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.
[...] ??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