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.
Arminian Perspectives 
Pingback: Do You Have a Question Concerning Calvinism or Arminianism? « Arminian Perspectives
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://evangelicalarminians.org/patron-robert-hamilton-thoughtson-original-sin/
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
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,
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 there 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
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:
https://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.
https://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.
https://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: https://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:
https://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:
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.
https://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
Pingback: Some Quick Comments Regarding Free Agency and Foreknowledge « Arminian Perspectives
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.
https://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:
https://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: https://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:
https://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: https://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
undecided berean,
The NT theology by Marshall you want is actually New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Theology-Witnesses-Gospel/dp/0830827951) rather than the one Ben mentioned. The one Ben mentioned is on a more popular level. Both are only NT theologies. But the fuller one is award winning and perhaps considered the best NT theology available, and is at least among the very best, and by a seasoned and distinguished NT scholar and exegete.
For systematic theologies, you should go to the Links and Books page at the Society of Evangelical Arminians website: http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/94 and search (using control F) on the term systematic. There are various ones you can access for free there, and also a link to a list of more modern ones. Besides the one by Forlines Ben mentioned, another modern one comparable to Grudem (though not as detailed) would be this one by Stanley Grenz: http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Community-God-Stanley-Grenz/dp/0802847552/ref=cm_lmf_tit_19.
BTW, if you run into Calvinist arguments you think are good, you should bring them here and ask about them. often there are already articles here or at the Society of Evangelical Arminians website that debunk them.
God bless!
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: https://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
I have a few questions about certain Arminian doctrines. The first is on the doctrine of Calling: What is the Arminian view of being “called”? How is it different than the Calvinist view?
My second, third, and fourth questions are on the doctrine of Corporate Election: How do you interpret Galatians 1:15 in light of Corporate Election? Paul’s statement seems to be individualistic. And does the “elect lady” spoken of in 2 John 1:1 support individualistic election? (My Calvinist friend thinks it does). And finally, my Calvinist said, If Corporate Election is true, how were the people before Noah elected?
I personally believe in Corporate Election. I have my own answers to these questions but I’m convinced by your articles that you have much more biblical knowledge than I do.
If you don’t have time to answer all my questions I completely understand.
Thank you so much for your time. -Richard
Richard,
I hope to get to your questions tomorrow or later this week. In the meantime, here are some resources on corporate election that should be very helpful to you:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Hi,
I just recently discovered your site.
My pastor this past Sunday preaching on Eph. 4:20-24, stated that in v.22 where Paul talks about putting off the old self, that in Greek, the tense is that of a once and for all completed action.
Would this have any implications for the view that Christians can apostasize? If the putting off of the old self is a once and for all action, how should we, then, interpret all those warning verses about not falling away? Are they purely rhetorical?
Thanks.
Ken
ksed,
Don’t know how your pastor can say that. The morphology here is Second Aorist tense, Middle voice and Infinitive mood. So it means exactly as it’s written – “you put off”, the subject of the sentence himself performing the action on himself in past time. The aorist tense does not denote “a once and for all completed action”.
The Perfect tense describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus’ last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of this tense being used – hence 1Co 10:20.
I think you should ask your pastor to show you how he has arrived at his conclusion, and if he can’t, he should correct his error before the congregation, because even elders have to be teachable. 2Ti 3:16,
If you need proof for this and you don’t possess a TVM reference at home, go here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=4&v=22&t=KJV#conc/22
Click on “TENSE” to the right of “put off”.
Paul,
I appreciate your help, but your response is a little confusing to me. My understanding of the aorist is that it does generally describe a past completed action, though it can be timeless as well. I haven’t looked it up yet to see if it is a main verb or a participal, which can have some impact on how it could be understood. However, the fact that the aorist describes a completed action certainly does not mean it can never again be repeated. That is something the Grammar simply cannot dictate. In that case, the pastor has really stretched the Greek beyond its capabilities.
Your description of the Perfect actually sounds more like a description of an aorist tense. The Perfect denotes a completed action with ongoing results up to the time of the speaker or writer. It is a past action with continuing results.
God Bless,
Ben
In my response, It seems ksed’s pastor was implying that, whatever unstated tense he was referring to, it was proving that once the old man was put off, it was permanent and it could never be put back on. I disagree that the old man cannot be put back on and I believe Christians can apostasize.
I did not state or imply that the aorist tense means action cannot be repeated. The aorist by definition does, in most cases, denote past tense, but it doesn’t at all mean action cannot be repeated. I even stated “The aorist tense does not denote “a once and for all completed action”, which means the action can be repeated. My wording may have been confusing, but anything done in the past is completed action. I was comparing it to the Perfect tense as referrence, which does denote completed action with ongoing and continuing results, and at least two grammars say it is “a once and for all completed action”.
God bless you, too, brother.
Paul,
I didn’t mean to imply that you thought the aorist couldn’t be repeated or anything like that. That was more of a response to Ken. I was a little confused as to how you described the aorist and the perfect, but it sounds like we are on the same page. I just didn’t want Ken to get the wrong impression.
However, to say an action in the past is necessarily completed doesn’t seem quite accurate to me. I think the perfect, for example, could be understood in the sense that since the action has continuing results it is not necessarily completed in that sense. So the action had a beginning point, but the action is ongoing. Just a subtlety with regards to what we mean by “completed” I guess.
God Bless,
Ben
Can someone give me an explaination and insite , with detail of these scriptures; John6:64-70 and 2 Timothy 2:10 dealing in refrence to election, the way it is word seems as if it was for Calvinist. However I do know that God has great foreknowldge and draws all men, I wonder if thier is grammer involved paticularly in Timothy.
thanks for your help
Adam
Ben,
I’m not a Greek scholar, so all I can do is refer to the Greek grammar helps I own and can find online. Every grammar I referred to said the Perfect was completed past action with continuing results to the present, not continuing action to the present. If that is incorrect, then I don’t know what to say. Sorry, that’s all I know. Blessings.
Paul
For one last clarification, the Perfect is used when Jesus said “It is finished”. I believe this refers to Lu 22:42, Jn 5:17, Heb 10:7, etc. Even though all the works, everything God willed Jesus to do here on earth, including His sacrifice, are done, the results – salvation, peace, the promises, the fruit of the Spirit, etc. are now with us today.
Paul,
I am not a Greek scholar either and I am in agreement with you and the Greek Grammars. I am just saying that completed action can be misunderstood in the same way as the pastor mistakenly seemed to take it. For example, if “believed” was in the perfect, it would mean that one began to believe and is still believing. So faith began in the past and is continuing. The act of faith was completed in one sense in the past, but the action of believing is continuing. So one can see how we could say that there is a sense in which that faith (act) is not yet completed. It was completed in the sense of having a start and that start representing all that faith entails (it wasn’t an incomplete faith), but it is not completed in the sense that once faith happens it is not ongoing, etc. Maybe I am just splitting hairs, but I am just trying to cover all the bases so that “completed action” isn’t taken too far or the wrong way, even though it is an accurate description.
God Bless,
Ben
Okay, I see your point. Have a good day. I am grateful for your site.
Adam,
Thanks for stopping by. I intend to do a post on 2 Timothy 2:10, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. Here is the short answer I gave to someone else not long ago:
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.
On the John passage, what specifically makes you think it supports the Calvinist (unconditional) understanding of election? The more specific you can be, the better I can answer. As far as passages in John in general that Calvinist typically use to support Calvinism, I wrote the following to someone else, which is just a sampling from some of my posts,
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: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/%e2%80%9csaved-by-grace%e2%80%9d-through-faith/
Hope that helps.
Adam,
Here is a link to a post that deals with John 6:65 briefly. I think it will basically address your question, though that particular post was more concerned with the claim of eternal security in John 6:37ff.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/does-jesus-teach-unconditional-eternal-security-in-john-637-65/
Adam,
Here is another good one from Daniel Whedon’s commentary:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/daniel-whedon-on-john-6/
Paul and Ben
Thanks for your responses.
Ken
Hey, Ken. You’re welcome. Hope I was able to help you. Have a blessed day, brother.
Hey Kangaroodort,
I read somewhere in a comment that Esau went to hell and it made me think back to Romans 9 “I loved Jacob but hated Esau” did Esau really go to hell? That was just a little question i had but the bigger question i have is that many people can walk away from being saved because it gets to hard but i cant think of any believer who would walk away cause they intentionally rebel against the Lord. How could someone who loved god, hate him?????? and the same thing with i know that sin hardens are heart a lot but think about this, all of us were dead in sin and some of us living in it solely, but God was still able to get through to us. Now if someone walked away what would stop God from getting through to them again?? I know people walk away and come back, sometimes cause it was too hard, sometimes cause persecution, and sometimes because they feed their sinful desires but what would prevent them from coming back???? and how would anyone walk away cause they Hate the lord after Loving him?
Thanks
Hutton
Hutton,
I hope to get to this later this week. Thanks for stopping by and God bless!
Thanks i have a little more to add here! Why would any true believer want to live in sin?? If they were loving God wouldn’t they not want the sin? I mean if we get saved because we love God how could anyone continue in sin unless they weren’t truly saved! I feel also that it could be so that the state of complete apostasy could take someone’s whole life to happen cause many live their whole life in a stage like that! Do you feel this is True?
So here are my main questions restated and hopefully clearer!
1.I guess i am saying if some one got saved because God revealed to them their sin and they chose to accept Christ, once they were saved what would make them not listen to the Holy Spirt confronting them as they sinned!! Because if they ignored The Holy Spirit at the time they were already saved, you would think they would definitely ignore it when they were dead in sin before they were saved and God was calling them??
2. Do you feel walking away cause of temptation or walking away because of persecution or getting caught up in worldly pleasures or denying the gospel a number of time are all the types of falling away and denying that can or cannot be restored??
I just dont understand cause there are people who are satanist who get saved and people who live in sin every moment of every day that get saved and their are people im sure who walk away from the faith and arent proud of it, it was just to hard! and people who completely walk away from faith and im sure dont even call themselfs Christians who come back!
Please just explain this the best you can!!! Its just really troubling me and my mind makes God the bad guy! I just want to love God with all my heart and see what’s so Great about him!
Thanks
Hutton
Hey its me again I know i am elect in christ but does that mean this all is not a personal thing!!! Like am i insignificant to God or did he die on the cross thinking of me? Loving me or im just an insignificant being to him? Also did he die thinking of the people who would choose him or did he just for no one in particular and just kinda died? i feel its gotta be more special than im just going to die for everyone but not really think about who ever will come!?
Not sure if this is the right spot to ask, but I was wondering if you could recommend some solid Arminian commentaries. If possible, how about a brief, couple book set and a larger exhaustive set. Thanks!!
Arminian commentaries? I think Adam Clarke’s and John Wesley’s comments are very valuable and in public domain also.
The Evagelical Arminians has many good links, and a Biblical commentary from Joseph Benson:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/94
Hebrews 6 speaks of denying Christ after partaking in Him and there being no chance for repentence. Why then was Peter restored after denying Christ 3 times publically but Judas was not? It says in the Bible that Judas was a partaker in the ministry of Christ but we can he chose to serve money. Did he not believe Jesus was the messiah?
I remember having heard the gospel from a very young age and I remember praying at 6 years old “God I dont know if I believe in you, I want to believe in you, help me believe in you” and Im not sure the point it happened but whn I was 10 I went to a VBS and prayed the sinners prayer. My whole childhood I was drawn to church but never got to go much. Growing up I was a bad kid that would lie steal cheat.sex.drugs rock N roll u name it but when I was 22 I decided to go bak to church.and thy layed hands and prayed for me and my God givn gift.to the church and sense.thn my life has been different, people say they see the light in me now I got baptised , study the Bible etc. at what point would you say my regeneration was?
How does this verse relate as it seems ti say the ones in Christ.will not be “all” but just.Abrahams offslring? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” ~ Galatians 3:28-2
Ashley, i struggled with the same thing for many years, and my struggle started after i had been a Christian for a while, and someone introduced me to Hebrews 6. I had been “churched” and dragged from church to church, and even spent time in a cult, and I had also said “the sinner’s prayer” several times as a child and young man. I was scared that I might have been saved and then just accidentally slipped away, but this fear is not consistent with the teachings of the book of Hebrews or with Peter’s writings about apostates. In Hebrews 6, we see that it is not a person who said a prayer in Sunday school who could not repent (change their mind) again, it was a person who was absolutely and undoubtedly saved and had experienced the power of God in their lives. Such a person would have to make a conscious and willful decision to depart from Christ, and could not just ignorantly drift from God and the power of His spirit. There is no evidence in the Bible that people are saved by saying a prayer, they are saved by repenting of their sin(s) and placing full and sole trust in Jesus as resurrected savior. When Hebrews says an apostate can’t repent, it doesn’t mean they are not allowed to repent, it means they can not be brought back to their original state of repentance, and we know that only God’s spirit can bring us to repentance, so the reason they can not be brought back to repentance is because they have sinned against the Holy Spirit and have therefore no more conviction of sins and they will be burned in hell. If you want to be saved and you love Jesus, you can not possibly be apostate.
Hutton,
Sorry for the delay. You wrote,
I read somewhere in a comment that Esau went to hell and it made me think back to Romans 9 “I loved Jacob but hated Esau” did Esau really go to hell?
The Bible doesn’t really say, but Esau is held up as an example of wickedness in Scripture in that he sold his birthright, considering it worthless. That serves as a type for those who walk away from Christ in Hebrews. They forfeit their birthright in Christ for the temporal pleasures of sin, etc.
That was just a little question i had but the bigger question i have is that many people can walk away from being saved because it gets to hard but i cant think of any believer who would walk away cause they intentionally rebel against the Lord. How could someone who loved god, hate him??????
I think it is most often a gradual thing. That is why Scripture is always warning us of the dangers that can lead to apostasy. However, traumatic events could have such an impact on a believer that he or she might rather quickly turn from Christ (a death of an unsaved loved one, a tragic death of a child, unanswered prayers, etc.).
and the same thing with i know that sin hardens are heart a lot but think about this, all of us were dead in sin and some of us living in it solely, but God was still able to get through to us. Now if someone walked away what would stop God from getting through to them again??
It might. Some see that as what is being described to some extent in Hebrews 6 and 10. Even some of the earliest Christian writers took this view. If we reject all of God’s working in grace once we have fully received and experienced them, what more could God do to bring us back that He has not already done? We have already fully rejected Him after having fully experienced Him.
I know people walk away and come back, sometimes cause it was too hard, sometimes cause persecution, and sometimes because they feed their sinful desires but what would prevent them from coming back????
I think it depends on the degree of rejection in walking away. Only God knows the heart and if they can still be reached. However, I do believe their are some who put themselves beyond God’s reach (Heb. 6). Not all Arminians agree on this though.
and how would anyone walk away cause they Hate the lord after Loving him?
Even in our personal experiences we can see people move from love to hate. Again, this usually is quite gradual. Jesus said that the love of many would “grow cold”.
God Bless,
Ben
Hutton,
You wrote,
Hey its me again I know i am elect in christ but does that mean this all is not a personal thing!!! Like am i insignificant to God or did he die on the cross thinking of me?
Yes, God loves you personally and knows you personally. Corporate election does not discount individuals. It only puts the corporate body first in that we become part of the elect people when we are joined to that people through faith in the corporate Head-Christ. But God knows and loves all who come to be joined to Christ and His elect body.
Loving me or im just an insignificant being to him?
You are very significant.
Also did he die thinking of the people who would choose him or did he just for no one in particular and just kinda died?
He died to make it possible for all to come to Him and be saved, even those who will forever reject Him. He did this because He loves all people. God knows all and loves all and sent Christ to die for all.
i feel its gotta be more special than im just going to die for everyone but not really think about who ever will come!?
It is hard to say what Christ might have been thinking on the cross. Did He have thoughts of each individual person who would ever live while suffering on the cross? That seems a little unlikely to me, but maybe. Still, that doesn’t mean He wasn’t dying out of love for everyone as individuals, and that His love for you is not personal and very real.
Ashley,
Regeneration is the result of faith. God regenerates us in response to faith. So the answer is when you believed, put your trust in Him, whenever that was in the process.
You may have been regenerated at a young age, but could not grow spiritually because of a lack of discipleship. During your time of rebellion, you may have died again spiritually and were reborn again when you put your trust in Christ at that church. Now, thankfully, you can grow.
God Bless,
Ben
Ashley,
How does this verse relate as it seems ti say the ones in Christ.will not be “all” but just.Abrahams offslring? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” ~ Galatians 3:28-2
The “all” means both Jews and Gentile believers, or believers in general. When Paul speaks of Abraham’s offspring, he is speaking of all who receive the promise by faith (believers), whether Jew or Gentile. Abraham’s offspring are believers. He is speaking of his spiritual offspring, and not ethnic offspring. If you read the context carefully, that should come out rather clearly.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello- I was reading a devotional (written by Dennis Kinlaw, founder of the Francis Asbury Society) He said that God’s desires cannot be bought and that God will never compel us to be part of his team. I am wondering how he can say that in light of verses such as Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23, and Revelations 5:9 & 14:4, which all speak of the fact that God purchased or bought His church/his people. As far as never compeling us – isn’t that what is meant by his drawing us in John 6:44? I know some people say that He “woos” us – but the original greek uses the same word as drawing water from a well – one does not woo water from a well – one actually decisively pulls/takes it out. Can you comment on this? Thank you.
Sally,
On drawing, I am afraid you are mistaken, though that is a common Calvinist claim. John 12:32 alone really creates problems for that view (and the Calvinist claim that Jesus really means He will draw “some” among “all” is baseless). Below is part fo a post I wrote responding to a similar question. The link to the post is at the end, if you want to read the whole thing.
Surely, you understand the difference between using a word [like “draw”] to describe purely physical interactions with inanimate objects (as in most of your examples) like swords or nets (or even people who are being physically overpowered), and interactions between persons in reference to their emotions, wills, and other spiritual components? You can see this in normal English usage just as well as in Greek. In English, if I say that water was “drawn” from the well, it would be obvious that this would be in the sense of forceful pulling with the bucket having no power to resist that pulling force. However, if I said that someone was “drawn” to strong drink, that would not mean that the person could not possibly resist that drawing. It would be nonsense for me to use the example of drawing water to argue that if someone is drawn to alcohol it must likewise mean that the drawing is irresistible. People immediately and quite naturally understand the difference based simply on the fact that the first example deals with purely physical interactions, while the second takes into account the human element that goes far beyond just physical components. That is why no translation has “drag” in John 6 or 12, since “drag” does not fit the context. L. Leroy Forlines makes this point well when he writes,
“I have no problem with the idea that the drawing spoken of in John 6:44 is a “strong drawing.” But I do have a problem with speaking of it as a “forceful attraction” [quoting Calvinist Robert Yarbrough]. A word used literally may have a causal force when dealing with physical relationships. However, we cannot require that that word have the same causal force when it is used metaphorically with reference to an influence and response relationship. John 6:44 [and 12:32] speaks of a personal influence and response relationship.
For John 6:44 to aid the cause of unconditional election, it must be understood in terms of cause and effect. The verse plainly says that no one can come to Christ without being drawn by the Father. But there is nothing in the word helkou that would require that it be interpreted with a causal force. In fact, if we keep in mind that the relationship between God and man is a personal relationship, the use of helkou in this verse is better understood in terms of influence and response rather than cause and effect.” (Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson)
It is especially important to note that the LXX uses the same Greek word in Nehemiah in the context of God working to bring Israel back to Him, and Israel resisting that work (drawing),
“And many times You rescued them according to Your compassion,
29 And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, By which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen.
30 “However, You bore with them (literally, “drew” them, the same Greek word used in John 6 and 12) for many years, And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear (which proves that this drawing was not irresistible). Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.
31 “Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or forsake them, For You are a gracious and compassionate God.
This really destroys your entire argument as it is clear from this passage that the Greek word for “draw” does not always convey the idea of irresistible drawing or dragging (I am indebted to a New Testament scholar for pointing this out to me).
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/%e2%80%9csaved-by-grace%e2%80%9d-through-faith/
And here is another post that addresses the Calvinist claim based on Greek language:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/does-john-644-teach-irresistible-grace/
As for the other passages, I will need to look them up and get back to you when I get the chance, but when you understand the provisional nature of the atonement, passages about being bought are not a problem at all. Here are a few posts that address the provisional nature of the atonement:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/provisional-atonement-part-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/provisional-atonement-part-2-provision-is-consistent-with-foreknowledge/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/provisional-atonement-part-3-the-integrity-and-justice-of-god-in-the-gospel-offer/
And here is a lighthearted look at where this Calvinist argument can lead if followed through to its logical conclusion:
http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/08/atonement-for-paul.html
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello, Ben!
I have a question about the expression “from the foundation of the world” and “before the foundation of the world.” What are the possible meanings of it in the Bible? It is used in Ephesians and in a passage from Luke 11, and also Revelation (Book of Lamb).
Many thanks in advance!
Hi,
I have done some study and lean towards Calvinism but recently realized I never gave Arminianism enough thought so I’ve been reading your website, which has been helpful. Thanks.
I have a question about prevenient grace – who does God give this grace to: is it equally given to all people, or just some? And if so, how does God determine who receives it?
Thank you.
– Lance
Lance,
I think God’s enabling grace works in different ways in accordance with different situations. The Bible isn’t clear on the exact mechanics. It doesn’t break down to a simplified equation. I do believe that God graciously works in all people to bring them to faith in Christ. However, even for those who may not get the opportunity to hear the gospel, God will hold them accountable for how they responded to the grace they did receive. Still, I suspect that as people respond favorably to God’s gracious working, God will eventually lead them to a place where they can hear and accept the gospel. The actual specific enabling to believe the gospel would be specific to the time of hearing the gospel where the power of the word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit would make it possible for a depraved sinner to believe unto salvation.
Near the beginning of this thread are some questions about prevenient grace along with some answers from me that you may find helpful. That discussion starts here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-1575
May God bless you as you continue to seek Him and His truth.
Ben, can you recommend some study/article/book about the uses that the New Testament inspired writers make from the Old Testament?
I am curious about it because a Calvinist have used the argument Esau&Jacob are individuals, because Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1, and Hosea is about a nation but Matthew is about an individual.
Hi Ben,
Sadly, our fellowship has of late been under the pump from a number of vocal and rather aggressive young reformed folks. I was hoping you might be able to perhaps offer some counsel and help.
My main query is simply: How does one respond to these young Calvinist who claims predestination and election (as interpreted through the lens of TULIP) are central to the gospel?
Please don’t get me wrong, I love their passion for Jesus, along with their enthusiasm for careful theological thought. It’s their insistence on making their Calvinist position THE Biblical point of view and central to the Gospel which griefs me and compels me to try and respond in a gracious fashion.
Am I missing something? Does the doctrines of grace as expressed by TULIP really define the Gospel? To be honest I do not see why it cannot be a secondary doctrinal issue much akin to credo versus paedobaptism given we affirm so many central truths.
Glad I found your site …looking forward to reading the blog entires.
Ralph
credulo,
Anything by Brian Abasciano. He has articles at SEA dealing with corporate election that really get to the heart of the matter (I will paste them in below). His dissertation on the use of the OT in Romans 9:1-9 is available at the site as well.
Jacob and Esau are individuals in Romans, but they are spoken of as corporate representatives. So even though the passage is speaking about real people, it is speaking of them in the corporate sense, focusing on the people they represent as is clear from the reference to the prophecy in Romans 9:11, 12. In that prophecy, Jacob and Esau were referred to as peoples and nations (Genesis 25:23). Even in Romans, Paul quotes the part about the older serving the younger. That makes it clear that Paul is speaking corporately of these individuals, since Esau the individual never served Jacob.
As for Matthew, “son” is used as a reference to the people of Israel in the original text. It is being applied to Christ as a corporate entity, the true Israel, and in Him (his body) are the people of God. So it is really the same as in Romans. Matthew is speaking of Christ, but Christ is representative of His people, which is why this reference to Israel can properly apply to Him.
Here is a link to a post on Corporate Election with many links (including Brian’s stuff) at the bottom: http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination
Hope that helps.
Ralph,
I am sad to hear what is happening to your church. It is especially troubling when Calvinists try to make Calvinism the gospel. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Charles Spurgeon said that Calvinism was just a “nickname” for the gospel. Obviously, Calvinists believe that Calvinism is the fullest expression of the gospel, just as I believe that Arminianism is the fullest expression of the gospel. But as you point out, whether or not election is conditional or unconditional is a side issue. Calvinism and Arminianism are more concerned about the nuts and bolts of salvation, how salvation works.
The main issue should be that both camps agree that it is by grace through faith in Christ that anyone is saved. Calvinist say this happens irresistibly and unconditionally (even faith, the “condition for salvation” is given unconditionally to the elect), while Arminains say this happens resistibly and conditionally (God works faith in us in a resistible manner, and salvation is truly condition on our free response to gracious working, etc.).
When Calvinists make such claims they are implying that one cannot be saved if they are not a Calvinist. That is a mark of hyper-Calvinism. The reformed solas say it is through grace, faith, and Christ alone that we are saved. So when Calvinists call Calvinism the gospel, they are adding to the solas of their own movement.
I would remind such Calvinists that many wonderful Christians throughout the ages were not Calvinists. Nobody prior to Calvin was a Calvinist in the fullest sense expressed today (while Augustine held to much of what would later be called Calvinism, he did not hold to inevitable perseverance of the regenerate, a teaching that cannot be found prior to Calvin in the church- though it can be found among the gnostic sects).
So in making such claims they are saying that all the ante-nicene believers, great men like John Wesley and other Wesleyan preachers, nearly all Pentecostals, nearly all holiness movements (Nazarenes, Methodists), many great Baptists, and so many more either did not know the gospel, or, depending on how far they take it, were not even saved. That is outlandish (and arrogant) to say the least.
If you explore my site and look at the articles and posts available at SEA (the Society of Evangelical Arminians, http://evangelicalarminians.org/), you will find much to help you combat this claim.
May God Bless you and give you the grace to rightly respond to such claims in love. Here are a few posts here to get you started (part of a series I have yet to finish). The link will take you to 4 posts. Just click on them to read them in full.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/the-five-dilemmas-of-calvinism/
Ben
Unfortunately, this type of problem, i.e. placing tradition or church interpretation above on the same level with the plain gospel is not uncommon, and in fact is more likely than otherwise. I am told I am not saved if I do not call God three persons, or get baptized by such and such a preacher, or speak in tongues, none of which the Bible says I have to do to be saved. Calvinism is a spiritual sickness, because it lays aside not only man’s free will, but God’s love and it makes God out to the both the author of sin, and a being that delights in the eternal destruction of His children. Calvinists, as many others caught up in tradition are very circular in their thinking, and it’s really best to just step back, tell them you love them and that you will be praying for them. Arguing only strengthens their resolve.
Ben,
Hi i have 2 questions?
First of all i have heard claims and even thought myself that the calvinist God seems more personal with his people.
Here are my two questions.
Did God just die for sin or our sin? Did he die for us as a whole or for everyone individually? I would like to think of it as the second. I have heard that Calvinists believe it was a personal death for them and arminians don’t think that cause they believe he died for all, but was it a personal death for me and for everyone or just for man kind as a whole?
Secondly
It seems that Gods special love is only for his people. This troubled me cause im like does he only love me like this once i come to him? What type of love did he love me with before i was saved! was it amazing crazy amount and whats the difference now (type of love)? Also how could God say i have loved you with an everlasting love if it hasn’t been forever? This article thing below seems to argue it has always been but i didn’t understand it. I just want to know Jesus death was personal and out of an insane amount of love for me.
A third argument for the limited atonement is the argument from the special love of God. It is stated that God had a peculiar love to His people, to His church, to the elect, and that this love prompted Him to send Christ. This love is compared in Scripture to the love of a husband for his wife, which is exclusive. To this peculiar and infinite love, the gift of Christ is uniformly referred (I John 4:10, 3:16; Rom. 5:8; John 15:13; Rom. 8:35-39; 5:1-11).
Thanks
Also i have read your article on assurance.
It seems i can’t gain grounds for assurance cause of Hebrews 10 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
I feel i dibelatry sin all the time, we all do. How long does this Grace last around me? Or is it just talking about people saying they are saved but are fully living in sin? How secure and safe is my salvation cause it seems everytime i sin i feel i have lost it and i dont feel secure cause i don’t know how many deliberate sins it would take to lose it?
Help please
Hutton
Ben,
I first experienced the conviction (of what I believe was the Holy Spirit) at nine and asked the Lord to come into my heart, and was baptized. I never grew in faith or wisdom or righteousness, and when I was fifteen, after reading strange philosophy, I prayed/thought to myself something of the nature that “I willingly reject Christ/Christianity, not salvation” or something like that. I’m not even sure if I included the last two words or not. I was immediately sorry and prayed to the Lord to forgive me, knowing that I didn’t really want that, and was deeply grieved. I thought about it a lot, prayed about it a lot, and could not stop sinning as I got older, falling into extremes of sexual immorality, cursing, etc.
I still believed I was saved, but lacked assurance and questioned a great deal. In college, I got in with a group of Christian guys and debated theology. I was Arminian, some were Calvinist, and we all had a good time debating, but I became convinced that a genuine believer could not have been living the way I had (came to Lordship). Eventually, I realized I hated a Christian brother, and that I could not possibly have been saved. A deep fear fell on me, I was convinced I was going to Hell (well deservedly), and for days (literally) I confessed and begged the Lord to save me. Just before I offed myself (5 minutes or so before), it seemed to me that He had heard me and done so.
There has been a definite change of lifestyle (I wanted to stop those sins before but couldn’t – It’s been relatively easy to let go of them since), but I am still worried by a few things: 1) my apparent, willing apostasy at 15 (Hebrews 6, Heb. 10:26-27), 2) the fact I sometimes wrestle with assurance, which – when I’m losing the battle – makes me fearful (1 John 4:18) 3) Matthew 7:22 (see point 2). 4) I don’t love as much as I want to (sends me back to 2). Did I commit unpardonable apostasy and am deluding myself now to think Christ will save me? If I am sometimes exceeding fearful that my faith is not saving faith (not that Christ is not Who and What He claimed, but essentially, after walking in darkness so long, I do not trust my heart – particularly given Matt 7:22), does that imply that it is not? I truly desire nothing more than to spend eternity worshiping Christ and to walk in perfect obedience (not possible, but desired) here, but I am perplexed by my peculiar situation and am almost afraid of accepting assurance because of the way I was before, both assured and wicked. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Sorry about the post length. Christ Bless and Keep You.
Thanks Ben for your thoughtful response. Apologies for this belated response. I have been crook in bed 😦
The links to further resources have been most helpful!
Ralph
BEN HEY ITS ME AGIAN. PLEASE HELP. THIS WEBSITE JESUS-IS-SAVIOR.COM IS SAYING SOME KINDA CRAZY THINGS MY CONSCIENCE QUESTIONS. THEY ARE SAYING CALVINISTS ARE CONDEMNED, ARMINIANS ARE PROBABLY CONDEMN BECAUSE OF THEIR WORKS BASED RELIGION. IS THIS SITE WAY OFF. PLEASE HELP QUICK
HUTTON
Hutton,
There are a lot of cooky sites out there who will tell you everyone is condemned (accept for them, or course). Don’t waste you time there. Are you trusting in Christ to save you? If so, you are not condemned for “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Maybe you need to just focus on reading the Word and take a break from the internet for a while.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
You wrote,
There has been a definite change of lifestyle (I wanted to stop those sins before but couldn’t – It’s been relatively easy to let go of them since), but I am still worried by a few things: 1) my apparent, willing apostasy at 15 (Hebrews 6, Heb. 10:26-27)
I don’t think the apostasy you committed is consistent with that being described in those passages. For further discussion, please take a look at the following posts:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-6-hebrews-1026-30/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-11-can-apostates-be-restored/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/does-scripture-describe-two-types-of-apostasy/
Let me know if you still have questions. You can leave those questions here or in the comboxes of those threads.
, 2) the fact I sometimes wrestle with assurance, which – when I’m losing the battle – makes me fearful (1 John 4:18) 3) Matthew 7:22 (see point 2). 4) I don’t love as much as I want to (sends me back to 2). Did I commit unpardonable apostasy and am deluding myself now to think Christ will save me?
Not at all. Jesus said He would not cast out those who come to Him (John 6). If you had committed apostasy as described in Hebrews 6 and 10, you would have no desire to return to Christ (see posts linked to above).
If I am sometimes exceeding fearful that my faith is not saving faith (not that Christ is not Who and What He claimed, but essentially, after walking in darkness so long, I do not trust my heart – particularly given Matt 7:22), does that imply that it is not?
If you are trusting in Christ to save you and are not pleased with your sin, then you gave solid grounds for assurance. Christians struggle against sin and often lose, but that is different from apostasy, which gives up the battle and has no desire to stop sinning or maintain a relationship with Christ.
I truly desire nothing more than to spend eternity worshiping Christ and to walk in perfect obedience (not possible, but desired) here, but I am perplexed by my peculiar situation and am almost afraid of accepting assurance because of the way I was before, both assured and wicked. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Sorry about the post length. Christ Bless and Keep You.
Your desire to walk in obedience and the contrast you present (before, compared to now) should help you see that you have solid grounds for assurance.
God Bless,
Ben
Hutton,
You wrote,
Also i have read your article on assurance.
It seems i can’t gain grounds for assurance cause of Hebrews 10 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
I feel i dibelatry sin all the time, we all do. How long does this Grace last around me? Or is it just talking about people saying they are saved but are fully living in sin? How secure and safe is my salvation cause it seems everytime i sin i feel i have lost it and i dont feel secure cause i don’t know how many deliberate sins it would take to lose it?
I believe you are misunderstanding the nature of the deliberate sin(ning) being described in Hebrews 10. Take a look at the posts I referred Ben to in the post above and see if they help. If you still have questions, let me know.
Hutton, first, I don’t believe anyone deserves to go to hell. It’s not about deserving it, it’s about satisfying God’s wrath on sin. So, with that in mind, one thing I think you are doing, and it’s something I have done, is to place most or all of the responsibility and burden f being saved and remaining saved on YOU, and nowhere near enough on Jesus, or credit to Him for His sovereignty and great love and desire for you to be saved. A person is not a robot; we don’t just program facts and figures, and salvation into us. Salvation is a lifetime commitment and a choice,and while it can and does create feelings of sureness, warmth, love and boldness, we are still people and sometimes we feel bad or negative emotions. hatred as an emotion is sometimes unavoidable, but as long as we make a conscious effort to forgive, the mere feeling of hatred will not do any damage to our relationship. Where we go wrong as sinners is when we hold onto that anger and it becomes resentment, and eventually we are hard pressed to be able to love the person, even in a godly sense. Hard hearts will reject the Lord, soft ones will listen to His instructions, and receive His chastisements. Look at David, he had a great relationship with The Lord, and he murdered, lied and betrayed, yet it was his attitude before The Lord, and attitude of humility and contriteness that allowed his relationship to be fully restored. The Lord wants you to be saved, He died for that very reason, so don’t sit around thinking about how many mistakes you have made as a Christian, sufficient for this day is the evil thereof, do’t focus on the past, or worry about the future. God knows what he is doing, He is no ameture, so just continue to trust in Jesus, and the feelings of warmth and peace will eventually return.
Hello! Thank you very much for your web site. I have a question conserning revelation 17:8, especialy about this part of the verse: And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel… Most commentaries make it to be a predestinarian verse. They say that “from the foundation of the world” means “before the foudation of the world”. But I don’t understand why they make this decision. In greek preposition is απο – form, not προ – before. Maybe the reason is γεγραπται wich is in perfect tense? Meaning that since the foundation of the world those names are in the written state, which sends the action of the writing to the time before the foudation. But we have similar constraction in Luke 11:50: so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation… Shed (ἐκκεχυμένον, wich is also perfect, but participle) from founfation (απο καταβολης) of the world (κοσμου). We wouldn’t say, that blood of the prophets was shed before the foundation! But it seems that this verse is talking about all those prophets who were killed in the process of history. So why can’t we use the same logic in case with book of life? That those names were written in the process of history? Help me out please! Sorry for my english. I’m from Ukraine.
I’m looking for some information on how to deal with the limited atonement argument that if Jesus paid the penalty for all, then people sent to hell would being paying the penalty a second time. I found a couple comments by Ryrie on your site, but wondered if you could expound.
Gary:
This is a very weak argument in my opinion. This is essentially the same argument as the Owen Trilemma – see the Provisional Atonement series. I even have named the argument: Intrinsically Effectual Atonement (or Irresistible Atonement).
This is my explanation; the Ben’s one on the series above is very better articulated.
The Gomarist (5-point Calvinist) argument can be summarized like this:
P1 – If Jesus has paid the sins of some person (say, Mr. X) on your death on the cross, then God can’t charge Mr. X again in the hell. (The premise of 5-point calvinist)
P2 – Only the elect are saved. (No contention here…)
C – So, Jesus has paid only the elect’s sins
Well, the argument is logically valid, so we need to test the truth of premises. And we can do it with a very simple approach: the sin of incredulity.
P3 – Incredulity is a sin (well, the Bible says (1John 2:10-13) an unbeliever makes God a liar).
P4 – Jesus has paid the sin of incredulity of elect people.
In fact, if not, then the elect will not be saved, contradicting P2.
C2 – So, God can’t charge the incredulity of elect people – it contradicts C above.
But C2 contradicts the ‘children of wrath’ (Ephesians 2:3).
I think it can help.
Gary,
Free will Baptist F.Leroy Forlines treats this topic very well in his book The Quest for Truth. You can get an edited version of the book that contains only the subject matter on the Arminian and Calvinist debate called Classical Arminianism, edited by Matthew Pinson.
The basic idea is that the benefits of the atonement are only ours when we are joined to Christ. Until that time, they are only provisional in Him. Until we are joined to Christ in faith there is no payment credited to our account. Only when we are joined to Him is payment for sin credited to our account. Therefore, there is no double payment. The payment of atonement is provisional and conditional. It is not automatic or unconditional. It is only through identification with Christ that His death becomes our death and His payment becomes ours. It is the difference between provision and application. As credula pointed out, my series on provisional atonement should help as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Vladimir,
Your interpretation is certainly a valid one. There may be other ways to interpret the passage as well, but no need to read unconditional election into it. It just isn’t there.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi, I read you post about Romans 9:16 but what about the following passages? Paul states what someone may question… Then gives the example of them being a pot destined and appointed for destruction. Then it states the prophecy of Isaiah that says God did not love everyone but later decided to love Gentiles too.
I meant to say Hosea
Hello, Ben! I have some doubts about the ‘commercial analogy’ on the Bible. In some verses Paul and the Apostles trait the Atonement as a commercial relationship – and arguments about the ‘double jeopardy’ gain some force.
What Paul means to say about the ‘ handwriting of ordinances that was against us’ – Colossians 2:14 King James?
Ashley,
We have several posts here that I think will help you with your questions. Here are a few of them:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/romans-9-in-context/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/where-calvinism-gets-romans-9-wrong-who-do-jacob-and-esau-represent/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/where-calvinism-gets-romans-9-wrong-prerogative-equals-unconditionality/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/where-calvinism-gets-romans-9-wrong-proof-texting-from-a-translation-choice/
I personally hold to the corporate election view and see that view being expressed nicely in Romans 9-11 (as you will see in the first link above, the rest of the links go to posts that were written by the other author at this site, JCT). Once you understand the corporate view, Romans 9 makes a lot more sense and avoids the serious difficulties one encounters in the Calvinist view when reading Romans 9-11 as a unit. Here is a link to several resources on the corporate view (especially see the links at the bottom of the short summary):
http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination
If you still have questions, let me know.
God Bless,
Ben
credulo,
I am having a hard time following your question. Could you be a little more specific?
Trying to write it again:
A very common Calvinist argument is to use some Scriptural references about Atonement, mainly using terms like “bought by the blood”. A very common verse is Colossians 2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross
In Portuguese translations, it is sometimes related to ‘payment of a sin-debt’. So, the Calvinist says ‘If Jesus has paid the debt of sin in the cross, why someone will pay it again on Hell?’
My problem is with the analogy Paul uses – or, more specifically, with the ‘Pushing very far’ made by Calvinists on the payment analogy. How I can explain this verse(s), in the provisional view of atonement, and how I can argument against the ‘commercial theory’ of Calvinists?
credulo,
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to get to this till sometime next week.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello. My name’s Joseph. http://www.Biblecia.com. I believe, as you do, that the Reformed/Arminian debate is an in-house debate. My question is not meant to be the end all be all “spade card” against the Arminian approach to interpretation. It’s just one that to me seems more meaty in a blog setting because it’s a broad stroke approach to many of the questions whose particulars are often already so entrenched on each side of discussion. First a definition of a Biblical miracle: “Something God does completely inexplicable by any natural means.” I’m sure we’d agree that many use the word “miracle” today far too haphazardly. A resurrection is a miracle; the birth of baby is not. A person’s shadow healing a sick person in another city is a miracle; someone receiving a settlement check “just in time” is not, etc. I, of a Reformed persuasion, would Biblically catalog salvation as a bona fide miracle. I want to acknowledge the miracle working of God in all I do. The Arminian approach to regeneration is completely explainable by natural means. God rose again, we believe that fact…done. No miracles needed between God and us! We may call God’s love a miracle, all of the works that made our salvation possible a miracle, or something like that, but there’s nothing miraculous about our salvation if it is in response to anything naturally capable in men from the start.
My Biblical reasoning for calling the born again experience a miracle has many many scriptural points. As this is a broad stroke, I will not list them. I will, however, say that in the Bible the salvation of individuals is likened to three things: 1) a new birth, 2) a new creation, and 3) a resurrection. This is not coincidental; they’re all miracles. A natural birth is not a miracle; a supernatural one is. Creations and resurrections are miracles. Again, this is a broad stroke approach to a fact of regeneration that I find clearly maintained under every bush of the argument in which I find myself. When I focus on the cause rather than the outworking of salvation it becomes a perfect synthesis in Scripture. I used to be an Arminian (even before I knew what one was), but I was changed. My now stacked question is: “Do you call salvation (the new birth, regeneration) a miracle?”
Thanks for your time!
Joseph P.
credulo,
Sorry this has taken so long. I hope to get to this Wednesday, or this weekend at the latest. Thanks for being patient.
No problems, Kangaroodort!
I am also a bit busy these days.
Also, I have a more philosophical question. Generally, Calvinists claim that ‘Moral duties don’t imply ability’ or ‘Responsibility don’t imply freedom’. They generally cites verses like ‘God commands us to be holy like Him, a very clear impossibility’ and another things.
So, two questions: how I can show the of ‘Moral duty implies freedom and ability’ (with the Holy Spirit’s grace, of course); and some material about it (the Whedon’s book against Edwards is a good choice?).
Many thanks!
A very common Calvinist argument is to use some Scriptural references about Atonement, mainly using terms like “bought by the blood”. A very common verse is Colossians 2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross
I don’t see any problem with this passage with regards to the provisional atonement view. The wrath of God against all sin was satisfied in Christ, but only in Christ. That wrath is satisfied in us only when we are joined to Christ in faith. Redemption is “in Christ.” Not only that, but if we were truly “Bought by the blood” at the cross, then we were forgiven “at the cross”, even before we were born. That gets back to the problem of eternal justification, where this Calvinist argument cannot help but to lead.
In Portuguese translations, it is sometimes related to ‘payment of a sin-debt’. So, the Calvinist says ‘If Jesus has paid the debt of sin in the cross, why someone will pay it again on Hell?’
Because it is provisional. Numerous passages make this point. Calvinists wrongly assume application is automatic in such passages. Even in Matthew 18:23-35 we can see that a debt that was forgiven can be credited back to the account of the one forgiven if the one who forgives the debt chooses to credit it back again (in this case, it is the Father crediting back our sin debt when we refuse to forgive others their debts against us). So I think the argument really breaks down at that point.
The fundamental basis of the atonement is in how God wants the atonement to work. If God wants it to work provisionally for all with the application of the atonement only for those who believe, He can do that. That is His sovereign right. That is also how it is portrayed in Scripture.
Often Paul will speak of the results of the atonement as if they are already applied, but the context makes it clear that the application is still a contingency and not automatic. One example is in 1 Cor. 5:17-21,
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
Notice fist that being a new creation is only “in Christ.” No one is made new outside of Christ. Christ is the provision of life for all, but we only enjoy that life through faith union with Him.
Second, Paul speaks of us being reconciled through or in Christ. Again, the sphere of reconciliation is in Christ alone. Third, Paul speaks of the world being reconciled to God through Christ (even to the point of our sins not being counted against us). That doesn’t necessarily sound provisional, but it must be or the entire world would be forgiven and reconciled to God at the cross. Rather, it is plainly provisional as Paul continues with an appeal, “Be reconciled to God.” So even though God was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ, that reconciliation is not complete until we respond. We also need to be reconciled. Therefore, God’s reconciliation through Christ of the world is provisional and is only applied to us when we respond in faith and are ourselves “reconciled” to God. Paul is saying that God provided reconciliation in Christ for the world and then calls on us to take advantage of that provision by embracing that provision and being fully reconciled with God.
My problem is with the analogy Paul uses – or, more specifically, with the ‘Pushing very far’ made by Calvinists on the payment analogy. How I can explain this verse(s), in the provisional view of atonement, and how I can argument against the ‘commercial theory’ of Calvinists?
Hopefully, what I wrote here will help.
You might benefit from reading Forlines on this. Also, Richard Taylor has a good book addressing this issue called “God’s Integrity and the Cross.”
Another resource that might be helpful is I. Howard Marshall’s work: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/222
God Bless,
Ben
I will get back to you on your further question, but Whedon is an excellent book on that topic.
Joseph,
Sorry, I just noticed and approved your post. There is a lot to respond to and I don’t have time at the moment. I think your argument is flawed and does not properly understand what Arminians believe. Salvation is certainly a miracle and so is regeneration. Arminians do not believe that we regenerate ourselves, so of course it is a miracle that only God can do. However, you beg the question in assuming that this miracle must come before faith or be unconditional in order for it to be a miracle. It is just as much a miracle if it is conditionally applied. Likewise, if I ask God to heal someone and He does, it is certainly a miracle, though it is conditioned on the prayer. I didn’t heal the person, God did. I have no power to heal anyone. But God responded to my prayer with a miracle. But even further, Arminians hold to prevenient grace which makes faith possible in depraved sinners. That is likewise a miracle.
God Bless,
Ben
I am a Wesleyan-Arminian and tend to accept the corporate view of election. However, there is one thing I do struggle with in regards to that view and I wonder if anyone can help me here. As I understand it, the corporate view holds that the “old ship of zion” (the church) is unconditionally guaranteed to arrive at the Heavenly Port. But an individual’s salvation is conditional upon his faith response, as well as perseverance in that faith. My question is this: the corporate body is composed of individuals. How can a corporate body, composed of CONDITIONALLY elect individuals, itself be UNCONDITIONALLY elect? If every single member is conditionally elect, doesn’t that make the entire body conditionally elect also? In order for the church to be unconditionally elect to arrive at the Heavenly Port, would that mean that God must have unconditionally guaranteed that certain persons be saved to comprise this unconditionally elect group, lest the remote possibility happen that no one end up being saved and thus resulting in no church?
Steve,
You really need to read the following article. I think it will help. If you still have questions, let me know.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Clearing-Up-Misconceptions-about-Corporate-Election
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the time and effort you put into this site! I have a rather different question, but hopefully you can help.
I’m trying to make up my mind between Calvinism and Arminianism. I respect as sincere attempts to understand the scriptures, although only one can be correct, or at least closer to the truth than the other. It’s an issue I plan to read about from both sides before settling on. I’m leaning towards Calvinism but open-minded.
Surprisingly, the biggest barrier to me accepting Arminianism isn’t a particular section of scripture or question, but the inability to find good sermons/commentaries from that perspective. Here are some details.
I’m teaching through Romans in a small group. I love doing it, and I’m doing enough research that my time in Romans constitutes much of the time I can spend studying at the moment, and likely will for the next year. I’ve got some great resources, but all seem to be written by Calvinists. I rely primarily on two commentaries by John Stott and Douglas Moo and two sermon series by John Piper and Martin Lloyd-Jones.
Even if I were a decided Calvinist (and I’m not), I don’t like only reading out of only a single school of thought. I’d rather include alternate evangelical perspectives. What I’d REALLY love is to find a sermon series available on .mp3 that goes through Romans at something approaching the depth that Piper does. I’ve asked several friends/pastors, and no one can point me to anything. I’ve found some whole-bible series. Everything seems to approach Romans at a much more superficial level (10-30 sermons to cover the book – Piper took 225).
I don’t need someone to match Piper in length so much as in clarity, intellect and depth. I’ve been consistently told (primarily by Calvinists) that such teaching simply doesn’t exist in the Arminian camp. If that is in fact the case, I’ll likely be a Calvinist soon. But I doubt it is. Can you point me to a solid sermon series by a pastor who could match wits with Piper? I don’t want a lot of illustrations, but rigorous exposition. I’m also not looking for a “Why Romans supports Arminianism” approach; simply an honest attempt to unpack the message of the book.
(To ask my question, I realize I’ve subtly accused Arminians of having less solid teaching than Calvinists. I sincerely apologize – that is not my intent. I would understand if you would prefer to deal with this over email rather than on your website)
Thank you and God bless,
Paul
Paul,
There are a lot of good Arminian resources out there on Rom. 9. I am not sure, but I think there are some MP3’s as well. For me, the strongest view of Romans comes from the corporate election view. Dr. Brian Abasciano has written two books on Romans 9 and will eventually write a third. He takes on Piper and his interpretation throughout his books, especially the second (and in my opinion, soundly refutes him). He holds to the corporate election view and is probably the best advocate of the view out there. Unfortunately, his books are very expensive right now. You can find his dissertation free online at The Society of Evangelical Arminians, which is basically his first book, but with more material (his first book is an edited version of his dissertation). It is very extensive, but only covers Romans 9:1-9. The second book covers Romans 9:10-18, but that one you would have to buy.
In the mean time, you should probably read his articles dealing with Rom. 9 and the corporate view of election. I think that would help quite a bit. Below are some good links (starting with his dissertation).
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Pauls-Use-of-the-Old-Testament-in-Romans-9.1-9-An-Intertextual-and-Theological-Exegesis
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Corporate-Election-in-Romans-9:A-Reply-to-Thomas-Schreiner
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Clearing-Up-Misconceptions-about-Corporate-Election
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glynn.Dr.Brian-Abasciano-Responds-To-Dr.Dan-Wallace-On-The-Issue-Of-Corporate-Election
Here is a page with many resources about the corporate view:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Here is an Amazon list of some good Arminian or non-Calvinist commentaries on Romans:
http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Commentaries-on-Romans/lm/R22GCU75BWUYF4/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full
And here is a link to a page with many Arminian resources, including online commentaries:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/94
And here are a few more to check out:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Election-Dennis-McCallum-Exegetes-Romans-9-on-youtube-%28Brennon-Hartshorn%29 (this one is a youtube series)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5n4EAAAAQAAJ&dq=Goodwin+%22ninth+chapter%22+Romans&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=g-kMyfTkaJ&sig=ExsA5HDwvOoeI6J9n5gDzFz5bU4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR6,M1
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Godet-Commentary-on-Romans
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/268
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/257
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/286
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Election-Free-Will-William-Lane-Craig-on-Romans-9
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Reprobation-Divine-Hardening-of-the-Human-Heart-Isaiah-6%3A10-and-63%3A17
I have many more, but that should get you started. I will see what else I can find, as far as MP3s as well.
I also highly recommend Forline’s book “The Quest for Truth”, or the newer edited version of the same book (which focuses specifically on Calvinism and Arminianism), “Classical Arminianism”. Forlines interacts quite a bit with Piper on Romans 9 in that book, from a more traditional Arminian perspective. Here is my review of the book: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/classical-arminianism-by-f-leroy-forlines-book-review/
God Bless,
Ben
Paul,
Do you know about the Society of Evangelical Arminians website (http://evangelicalarminians.org/)? Check out the video and audio file section of their links and books page: http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/94. There are various expository preaching resources there, though not a lot. Let me draw your attention to a few that might be worth checking out first:
David Pawson is reputed to be an excellent expository preacher. Here is a link to his series on Romans: http://davidpawson.org/resources/category/new-testament-studies/romans/. Now he seems to have significantly longer sermons than Piper, though significantly less messages. I believe he has expository messages on every book in the Bible (or close to it) available online.
Dennis McCallum is also reputed to be good. Here is his series on Romans: http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?series=110. There are also other series from Romans by other preachers fin his church available at the same website.
I have heard good things about Tim Warner’s expository preaching, and he is currently preaching through Romans; the series can be found on his church’s home page: http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/index.html. He looks like he might be closer to Piper than the others in the number of messages on Romans, though nothing close to 200+ (but again, perhaps they are longer).
The Meeting House church has 116 messages that have a Scripture tag from Romans, though I do not know if they are expository: http://www.themeetinghouse.com/teaching/search/?p=1&query=romans&show=50&refineby=scripture:Romans. They seem to have a couple expository series on Romans amounting to about 20 sermons: Part 1: http://www.themeetinghouse.com/ajax/series-info/1770 and Part 2: http://www.themeetinghouse.com/ajax/series-info/1765
But you should check out the other resources in that section on SEA’s site.
As for commentaries on Romans, Ben seems to have given you a link for that.
God bless!
Thank you very much for the prompt responses! Right now, my small group is starting Rom. 7, so we’ve got a few months before I have to think about CH. 9. But, those links will be very helpful then.
I appreciate the sermon suggestions. I’ll download those and try to listen to some in the coming weeks!
Grace and peace,
Paul
Paul,
Don’t forget that link to a list of Arminian commentaries on Romans Ben gave you. I didn’t mention specific commentaries because he gave you that link. But now I’ll mention Witherington, Osborne, and Cottrell. Also, Godet’s commentary, which is older but highly respected, is available on the internet for free. You can find it at SEA’s site for example.
Also, could you tell us how the sermons are after you listen to some?
God bless!
Noplace in scripture are we asked or demanded to make a choice between any man made doctrine, or man contrived doctrine. We are not told by God to choose between Arminianism or Calvinism, and we are not told that we have to define God or His eternal divine nature, like the Trinitarians and modalists say we do. The Bible doesn’t say “thou shalt read only King James 1611!” What we do all have to understand and agree upon, regardless of our pride and denominational views is that God loved the entire world so much, that He gave His only “born of a woman” son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That statement is the focal point for the entire Bible, and all doctrines, no matter how well researched they may be have to agree with that universally true and eternally true statement, or they are false. So, if you want to choose between Arminianism and Calvinism, choose based on that criteria. Arminianism, with all of its faults at least acknowledges that God loves all men and women, as well as children who have ever lived, live now, or will ever live and He desires them to be saved, and go to heaven when they die. If Calvinism agrees with that unalterable, immutable truth, then by all means, choose it if you desire. If it does not, it is a lie.
Hi my two cents worth. 🙂
Witherington’s The Problem with Evangelical Theology (Baylor, 2005) also has a very good discussion of election and Romans 9 in chapter 4 of the book.
Cheers,
Ralph
Matt,
I understand that you are trying to help, but your comments are not really related to his specific question. They address his comments about a personal investigation between two views, and come across (to me) as a bit of an attack. This thread is for people to ask honest questions and get helpful answers. It is not an opportunity for commenters to attack certain views or how one is going about deciding an issue (and I am not saying you meant to attack, but again it comes across that way). If I were Paul, I would want to defend myself, and that would likely lead to a debate. Again, that is not what this thread is for. I also have some issue with what you have said here. I think you are wrong about some things, but I am not going to engage your comments for the same reasons I just mentioned.
