highly unlikely, given the grammar and context, that faith can be considered the “gift”.
As an Arminian, it really doesn’t matter if the gift is faith since Arminians do believe that faith is a gift from God in the sense that no one could believe if God didn’t first enable a faith response. That is what we call prevenient grace- the grace that precedes and makes faith possible. In that case, to receive the gift of faith would simply be to believe as God enables us. The key difference is that the Arminian sees this enabling as resistible. God makes faith possible, but we can resist God’s working and continue in unbelief.
I will try to find some helpful articles for you when I get the time.
God Bless,
Ben