God Bless,
Ben
This issue keeps coming across my day when listening to preachers, it seems many use the book, The Sovereignty of God, by Arthur Pink. Funny thing Armenians as well as Augustinians use this book. Why do both sides quote Pink?
My comment was accurate and true. I was not attacking anyone, the man was struggling with which theology to choose, so I simplified it for him. I said to test it, as well as all other man contrived theologies and doctrines by the rule of John 3:16, which is the pivotal truth of the Bible,; i.e. God’s love for, and desire for all men to be saved. If Calvinism passes that test, so be it. I personally do not believe it does, but he can decide for himself. I also know that the “church” today is divided over other issues, such as the ones I mentioned above, but there is nothing in the Bible which tells us we have to be. The short answer is, if the Bible says we have to do something, or believe something, then we should, otherwise, we need to drop the arguments and posturing, and concentrate on what God wants us to. Would God want us arguing endlessly over which English version of His word is inspired? No, I do not believe so. Would He want us wasting time trying to put names on the essence of His being, and drawing lines in the sand telling people iof they do not see those things exactly as we do, that they are heretics? No, I do not. Would He want us to be spreading the gospel to all who are lost, and telling them of His love and desire for them to be saved? Yes, I believe He would. The bickering and posturing, and arguing over miniscules is taking time away from the precious duty of reaching lost souls for Jesus, and this is why we the saved are here. This is not an attack, just a reminder of that fact.
I agree with Matthew that this is not an issue we should be divided over. It’s very clear that many intelligent, sincere, fully committed followers of Christ have ended up on opposite sides of this, and individuals on both sides have made great impacts for the Kingdom. You can clearly be a solid Christian as either a Calvinist or Arminian. On the other hand, it’s impossible to read the Bible and not see that unity among believers is essential.
I appreciate how respectful the replies have been here. I’m glad that what we hold in common as believers is more valued than where we differ.
Paul
Matthew,
I understand where you are coming from, and I wish it were always that simple. Of course, I agree with you on John 3:16. However, we can easily oversimplify things as well. Even John 3:16 is loaded with theology. God gave His Son. What does that mean? How does God have a Son? When Jesus calls God His Father, what does that mean? When the Bible assigns divine qualities to the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, what does that mean in light of the fact that the Bible says there is only one God? If we draw conclusions on what the Bible says, does it then all of a sudden become man made or man contrived theology? I have a feeling you draw conclusions often when reading the Bible that go beyond the exact words of the Bible. That doesn’t mean your conclusions are man made or man contrived.
I also understand the desire to say that we should not discuss such things but just spend all of our time witnessing, etc. But you are here spending time on this blog, and you are not witnessing either. I suppose you do a lot of things that are not exactly kingdom activities. However, I will say that many Arminians have been very mission minded and have devoted themselves to witnessing and the like and for that reason have not been as devoted to theology and scholarship. I think that is part of the reason there is not nearly as much scholarship on the Arminian side as from the Calvinist side (which is one of the concerns of this commenter). This is part of what has led to Calvinism making a very strong comeback and many people are now embracing a doctrine that you admit to not believing passes the test of John 3:16. So should we just ignore that? If God has burdened some of us with helping people see another perspective and giving them the tools they need to rightly evaluate Calvinist arguments, is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.
People are gifted in many ways and God builds His church in many ways. Witnessing is a huge part of that, but that is not all there is to it. Again, I wish it were that simple.
God Bless,
Ben
Well said, Ben. The job of the church is really two fold, not one. The primary function of pastors and elders is toward the sheep. It’s to teach them sound doctrine and discipleship. Each believer then (along with them) by that word, is equipped fully by God the Holy Spirit for the many works of the church which includes evangelism. The church’s primary (not only) job, I’d say, is for the saints. If I’m called to teach then teach I must. Each member has its role in the body and all also serve the common life of the whole. Thank you for your reply to my question on miracles a short while ago sir. Your response has prompted countless hours of prayer, reading and writing. I do hope you’ll give this time’s final product letter some time if I send it to you. Take care.
The church’s function is the same as Christ’s function, to seek and save the lost. Theology only serves a purpose if it works to that end. yes, we do need to know sound doctrine, and have a relationship with Jesus, but those are things that really only God can teach and show us. We can share our lessons with those less advanced and mature, but our reason for existing on earth as believers is to show others to salvation. Paul showed us this, by living, being tortured and dying just so people could hear the plain gospel. The church is far too involved in nit picking, and far too uninvolved in the business of our father.
Thanks for sharing your view Matthew. I mostly agree with you. I just think you are being a little too narrow on a few things. But I don’t want to nit pick, so I will leave it alone.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello,
Do you have any recommendations that you can share for good unbiased church history resources? I purchased “Drive By Church History” by Todd Friel, and was so let down to hear Todd and his co-host categories the doctrine of free will as heresy and to listen to them praise Agustine for his contrary teachings, etc. I don’t feel like I can trust their history lessons as being unbiased now.
I greatly appreciate your advice.
Thank you,
Riverwalk
Jim,
Unfortunately, I am not sure there is such a thing. It is really hard to be entirely objective when dealing with History. When I was in college, we used Justo L. Gonzalez’s “The Story of Christianity”, which is two volumes (the 1st is early church to the dawn of the Reformation, the 2nd is from the Reformation onward). I think those books were pretty objective (I haven’t looked at them in a while). Beyond that, I am not sure. It might be best to get some from a variety of writers from theological viewpoints and kind of get to the truth by comparing them. Here are links to the Gonzalez books:
God Bless,
Ben
I would say unbiased is difficult if not impossible these days, but your best bet is to go with ones that cite scripture as references to their points the most. If they keep it scriptural, it’s less likely for it to be over biased.
Thank you Ben and Mattew. I responded to the email that I recieved but I don’t know if that will make my response show up here or not, so I am copying it here as well.
I suspicioned that answer. And I suppose you are right, about reading from multiple sources and comparing them. That’s the approach I already have in mind if I can’t find something widely recognized as unbiased. And thank you very much for the reference. I will look it up.
Am I perhaps not looking in the right places or does there indeed appear to be an imbalance in the volume of serious minded teaching and preaching from the Arminian perspective? I mean, it is amazing how many resources are out there from the Calvinist perspective, like Sermon Audio.com and Biblical Training.org, just to mention a couple. But where is the same volume and quality of teachings from the Non-Calvinist perspective? For quite a few years now my wife and I have been very discouraged as we visit from church to church looking for Christians who are serious about learning and studying their faith, and it never fails that the only churches that even come close to fitting the description are Calvinist. But we won’t stay in such a church because we are thoroughly opposed to the teaching of Calvinism. I would love to get your reaction to this and thank you so much for the great web site. You are certainly doing your part.
Jim
Jim,
That is very hard to say. I would say in general that those from the Arminian viewpoint have been far more concerned with practical ministry, evangelism, and missions than those from the Calvinist perspective. Much of this is the natural outworking of the two theologies. Calvinist churches seem to be less concerned about outreach and more concerned with doctrine and scholarly endeavors, and proving their Calvinism. That might be why there is so much more out there from Calvinist perspectives, even though the church remains predominately non-Calvinist. But now that Calvinism is making a comeback, we are starting to see Arminians get more serious about such things and more works are being produced, like in the time of the early Methodists. That is an issue that sites like mine and SEA are trying to address.
Again, this is a general observation. Many C churches are very missions minded, but that has not always been the case, and I still think that they have a tendency to focus on it less than Arminian churches, and to focus more on doctrine than Arminian churches.
Ben,
That makes a lot of sense to me. I have often wondered if there is perhaps a lack of motivation within Calvinist circles to evangelize, and I can see the general truth of what you are suggesting. So one could ask the question of Calvinism, e.g., why don’t we see more efforts toward wining souls for Christ within Calvinist leaning churches, etc? And you have given an answer to that question as well as an answer my first question.
You have been very helpful and I greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much, and may God bless you for your excellent work on this web site.
Jim
Many of the Calvinists I have met have basically had the attitude that evangelism is just a formality. “After all, God regenerates us, so what real need is there for people to hear a gospel message?” In my opinion, it’s actually a good thing that they choose to limit their evangelism, because when their doctrine reached that level of heresy, it was better to not spread it
Even though I feel Calvinism is heretical at it’s core, I know a number of Calvinists in different local churches, and they are just as zealous about evangelism as my non Calvinists brethren. This has been my experience thus far.
I’m a Calvinist, fellas; I live for personal evangelism. So does every Calvinist I know. I’m a Southern Baptist (Baptist roots being unarguably Reformed). Founders of the largest evangelistic endeavors in recent church history that I’m aware of were all Calvinists. E.g. The Reformation (surely none would call Luther Arminianistic) Calvin, Evangelism Explosion (D. James Kennedy), 2/3 of the force behind the 1st Great Awakening (Whitefield, Edwards). Our theology isn’t a restriction. It’s what leads us to evangelize if we’re approved workmen. For just some historical roots of this why not listen to a Calvinist on the subject? John Piper’s bio series, “Men of Whom The World Was Not Worthy” is nothing short of sensational. Very worthwhile. I warmly invite you into the world of a John Paton, Charles Spurgeon or Adoniram Judson. They are of my Calvinism. Call them lazy. Just keyword search for Piper’s series on DesiringGod.org. There are a ton of missionaries/evangelists who dare to call Christ Savior, not co-Savior as the Arminian must. In Arminianism, if you remove your faith (the sole “condition” of salvation) Wesley, you’re left only with the possibility of grace and the certainty of hell. That’s why you’re your own co-savior. Our theology cannot produce such an inevitable boasting. We go as laborers in the Lord’s vineyard well versed in Scripture. Your banter that we’re lazy evangelists because we’re theologians is historically unsupportable. I’m not talking hyper-Calvinism. I’m talking real gospel.
Joseph,
There is no need for all the misrepresentations (all of the co-savior nonsense), even if you are agitated. I said, more than once, that this was a generalization. That means it doesn’t apply to everyone. Piper hasn’t been around that long. I understand that these things are important to Calvinists on a much larger scale now, but that wasn’t always the case. Even though there are evangelistic giants from the Calvinist camp throughout history, that doesn’t mean that all of Calvinism has always followed suit. A lot of the major Calvinist writings are from a time when many Calvinists were more interested in doctrine. I am not even suggesting that they were not interested in evangelism, only that there was more of an emphasis on doctrine. Likewise, Arminians have never been entirely disinterested in doctrine. Far from it. But I think it is a fair assessment to say that over time, they have been more interested in outreach and practical ministry and less interested in defending doctrines or Arminianism, or writing extensive scholarly works (there have been huge exceptions to this, just as there are exceptions in Calvinism).
However, it is also a fact that nearly every Calvinist movement has had trouble with hyper-Calvinism (where evangelism is certainly not considered necessary- even a sin), or has seen many in the Calvinist camp eventually moving towards hyper Calvinist thinking (you can’t just dismiss hyper Calvinism as if it is not relevant to the conversation). That would never happen in Arminianism, and I think there is a theological reason for that. That is why we see so many Calvinist (like Piper and Sproul and many, many others) working so hard to explain why evangelism is still necessary in Calvinism. There is a reason for that. The reason is that even among Calvinists there are questions concerning how evangelism harmonizes with Calvinist doctrine.
Sproul himself recounts a class discussion where Gerstner asked the class what the reason is for evangelism if God decreed election and reprobation form all eternity. Answers were hard to come by. Sproul admits that he was happy he was at the end of the semi-circle, so he could hear the other answers first. One student said, “”I don’t know sir, that question has always plagued me.” I think that represents a lot of Calvinists. Sproul wasn’t sure how to answer either, and said maybe it was because the Lord commanded it. Gerstner made a show of it. Of course that is the reason! So the explanation was simply that the Lord commanded it and that should be enough. OK, but that doesn’t explain why it is necessary, and I haven’t seen a good explanation yet. (Chosen by God, pp. 208-209- Sproul goes on to say that it is a great thing that “God allows us to participate in the greatest work in human history, the work of redemption”- now why don’t you see a belief in being a “co-savior” in Sproul’s statement?). This comes up over and over in Calvinist systematics or apologetics. Why? Because it is a very real problem for Calvinism and has always been since it is a legitimate and unavoidable logical inference that it is hard to explain motivation for evangelism given fundamental Calvinist presuppositions.
Oh, and nobody said Calvinists are lazy.
You also mention that your theology cannot produce such inevitable boasting, yet your post sure seems pretty boastful to me. And it is interesting to me that the big names in Calvinism have to so often address the issue of pride and arrogance among Calvinists (Piper has written articles on it, and even took a sabbatical so he could deal with pride). Likewise, the idea of being unconditionally chosen as God’s people plagued the Jews that Jesus often encountered and fueled their prideful rejection of Christ’s claims. So your comments are not only a straw man, but easily reversible.
But this is not the place to debate these issues. I was just trying to answer a question. That’s what this thread is for. If you disagree, fine. It is just my opinion. I am glad you find evangelism so important and I am glad contemporary Calvinists like Piper are emphasizing it, despite the fundamental teachings of Calvinism that many see as directly undermining motivation for evangelism.
God Bless,
Ben
Paul,
See my comments to Joseph.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi Ben, its been awhile.
I am curious today on which you think is the best analogy on how God calls Sinners. If you noticed, Calvinists use the drowning child analogy in which God must “draw” the child from the water. Hence I think they are using “emotional blackmail” vs. their opponents on the debate regarding Irresistible Grace.
How about you? What do you think is the best/biblical analogy?
Thanks,
Rex
Hi Joseph and Ben,
By way of introduction, I’m on the fence, seriously investigating both perspectives, and currently leaning Calvinist.
Can I make a suggestion Joseph? Piper taught a 10-part seminar series on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. You can find it on the website with some digging – it’s worth listening to. Disappointingly (to me), he didn’t address some of the concerns. It wasn’t systematic enough for my taste, and didn’t spend much time on some of what are (to me) the bigger questions. What struck me about it is how respectfully Piper approached the Arminian position, and how careful he was to define it properly. Shortly after listening to that series, I read Olson’s “Arminian Theology: Myth’s and Realities.” It was almost as if Piper had used that book to define the Arminian position – he was very fair to true Arminianism. This is in contrast to many Calvinists who paint Arminianism as semi-Pelagianism, since that is much easier to show as false. I came away from Piper’s series realizing much of my thinking was in fact Arminian (I just didn’t know it), and I came away from it with a much deeper respect for the Arminian position. Both positions are held by intelligent, devout Christians who will spend eternity together. While I think it’s an important issue, I hate to see it cause division within the church. Both sides deserve mutual respect.
Ben, can I take a shot at explaining a Calvinist’s motivation for evangelism? I’ll start with an analogy I came up with a few years ago. I haven’t seen it used but seems sufficiently appropriate that I’d be astonished if it hasn’t been used before.
Imagine a family with a very young child is decorating for Christmas. The father commands the child to hang some ornaments on the tree to help decorate. The child has two choices; obey and help to the best of their rather limited ability, or not obey and demand to watch TV instead.
The father in that simple analogy has a plan for preparing for and celebrating Christmas. He could easily accomplish it himself (and probably a lot faster than having to rehang the ornaments after the child’s sincere but rather inept attempt at helping to decorate the tree). And, he will accomplish his plan regardless of whether or not the child chooses to obey. But, he would rather involve his child because he knows that the celebration of Christmas would be much more special and meaningful if the child was involved in preparing for it.
Similarly, from a Calvinist’s perspective, God’s command to evangelize is an invitation to be a part of His plan to advance His Kingdom. He will accomplish it, with or without our obedience. We have a choice to obey, with promises of both rewards as well as the joys related to participation in God’s plan, or to disobey.
I agree that passion for evangelism is less obvious for the Calvinist position, but (to me), there is still cause for it. As my small group covered Romans, we just went through CH. 6. Paul needs an entire chapter (and a somewhat complicated one) to explain why the gospel of salvation by grace through faith does not permit us to remain in sin. And, it’s clear that many through church history have taken the free gift of forgiveness and used it as a way to excuse continuing in whatever sin they fancy rather than striving towards Christ-likeness. So, in my mind, simply because it’s easy to distort a position towards an unbiblical extreme does not automatically negate the doctrine itself.
I’d be very interested in hearing responses from Arminians to my reasoning regarding evangelism.
Sorry for a long post – but this brings up another question I’ve always wanted to hear addressed by sincere and knowledgable Arminians. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Arminians believe that we need to evangelize in order to bring people to God who would not otherwise believe. (I’m not sure if that statement is correct – I don’t fully understand the Arminian position on predestination). In other words, suppose I was sitting in a cafe and God told me to share my faith with someone seated a few tables away. I would have two choices; obey and win that individual to Christ, or disobey and end up reading that individual’s obituary a few days later, having died without the Lord.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the situation above, that individual could have been saved if I obeyed God, or die without Christ if I chose not to. An individual could have been saved, but was not because of my disobedience. (This problem could be put a number of other ways – perhaps my hypocracy turns an individual off to Christianity – the overall problem is the same). Other peoples salvation can be affected by my obedience/disobedience, which strikes me as unfair.
This is a more subtle problem than Calvinism faces with God who, for His own reasons, chooses not to elect individuals, but seems an equally troubling one to me.
I’d be very interested in hearing comments on this – perhaps my understanding of the Arminian position is in error. But, if I understand the Arminian reasoning for evangelism, I believe my above reasoning must be correct.
God bless,
Paul
I certainly don’t wish to be “non-sensical,” sir. Posting on blogs is really something I’ve never done. This is literally a first for me. I apologize if I’m unaccustomed to the manner of them. 🙂
I think I might prefer Matthew’s charge of “Heresy” over laziness with regard to evangelism! Kidding. (FYI, I did teach a 10 part series on evangelism at my church last year. It’s in the video section of my site).
A comment was made here by a fella named Rex who spoke of a drowning baby analogy from a Calvinist. With all respect, a Biblicist should not use such an analogy for salvation or how God calls in my opinion.
The following is from a letter I’m currently writing on this point. I’d like to share it with you.
Here is how some see God’s salvation:
Picture an exhausted man treading water in a torrent a mile upstream from sure death. Along comes a boat to rescue him. The rescue workers, despite their best efforts, have only six feet of rope. The problem is that he’s nine feet down from the side. Even with everyone’s outstretched arms there’s still six inches between his fingertips and the end of the rope. They can do nothing but urge him to reach out, and they’ve been urging him for miles now. The man summons his strength, plunges down into the waters, expels his air, thrusts upward out of the water, grabs the tip of the rope and is pulled to safety. Upstream the man and crew are being interviewed. He says with complete thanks in his heart, “If it wasn’t for you guys, I would surely be dead.” He means it, and what he says is true. Here’s the kicker: the rescue worker who held the other end of the rope can say in equal honesty: “Sir, you make too much of me. Had you not grabbed the rope we could have done nothing.” Both parties would be true.
That’s not the Bible’s view of salvation. Our thoughts on it would then be too earthly. One old preacher said it well when he said, “Christ did not come to make bad men good, He came to make dead men live.”
Here’s the Biblical picture of how God saves:
A man has drowned. He’s floating on the water. A rescue worker is lowered down to him and scoops his lifeless body from the torrent. Aboard the boat he is given cardio pulmonary resuscitation and brought back to life. This time when interviewed, when he says, “If it wasn’t for you guys, I would be dead” the rescue workers can simply say, “I know.”
Of course, it ALL comes back to whether or not we believe that the fall of mankind affected every part of us. If there remains any part of our nature not dead in sin then we’ll see the reasonableness of free-willism/synergism. If we’re really dead in sin than the argument ceases on how God redeems.
Prevenient grace affirms the existence of the fall of man, but curiously presents this doctrine as the fix all of God’s grace. Our death in Adam, which was very real it says, has been corrected. It thus acknowledges a problem that was never really a problem. Cain had the full restoration of prevenient grace as do we. His nature wasn’t only fallen. That’s like saying that if a man eats a fruit he’ll die then saying that no one’s ever died from eating it. It affirms the existence of the problem of sin (i.e. Original Sin), but sidelines its effects almost entirely. I will not write more here since I know brevity isn’t a gift of mine.
Sir, If you can make the time, I’d like to invite you to the audio section of my website, http://www.Biblecia.com, to message # 216 called, “The Sovereign Promise of John the Baptist.” It’s related to this, albeit loosely. If and whenever you can make this 32 minute time, I’d be blessed to hear your reply to the ideas presented there by me.
Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Hi Joseph,
Do you believe the drowning man analogy in your post best represents the non-Calvinist position? And considering that it is merely an analogy, why take the liberty to make the drowning man so valiant? Why unnecessarily make him such a brave and hardworking participant? When the non-Calvinist is more accurately represented, then he likewise is able to say to the rescue worker, “If it wasn’t for you guys, I would be dead”.
The Bible says that salvation is a gift. So why not use the receiving of a gift as the example? A gift is not earned. If it were earned, it would not be a gift but rather a payment. And how does one receive a gift? By accepting it. Not by plunging into the waters and expelling breath in a death defying act of strength and bravery. Some gifts can be received with little more than the nod of one’s head or heart. It is the mere attitude of heart that says, “yes” and “thank you”. That is how you receive a gift. Now, I ask, where is the “work” in that? Where is the pride in that? The prideful man does not like to accept a true gift. And who has ever been congratulated for the part he played in accepting something that he did not and could not earn? Yet still, the gift had to be accepted. A gift can be given to a prideful man, and if he accepts it, and if he allows it, the inherent grace will melt his pride.
I don’t pretend to understand every: who, why, where when and what of salvation. Far from it. I simply believe that the free will acceptance of God’s gift of salvation, makes by far the most holistic sense out of the Bible.
Respectfully,
Jim
Paul,
You write,
Similarly, from a Calvinist’s perspective, God’s command to evangelize is an invitation to be a part of His plan to advance His Kingdom. He will accomplish it, with or without our obedience. We have a choice to obey, with promises of both rewards as well as the joys related to participation in God’s plan, or to disobey.
This really doesn’t fit traditional Calvinism at all. In traditional Calvinism, there is no such thing as genuine choice. God decrees everything. He decrees our every thought, desire, choice and action, which is why choice doesn’t make much sense in Calvinism, since there is only ever one way a person can go, the way decreed by God, see my post: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Henshaw-Determinism-Free-Will-The-Reality-of-Choice-and-the-Testimony-of-Scripture).
So it is hard to see this analogy as very accurate. Even in using his children, the Father is really just doing it himself, since in Calvinism God completely controls everything (that is how Calvinism defines sovereignty). Really, this is a much better analogy for evangelism in Arminianism.
Also, in Calvinism, those who are decreed to be saved are saved no matter what, and those decreed to be reprobated, cannot possibly get saved. Here is where motivation becomes a problem. Witnessing can be intimidating. A consistent Calvinist can always reason that if they do not evangelize or witness, it is just as God has decreed it. If a certain person doesn’t get saved, it is just as God decreed in accordance with His good pleasure. If one doesn’t evangelize, and the person is elect, God will certainly reach that person some other way. In fact, God decreed that the person should be reached some other way. So from a personal and practical perspective, there is no strong motive for evangelism. In the end, whether we witness or not, everything is going according to God’s plan and could not possibly go any other way. All we do or don’t do is in accordance with God’s decree and we could not have possibly done otherwise.
You mention Piper fairly representing Arminianism. That may be true to a large extent. The problem is that he isn’t always straight about all that Calvinism entails. The nature of God’s irresistible decree and exhaustive determinism is a view strongly held by Piper with some serious implications. I interact with it here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
I agree that passion for evangelism is less obvious for the Calvinist position, but (to me), there is still cause for it. As my small group covered Romans, we just went through CH. 6. Paul needs an entire chapter (and a somewhat complicated one) to explain why the gospel of salvation by grace through faith does not permit us to remain in sin. And, it’s clear that many through church history have taken the free gift of forgiveness and used it as a way to excuse continuing in whatever sin they fancy rather than striving towards Christ-likeness.
But again, if Calvinism is true, that is exactly how God decreed it to be. Those who use it as an excuse had no more power to not use it as an excuse and sin as to create a universe. Nobody can resist or act counter to God’s eternal decree.
So, in my mind, simply because it’s easy to distort a position towards an unbiblical extreme does not automatically negate the doctrine itself.
But the doctrine is not being distorted at all. It is simply being honestly evaluated.
I’d be very interested in hearing responses from Arminians to my reasoning regarding evangelism.
See above. The problem comes in the irresistible eternal decree of God which not only dictates who will be saved and how, but also dictates whether or not we will be motivated to witness (just as it dictates everything we think, desire, or do). If we don’t feel motivated, then that is just as God decreed it to be. Nothing really to worry about. That is the problem.
Sorry for a long post – but this brings up another question I’ve always wanted to hear addressed by sincere and knowledgable Arminians. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Arminians believe that we need to evangelize in order to bring people to God who would not otherwise believe. (I’m not sure if that statement is correct – I don’t fully understand the Arminian position on predestination). In other words, suppose I was sitting in a cafe and God told me to share my faith with someone seated a few tables away. I would have two choices; obey and win that individual to Christ, or disobey and end up reading that individual’s obituary a few days later, having died without the Lord.
That is quite possible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the situation above, that individual could have been saved if I obeyed God, or die without Christ if I chose not to. An individual could have been saved, but was not because of my disobedience. (This problem could be put a number of other ways – perhaps my hypocracy turns an individual off to Christianity – the overall problem is the same). Other peoples salvation can be affected by my obedience/disobedience, which strikes me as unfair.
If God has sovereignly determined to use us to reach others, then there is nothing unfair about that. But that provides a tremendous motivation for witness, knowing that if we do not obey God, people can indeed miss heaven (Romans 10:14-15, cf. Ezek. 33:6). We could also call it unfair that some are raised in godly homes with far more exposure to the gospel than others. But Paul doesn’t think so, since God is close to all of us, and can be found by us, despite our history, birth place, upbringing, etc (Acts 17:26-27). However, God desires all to be saved in a resistible manner, rather than in an irresistible manner, and that is His sovereign prerogative (since salvation is tied up in a relationship with Christ, and genuine relationship involves genuine choice). I find it unlikely that anyone who perishes did not have an opportunity to respond to God’s grace in such a way that would eventually lead to salvation. Still, it may be that the opportunity afforded by us could have made the difference, though they had other opportunities.
This is a more subtle problem than Calvinism faces with God who, for His own reasons, chooses not to elect individuals, but seems an equally troubling one to me.
It should trouble us all to take witnessing very seriously. I wish God didn’t leave such a thing in our hands, but I will not argue with Him. He has left it to us to a large extent and we need to take that responsibility very seriously. I think the Bible is clear on that.
I’d be very interested in hearing comments on this – perhaps my understanding of the Arminian position is in error. But, if I understand the Arminian reasoning for evangelism, I believe my above reasoning must be correct.
Again, it is just an analogy, and we do not know all the factors when someone dies without Christ. We do not know how often they may have heard before. We do not know if they would have responded, had we witnessed. But there is no Biblical reason to discount the possibility that such a person might miss heaven if we (or anybody else) fails to reach out to them as God has commanded us to do. If that were not the case, then Arminians would have no more motivation than the Calvinist, since they could just comfort themselves with the idea that if God wants them saved, He will make sure they get saved, regardless of our witness. That seems clearly unbiblical to me.
So in Arminianism God desires all to be saved, and He desires to use us to reach the lost, but not in an irresistible manner. To whom much is given, much is required, and God will judge mankind fairly. Just writing this has convicted me concerning my own witnessing efforts and has reminded me just what is at stake. In Calvinism, one can find self-centered reasons for prayer and evangelism (in that God uses it to benefit us personally, as in your analogy), but nothing is ever really at stake. In Arminianism, prayer and evangelism is far more other-centered, and a tremendous amount is at stake.
God has created free moral agents and given us important tasks. He will hold us accountable for our actions because our actions have consequences (Ezek. 33:6). He has every right to do that, and I don’t see that we can say that is unfair. That is just making an excuse for our actions.
Sorry if that is not exactly what you expected to hear.
God Bless,
Ben
I think I might prefer Matthew’s charge of “Heresy” over laziness with regard to evangelism! Kidding.
Again, nobody made the charge of laziness (see my post above to you).
Of course, it ALL comes back to whether or not we believe that the fall of mankind affected every part of us. If there remains any part of our nature not dead in sin then we’ll see the reasonableness of free-willism/synergism. If we’re really dead in sin than the argument ceases on how God redeems.
This just doesn’t follow. In both views, our depravity makes faith impossible. The only difference is that in Arminianism God’s gracious enabling is resistible, rather than irresistible. And both views hold that we are dead in sin. The difference is that Calvinists wrongly understand what being dead in sin means, and then wrongly draw the conclusion that regeneration precedes faith, even though the Bible everywhere puts spiritual life after faith and not before.
That’s like saying that if a man eats a fruit he’ll die then saying that no one’s ever died from eating it. It affirms the existence of the problem of sin (i.e. Original Sin), but sidelines its effects almost entirely. I will not write more here since I know brevity isn’t a gift of mine.
That is interesting coming from a Calvinist. Calvinism holds that we should take the warnings against falling away or the admonishments to endure in faith seriously, but it also says no believer has ever fallen away or failed to endure in the faith. So if this is your argument, it cuts both ways.
But the analogy doesn’t fit prevenient grace. Was Cain able to resist temptation? God seemed to think so (Gen. 4:6, 7). If prevenient grace enables us to do something that we could not do otherwise, then it is certainly important since it addresses a real problem. If there was no problem, then there would be no need for it. If I give Ritalin to a child who cannot focus enough to do his homework, and now he can focus, that doesn’t mean ADD is no longer a problem, or that it is just hypothetical, etc. It doesn’t mean he will do his homework either.
I am not a fan of such analogies, because we can spin them and load them whichever way we like. The best approach is to stick with what the Bible says (see Jim’s excellent comments above). The Bible says that faith carries no merit because it receives a free and unearned gift (Romans 4). That is good enough for me. The Bible never says that a gift is only a gift if it is irresistibly given. It never hints that receiving a free and unearned gift means that we contributed to the gift somehow or gave the gift to ourself, or somehow became a co-giver of the gift just because we freely received it. Not only are such things absurd on the face of it, but they find no Biblical support. That is the problem with the Calvinist approach. It goes beyond what is written and loads its own philosophy into Biblical statements that say nothing of the sort. My opinion, of course.
God Bless,
Ben
Oh, and if we really want to be strict with analogies, then Calvinists should admit that the man in the boat irresistibly caused the man in the water to get in the water in the first place. He then wants glory for saving the person from a predicament that he put the man in to begin with. Somehow, Calvinist analogies always seem to forget such things.
Paul (December 9, 2012 at 9:20 pm),
Let me add something to Ben’s excellent response. You think it unfair that our evangelistic choices would make a difference in whether someone gets saved or not. But this conclusion seems unwarranted to me.
First and foremost, it is not unfair because the lost person himself still has a choice in relation to the gospel on Arminian premises. God reaches out to all. If the person is open to the gospel we can trust God to get it to him even if he has to do it himself (such as through dream or vision). But it remains true that perhaps the person would have found persuasive what the believer who failed to share with him would have shared. Or perhaps hearing it again would have found acceptance. I suspect this is something you would find unfair. That brings us to my second point.
That is, second, we are all subject to impact from other people’s actions. That is how reality is set up in a world of beings with free will. It is not unfair for that to be allowed to happen, particularly when God will hold all accountable for how they used their free will. Otherwise, you would have to think very much of life unfair. Now you might say the person who failed to tell you something helpful treated you unfairly. But if the person ends up with what he needed to make the right choice, then it is not unfair for him to be judged for making the wrong choice, even if he would have responded to further influence with the right choice.
Let me give you an example. A college professor has put the necessary information into his syllabus for students to properly do their assignments. But the school dean knows from experience that many students do not pay proper attention to the syllabus. So he charges all professors to remind their students of their duties in the latter part of the semester. The professor fails to do so. He is responsible for that failure. But the students who did not follow the syllabus but would have if reminded would still in all fairness be responsible for their failure to follow the syllabus even though they would have chosen rightly if reminded.
Thanks very much for your quick and thoughtful replies Ben and Arminian. That’s a lot to think about.
I’ve been doing a lot of teaching for small groups over the past few years, and hope to do much more. I had been brought up in a family that considered themselves moderate Calvinists, but in a way that was really a hybrid of the two positions. I now realize that how they “hybridized” the two was to more-or-less take the classical Arminian position, but with a side of eternal security (which, if I understand correctly, is allowed within Arminianism, although held by a minority). On the other hand, much of the teaching/writing that resonates the most with me tends to come from 5-point Calvinists. So, this is a question I really want to investigate and decide for myself (it’s hard to study – much less teach through – Romans without forming an opinion. I still can’t seem to get off the fence. I’d like to before I hit Ch. 9 in a few months, but I think this is a bigger question than that.
One thing Ben said that I’d like more information on concerns free will vs. God’s sovereignty. My understanding of the Calvinist perspective is that God will override our free will when necessary for his plan, but that this is not always the case. In Rom. 9, Paul seems to use the example of Pharaoh and the plagues in this way. Going back to Exodus, after the first few plagues, the text states Pharaoh hardened his heart. On the last plagues, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. In the Exodus text, it’s as if Pharaoh initially chose to set a course on his own that fit God’s plan. For God to accomplish what he wanted, he hardened Pharoah’s heart to help him finish that course. That has always been my understanding of how Calvinists view free will; it exists, but within the constraints of God’s higher purposes.
Here is my question. Do mainstream Calvinists specifically deny the existence of free will entirely? Could you point me to a few Calvinist sources that clearly deal with this? (Disappointingly, Piper did not address the issue in his seminar I alluded to previously).
Again, thank you for this forum.
Paul
Paul,
Many Calvinists say they believe in free will, but it is not what you would normally understand to be free will. Traditional Calvinism is very clear that God controls everything. That is what sovereignty means to Calvinists. If we could form a thought or move on a desire independent of God’s control, He would not be sovereign. Even further, Calvinists base God’s foreknowledge on His decree alone. So God can only foreknow what He decreed from eternity and will infallibly bring about in time. This obviously includes everything since Calvinists see foreknowledge as exhaustive. That can only be if the decree is likewise exhaustive. That means that even our every sinful thought, desire and action was irresistibly decreed by God so that we can no more avoid those thoughts, desires, and actions than we could make God cease to exist. That is why Calvinism is often charged with making God the author of sin.
Some Calvinists deny free will altogether without trying to make it still sound as if free will is real. All Calvinists deny libertarian free will (which includes real options, real choices, and alternative power in the will). Instead, they hold to “compatibilism”. Compatibilism is the view that free will is compatible with determinism. How can that be? They simply re-define free will. They say that one is free (and morally accountable) if one can do as they desire. But here is the catch. We have no control over our desires or which desire will win out in choosing. So really we do not have freedom of the will. Our will is controlled by the greatest desire, and we have no control over what desire will be the greatest. And in the end, God still controls everything, even in compatibilism.
If you read the post on Piper I referred you to, you will see how this plays out. So no Calvinist believes that alternative power exists in the will. They believe that we choose in accordance with desires that we have no control over. Desires control us and God ultimately controls our desires, just as He controls everything else. No Calvinist holds to libertarian fee will, as it has come to be known. If you look at my post on choice that I referred you to, that will help you as well.
In the end, Calvinists do not make free will compatible with determinism. That’s impossible. The concepts are mutually exclusive. A good example would be the difference between being married and being a bachelor. These terms, when rightly understood, are mutually exclusive. You can’t make them compatible. But if you re-define “married” to mean “single”, then Voila!, Bachelor and Married are now compatible. Or suppose you wanted to make a square compatible with a circle. Well, you could just carve away at the edges until the square became a circle. But would we then say that squares are compatible with circles? Of course not. Compatibilism is just a catchy term to give the impression that a real solution has been reached, when that is not the case at all. When you re-define freedom in a deterministic way, you do not make freedom compatible with determinism. All you do is prove that determinism is compatible with determinism, and who denies it?
My understanding of the Calvinist perspective is that God will override our free will when necessary for his plan, but that this is not always the case.
This is actually the Arminian view. In Calvinism, God is always controlling the will, so there is never any need to “override” it.
As far as sources, you can read from any Calvinist and see how they understand free will and how they deny it as normally understood, going all the way back to Calvin.
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks again for such a prompt, thorough, and thoughtful answer. Piper’s “Spectacular Sins and the Glory of God” book is on my shelf. I was planning to read that prior to your post. From the title, that appears to be a response to that book. Looks like I’ve got a lot of reading to do as well as contemplating. I’ll try not to post too many more questions until I have time to do more reading!
Grace and peace,
Paul
Paul,
I have not read that book. The post is in response to a sermon and the entire sermon is quoted (except for the second part which I hope to address in a future post sometime soon). Definitely read the book, but I would read the post first as it will not take as long and will help you quickly get a grasp on what Piper believes and how he tries to deal with the inevitable (and unfortunate) implications of his exhaustive determinism.
God Bless,
Ben
Cain had the full restoration of prevenient grace as do we. His nature wasn’t only fallen.
If he is not fallen, what is prevenient grace for?
^ then see the Ritalin Analogy of ben.
Anyway Joseph, I already experienced hearing such things from Calvinists since 2006 I think. Looks like until now, Prevenient Grace is misunderstood.
But I do thank you for your reply.
Many thanks to everyone too. That Drowning Child analogy really is bothersome I think for us who wants an objective debate.
Godbless,
Rex
I would dearly appreciate some help in working through the Calvinist claim that God’s sovereignty entails the fact that God does ordain evil, and is not simply passively letting it happen. I have great difficulty with this claim, in large part because I think my view of God is conditioned by the NT claim that God is love, and in the incarnation, Jesus is the definitive revelation of God’s love.
Yet I have only this Sunday had a guest preacher using Isaiah 45 argue that god not only permits but in actual fact ordains evil to his good ends. That God uses evil is qualified by the claim that His Godly and good sovereign intention and motive makes it OK – and why should the clay dictate how the potter chooses to make use of it.
He made much of texts which spoke of visiting evil etc, and even went on to imply that when evil and suffering befalls a person, it is only because God ordains it. I simply find this hard to accept, but am made to feel that I am simply trying to make excuses for wanting God to fall into line with my own view of love and goodness.
The pastoral implication of such a deterministic view also worries me. How does this bring consolation to a woman who has been repeatedly abused and raped, parents who child’s is abducted and murdered etc.?
How does a relational/Arminian view respond to such deterministic claims, and how does it deal with theft which seemingly suggest God does ordain evil?
Your help would be much appreciated.
Ralph
Ralph,
Thanks for stopping by. I am surprised that guest preacher would say such things. It is especially disturbing against the backdrop of recent events. I find it strange that Isaiah 45 was used to teach this stuff. There is nothing in that chapter that would suggest that God ordains or causes evil. The closest we could get would be verse 7 where the Lord says He brings prosperity and creates disaster. But to assume “disaster” has reference to moral evil is to read massively into the text. Indeed, God does bring disaster, but does not cause moral evil. In this context, God is making it clear that the judgment that will come upon Israel is from Him, just as the blessings they experienced were from Him.
The issue of the pots talking back to the maker has nothing to do with God causing His pots to do evil. Again, that needs to be read into the text. God is addressing Israel as a nation. It is the nation of Israel that God created, and they are about to suffer judgment. Yet, God knows that they refuse to look at themselves even in impending judgment. Rather than finding fault with themselves, they find fault with God, charging that God has been unfaithful to His promises to Israel when it is Israel that has been unfaithful to God.
The primary passage for the imagery of the Potter is in Jeremiah 18. Calvinists will often reference it as proof that God can form us however He wants and do whatever He wants with us unconditionally. It is often cited as a proof text for unconditional election along side Romans 9:19-22. But this is not at all what is being taught in Jeremiah 18. In that passage, the imagery of the Potter is an image of judgment. God had good purposes for Israel when He formed them, but because of their hardness, they could not be formed as He intended (they were marred in His hands). So God reformed them for judgment, despite His good intentions. The imagery is entirely conditional as Jeremiah 18:7-10 makes clear,
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me [as was the case with Israel], then I will reconsider the good I intended to do for it.
In the next verses, God declares that He is “preparing disaster” for Israel as a result of their sin. Sound familiar? Likewise, in Romans 9, Paul is addressing the same issue. Israel has been judged as the result of their hardness and their rejection of the Messiah while many Gentiles have found favor with God through faith in Christ. Rather than acknowledging their sin and recognizing God’s just judgment, the Jews were complaining that God was being unfaithful to His promises to Israel. So Paul references this imagery to remind them that God’s judgment is just and their favor with God is not unconditional as they imagined. But God is still merciful in that the Jews can still be reconciled to God through Christ, for Christ is God’s chosen covenant Head, the true Israel, the promised “Seed.” God’s intentions are still to have mercy on all (Romans 11:32, cf. Isaiah 45:22-25).
Hope that helps. You may also find helpful my interaction with John Piper on the claim that God ordains evil: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
God Bless,
Ben
There is a verse somewhere that says basically “He makes/creates the evil and the good. The reason some think that means that God causes evil is because they don’t understand that the context is the people he makes that DO EVIL and good. It just means that both evil and good people were made by God, not that God causes evil or is evil. If you cause evil, you are evil, there is no way around it. If I cause someone to lie, I have as much as lied myself, because I am the direct cause of the lie.
Ben,
Several years ago I became “convinced” of unconditional election and limited atonement (I balked at them originally) after listening to RC Sproul many times on Calvinism. I became convinced because of “total depravity” and all the passages regarding spiritual death. I have been reading Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, regarding regeneration and election mainly. I belong to a solid, loving, reformed type of church and I have been happy in my understanding of such things for years, until this week when I discovered that Calvinism teaches regeneration prior to faith (how I missed that I have no idea). This all began while emailing an Arminian guy on regeneration, so I began to study John 1-6.
I now can’t make sense of the logic of regeneration preceding faith, mainly because John seems to put them together or to put faith first. Can you help me to understand your position better?
I also have some questions about free will, like where do you find it in the Bible? It seems that the free will/total depravity argument is a major deciding factor of whether one chooses Calvinism or Arminianism. I would at least like to be sure of what I believe, whether it be Calvinism or other. I have been checking out the Examining Calvinism link and found it helpful. I feel so foolish because I have studied this topic (and debated) without really considering the Arminian side on its own. Thanks for your help,
Gene
Gene,
Those are great questions, but I probably won’t be able to get to a formal response for a little while. I will point you to a few posts that might help you along until then:
On the ordo salutis:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/does-paul-support-calvinisms-view-of-irresistible-grace-in-1-corinthians-14/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/parallel-passages-on-regeneration/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/what-can-the-dead-in-sin-do/
On Free Will:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Henshaw-Determinism-Free-Will-The-Reality-of-Choice-and-the-Testimony-of-Scripture
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Free-Will-Determinism-The-Lazy-Mans-Guide-to-Refuting-Edwards-and-Compatibilism
There are a lot more on Free Will, but that should get you started.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi Gene, I know you wanted Ben to answer this, and he may have a better answer than I do, but here’s what I have found. The word faith in Greek means a personal conviction of something, so that alone would indicate choice. Then, if you will note that the Bible also tells us that the Holy Spirit is in the world to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement, Those two things coupled together leave little doubt that someone must willingly respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit to be saved. Also consider that if we are convicted of being sinners, of God’s righteous requirements and of impending judgement, faith would be null and pointless if God simply regenerated us at His discretion, and did not give us a choice in the matter. Most lost people know on some level that they are sinners, and that God is righteous, and that there is a judgement day coming, they are just too proud or caught up in sin to care. They reason, as I did that when they are about to die, they will drop a quick prayer to God like “dear God, I ask you to save me in Jesus name, amen” and that will be enough to save them. They don’t realize or want to realize that they must do more than say some prescribed prayer to be saved, even Catholics say prayers earnestly to no avail. They neglect to take into consideration repentance, which is a change of mind, and continual faith, which must be life changing if exercised.
So much for the carnal man being unable to grasp the things if God.
Joseph,
This is a thread for questions. Not sure how your comment amounts to a question.
I’m sorry sir, I meant no disrespect. I did see Matt’s response to the other fellow.
Ben, please let me know if you’d like me to continue any specific conversations under another thread. I’ve begun to read a few of the links and found them helpful (esp. the 1st on Ordo Salutis and the 3rd on The Dead Will Hear…).
Matt, the questions I’m working through are, When/how does regeneration occur and in what order compared to other things (faith, repentance, etc)? I agree that faith indicates a choice and that it’s the Spirit who convicts. You said,
“faith would be null and pointless if God simply regenerated us at His discretion, and did not give us a choice in the matter.”
This makes God’s regenerating us sound whimsical and void of human choice, something Calvinism would deny. God does not say in the Word that He regenerates men at some arbitrary moment and then forces us to believe, for I think all Christians believe willingly when we understand gospel truths.
I think the first question is, Did we want to believe (or could we) prior to the Spirit’s working? The next question would be, By what means could we repent/believe if regeneration precedes or follows faith and repentance? Ben made this clear regarding John 5:24, 25 that the dead will hear and live. But Jesus does not say there whether they are even able (understanding that sin has affected our whole being). Is it by regeneration or by prevenient grace? This probably brings us into the question of depravity and the freedom/bondage of the will. So far I see good points on both sides, and that’s what makes it confusing. I will continue reading the links and look forward to your responses.
God does not say in the Word that He regenerates men at some arbitrary moment and then forces us to believe, for I think all Christians believe willingly when we understand gospel truths.
I’m not sure that is what Matt was saying. Calvinists do typically say that God would regenerate unto faith when the elect person hears the gospel, but it could be at anytime when someone hears the gospel. For example, someone who is “elect” could hear the gospel and reject it one day and then accept it another day because God then chooses to regenerate the person.
Calvinists would also not like the language of “force”, but it is not really accurate under Calvinist assumptions to say that it is a “choice” we make when regenerated. If regeneration guarantees a positive faith response, then there is no genuine choice, since there is only one course of action possible- faith. The post I linked to on the reality of choice and Scripture deals with that problem. There is real lack of clarity in the way that Calvinists describe how one comes to faith when regenerated. I wrote a short post addressing some problems with their language a while back. Here is the link if you want to check it out (I know you already have few to read),
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/resistible-grace-or-sinless-perfection-a-call-for-theological-precision-in-the-calvinist-accounting-of-monergistic-conversion/
I think the first question is, Did we want to believe (or could we) prior to the Spirit’s working?
No, not according to Arminianism or Calvinism. The main difference is in describing that working. Both say it is an act of grace needed to enable faith, or any move towards God.
The Arminian says this act of grace that enables the depraved sinner to believe is resistible. It makes faith possible where it was previously impossible. However, it doesn’t guarantee a faith response, and it is not regeneration.
The Calvinist says this act of grace is regeneration and is irresistible. This irresistible regeneration doesn’t just make faith possible, but irresistibly causes faith (i.e. when one is regenerated, they cannot possibly avoid believing. Faith becomes irresistible for the one God chooses to regenerate).
The next question would be, By what means could we repent/believe if regeneration precedes or follows faith and repentance?
By the enabling power of the word and Spirit. Regeneration is the impartation of new Spiritual life which results from being joined to Christ (and His life) which is communicated to us through the indwelling Spirit. The Scriptures are clear that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith and are joined to Christ by faith. Therefore, the Bible is pretty clear that faith precedes regeneration.
In my opinion, Calvinism actually downplays the significance of regeneration (as a primary aspect of what it means to be saved), by nearly always referring to it as just the way that God causes faith in the “elect.” The Bible never does that. In my opinion, Calvinism also downplays the importance of the cross and the need for our sins to be removed in placing regeneration before faith (and therefore before justification). If God can impart spiritual life to us prior to forgiving us and justifying us on the merits of Christ’s death, then what need was there for Christ’s death?
But Jesus does not say there whether they are even able (understanding that sin has affected our whole being).
Right, Jesus doesn’t really address that directly in that passage. But what Jesus does say disqualifies the Calvinist claim that new spiritual life is what causes us to “hear.” Rather, hearing is what leads to life.
Is it by regeneration or by prevenient grace?
Resistible prevenient grace.
May God Bless you as you continue to seek Him on this matter, and may He lead you into all truth. Feel free to ask more questions here, or comment in the threads of the various posts.
Gene,
Ben has done a lot of great work on regeneration at this site. I am actually surprised he did not mention some of his most fundamental posts about it. If you are really interested in the topic, I would recommend using the regeneration link in this site’s topical index and reading through each article that seems appropriate, starting with the earliest. There are 33 posts on the topic! You can find the link in the left sidebar, but here it is for your convenience: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/regeneration/.
Also, here is perhaps Ben’s most fundamental post on the subject: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/does-regeneration-precede-faith/. But there are lots of good ones.
Thanks guys, I’ll check them out!
I was interested in the recent thread about regeneration as it relates to faith, and would like to comment on it based on a book I am reading by John Piper called Finally Alive. His view is actually that faith and regeneration are simultaneous – one does not precede the other. In John 3:3 Jesus says “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” and in John 3:36 he says “whoever believes in the son has eternal life”. Piper points out that these two sayings of Jesus should not be separated, because what happens in regeneration is the creation of life in union with Christ and part of how God does that is by the creation of faith, which is how we experience union with Christ. Spiritual birth and faith in Jesus come into being together. The new life makes the faith possible and there is no life without faith in Jesus.
Sally,
Faith and regeneration are only simultaneous with respect to time (temporally, they are simultaneous). But there has to be a logical order, and it is the logical order that we are discussing. One must precede the other in logical order. Here is an easy way to look at it.
Calvinism: The moment we are regenerated, we believe
Arminianism: The moment we believe we are regenerated
See the difference? In both we could say that faith and regeneration happen “simultaneously”, but there is still a big difference in logical order. Your last comment puts the logical priority on regeneration; it “makes faith possible”. If it makes faith possible, it must come logically first. However, the last part of your sentence is confusing. It can only comport with the first part of your sentence if you ignore logical order and are speaking temporally. Otherwise, your sentences is plainly contradictory, and false.
Piper plainly puts regeneration logically prior to faith and sees it as what causes faith: “The most immediate and decisive work of God in the new birth is that the new life he creates sees the superior value of Jesus over all else. And with no lapse of time at all, this spiritual sight of the superior value of Jesus results in receiving Jesus [by faith] as the Treasure that he is.” (Brackets mine)
That quote comes from a sermon called, “Regeneration, Faith, Love: In That Order.” That says it all.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/regeneration-faith-love-in-that-order
God Bless,
Ben
BTW, Both of those quotes by Piper (from John) actually put faith logically prior to regeneration.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/does-jesus-teach-that-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/
And John 1:12-13 settles the matter:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/
Sally,
Ben has already responded with showing that Piper does actually teach that regeneration logically precedes faith though they are temporally simultaneous. Ben did so from outside Piper’s *Finally Alive,* but Piper teaches the same thing in that book. Hopefully you see why his teaching is in error on this point. He’s right that faith and regeneration are temporally simultaneous, but wrong that regeneration is logically prior. Scripture is clear that it is the other way around — faith logically precedes regeneration, as Ben argues compellingly on this site.
I found an interesting and timely quote from Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology. The context is the question of the sinner’s “freedom to do right, and to do what is pleasing to God.” Here it is:
“The application to our lives is quite evident: if God gives anyone a desire to repent and trust in Christ, he or she should not delay and should not harden his or her heart (cf. Heb. 3:7–8; 12:17). This ability to repent and desire to trust in God is not naturally ours but is given by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and it will not last forever.” (p. 498)
I found several problems, but I’ll briefly mention a couple (which up until recently I would have missed). First, if we’re unconditionally elected then we shouldn’t have to worry about missing out on the Spirit’s prompting since we’re guaranteed to be saved. Second, if this is so, then why bother telling us that it won’t last forever? Third, if the initial work of the Spirit in us (according to Calvinism) is regeneration, then this ability to repent and believe now is naturally ours since regeneration has made us new creatures who can (and will) now repent and believe. Then of course there’s the problem with telling the reprobate that they have the ability to repent and their desire to trust God is from the Spirit, when in actuality the Spirit will not cause them to be born again since they are not elect–this is akin to teasing the damned with desires that they cannot act upon and gives them a false hope.
Now, while I do appreciate this book and his theological wisdom, this quote is very illogical and leaves a bad taste in my mouth in regards to what I recently held as true. Calvinism seems to be falling apart at the seams as I study these things. What I can’t believe is that this has all happened to me in the course of one week without any intention on my part. Amazing.
By the way, where do people get the idea that if you are unable to do any spiritual good that that includes believing? I can’t think of any verses that say we can’t seek God in faith, but that we don’t.
Now Dimly,
You are quite right that Grudem’s comments are incoherent, and you did well to notice the many problems (and there are actually more). This is not uncommon among Calvinist writers. His comments here majorly contradict fundamental Calvinist claims. Indeed, he sounds like an Arminian. That is often the case when Calvinists are trying to make sense of their doctrines against the backdrop of plain Scriptural claims or the reality we live in every day. Arminianism simply fits better with Scripture and reality, so Calvinist easily lapse into language that is essentially Arminian in nature and alien to the fundamental claims that stand behind and define Calvinist thought.
May God lead you into truth.
Sir, Jesus said clearly in the latter part of John 6 that no one “could do the spiritual good” of drawing near to Him…unless. Unless what? There’s one of dozens of passages and teachings that stand in contrast to the humanistic insights read into Scripture through Arminianism. What’s the explain away of this? Whosoever will because all are drawn, right? I guess all in fact come then!
Joseph,
Who is this directed to? This, like your last comment, seems to be nothing more than a mini rant. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you have a specific question? If not, please stay off of this thread.
I see. It’s just you and your Arminian cohorts who you allow to rant. I presented a comment on John 6 in response to a comment made between you and another fellow that there are no texts that would “imply” that men not doing any spiritual good means no belief. Jesus said no one can come to Him without God’s drawing. It’s also sure that God is not drawing all yet all who are drawn He said will surely come. Seems relevant ranting. Granted it was between several other NON-questions between you and another assuring one another in your ideology against Wayne Grudem and what not. If you want pure restriction that’s fine. You’ll not hear from me again. I’m sure you’ve gotten the same censorship elsewhere when men disagree with your ideas, Kangaroo-dort (a slam against the synod it seems).
Joseph,
I don’t mind Calvinist rants. I have been hearing them and responding to them for 6 years now. However, this is not the proper place. If you scroll up to the stated purpose of this specific page, you will find that it says,
“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.”
So, are you exploring various approaches to soteriology and needing some guidance? Or, are you a convinced Calvinist looking to pick a fight?
I presented a comment on John 6 in response to a comment made between you and another fellow that there are no texts that would “imply” that men not doing any spiritual good means no belief.
Actually, that was just a question that someone asked. You will notice that I hadn’t gotten around to responding to that yet.
Jesus said no one can come to Him without God’s drawing.
Agreed. All Arminians hold to this.
It’s also sure that God is not drawing all yet all who are drawn He said will surely come.
Well, this is a common Calvinist claim, but the text nowhere says that all who are drawn come. That is something that Calvinist read into the text.
Still, it would be one thing to just mention that John 6 makes it clear that only those that the Father draws can come to Jesus. But you did more than that. You went on about how Arminianism is supposedly “humanistic”, etc. None of that was necessary or helpful. Just ranting.
Granted it was between several other NON-questions between you and another assuring one another in your ideology against Wayne Grudem and what not.
There is that ranting again. Not even accurate ranting. What do you think about Grudem’s comments? Do they comport with the fundamental tenets of Calvinism? Do you have a problem with someone reading a comment by a theologian and noticing a major inconsistency? Why is that so seemingly offensive and rant provoking to you?
If you want pure restriction that’s fine. You’ll not hear from me again. I’m sure you’ve gotten the same censorship elsewhere when men disagree with your ideas, Kangaroo-dort (a slam against the synod it seems).
Nobody is trying to censor you. If I wanted to censor you I would just delete your comments. But I have let them stand. I have just pointed out that this is not the proper place for such comments. You may not like it, but I want to provide an environment where people can ask honest questions about Arminianism and Calvinism without being attacked by an angry Calvinist.
There are tons of posts and articles at this site. Many of them deal with John 6. You can read those and challenge them in the comment threads. I would be happy to engage you on those topics. But this is not the proper place for it.
As far as my screen name goes, here is something I wrote a while ago:
Some Calvinists have complained about my screen name, “kangaroodort”, because it expresses my belief that the Synod of Dort has no real historical significance with regards to the truth of Arminianism. It doesn’t matter to me that a bunch of Calvinists condemned Arminianism because Arminianism didn’t line up with their Calvinistic creeds and confessions (surprise, surprise!), any more than it matters to me that Catholics condemned all protestants at the Council of Trent. Yet, some Calvinists hold up Dort as a clear testimony to the heretical nature of Arminianism. My screen name is defensive against those who would wrongly call me a heretic. It is not meant to be offensive in the sense of “bashing Calvinists.” The fact is that if Calvinists want to claim that Calvinism is just a “nickname” for the gospel and that anything short of Calvinism is therefore not the gospel, then there is a need for addressing such bold attacks on Non-Calvinists.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/bashing-calvinism/
God Bless,
Ben
In grace and patience:
Fair enough. I am on “Arminian Perspectives” after all. I know what I’ve gotten myself into. I’m sorry if my posts are inconveniently or incorrectly placed. They’ll stop soon I think so that I’m not feeding into too many stereotypes in blog-world. I see the responses and dialogs sent to me between you and some others, and, out of the last few, have only just chosen to offer a response (rant) or two. I do hope that all of my comments have not been too distracting to honest seekers. Your questions are also welcome at Biblecia.com to me, a Reformed Baptist (Southern Baptist).
I’m glad, Mr. Kangaroodort, that you try to foster such honest dialog “That God may stop the plague.” Really. Come on, sir? It’s very clear how both sides work often times in this passive aggressiveness. At least on my site you’ll not read overt slurs against those I debate with in-house. I know I can’t post a response in the “X-Calvinist Corner.” Again, I’m here. I know. And may God bless you as well.
Scripture interprets itself. I was attempting to point out a counter to Now Dimly’s comments which seem little like questions towards the end and more like common affirmations between you both.
Follow me if you will. I will try not to rant in my “plague spreading.” Very nice BTW. I know you’re just following Mr. Wesley. The latter part of John 6 immediately surrounding our recent interactions here has many fake disciples walking away. I know they’re fake because they went away. (cf. 1 John 2:19). It’s in this light that much context is rendered to why Jesus speaks as He does. In light of their departure Jesus’ address to His own makes much more sense. John 6:37 says that all the Father gives Jesus will come. This was before the fake even show their hearts to the world and turn. Jesus always knew their hearts. In vs. 65, after the false converts turned away offended, Jesus reiterates with precision for the elect and us why exactly they’ve turned away. Why? They (those that departed) were not given to the Son. If they are one day found at the final judgment calling out to Jesus, “Lord, Lord” He will tell them He “never” knew them. He doesn’t stop them and do an altar call. All that the Father gives the Son will come. Those that are not won’t. Those that are not will turn away. All those given will come. Repeat: all those given will come. That all actually does mean all I trust. Sometimes all doesn’t mean all. Here it does. Their coming is sure because they’ve been given. This is to the Father’s glory we read-even their fruit.
The giving of these mentioned individuals obviously precedes their coming. This is God’s calling as seen whenever a man actually repents and believes what he has heard. The “coming” then that Jesus speaks of here, rightly interpreted, is the repentance and faith that all believers exercise. “Coming” is coming in faith. This is the faith they find active in them through preaching and prayer. It is the light in which they can now see. Being born again is the entrance into that light. Whatever God may do in a man that goes before this, as He often does, is not necessarily the gift of life itself. Life’s a gift. It is no injection then, I feel, to say that this is precisely why faith itself is properly called a gift in Ephesians 2. It’s what’s illustrated in John 6. It is a gift not at all of yourself, but a gift of God. It isn’t something that needs to be “opened” because it’s internal and is life itself for us Lazaruses. No boasting only here. John 6:39-40 is also helpful in light of all of the latter of John 6 and these few points.
Then, like my last comment would have you move to in your thoughts, recall John 17, particularly vs. 6 where the Spirit hones in the fact, with the 11 disciples who were surely given, that only the drawn in fact do come. Judases will turn away as foretold. Jesus chose them, as He said, and so they freely answered the call. The disciples, as was articulated to them in John 6, are the practical example of the truth demonstrated amidst the false believers. It was to make them rejoice. Only bad theology cries foul in light of Christ’s election of those who would “surely come.” They came having previously been given to the Son. They trust Him because they know He will not lose them. He said, “I will lose none of them.” I don’t doubt it. False converts will turn; not real ones. The God who saves keeps. Those given come. That’s clearly unseen election. They don’t come without faith. Faith is not from us. Lastly here-
All the given (John 6 latter & as seen in John 11 with the disciples) surely come and cannot at all be lost. Put that together in Scripture with the fact that all men will not be saved because they’re not all given and Scripture interprets itself. I’m reading nothing into the text except another clear part of it. If all are drawn as you allege in prevenience? If the prevenient grace argument is in view, then all will come? If all that are given to Jesus will come to Jesus and we’re all given then we’ll all be saved. That’s universalism, not Christianity. If God’s salvation is random and thus wholly reduced to our cooperative faith and all are given then all men will come. No, my Arminian thinkers, all those given to the Son, “Will come.” He will surely raise them up on the last day. Are all men equally given? No. If they were then they’d all equally come at least at some point. Jesus has no preventing grace in His theology that leads to saving faith. All those given, or elected, will come. The disciples proved this and put flesh on this truth in their own day. He loved them to the end and they loved Him back. Their flesh profited nothing (John 6) but they were very much profited by the Father who was revealed to them by the Son who chose them. Jesus kept them in God’s word when they would not keep themselves. They would betray. They would doubt. He would redeem them. He loved them unlike He loved those who turned away from Him.
As far as Dr. Grudem’s comments go, I see no difficulty beyond the normal everyday tensions of remembering that we work in real time with real people with real sins (theirs and ours) in real love under the sure sovereignty of God. We don’t play God. We know that God has a number that He’ll save. It’s as fixed as anything else. They will be saved. By all means we’re to work in His vineyard to save them. The patience of God has an end. It will not last forever. He will not always strive with man. Men need to hear that. Many atheists in our day have needed to hear it. I once need to hear it because I was an Arminian who felt I could be put in and out of grace at any time by sin. I didn’t know Jesus at all, not to say that that’s all Arminians. Many need to hear it. “Repent, you may not have tomorrow.” It might be a fact. It might not be. I don’t know. This in no way calls into question the sure works of God. If a man does not harden his heart as in the day of rebellion in hearing of the cross we should not but rejoice and call him to swift action. We put no stock in him as his own co-savior. If he’s alive he’s been made alive (Ephesians 1) together with Christ. We may have sown or watered, but we know God gave the increase. Both we, and he, are nothing. God alone is to be praised. We pray for him in support and affirmation in any way possible and do what God has ordered us to do in loving and welcoming discipleship. The gospel produces faith in the hearts of those given to the Son. They come having been given. Grudem knows we don’t have to “catch em” between 10:25 and 10:28 during the last song or else they might be damned. Thank God if someone gets saved in an altar call, but we’re not telemarketers playing a numbers game. That leads to bad things. We preach. Whosoever wills responds, and we disciple. This is Acts 13:48’s surrounding events exactly portrayed. If salvation is genuine it will endure. Jesus will surely raise that person up because they’ve been given. They are the foreknown and those surely to be glorified, Romans 8:29-30. This is certain, but no wise farmer would deny a growing crop what he knows it needs, and neither should we. In time, as Jesus said in Mark 4, it’ll be shown whether or not the seed was good in its production.
John 6:44 says “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” A recent comment pointed out that this verse does not say whether or not everyone who is drawn will come to him, just that no one can come unless they are drawn. While this certainly is true, I would like to point out that a few verses earlier, in John 6:37, Jesus does say “All that the Father gives me will come to me”. I guess the question to be answered is whether or not God giving someone to Jesus is the same as drawing them to him. It seems that it would be. Also Romans 8:30 says “those He called He also justified”. I believe that those whom God called are the same ones that He drew to himself – that it is just two different ways of saying the same thing. Would you agree with that? So if ALL He called are justified, and if ALL that are given to the Father will come to Jesus, then it seems that when Jesus says no one can come without being drawn by the Father, it would also follow that all who are drawn will come.
I’m glad, Mr. Kangaroodort, that you try to foster such honest dialog “That God may stop the plague.” Really. Come on, sir?
For the proper context of Wesley’s quote about the plague, see the following post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/the-puritan-board/
And it needs to be noted that Wesley’s words are extremely tame compared to what routinely comes out of the Calvinist camp concerning Arminianism. For example, take R.C. Sproul’s quote that,
“Simply put, the tenets of Arminianism taste sweeter to our sinful human natures than those of other doctrinal systems.”
From: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-five-dilemmas-of-calvinism-part-1/
For more quotes that make Wesley’s quote look innocuous i comparison, see the following posts,
http://wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com/2009/07/fun-calvinist-quotes-on-arminian.html
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/j-i-packer-calls-arminianism-an-intellectual-sin-of-infirmity/
It’s very clear how both sides work often times in this passive aggressiveness. At least on my site you’ll not read overt slurs against those I debate with in-house.
Overt slurs like saying, “There’s one of dozens of passages and teachings that stand in contrast to the humanistic insights read into Scripture through Arminianism. What’s the explain away of this? Whosoever will because all are drawn, right?”
I know I can’t post a response in the “X-Calvinist Corner.” Again, I’m here. I know. And may God bless you as well.
If you want to share about your journey away from Calvinism to a more Arminian theology, then you can certainly post on “X-Calvinist Corner”.
All those given will come. Repeat: all those given will come.
I agree. But that is not what you said before. You said all that are drawn will come. Big difference.
That all actually does mean all I trust. Sometimes all doesn’t mean all. Here it does.
I agree that all means all here. I like the convenient qualifier, though. It is interesting that when it suits your argument “all” certainly “must” mean “all”, but when it destroys Calvinism (Like all the passages that say Christ died for all, God desires all to be saved and to come to repentance, etc.), then “all” certainly “must” mean “some”, and not “all.” Oh, and what about “world” in John 6:32 and 6:51. Surely that should factor into how we interpret the rest of John 6.
All the given (John 6 latter & as seen in John 11 with the disciples) surely come and cannot at all be lost. Put that together in Scripture with the fact that all men will not be saved because they’re not all given and Scripture interprets itself.
We simply understand these passages differently. Here are some comments I wrote a while back that might help you understand why I simply do not find the Calvinist claims concerning John 6 compelling:
**********************************************
“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.
So the primary application still addresses the issue of faith but not in the same way as we would tend to apply it today since our situation is different from that of the Jews and we are not living at a critical time in history where the faithful Jews were being given, by the Father, to their Shepherd and Messiah. For them it primarily involved the transition from one sphere of believing (in the Father) to another (in the Son). Those faithful Jews recognized the Father in the Son and as a result listened to Him and followed Him as their long awaited Messiah. In either case the “sheep” are those who are “listening” and “following” and the passage gives no indication that one cannot cease to be one of Christ’s sheep by later refusing to listen and follow.”
…..
“However, I do think the issue of why the Jews specifically rejected Jesus is a main concern for John. John’s gospel was written very late at a time when the church was shifting heavily to being primarily a Gentile church. I think John is addressing a major concern taking place at the time of his writing. The concern for the Jews would be to help them see why the Jews who knew Jesus rejected Him, which also explains why many Jews at the time of John’s writing were still rejecting Christ as their Messiah. No doubt many Jews were wondering why, if Jesus was the Messiah, did the Jewish leaders largely reject Him? Likewise, Gentiles would also be wondering why, if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, did the Jewish leaders reject Him, and why are so many Jews still rejecting Him? Is their rejection an indictment on Christ’s claims?
If that is the case, then John is very focused on showing that the Jewish leaders and many of the Jews who encountered Christ rejected Him, not because He wasn’t from God, but because they (the Jews) were not “of God.” They pointed the finger at Christ saying that He was not of God, but the reality was that Christ was of God (one with Him, in fact), and the reason they didn’t recognize it was because they didn’t know God (were not in right covenant relationship with God). I believe that is the primary issue being addressed in Jesus confrontations with the Jews in John (chapters 5, 6, 8, and 10 especially). Look at this verse,
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:20, 21, NASB)
If we interpret this as Calvinists (and some Arminians) do as a simple passage on depravity, we run into a serious problem. The text says that “whoever does what is true comes to the light”.
Coming to the light, in this context, is coming to Christ, i.e., putting faith in Christ. So this text is saying that those who “practice truth” come to Christ. That doesn’t sound like a biblical description of someone who is depraved. Someone who is totally depraved in the Calvinist sense is not someone who can be characterized as “practicing truth.” But if John’s point is the same as being described in John 10 (as well as in John 5, 6, and 8) that those who know the Father come to Christ, and those who do not know the Father reject Christ, then this passage makes perfect sense.
But if we universalize this passage to all people we run into the same difficulty. How is it that Gentiles who know nothing of God can be characterized as “practicing truth” prior to coming to Christ? It doesn’t really fit with that paradigm. But it does fit with the idea of faithful Jews submitting to the claims of Christ because they already know God (have a relationship with Him). It could, however, extend to Gentiles like Cornelius who knew God as well, prior to hearing the message preached by Peter. But his faith was based on his knowledge of God from the Jews. He was one of those “other sheep” who already knew God and would automatically recognize the Shepherd and His voice (which is the voice of the Father as well).
The secondary application is simply that those who are willing to hear from the Father (however He may teach them) will be drawn by the Father to Christ. In our situation, this happens by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the gospel. The principle is similar, but it is a different time and a different situation. We come to the Father through the Son, while in a very real sense the Jews of Jesus’ time came to the Son through the Father and were then able to take part in the new dispensation when only those joined to the Son can remain in right relationship with the Father. Here are a few things I wrote on drawing that might help shed light on what I am saying (how there is both a primary and secondary application),
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).”
*****************************************
Here is a very in depth look at passages that Calvinist think teach unconditional election and irresistible grace in John:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282
It is also interesting that in all you say about John 6, you neglected to mention John 6:45 or how that might factor into a proper interpretation of John 6:37, 44, etc.
And of course, John 12:32 plainly says that Christ draws “all.” But no doubt that will just be another example of where “all” conveniently does not mean “all”. After all, that would ruin your entire argument.
If the prevenient grace argument is in view, then all will come?
No, since the passage doesn’t say that all who are drawn will come, as has been pointed out to you.
If all that are given to Jesus will come to Jesus and we’re all given then we’ll all be saved.
We aren’t all “given” so your argument doesn’t follow.
Jesus has no preventing grace in His theology that leads to saving faith.
So you assert.
All those given, or elected, will come.
Sorry, the passage says nothing of a pretemproal “election.” That is something you have read into the text.
The disciples proved this and put flesh on this truth in their own day. He loved them to the end and they loved Him back. Their flesh profited nothing (John 6) but they were very much profited by the Father who was revealed to them by the Son who chose them.
Once again, you are reading your theology into the passage. The context makes it pretty clear that Christ is saying that the non-spiritual understanding of His teaching profits nothing (vs. 52, 60). The verse must be understood in context. It is about the difference in receiving Christ’s words with spiritual understanding, and receiving His words with a natural understanding (which would imply cannibalism). Likewise, Christ’s literal “flesh” can profit them nothing, but His flesh received spiritually, that is in the context of a faith relationship with Christ through whom one receives true spiritual sustenance (the bread of life), “gives life”. To emphasize that the flesh profits nothing in the most absolute sense that you seem to want to take it would make us have to say that the “flesh” of Christ profits nothing as well (John 6:31). But we realize that the flesh of Christ profits much. However, this teaching on His flesh giving life must be understood spiritually, which is the exact point Christ later makes when He says that the “flesh” (i.e. unspiritual understanding of His words) profits nothing. Christ is not equating natural man enabled to believe by the Spirit and word of Christ with the “flesh” that “profits nothing.” That is reading something quite foreign into the text.
Jesus kept them in God’s word when they would not keep themselves. They would betray. They would doubt. He would redeem them. He loved them unlike He loved those who turned away from Him.
So Judas who was “given” to Christ was also “redeemed?”
As far as Dr. Grudem’s comments go, I see no difficulty beyond the normal everyday tensions of remembering that we work in real time with real people with real sins (theirs and ours) in real love under the sure sovereignty of God. We don’t play God. We know that God has a number that He’ll save. It’s as fixed as anything else. They will be saved. By all means we’re to work in His vineyard to save them. The patience of God has an end. It will not last forever. He will not always strive with man. Men need to hear that.
But none of this addresses what Grudem actually says. Maybe you need to go back and re-read the quote.
I once need to hear it because I was an Arminian who felt I could be put in and out of grace at any time by sin.
Well, that is not what Arminianism teaches, so you must not have been an Arminian (though you may have been a non-Calvinist)
Many need to hear it. “Repent, you may not have tomorrow.” It might be a fact. It might not be.
Again, this misses the specifics of the language that Grudem uses. It is just dancing around his words, without actually grappling with them.
We put no stock in him as his own co-savior.
Are you suggesting that Arminians do? If so, that is another gross misrepresentation of what Arminians believe. A “slur”, if you will.
They come having been given. Grudem knows we don’t have to “catch em” between 10:25 and 10:28 during the last song or else they might be damned.
Perhaps you don’t need to do anything at all (if Calvinism is true).
Thank God if someone gets saved in an altar call, but we’re not telemarketers playing a numbers game. That leads to bad things.
Bad things that God decreed from all eternity to happen just as they do. I simply cannot figure out why Calvinists get all hyped up over how the gospel is presented. See this post for more detail: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/decisional-regeneration/
This is Acts 13:48′s surrounding events exactly portrayed.
The context actually works against the Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48,
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/acts-1348-two-non-calvinist-views/
If salvation is genuine it will endure.
A lot of really big problems with that claim. See my 13 Part series on Perseverance of the Saints for more on that:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance-series/
They are the foreknown and those surely to be glorified, Romans 8:29-30.
See these posts which address Romans 8:29-30 to various degrees,
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
Well, you have had your say. Obviously, we do not agree. Since this is not the place for debate, we need not proceed, unless you want to very specifically address Grudem’s quote. I would be interested to hear you grapple with the actual language. Here it is again for easy reference:
“The application to our lives is quite evident: if God gives anyone a desire to repent and trust in Christ, he or she should not delay and should not harden his or her heart (cf. Heb. 3:7–8; 12:17). This ability to repent and desire to trust in God is not naturally ours but is given by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and it will not last forever.” (p. 498)
If you have issue with some of the posts I directed you to, you can leave comments at those posts (but please make sure you read the post carefully and completely before doing so). The link to your blog is here as well (notice I didn’t “censor” it), so anyone can go to your blog to see what else you have to say about why Calvinism is so Biblical and Arminianism is not.
May God Bless you as you continue to seek Him and His truth.
Sally,
See my comments to Joseph above. I hope to address your questions specifically sometime this weekend. Did you see my response on Piper and the order of salvation? Do understand now that Piper’s quotes do not solve the problem as you suggested?
Joseph,
I wouldn’t consider myself an Arminian. I’m simply trying to take an honest look at these important doctrines since I obviously missed some of the implications of them when I originally accepted Calvinism, something I did based on some limited teachings by Sproul and not based on personal in depth Bible study. I’m finding now that the tiny doubts I had accepted are still bugging me (the ones Ben just pointed out, such as God loving “all” is just one small example, but there are too many questions to post even in this thread which will necessitate personal study).
My main bone to pick with the Grudem quote was this: He is speaking to “us” (could be believers, could be unbelievers–I know we preach the gospel to everyone). He says that the “ability to repent and desire to trust in God is not naturally ours but is given by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and it will not last forever.” Several chapter later he talks about effectual calling and regeneration. Is he speaking to believers or to all? If to all, then those who will not be called and regenerated have an “ability to repent” and a “desire to trust” but they can’t because God has not elected them. That is cockamamie.
Yes, God calls all men to repent, but how can the reprobate have any true “ability” to repent if they have not ability given by God? That’s all I was saying. I’m sure Mr. Grudem could clarify, perhaps it was an oversight while writing a near 1300 page book. But whatever the theology, this seems like bad logic.
You guys are asking very good questions and this isn’t something any Christian should just cave into overnight. Anyone asking such questions should give themselves to much prayer and study on the matter. I have no problem being undecided again for a time because I know the faithfulness of our Father.
Now Dimly,
I appreciate and admire your courage and commitment to re-examine your convictions and presuppositions in light of Scripture. That is a hard thing to do. May God bless you and guide you through this process. There is nothing to fear in discovering truth.
Feel free to ask more questions. I will do my best to answer them.
Now Dimly,
Here is another confusing quote from a well respected Calvinist, Arthur W. Pink,
“In the past, dear reader, there have been thousands who were just as confident that they had been genuinely saved and were truly trusting in the merits of the finished work of Christ to take them safely through to Heaven, as you may be; nevertheless, they are now in the torments of Hell. Their confidence was a carnal one; their “faith,” no better than that which the demons have. Their faith was but a natural one which rested on the bare letter of Scripture. It was not a supernatural one, wrought in the heart by God. They were too confident that their faith was a saving one, to thoroughly, searchingly, frequently, test it by the Scriptures, to discover whether or no it was bringing forth those fruits which are inseparable from the faith of God’s elect. If they read an article like this, they proudly concluded that it belonged to some one else. So cocksure were they that they were born again so many years ago, they refused to heed the command of 2 Corinthians 13:5 “Prove your own selves.” And now it is too late. They wasted their day of opportunity, and the “blackness of darkness” is their portion forever.(Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews- bold emphasis mine)”
This comes from a post I wrote on how the inevitable perseverance doctrine of Calvinism undermines Biblical assurance. You can see that post here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-13-salvation-assurance/
How could the reprobate possibly waste their “day of opportunity”? If God chose from eternity to pass over them and deny them the grace to believe and be saved, then there was never any real “opportunity” at all. It is also nonsense to say “now it is too late.” No, it was too late from the day they were born since there was never any hope or possibility for them to be saved. Many more inconsistent quotes like this one could be quoted from prominent Calvinists.
Do you think that John 1:12, 13 is about being born again? I think it is. And if it is, then it seems pretty clear that faith precedes the new birth, and you would really have to do some theological voodoo here to say that regeneration precedes faith in this context.
All who receive (believe in) the Word are given the right to become children of God. You cannot say that we are regenerated first so that we can believe, so that we can then become children. That doesnt make sense since regeneration is (to me) both becoming a new creature and a child of God. You also can’t say that this is adoption, or else I don’t think John would have used the word “born,” for the two concepts are quite different (born and adopted).
If John is speaking of regeneration, then this goes hand in hand with Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in chapter 3, and there doesn’t seem to be any real sense to push for regeneration preceding faith–especially since 3:14 clearly says practically the same thing 1:12 says: believe and you will have life/become a child of God. (I think John 3:8 is used to show that regeneration precedes faith because “since we have no control over our new birth then it must happen before we can exercise faith,” but that Calvinistic interpretation leaves me doubtful using this passage alone). Hope I made sense there!
Now Dimly,
Absolutely. John 1:12, 13 is about being born again and clearly teaches that faith precedes the new birth, just as you described it. You are also right about John 3. Here are a few posts you should check out that will reinforce what you have discovered:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/does-jesus-teach-that-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/biblical-scholar-brian-abasciano-refutes-the-popular-calvinist-argument-that-the-language-of-1-john-51-means-that-regeneration-precedes-faith/
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
I’ve been reviewing the inability of the sinner this week and was wondering what your understanding was of those who are in the flesh (Romans 8:1-8). I take the passage to be talking about someone who is unsaved since they do not have the Spirit (v. 9). If my understanding is correct, then how would you answer the assertion that the sinner is so depraved that he cannot do anything in the direction of God based on verses 7,8 in particular? I listened to a sermon on depravity and this was one of the texts used to show the need for regeneration to precede faith. Thanks!
Now Dimly,
Romans 8 is not, in my opinion, addressing the inability to believe the gospel, but the inability to obey the law of God in a way that is pleasing to God. Only through the indwelling of the Spirit is that possible, since the Sprint gives us the power to obey God’s law and live for Him. Paul makes this point in Romans 6 and 8. But the Spirit is received by faith. So this passage just isn’t a very good one for inability with regards to believing the gospel. That is not what Paul is discussing here.
However, I do hold to total depravity. All Arminians do. But that does not mean regeneration is what is needed for the depraved person to be able to believe. Arminians hold to resistible prevenient grace. We believe that through the conviction and power of the Spirit and the word, God enables totally depraved sinners to believe. So both Arminians and Calvinist see a necessary work of God to make faith possible. The difference is that Arminians believe this work is prevenient grace and that it is resistible (it doesn’t irresistibly cause faith, but enables faith), and Calvinist believe this work is regeneration and it irresistibly causes faith (once the sinner is regenerated, he cannot help but to believe-faith is guaranteed). But you have already seen the many problems with placing regeneration before faith.
Here are a few posts to help you understand prevenient grace:
http://www.fwponline.cc/v18n2/v18n2witzki.html
http://www.fwponline.cc/v19n1/v19n1switzki.html
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Kevin-jackson-prevenient-grace-explained
Earlier in the comments thread, you can read a discussion I had with someone about prevenient grace. The discussion starts here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-1575
And here is a post that will help give you a better understanding of Romans 8, based on Ezekiel 36:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/ezekiel-3626-27/
Hope that helps.
Cool thanks. Another text used in that sermon was 1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
The logic is that since we can’t understand spiritual things then we can’t believe I suppose. I’ll have review said sermon again.
Now Dimly,
Actually, that is another lousy proof text for inability to believe the gospel. Paul is actually talking about immature Christians in that passage, and not unbelievers (1 Cor. 3:1). They are “infants in Christ” and not unbelievers. Here is a good post that addresses this passage as well:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/addressing-dominics-response-to-the-purpose-of-regeneration-in-calvinism/
It is a debate, but 1 Cor. 2 comes up in the debate as a proof text for needing the indwelling Spirit in order to believe the gospel, which is plainly unscriptural since the Spirit is received by faith (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14).
The part about 1 Cor. 2 comes up pretty early in the post.
God Bless,
Ben
I read this last post and some of the comments on the second rebuttal so far. I think Dominic had a pretty weak argument and yours seemed to be right on as I compared it all with the contexts involved. But I’m still hung up on 1 Cor 2:14 and 1 Cor 3:1 since Paul uses two different words in Greek for “natural person” and “people of the flesh.” The context of verses 14-16 seems to be immature vs. mature, but I guess it seems hard for me to get away from that old interpretation that Natural=not saved or without the Spirit. How could deeper spiritual truths be foolish to someone who is saved?
And I’m treading lightly in 3:1-4 because of the old “carnal Christian” doctrine (which I believe to be a misinterpretation…this was big when I was in Campus Crusade for Christ 20 years ago–and it didn’t make much sense then–; i.e. people could live however they wanted and still be saved). It’s clear here that Paul speaks of immaturity and not sensual living. I just can’t understand why Paul wouldn’t have used the same term in both places.
In the past month, the more I hear arguments using Scripture out of context the more irritated I get. I mean, maybe Scripture could teach a specific Calvinist doctrine, but not in the way I’m hearing major passages being misused. Then I read some comments about certain Calvinists not believing in regeneration preceding faith and was thrown for another loop. I thought it was pretty black and white and I was hoping for an easy landing on one side or the other (Arminian or Calvinist)! I’ll just keep seeking the Lord and trust him to lead me.
Now Dimly,
You wrote,
The context of verses 14-16 seems to be immature vs. mature, but I guess it seems hard for me to get away from that old interpretation that Natural=not saved or without the Spirit. How could deeper spiritual truths be foolish to someone who is saved?
The context is about believers who are immature because they are not fully submitting to the Spirit. I don’t think this is such an uncommon thing. They have the Spirit within them, but are not yielding to the Spirit as they should, which would bring them to a more spiritually mature state. So in a sense they are acting like men without the Spirit because they are not yielding to the Spirit’s leading. Some translations have it as “unspiritual”, which probably better reflects Paul’s meaning in describing these immature Christians.
And I’m treading lightly in 3:1-4 because of the old “carnal Christian” doctrine (which I believe to be a misinterpretation…this was big when I was in Campus Crusade for Christ 20 years ago–and it didn’t make much sense then–; i.e. people could live however they wanted and still be saved)
This in no way has reference to the horrible carnal Christian doctrine. These Christians are guilty of favoritism, and not the gross sins that are often attributed to “carnal Christians.” In attaching their loyalty to certain Christian teachers above others, they are robbing themselves of what God wants to give them, as if God can only speak to them through their favorite apostle or teacher, etc. This is stunting their growth and hurting the church.
Then I read some comments about certain Calvinists not believing in regeneration preceding faith and was thrown for another loop.
I would say that there are very few Calvinists who do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. However, they still see God’s grace as irresistible in that God just causes faith irresistibly in certain select sinners. God gives them the gift of faith, but does not need to regenerate them first in order to do so. But again, such Calvinists presently represent a very small minority.
God Bless.
Thank you for providing this forum. I find the discussions stimulating, and it is encouraging to me that such discussions can take place in an uplifting manner rather than with derogatory tones.
I’ve noticed as I’ve studied throughout the years that with much of the developments in the past, be they governmental application, scientific, mathematical, etc., that many have been made by men / women of the Calvinist persuasion. [I’m currently reviewing the book by James Nickel, MATHMATICS: IS GOD SILENT? In it he references Reijer Hooykaas and Rousas J. Rushdoony as recognizing “the indispensable role of Protestantism, especially Calvinist Puritanism, in the rise of modern science” (p. 130).] Certainly, God has used people even from totally different religions to advance His kingdom, but I’m wondering if there is a differing worldview present in Calvinism that is not found in Arminianism, for instance, which brings about such an outcome? Although I understand that such is not consistent even within “Reformed” camps, is it their millennial view? Is it a view regarding the dominion mandate? Is it a certain perspective about God being involved in everything rather than separating the sacred from the secular? Do they tend to be more of a “thinking” camp? Why? As one who doesn’t consider herself a Calvinist, I agree with many of these worldviews, but I’m wondering if Calvinists put more emphasis on it…and actually put it in practice more practically? Thank you for your thoughts, and again, your encouragement!
Lori,
I really do not know how to answer your question, beyond mere speculation. Sorry.
Have you ever come across folks who are neither Arminian nor Calvinist? I’m talking to a guy in Costa Rica who seems to be a KJV only church, but they use Way of the Master and their focus seems to be evangelism. I asked him about his teaching on depravity and he didn’t comment. His teachings imply that sinful man will repent when they hear the law preached.
Yes. There are many who are non-Calvinists but are not really Arminian either. Typically, they would be people who do not hold to total depravity or the need for God’s enabling grace to believ the gospel. Such people would be either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, though many such people have little knowledge of such theological labels.
Logically, there really isn’t a lot of room between Calvinism or Arminianism. The difference really comes down to the question of irresistible grace. If you decide God’s grace irresistibly overcomes our fallen nature’s hostility to God, you’re a Calvinist. Thinking through the rest of the points logically will eventually bring you to accepting the rest. If you decide that God overcomes the resistance of sinful nature enough that a person is able to choose to respond with faith, or choose not to, you’ll end up Arminian on most or of the 5 points (As I understand it, it is possible to accept eternal security but still be Arminian).
I see plenty of examples of people claiming to be neither. One way is to claim a middle ground. Redefining terms enough can create an apparent middle ground. Logically examined, it will be either clearly Calvinist or Arminian. Another way is to go the semi-Pelagian or Pelagian route. It’s been recognized as heretical for 1500 years or so, but that doesn’t stop people from trying.
Your description is too short to be sure, but expecting people to repent when the law is preached sounds a far cry from the gospel to my ears. Not that people might not repent, but that repentance in and of itself doesn’t save anyone. Salvation is through faith in the substitutionary death of Christ and accepting His rightousness as your rightousness. Repentance is a part of that (I believe), but not primarily what leads to our salvation.
My thoughts…
Paul
Paul,
While it is true that many who claim to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian are actually one or the other, it is also true that many are either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in their beliefs and, therefore, neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Your comments seem to recognize this, but I just wanted to add this clarification in case you were misunderstood. The answer to Now Dimly’s question is still “yes”, since there are many who are either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in their thinking.
God Bless,
Ben
Completely agreed Ben. Thanks for the clarification. I did intend to communicate precisely that.
-Paul
I wanted to follow up on something else Paul said that I think might be misunderstood. First, I think “Way of the Master” actually leans a little towards Calvinism, if anything (though it doesn’t necessarily come out in their methodology). For them, preaching and confronting people with the law brings a person to realize that they are guilty and condemned before God. In that way, it leads them to the realization that they need a Savior. So the law is what leads them to Christ (just as the apostle Paul taught). I think this can be a great way to do evangelism, but I disagree that it is the only valid or effective way (as “Way of the Master” sometimes seems to imply).
However, I don’t think they would say that repentance based on law is what brings salvation, or anything like that. However, the Bible is very clear that repentance is necessary for salvation and forgiveness (Acts 3:19; 11:18; 2 Peter 3:9, etc.), but that repentance is focused on turning away from sin and towards Christ to receive forgiveness and salvation. Also, while righteousness is imputed by faith, the specific object of our faith does not need to be on imputed righteousness. Rather, it is simple trust in Christ to save us, even if we do not fully understand how God goes about saving us or making us righteous. Again, I don’t think that Paul necessarily meant to imply such things, and I don’t want to minimize his helpful comments, but I just wanted to avoid any potential misunderstandings.
Ben you said, “Such people would be either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, though many such people have little knowledge of such theological labels.”
This might be why the person I’m talking to doesn’t seem to give me clear answers about doctrinal questions. He’s the one who challenged me a month ago on the doctrine of election and got me rethinking Calvinism. I wanted to prove him wrong since he said that Calvinism was wrong. Look where it got me!
Paul, I did understand you. I didn’t know where I stood for years, mainly due to a lack of theological teaching and years of living like (being?) an unbeliever. In recent years I was so into Way of the Master that that was the focus of my doctrine, and it sounds like the same may be true for my friend.
Ben said, “First, I think “Way of the Master” actually leans a little towards Calvinism, if anything (though it doesn’t necessarily come out in their methodology).”
Ray Comfort has said he’s a Arminian-ist…he doesn’t seem to believe in unconditional election, but he holds to perseverance (thus his teaching True and False Conversion). Most of their other guys seem to be Calvinist (Kirk Cameron goes to MacArthur’s church, Tod Friel teaches about Calvinist doctrines on Wretched). I think they keep a good balance between repentance and faith but keep silent about other doctrines of salvation as far as their ministry goes. I recall Ray Comfort saying, “How can a man repent if he doesn’t know what sin is?” Thus their focus on preaching law, then grace.
It just kind of bothers me when people latch onto it (like myself) without thinking through the rest of Biblical doctrine, which is so rich and glorious. In speaking with my new friend he seemed to give me a hard time if I wasn’t going out of my way to preach to everyone. But there are equally important doctrines like loving one’s wife as Christ loved the church, training one’s children God’s ways, working heartily in the secular world to be a good witness where I face losing my job if I preach unwisely. All these things also glorify God and I don’t think we’re all called to stand on a street corner and preach (though I sure love doing that).
Now Dimly,
Thanks for the info. on WOM. I love your last paragraph.
do you think john calvin defended unlimited atonement?
wanderson,
I’m not sure. It’s been awhile since I have read much Calvin. I have read things from him that would seem to indicate that God both loved all people with a desire to save them, as well as things that would seem to indicate that the atonement was for all as well. But, if I remember right, there are other writings of his that seem to say, or at least imply, otherwise. For now, all I can say is that he seemed inconsistent on the point. I will try to look into it more when I get the chance.
I do know that R.T Kendall and other’s have argued strongly that Calvin did hold to unlimited atonement (making Calvin a 4 Point Calvinist!). Here is a good little post on the subject: http://arminiantoday.com/2012/07/01/brief-thoughts-on-calvins-extent-of-the-atonement/
God Bless,
Ben
Ben…I wonder if you would shoot me an email (my address should be on your dashboard). I have some further questions for you.
Kangaroodort,
thanks for answering me. I am brazilian and in this moment an ex-calvinist too. I am not a arminian yet, because I decided study a lot both side in order to be in peace with God and your blog has helped me too much. Then, I have other question (actually, I have a lot of them), but now goes one:
How understand 2Tm2:10 in a corporate view of election ?? I read the opinion of Marshall and he says that the text relates to the work of Paul in a favor of actual belivers helping them to a final salvation. The problem I have with this interpretation is
1. The word “also” don’t fit well with this view. It appears to me that paul wants that the elects be saved as he is
2. All the context of prision and exhortation seems to me that Paul is reffering to the proclamation of the gospel
God Bless
Hi,
Regarding freewill, I remembered a question:
Why would someone choose Hell over Heaven?
How should Arminians answer this one? 🙂
Thanks.
wanderson,
Here is a quick answer I gave someone else on the passage,
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 on current faith in Christ and not on a secret eternal selection of certain sinners to eventually come to faith. Hope that helps.
So it looks like I basically agree with Marshall on this passage. I don’t understand your comment about “also”. I don’t see why we would need that in the text at all. I actually do think the context bears out the interpretation I have offered here as Paul goes on to specifically speak about endurance in faith to avoid being ultimately “disowned” by God if we fail to “endure.” (vv. 11-13)
If you still have questions, let me know.
Now Dimly,
I will e-mail sometime this afternoon.
rex,
I will get to your question later today, though I may need some qualification on what you are asking.
I agree with Ben on 2 Tim 2:10. Paul frequently expresses concern that his churches will not persevere in faith and so perish. And while salvation can be thought of as a present possession in Paul and the NT, it is also frequently thought of as a future event or possession. Marshall’s view is strongly supported by the fact that the vast majority of uses of “the elect” etc. clearly refers to the group of those who already believe, to those who are already in covenant relationship with God. That is the normal usage. So there needs to be some clear indication that we have a different usage here. But there really isn’t any. The statement goes along naturally with Paul’s concern for the salvation of his churches/converts. For example, he tells the Corinthian church, “if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation” (2 Cor 1:6; NASB). Note the similarity; Paul endures affliction for the salvation of those who already believe. And in 1 Tim 4:16, Paul tells Timothy, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” (NASB) So Timothy is to labor for the salvation of himself and those he pastored, believers.
Hello, Ben. Can you recommend articles on Rom.8:29,30? especially in light of corporate election. and another thing. can I translate some of your articles into russian, and publish on my website? ))
Vladimir,
Absolutely you can translate anything at this site into Russian and publish them on your website. As for Rom. 8:29, 30, have you seen the post on Corporate Election Quotes? Here is the link: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/ The last section by Walls and Dongell address the passage some (though I did not quote their more extensive treatment).
In short, Rom. 8:29-30 uses plural corporate language (“those”), so it fits very nicely with the corporate view. Walls and Dongell do a good job describing how this works. One important point is the use of “called” in the passage. At the end of the post on “Corporate Election Quotes,” I link to a post that will direct you to two articles on how called/calling should be understood in this passage. Unfortunately, the site where those articles are found is under construction so those articles are temporarily unavailable. But you should keep checking until they are, as they are excellent articles. The main gist of them is that “called/calling” should be taken primarily in a naming sense, rather than in the sense of an invitation. For example, you are “called” Vladimir. That doesn’t mean you were invited to anything. It has reference to your naming. That is the same thing with the Biblical concept. It has reference to God naming a people for Himself. Examples of this are found in Rom. 9:7 (“reckoned” or “named”) and 9:25,
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one.”
That is the same way “called” should be understood in Rom 8:30. Those who are “called” are those who are “named” as God’ people, because they share the name of Christ, being untied to Him. Their calling (naming) is in their identity with Christ, just as their election is in Christ (Eph. 1:4). It is another way of describing them as belonging to God and Christ. It is describing them as Christians, as they share in Christ’s name through faith union/identification with Him.
Hope that helps,
Ben
rex,
You wrote,
Regarding freewill, I remembered a question:
Why would someone choose Hell over Heaven?
How should Arminians answer this one?
Not sure what you are looking for here. The most basic answer is it depends on the individual and how they exercise their free will, how they weigh their motives and how they reason on the issue. The point is that they reason freely, and there can be many reasons for the choice. Many wouldn’t see it so much as a choice between heaven and hell, but a choice between whether heaven and hell are even real. People make decisions for all kinds of reasons. Arminianism doesn’t deny this. We only assert that the reasoning process is free and not necessitated or predetermined by God. God gives us the power of self determination in that regard and allows us to decide based on whatever reasons or motives we deem best to make the final decision.
Arminians simply say that when the gospel is presented, God enables the sinner to trust in Christ and be saved. But that enablement is not irresistible. Therefore, it does not guarantee the result of faith (as in Calvinism). Therefore, though enabled to believe, the sinner can still choose not to believe and reject the gospel. The reasons for that decision can be as varying as the people making the decision.
Hope that helps.
Ben
Here is a great article on corporate election and Rom 8:28-39
http://evangelicalarminians.org/perseverance/some-great-comments-on-corporate-election-apostasyperseverance-and-rom-828-39
Thank you. ))
Hi Ben,
I am just reviewing some stuff, and the question just came off my head. 🙂
So when we say a person is “enabled” (to believe) he/she doesn’t “understand” or believe heaven or hell and eternal damnation yet?
Hi,
I have a friend who thinks that faith is a gift from God and that we have no part in whether we place our faith in Christ.
He used 2 verses to back this up:
Hebrews 12:2 ” looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith” (ESV).
It looks like Jesus is the one who originates our faith.
and
Romans 12:3 “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (ESV)
So here God assigns faith to each person.
Do you think these verses say what he thinks they say, or is there another way of looking at them?
Thanks,
Ken
rex,
You wrote,
So when we say a person is “enabled” (to believe) he/she doesn’t “understand” or believe heaven or hell and eternal damnation yet?
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Many are convinced (convicted) of such truths and enabled to believe them, but still reject them (that is why this enablement is resistible). They may simply resist the reality of heaven and hell, even though the Holy Spirit has enabled them to believe it (i.e. they “suppress the truth”, cf. Rom. 1:18-22).
Take the example of a smoker. The smoker has been give all the information he needs to quit smoking . He has been convinced that smoking is unhealthy and could kill him, cause cancer, emphysema, etc. But even though he has this knowledge and the means available to quit, he freely decides to continue smoking anyway, for whatever reasons. He might convince himself that he won’t get cancer. He might convince himself that he just doesn’t need to worry about it. He might decide that he will quit someday, but continue to indulge for awhile. There could be all kinds of reasons why he doesn’t quit. Others, given the same information, would choose to quit. It really is up to the person, and the person will decide based on whatever desires and motives the person wants to place the most weight on, or value the most (that is the God given power of free will).
The point is, just because someone is shown the truth, and even realizes the truth, doesn’t mean that person will yield to the truth or act in accordance with the truth and enablement they have received. Again, that is why the enablement is resistible, rather than irresistible.
God Bless,
Ben
Ken,
No, I do not think these verses teach what your friend is suggesting. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address it adequately tonight. I will try to get to it later this week.
God Bless,
Ben
Hey
Sorry about that…
I was going to ask if you could comment on Calvinism’s form of determinism. Calvinist Curt Daniel has a teaching on Predestination (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html )and within the first 10 minutes mentions that its not a blind determinism like fatalism, but he actually says that Calvinism redefines determinism. I know you have said Calvinism is deterministic, but they would deny the accusations of Arminianism in these regards.
I’m working through how (according to Calvinism) God can determine all things and yet God isn’t responsible for determining sin; man can still utilize real choice, yet somehow man can’t have the ability to believe and God will still hold him accountable for his sins which God determined (but not in a blind fatalism kind of way). I can smell an inconsistency but can’t quite see how they get around it. Is it the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity? Daniel seems to be saying that man can choose but he can’t choose…God determines all things, but not all things…says God is sovereign, but that’s not where the logic leads.
Ken,
Briefly. On Hebrews 12:2, it is true that Christ is the perfecter of our faith, but there is no reason to think that He perfects our faith irresistibly. Indeed, just the opposite is plainly implied as it is the reason we are to “look to” Him and “throw off everything that hinders, and the sin that so easily entangles”, that we might “run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”
Now, if Christ irresistibly causes faith in us and irresistibly causes us to continue in the faith (or perfects our faith), such language becomes rather pointless, and so do the warnings throughout Hebrews and the NT as a whole. It would be like warning someone hooked to a respirator to “keep breathing.”
He is the “founder/pioneer” of our faith as He is the object of our faith and His life and death is the foundation of our faith. His life of endurance is the example we must look to in order to find the courage and strength to endure our own struggle (12:2-4)
Romans 12:3 “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”
This verse has specific reference to spiritual giftings given to believers. It has nothing to do with unbelievers becoming believers, and again it does not imply that such giftings (including various levels of faith) are irresistible. As is the case with Hebrews 12:2, just reading the passage in context should be enough to see that this verse is being improperly used as a Calvinist proof text (12:1-8).
Let me know if you still have questions.
God Bless,
Ben
Now Dimly,
You wrote,
and within the first 10 minutes mentions that its not a blind determinism like fatalism, but he actually says that Calvinism redefines determinism. I know you have said Calvinism is deterministic, but they would deny the accusations of Arminianism in these regards.
I don’t know when I will get to listen to this, but no Arminian would claim that Calvinist determinism is “blind fatalism.” However, Calvinism is absolutely deterministic. Again, I have not listened the audios, but if he is saying that Calvinists do not hold to determinism, then he is dead wrong. Now, he may personally deny determinism, but that is not in harmony with historic Calvinism. Even Hendryx, the founder of Monergism.com, admits that Calvinism is thoroughly deterministic, and even makes the point that “compatibilism” is also fully deterministic:
“Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism – be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will.” (bold emphasis mine)
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/Compatibilism/
I’m working through how (according to Calvinism) God can determine all things and yet God isn’t responsible for determining sin; man can still utilize real choice, yet somehow man can’t have the ability to believe and God will still hold him accountable for his sins which God determined (but not in a blind fatalism kind of way). I can smell an inconsistency but can’t quite see how they get around it.
I’m afraid it isn’t something you can “work through” and it isn’t something they can ever really “get around” as it is simply incoherent. That is why Calvinists like Patton put such a premium on supposed “tensions” and “mysteries”, and that is why Calvinist theologians like Grudem make the sort of incoherent statements that caused you to rightly question Calvinism in the first place.
Is it the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity? Daniel seems to be saying that man can choose but he can’t choose…God determines all things, but not all things…says God is sovereign, but that’s not where the logic leads.
All they can do is affirm contradictions and mutually exclusive concepts as somehow being acceptable “apparent” contradictions, or redefine things (like fee will) in order to get rid of the “tension” (i.e. contradiction). There is simply no other way to “deal” with such obviously self-refuting nonsense.
Hope that helps.
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your response.
One followup: I can see that “faith” in Romans 12:3 is not referring to saving faith. My friend, however, is hung up on the word “faith”. He asks, “Well, if it’s not faith that saves, then what could it be? Why would Paul use a word that seems to be used as saving faith in most other places, but then use the same word to mean something else?”
Can you think of another word to use in place of “faith” that would give perhaps give a clearer picture of what Paul is saying? Or perhaps a paraphrase that might make the meaning more clear?
Thanks again.
Ken
The highly respected Romans commentator C.E.B. Cranfield gives the most likely understanding of Rom 12:3, namely that it refers to faith in Christ as the standard by which we are to measure ourselves (“measure of faith” can carry the meaning in Greek “standard of measure, namely, faith”). Rather than thinking of ourselves more highly than fellow believers or comparing ourselves with them, we are to think of ourselves in accordance with the faith that we all share, which is the standard God has assigned to each one us for our estimation of oneself. This accords much better with the context, in which Paul is not wanting to give a reason for thinking of oneself more or less highly according to the quantity or quality of one’s faith in comparison to others. He is arguing for unity and humility. It would be like, if SEA members were arguing about who was the most most knowledgeable among us, and the leadership called on us not to think of ourselves too highly, but to think of ourselves by this standard, that we are all members of SEA, which unites us all and places us all on an equal footing.
Ken,
I had never heard the explanation given by Arminian, but I think it is very persuassive having heard it. However, one example of a gifting of faith that is not saving is in 1 Cor. 12:9, in the context of verses 4-11.
God Bless,
Ben
Yes, there is a special gift of faith that Paul talks about in 1 Cor 12, which many think is God giving someone special confidence that something is his will and so enabling them to believe him for that thing.
As for the interpretation I gave, Cranfield convincingly argues that if Paul were referring to different levels of faith that church members are supposed to think of themselves based on, this implies comparing themselves with others and thinking of themselves more or less highly on that basis, the very opposite thing he seems to be trying to accomplish. One could point to the diversity of gifts Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12 to try and support a different levels of faith interpretation. But those are different gifts, not different levels of faith. Each should exercise his gift in accordance with, literally, the faith (the faith we all share) (or even if we think of it as in accordance with each one’s faith, it would still be best taken as basic Christian faith, which every believer has by definition).
Thanks for the answers. Another question:
How do you answer the argument appeling for the creation of a new nature(that love the light) as a necessity of coming to christ the calvinist use in John 3.19-21?
Ben and Arminian
Thanks for your responses. Very helpful they were!
And great website, too. I’m learning quite a bit from the different articles.
All the best
Ken
wanderson,
I should get to your question on John 3:19-21 this afternoon. God Bless.
wanderson,
Here are some things I have written about various passages in John (taken from various posts and discussions) that tie into what is being described in John 3:19-21. I have highlighted the specific sections on John 3:19-21 in bold,
“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.
So the primary application still addresses the issue of faith but not in the same way as we would tend to apply it today since our situation is different from that of the Jews and we are not living at a critical time in history where the faithful Jews were being given, by the Father, to their Shepherd and Messiah. For them it primarily involved the transition from one sphere of believing (in the Father) to another (in the Son). Those faithful Jews recognized the Father in the Son and as a result listened to Him and followed Him as their long awaited Messiah. In either case the “sheep” are those who are “listening” and “following” and the passage gives no indication that one cannot cease to be one of Christ’s sheep by later refusing to listen and follow.”
…..
“However, I do think the issue of why the Jews specifically rejected Jesus is a main concern for John. John’s gospel was written very late at a time when the church was shifting heavily to being primarily a Gentile church. I think John is addressing a major concern taking place at the time of his writing. The concern for the Jews would be to help them see why the Jews who knew Jesus rejected Him, which also explains why many Jews at the time of John’s writing were still rejecting Christ as their Messiah. No doubt many Jews were wondering why, if Jesus was the Messiah, did the Jewish leaders largely reject Him? Likewise, Gentiles would also be wondering why, if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, did the Jewish leaders reject Him, and why are so many Jews still rejecting Him? Is their rejection an indictment on Christ’s claims?
If that is the case, then John is very focused on showing that the Jewish leaders and many of the Jews who encountered Christ rejected Him, not because He wasn’t from God, but because they (the Jews) were not “of God.” They pointed the finger at Christ saying that He was not of God, but the reality was that Christ was of God (one with Him, in fact), and the reason they didn’t recognize it was because they didn’t know God (were not in right covenant relationship with God). I believe that is the primary issue being addressed in Jesus confrontations with the Jews in John (chapters 5, 6, 8, and 10 especially). Look at this verse,
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:20, 21, NASB)
If we interpret this as Calvinists (and some Arminians) do as a simple passage on depravity, we run into a serious problem. The text says that “whoever does what is true comes to the light”.
Coming to the light, in this context, is coming to Christ, i.e., putting faith in Christ. So this text is saying that those who “practice truth” come to Christ. That doesn’t sound like a biblical description of someone who is depraved. Someone who is totally depraved in the Calvinist sense is not someone who can be characterized as “practicing truth.” But if John’s point is the same as being described in John 10 (as well as in John 5, 6, and 8) that those who know the Father come to Christ, and those who do not know the Father reject Christ, then this passage makes perfect sense.
But if we universalize this passage to all people we run into the same difficulty. How is it that Gentiles who know nothing of God can be characterized as “practicing truth” prior to coming to Christ? It doesn’t really fit with that paradigm. But it does fit with the idea of faithful Jews submitting to the claims of Christ because they already know God (have a relationship with Him). It could, however, extend to Gentiles like Cornelius who knew God as well, prior to hearing the message preached by Peter. But his faith was based on his knowledge of God from the Jews. He was one of those “other sheep” who already knew God and would automatically recognize the Shepherd and His voice (which is the voice of the Father as well).
Another good one is John 7:17,
“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.”
Here we see this principle being plainly described by Christ. The one who truly wishes to do the will of the Father (i.e. truly knows the Father and thereby “practices truth”) will immediately recognize that Jesus is speaking the words of the Father. Such people will be given, by the Father, to the Shepherd as His sheep. They recognize His voice, listen to Him and follow Him, just as they followed the Father.
….
The secondary application is simply that those who are willing to hear from the Father (however He may teach them) will be drawn by the Father to Christ. In our situation, this happens by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the gospel. The principle is similar, but it is a different time and a different situation. We come to the Father through the Son, while in a very real sense the Jews of Jesus’ time came to the Son through the Father and were then able to take part in the new dispensation when only those joined to the Son can remain in right relationship with the Father. Here are a few things I wrote on drawing that might help shed light on what I am saying (how there is both a primary and secondary application),
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).”
Hope that helps.
Ben,
I read your post Are Arminians Semi-Pelagian? but wonder if you might comment on this. At church we just began RC Sproul’s video series “Chosen By God.” He lumps Christendom into 3 categories: Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and Augustinian. He states that Arminians are Semi-Pelagian not because they must first draw near to God, but because they must respond in faith. That is, in Arminianism salvation is ultimately up to man since he has to respond to God’s grace. I brought it up in the Q&A following, but I still wasn’t comfortable with calling Arminianism Semi-Pelagian and felt there was a difference of definition.
Now Dimly,
Sproul is simply wrong. Arminianism is in no way Semi-Pelagian. Semi-Pelagianism says that man needs to initiate movement towards God and only then does God’s grace intervene. Arminianism does not hold to that. Arminianism says that we cannot even take the first steps towards God without His grace enabling us and empowering us to do so. Calvinists Robert A Peterson and Michael D Williams are more honest about what Arminianism teaches and rightly reject the typical Calvinist attempt to paint Arminianism as Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian:
“Does the antipathy between Calvinism and Arminianism suggest that Pelagius, the arch-opposite of Augustine, is the proper ancestor of Arminianism? Calvinists have often sought to paint Arminianism in Pelagian colors. Associating your opponent with a position that the historic faith has repeatedly judged heretical can only help one’s cause. However, the allegation that Arminianism is Pelagian is unfortunate and indeed unwarranted. From Jacob Arminius and the ‘Remonstrance Articles’ on, the Arminian tradition has affirmed the corruption of the will by sin and the necessity of grace for redemption. Arminianism is not Pelagianism….The Semi-Pelagians thought of salvation as beginning with human beings. We must first seek God; and his grace is a response to that seeking. The Arminians of the seventeenth century, however, held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person cannot seek grace without the enablement of grace. They therefore affirmed the necessity and priority of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person’s response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-Augustinianism than it is to Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism.” (Why I Am Not An Arminian, pg. 39)
Hope that helps.
BTW, I think the post you read was written by JC Thibodaux. He is a contributor at this blog, but hasn’t written anything in a while. His posts are very good. You can read all of them here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/posts-written-by-jc-thibodaux/
God Bless,
Ben
OK, now that I look at the post, I see that I wrote it and it already has the quote in it that I just gave you. I didn’t remember writing a post by that name. Anyway, the short answer is that Sproul is wrong and what he says is a misrepresentation of Arminian Theology.
Hmmm. Unfortunately, the actual article is not yet available on SEA due to the site still being updated. I am not sure who wrote the actual article I refer to in that post.
Now Dimly,
You might want to check out these posts:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/r-c-sproul-arminianism-and-semi-pelagianism/ — by Roger Olson; the title sums up its relevance
http://evangelicalarminians.org/are-arminians-semi-pelagian/?/ — which argues that the charge that Arminians are either Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians is false by 1) comparing the Canons of Orange to Arminius and 2) critiquing the argument of J.I. Packer for the C charge.
http://www.traditionalbaptistchronicles.com/2013/03/prevenient-grace-and-semi-pelagianism.html — Adressing the charge that Arminian prevenient grace amounts to Semi-Pelagianism after all
Oh, the post by Rger Olson is entitled, “R. C. Sproul, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism”
Now Dimly,
You might consider buying this book when you are able. It is a recent release. I have not read it, but I know the two men who wrote are excellent scholars and are very qualified to write such a book. Like Olson’s book, it should help clear up a lot of misrepresentations about Arminius and Arminianism in general.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/recent-definitive-book-on-arminius-theology-jacob-arminius-theologian-of-grace/
Awesome, thanks to both of you. I actually just bought Lorainne Boettner’s “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.” Not sure if you’ve read it, but so far I’m kind of surprised that in the first 2 chapters it has only used 4 Scriptures with very little exegesis, and a whole lot of what seems to be fallacious reasoning that doesn’t necessarily promote Calvinism from Scripture. Plus it has a list of proof-texts with no commentary as of yet (except for mine in pencil and highlighter!).
The review by Vic Reasoner on Amazon makes that book on Arminius sound pretty good. I haven’t read the SEA post yet.
That second link that Arminian gave is the one that didn’t work on my post that referenced the article. I just updated it on that post, and now it works.
Hi Ben,
I have some questions about how to interpret Scripture properly in order to arrive at the right conclusions. I read a post at the THEOparadox blog called Big Shoes and Small Minds, and left a comment. I was pointed to another post (about Calvinism and Systematic Theology) which I plan on responding to as well because I’m simply told that to disagree with Calvinism’s paradoxes is to limit God with my logic and to disagree with Scripture.
So, is there a preferred way to study the Bible (systematic vs. biblical theology) or is it simply a matter of the assumptions we bring to Scripture that cause us all to disagree (i.e. Calvinists vs Arminians)? Prior to becoming a Calvinist I’d never even heard of systematic theology. Is it something mainly used by them which naturally leads one to Calvinistic conclusions? Should one begin with the Old Testament first, or with the apostolic writings which is how a Greek would have learned Christ?
I mean, if I take Derek at his word–or even to quote that C. Michael Patton article when he makes God to say, “Will you trust me?” as if God is a Calvinist–then sure I will arrive at Calvinistic conclusions. But if I simply take an Arminian theologian at his word/interpretation, then I’ll arrive at another conclusion. What do you think the issue is that leads us down different paths? This seems to be the foundational issue for me, for if I keep bouncing between both sides for answers to particular texts, then I may forever be lost in between both camps.
Now Dimly,
Typically, systematic theology is about drawing from numerous passages of Scripture to develop theology. I have never heard of “biblical theology” as opposed to “systematic theology”. Systematic theology is certainly Biblical as it draws on passages throughout Scripture to establish doctrines, like the Trinity, for example. Surely, that is Biblical theology. But systematic theology can often be comprised of cherry picking passages without much thought to careful exegesis that should inform each of those passages being used. So solid systematic theology needs to be rooted in careful exegesis. Of course, I believe that when that is done, one can only come to Arminian conclusions. You seem to have done the same. When you carefully looked at passages that address regeneration and faith, you concluded that faith precedes regeneration. So all of those passages would work together in expressing a systematic theology that faith precedes regeneration. See what I mean? Beyond that, I really have no idea what Derek is trying to sell.
God Bless,
Ben
I guess the task that is left then is to tackle individual doctrines one at a time as carefully as possible. Would you agree?
I’m under the understanding that systematic theology answers the question “What does the whole Bible teach about _____?” while biblical theology answers the question, “What does such and such book (say Matthew) teach about ______?” I may have picked that up from Grudem’s book in the introduction. Either way, what one book teaches must not/will not contradict any other book when properly understood.
The term “Biblical Theology” can be used in more than one way. But it is used of a specific approach to theology that is distinct from other approaches such as Systematic Theology or Historical Theology. Here is a good relatively brief description of it: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Biblical-Theology/ And here is a more detailed description from Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/biblical-theology.html. ND gave a fair one line description of it. The basic idea is looking at theology as revealed progressively through God’s concrete words and deeds through history (rather than melding them altogether into abstract principles of the biblical view on a subject).
So Biblical Theology is basically exegetically driven Theology.
Well, systematic theology is *supposed* to be exegetically driven as well, but it is more of a synthesis/harmonization of all the Bible has to say on a topic abstracted into a doctrine, whereas biblical theology as a distinct branch of theology is more about tracing the development of a doctrine in Scripture and paying attention to the various authors’/biblical books’ views /contributions to the doctrine.
OK, I think I got it now. Thanks.
Hello all,
I have a few questions regarding prevenient grace. Because I am a little scattered on the subject I will try and communicate the questions I have as best I can (mainly the third question.)
1) I have heard the concept of “prevenient grace” goes back farther than Arminius? How far back?
2) Are there any differences from Arminius’s (or others before him) and Wesley’s views on prevenient grace?
3) This might be the biggest question I have. I am having a lot of trouble and no Arminian can seem to explain it to me. What is the role of “prevenient grace” in salvation or the ordu salutis? More directly, if we are “spiritually dead” or “totally depraved,” how does conversion come before regeneration? I have often heard it said, “A dead person does not make choices,” and the same applies for the “spiritually dead.” They certainly don’t assist in their being resuscitated.
I have seen that some Arminians argue for a “partial regeneration.” I’m not really satisfied with this response at this point. It does not seem to make sense. In my understanding, you are either spiritually alive, or spiritually dead. Someone is not sorta alive? Do Arminians only believe in “total depravity” in theory? How does “prevenient grace” bring a sense of “life” into someone without full regeneration and enabling them to make a choice?
It seems to that all these questions lead into others questions that I have (perhaps you can answer those later, ha.) I know my thoughts seem a bit scattered on this third question. But I have confidence this is definitely no new question for you and you understand what I am attempting to ask. But for me it is an honest question, I myself am confused about it and I’m having difficulty finding any good resources to read on the subject as well. This leads to my last question:
4) Where and what are some good articles and books to read on the subject of “prevenient grace.” I would like to study it more. Obviously I need to. (Ha.)
Thanks for you time in considering my questions. I will greatly appreciate any sense of clarity I can be given on the subject.
Leon,
Thanks for stopping by. Good questions. I’m going to start with your biggest and most important question:
3) This might be the biggest question I have. I am having a lot of trouble and no Arminian can seem to explain it to me. What is the role of “prevenient grace” in salvation or the ordu salutis? More directly, if we are “spiritually dead” or “totally depraved,” how does conversion come before regeneration?
The bigger question is how can spiritual life come before faith when the Bible everywhere affirms that faith precedes the reception of new spiritual life? In Arminianism, prevenient grace is not the impartation of new life, it is God working in the heart to overcome our resistance to Him and inability to trust in Him. It enables a faith response where faith would have been impossible, but it is not spiritual life. New life is receive by faith and so is the Spirit of life (John 1:12, 13; Eph. 1:13; Gal. 3:2, 5, 14) We are joined to Christ through faith and only then do we experience His life in us.
I have often heard it said, “A dead person does not make choices,” and the same applies for the “spiritually dead.” They certainly don’t assist in their being resuscitated.
This is a Calvinist spin on what it means to be dead in sin. That is not how the Bible describes the concept. Spiritual death refers to our separation form God and the alienation of having no relationship or connection to the source of Spiritual life. It does not have reference to the inability of a physical corpse to do anything. It is through faith that those who are dead in sin come to share in the life of Christ and are spiritually raised again (Col. 2:12, 13).
So Arminians affirm total depravity in that without the enabling grace of God, no one would believe, but we find the Calvinist use of “dead in sin” to be unbiblical, so we do not agree with Calvinists that one needs to be regenerated in order to have faith. Such a concept is simply not supported in Scripture and is flatly contradicted by Scripture. Here are some posts and articles for you to check out on the topic:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/what-can-the-dead-in-sin-do/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/some-excellent-and-concise-comments-on-free-will-the-bondage-of-sin-and-prevenient-grace/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/john-112-13/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/parallel-passages-on-regeneration/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/paul-washer%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cdoctrine%E2%80%9D-of-election-an-arminian-critique/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/biblical-scholar-brian-abasciano-refutes-the-popular-calvinist-argument-that-the-language-of-1-john-51-means-that-regeneration-precedes-faith/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/does-regeneration-precede-faith/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/does-jesus-teach-that-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-ezekiel-3626-27-teach-regeneration-precedes-faith/
http://wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com/2009/05/prevenient-grace.html
http://www.fwponline.cc/v18n2/v18n2witzki.html
These should get you started and answer most of your questions. I will get back to you on the rest sometimes soon.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi Ben,
Thank you very much for your timely response. I appreciate that you answered my most pressing question first. It has brought clarity to my misunderstanding of “prevenient grace” and the idea of being “dead in sin.”
Also, thank you for the numerous articles on the issue. These will definitely be helpful. If any other questions come forward I hope to be able to ask them as well. But I look forward to your reply on to my other questions when you get the chance.
In Christ,
Leon
Leon,
On your #2, check out this early discussion on the Questions thread with a visitor named Steven. I think it will answer a lot of your questions. Let me know if you still have questions after that. Be sure to follow the discussion till the end, as there may be other discussions with other visitors inbetween responses to Steven on the issue of prevenient grace, etc.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-1567
As for those who taught it before Arminius, I am not sure you will find it described in exactly the same way as Arminius, but you can find the same basic concept in many Christian writers prior to Arminius. Here is one such quote:
Writing over a thousand years before Arminius, Jerome (c347-420) sounded very “Arminian” in opposing the Pelagians (affirming genuine free will in man that is completely dependent on God’s gracious enabling power),
Letters CXXXIII It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn freewill. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created endowed with freewill; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human freewill, as I said, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that once a man has freewill he no longer needs the help of God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his freewill but requires God’s aid who Himself needs no aid.
Against the Pelagians, Book 111, 10: But when we are concerned with grace and mercy, freewill is in part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power in His strength and with His help to perform what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort. (God’s Strategy, pp. 303, 304)
***********************************************
The above quote comes from a footnote (#6) of the following post: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/the-five-dilemmas-of-calvinism-part-4-a-litany-of-inaccuracies-and-misrepresentations/
Ben,
Thank you for pointing me into the previous discussion with Steven, that was helpful. I also enjoyed the article you listed. I think that about does it with all my previous questions. But it leads to some other big ones for me: (if you don’t mind)
While reading through some resources and the discussion above, I had this thought: What causes some to make good on the prevenient grace given to them, and others not?
Clearly, we deny unconditional election and irresistible grace. Furthermore, the Calvinist argument that regeneration precedes faith is false. Yet they continue to press that to “contribute” at all to ones salvation is to work for it. However, as I have seen the Scriptures are clear that faith is not a work. For all purposes faith is set against works in the Scriptures. Therefore, it cannot be a “work” as the Calvinist so intelligently argues.
Of course this does not deter the Calvinist with whom I speak. They often ask: “What is to keep you from boasting from your decision?” If I am correct But if I am correct, no Arminian will say that the “decisive factor” unto salvation is your decision, or should I say mere acceptance of it? Even still, boasting is excluded because of faith, which leads to the argument above.
So what is it that “causes” one to make good on the prevenient grace given to them, while another remains in sin? If there is any really “argument” here for Arminians to present. If in fact we are given the same measure of prevenient grace. I have also seen that some Arminians believe God’s prevenient grace is not universally (Episcopius, for example) who differs from Wesley (it is universal).
This leads to my last question: Where does faith come from? Again, if I am correct some Arminians believe that faith is a gift (though they understand it differently from the Calvinist). But surely it is not within us already. I have heard some Arminians argue from Romans 12:3, but the context does not seem to fit in regards to salvation.
Some insights into these two questions as well would be extremely helpful for myself and conversations with my Calvinist brothers. I really am encouraged and informed by your site. Thank you!
In Christ,
Leon
PS: Perhaps I should note I am a former Calvinist, though it was for a brief time. I fear I might be wrong on some of these statements because of my other previous misunderstandings of Arminianism, which is why I embraced Calvinism for sometime. It simply “made sense.” I am becoming more and more convinced the reason many have misconceptions about Arminianism is because it simply means different things to different people. Therefore, it is “easier” to accept Calvinism for its systematic and detailed theology. (which seemed to be my case)
Leon,
To ask what causes one person to make good on prevenient grace is question begging. The Arminian position is that nothing outside the will causes that choice, at least not irresistibly so. People receive Christ and yield to the Spirit’s working for a variety of reasons, but it is the will that ultimately makes the choice based on whatever reasons it sees fit to value over other reasons, motives, etc.
As for boasting, that is really a lame argument. People can boast in all sorts of things, for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons. But the reason one cannot boast in salvation is because it is a gift freely received (by faith). It is not something earned or worked for. It is not something we deserve. That someone else rejects it while you or I receive it does not give legitimate grounds for boasting according to Scriptures. Faith is simple trust in another to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Works denies the need to trust in Christ and assumes it can merit or earn salvation without Him. That is the Biblical contrast. That is why this Calvinist argument is nowhere presented in Scripture. It is alien to Scripture and to the whole concept of faith vs. works that the Biblical writers presented.
Indeed, Calvinists can likewise boast that God chose them and not the other guy from eternity. They can say there is no legitimate reason for boasting in God’s choice of them, but one can boast all the same. The Jews in Jesus time sure boasted, though they also believed that they were born God’s chosen people. It would seem that it might be pretty hard for a Calvinist not to boast in the fact that God in His infinite wisdom decided that he or she was the “right choice” for salvation while that person’s neighbor was the “wrong choice.” Again, it is a matter of legitimate grounds for boasting, and the Arminian has no legitimate grounds for boasting, because he has received a free and undeserved gift from God, a gift that could could never be earned. That is wholly Biblical, where the Calvinist argument is wholly contrived.
And of course, receiving a free gift cannot be rightly called “contributing” to the gift received. That is absurd. Imagine someone patting himself on the back or claiming that he “contributed” to the gift received simply because he did not choose to reject the gift instead. Imagine further if he actually tried to claim that he gave the gift to himself simply because he did not choose to reject it. All such actions are plainly absurd, and that is exactly what the Calvinist claim amounts to, though they present it in a way that can seem convincing.
Here are a bunch of posts that will give you more detail on this issue. Let me know if you still have questions.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-9-faith-is-some-reason-to-boast/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-10-wait-now-faith-is-a-work/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-1-if-we-have-libertarian-free-will-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-2-arminianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/does-paul-support-calvinisms-view-of-irresistible-grace-in-1-corinthians-14/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/examining-inconsistencies-in-calvinistic-monergism-part-2-sanctification/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/synergism-as-a-model-for-gods-glory/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/sanctification-by-works/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-nature-of-saving-faith/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-3-we-choose-by-chance/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/thomas-ralston-on-freedom-of-the-will-part-9-the-doctrine-of-motives/
Hope that helps. I know it seems like a lot, but most of these posts are pretty short.
God Bless,
Ben
Do you believe that prevenient grace is distributed equally to all? It would seem that it might be given differently. For example, the role of prayer in the salvation of the lost seems to make no sense in a Calvinistic view, but in regard to prevenient grace, prayer could move God to give additional grace to an individual, yet preserve the neccessity of them making the choice of faith. I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin,
You wrote,
Do you believe that prevenient grace is distributed equally to all?
Not necessarily, but God holds us responsible for the way we respond to whatever degree of grace we are given. When it comes to putting faith in Christ, that grace to believe is accompanied with the gospel message. In other words, those who are presented with the gospel are given the grace to believe and surrender to Christ. I agree with your comments on prayer.
God Bless,
Ben
Leon,
You said, “So what is it that “causes” one to make good on the prevenient grace given to them, while another remains in sin?”
To Leon and Ben: I thought I read somewhere that this question is not much different than when asked about the Fall. Adam had no sin, so what “caused” him to sin? If we put any one of all the people who ever lived in Adam’s place, we might have as many different reasons why one would disobey God. We just don’t know why Adam sinned, and it really has no bearing on reality. But suddenly Calvinists find it a compelling question in regards to salvation. Suddenly one has robbed God of his glory if we are not unconditionally elected and regenerated (prior to faith).
“PS: Perhaps I should note I am a former Calvinist, though it was for a brief time. I fear I might be wrong on some of these statements because of my other previous misunderstandings of Arminianism, which is why I embraced Calvinism for sometime. It simply “made sense.” I am becoming more and more convinced the reason many have misconceptions about Arminianism is because it simply means different things to different people. Therefore, it is “easier” to accept Calvinism for its systematic and detailed theology. (which seemed to be my case).”
This sounds exactly as if I had written it.
I thought I read somewhere that this question is not much different than when asked about the Fall. Adam had no sin, so what “caused” him to sin?
Very true. Adam’s sin is an impossible problem for Calvinists. They can’t say that he chose according to his nature, since God declared his nature “good”, and therefore, according to their logic, only good choices could possibly result. The only way to explain this is to posit that God irresistibly caused Adam to sin against his nature, which creates tremendous theological absurdities and unacceptable and unbiblical implications with regards to God’s holy nature and character as revealed in Scripture.
The answer is that God created genuine free moral agents and holds them accountable for the choices they make. That was His sovereign right and God acted in sovereign freedom in making that decision with regards to the nature of His creations. So when we choose freely, we are actually choosing in accordance with our natures, since our natures include alternative power in the will. That is how God created us. Calvinists actually limit God’s sovereign freedom in denying that God could possibly create free moral agents and hold them accountable for their free choices. Apparently God is free to do anything, except that.
Of course, with regards to trusting in Christ, that “choice” is no longer available due to our sinful nature which naturally turns away from God, but God’s gracious intervention restores that previously impossible option (of trusting in Christ) and gives us a choice again, where we had no choice.
The bottom line is that our wills are a complete and adequate cause. God created us that way. So it is senseless to ask what caused the cause to cause, or what caused the cause to cause the cause, or whatever. The will is all the cause needed. We are the cause of our choices. We have the God given power and capacity to weigh our options and choose accordingly, and nothing outside of that power causes us to choose a certain way. That God given power is the cause, and that cause is sufficient. This accounts for why Adam sinned. He weighed his options and chose to disobey in the freedom that God gave Him, a freedom to obey or disobey, and that choice was the result of the God given power and capacity of the human will that He freely created Adam with.
God Bless,
Ben
I’ve often wondered about this. So…where does the idea of being born with a sin nature come in? Was it more difficult for Adam and Eve to sin since he didn’t have this nature as he was created “good”? Is a free-will nature different than a sin nature? As sin is “inherited” throughout the ages, has it become “easier” to sin? I understand that God holds us accountable for our own sin–not Adam’s sin. It is clear though that we don’t need to teach a child to sin–it seems to come naturally. Was this the case for Adam?
Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature, because they were not born, they were created and had no parents who had sinned. I am not sure about how sin is passed from parent to child, some describe it like a disease, or a curse, but the fact that we are is undeniable. Sin brought physical death to Adam and Eve, a death they would not have experienced had they remained faithful to God’s single commandment. If sin had not been passed down to us, nobody would die physically, or be judged in the afterlife and go to hell. I have struggled with this concept as well, and while it seems unfair that people are born basically condemned to hell (some say they will bot be, if they die before the age of understanding, others say it’s unclear) but it is true nonetheless. I struggle also with the idea that there are people who are as yet not even conceived who are more or less destined (according to foreknowledge) to hell, because they do not exist yet, hence are not under sin, yet. God has His reasons, and I believe we give man far too much credit in the area of reaching the lost, so there is hope that more people than it seems will be in heaven.
Lori,
You wrote,
Is a free-will nature different than a sin nature?
Free will is simply part of our nature, part of who we are, what it means to be personal beings created in God’s image.
When the Bible speaks of our sinful nature, it is speaking of the fact that our nature (who we are) has been corrupted by the power of sin and that power inclines our wills away from God rather than towards Him.
Is a free-will nature different than a sin nature? As sin is “inherited” throughout the ages, has it become “easier” to sin?
Probably not because our natures have become “more” sinful, if that is what you mean. The earliest humans certainly had a strong propensity to sin. That is why God destroyed mankind in the flood. But it may be that it is easier to sin now due to a greater influence of sin on us, but even that is hard to qualify.
It is clear though that we don’t need to teach a child to sin–it seems to come naturally. Was this the case for Adam?
No, sin didn’t “come naturally” for Adam, but the potential for sin was in him since God created him with the ability to either obey and trust God or to disobey and not trust God.
Hope that helps.
Ben
I have struggled with this concept as well, and while it seems unfair that people are born basically condemned to hell (some say they will bot be, if they die before the age of understanding, others say it’s unclear) but it is true nonetheless.
Yes, there is an age when we become morally accountable because we come to fully understand the moral nature of our choices. Until then, God does not hold us accountable for our sins (Romans 7:7-11). While we cannot help being born with a sinful nature nor can we help eventually sinning in accordance with that sinful nature, we are accountable because God provides a way of escape. His grace is at work in us, and He will hold us accountable depending on how we respond to the grace given us. If we resist the grace of God that will ultimately leads us to redemption in Christ, we are responsible for all of those sins and even our sinful state as a result of refusing the grace, forgiveness and escape that God has given us (Romans 7:24, 25).
I struggle also with the idea that there are people who are as yet not even conceived who are more or less destined (according to foreknowledge) to hell, because they do not exist yet, hence are not under sin,
God’s foreknowledge dose not destine us to anything. God’s foreknowledge is simply knowledge in advance. It does not cause our future actions or choices, but simply foreknows them. It does not cause our destiny, but simply foreknows it, and foreknows it as conditional rather than unconditional. Here is a short but good article on the topic: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/thomas-ralston-on-freedom-of-the-will-part-8/
God Bless,
Ben
There is no real difference between foreknowledge and destiny, because if God sees that end, yet doesn’t change it, it is as if we wee destined to it. A person who has not yet been conceived has a destiny according to foreknowledge, i.e. God knows what they will choose and or do, therefore they are destined to hell or heaven. The only way it would not be a destiny, is if God changed it against the will of the person. This is why we have Calvinists and Arminians, because the issue is so confusing and people have a tendency to take sides on just about any issue, it’s just our nature. There’s really no way around it, whether you come from a Calvinist or Arminian background, we all have a destiny that only God knows, in the end, it really doesn’t matter who chose it, it exists.
Matt,
The point is that God’s foreknowledge does not cause our destiny, which is what I wrote above. You seemed to be saying that God’s foreknowledge somehow sealed our destiny. That is not the case at all. Yes, we all have a destiny, if by that you mean that we will all ultimately end up in heaven or hell, but how or why we get to that place does make all the difference in this debate. God’s foreknowledge is not a factor in how or why we will ultimately end up in either place. If that is not what you were claiming, then we are probably in agreement.
God Bless,
Ben
It’s not a formula that can be easily figured out and made into a doctrine, and this again is why we have Calvinists and Arminians, because rather than just going where the Bible leads, or accepting that there are some things that simply can not be explained or fully understood, people take sides, and factions are formed. The depth of the mystery is astounding, so much that I would not presume to speak on God’s behalf as to exactly how the idea of predestination and foreknowledge are intertwined. On one hand, we have the very important fact that a person can not truly worship God, without freedom of will. On the other hand, we have the very mysterious idea of God being able to know our destiny, given the boundless choices we could make depending on the way He deals with us. How can God know what I will choose, unless He intervenes to make those choices available? Is there a script, or does He have the ability to see all the trillions of possible choices, and then choose the ones I will make, based on the amount of light I am given? It’s really more than anyone can or should ponder. I believe I am a person, I make choices, I sin not because God causes me to, but because I choose to. I also believe that there are people in the world who do not even know that such a being as Jesus existed, and some even that could well have died NEVER knowing that He did or does exist. If those people were given the light I have, would they make different choices? If they were given the light that Paul Peter, John and James received, would they have then made even more choices for God? I think it is best to just take a simple, childlike approach to the matter and agree that some things are better off left to God, and we should just do what we know to be right, to the best of our ability. We can’t hold the weight of the universe on our shoulders.
Matt,
Have you considered that some things are not quite as impossible to understand as you seem to think? Just because people debate issues and disagree, doesn’t mean there is no way to understand these concepts. And just because grasping concepts can be difficult and challenging at first, doesn’t mean we should just give up and assume those things are impossible to understand. Perhaps they are, but perhaps they aren’t. But if you think reconciling free will with foreknowledge is impossible and amounts to trying to carry the weight of the universe on your shoulders, then I probably can’t change your mind about that. Not a big deal. I do recommend you read the article I referred you to though.
God Bless,
Ben
I do believe there is a degree of inconceivability to God. I believe it was Luke who said that if all the things that could be written, were written, the books would fill the world. I take this to mean that God is boundless and infinite and mysterious. Some believe every word in the Bible was written specifically to be understood as is. I think some concepts in the Bible were introduced not so we would take them at face value, or spend lifetimes trying to figure them out, but so that in some cases, we would be forced to step back and see that God can not be placed in a test tube and be quantified and cataloged. Some things He just wants us to trust in, without the long winded discussions. I guess maybe the discussions can lead us to this end, but it seems that all too often, we thrive on the conflict, and do not want it to end.
I do believe there is a degree of inconceivability to God.
So do I. Indeed, I believe there is a profound and astounding degree of inconceivability to God, but we have not really been discussing inconceivability with God. We have been discussing what it means to say that future actions are foreknown and how this foreknowledge relates to the nature of those things foreknown. These are concepts that are not necessarily inconceivable.
Some believe every word in the Bible was written specifically to be understood as is. I think some concepts in the Bible were introduced not so we would take them at face value, or spend lifetimes trying to figure them out, but so that in some cases, we would be forced to step back and see that God can not be placed in a test tube and be quantified and cataloged.
Nobody is trying to do that here.
Some things He just wants us to trust in, without the long winded discussions. I guess maybe the discussions can lead us to this end, but it seems that all too often, we thrive on the conflict, and do not want it to end.
If you find such discussions unhelpful or find that you are thriving on conflict, then by all means do not concern yourself with such things. I personally do not think that the discussions I am having on this blog have anything to do with not trusting God, or not being willing to admit that there are things about God that are beyond us, nor do I thrive on conflict. I just think these things are important and helpful to people who are seeking answers. Taking the time to think these things through has benefited me tremendously and has greatly enhanced my understanding of the Bible and the revelation of God and Christ in the Bible. I don’t see that as a bad thing at all.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thank you for your response to my question.
I can see now how this becomes a question begging. My reason for asking was to try understand if there is any response other than the one discussed by you and I that could be given. I believe this will suffice!
You said, “It would seem that it might be pretty hard for a Calvinist not to boast in the fact that God in His infinite wisdom decided that he or she was the ‘right choice’ for salvation while that person’s neighbor was the ‘wrong choice.” Indeed! This seems to make God arbitrary in his choosing. I also like your example of the Jews boasting (never thought of this). It was the very idea of “unconditional election” that they boasted in.
The articles were helpful, as always.
In Christ,
Leon
To “Now Dimly:”
You made mention that my comments about my former Calvinist days sound exactly as if you had written them. I assure you I didn’t plagiarize! (ha.) Where did you write them? Do you have your own blog, website, etc? I would be interesting in reading it.
In Christ,
Leon
Leon,
I think he just means that your comments reflect his own reasons for initially embracing Calvinism and remaining a Calvinist for some time.
Leon and Now Dimly,
Would you be willing to share some of the details of your becoming a Calvinist and then moving away from Calvinism on my “X-Calvinist Corner” page? I think it could be a great help to others who are working through these same issues or are considering the claims of Calvinism for the first time:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/x-calvinist-corner/
Leon,
No you didn’t plagiarize at all. Ben hit the nail on the head…what you said sounded like what I have experienced. You can get the gist of my situation at my blog which I think you should get to by clicking my username “Now Dimly.” I’m still working out the kinks, but no longer consider myself a Calvinist.
Ben, I will post something soon if time permits. I’ve been on call this week for work and have a variety of challenges ahead in the coming week, so it may not be for a couple of weeks.
Gene
To Ben and Now Dimly,
Definitely, Ben. It is my final week of schooling for my undergrad so it will be a bit hectic, but I will post for it soon.
Gene, I checked out your blog. I enjoyed it. I’ll continue to visit there to see any new posts you make. In many ways I am there with you in regards to “working out the kinks.”
It can be difficult after having misrepresentations of Arminianism (which is the theology I grew up in initially), hearing strong systematic teaching that is orderly and attractive (Calvinism), and then coming full circle to question Calvinism again in light of the overall biblical teaching and not necessarily comparing it to Arminianism itself. But I trust that for you it has been enriching and frustrating journey as well. Hang in there!
I look forward to reading your story.
In Christ,
Leon
What I am getting from what Matt has said above, is that God putting the Tree there caused Adam to choose the eat that Fruit IOW disobey?
On the other hand, we have the very mysterious idea of God being able to know our destiny, given the boundless choices we could make depending on the way He deals with us. How can God know what I will choose, unless He intervenes to make those choices available? Is there a script, or does He have the ability to see all the trillions of possible choices, and then choose the ones I will make, based on the amount of light I am given?
I think the “Mystery” part here is just that a person makes choices for some known reason only to himself.
There is no Mystery though if God did cause it or not, or He is to “blame” because He has put the Tree in there and presented the choice.
The answer is to that is No.
Regarding the fall, there didn’t even need to be a tree. Man could have disobeyed God at any point, be it the command not to eat or the command to be fruitful and multiply. I think that if Adam hadn’t fallen, someone else eventually would have. Have a kid, you’ll see what I mean!
I understand foreknowledge a little differently from the way it is seems to have been presented in this discussion. The idea that God saves us based on the fact that “foreknew” that we would make a choice to believe in Christ does not fit with Romans 8:30 – “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified”. This verse says that all whom God calls He also justifies.Not all are called, or else all would be justified. (All are called in one sense – everyone within earshot of the preaching of the gospel are being called to repentance and faith). But the call referred to in verse 30 is only given to those who have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His son (“those whom he predestined, these he also called, and those whom he called, these he also justified) All the called are justified, not some. Since Romans 5:1 tells us that justification is by faith, then the call must cause the faith. The call referred to in Romans 8:30 must be God sovereignly bringing people to faith. The idea of foreknowledge is more than knowing in advance that a certain event will occur / a certain choice will be made. It usually has the connotation of a personal kind of knowing.
Leon and Now Dimly,
No hurry at all. Take your time.
Thanks,
Ben
I understand foreknowledge a little differently from the way it is seems to have been presented in this discussion.
Does that mean you do not hold that God exhaustive foreknowledge? That is the main way it has been presented in this discussion.
You mention “foreknew” in a more personal sense. Actually foreknew almost always has reference to simple prescience in Scripture, but even simple prescience does not exclude any personal aspect, for God’s prescience encompasses all things. However, I do think Paul is speaking in a more personal sense here, but he is also speaking corporately. He is speaking of the corporate elect body, and “called” is most likely being used in the naming sense as a designation of those who are His (elect people, i.e., all believers). Other examples of this naming sense of “called” are found in Rom. 9:7, 8, 25, 26. Here are some good articles with regards to this alternative interpretation of Rom. 8:28-30,
Click to access Abasciano-on-calling.pdf
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
There are plenty of other alternative interpretations of this passage as well that do not lead to the conclusions you have drawn.
God Bless,
Ben
Sally,
You have brought up an interesting point about foreknowledge. Today Arminians do not all agree as to foreknowledge and its relation to free human actions. However, Classic/Reformation Arminianism has always affirmed with Calvinism that God has absolute knowledge of the future-even the smallest detail.
A lot could be said in response to the idea of “foreknew” in verse 29 of Romans 8. I think Ben does a great job summarizing, as always.
But this is something I have dealt with as well, so I wanted to say something (just about foreknowledge). I have never been really satisfied with the view that God simply knew who would choose him and then chose us. To me, it seems to place God on the reactive side of things. This is not to mention that the Scriptures speak of God choosing us, not us choosing him.
With all that said, the Calvinist loves to throw out there that this is “foreknew” in verse 29 is meaning “previously loved and affectionately regarded as his own” or as the ESV Bible puts it, “special choice of, or covenantal affection for, his people” in support for their unconditional election position. But perhaps it does not support unconditional any more than conditional. They often reference many other passages for this: Gen. 18:19, Jer. 1:5, Amos 3:2, Rom. 8:29; 11:2.
I challenged this idea when I was coming out of Calvinism. I wanted to see if it could stand up to the scrutiny. I was surprised by what I found.
Some Arminians define “foreknowledge” simply as “prescience of faith in Christ.” On the other hand, some have affirmed both a prescience of faith in Christ and a covenantal affection for his people.
Arminius noted: “God can previously love and affectionately regard as his own no sinner unless He has foreknown him in Christ, and looked upon him as a believer in Christ.” (Arminius III:314).
“Whom he foreknew” seems to me to speak about knowing persons rather than simply knowing facts or something about them. But the two are not exclusive (as Ben pointed out), if God foreknew the elect as being his, this must be that he knew of their belief in Jesus as well. It simply goes without saying! There doesn’t seem to be any conflict with this understanding of foreknowledge and conditional election.
This is where I tend to fall now. I admit the phrase, “election according to foreseen faith” (usually taken strongly from 1 Peter 1:2) is not the best expression we should use for conditional election. Robert Picirilli and others note this as well in some of their writings. But this understanding of foreknowledge or “foreknew” belongs to the Arminian just as much as it does to the Calvinist.
What do you think?
In Christ,
Leon
Leon and Sally,
In addition to what Ben has said, let me draw your attention to the corporate conception of foreknowledge described a tthe following page after the material on election: http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-concise-summary-of-the-corporate-view-of-election-and-predestination/.
Also, here is a great interpretation from a corporate perspective on the passage Sally mentioned: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Perseverance-Oropeza-on-Romans-8.28-39
Arminian,
Thank you. I have been looking for something to read along these lines. Always appreciated!
In Christ,
Leon
Arminian,
I was going to reference that second link as well, but it doesn’t seem to be fixed yet at SEA.
Thanks Ben. It should be working now.
Cool. Here is another one that needs fixing and is likely relevant:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Perseverance-Shank-on-Romans-8.28-29
OK, here is a link that works for the Shank Comments on Rom. 8:28-29,
http://evangelicalarminians.org/some-good-comments-from-robert-shank-on-rom-828-29/
Hello, KangarooDort!
I have a question:
About the case of irresistible grace:
Stephen, in your sermon before your murder in Acts, said that the Pharisees are ‘uncircumcised in the heart’. So, a Calvinist can said that it is the same as ‘regenerated before believing’ and the same weak analogies gush again…
Do you know how I can respond to that argument – namely, ‘circumcising the heart is the regeneration before believing’?
I would refer them to Romans 2:28, 29 and Col. 10:2-13. In both places it is obvious that circumcision of the heart takes place by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit for those who are “in Him [Christ]”, and we know that we receive the Spirit and are joined to Christ by faith (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14; Eph. 1:13; 2:18; 3:17. So a circumcised heart, while it is the result of regeneration, it does not precede faith. Also, as far as Stephen’s statement, while an uncircumcised heart can explain their resistance to the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t mean that their resistance can only be remedied by their hearts being circumcised. That simply does no follow. Prevenient grace enables the uncircumcised heart to stop resisting, but it does not cause it to stop resisting. Only when the grace enabled heart responds in faith is that heart changed. See my post on Ezek. 36 for more on that:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/ezekiel-3626-27/
Ben,
Earlier you said “When it comes to putting faith in Christ, that grace to believe is accompanied with the gospel message.”
Could you speak to this a little more. Are you saying that the grace to believe is present in the gospel message when it is given? If so, do you also see the grace that enables belief distributed at other times and in other ways as well?
Thanks for your work!
Kevin
Kevin,
I think that all I meant to convey was that when we are confronted with the gospel, God enables us to respond to that message. In other words, I don’t think that anyone who hears the gospel is prevented from receiving it, but is given the grace they need to receive it when they hear it.
If so, do you also see the grace that enables belief distributed at other times and in other ways as well?
Probably, but grace that enables belief in what? If it is belief in the gospel, then that enablement accompanies the message as I described above. Could we be enabled to believe long before we are confronted with the message? I do think that grace may work to lead us to a place where we are prepared to hear the message long before we actually hear it, if that is what you mean. But it seems most natural to me to say that the enablement we need to believe the message is given when we hear the message. I think there is power in the Word itself that contributes to that enablement along with the inner working of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 5:12; Acts 2:37).
Does that make sense?
I think it is easy to get caught up in the “mechanics” of God so to speak, i.e. how it all works and works together, but at the end of the day, only God know just how these things are accomplished. Does each person have the ability to simply realize they are a sinner, and repent, trusting in Jesus? I think they do have the ability to understand what the Bible says, but I don’t believe they have the natural ability to feel remorse and fear of God alone, and that is where I believe the H.S. comes in. Is he always calling every person? I can not say, but the Bible does say He is in the world to convict it of sin, righteousness and judgement, so being God, and being almighty, He is “on top of things” and we can trust that he knows best when and how to draw men to Jesus. It is an undeniable facet of free will that a being with said free will MUST be able to freely choose to either accept or reject Jesus, yet it does almost seem like there are some people who have a LOT more opportunities to do this than others. We can only go by what God’s word says, because what we see and experience is as through a dark piece of glass, and is nowhere near complete.
I have been having a long and fruitless discussion with this man in my church who is what I call a “closet Calvinist”, by that I mean he openly gives lip service to man’s free will, but is confused or uninformed about the fact that as a free willed individual, we must be constantly or regularly enabled to understand at least the basics of the gospel, in order to choose Jesus. He says that only someone who has the Spirit in them already can understand the Bible, thus he rejects any sort of scholarly discourse, or reasoning with man’s minds at all. Somehow, both man’s minds and the H.S must work together, but just how that happens is somewhat of a mystery to me. Your thoughts?
Hello Ben,
Do you have or know any Study about John 17 as a refutation of inconditional election an limited atoneament??? How do you usually respond the arguments of calvinists here?
God Blesses you
wanderson,
John 17 is a terrible prooftext for Calvinists. The only way to get anything like unconditional election or limited atonement out of the passage is to entirely ignore context.
First, Jesus is speaking only of the apostles in verses 6-19. And even then, the language of verse 12 implies that Judas was among those who were given by the Father, and yet he perished.
Verse 20 broadens the prayer to all who will come to believe through the testimony of the apostles. Verses 21 and 23 broadens it further to “the world” and thereby kills any hope for the Calvinist in trying to limit Christ’s prayer or atonement to the elect alone.
As I said, it is a terrible prooftext. I find it strange that Calvinists even reference John 17 in support of Calvinism.
God Bless,
Ben
Can you direct me to any information on the Biblical definitions of “choose, chose and chosen”. I don’t at all believe in calvinism, but I have difficulty in understanding the concepts relating to these terms, .Thanks
Paul,
In what context are you referring to with these variations? Are you speaking specifically about election? Basically, I would say that such words (and concepts) in the Bible are to be understood in the same way that we typically understand them. Other than that, I am not sure what you are looking for.
Sorry, I just saw your response. Yes, I’m speaking concerning election. I’ve heard Calvinists use scriptures such as At 13:17, Lu 6:13, Jn 15:15 and Mr 13:20. I know God is just and fair and gives all equal opportunity to come to him, but I can’t reconcile these scriptures.
Paul,
Acts 13:17 has reference to God’s choosing of the patriarchs. This was an election of who would be the chosen covenant head of His people. To better understand this, you should really read up on the corporate election view (which I hold to). That should really help you out. Here is a good post to get started on:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
But even the choosing of the patriarchs wasn’t unconditional, as the promises being fulfilled was dependent on faith and obedience (Gen. 15:6; 22:11-18; 26:3-5, etc.).
Luke 6:13 has reference to being chosen to the apostolate (an election to service), but that did not guarantee salvation, since one of those chosen (Judas) was not saved.
John 15:15 (I assume you meant verse 16) also has reference to the apostles alone, and again it is clear that even the apostles, who are “already clean” can still be “cut off” if they do not remain in Christ by faith.
Again, I highly recommend the article on corporate election quotes linked to above. I would also recommend following the links to the articles, especially in the first section by Dr. Brian Abasciano.
Here is another good one that deals with some of the examples you mention here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/glynn.Dr.Brian-Abasciano-Responds-To-Dr.Dan-Wallace-On-The-Issue-Of-Corporate-Election/
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks Ben – I will definately check them out. May the Lord bless you also
Hey Ben,
I stumbled across your website a week ago, and as someone who has started to have more frequent interactions with Calvinists over the last couple years (have had interactions with them for 10-15 years), I must say I’m truly grateful for the resources you’ve made available and arguments you’ve presented! I don’t think I will be lacking when it comes to responses to theological/soteriological questions, which I’ve needed to give defenses for what I believe. I’m in my mid-20s, and I’ve had a good foundation in apologetics, but now I’m trying to firm up this part of my doctrine, and I’m grateful for this site.
Now, I have a question concerning Matt. 7:24-27. I was trying to think over scriptures that would provide good grounds to not hold to “once saved, always saved,” in the context of a believer who willingly walks away from the faith. That scripture came to mind.
In my reading of the text, it seems to tie in with Jesus’ previous point concerning true and false disciples, those that “know him” and subsequently do his will, and those that “don’t know him” and do not do his will. The word “therefore” in vs. 24 connects the two “anecdotes,” and the wise builder then becomes a type for the true disciple and the foolish builder becomes a type for the false believer. Since Jesus compared the false disciples to “evildoers” and ordered them to depart from him, than this would be similarly applied to the foolish believer, who is “not putting to practice” the words he has heard, an action unrelated to Christ’s work within him as a believer.
Would you say this is a correct interpretation of the scripture? And furthermore, what, if any, would be the calvinist response to such a claim? And if a claim, rebuttals?
Blessings,
John
John, I am sure that Ben will answer when he has a chance but I can give you my take on it. I am an Arminian and I do not see Matt 7:24-27 as a proof text for a believer that walks away from the faith. If you start at verse 13 and read through verse 27, I would say that Jesus is referring to those “false prophets”, “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and most importantly those that he never knew. He is not speaking about those he once knew and departed.
This portion of never knowing Jesus (along with 1 John 2:19) are some of the main proof texts that Calvinists use to show that those that “fall away” were never really saved to begin with. The rebuttal to that would be that while the Scripture in these places does speak of those that “never knew him” and were never saved to begin with, the Scripture also speaks of those that he “does not know” (see Matt. 25: 1-13 which I think is a better proof text for what you are looking for) and repeatedly warns believer against falling away (see 1 John 2:24 among many others). It also has examples of believers that actually do fall away (such as Samson, King Solomon, Judas, Hymaneus and Alexander and the widows of 1 Tim. among others). Also, do not forget to ask the Calvininsts about the purpose of the warning passages in the New Testament and it is unbelievable how they try to get around passages such as 1 Cor 10, Romans 11, Hebrews 3, 6 and 10 and Rev. 2 and 3 among many others.
Hope this helps.
Thanks JPC! I’ll get studying on those passages.
John,
Sorry it took me a while to get back, but it seems that JPC led you in the right direction. I agree with him that Matt. 7:24-27 probably isn’t dealing with apostasy. Rather it is addressing the difference between those who act on His words and hose who do not. I suppose that could carry on into the Christian walk as well, and in that case could support a doctrine of apostasy, but it is still not a strong text to reference in my opinion. But there are plenty of Scriptures that do deal directly with apostasy as JPC mentioned. If you haven’t already, you should check out my 13 part series on the subject. Here is the first post. At the end of each post is a hyperlink that will take you to the next one:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-1-definitions/
Also, you can click on the category for apostasy (on the left side bar) and find a lot of posts and articles there as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Though Ben,
Unlike JPC, I think you, like me, believe that 1 John 2:19 does not necessarily refer to people who never knew Jesus, but can and probably partly does refer to people who knew Jesus but turned away from true faith.
Arminian,
Thanks for pointing that out about 1 John 2:19. I missed that somehow. I deal with that text here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-12-examining-passages-commonly-appealed-to-by-the-advocates-of-unconditional-eternal-security/
Apologies a for turning back time and asking this question again. 🙂
I just recently came accross a calvinist who is insisting that 1 Corinthians 2, is teaching R precedes F by using v.8 and v.14 then just dismisses chapter 3 as talking about Immature Christians.
Sure I mentiontioned the true context of those verses but haven’t used Galatians 3 yet.
Can you direct me to the right direction where to start regarding the rebuttal for this? 🙂
Thanks.
rex,
If you haven’t already, see my debate with Dominic:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/addressing-dominics-response-to-the-purpose-of-regeneration-in-calvinism/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/responding-to-dominics-second-rebuttal-on-regeneration-preceding-faith/
As you mentioned, the fact that Paul refers to them as immature Christians, but still “in Christ” makes the Calvinist interp impossible. And the fact that Galatians plainly teaches that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith is the nail in the coffin. I would be interested to hear how your Calvinist friend honestly tries to grapple with those issues.
God Bless,
Ben
Yes I already read and used those debate links thank you.
“I would be interested to hear how your Calvinist friend honestly tries to grapple with those issues.”
– Ok. I’m assuming though that he will just say that before the believers practice that Faith in Gal 3, they where already given another Spirit so they can believe using that 1 Cor prooftexts of his.
😀
And others like unbelievers are blinded/veiled etc. I’m not sure I want to bother with that loop again but lets see.
Thanks again and God bless,
Rex
– Ok. I’m assuming though that he will just say that before the believers practice that Faith in Gal 3, they where already given another Spirit so they can believe using that 1 Cor prooftexts of his.
Well, that would serve as a pretty clear illustration of how desperate his position has become. Either the Spirit dwells within us or it does not. The burden will rest on him to plainly demonstrate that there is
“another Spirit” or a different “indwelling” than the one described in Galatians. We can’t have the Holy Spirit within us before we receive Him.
As for the veil, 2 Cor. 3:16 says,
“…but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”
Turning to the Lord is what lifts the veil being described in those passages.
May God guide you and help you as you continue your discussion.
Well they didn’t tackle the Galatians verses, just stuck to their guns with 2 Cor 2:14 to mean what they say it means and now uses Romans 10:17 🙂
Ben,
I have a question regarding natural or federal headship. I know that it is not a direct question about Arminianism and Calvinism, yet depending on if you are Arminian or Calvinist you either hold to natural or federal? Is that true?
What exactly is natural and federal headship? What are the differences?
If you can’t provide an answer or it’s too off topic for this forum that’s okay. If not, do you know of any other websites or resources available to help?
In Christ,
Leon
Leon,
An Arminian or Calvinist could take either view. You can find a treatment of the issue from an Arminian scholar in F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism and also in his book Quest for Truth. I think you could view the section in one or both of those online via Amazon or Google Books.
I have seen it alleged on a Calvinist board that Arminius travelled to Rome and studied under the Jesuit monk de Molinas; there was no reference given about it – I am awaiting one – but I feel I will never get one because this assertion was made in a post that also contained a link to a book of EXTREME hypercalvinistic nonsense.
In any case, the only scholarly link I have ever seen of Arminius and Molinas is a “list of books in Arminius’ library which contained Molinas’ book”.
That is hardly “travelling to Rome” and “studying under” Molinas on Arminius’ part.
Can anyone confirm or deny any trip whatsoever by Arminius to Rome at all?
Thank you
– Episcopius
I personally have never heard anything like that, though I am not an expert. Perhaps someone else will stop by and give you a better answer.
God Bless,
Ben
Looking for help on my last hurdle with Eternal Security. In Jn 10, Jesus promises eternal life, his sheep will never perish, no one can snatch his sheep from his hand nor the Fathers hand and that the Father is greater than all. My understanding is that the Arminian position is that these promises are to those who are presently believing and therefore, presently his sheep. Here is my question: If someone is presently believing and therefore being kept by God’s power, how can they move toward unbelief? In that case, in what way would Jesus be fulfilling his promise? If someone was a believing sheep under this passage and Satan or the worlds influence was to lead them from Christ in an ultimate sense, hasn’t the sheep been snatched from Jesus hand? I appreciate your help.
Kevin
Hey Kevin,
I address that passage in this post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-12-examining-passages-commonly-appealed-to-by-the-advocates-of-unconditional-eternal-security/
You will probably also find the comments about Rom. 8:35-39 helpful, which is right under the treatment of John 10. I think the quotes by Forlines are especially helpful.
Let me know if you still have questions.
God Bless,
Ben
The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote to Calvinists.
There are also churches who are called neo-Calvinists who claim to subscribe to both free will and Calvinistic theories. In their view, man has a choice given to him before and during the salvation process, but not after repentance. They base their beliefs on several key verses or segments of verses, three of which we will examine closely. The first is a segment of verses in Romans 8, with special attention to verses 35-39.
These verses begin with the question “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” This whole line of reasoning hinges on the word separate. The Calvinist and neo Calvinist understanding of Arminian doctrine of apostasy is incorrect because they assume that Arminians believe that salvation may be lost or taken away, therefore, they take Romans 8:35-39 as proof that believers’ apostasy is not possible. When examined in context, however, the meaning of these verses is clear. All the things mentioned — tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth or any or creature, are outside influences. Nothing is said of sin or faithlessness. No outside force acting upon a Christian can forcibly remove their faith or salvation, but a person who acts on their own will may choose to not believe in Jesus any longer.
The second passage we will examine is John 6:37, 40 which states “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise case out. And this is the Fathers’ will which hath sent me, that of all which He has given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” K.J.V.
First, we know that the Father doesn’t give those to Jesus who do not want to be given to Jesus. If the Father gives someone to Jesus, it is someone who has repented and truly believes. Second, we must understand the phrase “I should lose nothing” in light of foreknowledge. It is true that those who truly are saved and remain so until the end will be raised up at the last day. Therefore, John 6:40 can only be understood as a future event (i.e. at judgment) and not a present one since salvation is not set in stone until a person has “endured to the end” (Mark 13:13, Matthew 24:13). A person who has endured all things and has retained faith in Christ will be given to Christ and raised on the last day. Remember, only God knows who will die saved and who will die lost, so Jesus can make the statement in verse 40 based on foreknowledge. (that He will lose none whom He is given.)
The third passage we will examine is Philippians 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” K.J.V.
This verse is a favorite among Calvinists and neo-Calvinists use in a debate about the security of the believer. My next statement may shock my Arminian brethren, but I too believe this statement supports and even spells out eternal security. There are some things it does not support. First, if we assume that the “good work” that was begun was salvation or rebirth, then we must revert back to what we have already said about how man attains salvation and that process is begun by personal faith. God will not begin salvation in a non-believer, nor does He force anyone to have faith in Jesus. So, if the good work is salvation, God will not begin it without consent of the believer.
Now that we have shown that the good work will not begin by force or without personal faith, we must conclude that it will not be completed without faith. It is not my desire, or that of Arminians, to diminish the security a believer has in Christ, merely to define security in true Biblical terms. Salvation is by God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice and our faith. Faith is no more a work than is grace. If faith were a work, God would not demand it because works cannot have any part in becoming saved or born again. Our eternal security is completely assured as long as we have faith. God is completely faithful to complete His work in us, but we must have and maintain faith in order for God to do His work. So, if God’s work ceases, it is not because He was faithless, it is because we became faithless. In short, this verse deals solely with God’s fulfillment of His new covenant responsibilities, not ours.
I reread your article on Jn 10. The point that I’m struggling with isn’t really addressed. Forlines says “Though all the powers of the universe were to combine against the believer, they could not take the believer away from God.” This is my problem. If the powers of the universe come against a Christian (and they do) and that believer is beaten down by them…tempted by them…deceived by them…and that believer eventually chooses to turn away from Jesus, haven’t they been successful in taking them away from God? In that scenario, how has Jesus kept his sheep from being snatched away? How is God demonstrating that he is “greater than all” when his sheep are deceived and led away? If the believer can be turned by the enemy away from God, what are we saying that Jesus is really doing for his sheep in John 10?
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin,
I think it was addressed, but you seem to be missing the implication. One of Forlines’ points is that such outside forces can never have irresistible sway over the believer to the point where the believer cannot help but to turn away. That is impossible. In that sense, nothing can snatch the believer away from his security in Christ. For example, you write,
This is my problem. If the powers of the universe come against a Christian (and they do) and that believer is beaten down by them…tempted by them…deceived by them…and that believer eventually chooses to turn away from Jesus, haven’t they been successful in taking them away from God? In that scenario, how has Jesus kept his sheep from being snatched away?
It seems clear that you are describing a scenario where the believer is completely overwhelmed by outside forces to the point where they really have no choice but to fall away. But this passage is saying that the believer can never be overwhelmed in such a way that turning away is inevitable. If outside forces could overwhelm the believer and thereby irresistibly turn the believer away from God, then those forces would have indeed forcibly snatched the believer away. But that is not the case. Regardless of the influences in the believer’s life that may be working to take the believer away from God, they cannot succeed unless the believer freely decides to yield to such influences to the point of unbelief.
So while they may have a powerful influence on the believer at times, that influence is still resistible as God empowers the believer to remain in Him. That power is always able to prevent the believer from being influenced to the point where such influences become irresistible. God’s power and influence is “greater” than the powers that are trying to remove the believer from God. They simply cannot do it. But if the believer freely yields to those resistible powers and no longer makes use of the power of God to resist those powers and remain, then the believer will of his own accord turn away from God. That is what Osbourne meant in saying that the protection described in these verses addresses outward forces and not “inward apostasy.”
It is similar to the issue of a believer resisting sin. 1 Cor. 10:13 makes it clear that when we are tempted, God provides a way of escape so that we can endure the temptation and not fall to it. So when a sinner falls to temptation, it is despite God’s power to protect the believer from sin. Did sin triumph over God’s power to enable the believer to resist temptation and make use of the way of escape? Not at all. The believer freely yielded to that temptation despite God’s powerful provision to resist it.
Hope that helps.
Thanks. That does help. Have you written anything in regard to Hebrews 10:14?
I have touched on it briefly in the following posts:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-7-who-is-sanctified-in-hebrews-1029/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-8-what-kind-of-sanctification-is-being-described-in-hebrews-1029/
The short answer is that “perfected” has reference to true forgiveness, found in Christ’s blood, that cleanses the conscience of the believer in contrast to the blood of animals under the old covenant (10:1-13, 15-18).
“For all time” has reference to the fact that Christ’s sacrifice which makes forgiveness possible does not need to be repeated (verse 10). It will forever accomplish its purpose of providing forgiveness for those who are (lit.) “being sanctified.” Those who are being sanctified can always find forgiveness in Christ’s “once for all [time]” sacrifice, as they continue to trust in Him.
However, one can forfeit the application of this sacrifice (forgiveness and inner cleansing/sanctification) through unbelief (10:22-39, esp. vs. 29).
I think you will find more to help you in the posts as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Just to add a little to what Ben is saying, most translations say that they “ARE BEING sanctified” not that they have been sanctified, so I am led to believe that A. the fact that sanctification is ongoing would indicate that it is not set in stone and B. the perfection is in the work of Christ, not the people who have accepted Christ, since their perfection, or completion is ongoing. The perfection Jesus offers is completion of His work that allows anyone who trusts in Him to be saved, but we are not made perfect, until we have lived a life in faith, and have died in faith.
I would like to contribute a few thoughts and scriptures to the discussion on eternal security.
John 5:24
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
Once we have believed, we have eternal life – not WILL have, but already have. It is ours. We cannot lose it or it would not be eternal.
John 6:37-40
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
If the Father’s will is that those He has given to Jesus will not be lost – they won’t be.
1 John 1:5
5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
If we have been born of God, we will never become “unborn”
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
God makes us to stand firm – we don’t do it on our own. If His seal of ownership is on us – are we not His own? If we have received the spirit as a guarantee….are we not guaranteed to receive what the deposit promises?
Ephesians 1:13-14
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Again – when we believe, we are sealed as His possession. We are given the Holy Spirit as our guarantee.
1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
If they had REALLY belonged to the body – THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED
Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
He says “I NEVER knew you”. Not “I once knew you, but then you fell away”
1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
We have been born of imperishable sees. If we can become unborn – then it wasn’t imperishable seed after all.
Romans 11:29
God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Are not faith and salvation gifts?
We do nothing, NOTHING to receive our salvation. How then do we believe that we must do something to keep it? It does not depend on us. If it did, NO ONE would be able to keep it, because no one is good enough or can be perfect in their belief and in their faith on their own.
I read this somewhere:
We are like a small child, walking over treacherous terrain with a loving father, clutching onto his hand. He tells us to hold on and not let go. We want to hold on – but we are small and weak, and we are becoming so tired. It is such a long, difficult walk. We trip on a rock, and we let go. Are we lost? How can we be lost, with a loving father gripping our tiny hand in his big strong one. We let go – but He would never let go. He is more than able to hold on, and because we are His, He loves us far too much to let go even when in our weakness we fail to hold tightly enough to Him.
Romans 5:9-11
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
He DIED for us when we were his ENEMIES! Now that we are His loved ones, will He ever let us go?
You are negating a very large part of the Bible when you say things like this, and you as much as giving people a free pass to sin without consequence. I won’t address all of the poorly thought out and poorly studied doctrines here, but I will address this idea that having eternal life means one has an irrevocable gift in them. Having eternal life is contingent upon our faith. God’s part is grace, but God does not impart grace to a non believer. Therefore, to “have eternal life” means to possess the gift of eternal life which is only set in stone once one has “Endured to the end” and has not renounced Jesus. Think of eternal life as a certificate. You have it, and as long as you have it, it is yours. You argue that once we have eternal life, eternal life has begun, but time and time again, Jesus equates eternal life with heaven. Nobody would argue that we are now in heaven, yet you eternal securists say we are now living in eternal life. John 15 tells us that to retain eternal life, we must abide (remain) in Him. How did we become “in Him” to begin with? We believed, and received a new birth. So, to cease believing is apostasy, a willful departure from Jesus by virtue of a cessation of trust in Him, from which there is no return. The whole point of the New testament is to A. get people saved and B. keep them grounded in Christ. To say “once we are saved, we are always saved” is to lay aside the need for sanctification and strengthening of our faith. Do not be lazy, and stop teaching this lackadaisical stuff, you could very well cause a weaker brother to fall!
Matthew –
God most certainly does impart grace to non-believers. If it were not for grace, there would be no hope for any of us. We were all non-believers when we were given the gift of faith, by grace.
Ephesians 2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
It is true that we do not receive eternal life in all its fullness, or the fulness of our salvation, until we make it through this life – remaining in Christ – and reach heaven, But we must ask ourselves – how is it that we remain in Christ till the end? The strength of our convictions? Will-power? Determination? No. It is none of these things.
1 Peter 1:3-9
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
It is by God’s power – through the gift of faith – that we are able to endure to the end, to receive the inheritance kept for us.
Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
God gave the life of his son for our sakes. Could there then be anything necessary for our salvation that He would with-hold from us? It is inconceivable.
In John 17:3 Jesus does not equate eternal life with heaven, but with knowing God and the one He sent:
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
The Bible teaches not that we believe and then are given new birth, but that we are given new birth, which then enables us to believe.
1 John 5
5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
IS born of God – not WILL BE
We come to be in Christ by believing, yes, but how to we come to believe? Is it something we are able to conjure up on our own strength or out of our own goodness? We were DEAD in transgressions and sins until God raised us to faith.
Believing that God is powerful enough and gracious enough to preserve us in Christ is not, I don’t believe, laying aside the need for sanctification and strengthening of our faith. Salvation is based on justification, which is a onetime event. Sanctification is an ongoing life-long process. We are commanded to abide in Christ, not to “let go and let God”. But we abide in the power of the Holy Spirit – another of God’s gracious gifts.
Romans 3
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
A common perspective of eternal security is “once saved always saved” which I think is taken by many people to mean that once you are saved you can go on your merry way and do as you please because you are “in”. You prayed that sinner’s prayer (not biblical) and now you are set. This is not at all a biblical perspective.
James said faith without works is dead. We are saved by faith alone(which is a gift), as Paul taught, but not by faith that IS alone. Saving faith results in good works/right living. To embrace Christ requires repentance – turning away from sin. If we embrace sin we are not embracing Christ.Can a coin land heads up and tails up at the same time? Neither can a person be turned in opposite directions at once.
I certainly do not want to be the cause of anyone falling, And I understand how a misunderstanding of the doctrine of eternal security could be a stumbling block. But I think we cannot shy away from examining what the scriptures say for fear of causing someone to stumble. Even the gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews, but the gospel must be preached, for it is the power of God that brings salvation.
It is my desire for everyone to see the beauty of God’s grace, extended to us while we were yet sinners and dead in transgressions. If I could do nothing to save myself, how would it be that i am able to keep myself saved? Only God is able. Do I need to obey and cling to Christ? absolutely. Can I do this on my own? Absolutely not. God grants what He requires. There is no boasting, only faith in future grace.
God does not grant grace to people who do not ask for it. He extends mercy to sinners who rebel against Him, but that has its limits as well. The only way to attain the grace of God is by trusting in Jesus, and that is always a personal decision. Grace is not a work, and neither is faith, although the way we receive grace was a result of Jesus’ work on the cross. Faith is a decision, not a feeling.
Matthew, could you please offer some scripture to support your belief that God does not grant grace to people who do not ask for it? I believe that the only way to trust in Jesus is by the grace of God. I agree that neither faith nor grace are works, and I also agree that faith is not a feeling – but I do not agree that it is a decision. The Bible says that grace and faith are gifts. By faith we make decisions, but faith is more like a channel through which flows God’s grace to us. But the channel itself is a gift. Even though faith, belief, and trust are not works, there can still be an element of boasting in them if they are from ourselves. If you did not believe because God’s grace enabled you to, then how did you come to believe and trust in Jesus and your neighbor did not? Are you smarter/more spiritual/more humble …..than he is? That would mean that there is something in you that caused God to save you, yet the Bible teaches otherwise.
Proverbs 3:33-35
33 The Lord’s curse is on the household of the wicked,
but He blesses the home of the righteous;
34 He mocks those who mock,
but gives grace to the humble.
35 The wise will inherit honor,
but He holds up fools to dishonor.
Acts 13:42-44
42 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.
Romans 4:15-17
15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Sally,
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I am the operator and owner of this site. This thread is primarily for questions. It is not for debate or for countering what someone who is asking me a question might be saying. If you have a specific question about eternal security or certain Bible passages, please feel free to ask. That is what this thread is for. However, since you did leave a response that I find very problematic, I will interact with your initial comments when I get the chance. Until then, I would recommend you take a look at my 13 Part series on the subject starting here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-1-definitions/
Once you read that first post, you will find a link at the bottom that will take you to the next part and so on for each post. Or, you can follow this link (below) which will bring up the whole series, beginning with Part 13 and working backwards as you scroll down:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance-series/
Also, regarding Matt’s comments, he is not the owner of this site though he likes to chime in now and then. Typically, I don’t have a problem with that as long as it seems helpful. However, I do not agree with Matthew on everything, especially his saying that God does not grant grace to people who do not ask for it. That does not represent the Arminian perspective and is therefore contrary to the views that this blog sets forth. While the grace of salvation is only accessed through faith (as Matt seems to be saying), Arminians also hold that even the ability to believe is an act of grace by God, without which we could not even put faith in Him. We call that prevenient grace (grace that “precedes” and enables our faith response, though not irresistibly). I haven’t had a chance to look through all of the comments in detail (yours and Matt’s), but as I said, hope to respond to your specific comments when I get the time.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello, I am new here, but I would like to find out how arminians answer 1 John 3, 7-10. Some Calvinist used that in a discussion to show that a person cannot abandon the faith.
Greetings
Also, I would like to ask if are there somewhere some sermons, or articles, or whatever as a summary, an introduction to arminianism, for person who doesn’t know much about this but wants to know, where many popular calvinist arguments are refuted, “all in one”?
Greetings
Hello Marius,
I am strapped for time right now, so it might be a little while before I can address your questions. Thanks for being patient. In the meantime, I would look at the numerous posts here and at SEA that deal with Calvinist arguments. Here you can look to the left side bar and find posts according to categories. Here is the link to SEA (The Society of Evangelical Arminians).
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
God Bless,
Ben
Thank you for your reply, and I hope that everything I say is understandable, because English is not my native language. I’m sorry for any mistakes.
I’ll be waiting of course, and in a meantime I will try to acquaint with this blog and website you gave me link to. Thanks.
Greetings
Hello, I am a Pentecostal Evangelical who has been taking a class on soteriology at my in-law’s church in the same neighborhood and they teach a Reformed view. It has really wracked my brain as to whether or not Arminianism or Calvinism is more in line with the Gospel teaching.
So I went to your blog and found your articles critiquing John Piper’s theodicy and his idea that God creates both good and evil and how that obscures moral categories. You’ve also argued that it is not Biblical. Yet I want to know how you would interpret the following verse from Isaiah,
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)
I am not trying to be annoying. I sincerely want to know how this verse should be in interpreted within an Arminian framework, because it seems to me that this verse supports Piper’s theodicy.
Tyler,
I only have a minute, but this is actually a pretty easy verse to explain. The KJV is a really poor translation here. The NASB says, “Causing well being and causing calamity.” The NIV says, “I bring prosperity and create disaster“, and the RSV translates it, “I make wealth and create woe.” Even the new Calvinist favorite translation, the ESV, renders it, “I make well being and create calamity.”
Now the Hebrew word “Ra” can also have reference to moral evil, but it has a wide range of uses and the proper use must be determined by context. That is why so many translations translate the word “disaster” or “calamity” in this passage. The context has to do with God’s dealing with Israel and other nations. It is a reference to divine judgment for the rebellion of kings and nations against God in this context. In this chapter it describes the contrast between the help that will be given Cyrus and Israel compared to the disaster that will come upon Egypt.
What is interesting is verses 9-11 which was used by Paul along with Jeremiah 18 as the imagery of the Potter in Romans 9 that so many see as a proof text for unconditional election and reprobation. But in this context it is wholly concerned with God’s righteous judgment on those who “strive” or “fight against” their maker (in Romans 9 it has reference to the Jews who are denying God the sovereign right to save the Gentiles through Christ and to reject unbelieving Israel due to their rejection of Christ, because they wrongly see this as God not upholding his promises to the descendants of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob).
In Jeremiah 18 it is clear that the way God, as the Potter, deals with peoples and nations is wholly conditional on their responses to Him (vss. 6-10). And you will notice that the same word that the KJV translates as “evil” is used in Jeremiah 18:8 with reference to God relenting to bring judgment on a rebellious nation that turns back to God (clearly conditional rather than unconditional),
“If the nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.” (NASB)
The same is true in verse 11 where God devises calamity and judgment for the people of Israel due to their stubborn rebellion, even though He had good intentions for them (again, clearly conditional based on Israel’s response to God rather than unconditional). In verses 8 and 11 we see the same word being used in two different ways based on context. It is used of the moral evil of rebellion against God and the disaster of divine judgment in response to that rebellion against God.
Any Calvinist that uses Isaiah 45:7 as a proof text that God is the origin of all sin and moral evil is guilty of gross proof texting.
Hope that helps,
Ben
Great comments Ben. Let me also add that for a Calvinist to use Isaiah 45:7 as a proof text for God as the origin of evil seems like it would be for them to prove too much. The official Calvinist line is that God is not the author of evil. But if they use that verse to say that God creates all evil, then that would seem to be them making him out as the author of evil.
Sally,
You write,
John 5:24
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
Once we have believed, we have eternal life – not WILL have, but already have. It is ours. We cannot lose it or it would not be eternal.
The text does not say “once we have believed”; the text says “believes”, which is almost always in the present tense in John, denoting continuing action. So as we continue to believe, we continue to be joined to Christ and share in His life. Eternal life is eternal because it resides in Him. There is no eternal life outside of Christ. Our sharing in His life is contingent on possessing Christ through faith,
“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has [presently] the Son has [presently] the life [that is in Him alone]. He who does not have the Son of God [presently] does not have [presently] the life [which is in Him alone].”
1 John 5:11, 12
John 6:37-40
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
If the Father’s will is that those He has given to Jesus will not be lost – they won’t be.
Again, “believes” (in verse 40) is a present participle denoting continuous action (i.e., “is believing”). “Looks” is as well. It is the one who is continually believing and looking to the Son. The one who is believing is certain to be raised up at the last day, but if one ceases to believe, that person will be cut off from Christ and the life that is in Him alone (John 15:5, 6).
See this post for more on that, https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/does-jesus-teach-unconditional-eternal-security-in-john-637-65/
1 John 1:5
5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
If we have been born of God, we will never become “unborn”
First, that is nothing more than assertion on your part. Still, while it may seem strange to speak of becoming “unborn” it is not strange to speak of death. One who is born of God and given new life in Him can yet “wither” and die if they are cut off from the source of that life through unbelief (John 15:5, 6).
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.,
God makes us to stand firm – we don’t do it on our own. If His seal of ownership is on us – are we not His own? If we have received the spirit as a guarantee….are we not guaranteed to receive what the deposit promises?
But this assumes that the promises and provisions of God are unconditional, which this text does not say (and there is no text that does). The Spirit is a guarantee, but only for those who continue in the faith, for those who do not have faith do not have the Spirit. For more on that, see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/some-further-reflections-on-the-nature-of-the-sealing-of-the-holy-spirit-in-eph-113-and-430/
Furthermore, for Paul to say that it is God who makes us stand does not imply that God makes us stand irresistibly, only that it is only through His empowering and enabling that we can stand, without which we could not. Likewise, Paul tells the Gentiles in Romans 11:18 that the “root” supports them (makes them able to stand- by faith cf. Rom. 11:20). However, this support and their standing is not unconditional nor irresistible, since they can yet be broken off if they do not “continue” in God’s kindness (vss. 21-22).
Ephesians 1:13-14
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Again – when we believe, we are sealed as His possession. We are given the Holy Spirit as our guarantee.
See the link to the post above on sealing.
1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
If they had REALLY belonged to the body – THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED
I agree that they did not belong to the body when they left, but that does not mean they never did (prior to their defection). That is a conclusion that must be read into the text. See the following link for more: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/does-1-john-218-19-support-the-calvinist-never-saved-to-begin-with-view-of-apostasy/
Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
He says “I NEVER knew you”. Not “I once knew you, but then you fell away”
This passage affirms that there will be hypocrites who claimed to know God, and yet never did. However, it does nothing to prove that apostasy from true saving faith is impossible. To the virgins who ran out of oil, the Lord said, “I do not know you”, rather than “I never knew you.” Note also that these virgins indeed had oil in their lamps at one point, just as the other virgins. The only difference is that they allowed their oil to run out (Matthew 25:1-13).
1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
We have been born of imperishable sees. If we can become unborn – then it wasn’t imperishable seed after all.
They were born again through the preaching of the word, and that word is the imperishable seed (vss. 24-25). It was only through receiving that word that they were born again, and they will remain God’s children as long as they cling to the promise of the word. But it is possible to receive the word which gives life, “believe for a while,” and later fall away and perish (Luke 8:11, 13).
Romans 11:29
God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Are not faith and salvation gifts?
See the following post on Romans 11:29: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/does-paul-teach-that-the-gift-of-salvation-is-unconditionally-irrevocable-in-romans-1129/
And don’t forget that according to Romans 11:17-22 the Gentiles who were presently standing by faith could yet be broken off from the elect people of God (represented by the olive tree) through unbelief.
We do nothing, NOTHING to receive our salvation.
Of course we do something, we “believe.”
“…and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Notice Paul and Silas didn’t say, “Oh, you don’t need to do anything. There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to receive salvation.”
How then do we believe that we must do something to keep it?
Because the Bible says so. It says we need to “remain,” “continue,” “endure” in the faith, etc. Likewise, we are repeatedly warned that if we do not remain, continue or endure, we will certainly perish.
It does not depend on us. If it did, NO ONE would be able to keep it, because no one is good enough or can be perfect in their belief and in their faith on their own.
But faith is actually our depending on God. That is what faith means. We trust in Him and depend on Him to do what we cannot. That is why faith excludes boasting, because faith looks away from self and to God. It receives a free and undeserved gift from God. Even our faith is enabled by God and He gives us the power to continue in the faith and remain in Him. The only thing you are missing is that this power does not guarantee that we will continue or remain. It is not irresistible. Hence the numerous warnings in Scripture to endure, continue, remain, etc.
I read this somewhere:
We are like a small child, walking over treacherous terrain with a loving father, clutching onto his hand. He tells us to hold on and not let go. We want to hold on – but we are small and weak, and we are becoming so tired. It is such a long, difficult walk. We trip on a rock, and we let go. Are we lost? How can we be lost, with a loving father gripping our tiny hand in his big strong one. We let go – but He would never let go. He is more than able to hold on, and because we are His, He loves us far too much to let go even when in our weakness we fail to hold tightly enough to Him.
This parable is nice. I really don’t have a problem with it except for the conclusion it draws at the end (or you draw from it). Again, it is not an issue of God helping us or keeping us. It is a matter of our wanting to be kept. Even in the parable it says “we want to hold on.” The Bible is clear that while God’s desire is for us to hold on, He does not cause us to hold on irresistibly (hence the numerous warnings against falling away). God will not hold on to one who has turned away from Him. Indeed, Jesus says that those who do not remain will be cut off by the Father Himself (John 15).
Romans 5:9-11
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
He DIED for us when we were his ENEMIES! Now that we are His loved ones, will He ever let us go?
Not while we remain in Him, but the Bible is clear that we can fall away, that our love can grow cold, that we can receive His grace in vain, be cut off from Christ, be severed from Christ, be broken off from the elect people of God, be disowned by God, and so on. We can make ourselves His enemies again through our rejection of God or love of the world (James 4:4). The issue is not whether or not a true believer can remain. He or she certainly can as God empowers each believer to remain in Him. The issue is whether or not a true believer can fall away, and the Bible is clear that we can.
Personally, it is not a big deal for me if you want to hold to eternal security, so long as that belief does not cause you to take your faith and relationship with Christ less seriously. I am only addressing your comments because I want you to see why such verses are not very convincing to those who reject eternal security, especially in light of the numerous warnings in Scripture to remain, continue and endure, etc. If God causes our faith to endure irresistibly, then it would be nonsense for God to also call on His people to remain, continue, endure, etc. It would be like telling someone hooked to a respirator to “keep breathing.”
I would love to believe that God will never let believers fall away. Who wouldn’t want to believe that? The only reason I reject it is because I am convinced the Bible does not teach it.
I hope to address your other comments as well, but I am not sure when I will be able to find the time.
God Bless,
Ben
To add to this, I would also say that The greek word for ‘save’ in the New Testament is sozo. ‘Save’ is in the present, ongoing passive tense, so when we read “By grace are we SAVED through faith….” in Ephesians 2:8, what is being said is not “by grace were we saved” but “by grace, are we currently BEING saved” The idea that one can say a prayer, or have a moment in life in which they “believe” that Jesus died on the cross and rose and be “saved” is simply not in the Bible. Salvation is something that must be lived, it is a relationship with Jesus that can not happen by being “saved” once back when you were a kid in Sunday school, it is a lifestyle and way of acting and thinking that is Christ centered.
Hello, it’s me again, I have a question. I would be grateful if you could answer.
I was a Calvinist for a few years since I believed in Jesus. For a long time I could not understand how people can believe anything other than predestination. But a few weeks ago I simply doubted Calvinism, and every day I’m more and more away from this. The verse which made me believe in predestination from the very start was:
And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. “For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
NASB Matthew 13:10-12
I don’t know how to understand this passage. To me, it seems like Jesus says: “I say in parables because I don’t want them to be saved”, and that convinced me of Calvinism and predestination. It seems like they are not elected, and Jesus says in parables for them not to understand and not to be saved.
Can anybody tell me how to understand this verse according to Arminian perspective?
Greetings
And one more question:
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
NASB Acts 16:14
Isn’t this verse seem to be the support for idea that faith comes only from God, that God opens the heart and causes faith, according to Calvinist idea that man can’t believe on his own?
Also:
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the [b]author and perfecter of faith,
NASB Hebrews 12:2
Please help.
Marius,
Regarding 1 John 3:7-10, there is nothing there to suggest that one cannot abandon the faith. What it does say is that no one can continually practice sin (in that it would characterize his lifestyle) and be born again. A born again person will not have a life that is characterized by continual sin. That doesn’t mean those who are born again never sin (2:1), but it does mean that they will not live a sinful lifestyle (3:4-6).
Throughout this epistle John is contrasting the lifestyles of those who are born again and those who are not. Those who are born again (children of God) live lives that reflect the character of the Father and the Son. God’s children will behave in a godly manner while those who are not God’s children will behave in an ungodly manner. Because of this, we can be sure that anyone who denies Christ by profession or by lifestyle is not a child of God (2:9, 11, 18-23; 3:4-6, 10; 4:1-6, etc.). The new spiritual life of the believer is evidenced through righteous living (2:3-6, 29, etc.). This is a concern for John because he is combating false teaching that would suggest that one can live like the devil and still belong to God (3:7, 8). He is also helping his readers to be able to identify false teachers by the way that they live.
But again, there is nothing here that would suggest that one who is a child of God cannot fall away from faith and cease to be a child of God. There is only the reality that if one is a child of God, that person will live like it and bear fruit that gives evidence to that fact. However, John does repeatedly warn his readers (who are believers, cf. 2:12-14; 2:20, 27; 3:2) to remain in Christ and continue to follow Him and the true teaching of the gospel (2:15, 24, 28; 3:7, 24; 5:21). It would be senseless to encourage true believers to remain in the faith if it was impossible to fall away.
All of this is in harmony with John’s gospel where in chapter 15 Jesus makes it very clear that one who is in Christ can yet be cut off from Him, wither, die and be thrown into the fire if that person does not “remain” in Him.
I will try to address your other questions sometime this weekend.
God Bless,
Ben
With respect, I must question one of your statements. You say a born again believer will not live a sinful lifestyle, yet we see many who have and have repented. When it says believers can not sin, I think it means that they will not give their lives wholeheartedly over to the old sin nature, i.e they will not treat sin as though it is ok. The problem a lot pf people have is with the apparent disconnect between the teaching that a believer can not sin, and the teaching that someone who willfully sins has no more sacrifice to depend on. The thing is, once someone has returned to their old carnal nature and has rejected Jesus, i.e willfully sinned or apostatized, it is as if they were never saved. Nothing they did as a believer will be credited to them, because without Jesus as savior, they are just dead in trespasses and sins, and any works they did would be in vain. Jesus says to the ones who enter into hell “depart, I never knew you” yet we know he does know all of us, sinner and saint alike, so to say He never knew us to me is a figurative way of saying “your life was in vain” He rejects those who reject Him, and when He rejects them, it is utterly and eternally. I don’t think we can say a Christian will never have a habitual sin habit, because we all stray from Him at times and get caught up in sins and faults. However, when one has rejected Him as savior, one has willfully sinned, and is thus as if they were never known by Him.
Matthew,
I know you like to give your input here, but this thread is for questions. If you have a specific question, then feel free to ask. I don’t mind you sharing your opinion from time to time but it is getting to the point where you are commenting on just about anything someone says. That is not what this is for.
With regards to your comment, I basically agree. It seems to be more of an issue of semantics. In your second sentence, you say, “You say a born again believer will not live a sinful lifestyle, yet we see many who have and have repented.” In your last statements, you put it differently and say, “I don’t think we can say a Christian will never have a habitual sin habit, because we all stray from Him at times and get caught up in sins and faults.
There is a difference, in my opinion, between what you are expressing in the second sentence and in your conclusions.
A Christian may struggle with a certain sin and struggle for some time with it, but it is a struggle because it is contrary to his born again nature and the Spirit that lives in Him. What John is addressing is a lifestyle of sin (not just a struggle with a certain sinful habit). He is addressing one who sins without any struggle because the person sees no real problem with willfully sinning. So his life is characterized by sin, and not by godliness. His primary orientation is towards sin and ungodliness. Such a person is not born again. That is different than a born again Christian who struggles with a certain sinful habit.
That is the contrast I was trying to express when I wrote,
That doesn’t mean those who are born again never sin (2:1), but it does mean that they will not live a sinful lifestyle (3:4-6).
God Bless,
Ben
I thought it was for believers to discuss questions that were posed. I will unsubscribe.
Matthew,
Sorry that you got the wrong idea. The thread is for asking questions related to Calvinism and Arminianism. My intention was to create a safe place for people to ask questions and get answers (primarily from me and the other administrator at my blog). Over time others began to occasionally chime in to help answer questions, and typically I did not have a problem with it as long as it lined up with the theology that this blog endorses. Sometimes I would ask for others to address a question if it was one that I didn’t know how to answer. But the intention was never to have a full on discussion forum. That can create an intimidating environment for those who are asking questions where they can feel overly criticized. It can also quickly lead to extended debates, often about minor points, which, again, is not the intended purpose of this thread.
In light of how recent questions have been addressed by outsiders, I felt the need to remind everyone of the intended purpose of this particular page and to try to pull the reins back a little.
However, there are plenty of posts on the main page that can be explored and commented on where discussion and differences of opinion are freely encouraged.
God Bless,
Ben
Marius,
On Lydia, the language actually favors the Arminian interpretation. It makes more sense if the passage is speaking about enablement rather than irresistible causation. In the passage, Luke is focusing in on a certain individual coming to faith and explaining a part of the process, God opening the heart to believe. That is what Arminians believe. God must enable us to believe the gospel. That is all the passage tells us. The passage does not say that faith was the irresistible result of God opening the heart, only that God’s opening the heart led to her believing,enabled her to believe, with the result (in this particular case) that she actually believed.
Furthermore, Calvinists claim that God must give us a new heart before we can believe the gospel (and wrongly refer to Ezek. 36:26). But this passage in Acts says nothing of a new heart. Rather, God opened up her old heart to believe. In other words, despite her depravity, God enabled her to believe and this enablement did not require giving her a new heart first. So the passage really doesn’t fit well with the Calvinist claim, but it does fit perfectly with the Arminian view of prevenient grace.
Here is a good article on the opening of Lydia’s heart:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/NT/Acts16_14.html
Regarding the Calvinist understanding of Ezekiel 36:26, see this post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/ezekiel-3626-27/
Marius,
On your question about Hebrews 12:2, here is something I wrote to another commenter on that passages a while back,
Briefly. On Hebrews 12:2, it is true that Christ is the perfecter of our faith, but there is no reason to think that He perfects our faith irresistibly. Indeed, just the opposite is plainly implied as it is the reason we are to “look to” Him and “throw off everything that hinders, and the sin that so easily entangles”, that we might “run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”
Now, if Christ irresistibly causes faith in us and irresistibly causes us to continue in the faith (or perfects our faith), such language becomes rather pointless, and so do the warnings throughout Hebrews and the NT as a whole. It would be like warning someone hooked to a respirator to “keep breathing.”
He is the “founder/pioneer” of our faith as He is the object of our faith and His life and death is the foundation of our faith. His life of endurance is the example we must look to in order to find the courage and strength to endure our own struggle (12:2-4)
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-9622
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Marius,
I just realized you also asked about Matthew 13:11-12. I will have to get back to you on that as I am out of time for now.
God Bless,
Ben
I’m looking for an extensive overview of the Old Testament from an Arminian perspective to compare to Greg Koukl’s Bible Fast Forward . If it exist in a format for a lay person, I’ve yet to find it. Please lend any advice you can. I’m trying to do it on my own knowledge and it would help to have a reference, as thorough, as his.
Mel
Marius,
I just found this article that addresses Matthew 13 and similar passages. I think you will find it helpful. I will probably have a little more to say about it later on, but this should get you started: http://naturalchurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/five-reasons-to-embrace-conditional-election/
Melanie,
I noticed that the Koukl material is in about 8 hours of DVD format. There are 2 resources that spring to mind that are in the audio and/or visual area. The problem with both of them is that they are probably much more detailed than Koukl. One is David Pawson’s series, “Unlocking the Old Testament”, which can be accessed for free here: http://davidpawson.org/resources/category/unlocking-the-bible/unlocking-the-old-testament/. It has 60 installments at about 40 minutes each, making about 40 hours. Happily, it is free on the internet and I think they are all available to watch in video. The other one is Chuck Smith’s audio verse by verse teaching through the Bible. You could just focus on the Old Testament part. There are notes available for the messages. You can find this here: http://www.twft.com/?page=c2000. For some reason, the streaming link did not work for me, but the download one did, and it seemed to be streaming as opposed to downloading. I might have more for you later.
Marius,
Just to add to what that post says that I directed you to, I will paste in some comments that I just left at that site which also has more helpful links to articles and a book that address your question in greater detail,
*************************************
There is a lot of good stuff here. I do think the parables were meant to draw in seekers as well as serve as a sort of judgment on the state of the hearts of those who were not willing to hear. But even then, I think the idea would be that because of the veiled nature of the parables and their indirect way of addressing things, they can serve to draw in even those who are resistant in that it makes it easier for them to put their guard down so that they can get to a position where they might be willing to hear and learn again. It is kind of like saying, “You will never listen or hear so long as your heart is as it is”, not for the purpose of just expressing that there heart is wrong and so they can never hear or learn, but in expressing their condition, they will possibly be spurred on to re-examine themselves and come to a place where they can hear from God again. It is similar to how I put it in some comments addressing John 6:44 and 45 (as you deal with in your post),
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).
Many scholars have focused on the sense of irony in Isaiah’s prophecy which relates to how Jesus uses it as recorded in the gospels. In making it clear that they will not listen to the admonishment of God, it can serve to have the effect that they may indeed listen by re-evaluating themselves in light of their present state of self imposed hardheartedness.
One thing that I think you may be expressing too strongly is the idea that when one is poised to hear based on their current state, they will receive the message in an irresistible manner. I think it is better to speak of it being the natural consequence (what we would naturally expect to happen, and probably what most often does happen), but still resistible to an extent since free will is not removed. Even the state they are in when they hear Jesus is based on freely learning from God prior to encountering Christ. There is no reason to think there was an element of irresistibility in them becoming a God fearer in the first place, so there is no reason to assume that in coming to Christ from the position of a God fearer is necessarily irresisitble either. Even believers in Christ can resist Him as He continues to lead them on further in following Him and learning from Him.
Here are some resources for the idea of the parables and the prophecies in Isaiah as irony:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/gordon-c-i-wong-make-their-ears-dull-irony-in-isaiah-69-10/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/bruce-hollenbach-lest-they-should-turn-and-be-forgiven-irony/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/robert-b-chisholm-jr-divine-hardening-in-the-old-testament/
And here is a very scholarly book that gets into the subject in great detail: http://www.amazon.com/Stories-Intent-Comprehensive-Guide-Parables/dp/0802842410
Melanie,
BTW, does Koukl really get into Arminian/Calvinism issues in an overview of the OT? Or do you not necessarily know and just want it from an Arminian source? Sometimes with these types of overviews the Arminian/Calvinism issue is largely absent or what is said needs only minor tweaking so that it doesn’t matter if the material is from an Arminian or Calvinist source.
Thank you so much for the information you passed on. This is perfect for my needs and I would not have found it without you.
I would not say Bible Fast Forward is openly Calvinistic but the entire book of Genesis is conspicuously skipped. The study seems to begin with the Call of Abraham. Maybe I’m highly sensitive to their teachings, but it seems to be a format specifically designed to support Calvinism, without, blatantly ever saying it. The series comes with a 140 page outline so it’s easy to see the aim of the study.
He is a thoughtful defender of his faith and I have great admiration for him, but see that the study makes no attempt to find support for middle ground on the sensitive issues at hand.
I have an international group of Christian ladies in a European setting, so I need all of the information I can get to represent Christ well, as I teach. I am doing my best to downplay the issue that divides so many of us, but these ladies know just enough already, to have some pointed questions. Lots of preparation is necessary and each week, I pray for God’s Spirit to guide me to useful truth and He does.
Thanks again, I really appreciate your help. May God bless you in your ministry. I may need to call again on you at some point. It’s so nice to know there are those like you, devoting yourselves in this way.
Melanie
Sorry what I meant to say was that Creation was overlooked. All of Genesis 1-11.
Melanie
It may be best for you to have a look for yourself at the material. You can find it at, str.org/bibleff. The first thing of concern to me, is that he see’s “Rulership”, as the main them of the Bible rather than say, “Love”.
I wonder what a person with your knowledge would think about this new study.
Thanks again,
Melanie
There is something I am having trouble wrapping my brain around and I am hoping that you can help. It is in regard to sin and the cross. Scripture teaches that our sins were nailed to the cross and Jesus “put them away” – once and for all – when He died on the cross 2000 years ago. He ransomed us – and on the cross Jesus said “It is finished”. So,how is it that not everyone is saved then? I know that the Bible clearly says that not everyone is saved – but, based on the fact that Jesus became sin for us and was crucified, It seems like this is a contradiction. I know there are no contradictions in scripture, so there has to be some way to reconcile these two teachings, but I don’t know what it is. Thanks for any insight you can provide.
Sally
Sally,
The answer is that the atonement is provisional and conditionally applied. Here are a few posts that might help you. Let me know if you still have questions after that.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/provisional-atonement-part-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/provisional-atonement-part-2-provision-is-consistent-with-foreknowledge/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/provisional-atonement-part-3-the-integrity-and-justice-of-god-in-the-gospel-offer/
God Bless,
Ben
I have a question that’s been rolling around in my head for awhile, but has been spurred on by my recent interaction with two lovely elderly Jehovah Witness ladies. As I meet with them, it appears (to me) that they are truly seeking God….not just a sense of belonging or religion or status, etc. My hope for them is found in the Scriptures that those who seek Him shall find Him. Yet, what they have found thus far in their organization is a counterfeit Jesus. I have come to see these women as souls, not just an argument to be won, and I am burdened for them. I remind myself when at the peak of my frustration for not being able to “get through to them” that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and Jesus who saves, not my eloquent arguments. And so I wonder such things as…how does deception vs. an outright rejection/denial of God play into salvation? I know that we are without excuse because of the evidence of creation, yet these women believe in a god….albeit a false one. This story is repeated over and over again with myriads of people trapped in cults. Aren’t we held somewhat accountable for what we’ve been given, and then, doesn’t it seem unfair that God would take babies or mentally incompetent people to Heaven but not those who are sincere, but sincerely wrong? This would, then, make one want to hide under a bushel and not preach the Gospel. Some of these thoughts smack of the ideas Universalists throw around. I try to rest in the fact that God is the just and merciful judge…and that I am not. Any thoughts?
Llyn,
Just noticed I had not yet answered your question. Sorry about that. I will try to get to it soon. Thanks for your patience.
God Bless,
Ben
Llyn,
The Biblical reality is that false teachings lead people away from God. The Biblical writers were always warning against being deceived by false teaching. You are right that only God can convict, but He can convict through us and how we present His word. His word is powerful. People do come out of these false teachings to embrace the truth. Keep praying for them. Universalism is certainly appealing, but it is just not Biblical.
Not sure if that helps. The main thing to remember is that it might be you that God will use to finally lead this person away from this cult. At the very least, you may be one step in that process. There is a reason you are encountering theses people. We can’t assume that God isn’t at work in them to lead them to the truth. Rather, we should assume that he is always at work in them. But just like anyone else that God is working on, they can still resist Him, and it is in that resistance that they will be rightly judged for rejecting the truth and clinging instead to false teachings. But the good news is that they do not have to resist, since God empowers and enables them to receive His truth.
God Bless,
Ben
I attend a ” Doctrines of Grace Church”. I believe that Christ died so that all who believe would be saved. I cannot leave the church because my husbands family are members and my husband does not want to hurt his parents. I trust God that he can and will keep me where I’m at. I know that members of the church including the pastor know that I do not agree with their doctrine. I think the believe that I am ignorant or unregenerate. I wish that there was a statement of faith that would encompass my beliefs. I believe the bible, not John Calvin or any other writer,thinker,or theologian. I do not mean to offend. I do not have a doctorate degree, and have no desire to argue,but I would like to know if there are any confessions that would encompass my belief? Christ died so that all would have a chance to be saved,even though I know all will not be saved. I believe that it’s not Gods will that any perish but that all would come to repentance. God does not rejoice when the wicked perish in their sins.
Teresia, you said that you believe the Bible, not John Calvin or any other writer, thinker or theologian. That is very good, and where we all need to start. I strongly believe that we as Christians must study the Bible for ourselves and not simply take someone else’s word for what it says or means. I am wondering if your beliefs are solidly based on what you find in scripture – all of scripture, or if they are heavily influenced by what you were raised to believe, as is often the case. (Since I don’t know you or your background I have no idea, obviously – that is just a question we all need to ask ourselves, I think.) While I believe the Bible above any person’s teachings about it, I have also been immensely helped to learn and grow and benefit from scriptural truth by reading and studying scripture with pastors/theologians/thinkers who are wholeheartedly devoted to understanding and helping others to understand scriptural truth. That is to say that whoever those men or women are, I don’t agree or disagree with their viewpoint based on who they are or what title or theological label they might be associated with, but with how their viewpoint compares to scripture itself. The issue I am currently struggling with and have been for quite some time is this: Not all are saved – we know this from scripture to be true, as well as from our own experience. Those who are saved are saved , according to scripture, because they believe in Jesus and his death on the cross having taken on our sin and removed it from us. So here is my struggle: if Jesus died so that all might be saved, yet not all are saved, does this mean that he failed in his attempt to save everyone? Scripturally, I don’t believe it is possible for that to be so. Additionally, if Jesus took the sins of every person away through his death on the cross, how can a just God require some people to pay for sins that have already been paid for by Jesus? I am continuing to seek answers for this question, and I pray that you will as well. May God bless you in your desire to know His truth.
Sally
Teresia,
You should look at this statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical –Arminians http://evangelicalarminians.org/statement-of-faith/ — and then this article that goes over the scriptural backing for the distinctive elements of it http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/.
Sally,
This isn’t really the place for you to challenge someone else on a question they asked. I am not sure why you would assume she was not getting her information from Scripture when Scripture plainly says just what she claimed, that God doesn’t want anyone to perish, but come to repentance and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This harmonizes perfectly with everything else the Bible says about God’s love for the whole world and desire to save all. In addition to the posts I recommended you read when you commented before, you may want to check this one out as well:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/dr-david-allen-reviews-and-critiques-from-heaven-he-came-and-sought-her-the-new-calvinist-defense-of-limited-definite-atonement/
As far as being careful not to just take certain preachers or teachers word for it with regards to Biblical claims without checking the Scriptures yourself, that is good advice. I find it interesting though since it seems Teresia is actually rejecting what these pastors at her church are saying based on her reading of Scripture. In other words, she seems to be doing exactly what you suggested, checking them against Scripture and finding that they are not in harmony with Scripture. This is probably the case with her comment about John Calvin as well. So far as Calvin’s teaching doesn’t match up with Scripture, she rejects John Calvin. You are also right that we should not just dismiss other’s ideas out of hand and should be willing to learn from other preachers and theologians. But again, I don’t see a need to assume that Teresia was not willing to learn from others, just that what she was learning seemed to her to be out of harmony with what Scripture teaches about God’s love for all and desire for all to be saved.
Regarding your questions:
So here is my struggle: if Jesus died so that all might be saved, yet not all are saved, does this mean that he failed in his attempt to save everyone?
No, because his intent was to provide salvation to all to be received conditionally and not irresistible. If God had intended to save everyone unconditionally and irresistibly and did not save some, then He would have failed. But God did not intend that. He desires all to be saved, but not in such a way that they are irresistibly caused to be saved. God desires to save people as persons who freely receive Him and the provision of atonement and forgiveness made available in Christ. Since that is the case, it follows that many will not be saved if they reject God’s provision, even though God desires for them to freely accept it. But since God never intended for those who reject it to be caused to accept it irresistibly, He has in no way failed.
There are numerous examples in Scripture of God not getting what He wants because He allows for His creatures to freely choose for or against Him. Just read through the prophets and note his interactions with the people of Israel who were often rebelling against Him.
Additionally, if Jesus took the sins of every person away through his death on the cross, how can a just God require some people to pay for sins that have already been paid for by Jesus?
Because it is a provisional payment in Christ and only those who come to be in union with Christ through faith will benefit from that provision. It is also not like a monetary transaction or payment, but a payment of penalty (death) that becomes ours only when we are joined to Christ through faith. When we are joined to Christ through faith, His death becomes our death and we are therefore freed from the punishment of sin in Him (through faith union and identification with Him).
But, suppose you limit the scope of the atonement to only the “elect” based on your objections. This still creates problems since it would follow that those that Christ died for (the elect) and who had their sins paid for “at the cross” would then be born forgiven and saved apart from faith since their sins were literally paid for at the cross in a non-provisional manner.
I am continuing to seek answers for this question, and I pray that you will as well. May God bless you in your desire to know His truth.
That’s wonderful. As per your questions and struggles, I would also recommend you take a look at the second link Arminian provided above with regards to the “A” in the the F.A.C.T.S.
God Bless,
Ben
Teresia,
I was going to recommend the same resources that Arminian recommended above.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
I was surprised you didn’t recommend this article of yours to Sally: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/provisional-atonement-part-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/. It seems like it would address much of her concern.
Arminian,
Unless she is a different Sally, I already recommend all three articles in that series to her. See comment dated 10/23/13 above.
The Arminian view had it backwards when he said spiritual deadness is caused by your actual sin. It’ your spiritual deadness which we inherit from Adam at our conception that causes us to sin.
Is the doctrine of “illumination of the believer by the Spirit” true? I read Wayne Jackson’s article and he says he doesn’t believe it, but how then should we understand for example I Cor. 12:8? Is “Christian Courrier” website where Wayne Jackson posts his articles recommended? He believes in arminianism, but he also doesn’t believe such issues like this, or miracles in modern times.
Thank you Sally for your response to my comments. I did not mean to sound as though I had not benefited from teachers, thinkers, theologians or others with much more knowledge than myself. I am most greatful for the insight I have gained from those whose writings have inspired me to take a closer look at scripture, and to keep Jesus’s sayings, to be a doer of the word and not a hearer only. I suppose I have been heavily influenced by the teachers in my life, but then that is true of all of us, is it not? That’s not to say that I agree with them all because I do not. Jesus died to save sinners. All have sinned. If any come to Jesus he will in no wise cast out. No Jesus did not fail in his mission. Again thank you for spending time thinking and responding to my plight.I covet your prayers as I continue day by day to live out my faith before a people who I believe care for me but are somewhat indifferent to my understanding of Jesus and his mission. Your sister in Christ.
Thank you kangaroodort for the statement of faith. I had attended a small full gospel church before marrying and never knew there was such a divide in Christendom. The most I had seen was baptist verses Pentecostal and I’ve had Sunday dinner with both at the same time. I had heard of John Calvin but never thought much about him. I had never heard of Arminians . I enjoyed reading Charles Stanley, C.S. Lewis, Michael Yousef and T.D. Jakes. If I find something I really enjoy reading sometimes now it’s like I’m afraid to let anyone know for fear of them judging me.
Thank you Ben for John Owens dilemma. I believe that I can still choose this day whom I will serve, and I choose Jesus. I love him because he first loved me. There’s not a lot of controversy with that I hope. God bless you and yours. Any other suggested reading by early church leaders I would appreciate.
Joe,
This thread is for questions. Do you have a question? You write,
The Arminian view had it backwards when he said spiritual deadness is caused by your actual sin. It’ your spiritual deadness which we inherit from Adam at our conception that causes us to sin.
Can you cite Arminius or any other Arminian making this claim? Arminius held to original sin and so do many (if not most) Arminians. Maybe you think that any non-Calvinist is necessarily an Arminian, but that is not the case. One can be non-Calvinist and not hold to Arminianism. I look forward to seeing some quotes from those “Arminians” you speak about here. In the mean time, you may find these three articles helpful for understanding Arminianism:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/nelson%E2%80%99s-dictionary-of-christianity-gets-it-wrong-examining-the-so-called-%E2%80%9C15-major-tenets-of-arminianism%E2%80%9D/
BTW, the Bible does indeed say that actual sin leads to “death” (James 1:13-15), so the issue may not be as cut and dry as you seem to be suggesting.
God Bless,
Ben
Teresia,
You wrote,
Thank you Ben for John Owens dilemma. I believe that I can still choose this day whom I will serve, and I choose Jesus. I love him because he first loved me. There’s not a lot of controversy with that I hope. God bless you and yours. Any other suggested reading by early church leaders I would appreciate.
Just to be clear, I was not recommending Owen or his book. Owen’s book argues for limited atonement. I was referencing a post that interacts with his so called “dilemma” and shows that his conclusions do not follow.
Mariusz,
You write,
Is the doctrine of “illumination of the believer by the Spirit” true?
I am not sure exactly what you are referencing. Arminians do believe that the Holy Spirit must work on our hearts to enable us to come to Christ in faith. That is called prevenient grace (grace that comes before faith and makes faith possible). This can certainly be called an illumination of the Holy Spirit, among other things.
I read Wayne Jackson’s article and he says he doesn’t believe it, but how then should we understand for example I Cor. 12:8?
1 Cor. 12:8 has reference to specific spiritual giftings to believers, so it doesn’t really apply to prevenient grace. I just noticed that you said illumination “of the believer” above, so that can’t be a reference to prevenient grace since prevenient grace precedes and enables faith.
Is “Christian Courrier” website where Wayne Jackson posts his articles recommended? He believes in arminianism, but he also doesn’t believe such issues like this, or miracles in modern times.
I am not familiar with that website or that writer, so I can’t really comment on that. I will have to check it out sometime.
God Bless,
Ben
Ok, now I have a verse which is really difficult to me:
Romans 11:5
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
This is clear – election of grace – that is, grace is ELECTING individuals to the remnant – not the other way around, that is a person is choosing to accept grace. How to harmonize this verse with arminianism? is it possible?
Mariusz,
I don’t see that as a very difficult passage, given the context of the verse and the overall argument Paul is making in Romans 9-11 and the epistle as a whole. Indeed, it seems to me that Calvinism has far bigger problems making sense of what Paul says about election in Romans 9-11. See this post for more on that:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/calvinist-election-refuted-in-romans-11-a-concise-and-devastating-article-by-a-professor-of-new-testament-and-greek/
The “election of grace” is simply God’s choosing in accordance with faith which is what makes it by grace, rather than works (Rom. 4). Note especially Romans 4:16,
“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.”
The only way for this to be a problem for the Arminian view is to assume that election can only be “of grace” if it is unconditional. But that is question begging and reading into the text something that is not there. In context and according to Romans 4:16, there is no difficulty in seeing conditional election by faith as an “election of grace.”
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Right, why would “election of grace” possibly be at odds with Arminianism, which holds that election and salvation are by grace? These are free gifts that God gives us in response to our faith, just as justification is.
kangaroodort,
So should I understand this passage:
Romans 11:5
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
Like this: God is deciding to elect all who will believe, and give them grace, so in this sense the remnant is elected by grace (grace which God wants to give whomever he wishes to, that is, to believers)? I’m not sure if I can explain understandably what I mean…
Greetings and thank you very much for your responses, is this Calvinism so wrong? Why then almost all mainstream evangelicals are calvinistic? All major cells and groups and preachers who have significant influence on today’s christianity are calvinistic… Though I’m more into arminianism, I noticed that one can be send straight to hell by many christians for believeing in arminianism and no-eternal security…
Mariusz,
The remnant in this context are those Jews who have received Christ by faith- those who are saved by grace through faith. This is in contrast to those who reject the Messiah and the grace and righteousness that comes through Him alone and seek instead to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 9:30-33; 10:1-13). Paul is an example of the remnant as a Jewish believer in Christ (Rom. 11:1). And as the post I referred you to states, “the rest” who are not presently “elect” are still able to become part of the “election of grace” through faith in Christ (Rom. 11:7-36).
Romans 11:6 make it very clear that Paul is again contrasting salvation/election by grace through faith with that of “works.”
You write,
Greetings and thank you very much for your responses, is this Calvinism so wrong?
Yes, it is so wrong if it is contrary to Scripture. However, one can certainly be a Calvinist and be saved.
All major cells and groups and preachers who have significant influence on today’s christianity are calvinistic
This is probably not entirely accurate. There are many very good Arminian scholars, preachers and teachers out there and Christianity as a whole remains predominately Arminian or non-Calvinist in its soteriology. But it is true that Calvinist leaders are more popular at the time and have a large influence (especially on the internet, which is why sites like this one are necessary). They are also far more concerned about promoting Calvinism than Arminians are about promoting Arminianism. There can be a variety of reasons for that. So because these Calvinists tend to be the “loudest” they can seem to represent the majority, but that is probably not really the case.
Though I’m more into arminianism, I noticed that one can be send straight to hell by many christians for believeing in arminianism and no-eternal security…
This is an unfortunate by-product of much of the elitist and extremist preaching and rhetoric that is going on today among Calvinists and the leaders of the Calvinist movement. But this has no bearing on the truth of Calvinism. Remember, there was a time when Protestantism was roundly condemned by the very large, powerful and influential church of Rome. That didn’t make Protestantism false and it didn’t mean Protestants were going to hell, though the church condemned them as anathema!
It has never been about how many believe a certain view point or how loudly and aggressively they promote that view point, but which view best lines up with the teaching of Scriptures. That is the only reason I reject Calvinism and hold to Arminianism. I find Calvinism to be at odds with Scripture while I find Arminianism to best comport with the teachings of God’s word.
God Bless,
Ben
What about this “illumination of the Spirit” Wayne Jackson writes:
“Illumination of the Spirit
The ESVSB teaches the dogma that the Holy Spirit directly operates upon the mind of the Christian, providing special understanding and power.
”After the inward renewal that makes someone who has trusted Christ a new creation, the Spirit also brings spiritual understanding, convicts of sin, reveals the truth of the Word, brings assurance of salvation, empowers for holy living, teaches, and comforts” (2,521).
The commentators never explain why those “illuminated” are at such terrible odds with one another as to the meaning of Scripture and religious practices.”
He is talking about the Spirit illuminating believers to understand the Scripture properly. Also, an article on bible.ca covers the same thing:
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-illumination-holy-spirit-individual.htm
But I don’t know how then to understand such passage like John 16:13? Holy Spirit dwells in every believer, wouldn’t he also introduce us into the true understanding of the Scripture?
Maybe this verse is speaking of the Jewish people in particular ,not we who have become Jews.
Mariusz,
The short answer is that the work of the Spirit is resistible. While He is working to lead us into truth, we are able to resist His leading. These differences among Christians make sense in Arminianism where free will is a factor and such workings of the Spirit are resistible, but it becomes a major problem in Calvinism which would have God essentially working against Himself as he is the one who controls our wills both to embrace truth and to embrace falsehood.
Teresia,
Which verse are you referring to? What do you mean by “we who have become Jews”?
Romans chapter 2 v 29. And I may not be understanding the context of this verse.
Can you give me any info so that I may understand what the Bible means by chose, chosen and elected? On the surface, it seems that the Calvinists’ definitions are correct, but I know it can’t be the Calvinists’ definitions because of what the rest of scripture says. However, I’m having a real problem seeing it from a true Biblical perspective. Thanks.
Paul,
In my opinion, the corporate election view is the most Biblical. If you want to understand this view, you should probably start here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-clearing-up-misconceptions-about-corporate-election/
After that, try looking over these quotes on the view from various scholars:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
And then, you can explore more resources here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks, and thanks for such a quick response!
We are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. God is the Alpha and Omega, he is outside of time, he is omniscient. It is good to study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman rightly dividing the word of God. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do gender strifes. I have found that some( not all), Calvinists have made Calvin their God. I suggest study the holy scriptures and do not be tossed to and through with every wind of doctrine. God cannot and will not be put into a human “box”. The bible says that by their wisdom they knew not God. We know God by his spirit he put within us . The bible says that the servant of The Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men,apt to teach….I’m sorry but I have found that struggling with chose,chosen, and elect has no end. Jesus is the end for me and the beginning of life everlasting. I believe this is a good site though because from what I have read so far Ben and others do try to point to scriptures and to God for answers .
In Matthew 7:23, Jesus says to some, “Go away, I never knew you!”
But what about those who believed in him, then fell away? Did he know them? How should this passage be interpreted?
Also, I’ve heard that foreknow, when used in the context of God foreknowing something, is always used (both in the OT and NT) as meaning that God intimately knew something, that he chose something. Is this true? (John Piper is one who says this)
Zack,
Matthew 7:23 may have specific reference to many who had only a false profession of faith and never had a genuine relationship with Christ. Matthew 25:12 would seem to indicate those who did indeed have a relationship with Christ and yet fell away (as indicated by the virgins having oil initially, but allowing it to go out). In that passage Jesus says, “I do not know you” and not “I never knew you.” The Bible presents both those who profess to have faith but never do and those who had genuine faith and yet fell away. To say that all are just false believers who never had any real relationship with Christ or never had any real faith makes a mess out of numerous passages. These two posts highlight that problem: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/never-really-saved-to-begin-with/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/never-really-saved-to-begin-with-part-2/
On foreknowledge, it can definitely simply mean prescience. But many Arminiasn have no problem understanding it as prior acknowledgment of relationship either. That is not a problem for the Arminian view at all. The strongest Arminian view of election in my opinion is the corporate view. In that view it is taken as prior acknowledgement of the corporate body of believers as belonging to God (as His covenant people). That view does not see election as based on foreknowledge of faith, but based on union with Christ and His body (the church- the elect people of God). So again, foreknowledge with regards to election in that view would refer to prior acknowledgement of that body as being God’s covenant people through union with Christ, the chosen corporate Head of the covenant. Here is a short synopsis from Brian Abasciano on the corporate view and how it can understand foreknowledge as I have described it:
“The non-traditional Arminian view of election is known as corporate election. It observes that the election of God’s people in the Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group, the corporate head and representative. In other words, the group was elected in the corporate head, that is, as a consequence of its association with this corporate representative (Gen 15:18; 17:7-10, 19; 21:12; 24:7; 25:23; 26:3-5; 28:13-15; Deut 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Mal 1:2-3). Moreover, individuals (such as Rahab and Ruth) who were not naturally related to the corporate head could join the chosen people and thereby share in the covenant head’s and elect people’s identity, history, election, and covenant blessings. There was a series of covenant heads in the Old Testament—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the choice of each new covenant head brought a new definition of God’s people based on the identity of the covenant head (in addition to the references earlier in this paragraph, see Rom 9:6-13). Finally, Jesus Christ came as the head of the New Covenant (Rom 3-4; 8; Gal 3-4; Heb 9:15; 12:24)—he is the Chosen One (Mark 1:11; 9:7; 12:6; Luke 9:35; 20:13; 23:35; Eph 1:6; Col 1:13; and numerous references to Jesus as the Christ/Messiah)—and anyone united to him comes to share in his identity, history, election, and covenant blessings (we become co-heirs with Christ – Rom 8:16-17; cf. Gal 3:24-29). Thus, election is “in Christ” (Eph 1:4), a consequence of union with him by faith. Just as God’s people in the Old Covenant were chosen in Jacob/Israel, so God’s people in the New Covenant are chosen in Christ….”
“While agreeing that God knows the future, including who will believe, the corporate election perspective would tend to understand the references to foreknowledge in Rom 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:1-2 as referring to a relational prior knowing that amounts to previously acknowledging or recognizing or embracing or choosing people as belonging to God (i.e., in covenant relationship/partnership). The Bible sometimes mentions this type of knowledge, such as when Jesus speaks of those who never truly submit to his lordship: “And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt 7:23; cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Hos 13:4-5; Amos 3:2; 1 Cor 8:3). On this view, to be chosen according to foreknowledge would mean to be chosen because of the prior election of Christ and the corporate people of God in him. “Those [plural] whom he foreknew” in Rom 8:29 would refer to the Church as a corporate body and their election in Christ as well as their identity as the legitimate continuation of the historic chosen covenant people of God, which individual believers share in by faith-union with Christ and membership in his people. Such a reference is akin to statements in Scripture spoken to Israel about God choosing them in the past (i.e., foreknowing them), an election that the contemporary generation being addressed shared in (e.g., Deut 4:37; 7:6-7; 10:15; 14:2; Isaiah 41:8-9; 44:1-2; Amos 3:2). In every generation, Israel could be said to have been chosen. The Church now shares in that election through Christ, the covenant head and mediator (Rom 11:17-24; Eph 2:11-22).”
“Similarly, to be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world would refer to sharing in Christ’s election that took place before the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:20). Because Christ embodies and represents his people, it can be said that his people were chosen when he was just as it could be said that the nation of Israel was in the womb of Rebekah before its existence because Jacob was (Gen. 25:23) and that God loved/chose Israel by loving/choosing Jacob before the nation of Israel ever existed (Mal. 1:2-3) and that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham before Levi existed (Heb. 7:9-10) and that the church died, rose, and was seated with Christ before the Church ever existed (Eph 2:5-6; cf. Col. 2:11-14; Rom 6:1-14) and that we (the Church) are seated in the heavenlies in Christ when we are not literally yet in Heaven but Christ is. Christ’s election entails the election of those who are united to him, and so our election can be said to have taken place when his did, even before we were actually united to him. This is somewhat similar to how I, as an American, can say that we (America) won the Revolutionary War before I or any American alive today was ever born.”
From: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/
For more articles and other resources on the corporate view of election, see here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Hope that helps.
Hey ben, do you have any comments/feedback regarding Kevin deYoung’s review of Austin Fischer’s book? 🙂
Rex,
Austin Fischer said that he plans to respond to DeYoung’s review on his blog. I’m not sure when or if perhaps he’ll end up not bothering.
What did you think of the review?
I left a few comments at the end of his blog post, interacting with some commenters, but did not actually read the review. I read a little, but just lost interest (it was pretty long). It seemed like the same ol’ same ol’ to me: complaining about Calvinism being misrepresented (even when it is not) and suggesting that Austin really didn’t understand Calvinism, etc. (if I remember right). I will have to read through the whole thing when I can find some time.
“But when he who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles….” (Galatians 1:15-16a)
What is this verse saying? Paul says that God set him apart from his mother’s womb. When I was a Calvinist (I’m not totally solid on what I am now, but probably Arminian), I interpreted this as saying that God chose Paul to be saved before he was born in order that he could use him as his instrument of blessing to the Gentiles. Is this what it is saying? Or is it saying something else?
Hey Zack,
Someone from SEA shared with me the answer they gave to your question there and I don’t thin I can improve on it much, so I will just paste it in here for any others who may be wondering about this passage:
“This is talking about God choosing Paul for service, the service of apostleship to the Gentiles. Knowing that Paul would believe in Christ/be saved, God set him apart from the womb for this service. Presumably this led to God shaping Paul’s experiences to fit him most ideally for his gospel ministry to the Gentiles. This interpretation is confirmed by the language used, that God *revealed* his Son *in* Paul rather than *to* him, and that this is revelation, most naturally revelation to others through Paul. And this is indeed connected to him preaching to the Gentiles. Now this revelation may well be roughly equal to salvation, the indwelling of Christ in Paul by faith. But this is not what is spoken of as him being set apart for. This revelation serves his ministry to the Gentiles. That is Paul’s calling, something he refers to a number of times (i.e., his calling/appointment as an apostle). Finally, this setting apart does not fit the Calvinistic scheme, for Calvinistic election is from before creation. What Paul speaks of here is from the womb.”
And here are some later follow-up comments:
“Let me add here that “in” could also be translated “through”. Also, the interpretation of Paul’s setting apart holds up even if one takes the revelation “in” Paul to mean “to” him (the Greek construction can carry that sense), since that revelation has the intent of enabling him to preach to the Gentiles. That still goes along fine with his election here being unto service/apostleship to the Gentiles/gospel ministry to the Gentiles.”
And…
“[I would further add] that translating “through” goes along and strengthens the main interpretation I gave. Basically, taking it as “in” can go along with either for revelation to others or to Paul. But it lends toward emphasis for others. Taking it in that sense implies “though” as well. And it could be that all 3 sense are in view (in, through, to), with “in” as the basic sense implying the others. I.e., Jesus taking up residence in Paul, which reveals him to Paul and others through him. But revelation for others seems at least to be the primary sense.”
@ben, Arminian
I just read the response of Austin from his blog. 🙂
What is this verse saying? “Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be,” (Psalm 139:16) This seems to be saying that God wrote down each of David’s days in his book, which seems to mean that David’s life was planned out before he was born. But what is your interpretation? (I’m a newer Arminian)
Hi, I have a relatively new blog that I thought you might be interested in sharing on your site. I’m doing a series of posts on the “New Calvinist Bible”. It’s written in a satirical style from the perspective of a Calvinist who wants to make the Bible even more Calvinist than he thinks it is already. It contains revised biblical texts to actually make them Calvinist. The idea is to show that many changes need to be made!
I’d be delighted to get some publicity for it as I think only about two people have seen the blog so far! Feel free to link to the entries. I have some more posts in the series to follow too.
The first post in the series is here:
http://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/introducing-the-new-calvinist-bible-ncb/
The bottom of the post contains a link to the next in the series, etc.
In Christ,
Kingswood Hart
Zack,
This passage recently came up in a private discussion at SEA. Here are some comments from one scholar in response to the question:
**********************
Here I don’t see any problem for Arminian theology whatsoever. There are a few different ways to take this that are in harmony with Arminian theology. It could be that this merely affirms that the span of our lives are fixed by God. (That’s how the NIV and NASB study Bibles take it.) If so, it does not say how he does that, i.e., whether God sets those days contingently or unconditionally. I.e., it does not say whether God sets the span of our days in consideration of human action and our experiences (for example, he knows someone is going to shoot you and allows that to happen, or knows someone is going to try and shoot you and decides to prevent them from doing that because of his plan for your life, etc.) or as something he scripts and then brings to pass. That’s how I have tended to take it naturally. As an Arminian, I would say that no one dies apart from God allowing it. Indeed, nothing can happen unless God allows it. (Job 14:5 seems go along these lines.)
But the translation is a bit tricky with this passage.
Here is Young’s literal translation:
“Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed — And not one among them.”
The NET Bible gives a more literal translation of the important part for your concern in its notes: “and on your scroll all of them were written, [the] days [which] were formed, and [there was] not one among them.”
Days formed and not one among them would seem to mean days formed (in God’s mind, and hence planned) when not one of them existed in actuality. So this could refer to God having planned our days for us before we existed, whether the amount of them (as above) or the content of them or both. Even if the content of the days are involved, there would be no indication that God’s plan for us is actually fully fulfilled by us. Compare the fact that God prepares good works in advance for us to do (Eph 2:10). But do we do all the good works God has prepared for us to do? I would say certainly not. If this verse has to do with God’s more specific plan for our lives than the length of our days, it would be mentioned in the psalm to show God’s intimate care and concern for us (a main emphasis of the psalm).
In light of all the talk of creation of the psalmist preceding v. 16, “they
were all written” refers to the various aspects of the psalmist referred to
in vv. 13-16 as being created by God. Writing them in his book is a
figurative reference to God’s knowledge about those things. Then “days were formed when none of them existed” poetically embodies the same basic point, as is typical of Hebrew poetry, what is known as synonymous parallelism. God forming and creating and knowing about the psalmist in the womb is roughly equivalent to t him forming his days before one of them came to be. You could even think of something similar being said about parents, that when they conceived their child, days were formed when there was not one of them (i.e., when there were no days of the child to speak of in existence), though of course, it could be said in am much stronger way of God the Creator.
In any case, there simply is not enough in this verse to require a deterministic reading. And it reads quite comfortably with Arminian theology.
I’m currently conversing with a person who seems to be trying to reconcile several beliefs in his theology. He points to several scriptures that talk about God getting his way and the restoration of all things. I figured you would be able to help me with the following ideas which appear to be a leaning toward Christian universalism–that while some may go to Hell, they will eventually be refined by fire and choose Jesus. Thank you.
– If God is not willing that any perish and if in the end ALL things will be restored and reconciled to Him because He is all powerful and will get His way, why will some spend eternity in Hell. ‘Eternity’ can be defined as ‘ages.’ Hebrews 9;27 refers to death and then the decision–not necessarily judgment. He says this might refer to the individual’s decision, not God’s. If free will to choose Him is so important, why would He remove free will at death. Satan’s ability to deceive in the end is not greater than Christ’s ability to save. The effect of Adam on humanity was not greater than the 2nd Adam’s power to restore / save.
– On the other hand, if you were truly a loving parent, you would in all your power try to prevent a child from trying drugs…you would, if possible, overrule his freewill out of love because you know best. God is the all-wise and all-powerful parent…why does He allow freewill in the all-important area of salvation, but overrule it in some other areas.
– Babies or those who cannot make a decision for Christ seem to get a ‘get-out-of-hell’ free card while those who are deceived end up going to Hell. This doesn’t seem like justice nor love.
Thank you for your time.
Please direct me to where I can see an Arminian view on the following passage:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Eph 1:3-11)
Thank you.
Paul Victor, see especially the section on Ephesians 1:4 in this article: Brian J. Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election” http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-clearing-up-misconceptions-about-corporate-election/. But you should read the whole thing.
Llyn,
This is not my area of expertise. You might do better with some google searches and find some posts or articles that specifically deal with this subject.
For me, the universalist view is very obviously false. We have numerous passages of Scripture that say those who live in sin will not enter or inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-20; Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 5:1-5:6). Passages like John 3:16-18, 36 and 2 Peter 3:9 plainly teach that those who do not believe or repent will perish and be condemned. There are no passages which teach anything like a purgatory. Rather, those who do not obey the gospel will “pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” (2 Thess. 1:9). This is just a very small sampling. To get universalism one must ignore or get very liberal with numerous passages of Scripture while clinging to a few proof texts which are wrongly construed to teach some sort of universalism.
For example, God making all things new or restoring all things, in context, does not lead one to such conclusions. Restoration in Biblical terms has as part of its process the removal of the wicked (they are blown away like chaff, Psalm 1; they are cast out into outer darkness, Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Luke 13:28; Rev. 22:15; and shut out from the presence of the Lord, 2 Thess. 1:9)). Restoration could involve restoring the wicked, but it doesn’t have to. It could have reference to the removal of those things (the wicked) in order for restoration to take place (think of how one might restore furniture. Part of that restoration would likely require the removal of those things that have damaged the furniture or have made it unattractive).
The Greek word we translate as hell is Gehenna. Gehenna was a field outside of Jerusalem where trash was thrown and continually burned. That doesn’t paint a very hopeful picture of something that will be eventually recovered or restored. Rather, it paints a picture of being forever discarded, which fits with the overall Biblical narrative of hell and God’s judgment of the wicked.
To the arguments you mentioned:
1) If God is not willing that any perish and if in the end ALL things will be restored and reconciled to Him because He is all powerful and will get His way, why will some spend eternity in Hell.
It is not God’s will that the unrepentant will spend eternity with Him. God’s will is for them to repent, but if they refuse, they cannot have a saving relationship with Him. God is all powerful, but His “way” is to save through a loving relationship with Him and that relationship is the only thing that can save and impart life. Such a relationship cannot be forced and remain a genuine relationship. So why will some spend eternity in hell? Because they refuse the only way of escape (2 Thess. 1:9; John 3:36). They refuse to have a relationship with God.
2)‘Eternity’ can be defined as ‘ages.’ Hebrews 9;27 refers to death and then the decision–not necessarily judgment. He says this might refer to the individual’s decision, not God’s.
A few “mights” and “cans” should not undue the vast majority of Scripture and what it has to say about final judgment for the wicked and the nature and reality of hell, especially since these passages “can” just as well be used to support eternal punishment.
3) If free will to choose Him is so important, why would He remove free will at death.
Actually, God is honoring free will at death. The one who has rejected and refused Him is forever removed from His presence and the one who accepts Him will enjoy His presence forever. Also, we have numerous passages that say our decisions prior to death have eternal consequences (like those I cited above).
3) Satan’s ability to deceive in the end is not greater than Christ’s ability to save. The effect of Adam on humanity was not greater than the 2nd Adam’s power to restore / save.
But if free will is a factor, then greater and lesser ability to save or deceive does not exclusively decide the matter. Yes, God could cause everyone to obey Him, but that obedience would not flow from a genuine free will choice, and God is not satisfied with such pseudo-relationships.
4) On the other hand, if you were truly a loving parent, you would in all your power try to prevent a child from trying drugs…you would, if possible, overrule his freewill out of love because you know best.
But it may be that overruling him whenever he is about to do something harmful would strip him of what it means to be a person. And we have no reason to believe that intervening to the point of making someone less than a genuine person is what is “best.” Parents often allow children to make choices that will have unfortunate consequences because they know it is wrong to make all of their choices for them.
Can a parent irresistibly prevent their child from trying drugs? I suppose they could by locking him in his room and never letting him out, but who does that? (and we would rightly consider that abuse) Rather, they try to raise them right and give them instruction and be a role model for them, so that the child will freely reject drugs and freely do the right thing. We recognize that for our children to be a genuine persons, we have limits as to how much we can control them, even though it is devastating to see them harm themselves.
4) God is the all-wise and all-powerful parent…why does He allow freewill in the all-important area of salvation, but overrule it in some other areas.
Because salvation is tied up in a relationship with Christ and that relationship cannot be real if God makes all of our choices for us, especially that one that forms the basis of that relationship.
5) Babies or those who cannot make a decision for Christ seem to get a ‘get-out-of-hell’ free card while those who are deceived end up going to Hell. This doesn’t seem like justice nor love.
But this assumes that people are deceived irresistibly. We have no reason to think that is the case.
In the end, I would like to hold to universalism, but my reading of Scripture makes such a view impossible.
BTW, in researching this more, it looks like while there are many who claim that Gehenna was a burning dump outside of Jerusalem, there is very little evidence to support it: http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/was-gehenna-a-smoldering-garbage-dump/
That is something worth researching more. Regardless, Gehenna was understood by nearly all of the earliest Christian writers to be a place of eternal fiery punishment for the wicked. The only possible exception that I have been able to find is Origen, who entertained the idea that it was a refining fire, more like what would later be described as purgatory. But he was not dogmatic. Origen was known for a number of heterodox speculations.
Hello! Can you help me out with Jeremiah 10:23? Isn’t it about determinism?
Hello Vladimir,
The language of Jer. 10:23 could certainly be thought to imply some sort of determinism, but I don’t think the context bears that out.
First, it is important to put this statement in its literary context. It is prophetic poetry. Most passages that Calvinists tend to think teach determinism come from poetic literature such as this. Such doctrines could still be derived from poetic literature, but one needs to be very careful in assuming such since poetic literature is a unique expression of Biblical truth. Literature like this often paints vivid pictures to communicate basic concepts, or uses hyperbole to illustrate severity or to create awe(we see this a lot in the prophets). It also often uses generalizations to communicate, when it is clear that such generalizations do not always apply, even though they are sometimes seemingly stated as absolutes in the poetry. We especially see this sort of thing in the Psalms and Proverbs but it is a common feature of all poetic literature.
The context of Jeremiah 10:23 is that of severe judgment that is about to come upon Israel (specifically the southern kingdom of Judah) for their idolatry (as well as a warning not to compound their judgment by engaging in the sinful practices of the nation they will become captives in). They are about to come under siege by the Babylonians and will be taken as captives to Chaldea. They have brought this disaster on themselves, and it is not in them to change this imminent crises. This is essentially the meaning of 10:23. While the disaster cannot be averted, the prophet does immediately petition God to withhold the full severity of His wrath upon Israel, less they be completely destroyed.
Verse 23 could be universalized, but we have no good reason to do so. It fits comfortably within its context to illustrate Israel and Judah’s present helplessness in the face of God’s judgment for their idolatry (cf. 11:11-14, 17) Likewise, we could universalize verse 14 as well, but the context tells us it has reference to those who trust in idols rather than in God. Verses 17 and 18 further illustrate what verse 23 is saying. God is about to take control of the situation in such a way that His people have no recourse but to suffer the judgment their sins have brought to bear on them. Rather than trusting in their God, they have trusted in false gods who cannot help them (cf. 11:12) . They will soon discover how true this is when they come under the Lord’s judgment. Their idols will be as powerless as they are to change their circumstances.
As we continue to read into chapter eleven, we will see how interpreting this passages in a deterministic sense runs contrary to all that God has to say about why they are being judged. They are being held accountable for disobedience and God seems to want to emphasize that this was in no way a disobedience (or consequent judgment) that could not have been avoided. They could have avoided it through obedience and God continually reached out to them to persuade them to obey and avoid this impending punishment (11:1-11). But it is too late for this now. There is nothing left for them to do but suffer the consequences of their rebellion (11:11).
So while at first glance this can seem like a verse that supports determinism, the context tells a different story and makes such an interpretation both unnecessary and implausible.
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Thank you for a detailed answer !
Job 1:21, 22: “‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.”
But wasn’t <> the one who took away? And why would verse 22 need to be said if Job wasn’t saying that was the one who gave and took away? Please help me understand this verse.
Sorry, meant to say, “Wasn’t Satan the one who took away?” And later, “if Job wasn’t saying that THE LORD was the one who gave and took away?”
Well, there is a sense in which both Satan and God took away. While God did indeed bless Job’s efforts as a result of his faithfulness to God, the main issue with “taking away” has to do with protection (1:10a). So the Lord removed his hand of protection from Job, and as a result, Satan was allowed to harm Job, but within limits. So Satan took away from Job directly but this was only possible because God “took away” the “hedge about him and on his house and all that he has, on every side.”
Concerning Jeremiah 10:23, I think Ben gives a good and plausible view, but I think there is an even likelier and simpler view to take. Paying attention to the Hebrew raises the possibility of a number of plausible interpretations because of the ambiguity of the wording. But I will just mention the one I think most likely.
I’ll start with a more literal translation: “I know, Lord, that not to a man is his way; it is not to a man who walks also to determine his step.” In Hebrew, talking about something being “to” someone is often a way of speaking of possession, of it belonging to the person. That seems to be the function in Jer 10:23. And that gives us this more readable translation: “I know, Lord, that man’s way does not belong to him; it does not belong to a man who walks also to determine his step” (cf. the NIV: “I know, O LORD, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps”
To say that a man’s way does not belong to him most likely means that the way he goes is not his right to decide. That understanding receives some confirmation from the latter, synonymously parallel part of the sentence. The Hebrew word for “determine” can mean to establish. So this could very readily refer to it being God rather than man who grants success to man’s actions (establishes them), which would not particularly support determinism. But it seems more likely that it is simply saying that it is not a man’s prerogative to determine his steps, but that he should do as the Lord directs. So this has nothing to do with determinism but makes the simple point that we should do God’s will, not our own. This does seem confirmed to some degree by Jeremiah immediately asking for God’s correction after the statement (Jer 10:24). And in this same oracle he has criticized the spiritual leaders for not seeking the Lord, not going by his will. Moreover, the prophecy rebukes Israel for doing things as the nations rather than going by God’s will. Furthermore, Jeremiah states that it is God’s due to be feared, which is largely equivalent to obeying him. That’s a similar thought–we owe God fear/obedience, and it is not for us to determine our own steps; our way does not belong to us, but to God.
In sum, I thought Ben’s comments were good and reasonable, but I would tend toward this simpler view of it being a statement of man’s (particularly members of God’s people) responsibility to do as God determines/directs. This also seems to go along with the context of severe judgment for not doing that very thing.
This is very helpful! Thank you, dr. Abasciano!
Over the last several days, I’ve reviewed the posts here. I read that someone posting here–I think it was Ben–accepted the idea behind middle knowledge but did not consider himself a molinist. As I’ve been studying this lately and have appreciated the potential answers transworld damnation and like theories give to some of my ponderings regarding infants who die, etc., I was wondering if you can explain the differentiation between molinism and middle knowledge. Also, do you look at Jesus’ words in Matthew 11.20-24 as hyperbole? Thank you for your time.
Hi Lori,
Yes, I hold to middle knowledge but not to full blown Molinism. What I mean by that is I believe God is able to have counterfactual knowledge of beings who will actually exist- those people He will actually create (so no, I do not think Matt. 11:20-24 is hyperbole).
What I reject is the idea that God can have counterfactual knowledge of beings that will never exist. I don’t think it is logical to suggest that God could know what beings who will never exist would “freely choose” in any given situation. The only way for God to know what they would freely choose is for them to exist to be able to make such free choices.
To suggest that God could know what beings who will never exist would choose in various situations would, in my opinion, lead to the conclusion that God could only know that because He would create them in such a way that they would indeed make those choices. That would be a form of determinism.
I know this might need to be explained a little more, but that is all I have time for at the moment. I will be away all next week, but if you are not sure what I am saying, let me know and I will try to elaborate when I get back.
God Bless,
Ben
I’ve heard from some Arminians that God didn’t will that Jesus should die on a cross. He was not willing that the greatest sin be committed (Jesus dying on a cross), yet he willingly allowed Herod and Pilate and others to kill his Son.
What do you think? Did God will Jesus’ death? This is what Isaiah 53:10 seems to say. It was God’s will to crush his Son.
I am commenting on Zack’s question about the sense in which it was God’s will to crush His son. My understanding of God’s will is that there are different ways that phrase is used in the Bible and can mean different things, depending on the context. There is God’s will of decree – what He ordains or allows to happen – if God is sovereign, then nothing can happen that is ultimately outside of His will and overall plan. Then there is His will of command -. He commands us not to murder – yet murders occur. Does that mean He was powerless to stop it? I would answer- of course not. Then He must have reasons for allowing people to go against His commands. C.S. Lewis explains this particular aspect of his will this way: A mother desires that her children keep their playroom tidy. It is her will that they do so.Yet she leaves them to obey that command or not. Is she powerless to make them obey it? No. Yet she allows them to disobey, desiring them to learn to tidy up because it is right and good and not only because she makes them by force do it. (there are consequences when they do not obey, just as there are always consequences at some point when we disobey God). His will of command involves things that are pleasing to Him. His will of decree – which encompasses Jesus’ crucifixion – involve things that in themselves are not pleasing to Him, yet are nonetheless ultimately pleasing to Him considering all things, in an ultimate sense.
Thank you for your reply, Ben. I hope I’ve timed this response correctly to give you somewhat of a break since your return. I think I understand what you are saying, and as I’ve not studied Molinism greatly, I didn’t previously understand the stance regarding some sort of a belief of humans that ‘could have’ existed but were not created. My concern regarding Matthew 11.20-24 is that if Jesus KNEW of a situation where people would repent because of mighty works or miracles, why did He not place such people in that setting/
I’ve always fancied the idea that Jesus would die just for me and give me as many opportunities that He knew I’d need to come to Him…if He foreknew that I would, indeed, come. This scripture makes it seem that He doesn’t love some or desire that all would come to Him as much as others. When I look at times where He did work salvation miracles like with Saul, I’ve figured that He knew Saul was seeking or would seek Him, but He also knew that Saul would need a humdinger of a sign. I’ve appreciated the uniqueness of how God has created us, and figured that He calls us in very specific ways according to that individuality. I do understand that eventually he will blind eyes due to a hardness of a heart and that people can refuse Him though.
A Question on Prayer:
I’ve read that Roger Olson says that we shouldn’t even pray for the lost. If we do pray for the lost, however, how is one saved (from an Arminian perspective)? God won’t regenerate one until they believe. So, how can we be sure in our prayers that they will truly come to faith if they have to exercise their own free will? (and God can’t make them believe, since he gave them free will…or *can* he in the way he set it up?)
(By the way, I would probably identify myself -as to my beliefs on soteriology – as an Arminian, a newer one at that; so this is a serious question I’m wondering about)
Zack,
Check out this article and see if it answers your question on prayer: http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminians-can-be-consistent-and-pray-for-god-to-save-the-lost/
Arminian,
Thanks for the reply!
Zack,
Sorry, I seemed to have missed your question. I’m glad Arminian replied with good article.
Lori,
To be as concise as possible, I think the problem is that this has specific reference to Jesus earthly ministry. Jesus came in the fullness of time. His miracles were in a unique context and in a specific and strategic time in history. He is saying that if those people had the same privilege of seeing Jesus and seeing His miracles, they would have repented. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have enough revelation or opportunity to repent. So these cities’ rejection is compounded in that they had a unique privilege that others did not have; they got to hear and witness the incarnate Son of God and see His miracles, and yet they still did not repent.
Hi,
I would like to ask a question about dealing with hurt.
Please let me explain.
I am a senior pastor of a Pentecostal church from a well known denomination in New Zealand. (Not Calvinist).
6 years ago my wife and I succeeded the previous pastors, we had a great transition and church powered on. About two years ago one of my leaders became increasingly unhappy. He was always uptight, critical and stopped mixing with all but a few people in the congregation.
He asked to start up a small group bible study because he felt we needed deeper teaching. This attracted about 6-8 people. It only lasted 6 months and I began to hear negative feedback from attendees about what he was teaching. I trusted the man as I had known him for 10+ years and he was one of my closest allies (or so I thought).
He had been reading Calvinist authors and decided we were all wrong. Attempts to recover the situation failed. Suggestions to read other theologians also failed. He went looking for arguments to prove his ‘rightness’ about Calvinism. He’d sit in church and grumble through the sermon. He became rude toward me and other leaders. His new found theology came with a massive religious spirit and arrogance. It was very belittling. He stood down from leadership and left the church. We all breathed a sigh of relief. This process took about 1 year.
It is now one year on and I must confess I don’t know quite what to do with the pain. The process has left me feeling like a wounded soldier. Church is healthy and everything is going really well again, but there is an underlying niggle with anything Calvinist. It has left a bitter aftertaste. I felt I could handle the doctrine, but I wasn’t prepared for the spiritual conflict that came with it, this is what has done the most damage. I have read the article by Jonathan Merritt “The troubling trends in America’s Calvinist revival” and identify strongly with his observations of Egotism.
To the best of my knowledge I have forgiven him and also blessed him as scripture commands.
Can you help with any advice as to how to handle this inner struggle?
Lindsay,
I am very sorry to hear about your experience. That is very sad, especially since it was a trusted friend. I wish I had a formula for dealing with that sort of hurt, but I am not aware of any. My advice is simply to pray about it whenever it bothers you (and whenever you pray). Pray for this person that God will work in his heart. Pray that God will help you to forgive and heal. Recovering from this sort of pain can take a long time. Also, remember that Jesus understands what it is to be hurt by close friends, even betrayed. He is there to help you through this and strengthen you.
I noticed you left a comment asking about 1 Tim. 1:9, but then it seemed like you deleted it. Do you want me to answer that question?
God Bless,
Ben
Lindsay,
While sometimes it is best and safest for one’s emotional state to totally distance yourself from the situation, when such a situation has occurred in my life, I’ve oftentimes done a kindness of some sort for the individual. Such may be done anonymously, but the freedom I’ve experienced afterwards was truly amazing and what I consider a gift from God. Be sure to test my suggestion in your own spirit and talk it over with your spouse, but it certainly has helped me move through past hurts with individuals. Another thing that has helped me snap back to ‘fullness’ is that I’ve asked the Holy Spirit to convict me of the times I’ve hurt others–intentionally or unintentionally–and He quickly does. I then fall at the feet of Jesus, humbled at His forgiveness for me and my own shortcomings. Hope this helps.
Ben & Lori, thank you for your advice. I appreciate your time. I will put into practice these suggestions.
As for 1 Tim 1:19, yes please if you could answer that would be great. Not sure how I managed to delete it.
Regards,
Lindsay
Hey Lindsay,
The short answer is “yes”, I do believe this has reference to those who abandoned their faith (made shipwreck of their faith) and subsequently forfeited salvation. I do not hold to eternal security and passages like this one are the reason why. I have written a 13 part series on the subject that you might find helpful. Here is a link to the first post in the series:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-1-definitions/
At the bottom of that post and each subsequent post is a link to the next post in the series. Hope that helps. If you have any further questions you can leave a comment at that particular post or here.
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks a lot, great study!
I recently came across your site while researching the Calvinistic perspective on God’s two wills: his prescriptive/preceptive/revealed will and his decretal/hidden/secret will. I found a wonderful essay by Robert Hamilton discussing it from a philosophical/theological perspective. However, I am looking for some resources that do biblical exegesis on the passages often used to support this theory (i.e. Genesis 50, Isaiah 10, Acts 4, etc.). Can you point me in a good direction?
Thanks!
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
You might find this post helpful: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
It addresses Genesis 50 and Acts 4 (and the footnotes deal with several other passages as well).
Here are some comments I made on Isaiah 10 in this post: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/%e2%80%9csaved-by-grace%e2%80%9d-through-faith/ (I deal with a lot of other Calvinist prooftexts in that post as well, so it might be helpful to read through the whole thing)
Again, all these verses show is that God can use the intentions of others to accomplish His purposes. Arminians wholly agree with this. It is not even contrary to Arminianism to say that God sometimes controls the wills of people to accomplish His purpose or to execute judgment (surely, it was not Nebuchadnezzar’s will to lose his mind and act like an animal, Daniel 4:28-37). Arminians only hold that God gives man a measure of free will. Man’s will is not unlimited, nor does it operate in a vacuum. Free will, when rightly understood, operates within a framework of possibilities. See this post for a good description of the limits of free will from an Arminian perspective.
However, this passage does not address the idea of God controlling someone’s thoughts, desires and actions and then holding that person accountable for the desires, thoughts and actions that God irresistibly controlled. The passage actually teaches the opposite. The Assyrians became an instrument of wrath in God’s hands against Israel because they were already bent on conquest. Therefore, they were already perfectly suited to be the rod of God’s wrath and correction. God used them to punish His people, but He had no need to irresistibly cause them to. He did not control their desires and wills to go against Israel. There desire was already to conquer other nations (verse 7). God simply directed the Assyrian’s attention towards His people, a people that God had, up to that point, protected from such a devastating conquest. But God did not control their desires. Indeed, their intentions in attacking Israel are displeasing to God (verse 7-11)
Their intentions are especially sinful because they attack in arrogance, not even believing that YHWH is a true God. So God will punish His people through the Assyrian invasion, but also punish Assyria for their arrogance in thinking that their conquest was due only to their superior strength in believing that the God of Israel was no different than the false gods of the other nations they had conquered.
Now why should any of this contradict the idea that man has libertarian free will and yet this in no way prevents God from accomplishing all that He plans? God is not threatened by free will. He isn’t so small that He cannot be sovereign over a world where there are wills that He does not directly control. Nothing in this passage suggests that God irresistibly controlled the wills of the Assyrian people and then held them accountable for what He caused them to do. Rather, God punishes them because their wills are not in harmony with God’s ultimate purpose (to punish His people). Instead, their wills are bent on mocking God in their arrogance, believing that the success of their conquest was because there was no God in Israel (verses 8-11). It is for that reason alone that God punishes them. So again, there is nothing in these passages that force a compatibilist interpretation. Therefore, they do nothing to prove compatibilism. Indeed, they make more sense from a libertarian viewpoint.
For a concise post on the problems of the “two wills” theory, I recommend these comments: http://evangelicalarminians.org/two-wills-in-god/
A good site that spends a lot of time addressing specific passages often used to support Calvinism is: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/Examine.html
Hope helps!
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks, Ben!
Hi
My question is about Hebrews 12:2 –
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith,”(NASB)
My friend (who holds to eternal security) says that since Jesus is the author of faith, it is He who originates our faith and our ability to even have faith at all.
Do you think this is a proper interpretation of that verse?
If so would it lend support to the eternal security position as well as the position that says that faith is a gift from God and that the human has no part to play in terms of generating faith on his/her own?
thanks!
Ken,
Here is a quick response I gave to another commenter on this passage:
On your question about Hebrews 12:2, here is something I wrote to another commenter on that passages a while back,
“Briefly. On Hebrews 12:2, it is true that Christ is the perfecter of our faith, but there is no reason to think that He perfects our faith irresistibly. Indeed, just the opposite is plainly implied as it is the reason we are to “look to” Him and “throw off everything that hinders, and the sin that so easily entangles”, that we might “run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”
Now, if Christ irresistibly causes faith in us and irresistibly causes us to continue in the faith (or perfects our faith), such language becomes rather pointless, and so do the warnings throughout Hebrews and the NT as a whole. It would be like warning someone hooked to a respirator to “keep breathing.”
He is the “founder/pioneer” of our faith as He is the object of our faith and His life and death is the foundation of our faith. His life of endurance is the example we must look to in order to find the courage and strength to endure our own struggle (12:2-4)”
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-9622
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben
Thank you very much
Ken
how do i show this to my face book friends these comments are great.
i am worried about my pastor reading so many calvinist books for eg micheal horton – he says reformed has the most books out there …
Which comments? I am not sure if you can share them on FB, but you can always copy and paste was is written and then leave a link back to the blog. If you want to link to a specific comment in this thread, just click on the date and time above the comment and then copy and paste the link from the browser. That will take someone directly to that specific comment.
Hope that helps.
So I’m not sure if you embrace conditional security, but you do then hopefully you can help me. The question I have is:
How might I be able to explain the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus bringing back the one that’s lost. I know the Greek word for lost there means to perish/destroy but how might I be able to explain an apostate here?
Thanks for your time
The parable is not meant to be taken so woodenly. The Greek word doesn’t have to mean “perish or destroy” either. It can simply mean “lost” as in a sheep that wanders away. That’s why you don’t see any translation of the parable that uses “perish or destroy”. If it meant “perish” or “destroy” then there wouldn’t be much point in going after it. It would be too late.
And notice that the Shepard leaves behind the 99 to seek the one. Do you think that literally reflects Jesus’ actions with regards to apostates? Does he leave behind all others when he goes after the lost?
The parable was mainly meant to illustrate the hypocrisy and attitude of the Pharisees who were indignant about Jesus keeping company with “sinners.” It wasn’t meant to give a detailed explanation of the nature of apostasy or how God responds to apostates.
Hope that helps.
Thanks!
after coming out of word of faith pentecostal church in 95 i tried a lot of denominations . it wasn’t until i met a presbyterean, covenanter, purtan reformed person who pushed calvinism down my throat that i even knew this ”different” Father God. this was 3 yr ago. i went back to church history on my own with the Holy Spirit i guess and rejected calvin’s God ‘s soveriegnty and tulip! this person cannot agree to disagree on tulip that he said it was an essential so i parted with him. it hurts very much to know he has 2000+ followers on google and if i was a new believer i would’ve got hoodwinked into that belief system.
i now attenda pentecostal community church where i like very much -its small and loving but even though the pastor says we agree on arminian roots he reads calvinist for his sermons like mark driscoll and luther and micheal horton but is adament he’s not a calvinist. i’m not sure he thinks those beliefs are that bad? i think they are! its about God’s character and i have been giving him articlesd from roger olsen . yesterday i felt very uncomfortable about him reading driscoll ‘s work on the law for his sermons. i wonder if God has put me there for balance cuz i don’t want anything to do with calvin and like to read even mennonite theologions . i told him i think he’s hoodwinked by the calvinists a bit ,lol. he says i can talk to him about his sermons . i feel so tired i just feel like giving up and believing everything he is teaching. i live in winnipeg manitoba if you know of any good churches. by the way is wesley a works based religion? thx in advance for any help or consoling. GOD BLESS YOU ALL AT THIS SITE!
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Arminian Perspectives wrote:
> Shay commented: “Thanks!” >
barbbflyjc,
What is he teaching that you are having a problem with? Calvinists can have some good things to say about other Biblical issues even though they are Calvinists. If your pastor isn’t quoting them teaching Calvinism, then I am not sure what the problem is, especially if he has made it known that he is not a Calvinist himself. I think you are doing fine. You will likely never find a church where you agree with everything the pastor says or with every person the pastor happens to quote during a sermon (unless you are the pastor).
As far as Wesleyans, no they do not believe in works based religion, not if they are following the writings and teachings of Wesley. You can read any of Wesley’s writings free online. Wesley was adamant that salvation is by faith. But he was just as adamant that saving faith produces godly behavior. That is completely Biblical as far as I am concerned.
God Bless,
Ben
1 Peter 2:8b
Help me understand the last phrase–what they were destined for.
Thanks!
Most likely, they were destined to stumble because of their unbelief and disobedience to the word.
ramonapetro (re: your comment on September 11, 2014 at 7:56 am) on 1 Peter 2:8b,
I believe the text is best taken to indicate that unbelievers are destined to stumble because of their dsobedience, as a punishment. In other words, what is appointed here is the punishment for their disobedience. Many scholars take this interpretation. The text is actually ambiguous in its wording alone. It could also be be taken as indicating that the disobedience of unbelievers is appointed or that they are appointed to not believe and then stumble because of it. Even if the appointment is taken to refer to the whole statement of them falling because they are disobedient, it could still be take that only their fall is appointed and not their actual disobedience. That their fall is mainly in view best fits the context because in the previous verses, Jesus is said to be appointed (the same word in Greek) as a stone that gives blessing to those who believe in him and causes stumbling for those who disbelieve. Then we are told that they stumble because they are disobedient to the word and that they are appointed to this end. So the fate or end in view most naturally appears to be the result already indicated for those who encounter Jesus but reject him. This then coheres with much in the NT to the effect that salvation is by faith and condemnation is by unbelief and disobedience
In regards to conditional security, how might 1 John 2:19 be explained. I embrace CS, but am having a hard time with “had they been of us, they would of remained with us”. Thanks!
Shay,
Here is a post I wrote on that passage:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/does-1-john-218-19-support-the-calvinist-never-saved-to-begin-with-view-of-apostasy/
Does God ever use evil directly for his purposes as opposed to allow it? God judges (very bad things/evil things happen to people–James 5:16, 1 Cor 11:31, the book of Revelation). I’m wrestling with the problem of evil and still find I’m brainwashed by my Calvinistic upbringing. Please help me understand.
Does the presence of unconfessed sin bring God’s judgment? Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed (James 5:16)
If it DOESN’T mean God has caused you to need healing (inflicted you), what does it mean? Your (free will choice) sin has resulted in natural consequence, sickness, need for physical healing? God wants us to be healed and does heal us (sometimes) when we confess sin and ask for physical healing?
1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
In Revelation, the plagues, destruction from God’s hand to unbelievers? Ultimate judgment? Are the evil things done (torture) not defined as evil because God is the one doing these things righteously/justly? If so, then do we experience God’s discipline now through the results of evil in our world (physical calamities)?
ramonpetro,
I am not sure what your question specifically is about. You seem to answer it yourself. The Bible is clear that God does punish sin. You quoted a few passages that bring that out clearly (and there are many more). I do think it is for the purpose of discipline in the case of believers. It can also be used in the lives of unbelievers to bring them to repentance and reliance on God.
How does God go about this? Is it direct (He causes it) or indirect (He allows it)? I think it is probably both. Often, it is just natural consequences. Other times it is a divine act of discipline. I do think that God intervenes in our lives for our good and welfare far more than we realize so that all God has to do is remove His hedge of protection for us to begin to experience His discipline (in a more indirect manner).
However, I see nothing inconsistent in the revealed character of God with the idea of judging sin or continued unrepentance. God will ultimately judge all sin and evil with terrible eternal consequences for unbelievers, and God also disciplines and punishes sin for the sake of drawing people to Him. Is that the explanation for all human suffering? No. A lot of suffering results from a world broken by sin (and filled with evil people who do evil things) and it is up to God how, how often, and whether or not He will intervene in human suffering.
Hope that helps,
Ben
i think your ques. is about God’s sovereignty ramonopetro. i see in the bible all over God’s love and peace2 cor 13 and the God of love and peace will be with you. the ques becomes when will God visit the lost with judgement ? we who are born again will not be appointed to God’s wrath ( i think in thess. ) that is why i believe in the rapture of the saints /believers. before tribulation in the midst of tribulation or just when Jesus comes back. in revelation.? different denominations have different hermanetics. some think we are wholly responsible to move God with prayer and actions and others like calvinists believe God is the author and by his design all and everyuthing that happens comes from his will. including babies raped for eg. i am reading warren weirsbe who is a little calvinist his book ” BE ALERT” beware of religious imposters and he says God does adjust his plan to people’s response . num 13-14 God changes his applications jonah 3. god’s character and nature did not change but he i believe wants relationship with us . he is soo mighty that he gave us free will and he can even limit his sovereignty for our relationship to him. bottom line is whereever evil comes from satan and God is JUST even to satan , satan’s foothold over us , our own sin nature enticing us or God himself in the old testament — * HE TURNS EVERYTHING INTO GOOD FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM. 1 more addition is that some think that this is the dispensation of God’s grace and that he judges no one so all will as many as possible will come in -for the goodness of God leads us to repentance . until judgement day we are all under his grace , even the lost! thx for listening
Ben and barbbflyjc:
Thank you for your help. My question stems from whether God designs suffering for our good (to bring us to repentance/salvation or discipline) or merely allows it (as in book of Job). I want to lay the responsibility for evil (in this case, human suffering) at Satan’s feet, not God’s. And yet, Ben, as you say, God will judge sin—by terrible means, ultimately, which will bring eternal suffering.
I have an unbelieving friend who has suffered much (not natural consequences of her own sin—abused as a child, aneurism, brain tumors, heart problems) and blames God. I’ve thought that perhaps she is blaming the wrong person—that Satan is seeking to destroy her, and that God wants her to run toward him in her pain. I certainly believe that God has allowed these things in her life, but I’m having a hard time with it being of his design, which I recently heard in a sermon.
Barbflyjc: Yes, as you wrote, this is the crux of my question: “…Calvinists believe God is the author and by his design all and everything that happens comes from his will.” This is also my childhood understanding. As I’ve come to believe the Arminian perspective is closer to what I read in the Bible, I still find I get tripped up in some areas in my theology/thinking.
Ben, I’ve read your comments/answer several times, and I think it does help. My problem may lie in looking so narrowly for the answer (like Job’s friends).
I even tripped over Romans 6:23a. Somehow, in the justice of God, his law, his character, cannot tolerate sin. He will (has) judge sin with terrible consequences (which cannot then be said to be evil if God is doing it), and if it sets to right the evil in this world?
My husband has suggested I read the Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. Any other helps as I wrestle through this?
Ramona
Yes, thank you, this helps a great deal. Now that I’ve written your answer out in my journal, I’m seeing my way through it. Thank you for taking time to answer.
Ramona i came out of the word of faith movement and there is a lot of repetitive scriptures said over and over even out of context . it seems like the calvinists i met with have the same thing = you get brainwashed by that and it takes a long time for it to get out of your subconscience. to really simplify the issue of— is God a wrathful God who hates the lost OR is he a God of love and peace . IF I AM ERRING ON GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY i would rather err on God’s love and peace and the fruit of the Spirit that is God and his character -the love chapter in corinthians God , a merciful God than a hateful one -or the monster that calvinists make him out to be. there is a scripture i never forget that says HE DELIGHTS WHEN WE EXPECT HIS MERCY , david did.
i read thru the bible and looking for the loving God the God who shows us Jesus and i look thru the old testament thru Jesus eyes.
God bless you when you read the bible with the SPIRIT OF GOD TEACHING YOU.
I am in a continuing debate with a staunch Calvinist and recently asked him what the lexical evidence was for his assertion that 1 John 5:1 supported the Calvinistic belief that regeneration (being born again) precedes and is causative of believing. The following is his response, for which my formal study of Greek, being thirty-years ago, is having a difficult time recalling the nuances of the language. I want to know if the perfect tense of “has been born of God” is the necessary cause of the present tense, active voice “believes”?
Thank you for your consideration,
Doug
Calvinistic response:
1John 5:1 Everyone who believes [present] that Jesus is the Christ has been born [perfect] of God,
In case you’re not aware, the “perfect” tense describes a completed past action (something that happened and concluded in the past) with enduring effects into the present (it continues to remain true).
So the reference in this text is that the “believing” is present, the enduring effects of the being born are contemporaneous with the believing, and the actual event of “being born” (ie. regeneration) preceded the believing.
We see an identical structure in the same epistle:
1John 4:7 … whoever loves [present] has been born [perfect] of God and knows God.
The “being born of God” (ie. regeneration) precedes (perfect tense), and causes, man’s ability to love (present tense).
We have a similar structure here:
1John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning [present] because he has been born [perfect] of God.
Now, are we born of God (regenerated) as a result of “no longer sinning”?
Or do we no longer sin because we have been regenerated?
I think the answer is obvious that the “no longer sinning” is a result of the preceding regeneration. And this is born out by the tense of the verbs.
Doug,
His argument is fallacious. The perfect tense only tells us that an action in the past has continuing results in the present. That would be true if being born again came first or if believing came first. Greek grammar would actually suggest the opposite of what he is claiming. Either the main verb would be contemporaneous with the action of the participle or the participle would take priority. But that really has reference to temporal order and the debate is about logical order (though obviously if the participle came first in temporal order, it would in logical order as well).
Basically, all the text tells us is that the one who is presently believing has been born again. It does not say that being born again precedes believing. So the worst one could say is that the Grammar cannot decide the dispute, though it actually tends to weigh in favor of faith coming first.
Another problem for the Calvinist is that we have the same construction in 5:10 and the logical order is certainly different than what is being claimed by the Calvinist for 5:1. Here is a footnote from a post in which I interact with this argument:
[1] White’s appeal to “sheer consistency” is entirely undone when we condsider 1 John 5:10. This passage has the same construction but clearly puts the participle logically prior to the main verb:
“…the one who does not believe God (is not “believing”, present participle) has made (perfect) Him a liar.” (1 John 5:10)
The construction is the same, a present participle followed by the main verb in the perfect tense. Obviously, the making a liar of God (has made: perfect) did not precede the “not believing” (present participle). Rather, it is because one is “not believing” that he has made God out to be a liar. So with the exact same construction we have as in 1 John 5:1 and 2:29, we have the participle (present) taking logical precedence over the main verb (perfect). So the argument just doesn’t hold water. John wasn’t giving a theological discourse on the ordo salutis. He was giving various markers for identifying those who truly belong to God and are His children. God’s children can be identified by their righteous acts and their faith.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/examining-a-rather-strange-proof-text-for-irresistible-regeneration/
I am also going to send you a scholarly treatment of this Calvinist argument that definitively shows the argument to be fallacious as well as showing that it is far more likely that faith should be understood to precede regeneration in this text. You may read it privately and cite small sections from it, but you may not share it or post it publicly. The reason for that is that since the author published it in a theological journal, he no longer has rights over it and the journal will not allow him to share it publicly (which he is not happy about as that was the reason he wrote it, to make the argument well known and easy to access).
You could also refer your friend to the following post and if he requests a copy, I can send it to his email as well (he doesn’t need to leave his email in the comments thread because I get the email address privately when he leaves a comment). Here is the link:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/biblical-scholar-brian-abasciano-refutes-the-popular-calvinist-argument-that-the-language-of-1-john-51-means-that-regeneration-precedes-faith/
God Bless,
Ben
Thinking as a human, the calvinistic choosing of individuals for salvation might seem very “unfair”. But how about arminians? You hold the view that God is searching every single individual, everyone gets a chance to accept Christ. But won’t you agree that this searching is very different, some people get a revelation of their own sinfulness and their eyes overwhelmingly opened to the grace and glory of Christ, and it’s very, very easy for them to accept Christ. Other (I would say most) individuals have no need of forgiveness of sins and have no revelation of Christ personally, they don’t understand anything about him, all they have is the revelation of nature. Isn’t this very “unfair” as well? And…is this a correct presentation of the arminian position? Hopefully I will get some input, I’ve had these thoughts for years and would appreciate your answers very much.
Jan,
Thanks for stopping by. Fairness isn’t so much the issue for me, though I can’t speak for everyone in the Arminian camp. For me, the main issue is that the Bible says God desires all to be saved and that Christ died for everyone to make that possible (and it uses very specific and intentional language to communicate these truths).
Does everyone get an equal opportunity to receive Christ? I don’t think so. But everyone does get an opportunity to respond to whatever grace and revelation God has given them, and God responds to us based on how we respond to whatever grace we have been given (Acts 17:16-31).
It would take a lot to get into the details of how God might do this and in what way he might lead someone on who has responded to minimal grace/revelation to experience greater grace/revelation, etc. The Bible really doesn’t get into the details. But for me, the Bible is clear that God does indeed desire all to be saved and has made a way for us to come to Him in order to experience that salvation. I am happy to leave the details to Him and focus on my part in leading as many to Christ as possible (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-6:2)
God Bless,
Ben
Hello, Ben!
Recently one calvinist asked this qwestion: “The qwestions is about regeneration. Arminians argue that faith precedes regeneration. If man can believe without regeneration this makes it unnecessary. You can take regeneration out of the order of salvation and nothing changes. So, whay do arminians need regeneration if faith is possible without it?”
Thank you
Vladimir,
This is a question begging argument. It is based on the Calvinist assumption that regeneration is primarily for the purpose of causing faith, and then based on that assumption tries to fault the Arminian view by asking what purpose regeneration serves if it doesn’t cause faith. But the Arminian rejects the idea that regeneration is for the purpose of causing faith. We contend that such a view is a Calvinist invention and not taught in Scripture.
The Bible equates the new birth with the initial transition from spiritual death to spiritual life. It is the beginning of new life through the indwelling Spirit. It is the point at which we become children of God. Those things all seem pretty important to me. In short, regeneration is a primary work of salvation. So the Calvinist is basically asking what point does salvation serve for the Arminian? What?
So it seems to me that it is the Calvinist that has drastically reduced the deep spiritual meaning and significance of regeneration, making it mainly an issue of a necessary work to cause faith. That is not how the Bible presents it and that is not how it has been historically understood in the church (with the exception of some Reformers holding to it after the 16th century). It has become a popular view among Calvinists, but not even all Calvinists think that regeneration precedes and causes faith.
And of course, Arminians do not think that we can turn to God in faith on our own. We recognize that God’s enabling grace is necessary to make faith possible. We only deny that this enabling grace is regeneration. Why? Because the Bible nowhere says such a thing and always views the new birth and the beginning of spiritual life as the result of faith, not the cause.
But for the Calvinist who believes that God exhaustively determines all things, we might wonder why regeneration is necessary for faith. Why can’t God just turn the will from unbelief to faith? Why should that be too hard for God, and why should regeneration be necessary for God to simply turn the will in a new direction?
Hope that helps.
Here is a post where I asked the question pertaining to what purpose regeneration serves in the Calvinist scheme:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/what-purpose-does-regeneration-serve-in-calvinism/
Here is my first interaction with a Calvinist who tried to answer this question: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/addressing-dominics-response-to-the-purpose-of-regeneration-in-calvinism/
And here is my second interaction with the same Calvinist: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/responding-to-dominics-second-rebuttal-on-regeneration-preceding-faith/
I think you will find those interactions helpful. I also recommend this post on the differences in the ordo salutis between Calvinists and Arminians, which also points out serious theological absurdities which are created by the Calvinist ordo which places regeneration prior to faith:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
God Bless,
Ben
This really helps. Thank you
Another question, if it is ok.
In the 3 article of remonstrance it is said:
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
According to this article saving faith is something that it truly good. But it is also said that to effect what is truly good man must be born again. So it follows that man must be born again to have saving faith, which means that regeneration precedes faith. Can you clarify please?
Vladimir,
It does seem that the Remonstrants initially held to something like regeneration preceding faith. I think they saw regeneration as a process that could be resisted along the way, and began with a renewal of the will and human faculties so faith could be exercised. But this initial renewal could be resisted and then hault the process that would eventually lead to full spiritual life in the believer.
Sometimes Arminius seemed to also use the language of regeneration with regards to the affects of prevenient grace on the will, but this might just be a way to express a renewal (how God repairs our broken will to trust in Christ). However, it seems clear that Arminius understood that true Biblical regeneration (the granting of new life in Christ) was through faith, because faith is what joins us to Christ and the life that abides in Him. Here is something he wrote that makes this very clear:
“Besides, even true and living faith in Christ precedes regeneration strictly taken, and consisting of the mortification or death of the old man, and the vivification [granting of new life] of the new man…For Christ becomes ours by faith, and we are engrafted into Christ, are made members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones, and, being thus planted with him, we coalesce or are united together, that we may draw from him the vivifying [life giving] power of the Holy Spirit, by which power the old man is mortified and we rise again into a new life.” [Works Vol.2 pg. 233, Wesleyan Heritage Collection].
So it seems that either Arminius and the Remonstrants are being inconsistent, or we are not fully grasping what they mean to express when at times it seems that they place regeneration before saving faith.
But the bottom line for me is that the Bible always places faith before regeneration/the new birth. If the Remonstrants held that true regeneration precedes faith, then they were simply wrong and were allowing the Reformed view of that day to influence them more than Scripture. But I tend to think they had an unnecessarily complex view of the regeneration process or were using the term in a way that the Bible does not.
Either way, the main issue is what the Bible says, not what Arminius or the Remonstrants say. And again, Arminius says that faith precedes regeneration “strictly taken”, which probably means in its Biblical fullness, rather than just a work of renewal regarding the will alone. Clearly, for Arminius, the transition from spiritual death to spiritual life happens through faith union with Christ.
God Bless,
Ben
Fixed a few glaring typos above.
Thank you, Ben!
Hi Ben,
Do you see 1 Cor 1:24 as a special call unique from the general preaching of Christ crucified in verse 23? What is this call of God in v24?
Gary,
I would take it in the naming sense and not as a summons. This might help:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/what-does-callingcalled-refer-to-in-the-bible/
Hello Ben,
I would like you to recommend me resources on Arminian theology (books). And I also have a question for you, what is the stronger argument for calvinism? And how would you refute it?
Thank you very much,
God bless you!
Hi Ben,
I just read your post (April 4, 2013) on John 10. Our youth pastor just did a sermon from John on Sunday in which he believed that he was proving the Calvinist position on election and evangelism. I knew there was another explanation, but I didn’t know what it was. So I really, really appreciate your words in the post I just read. It makes perfect sense and resonates deeply to me that what you are saying is true. Thanks!
Deborah
Deborah,
So glad to hear that post helped you. It’s too bad it is so often just assumed that these passages in John support Calvinism. Thanks for sharing.
God Bess,
Ben
fedematias95,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
On the strength of Calvinist arguments, that really depends on the individual. Different people find different arguments convincing. If you are thinking of a particular argument, I could more easily address your question.
As far as resources, here is a great place to get started: http://evangelicalarminians.org/links-and-books/
What are some resources for the writings of the early church fathers (pre-Nicean) and their Arminian/Calvinistic similarities of opinion. I have always understood these fathers to have been non-Calvinistic in their perspectives, but have been reading some things that show some variance in their writings.
Thanks,
Doug
Doug,
Here are a few that I have read or own that would probably help:
I am sure there are tons more, but those are the ones I am familiar with. I Think the one’s by Bercot (the 1st two listed) one be the best to start with.
Also, you can probably read all the ante-Nicean writings free online, though it might be a little overwhelming.
On the church fathers and Calvinism, see:
The appendix (“Early Teaching on Freewill and Election”) in Paul Marston and Roger Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 289-355. There is now a new 2 volume edition of that work out. I am referring to the expanded 2000 edition, but I assume it is in the earlier and later editions.
“The Early Church and Calvinism” http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-early-church-and-calvinism/
Steve Witzki, Early Christian Writers on Apostasy http://evangelicalarminians.org/steve-witzki-early-christian-writers-on-apostasy/
Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-fathers-on-foreknow…/
Church Fathers on Libertarian Free Will http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-fathers-on-libertarian-free-will/
Calvinists Now Appealing to the Early Church as a Historical Witness? http://evangelicalarminians.org/calvinists-now-appealing-to-the-early-church-as-a-historical-witness/
On Man’s Free Will: What the Early Church Believed http://evangelicalarminians.org/on-mans-free-will-what-the-early-church-believed/
Steve Witzki, “The Inadequate Historical Precedent for ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’” http://evangelicalarminians.org/steve-wtizki-the-inadequate-historical-precedent-for-once-saved-always-saved/
Church History vs. Calvinism (Part One) http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-history-vs-calvinism-part-one/
Church History vs. Calvinism (Part Two) http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-history-vs-calvinism-part-two/
Jack Cottrell, “Did The Early Christian Fathers Teach Calvinism?” https://www.facebook.com/notes/jack-cottrell/did-the-early-christian-fathers-teach-calvinism/10150262161600617
Church History and Calvinism http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-history-and-calvinism/
Prereformation Church History & the Calvinist/Arminian Debate http://evangelicalarminians.org/prereformation-church-history-and-the-calvinist-arminian-debate/
Tertullian on the Problem of Evil and Free Will http://evangelicalarminians.org/tertullian-on-the-problem-of-evil-and-free-will/ http://evangelicalarminians.org/tertullian-on-the-problem-of-evil-and-free-will/
David L. Allen, “Review of *From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective* – Part 3″ (On the ancient church’s view) http://evangelicalarminians.org/david-l-allen-review-of-from-heaven-he-came-and-sought-her-definite-atonement-in-historical-biblical-theological-and-pastoral-perspective-part-3/
Micah Currado, “Early Church Fathers on the Freedom of the Will and Romans 9″ http://evangelicalarminians.org/micah-currado-early-church-fathers-on-the-freedom-of-the-will-and-romans-9/
Mike Barlotta – Augustine’s Evolving Views on Free Will http://evangelicalarminians.org/mike-barlotta-augustines-evolving-views-on-free-will/
Thank you so much for these links and resources.
Woops, just noticed that I repeated one of the titles while leaving it without a link: That should have been Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-fathers-on-foreknowledge-and-freewill/
arminian1,
I edited your first list to include the link.
THANK U FOR INTRO TO DAVID BERCOT ! ENJOYED HIS YOUTUBE VID AT HARVARD UNI !oiops caps on hope to buy his book some day- only have paypal and cant use it for amazon canada ?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Arminian Perspectives wrote:
> arminian1 commented: “Woops, just noticed that I repeated one of the > titles while leaving it without a link: That should have been Church > Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill > http://evangelicalarminians.org/church-fathers-on-foreknowledge-and-freewill/ > “
barbbflyjc,
You can get it at CBD, and they take Pay Pal. You can get the hardcover or an ebook.
http://www.christianbook.com/a-dictionary-of-early-christian-beliefs/9781565638709/pd/33571?product_redirect=1&Ntt=33571&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
ebook: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=67996EB&product_redirect=1&Ntt=67996EB&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Thank you, Ben, I’ve ordered the two Bercot volumes. Should have them tomorrow!
Ben (or someone), please help if you can. My son was given a Scripture by a Calvinist and asked me about it, but I could not give him an answer – this is the first time I have been completely stumped. The scripture is:
For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified. (Heb 10:14)
It seems to be saying, in the popular vernacular, “Once saved, always saved”.
Do you have any insight into this scripture? Thanks in advance.
Paul
Paul,
One way to understand it would be corporately. Are you familiar with the corporate view of election? If not, this might be a good place to start:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
The basic idea is that the writer of Hebrews is talking about the body of Christ as a corporate entity (God’s covenant people) when he speaks of “those who are being sanctified.” The individual shares in those benefits only through continued union with Christ/participation in the group (i.e the people of God). Here are some comments from commentary which takes this corporate view (though it doesn’t explicitly call it a corporate view),
“When he used “forever” to qualify the aorist verb translated ‘he sat down,’ it emphasized the definitive and unrepeatable nature of Christ’s session. When he uses the same expression here with the perfect, it denotes the continuing ultimate validity of the effect achieved by Christ’s perfecting his people. Christ’s own are a ‘perfected’ or ‘cleansed’ people. This ‘perfecting’ is of such a quality that it will never need renewal or supplementation, any more than Christ’s session might need repetition. Nothing more need be done for God’s people to be delivered from sin and brought into God’s presence. It is for this reason that the pastor urgently exhorts his hearers to persevere in their identification with the faithful people of God. To fall away in apostasy is to separate oneself from this people whom Christ has ‘perfected’ and thus to abandon the only cure for sin that brings access to God.
The description of God’s people as “”’those who are being made holy’ emphasizes this need for continual participation in the benefits available to Christ’s ‘perfected’ and ‘cleansed’ people. . . . He is describing the continuous reception of grace from Christ, ‘the one who makes holy’ (2:11). Reception of this grace enables God’s people to receive necessary forgiveness and live a life of faithful obedience (4:14-16) so that they can continue in fellowship with the people of God once-for-all ‘perfected’ by Christ. The pastor does not want his hearers to forget that their continual holiness, expressed in faithful obedience, is totally dependent on the benefits regularly and perpetually received from their High Priest seated at God’s right hand. Thus, his great concern is that his hearers ‘draw near’ to receive these benefits from the Son enthroned with all authority for their succor.”
(From Gareth Lee Cockerill’s commentary on Hebrews, on 10:14 (pp. 452-53).
Ben,
Could you recommend to me a book on Christian Doctrine?
Thank you,
Federico
Ben, et al,
I am in a conversation in another discussion forum, and received the following post in a discussion regarding the relationship between Heb 6:4-6, and two passages in 1 John, namely 3:9, and 5:4. My assertions on the Hebrews passage is that the person(s) being described is a believer that has “fallen away” from his faith, but my Calvinistic opponent has referred to the Johannine passages stating that these verses make my assertions impossible. I ask him why he thought these two verses in 1 John should be troublesome to my position, and this is his response:
“If someone who has been born of God were to backslide and lose his salvation, then he would no longer be practising righteousness or overcoming. The verses I quoted state that, if someone has been born of God, then this can’t happen.
1 John 3:9 (ESV) No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1 John 5:4 (ESV) For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
—Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world; if someone, who has been born of God, were to lose his salvation, then he would not overcome the world and this verse would be untrue (which is impossible). It doesn’t get simpler than this! ”
My thought has always been that the “ou dynatai”, “cannot” continue to sin, carries more the import of “He is able to not sin”, as opposed to it is impossible (Adynaton) for him to sin, or possibly that “he cannot sin because he is born of God” in the sense of “I cannot date other women because I am married.”
I am, unfortunately, not finding any lexical support for my “He is able not to sin”, so perhaps I am not quite correct in the lining up of my sights on this construction. My formal Greek studies are 30+ years in the past, so my syntax skills are a bit rusty (he says, trying to stroke his deflated sense of authority).
All of my source readings have negated the “impossibility of sinning” and fall into the “”we cannot continue to practice deliberate, willful (premeditated) lifestyles of sin—which I don’t have a problem with per se—but my opponent has made the assertion that this implies, and indeed implicitly means that it is impossible for one who is born again to sin to the point of complete failure and abdication of belief and thereby rejection by God.
My lexical void notwithstanding, however, I think it is just as unsupportable for “ou dyntai” to imply impossibility to sin to the point of falling away, “Adynaton” would have been employed, I think, instead of “ou dynatai” were that the intent.
Any suggestions from minds more capable than mine? (And that would be anyone who can happen to read this, by the way!)
Thanks,
Doug
PS. If you haven’t deduced this already, I am coming from a Wesleyan/Arminian POV. (And proudly so, in an entirely sanctified sort of way!)
Doug
fedematias95,
I don’t have anything in particular, but you might be able find something here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/links-and-books/
Hello, having been introduced to Calvinism shortly after my conversion (mid 1990s), I’ve spent the last two years reevaluting that position. This site has helped immensely. Thank you.
Along with Calvinism in general, the other “core” doctrine I’m been investigating is that of eternal, conscious torment. After much study I’ve come to the conclusion that Conditionalism/Annihilationism has more support in Scripture. Obviously a lot that could be said, but one main point according to the traditional view depends heavily on an Augustinian/Calvinist conception of “endless” torment to be neccesary for God’s glory.
So my question: Does this conception of eternal torment being neccesary for God’s glory carry equal importance in the Arminian view, or is there any difference?
Rick,
I don’t think so. My guess would be that by and large it is a matter of interpretation. Those Arminians who hold to eternal conscious suffering in hell do so because they believe that is what the Bible teaches (that’s why I hold to it, though I am sympathetic to the “conditionalist” view). I don’t think there is any thought that such suffering is necessary in the same way as is sometimes argued by Calvinists.
God Bless,
Ben
Doug,
I haven’t forgotten about you, just waiting to get some input from someone that I discussed these passages with in the past before responding (or hoping they will respond).
I have an honest question about John 6:44 that I have not found answered elsewhere. I am not an Arminian, but I’d appreciate a thoughtful Arminian response, if you’re willing to offer one.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
The “him” who is drawn by the Father must be the same “him” whom Jesus will raise up on the last day.
The raising up refers to eternal life, so if we accept that the Father is drawing everybody then we must, by the same logic, conclude that Jesus will save everybody — in other words, universalism, which is at odds with the whole of Scripture.
Isn’t this so?
I’m posting this as a respectful, honest question. What are your thoughts?
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
Thanks for stopping by. I have long been baffled by this Calvinist argument since it is so contrary to a plain reading of the text.
You write:
The “him” who is drawn by the Father must be the same “him” whom Jesus will raise up on the last day.
That doesn’t follow at all and the text certainly does not say that. The one who is raised up is the one who is drawn and comes as a result. But the passage does not say that all who are drawn come, only that the one who comes (as a result of being drawn) will be raised up. So the “him” that is raised up is the “him” that is both drawn and comes. That in no way implies that the one who is drawn must come.
Here are some simple examples to help you see how this works and why I see this argument as so strange :
“No one can come to the party unless invited, and he will have an awesome night.”
Would we assume that if someone is invited they will necessary have an awesome night? Not at all. That would only apply to the one who responds to the invitation and comes to the party.
Here is another:
“No one can board the bus without a ticket, and he will surely reach his destination.”
Again, this in no way implies that the one who has a ticket will necessarily board the bus. It only says that the one who has a ticket and broads the bus will reach his destination.
Examples like this could be easily multiplied. Really, it seems so self-evident from the text that the one who is raised up is the one who is drawn and comes (with no implication that one so drawn must come), that providing such examples seems unnecessary. But for some reason the Calvinist assertion regarding this text has somehow caused many to miss what seems to me to be so painfully obvious.
Again, my views just flows naturally from the language of the passage. The Calvinist view seems forced and contrived and simply does not follow.
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
To make the examples even more parallel, we could tweak them like this:
“No one can come to the party unless my father invites him, and I will show him a great time.”
Or..
“No one can board the bus unless the conductor allows him, and he will make sure to get him to his destination.”
Or..
“No one can go to the movie unless the attendant gives him access, and he will be sure to seat him in the front row.”
And so on….
Hello, Ben.
I see your point. However, there is another point I still do not get. Perhaps you can illuminate.
If the Father draws everyone, then why make the point that nobody can come otherwise?
To extend your examples, if everyone is invited to the party, what is the point in making a comment about somebody who isn’t invited? Or, if everyone has a bus ticket, isn’t it a bit absurd to talk about somebody not boarding the bus and not reaching his destination?
Not trying to be difficult: an honest inquiry…
Regards.
Jim
Jim,
I would say in the context of John 6 the reason is so that the resistant Jews will recognize their need and not miss the drawing opportunity that is before them. They are being taught by God (vs. 45) and they need to listen carefully so they can learn and come as a result. Unless they do, they will miss out on eternal life (being raised up).
The Calvinist has a bigger problem in my opinion. Why would Jesus bother to tell them about this drawing if it is indeed impossible for them to respond to the drawing? What could that accomplish for them? But in these conversations with the Jews, while we see Jesus telling them that they cannot come in their present state (with their present attitude), he is not saying these things to mock them or to highlight a hopeless situation for them. Rather, he is highlighting their present condition so that they will be spurred on to examine themselves and respond to the Father’s drawing (which in these contexts is primarily through the words of Christ, which are the words of the Father) and be saved.
Here is how I put it in response to someone else who was asking similar questions and making some of the same claims you are making:
“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).”
You can read the rest here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/various-thoughts-on-the-calvinist-use-of-john-6-and-related-passages-from-johns-gospel-to-support-calvinism/
Hope that helps.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Ben.
I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but at least now I see more clearly how you have arrived at your view.
Regards,
Jim
Fair enough. If any other questions come to mind, feel free to ask.
There is one thing you said that I’d like to pick up on.
You said “Why would Jesus bother to tell them about this drawing if it is indeed impossible for them to respond to the drawing? What could that accomplish for them?”
I don’t see an intractable problem here from a non-Arminian perspective. (I don’t pretend to embrace all of Calvinism; if you must put a label on me, try “Reformed”.)
Among those who were resisting the message of Jesus, there were perhaps some who would eventually receive it, because the Father was drawing them (hence, they were among the elect), and there were, no doubt, some who would never receive it.
I know that’s not your view of it, but I’m just saying that your specific objection (why would Jesus bother to tell them if it is impossible for them to respond?) doesn’t work for me.
My pastor preaches the same sermon to the whole congregation, knowing that there are almost certainly some there on any given Sunday who will not (indeed, cannot) respond in faith. That doesn’t make his preaching ridiculous. He (and we) do not know which ones will respond.
Again, I’m not trying to change your mind about everything. It’s just that you seem to be pointing to a logical inconsistency (in the Reformed view of this verse) that I don’t think exists.
Regards,
Jim
My pastor preaches the same sermon to the whole congregation, knowing that there are almost certainly some there on any given Sunday who will not (indeed, cannot) respond in faith. That doesn’t make his preaching ridiculous. He (and we) do not know which ones will respond.
But it does make it dishonest if he is offering hope to those who (according to you) have no claim to any hope whatsoever. If we assume the Calvinist interp. of John 6, then Jesus was indeed telling many of them (if not all) that they were without hope and could never come to Christ for salvation.
Why shouldn’t the reformed Pastor do the same? Why not say: “Listen, the reality is that many (or at least some) of you who are here are resisting the message today because you cannot come to Christ. And the reason you cannot come to him is because He did not die for you and because the Father has decreed from eternity not to save you, but to leave you in your hopeless state for His own good pleasure. Many (or at least some) of you are simply not elect and it has not been granted for you to come to Christ to be saved.” ?
Isn’t that basically what Jesus was saying to the Jews in John 6 according to Calvinism? Only those who are drawn can come and the ones who do not come do not come because they are not “elect” as the Father has decreed from eternity not to draw them?
BTW, I also preach the same sermon to all who are in my church regardless of their spiritual state. But I also make it clear in my preaching who I am addressing when making certain applications. That is pretty basic for teaching and preaching.
But I was not saying that it creates an impossible problem for Calvinism. I was just saying that it makes better sense against the backdrop that hope is still being offered by Jesus in these dialogues than to take the view that no hope is being offered to many in those same dialogues (as Calvinism asserts).
So in my opinion my view makes better sense than the Calvinist view of why Jesus would be saying what he is saying. It gives it far more meaning and greater application to those he is actually addressing in those various discourses in John (and more meaning and application for us today as well).
God Bless,
Ben
BTW, in what ways are you not a “Calvinist”? Generally, even though it isn’t really accurate, Calvinists equate being “Reformed” with being a Calvinist, so I wonder what you see as the difference between being “Calvinist” and being “Reformed.”
Here are some of a plethora of scriptures that back what Ben was saying in his previous post:
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Ac 7:51
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Mt 13:14-15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Jos 24:15
Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the LORD. And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not. Eze 33:30-32
Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame. They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings. For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD. (Ho 4:1, 6-10)
While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? (Heb 3:15-17)
They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? (De 32:5-6)
Should ye not hear the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when men inhabited the south and the plain? And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. (Zec 7:7-12)
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (Joh 15:22-25)
Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; (Eze 14:1-4)
Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have despised the law of the LORD, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked: (Am 2:4)
These scriptures show man has a choice whether or not to serve the Lord, hence the reason God commands all men to do so. Wish I could do more explaining, but really don’t have the time.
I do not embrace the label “Calvinist” because it is a complex system that I have not adequately studied (five points or otherwise) in all its details.
I know enough about what I believe Scripture says to align myself with what goes under the general heading of “Reformed,” but when you trot out the “C-word” it seems often to take the conversation to an extreme place, with lots of presuppositions, and I honestly don’t know enough yet to say whether I fully agree or I don’t. As I approach fifty, I wonder if I will ever really understand these mysteries, this side of Heaven.
I have a very good friend who is thoroughly Arminian. We pray for one another regularly, get together over beers, and sometimes we and our wives vacation together. As much as I enjoy the to-and-fro of lively discussion (and what is more worthy of vigourous discussion than the mind of God, and his plan of salvation?) in the end, he and I are brothers in Christ, and we can rejoice together and fellowship together, share our challenges, and lift one another up in prayer to the God who redeemed us both.
It is this sense of gratitude and fellowship, combined with a heartfelt yearning to know the truth, that I hope prevails on this site. It’s unlikely that I will change my core beliefs about election, just as it is unlikely that you will change yours. However, there is value in testing our understanding of Scripture against the best thinking that others can muster. No matter the outcome, it can only make us stronger.
What binds us together is more valuable and important than those points on which we differ.
Is this the prevailing attitude on this site? I hope so.
Regards,
Jim
You wrote, “But it does make it dishonest if he is offering hope to those who (according to you) have no claim to any hope whatsoever. If we assume the Calvinist interp. of John 6, then Jesus was indeed telling many of them (if not all) that they were without hope and could never come to Christ for salvation.”
There is hope for anyone who wishes to repent of their sins. The starting point is that we all begin as enemies of God, with no desire to be reconciled to him.
You suggest that this pastor would be dishonest in holding out hope of salvation to somebody who was not elect. Somebody who was not elect would not ultimately **care** about that, because he has no impulse to be reconciled to God. If he **did** care about his standing before God in a way that led to true repentance, that is in itself would be evidence of God’s calling (but, I should add, God’s calling does not obviate his personal responsibility and his accountability for his decision about Christ).
Also, it may take many months or years for a person to come to saving faith. For the pastor preaching to the twenty year old in the pew, it may seem that his message falls on deaf ears and a hardened heart. However, that same man might, decades later, come to faith, having been drawn by God’s work through many pastors and laypeople over the years. He was always elect, but to our eyes there was no evidence of it for some time. Another reason why the pastor can and should (and with full honesty) preach the gospel of repentance that leads to new life to all who are present.
I expect you will disagree with pretty much all of this, but this is what I believe.
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
You write,
Is this the prevailing attitude on this site? I hope so.
It is certainly my attitude: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/important-blog-rules/
There is hope for anyone who wishes to repent of their sins.
But in Calvinism, the reprobate has no ability to “wish” to repent of his sins and God denies them that possibility.
The starting point is that we all begin as enemies of God, with no desire to be reconciled to him.
I agree, but in Calvinism the reason we have no desire is because that is how God irresistibly decreed for things to be from eternity. He then causes some to desire Him and live while “passing over” the rest whose lack of desire for God is, again, the result of an unchangeable and irresistible eternal decree. So there is no hope for them because God has decreed for it to be that way. Period.
You suggest that this pastor would be dishonest in holding out hope of salvation to somebody who was not elect. Somebody who was not elect would not ultimately **care** about that, because he has no impulse to be reconciled to God.
Whether he cares or not is not the point. The point is that it would still be dishonest to hold out hope to someone who has no hope. And again, the reason he has no “impulse” to be reconciled to God is because God has decreed for it to be that way.
Also, it may take many months or years for a person to come to saving faith. For the pastor preaching to the twenty year old in the pew, it may seem that his message falls on deaf ears and a hardened heart.
But this still misses the point (see above).
However, that same man might, decades later, come to faith, having been drawn by God’s work through many pastors and laypeople over the years.
I agree completely. But this doesn’t jive well with the typical Calvinist reading of the John passages we were discussing. In those passages, it is a done deal (according to Calvinists). They do not respond because they can’t, and they can’t because they are not elect. So what you are saying here is a good point which works against the typical Calvinist interpretation of such passages.
Another problem is that you say it seems like it falls on “deaf ears”, but also suggest that there is some work being done that is slowly leading the person to Christ. But that doesn’t fit the Calvinist narrative either that says that we are all God haters until God irresistibly regenerates us and gives us faith. Till that point, all we have are “deaf ears.”
So until that point, there can be no gradual working in the person to lead them to Christ because the only thing that can accomplish conversion is the moment of regeneration. Prior to that- God hater.
However, it does fit the Arminian view which sees prevenient grace as resistible and able to slowly lead someone to faith (even over many years). But maybe this is one of those areas where you diverge away from “Calvinists.”
And I would suggest to you that the Bible never refers to sinful unbelievers as “elect.” Only believers are ever called elect in Scripture. Can you point me to a Scripture that calls sinful unbelievers “elect”?
Another reason why the pastor can and should (and with full honesty) preach the gospel of repentance that leads to new life to all who are present.
Well, it totally depends on how he presents it. If he just says that if one repents he will be saved, then that is not dishonest for a Calvinist. But if he suggests or implies that anyone can do so (which is how most people would naturally tend to view it even if he said it in that way) and that God desire for them to do so (i.e. the hope of salvation is meant for all), then he is being dishonest.
Thankfully, as an Arminian pastor, I don’t have such worries. I can tell everyone that God loves them and desires for them to be saved. I can tell them that God does not want them to perish. I can tell anyone that they have hope because Christ died for them so that they can be reconciled again to God through faith in his blood.
Thanks for the questions and for sharing your views, and may God bless you as you continue to seek Him and His truth.
You wrote, “…in Calvinism the reason we have no desire is because that is how God irresistibly decreed for things to be from eternity…“passing over” the rest whose lack of desire for God is, again, the result of an unchangeable and irresistible eternal decree. So there is no hope for them because God has decreed for it to be that way. Period.”
I feel as though most of your objections are against this straw man Calvinist, rather than what I have actually said.
Are you objecting to double predestination?
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
There is no straw man here at all. This is textbook Calvinism. If you do not hold to that, then that is great.
As far as double predestination, what I wrote there would actually be considered by Calvinists to be the alternative to double predestination (i.e. single predestination) since I referred to God “passing over” the reprobate. This is the passive form of reprobation that stands against the active form (double predestination), though I contend that it amounts to the same thing (and even many Calvinists agree), especially when exhaustive determinism is in the background.
I am happy to interact with what you actually said, but my concern was that you were not going far enough and ignoring the important details that make all of the difference in this debate. In Calvinism, our desires are decreed from eternity just as everything else is, so trying to lay the blame on our desires for rejecting God doesn’t adequately grapple with the problem.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello, Ben.
Do you agree that (a) each of us began as an enemy of God, because of sin, (b) none of us did anything to deserve his salvation, and (c) God had no obligation to save even one of us?
Regards,
Jim
a) While we are all born depraved, I do not hold to racial guilt. So while we are born in a corrupt state, God does not hold our sin (or Adam’s sin) against us till we are morally aware and able to willingly rebel against God (i.e. the law written on our hearts, cf. Rom. 7:7-12; James 1:14-15).
b) Absolutely. We do nothing and can do nothing to deserve salvation.
c) Agreed. Thankfully, He desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth and has made this possible through the provision of atonement found in His Son (1 Timothy 2:1-6; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2; John 12:32, 44-48, etc.).
Hello, Ben.
You wrote “He desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-6…etc.)”
How do you suppose that 1 Timothy 2, in context, means he desires that all **individuals** be saved, as opposed to all **types** of people?
Regards,
Jim
Hi Jim,
Not trying to cut into the conversation out of turn, but what in the context demands anything other than the broadest, most inclusive scope in your estimation?
πάντων, is the only word in the Greek, with “people” being arbitrarily added by the translator in verse 6, probably based on the πάντας ἀνθρώπους, all men, of 2:4. But I think that the πάντας of 2:6 is an emphatic declaration to clarify the scope of 2:4’s πάντας ἀνθρώπους. That is, while “all men” might be construed as all types of men, i.e. Gentiles and Jews, rich, poor, men, women, short, tall etc, simply using πάντας in 2:6, shows the intent, not of group types, but of the whole species as a set. Not all types of men, but all mankind (which would necessarily include all of the types referenced above). “All” is nothing less than 100%. Otherwise, “Love the Lord your God with all”, loses its impact and holistic intent.
Just a thought.
Dare to be Gracious!
Doug
Hello, Doug.
Thank you for engaging in the discussion.
I understand that you believe 1 Tim 2:4 says God desires all people, everywhere (individually, and without exception) to be saved.
Would you, then, also believe that Paul, in 1 Tim 2:1-2, is instructing the church at Ephesus to pray for all people, everywhere (individually, and without exception)? Or is he, instead, making a point about prayer for all **types** of people, be they kings, in high positions, or otherwise?
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
There is no contextual basis at all for limiting “all” to “all types.” Obviously, if God desires all to be saved, then that includes all types. The universal includes the particular. There is no reason to try to make a particular restrict the universal language.
Think about what you are suggesting. You are saying that we cannot pray for any individual’s salvation, but only for “types” because God doesn’t actually desire all to be saved, but only “some” (nowhere even hinted at in the text) among “all” types. So they should not pray for any particular king or anyone in particular who is in authority according to this view. And if limited atonement and unconditional election is true, we have no basis to pray for anyone’s salvation at all as it might be that God has no desire to save the person and Christ didn’t die for the person. In that case, we would be praying against God’s will.
Would you, then, also believe that Paul, in 1 Tim 2:1-2, is instructing the church at Ephesus to pray for all people, everywhere (individually, and without exception)?
He is saying that absolutely no one should be excluded from our prayers. He doesn’t mean that we should all somehow have the names of every person on the planet and pray for them as individuals. It would be like if my daughter asked me if she should pray for the President, and I said, “yes, of course, you should pray for everyone because God wants everyone to be saved.”
So Paul is saying that no one should be neglected in our prayers based on position, etc. The reason for this? 1) because God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (which certainly includes those in authority, many of whom are likely oppressing them), and 2) So they can lead peaceful lives. How so? Because in praying for the person God may lead them to the truth which would result in more peace and less opposition for the believing community.
Paul most likely singles out kings and those in authority because they are often the least likely candidates for such prayers as they are often oppressing God’s people and provoking them to anger (cf. vs. 8).
Paul goes on to elaborate on the reason for such prayers. There is one mediator between man and God (Jesus) and He died for all. Why should we pray in this way? Because it pleases God who desires all to be saved, and we know that God desires all to be saved because Jesus died for all.
There is simply no justification for reading “all” as “some among all” in this passage.
And then we have 1 Tim. 4:9-10, which just reinforces these conclusions:
“This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”
He is the savior of all men (desires all to be saved and has made it possible for all to be saved through Christ, cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-6), and especially of those who believe (who are actually receiving this salvation through faith).
God Bless,
Ben
Jim,
While the pragmatics of praying of “individually” is not the issue, that meaning that we say specific, individual prayers for every single individual person, it means that our desires expressed in the prayers being made are meant to be applied in behalf of the whole, unless, of course, the specifics of the prayer are inapplicable to a certain segment of the whole, i.e. a prayer for salvation would not apply to current believers.
In 2:2, There is an example of both types of prayer, in that the specific prayer for Kings is meant to have a general effect for the whole of the kingdom, which includes everyone within it, believers and unbelievers alike. “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (2:3-4)
In my humble opinion, there is no contextual reason for limiting the scope of “all people” to mean anything but “all people everywhere”, as in Acts 17:30.
Dare to be Gracious!
Doug
Dan,
Nothing I have said precludes praying for individuals. You are misrepresenting my view.
God is sovereign, and so nothing happens that is outside his authority and power (Eph 1:11). If, as you suggest, God wanted (prescriptively) all people (that is, every individual, without exception) to be saved, it would happen, else he would not be sovereign.
But we know this isn’t the case, as the Scriptures tell us clearly in many places. Not all come to saving faith.
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
You write:
God is sovereign, and so nothing happens that is outside his authority and power (Eph 1:11). If, as you suggest, God wanted (prescriptively) all people (that is, every individual, without exception) to be saved, it would happen, else he would not be sovereign.
But that only follows if God wants all to be saved unconditionally and irresistibly. God saves through a relationship with Christ and genuine relationship between God and His creatures is dependent on freedom. Why would the God of truth be satisfied with relationships where those who love Him only do so because He irresistibly causes them to?
Here is a great response to the “two wills” argument Calvinists like to make. Notice the comments about a man desiring a woman to marry him as it relates to God desiring all to be saved conditionally rather than unconditionally:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/two-wills-in-god/
Hello, Dan.
Thanks for the link to the “Two Wills” article.
The nub of it, as I see it, is this. If God’s will was that my Uncle Morty be saved, but Morty had the ability to thwart the specific, prescriptive will of Sovereign God, then God would no longer be truly sovereign.
(BTW, I don’t actually have an Uncle Morty.)
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
I’m assuming you were responding to me, Doug, in this post.
1) The issue of sovereignty is not specific to the question you originally posed. You asked specifically about the context of 1Tim 2:1-6, which can be delt with perfectly well without the reference to Ephesians.
2) That said, however, Ephesians goes quite well with my approach to 1 Timothy 2, for God’s Sovereignty has chosen to extent grace to all in the Arminian POV; and therein lies the rub!
The two views of God’s Sovereignty delineated by Calvin and Arminius are, IMHO, both theoretically possible: God can choose to do anything he wants outside of denying His own character and being. He could choose predeterminally and arbitrarily who will and will not be saved, or He could choose to provide the means for anyone to potentiality be saved. The question is which approach better fits the whole nature of God as revealed in Scripture.
3) There is nothing within God that mandates that He could not do anything other than predetermine some to life and some to death, nor is there anything outside of God’s character that would do so; if there were, God would not be Sovereign, would He?
On the other hand, the Love of God certainly has issues with the “limited atonement” concept that are quite difficult, if not impossible to reconcile harmoniously without damaging the very nature and being of God. God cannot be Love and unconditionally choose to allow some to be lost, nor can he be Just. That is why Paul declared that God has made salvation available for “all men, everywhere”. Acts 17:30
Dare to be Gracious!
Doug
Hello, Doug.
You are right in pointing out that the mysteries of God are difficult, if not impossible, for us to reconcile. I don’t expect to be able to understand it all; if I could fully comprehend the mind of God, I would be worshipping a god no higher or greater than myself.
“He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Rom. 9:18-21)
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
Nobody is saying that God should be easy to understand or that there is nothing mysterious about God. But contradictions reveal error, not mystery. As far as your quote of Romans 9, you should really read up on the corporate view of election as represented by scholars like Brian Abasciano. Here is a good place to get started on that:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/ (and note the links at the end of that post for more resources)
While I have been happy to engage your push back here, this page is really just for questions and is not meant to be a debate page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but we need to end the back and forth at this point.
I think you will find a lot of good material to further explore on this site with regards to what Arminains believe and how we address Calvinist prooftexts and questions. Feel free to look around and leave comments at any posts you find interesting. Those are places where we could continue to debate some of these issues if you like.
God Bless,
Ben
Oh, and on Romans 9:18-21 specifically:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
hello…I want to study the arminian plan of salvation. Can you refer me to some books or links that spell it all out, step by step? there is such confusion about this in the church these days. any help appreciated..Jay
Jay,
I am not sure what you mean by “plan of salvation” Do you simply mean the way someone gets saved? If that is the case, it is through faith in Christ. To have faith in Christ means to trust in Him and rely on Him for salvation. The faith that saves is expressed through a commitment to live for Christ and follow Him (repentance). In other words, it is committing our lives to Him.
Hope that helps.
Jay, you should read “The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace” http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/.
My husband and I are pretty firmly in the Arminian camp, even though most of the people we know are not.
We are both thinking of doing a phd at Willliam Carey International University and looking for professors to be mentors or sit on the committee.
Any recommendations of professors who might be willing to take on this mentorship would be appreciated.
As for a question for this blog: I didn’t see a full answer yet (point me to the right paragraph if i missed it) to the question of “Why does God allow evil in the world?”
I am right there with the idea that free will is a good that God has given us. But I still come across people who, although they understand that, they ache inside because they don’t see why God allowed the whole creation in the first place, with evil along with it… ie. Why do the innocent suffer? … the Shack is helpful, as well as sermons by Baxter on this… but does anyone have more answers and/or more writers/speakers on this topic?
Thanks!
Alexandra McGee
alexandra,
I don’t have any recommendations with regards to the PhD, but maybe someone else will chime in on that.
It is hard to know how to answer your question about the problem of evil unless you ask more specific questions. God did not allow the whole creation, He created it. And He created it good. Free will was apparently necessary for us to be real personal beings capable of genuine trust/love relationships with our Creator. That is why He created us, to have loving relationships with us. But for that to be possible, God had to allow for the possibility of rebellion and sin.
Why do the innocent suffer? Because this world is not as it should be. It is ruined by sin. But even in the suffering of the innocent, God is able to bring good out of it as it creates opportunities for us to love one another in a powerful way.
When I deal with issues of suffering, I always point to Jesus, the suffering servant. He suffered in ways that are beyond our understanding. While His suffering was different than ours, it was far more intense. And His suffering was freely chosen. If we could end our suffering, we would. Jesus had that option, and yet He persisted out of love for us. He knows what it is to suffer tremendously and He walks with us through our own suffering. If anyone was “innocent” it was Him (none of us are truly innocent). If it was unfair for anyone to suffer, it was unfair for Him. The cross is God’s megaphone of love and hope in the midst of suffering. Christ’s resurrection points towards the restoration of all things and He has given us the opportunity to share in that restoration through faith in Him.
As far as books, “The Problem of Pain” is a good one by C.S. Lewis. “Where is God When it Hurts?” by Phillip Yancey. “Letter’s From a Skeptic” by Greg Boyd has some really good stuff in it (though it also has some questionable theology in it as well, like Open Theism, which I strongly disagree with). Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Faith.” There are so many more as well, but these are just a few I have read. Maybe others will chime in with some more suggestions for you.
Hope that helps. May God bless you in your Missionary work and in your pursuit of higher education!
I would like to recommend a few books that I have read on the issue of suffering and evil.
If God Is Good by Randy Alcorn
Suffering and the Sovereignty of God by John Piper
Why Suffering by Ravi Zacharias
Trusting God Even When Life Hurts by Jerry Bridges
I found these books very helpful in shedding light on a biblical perspective of suffering. The bible teaches that what people or Satan may intend for evil, He intends for our ultimate good. How can an all-powereful, all-knowing, always-good God allow evil? If I may share an analogy – cutting someone with a knife is evil, right? Not necessarily – it depends on the context. If that someone is on an operating table and a doctor is cutting out a tumor, then cutting someone with a knife is a good thing – not the actual cutting itself, but what will result from the surgery. Or think of a small child getting a shot – they don’t understand the benefit of it – all they know is that doctor just stuck a needle in them and hurt them. We humans cannot see the whole context or the big picture when evil things occur. But God can. Just like we view the surgeon’s knife in light of the whole context of the situation, God views evil acts in light of their whole context. We just have to trust that He knows better than us, as Isaiah 55:8-9 says: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Sally,
Thanks for leaving the recommendations, but there does need to be a caveat with John Piper as he believes that all evil is ultimately the result of God’s eternal unchangeable decree. So to say that God “allows” evil in Piper’s theology is not really accurate. In the end, Calvinist theologies like Piper’s end up compounding the problem of evil rather than solving it in any meaningful way. For more on Piper and the serious problems with his approach to theodicy, see these posts:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/dr-thomas-mccall-takes-on-john-piper-and-the-calvinistic-view-of-gods-sovereignty-2-new-articles-added-to-our-resources/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/big-trouble-in-little-geneva-good-series-exposing-the-major-theological-problems-inherent-in-john-pipers-calvinist-theodicy/
Taking into consideration the whole of scripture, the Bible teaches not only that God is sovereign over all, but that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions. I don’t believe our human minds can comprehend or explain how they fit together, but since they are both taught in scripture, somehow they must. I don’t know who wrote the following illustration, but I find it helpful: “I liken the two concepts of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility to two ropes going through two holes in the ceiling and over a pulley above. If I wish to support myself by them, I must cling to them both. If I cling to one and not the other, I go down. The seeming contradictions cannot be reconciled by the puny human mind. With childlike faith, I cling to both ropes, confident that in eternity I will see that both strands of truth are, after all, of one piece.”
Sally,
Of course the Bible teaches sovereignty and that we are responsible for our actions (because we have genuine free will). But the Bible does not define God’s sovereignty as Calvinists do. God being sovereign does not equate to exhaustive determinism. That is a contrived view of sovereignty and is not taught in Scripture. So there is no need to wrongly label blatant contradictions mysteries.
Also, while many Calvinist appeal to mystery at this point, they also redefine free will to make it comport with determinism, which effectively takes always any so called “mystery.”
However, this is not the place to debate these issues. I suggest you read the articles I linked to about Piper, and maybe check this one out too, if you have the time:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/
And here is a great quote from Tozer that shows how sovereignty and free will are compatible without needing to wrongly label blatant contradictions as “mysteries” or “pradoxes” or “antinomies” or whatever.
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” (A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God)
God bless,
Ben
I love Tozer. His book that you reference is one that I refer to frequently. I agree with you that determinism does not leave room for mystery or paradox. I do not hold a deterministic view of God’s sovereignty. That would be – as the illustration I gave pointed out – clinging to only one of the ropes. I also agree with you that God is “more free” than we are.
What about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in the crucifixion of Jesus ?
Jesus was born to die. The crucifixion was part of God’s plan of salvation from before the foundation of the world. Does that mean that the people who played a role in torturing and killing Jesus did not do so of their own free will? Of course not. How was Jesus’s crucifixion God’s plan and also the result of free choices of men? That’s one example of the kind of mystery that I am I am talking about.
Sally,
I am glad you do not hold to determinism, but Piper and others you referenced certainly do. I don’t really see the crucifixion as that much of a mystery. God just handed Jesus over to the power of those who already wanted to harm Him. God used the sinful intentions of others to bring about the sacrificial death of His Son, but God did not cause those sinful intentions. But in Piper’s Theology God did cause those sinful intentions and the sinful acts themselves by way of an irresistible eternal decree.
Again, I recommend you look at some of those links I gave above.
God Bless,
Ben
i am needing to buy a new bible / large print and wonder what biblen translations you and others use and why? i think the esv is a tiny bit reformed in some words they choose to use/ maybe i am imagining it ,lol. thx in advance for any responses , for your time .
barbbflyjc,
I think the ESV is fine. It may be slanted a little in a few spots, but probably nothing major. I like the NIV and the NASB myself. The NEB might be worth looking into as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben, I feel God chooses believers for certain functions, but I can’t reconcile this scripture. Can you explain how you view it? Thanks.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2Th 2:13)
Paul,
I don’t believe that election only has reference to service or functions. Election, with respect to the covenant people of God, certainly entails salvation.
“From the beginning” in this passage probably has reference to the beginning of Paul’s ministry. There is a textual variant issue at play in this passage as well and I think the more likely reading is that they were chosen as “first fruits” which again fits the same basic idea.
But the main point is that being chosen for salvation is conditioned on faith (“Belief in the truth”), which supports the Arminian conception of election as conditioned on faith.
You should look into the corporate view of election as proposed by scholars like Bran Abasciano that sees election of God’s people as entailing salvation. Here is a good place to start:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Hope that helps.
Paul,
I should clarify that “from the beginning” is most likely “from the beginning” of his ministry among them specifically, not the beginning of his ministry altogether (as his ministry among them specifically was later in his overall ministry).
It would be like saying. “from the very start, you were receptive to God’s working among you, receiving God’s salvation and becoming His people through faith and the sanctification of the Spirit.”
Note also that Paul makes it clear that we receive the Holy Spirit and His sanctifying work by faith as well (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14, cf. Rom. 8:9).
How do you understand Romans 11:4?
ramonapetro,
Paul is pointing to another time in Israel’s history when there was rampant apostasy which correlates with what is happening in Paul’s time (in the wide scale rejection of the Messiah among the Jews). This rejection is not an indicator against Jesus as the legitimate Messiah of Israel, but an indicator of Israel’s hardness of heart in refusing to submit to God’s chosen means of bringing salvation to His people (through faith in Christ). But Paul also wants to make clear that while this rejection is widespread, it is not total. There are believing Jews and Paul is an example. There is still a remnant that will escape judgment (who will not be fitted for destruction). So while Israel as a whole has rejected Christ, it will not be fully devastated as there is still a remnant preserved by grace. Paul is expanding on what he has already stated in Rom. 9:27-33.
Some get hung up on the idea of it being a remnant chosen by grace. But Paul has already made it very clear that faith as the condition for receiving salvation is what establishes it as “by grace” and not by works (cf. Rom. 4:2-16, esp. vs. 16). Notice that those who choose to rely on the law rather than relying on Christ through faith bring “wrath” on themselves because the law brings “wrath” (vss. 14-15), and this leads to Paul’s statement that faith is what establishes the promise received as “by grace.” In Rom. 5:1-2 we see that we avoid wrath and enter into a relationship of peace with God through faith, which gives us access to God’s saving grace. We see the same thing in Rom. 9:30-33 which forms the conclusion to Paul’s argument in Rom. 9 (which he expands on in chapters 10-11).
And in Rom. 11:11-23 we see that identification as God’s chosen covenant people is conditioned on faith and continuance in faith. Continuing in faith is the same as continuing in God’s kindness (i.e. His grace) and is how one remains a member of God’s chosen covenant people (i.e., election is likewise by grace through faith). These articles might help some as well,
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/calvinist-election-refuted-in-romans-11-a-concise-and-devastating-article-by-a-professor-of-new-testament-and-greek/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
Hope that helps.
Let me add that the statement of Rom 11:4 refers to God keeping those who were faithful to him alive. The remnant refers to those who were left alive of the faithful. So as a picture of a remnant being chosen by grace, it is a picture of a remnant being chosen by faith, being chosen because of their faith.
…and given “life” in a most profound sense as a result.
What about “I have reserved for myself 7000….”? How is it that God reserved 7000?
Ok, I re-read your answer(s)…I think I understand now! Thanks!
ramonapetro, Did you read my comment? I said that the statement of Rom 11:4 refers to God keeping those who were faithful to him alive. The remnant refers to those who were left alive of the faithful.
arminian1, Yes! Thank you. That was very helpful!
Hi, I used to be a Calvinist but the Lord has graciously led me out and i’m so grateful for escaping it’s clutches. I’m really struggling with Exodus 4:11 and Job 37. Does God cause men to be blind? Does He cause the weather to be bad, such as the tsunami in 2004 that killed over 250.000 people ?
Thanks you for you help in advance 🙂
Andrew,
Rather than writing something up, let me direct you to a few articles. If you don’t think they address the issue adequately, let’s talk more about it.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/gregory-boyd-how-do-you-respond-to-exodus-411/
http://escapetoreality.org/2010/08/13/exodus-411/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/july/are-birth-defects-really-part-of-gods-plan.html?paging=off
Andrew,
Just t be clear, Tsunami’s are not caused by weather, but result from earthquakes on the ocean floor. Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plates shifting on the earth’s crust. It seems to me that God created a natural order that operates in a certain way and for important reasons. Tectonic plates are menacing when they cause earthquakes, but are important for other reasons. But I do think God is able to intervene, though constant intervention might cause problems for the delicate balance of the natural order (even in ways we don’t fully understand as yet).
I think it is interesting that in the book of Jonah it seems to give special attention to the fact that in the case of the storm and other seemingly natural phenomena going on that they were directly from the LORD (Jonah 1:4, 12, 17; 4:6, 8). This tells me that most often such things are not directly caused by God (though He created the principle and laws that govern them and sustains those laws just as He sustains all things). Not sure if that helps any. Be sure to check pout the links provided by arminian 1.
arminian1 and Kangaroodort, thank you so much your help 🙂 It was very helpful. I have been thinking about this issue a lot lately. Those links were very helpful to but I was wondering if you can help me further think through this issue. I have been having a discussion with my friend about this matter who is Calvinist on facebook and he says that Exodus 4:11 couldn’t be clearer, that God makes people with disabilities the way they are and that those with disabilities is what God intended for them.That God made Moses the way he is and that the context is for Moses not to fear. I tried to emphasise that the context shows us not that God creates people blind, deef or mute but that God is Sovereign, in that he is able to help Moses overcome his fear in of speaking in Egypt.
So is the Calvinist reading this verse righty ? I’m I reading into the text?
I Would appreciate some more help on this please 🙂
Exodus 4:10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”
11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”
Andrew,
Hi, I think the point of God’s words to Moses need to be interpreted in the light of Moses’ question to God. Moses’ faith was timid at this point, and he was seeking any loophole he could find to pass the proverbial buck to someone “more qualified”, i.e., anyone else but him!
God patiently counters this argument by asserting His sovereignty over every conceivable weakness and inability. “I am the one who is sovereign over the deaf and the hearing, the mute and the one who can speak; I can and will use you, Moses, no matter your lack of qualification.” This is the import, the big picture message that God is seeking to communicate.
We must also take into account, that the Hebrew sense of language is not as literal in its expression as is the later Greek. It talks in pictures, not propositional arguments and exactness of verbiage.
This said, the account in John 9 of the man born blind, shows that there are times that God permits (makes) certain circumstances happen for a greater redemption purpose. And That He is free to do, for He is, after all, sovereign over all things.
Just a thought,
Doug
Do you have anything written on Hebrews 3:14. It seems to make a strong case that perseverance in faith is the required evidence of genuine faith.
I’d appreciate any comment or link.
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin Green,
Here are some comments from Biblical scholar Brian Abasciano on the passage that might be helpful:
I think that most people naturally read that passage to say that belonging to Christ is contingent on continuing in faith. In fact, Calvinist Buist Fanning acknowledges that “Most interpreters who comment on these conditions assume that they must denote a cause-to-effect relationship (C/E) between protasis and apdodsis” (p. 207; in the 4 views of the warning passages book), i.e., that persevering in faith brings about continuing to share in Christ. Now he does so as he argues against this view, but he still seems to acknowledge that most commentators naturally read them this way. It is admittedly an unusual way of speaking, but just think about how such language would normally be understood in English.
If a pro sports team owner said to a player, you are part of this team if you do well till the end of the season”, one could take that to mean that the player has until the end of the season to prove himself and that his membership for next season is contingent on this, or it could be taken to mean that as long as he does well he remains a part of the team, but if he does not do well, he will be let go. Again, it is a little strange to speak of a present thing being affected by a present activity that happens for a certain amount of time into the future. But it does make sense that adding on “until the end” would indicate that the activity causes the benefit as long as the activity continues and sets a time frame for its applicability.
So you could imagine someone saying: “You are a member of this church if you affirm the membership covenant and statement of faith until you die.” That is an odd way to put it, but I think the meaning is pretty clear. And if in the same context someone had said, “We are members of this fellowship if we affirm the membership covenant and statement of faith” without qualifiying it, then it would would be relatively clear that “until you die” sets the time frame and adds to the sense that one remains a member as long as meeting the condition. But then, if the context, as Heb 3 does essentially, exhorts people (in terms of the analogy) not to “forsake affirmation of the membership covenant and statement of faith”, then it seems quite clear.
In my opinion “until the end” indicates that the condition must continue till the end for the apodosis of the condition (in this case, “we are partakers of Christ”) to remain true. It really expresses the Arminian view well.
Another analogy: “You are my wife if you remain faithful to me until the end.” This is an unusual way to speak. But in English I think the meaning is clear. As long as you remain faithful to me, you remain my wife. But if you commit adultery, I will divorce you, at the very least our relationship will be in question.
On the wife analogy, just as with the church membership analogy, the context really nails it for the Arminian view. The analogy would be a context admonishing a wife to not commit adultery, not to throw away the vows she made, etc. More could be said about the contextual connections with respect to Hebrews, but I am sure that is obvious enough.
Kevin Green,
Here are some comments I made a while ago in response to someone bringing up this passage as proof for inevitable perseverance:
His comment: “Now that we have laid some groundwork we can delve a bit deeper into Heb. 10:29 and what it could mean. Earlier in Hebrews we are told that we are partakers of Christ If we hold fast our assurance to the end (Heb. 3:14). Now it seems clear to me that this is vital in how we view Heb. 10:29, the implication and the meaning that I get from Heb. 3:14 is that if I do not hold fast unto the end then I was never a partaker of Christ. Since they were never partakers of Christ then this is not a case of losing one’s salvation, instead it shows that they never had it in the first place.”
My response:
I think that your understanding of 3:14 is not correct and must be dealt with in its immediate context. We must first note that if your understanding of 3:14 is correct then the writer of Hebrews was wrong to say that the apostate had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant in 10:29, because according to your understanding of 3:14, the apostate never was sanctified.
You must also consider Heb. 6:4 where those who had been made “partakers” of the Holy Spirit yet fell away. The text is clear that they had truly been made partakers prior to falling away, and 3:1 calls those being admonished “holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling” and yet warns these “partakers” of failing that heavenly calling by hardening their hearts.
So the issue is both partaking and continuing to partake by continuing in the faith firm until the end. The language of 3:14 could support your view but I think the context and the specific statements in Heb. 10:29 forbid that interpretation.
Later he wrote:
Let us look at Heb. 3:6,14 to see what I mean, please show me where I am misusing it and how my reading does not flow with the context.
Hebrews 3:6 … And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence…
Hebrews 3:14 For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
Looking at these and not getting to in-depth, the picture that is drawn is that if one does not “persevere” to the end then they were never a *partaker*. The verses seem clear that this is not a falling away from partaking; instead they show that they were never “truly” partakers in the first place.
My response:
The language does not necessitate your interpretation and the context forbids it as I noted in my last comments. We are of Christ’s house for as long as we remain in the faith (3:6). We have been made partakers with Christ (with continuing results—which the perfect tense indicates) if we continue in the faith.
The emphasis is on continuing to partake and this partaking is conditioned on continuing in the faith. It is not dealing with whether or not one had ever partaken in the first place. That must be read into the text and is contrary to the context and in contradiction to what the author states in 6:4-6 as well as 10:26-29.
It should also be noted that the writer speaks of holding fast (or firmly) to the confidence, courage, hope, etc. That the writer tells them to hold fast to it indicates that the thing which they are to hold fast to is indeed genuine. There would be no benefit in holding to a false hope, confidence; or a courage that they never had. The writer is not admonishing his hearers to get these things, but to hold to (continue in) what they already possess.
His further comment: As for your alluding to Hebrews 3:1, I must admit that the relevance escapes me at this time. It seems that the writer of Hebrews had the rebellion in the wilderness in view through much of this chapter. Notice though what our Heavenly Father said of that generation ”They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.” (Heb. 3:9).
My response:
Let me try to explain why I find it relevant. In 3:1 the writer addresses his audience as “holy brethren” which would indicate that they have been and are being sanctified. He further states that they are “partakers” of a heavenly calling. They were called to faith in Christ and have been called to persevere in that faith which made them holy.
Perseverance is the issue in this chapter (and most of the epistle) but the writer does not question the fact that they are presently “partakers” and “holy brethren”.
It is to these partakers and holy brethren that the encouragement to continue is given. It is also to these partakers and holy brethren that the warning against hardening ones heart to the point of unbelief is given.
_______________________
For the full discussion, see the comments section of this post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-6-hebrews-1026-30/
And since he mentions the OT Israelites as a type, you might want to check out this post as well:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/
Hope that helps,
Ben
Trying to ask a question but cannot find where to do so.
Paul,
You are in the right place. Ask away.
A Calvinist friend of mine loaned me a DVD entitled “Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism”. I can answer almost all the points given there, but do you know of someone who has done so to save me all the time and effort? This thing is 5 hours long!
Sorry, I don’t know of anything off hand, and while I have heard of it, I have not seen it personally.
Thanks. Guess I’ll just dive in, then.
Greetings Ben
My favorite bible expositor is John MacArthur. I love verse by verse teaching. As you already know he is Calvinist. My question is, do you know of any Arminian web sites where there is verse by verse teaching available? If not, do you know of any verse by verse commentaries from an Arminian?
Here is a good place to start: http://evangelicalarminians.org/links-and-books/
A few commentaries:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/craig-s-keener-ivp-commentary-on-matthew/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/gordon-fee-ivp-commentary-on-philippians/
And the Randall House series is Arminian:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Randall%20House%20Bible%20Commentaries&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ARandall%20House%20Bible%20Commentaries
Here is free on-line resource for Asbury Commentaries (all Arminian),
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/toc/
Here is another great online resource: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/toc/
Also, anything by Gordon Fee, I. Howard Marshall, William W. Klein, Joseph Dognell, Ben Witherington III, Craig Keener, Scott McKnight, Grant Osborne, James D. G. Dunn, A. Skevington Wood, Vernon C. Grounds, Stephen Ashby, William G. MacDonald, David A. deSilva, Robert Picirilli, F. Leroy Forlines, and Vic Reasoner. That’s just off the top of my head. If others come to mind I will post them here.
Hope that helps.
Here is a more specific link from the page Ben linked to in his first response to you: Arminian Video and Audio Files http://evangelicalarminians.org/links-and-books/#Arminian_Video_and_Audio_Files . There a several Arminian preachers listed there with links to their sermons who preach expositionally verse by verse including Ben himself. There are also commentaries listed on that page. And the site has a commentary category in its topical index.
Hello Ben,
This site has really helped me a lot with understanding free will. I was wondering if you could provide an explanation for John 9:1-4. Perhaps you have done this before but I could not find it anywhere. I am still struggling with these verses.
Riz,
What about those verses are you struggling with?
It seems like the beggar had no choice and was born that way cause GOD had ordained it.
Riz,
Certainly if someone is born blind they do not have a choice about it. God endowing His creatures with a measure of free will and holding them accountable for the choices they make does not mean we get to have a say in everything. None of us get to choose a great many things that affect our lives. And God does determine many things as well. But the language in this passage does not demand the idea that God caused this man to be born blind so that God could eventually heal the person. If that is your main concern, here are some very helpful comments from Dr. Brian Abasciano (a Biblical scholar) on the meaning of the passage:
Greg Boyd and Nigel Turner (the latter being an immensely respected Greek scholar) maintain that the Greek word “hina” (usually translated something like “for the purpose that”) should be understood as “imperatival, which avoids having Jesus say that the blindness was “for the purpose” of revealing God’s works. The text would then read something like “neither this one or his parents sinned, but let the the works of God be
manifest in him.”
I would say that hINA can be used imperatively. I don’t agree that it is imperatival here however. Nor do I think it likely that it is telic (i.e., indicating purpose). I think Margaret Sim probably has it right that hINA is here used to indicate what Jesus knew would come to pass in this situation (“A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle hINA in Koine Greek,” p. 89; this is a recent, major scholarly work on the conjunction hina, which has met with some solid approval from some Greek scholars, and it challenges the assumption that hina almost always indicates purpose). I would say that this is something akin to an ecbatic (i.e. indicating result) hINA. (Note that an ecbatic hINA is used in the preceding verse in the disciples’ question, which Jesus is answering. The hINA of v. 3 seems to answer/correpsond to the hINA of v. 2.) Sim translates John 9:3 thus:
“Jesus replied, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but the works of God must be revealed in him.’” This is not far off from Boyd’s and Turner’s view, though it is different. I might translate it like so: ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but the result will be that the works of God will be revealed in him.’
To put it very simply, Jesus is indicating the use God will put the man’s blindness to, not the purpose for his blindness to begin with. He does not address that. Now it could be indicating purpose. But if it is, that purpose would not need to be of God making the man blind, but could be of God allowing the man to be blind. But I think it is rather expected result that is being indicated here.
Hope that helps.
God Bless.
Oh wow, this is great stuff Ben. Thank you so much for this
Ben, thank you for taking the time to answer the questions. I really appreciate it. I have a question about the prevenient grace. According to this doctrine, God enables the dead in sins so that he or she may respond or reject the message Gospel.
I’ve heard from Calvinists and specially from the author Matthew Barret in his book “Salvation by Grace” that this concept contradicts the clear testimony of the Bible because, as he says, “man *is* totally depraved”. He says that the doctrine of pre-regenerating grace makes total depravity only hypothetical and not actual (as the Scripture clearly states).
How would you respond to that?
Here’s a quote from his book:
“Regarding the second group of Arminians (classical Arminians)—who argue that prevenient grace negates total depravity so that no person actually exists in such a state—they also are without biblical warrant because Scripture not only affirms total depravity in principle, but also states explicitly that men are indeed in such a state presently. To take but one example, Paul states that before man was saved he actually walked according to the flesh, setting his mind on the things of the flesh (Rom. 8:5–8). Before salvation man was actually hostile toward God, unable and unwilling to submit to God’s law (Rom. 8:7). Man was in the flesh. and the “flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). Scripture does not speak of man’s depravity as that which is negated by prevenient grace or as that in which no man actually ever exists; rather, it speaks of depravity as that state of man in which he currently exists and in which he will die unless an effectual work of grace is accomplished…”
Barrett, Matthew M. (2013-07-29). Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration (p. 249). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Thank you very much for your help,
God bless you,
Federico
fedematias95,
Thanks fro stopping by. You write:
According to this doctrine, God enables the dead in sins so that he or she may respond or reject the message Gospel.
To be more precise, this grace enables us to believe the Gospel, but we do not need any enabling to reject the Gospel. We have that ability already.
He says that the doctrine of pre-regenerating grace makes total depravity only hypothetical and not actual (as the Scripture clearly states).
How would you respond to that?
I don’t see how this claim follows at all for a number of reasons.
First, many Arminians hold that the grace that specifically enables a faith response accompanies the Gospel message. So it is only in accordance with the Gospel message being heard that one is enabled to believe it. It seems that this person is thinking more of a version of prevenient grace that would have us under that influence from the time we are born (more like in Wesleyanism). But even in that version, the objection still doesn’t really work (more on that below).
Second, if the enabling power of prevenient grace makes total depravity only “academic” then why shouldn’t that also be the case of prevenient grace which is, according to the Calvinists, irresistible regeneration? Does God regenerating someone to believe the Gospel make total depravity only “academic” and not real? If not, why should enabling grace that is not regeneration make total depravity less real? So the sword cuts both ways, esp. if we see such enabling as only affecting us when the Gospel is preached (as noted above).
Remember that both Arminians and Calvinists hold to prevenient grace. Sometimes Calvinists make it sound like it is just an Arminian belief, but that is not the case. “Prevenient” just means “comes before”. Basically, it just means “preceding.” So holding to prevenient grace means we hold that God must graciously work in us “before” we can believe. Calvinists believe that as well. They just see this working as irresistible, and many say this irresistible working is regeneration (though not all Calvinist hold to regeneration preceding faith). In fact, for Arminius this was the crux of the whole disagreement:
“The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30). While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.”
And…
“In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good. To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.”
“From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’ That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.” (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)
Saying that the prevenient enabling grace of God is resistible (Arminianism) rather than irresistible (Calvinism) has no bearing at all on whether or not total depravity is real. Indeed, in both views, the reality of total depravity is plainly assumed, otherwise, this prevenient enabling grace would not be necessary. So this argument is really just a bit of a canard as far as I am concerned.
Here is an example. Suppose a child has serious ADD. This condition, which has affected him from birth, prevents the child from focusing on his work at school. Because of his ADD he is simply too easily distracted to focus as he should. Eventually, he is given medication which overcomes his ADD. Now he is able to focus. So does the fact that the medication is enabling him to focus where he was not able to before mean that he no longer has ADD? Of course not. If he did not have ADD the medication would not be necessary. The fact that the medication is necessary is proof that the ADD is real. If not for the medication, he would not be able focus.
Now there is another lesson here. If the student is enabled to do his school work because the medication now makes that possible where it was impossible before, does this mean the child will now certainly do his school work? No. He can still choose not to do his work for a variety of reasons. But his refusal to do his homework cannot be blamed on ADD, since ADD has been overcome by the medicine. In the same way, if God enables us to believe the Gospel where it was impossible before, we are still able to resist obeying the Gospel, and might do so for a variety of reasons. But it is no longer because we are unable.
Now what if we extend this back to the beginning of someone’s life? Suppose severe ADD was diagnosed for this child somehow even before he was born. And suppose medication was administered from the very start in order to mitigate the affects of ADD. Does this mean ADD is no longer a problem? Of course not. If the medication were to stop being administered, the ADD would quickly manifest itself. So the child is still fully dependent on the medication in order to avoid the affects of the ADD he was born with.
And that is the main point. The point is that whenever or however that grace we need is applied, it is applied exactly because “we need it” and without it we would be without hope and unable to respond to God as we should. But if depravity were not real, that would not be the case, and grace would not be the reason why we are able to believe, etc.
So Scripture does testify that we are depraved. Left to ourselves, we are hopeless and unable to come to God. But thank God He has not left us to ourselves. He works in us through His grace to make it possible to seek Him, draw near to Him and believe in Him. That working is real and necessary because of our depravity, whether it is at work in one form or another even from birth or not.
And again, even in Calvinism this is true. We could also apply it to God’s work in sanctification. God’s work in sanctifying us proves that we need to be sanctified, that there is still sinful impulses in us that need to be overcome. When God enables us to overcome those impulses more and more and become more like Him in the process, does that mean those sinful impulses are not real? Does it mean they are only “academic”? Of course not. The fact that God continually works in us to overcome sin does not make sin “academic” or not a real problem.
In a similar way, God makes us “righteous” through justification. So when God makes us righteous, does that mean our unrighteousness that stands behind our need for God to make us righteous and justify us is then just “academic” and not real? Of course not. If it were not real, we would not need God to make us righteous.
And Calvinism runs into even bigger problems with examples of people who began to seek for God or desire a relationship with God prior to conversion. Cornelius in the NT is a Biblical example (Acts 10). He was a God fearer and God was pleased with His devotion prior to his hearing and believing the Gospel. That makes sense in Arminianism which says that God can work in someone’s life to desire Him prior to regeneration, but not in Calvinism where we are all just God haters prior to regeneration.
And we see many examples of this in our daily experiences too. Many slowly begin to desire and seek God in their lives before embracing the Gospel, even seeking salvation. Even Spurgeon says as much in the account of his conversion. But this doesn’t make sense if the Calvinist- you are a God hating rebel until you are regenerated- claim is true. In their scheme, you can’t even begin to desire God a little bit until God irresistibly regenerates you. That doesn’t accord with Scripture or experience. But the Arminian version of prevenient grace does.
Hope that helps. God bless.
“It seems that this person is thinking more of a version of prevenient grace that would have us under that influence from the time we are born (more like in Wesleyanism). But even in that version, the objection still doesn’t really work (more on that below).”
First of all, thank you for the post; it was very good. More to my point, now.
It seems to me that the partitioning of “Grace” is the fodder of divisiveness. Indeed, there are certainly differing aspects of Grace depending on the situation, convicting, consoling, converting, etc, but it is still the same Grace, the same outreaching kindness of God for those who need it (which is all of us, constantly).
As a Wesleyan, I think prevenient Grace is broad ranging in its applications. It would include to the Calvinistic concept of “common” Grace, but is much more dynamic in nature and purpose.
In the first place, I would say that it is “irresistible” in that it is a corporate intervention of God into the whole of creation’s contamination with and by sin. Without such Grace, such intervention, sin would have obliterated mankind completely, and probably in short order, as we discern from the account of Noah. (Gen 6:12-13) In this sense, prevenient Grace holds sin a bay, and thus preserves the human race from self-destruction. (Yes, that makes the flood an act of Grace)
In a similar way, still on a corporate scope, but with individual focus, preceding grace prevents the voice of the sin nature from being the only voice that we are capable of hearing. This is where the irresistible nature of Grace culminates and ceases as far as human volition is concerned; God makes us able to hear, but he doesn’t make us listen. (Your ADD illustration says the same thing, if I understand you correctly.)
We see this played out in our youngest children. Innocence perceives everything as good, but as innocent behavior is tempered by instruction and direction, the sin of “coveting” or whatever, springs into action. But if we were not first able to comprehend the truth, the “law” of God, sin would not be able to make itself known, and we would have no means of recognizing, let alone repenting of our sin and sinfulness. (Rom 7:7-12) That all men, generally speaking, have a sense of right and wrong to one degree or another is, I think, evidence of this fact. Any expression of God’s standards, whether by formal Law, or by intuitive expression and revelation is an act of prevenient Grace preparing the way of reconciliation at some point in the future. We have to know we are sick before we can seek for a cure.
There is no “academic” dumbing down of the reality of the sinful nature, in fact grace exacerbates its reality fully. Only then can a soul cry out “Woe is me, for I am undone” and “who shall save me from this body of death?” (Isa 6:5, Rom 7:24) This aspect of Grace, this going before, is a comprehensive and humanly corporate expression of God’s love. All grace is aimed at the prospect of each man coming to realize his condition before God and looking to the Cross for redemption.
How does Arminianism interpret
Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Co 1:8)
It seems that no matter what, salvation is assured.
Thanks for helping.
Paul,
Quite simply, Paul is saying that God will keep those who continue to trust in Him. He is not saying that God will cause those to trust in Him to irresistibly continue to trust in Him. One could possibly read it that way, but it is not a necessary inference from what Paul is saying. And Paul is speaking of those who are “eagerly” waiting for Christ to return. So Paul is saying that they have good reason for such confidence for Christ will surely return and will keep those who are eagerly awaiting His arrival blameless.
Now, if this were an infallible promise of perseverance to all those Paul is writing to in Corinth, we would expect this infallible confidence to continue throughout the letter. But we see that Paul is not so confident throughout the letter that those he is addressing will certainly persevere, and warns them against behaving in such a way that would disqualify them from the kingdom (see chapter 6 for example).
We see the same thing in nearly all of Paul’s letters. Here is a post I wrote a while back that addresses a similar claim with regards to Philippians:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/does-paul-teach-unconditional-eternal-security-in-philippians-16/
Now another way to look at this verse is to see it as primarily corporate. In that case Paul is really talking about the church as a whole, the body of Christ. What is true of the body would then only be true for the individual so long as the individual remains in that body (through faith). The context would seem to plainly bear this corporate orientation out since Paul begins by saying:
“To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (vss. 1-3)
And even right before the passage you mention, he writes:
“Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.” (vs. 7)
Is Paul saying that each believer should lack no spiritual gift? Of course not. He is speaking of the church as a whole, as the corporate body of Christ. If anyone would cease to remain a part of that corporate body, they would no longer have any claim to the promises that are for the body of Christ alone.
In addition to my view of Philippians above, which focuses more on the individual, Matt O’Reilly takes the corporate view to address the same text: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-question-of-perseverance-in-philippians-16/
And Biblical scholar B.J. Oropeza makes the same point with regards to a passage in Romans which many likewise appeal to as an infallible promise of inevitable perseverance:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Perseverance-Oropeza-on-Romans-8.28-39
For more on the corporate view in general and especially as it relates to the concept of election, this is a good place to start:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben thank you again for taking the time to answer our questions. Mine is related with God’s purpose on creating the universe. Why from an Arminian point of view did God created the Universe knowing that we would sin? I know that this is perhaps a very basic question but I’d appreciate your response.
God bless you,
Federico
fedematias95,
In one sense that is an impossible question to answer because we simply do not know God’s thoughts. But it seems safe to assume that God had a very good reason for creating such a universe, even if that meant people would in fact sin. The basic answer is that this was the only way for Him to form genuine love relationships with His creatures, by allowing them a measure of free will (which also allows for the possibility of sin).
But there is another way to look at it which would suggest that the idea of God foreknowing we would sin and then, based on that foreknowledge, deciding to not create the universe for that reason assumes an inherent absurdity because it would mean that by not creating the universe, God could falsify His foreknowledge and effectively be wrong (and God cannot be wrong).
Here is a post I wrote that addresses a similar protest regarding the suggestion that if God foreknows someone will not believe and end up in hell as a result, God should have just not created that person. See the comments section as well.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/some-quick-comments-regarding-free-agency-and-foreknowledge/
Hope that helps.
Ben, thank you. Day by day I’m being more convinced of Arminian theology. It’s not easy because I had very strong Calvinists convictions. Right now I’m reading “Grace, Faith, Free Will” by Robert E. Picirilli. What should be my next reading to learn more about Arminianism?
Thank you,
God bless you,
Federico
Ben, here I am again. This time I have a question regarding God’s will, providence and foreknowledge.
As you know, right now I’m reading the book “Grace, Faith, Free Will” by Robert E. Picirilli and in page 35 where the author introduces the classical Arminian doctrine of predestination he says:
“God is creator and preserver of all that exists outside himself, so that *all that is -including all that happens- is in accordance with His will, His plan for the history of the created, subordinate, sustained universe.*”
I’ve been reflecting a lot on this quote and I have a couple of question in relation to it.
1.- Arminians believe that God knows the future without causing it (this is in contrast with the Calvinist belief that the basis of God’s foreknowledge is His determination of it) and that in some sense, therefore, what will happen causes God’s knowledge and not the opposite. My question is: If God just knows what will happen, then where is there place for His providence? How can God accomplish His plan when He already knows what will happen and His knowledge cannot fail? Does God know the future and then edit it to be in accordance with His plan? Or Does God first create a plan and then foreknows the future? What comes first, His plan or His foreknowledge? If His plan comes first then the Fall was part of His plan, right?
2.- Is everything that happens in the world God’s will? If not, what did Robert Picirilli mean with that quote? And that would mean that there are sometimes meaningless or unnecessary evils, sometimes things happens and don’t have any purpose. If the answer is yes then, was God’s will the Fall or every evil in the world?
3.- Calvinists work with a model of providence of cause/effect (Divine determinism). It assures that God’s will is always accomplished. In Arminianism, how does God accomplish His will? Does He sometimes violate man’s free will? Does He use a model of influence/response in which He does not violate human’s free will?
I hope you understand my questions. I’m really struggling with them.
I appreciate you effort and the time you take to answer every one of the questions. I would like ask you more questions via email, is that possible?
I’m sorry if I make mistakes in my grammar, I’m learning English.
God bless,
Federico
Federico,
You write:
1.- Arminians believe that God knows the future without causing it (this is in contrast with the Calvinist belief that the basis of God’s foreknowledge is His determination of it) and that in some sense, therefore, what will happen causes God’s knowledge and not the opposite.
Well, Arminians would not say that all future things are uncaused by God. God will certainly cause many things. We would only say that God does not cause truly free choices or actions (which would be a contradiction in terms).
How can God accomplish His plan when He already knows what will happen and His knowledge cannot fail? Does God know the future and then edit it to be in accordance with His plan? Or Does God first create a plan and then foreknows the future? What comes first, His plan or His foreknowledge? If His plan comes first then the Fall was part of His plan, right?
It is important to remember that God does not only foreknow our choices and actions but God’s choices and actions in the context of His interactions with us. So it is not as though God has nothing to do with the future and just powerlessly “foreknows it”. He has a lot to do with the future (and how the future will in fact unfold), while still foreknowing all of it. I think God has an overall plan that nobody can ultimately thwart, but He also allows for freedom within that overall plan, while being able to work through that freedom, or despite that freedom, to accomplish His overall plan. But it is important to remember that the ability of His creatures to exercise a measure of true freedom and to respond to the exercise of that true freedom is also part of that plan.
2.- Is everything that happens in the world God’s will? If not, what did Robert Picirilli mean with that quote?
I think we can say it is in the loose sense, and I think that is how Picirilli means it. So God’s will is not for evil, but for the freedom that often produces evil. But God allows evil (for now), and so we can say that in one sense it is God’s will to allow for evil as a consequence of freedom. And God can use evil to bring about good, or even to further His plans, without causing that evil. For example, God used the already evil intentions of the Jewish leaders to bring about the good of His Son’s death. But God did not have to cause those evil intentions for that to happen.
And that would mean that there are sometimes meaningless or unnecessary evils, sometimes things happens and don’t have any purpose.
I would rather say that there is a purpose behind why things happen, rather than saying something on its own has purpose or not. Again, the reason evil happens is because there is a purpose for freedom. In other words, God desires freedom for a reason (a purpose) and evil is then a consequence of that purpose. But that doesn’t mean that evil has a necessary purpose all its own (though “people” do purposely commit evil acts).
If the answer is yes then, was God’s will the Fall or every evil in the world?
God’s purpose was for freedom. God allowed Adam and Eve the opportunity to freely obey Him when they were presented with an alternative. That was God’s purpose: the freedom to freely obey and value God more than the words of the serpent or the supposed benefits of eating the fruit. A. W. Tozer puts it well:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” (A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God)
But the fall certainly did not take God by surprise either, which is why He purposed to sacrifice His Son from the “foundation of the world.”
In Arminianism, how does God accomplish His will? Does He sometimes violate man’s free will? Does He use a model of influence/response in which He does not violate human’s free will?
God accomplishes His will in a variety of ways, and I would not say that God never violates the will either. Certainly, it was not Nebuchadnezzar’s will to start acting like an animal and spend 7 years in the wilderness. But I do not think that God hold’s people accountable for their actions in such cases, as he would if they were acting freely. And when it comes to the vital relationship with God that we all need, God does not violate our freedom, as that would negate the basis for that relationship to be real and truly loving. The God of all truth will surely not be satisfied with relationships that are essentially a farce that result from irresistible causation.
I hope that helps. And if you are just learning English, you are doing great!
Here are a few posts that might help explain these things a little more:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/david-p-hunt-contra-hasker-why-simple-foreknowledge-is-still-useful/
Thanks for responding, Ben. I appreciate it..
Paul
I saw this on this site, but I’m not completely comprehending it. Can you please further elaborate on it? Thanks.
Article by Günther H. Juncker, re-posted from SEA
According to Calvinism, Rom 11:5-7 teaches double predestination. On the one hand there is a “remnant” that is elect and has been “chosen” for salvation from before the foundation of the world. And on the other hand there is “the rest” who are the non-elect, or reprobate, who have been created and irreversibly predestined to hell. The reprobate by definition cannot be saved because God does not want them saved. He does not love them (rather he “hates” them) and Jesus did not die for them. These God justly “hardens,” like Pharaoh, to keep from salvation since God does not want them saved but in hell.
According to Paul, however, “the rest” who are not elect and not “chosen” can be saved. In fact, many of them will be saved. Saving them is, from one angle, the very point of the Gentile mission! If Paul is correct then Calvinism is, in a word, refuted. Clearly if “the rest” can be saved, then they are not the reprobate of Calvinistic double predestination theology. The fact that some are “chosen” does not entail that others are irreversibly reprobated or “rejected.” Since the chosen “remnant” actually comes from the ranks of “the rest” it is thus not enough to say, as any Calvinist could say, that the existence of a remnant proves that God has not rejected Israel. It is specifically “the rest,” described in detail in the immediately preceding paragraph (Rom 10:16-21), that God has not rejected. But how to be sure? Simple. Follow the pronouns in Romans 11 to see what Paul himself actually says about “the rest.” God loves them. He shows mercy to them. He desires that they be saved. Some of them can and will be saved.
Paul,
Did you read the full article? The point is that those who Calvinists identify in 11 as hopeless reprobates (continuing on with their wrong understating of Rom. 9) are called “the rest” who are not elect and in contrast to the elect (the chosen remnant). If you follow the pronouns throughout, you will find that Paul offers hope to those the Calvinists identify as those that have been irrevocably and irresistibly reprobated from eternity. The take away: The Calvinist understanding of the the “non-elect” or “reprobate” is foreign to Paul’s thought. For Paul, the non-elect are simply those who are not presently in right relationship with Christ, a situation that can be remedied through faith.
Hope that helps.
Paul,
Here is his conclusion:
“Truly, this passage should be an eye opener for those who have not taken God’s salvific, propitiatory agape love for the entire world (John 3:16; cf. 1 John 2:2) seriously enough. In short, if Rom 11:5-7 is not describing the reprobate of Calvinistic double predestination then it is safe to say that there are no such people. What Calvin meant by terms like “elect” and “chosen” and “hardened” has nothing to do with what Paul meant by these terms. The Calvinist system is foreign to Paul and twists Paul’s terms to mean things that they never meant. Same goes for expressions like “vessels of wrath” that for Calvin meant reprobate and irreversibly predestined to hell; whereas for Paul it simply meant presently under God’s wrath but able to come out from under that wrath through faith in the Gospel (cf. Rom 2:4-5). In fact, for Paul all believers were once “vessels of wrath” (Rom 1:18-3:20; cf. Eph 2:3)! In other words, if the so-called “reprobate” can be and are being saved and grafted into the Olive Tree, then there is no such thing as the “reprobate” as Calvinism understands the term. May God spare us from dogmatic interpretations that distort the Gospel and diminish God’s goodness, love, and mercy toward the whole cosmos and every single person in it!”
I did read the whole article, but couldn’t grasp exactly what he was saying – I believe I understand it now. Thanks.
Can you tell me how you view 2Th 2:13? Thanks.
Paul,
That passage comes up as supporting Calvinism some times, but I think a careful reading of the language supports Arminianism better than Calvinism (as is so often the case). First, Paul says that they were “chosen” through…belief in the truth. That would most naturally be understood as faith being the means through which they were chosen (just as we are saved by grace through faith). So basically, we have a passage that says they were chosen “through faith” which is exactly what Arminianism claims, and is counter to the Calvinist view that we are chosen unto faith.
Now Paul also says they were chosen through sanctification, but we know that sanctification and the reception of the Spirit that sanctifies us is also by faith in Scripture (Acts 26:18; Gal. 3:2, 5, 14). We are “set apart” to God and marked out as belonging to Him through the reception of the Spirit of promise, and all of this is through faith.
The other issue is “from the beginning” in this passage, which probably has reference to the beginning of Paul’s ministry among the Thessalonians (there is no reason to take it as a reference to eternity or the beginning of time as Calvinists often do). It would be like saying. “from the very start, you were receptive to God’s working among you, receiving God’s salvation and becoming His people through faith and the sanctification of the Spirit.” There is also a textual variant issue at play in this passage which has “chosen as first fruits” rather than “from the beginning” here, which might convey the same basic idea of them being the first to embrace the Gospel in Paul’s ministry in that area.
Hope that helps.
How do I as a believer respond to the Calvinist about Jacob & Esau? Also the preordained for heaven or hell issue? I don’t believe their view point at all but would like some clarification through the scriptures. Any help would be appreciated
Patrick,
Are you referring to Romans 9 when you mention Jacob and Esau? Romans 9:12 is a reference to Genesis 25:23. That passage makes it clear that Jacob and Esau were being referred to as people groups. And the reference to Esau being hated is a reference to Edom (the people descended from Esau), not to Esau personally. The point is that God chose to affirm his covenant promise to Abraham and Isaac through Jacob rather than Esau. One fact that really drives this home is the fact that Esau never personally served Jacob. In fact, the opposite is true. Jacob bowed down to Esau and called him “lord” and called himself Esau’s servant (Genesis 32 and 33). But the nation of Edom was subject to Israel (Jacob) at various times. So it is about the identity of God’s covenant people, not about the individual spiritual fates of Jacob and Esau.
As for the Calvinist claim about predestination, the Bible never suggests such a thing. To addressed that more fully, you would need to let me know what specific arguments you are referencing or what passages of Scripture are being used to support the idea.
For a brief post that deals with Romans 9, this might be a good place to start:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
Here is another good one:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/romans-9-an-arminiannew-perspective-reading/
And you should really get familiar with the corporate election view. Here is good place to get started on that (note additional links on the bottom),
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
Hope that helps.
There is also this post at this site: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/where-calvinism-gets-romans-9-wrong-who-do-jacob-and-esau-represent/.
I would like to know of links that can lead me to studies against the interpretation of Reformed/Calvinistic people who use OT passages as a reference to pre-conversion-regeneation for individuals to hear God…such as Deut 29:4 and Deut. 30:6 Thanks….. James
James,
I would suggest just checking out some commentaries. My guess is that you will not find that Calvinist spin to be a very well regarded interpretation. I doubt even commentaries written by Calvinist would typically draw those conclusions.
One big problem with this interpretation is that the Calvinist view says we must be regenerated to trust in God. But regeneration seems to be solely a new covenant promise and reality. Yet, obviously, we see many OT saints trusting in God. For more on the promise of regeneration being a NT reality, see this post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-ezekiel-3626-27-teach-regeneration-precedes-faith/
Deut. 30:6 is basically saying the same thing.
As far as Deut. 29:4 the context seems to suggest that while the Israelites saw great miracles, they did not fully grasp the extent of God’s intervention and care for them during their desert wandering, or His ultimate purpose in how he led them through the desert. But in this passage such things are now being revealed. So it really is a lame prooftext for the Calvinist claims.
This passage closes with verse 29 that talks about the secret things belonging to the Lord while the things revealed (the law) are for them to be able to follow and obey the Lord. That is another passage that Calvinists twist badly out shape to suit their needs. But it fits well with the context as God is reminding them that they don’t need to fully understand what God is doing among them, or what His ultimate purposes are, they simply need to focus on obeying Him. That is their part. The rest they should leave to God.
For how Calvinists misuse Deut. 29:29 see here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/calvinism-and-deuteronomy-2929/
I was wondering what you think of this site?:
https://justifiedbychristalone.com/2008/07/14/the-christ-of-arminianism/
Not much.
Hi, I have a dilemma that has been troubling me for the past few weeks and I thought perhaps you could help. I grew up nominally Christian, though not in a particularly rigorous or informed sense.
However, I later lapsed into agnosticism or something like it – my sense was that Jesus was definitely Lord and savior given that God existed, but I wasn’t totally sure about the “God existing” bit. Social pressure from atheist friends caused me to become less and less connected to the faith, and at my lowest point I actually asked others for help in unbelieving. However, their efforts were thankfully in vain, and I couldn’t duck the feeling that God existed.
After reading The Great Divorce, I experienced a state of joy and full belief for several hours. It was perhaps the best I have ever felt, but soon it began to fade, and I lapsed again into sin and doubt. This was a few years ago, I believe in 2013 or 2014.
Recently, I started looking into these matters more seriously, and discovered that my past “easy-believism” was in deep error, and that Jesus requires a more serious commitment. As a result, I’ve moved back towards the faith, but I’m beset by fear – I fear I may have committed apostasy or blasphemed the Holy Spirit and that I can’t be renewed. I’ve prayed for forgiveness, for strength, and the indwelling of the Spirit, but thus far this forgiveness eludes me, much less the joyful assurance I once had.
I know, of course, about the Prodigal Son and the stray sheep, I know fallen branches can be grafted back on if they don’t persist in disbelief, I know Peter explicitly denied Christ and was forgiven. But there have been times in my recent crisis of faith when I’ve thought “perhaps it’s all fake, then”, and even felt relief in this fact, albeit only temporarily. I fear that I have perhaps committed the sin of Hebrews 6 – and even if I haven’t, the doubts around this weaken my ability to believe and to love.
I have taken some comfort in the fact that I have professed the faith to others, that I have said “Jesus is lord” and meant it in my heart, that even in my periods of greatest doubt and near-atheism I never thought or said that Jesus was evil or Satanic or a criminal or worthy of contempt – but still I doubt and still I fear, and this seriously weakens my ability to flourish as a Christian.
Am I an unredeemable apostate? If not, what should I do in order to assuage these doubts and fears, that I may walk in love again?
DK,
I am convinced that if someone has committed this sort of irremediable blaspheme/apostasy, such a person would no longer want anything at all to do with God. They would certainly not want to be reconciled to God or return to Him or have the sorts of concerns you express here. So in my view, there is no way you could have committed such an apostasy. You can scroll back and see how I have answered this with others who have asked similar questions.
As far as how you can feel better about it, that will always come down to a matter of faith. You need to believe the promises if you want assurance (all of God’s promises are received by faith). Jesus said that He would not cast out any who come to Him (John 6:37). So if you come to Him and seek a relationship with Him, you have the promise of Scripture that you will not be turned away. That is part of the reason why I say that an irremediable apostate would not have any desire to return to Christ. They would feel no conviction, no need for God. They would be hardened in absolute unbelief. Again, that is clearly not the case with you based on your testimony.
You might also find these comments helpful from an Arminian Biblical scholar who used to hold that Hebrews 6 was describing irremediable apostasy, but has since changed his view:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-my-argument-for-apostasy-not-being-irremediable-in-hebrews-6/
Hope that helps.
Greeting in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior,
I am writing this to you in hopes of hearing an Armenian expatiation John 12:37-49
I have a deep appreciation for scripture and I lean toward a reformed theology. (Calvinist)
I also pastor a congregation that in large enters the pages of scripture with an Armenian theology. (Mennonite, not conservative black bumper, a part of the Lancaster Mennonite Conference in Pennsylvania)
In asking for your help, I want to express my appreciation for open handed discussions. Not holding that either is better but how I may learn from you?
Being sensitive not to just preach a message that could come across that I desire to change anyone’s theology or be misunderstood by creating dissension, which I might just add is often the results of church splits, these discussion have harmed the church since the beginning of time.
So could you assist me as to your approach to John 12:37-49
Since I greatly respect you and your deep love for Jesus, I plan to bring a message from John 12:37-49 on Sept 25th ( I preach an expository style.) Would you be willing to dialog with me?
My desire is to not convert anyone to Calvinism, or to debate with you. I simply would like to learn from you, and hear your position.
Thank you and God Bless!
Michael,
Your comment is not very specific and I don’t really have time to offer a detailed exegesis of that passage. But I do have several references for you to check out on the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes (which I think is your main concern), which should help in understanding how Jesus is applying that passage in John 12. The first is a study note from the NET Bible. The second two resources are larger articles:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/comments-on-divine-hardening-of-the-human-heart/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/bruce-hollenbach-lest-they-should-turn-and-be-forgiven-irony/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/gordon-c-i-wong-make-their-ears-dull-irony-in-isaiah-69-10/
And here is another article on Isaiah 6:9-10 from an Arminian perspective that you might find helpful:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Is6_10.html
Also, you might find this post helpful where I compiled several comments I have made in various places regarding some of the passages in John which Calvinists often appeal to in support of TULIP. It highlights a basic theme in John that I think relates to John 12 as well, that those who reject Christ have already rejected the Father. They cannot receive what Christ is teaching them while actively resisting the Father:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/various-thoughts-on-the-calvinist-use-of-john-6-and-related-passages-from-johns-gospel-to-support-calvinism/
I would also refer you to Paul’s’ use of similar passage in Romans 10:16, 20-21 and esp. Romans 11:8-10 compared with Romans 11:11-32 where the “rest” who were “hardened” are the same ones who can yet be grafted back into the ancient olive tree “if they do not persist in unbelief.” That strongly cuts against the typical Calvinist understanding of such passages, and their typical understanding of Romans 9 as well. A good post (written by a Greek professor) that addresses this in Romans 9-11 is:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/gunther-juncker-how-romans-11-refutes-calvinism/
Lastly, I would point out that John 12:44-48 actually is big trouble for any Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement as Jesus says that He came to save the same “world” that contains those who will ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result (and note the parallel language with John 3:16-18).
Hope that helps.
Thank you very much, I will read and ponder the links you have sent to me. God bless,Michael
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Sure. Good luck with your sermon.
I couldn’t find a discussion on the names found written in the Book of Life in Revelation 13:8 & 17:8b “…and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world…” This verse implies that the names of the elect were written before the foundation of the world. Does this do harm to the concept of corporate election? How can the elect be named individually before they believe? A group of yet to be determined number can be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, but if the elect are unnumbered then they must also be unnamed. What am I missing?
I enjoy your site. God bless!
Dana
Dana,
I am going to paste in some helpful comments Dr. Brian Abasciano made to someone with the same basic question about these passages:
“Regarding Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 in relation to corporate election, I don’t think they conflict with corporate election at all. First, the text uses the language of “since [or from] the foundation of the world,” meaning names not written in the book at some point during the time period starting with creation to the time envisaged by John in those passages from Rev; cf. the usage of this same phrase in Luke 11:50 referring to “the blood of all the prophets which has been shed since the foundation of the world”. What is really in view are names that have not been written in the book at some point since the creation of the world stretching into the time John speaks of. Moreover, the text speaks of names *not* having been written, which is altogether different from names being written! Even more so this poses no problem for the idea of corporate election, which entails individual election based on union with Christ and incorporation into the people of God. Paul’s olive tree metaphor in Rom 11 is a perfect picture of corporate election, with people becoming part of the elect people based on faith (or departing from the elect based on unbelief) and so sharing in the election of the people of God and their corporate head. There are individuals making up the elect people. And any individual member of the elect people can be written down as one of the elect. It is simply that each elect individual is elect by virtue of union with Christ and membership in the elect people, sharing in the election of Christ and his people as a corporate whole. Indeed, it is the corporate view of election that accords best with the idea that names are written in God’s book throughout history when they believe, and that names can be blotted out from the book, as Revelation testifies to so clearly (see 3:5). The upshot is that the Revelation verses are not at odds with a corporate view of election testified to so clearly in other passages of Scripture.”
_______________
In response to someone mentioning the “before the foundation…” translation of the ESV, he writes….
“The translation of the ESV is simply incorrect. The ESV badly botched the translation of Rev 13:8. The Greek does not say “before the foundation of the world,” but “since [or from] the foundation of the world,” as the ESV rightly translates the same phrase in Rev 17:8. There is no difference in the Greek of the phrase in question between the 2 verses. In both verses it is ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (apo kataboles kosmou). The key is the preposition Greek ἀπό (apo), which means “from or since” not “before”.
Hope that helps.
I did not see a way to reply within my original thread so I am just replying here. Hope that is ok.
Dr. Abasciano’s explanation on Rev. 13:8 & 17:8 was helpful. It looks like the ESV is one of the few translations that use “before” rather than “from” or “since” in 13:8. I hadn’t pickup up on the difference but it makes sense. Thank you.
My only criticism is a minor one. He points out that 17:8 is a negative which is not the same as stating the positive. Then he ends by pointing to 3:5 as proof that your name can be blotted out when this also is stated in the negative, “…And I will never blot out his name from the book of life…” A promise not to blot out is not an admission that it is a possibility, though admittedly it is natural to think so.
Thanks again. I’ll continue to check back in as I need more insight on the Arminian perspective.
I am a recovering semi-Calvinist. I was considering the position for a great many years until about February of this year. Since then I have thoroughly rejected it. In truth, I oppose it. My question has to do with eternal security. If a believer holds by faith to God’s promise of preserving them by His power in faith (1st Peter 1:6) apart from works, believing that nothing will ever separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:36-39), and from that faith live a life of devotion to God’s word and work, would that not be their temporal and their eternal security by grace? If so, then the security of the believer would be a true doctrine of the gospel, and not a Satanic one (as some have written).
Joel,
I am not sure I am totally following what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that if one sincerely believes in eternal security then it cannot be a false doctrine. But I doubt that is what you are saying since it is obviously false that sincere belief in something makes it true.
Maybe you are trying to describe the view that God will cause believers to continue in their faith so that they will never fall away. That is the common Calvinist view. That is different than the view that sees no need for perseverance at all and would even suggest that unbelievers will be saved as long as they at one time had a moment of sincere faith (which is a very dangerous and violently unBiblical view).
I reject both views because I think the Bible is clear that true believers can fall away and perish, while also acknowledging that God fully enables us to persevere in the faith so that nobody falls away because they were simply unable to continue in faith. In other words, while God empowers us to persevere, He does not irresistibly cause us to.
I also think that the inevitable perseverance view creates problems with salvation assurance as described in Scripture. I could point you to some posts that highlight this problem if you like.
My statement does seem a bit incoherent. I guess I’m trying to say that unconditional eternal security can produce a lifestyle of faithfulness and good works. Antinomianism is not the only result of such a belief. I know many people who believe in unconditional eternal security who are not antinomian. They still sin, as we all still do (regrettably), but they are not antinomian. Also, how would it be grace, if we were lost because of failure in the Christian life? Wouldn’t that be what we deserve, which would be the antithesis of the grace relationship into which we were brought by God through the gospel? I’ve been reading the articles on your website for several months now, and have been really enjoying the Calvinist perspective being destroyed from within me. It’s been quite a journey. Thank you for responding. I am a seeker of truth, and I hate to argue, but I love to discuss doctrine.
I mentioned to someone that it would not be fair and just of God to send people to hell that had no choice in the matter without an escape, and I was asked why not when God ordered what he did in Deu 2:34:
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
I gave my best answer, but how would you answer someone who quoted this to you?
Thanks.
I would say the argument from Deu 2:34 rests on several assumptions that cannot be drawn from the text itself. God can enact judgment on a nation whenever He feels it is necessary, and if he does so the judgment is well deserved and perfectly just. This does not mean those being judged never had any choice in the matter or that God had never reached out to them or given them opportunity to repent (e.g. Jonah going to Nineveh). The Bible is silent on such issues in this particular passage, but it serves as a very weak prooftext for irrevocable eternal reprobation. That idea can only be read into the text as the text itself does not support it.
Hello I fell down the Calvinist rabbit hole and have been trying to get out. I sometimes sway back and forth between unconditionelection and conditional. I have a question which has been really tough for me. How does us freely choosing God apart from his sovereign election not take away from his glory? Or doesn’t us choosing Christ and therefore choosing correctly give us something to boast in? Like we chose right everyone else chose wrong? I’ve really been struggling with this and it seems safer to see salvation as a monergistic work of God. Please I would really appreciate some insight or help you could offer.
Hello Chase,
This is a common Calvinist philosophical argument, but it isn’t a Biblical argument. The Bible doesn’t really address the issue of boasting in making a choice that someone else does not make. Rather, the Bible is concerned with the idea of trying to boast in salvation as if salvation is something we can merit or earn. And the way the Bible addresses this issue is by focusing on the fact that salvation is a free and undeserved gift that is received by faith. Roman 4 illustrates this very well.
“What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 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.” (Romans 4:3-5)
This is the Biblical principle that excludes boasting. Trusting in God receives a gift, while “working” assumes it can earn or merit something from God. Simple trust puts all of the focus on God. It is the opposite of self-reliance. If we could save or justify ourselves, we wouldn’t need to trust in Christ to save and justify us. The fact that we need to trust in Christ to save us proves that we cannot save ourselves. That is why faith, by its very nature, excludes boasting, and that is why faith is the perfect condition for receiving salvation. It is simple trust in God to do for us what we cannot possibly do for ourselves. That is why Paul says:
“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:27-28)
It is the “principle of faith” that makes boasting impossible, because faith simply receives a free and underserved gift from the hand of God by trusting in Him and His promises,
“It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” (Rom. 4:13)
And it is because faith receives a free and undeserved gift from God that it can be called “grace.”
“For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.” (Romans 4:14-16)
Notice Paul never once suggests that salvation is by grace because grace is given irresistibly to some and not others. But suppose that was the reason. Suppose salvation is “by grace” because God irresistibly causes faith in us. Well, then God could have just as easily made “works” the condition for receiving salvation and made it “by grace” by simply irresistibly causing us to do such “works.” But that makes nonsense of the deliberate distinction Paul makes between “works” (trying to earn something) and “faith” receiving a free gift by simple trust in the giver.
The fact that salvation is a gift received by faith is what makes the Calvinist claim ridiculous. If I receive a free and undeserved gift from someone does that mean I “earned it” just because I did not reject it? Of course not. What if I receive the gift and someone else rejects it? Does that suddenly mean I earned the gift? Of course not. I still only received the gift. If I receive the gift does that mean I bought the gift? Does it mean I gave the gift to myself? Of course not. So while the Calvinist wants to focus on the one who rejects it, the Bible is only concerned about the one who receives it, that through faith the reception of the gift establishes it as by grace since we had to fully depend on God (which is what faith is all about) for the free and undeserved gift.
Nowhere does the Bible say a gift can only be a gift if it is irresistibly given. Nowhere does the Bible say grace can only be grace if it is given irresistibly. And that doesn’t comport with reality or the normal use of such words in our own experience either.
Now does this mean that nobody can ever possibly boast in salvation? No. People can boast in anything. The point is that there is no legitimate grounds for boasting since we did nothing to earn or deserve salvation. We only received it by faith. One could just as well say a Calvinist has room to boast because God chose him and not the “other guy” or that God made him “elect” and not the “other guy”. Surely if God chose the Calvinist, that choice must have been in accordance with His infinite wisdom so that it was “right” for God to choose him while it was “wrong” for him to choose “the other guy.” Couldn’t he say, “Oh God, thank you for choosing me for salvation, you were so wise to do so!” Would a Calvinist object to this? Sure. But they must admit that one could boast in such a way. So the best they could claim is that it would not be legitimate grounds for boasting. Well, that sword cuts both ways.
Here are a few posts and articles that might also help you process this further:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-9-faith-is-some-reason-to-boast/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-10-wait-now-faith-is-a-work/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-nature-of-saving-faith/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/synergism-as-a-model-for-gods-glory/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/does-paul-support-calvinisms-view-of-irresistible-grace-in-1-corinthians-14/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/examining-inconsistencies-in-calvinistic-monergism-part-2-sanctification/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/sanctification-by-works/
Hope that helps.
Hello,
For the past 10 years or so, I believed that Eternal Security was taught throughout the New Testament and that warnings to apostasy were the means to persevere. However, I have never seriously looked into scholarly or biblical teachings from an Arminian point of view. Recently, God has been working in my life through a ministry to learn to truly abide in Christ daily through prayer and the Word. Through this same ministry, I began to seriously question Calvinist interpretation for the first time. I was alarmed by the ministry because of my background, and I began to read John and 1 John repeatedly, and I felt reassured of Calvinist interpretation, however when I began to closely read passages that warn of apostasy and compared Arminian and Calvinist Interpretations, I felt that Calvinist interpretations were reading Eternal Security into the passages. I am convinced that these passages do indeed favor an interpretation that a true believer can end up not remaining in Christ and therefore be disqualified for eternal life. However, the Calvinist interpretation are claiming to “harmonize” scriptures that seem to be in conflict with “plain” passages that teach Eternal Security. I’ve read some posts from this website and others regarding these passages, however there is one that I didn’t see refuted very well so far. A post on this exact webpage on April 12, 2015 at 8:47 pm by a person named Doug explains why I felt 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:4 was one of the most clear passages that teaches Eternal Security. One of the best Arminian explanations I heard was from a youtube clip that explained that the word “born of God” is a not a past tense but a perfect tense. Not having knowledge of the Greek, I checked on Interlinear that indeed in both verses it says “having been born of God.” I was wondering what your thoughts are on this interpretation. Does the New Testament consistently speak of regeneration or being born of God or becoming a New Creation as a progressive event from which one can stop short? I am aware that passages speak of salvation in the past, present, and future tense, but is it the same for being born again? I am aware that there is a verse that speaks of regeneration as the future event where we receive glorified bodies.. Could you give me some leads to Arminian Theology on this?
Thanks
samuel kim,
Thanks for the comment. I looked back and saw that I never replied to Doug’s comment. I would agree that the perfect tense is probably the key in both passages. The perfect has reference to a past event with continuing results to the time of the speaker/writer. The main emphasis is, however, usually on the present. In both of these passages the idea would be someone who has been born of God and remains in that state (as a child of God). I wouldn’t describe being born again as a progressive event. Instead the passage is simply speaking of those who are remaining in that state of possessing spiritual life as a child of God, a state that began at the moment of faith (have been born and are presently born of God/a child of God).
Now sanctification results from regeneration but it is not the same. So sanctification is progressive, but being born again (possessing new life in Christ) is a state that begins at the point of faith and continues for as long as the person is connected to Christ by faith. So that harmonizes 3:9 with 5:4 rather nicely and re-affirms what Jesus taught in John 15 as well (that one can stop abiding and be cut off and “wither” (because that spiritual life no longer flows into the branch), and ultimately be destroyed (burned).
Hope that helps.
Thank You for your reply.
Upon reflection, I think your interpretation makes sense.
When Christians say, “I am born again,” they are not really referring
to a past event when they first believed, but a state of being an authentic Christian (as in not nominal).
I read some posts here and the essay by Robert Hamilton from here regarding Election in Gospel of John. I am very impressed by how much sense it makes of the whole Gospel to refer to the sheep as “not to a pretemporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God’s children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel.”
However, I am trying to figure out how this makes sense of deep existential questions such as “why did I choose to believe rather than reject the Gospel?” If my first believing and obeying Christ ultimately depended on my own will and my remaining in Christ in the future will ultimately depend on my own will, and the fact of the matter is many people fail to believe and many Christians fail to remain in Christ, then what will be the real difference? What is the source, the root of my believing in Christ? What will ultimately make the difference in me choosing to remain in Christ in spite of many trials and tribulations?
I have personally heard a testimony of someone who was totally hard in heart against God and Christians. He was resentful towards his wife who spent too much time in the church according to him, and it happened one day that they went together to a revival even though he was adamant about not going. He says that even during the preaching he was reviling the preacher and his sermon in his heart, however in one instance when the preacher called people to reach out to God in faith, he felt compelled to do so, and he experienced in his heart a powerful working of the Holy Spirit which led to recognition of his sin and the offer of salvation. He later went on to develop an intimate relationship with the Lord and he was healed of his scoliosis. He would also go on to leave his successful career as a composer and become an itinerant preacher. I don’t know if you came across such conversions but in the past, many Koreans experienced many amazing revivals where many were under conviction of the Holy Spirit in spite of their sinful lifestyle and rejection of the Gospel prior to their conversion.
But even in the Bible, isn’t Saul described as a prideful man who felt he was greater than all his peers in his self-righteousness, who was hard towards Christians and their Christ to the point where he, as a servant of the devil, worked zealously to destroy Christ’s church?
Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy,
“I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.”
I don’t think it was an exaggeration when he wrote that he was the chief of sinners even of all who were opposed to the Way of Christ. Remember he was the Pharisee of Pharisees of whom Christ said you brood of vipers!
From what I understand, it seems that the difference between Arminian and Calvinist positions on saving faith is on whether enabling grace of God definitely leads to faith in Christ and remaining in Christ. I don’t doubt that people do resist the grace of God to saving faith. However, in the light of such powerful conversion experiences and such powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the inner man of the believer (e.g. in the case of the Apostles and believers to continue in the work of the Lord in boldness in spite of great opposition in book of Acts) lead us to believe that one’s efforts and obedience are really owing entirely to grace of God?
Often I pray to God, oh God let your will be done, and not my will. I cannot obey your will help me obey you. I believe, help my unbelief. I want to obey but I cannot obey.. Oh have mercy and enable me to obey! I had one experience in my life where I was living a lie in front of my family because of their expectation of me, and for about a year I struggled to obey God in just telling the truth of failing out of a “prestigious” college.. I found that I was so opposed to the will of God in my flesh. I just couldn’t do it… For about a year, I prayed and pleaded with God and I made resolutions after resolutions then finally I prayed a prayer from my own destitute, depraved situation.. Oh God, I cannot obey you.. So help me obey you… I felt a deep desperation on my part to obey him and trust him.. I didn’t have any will to actually obey him. I prayed to him, and he supernaturally worked in my heart, and I received peace and I was able to obey! It was a miracle for me. A supernatural circumcision of the heart! Of course one can say that my inner man had the will but my flesh was stronger still… however then again what is the difference? Of those who remain in Christ and those apostasize? Do not those who have apostasized also have the will to obey Christ in their inner man?
Please understand that I am not trying to disprove anything. I am sincerely seeking for answers.. Thank You and God bless You.
Samuel, Ben,
I believe that I am the Doug you are referencing (though it could be another Doug), however, I am having trouble finding the original post. Could one one you post a link to it so I can refresh my memory as to what I said and why?
I’m a bit disconcerted that my thoughts would in anyway lend support to the ES/Calvinistic perspective, and would like Samuel to clarify why he thought I did.
Thanks,
Doug
Doug,
Here is a link to your comment:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/questions/#comment-14455
What Samuel was saying is that the question you had asked there about 1 John 3:9 and 1 John 5:4 was addressing the one text he had not gotten a satisfying answer about as it seems to support ES (as he is moving away from that belief in ES). When I went back and looked I saw that it seemed I had never responded to that question you posted.
Samuel,
I don’t have much time, so I will give you the short answer and maybe I can offer more detail later if necessary. It seems the thrust of your question has to do with why some believe and some don’t and why some persevere and some don’t. I think we could ask that about just about anything. Why do some rob banks and some don’t? Why do some abuse their children and some don’t? Why do some pray an hour a day and others pray an hour a week? Why do some give steadily to the church and some don’t? The answer is that there are a variety of reasons and motivations for why we do or do not do things in a variety of situations. That is part of what it means to have free will. We are able to determine what we will value most.
Here is one that is especially relevant: Why do some remain faithful to their spouses and others cheat or walk away from that relationship? I think that is a very strong parallel to our relationship with Christ. After all, it is a relationship, and relationships take effort. Salvation is not a mathematical equation, it is a relationship. “Abiding” in the vine is not a matter of certain scientific ratios being in the right place, but the desire and commitment to remain in a relationship. It is no different than any other commitment we might make, except that it is a commitment we cannot make in our own power. But as God empowers us to remain, we still need to remain.
I find it strange that people who are able to make commitments and hold to them in a variety of other circumstances act as though a commitment to Christ is somehow impossible. Why? The only thing that makes it impossible is the sinful nature, but Christ empowers us to overcome that nature. Look at what Peter says:
“Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.” (2 Peter 1:2-3)
We have all we need to live as God desires for us to live because He has empowered us to do so. But notice what else Peter says:
“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:5-11)
See that? God gives us everything we need to trust in Him and follow Him, but it is up to us to grow in our faith and that requires “effort.” And it is this effort that safeguards our election (our place in God’s family) and prevents us from falling, making it possible for us to enter into final salvation (verse 11). So we can’t persevere without God’s power, but we can still fall away of our own free will.
So again, think of it in the context of a marriage relationship. I don’t go around worried and scared to death all of the time that I might wake up tomorrow and not love my wife anymore. Nor do I worry that I might at any minute become unfaithful and walk away from that relationship. But I do know that I need to make an effort everyday to safeguard that relationship. If I begin to let my eyes wander or look at magazines or images I shouldn’t, that could lead me away from her. If I begin to put my work time above my time with my wife, that could lead me away from her. If I stop communicating with her on a daily basis, that can lead me away from her, and so on. Or, suppose, as in your example, I was hiding something from her that I knew I needed to tell her. That might be a struggle, but if I value that relationship, I will tell her, even if it is a long struggle to get to that point. Why should we think it would be any different with God, especially when the Bible suggests it is not different and repeatedly warns against the things that can potentially pull us way from God and harm that relationship?
Now does this mean we ultimately determine whether or not we will be saved? In some sense, yes, since God leaves it up to us to decide if we will value Him enough to remain in Him. But make no mistake, it is still God alone who saves. We cannot save ourselves. Only Christ can save us. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. The fact that we need to trust in Christ to save us proves that we cannot save ourselves. And the good news is that He graciously gives us all the power we need to do just that, and His desire is for us to be saved and remain in Him and with Him forever. But it is still a real relationship and for that reason His work in us is not irresistible. People can still walk away, and they can do so for a wide variety of reasons, but nobody has to walk away, and all can remain. I think this matches not only the Scriptures, but our everyday real world experiences as well.
Well, that ended up being longer than I thought. Hope that helps.
Ben,
Thanks for the link. I remember that post now. my issue was not directly concerned with ES/POS, but rather the difference, if there is one, between ou dynatai and adynaton. I find the latter to take the stronger intent of “impossible”, but the former a more broad and flexible meaning of a prohibitive nature. In other words, is it saying that it is impossible that a married man can ever leave or commit adultery, or that, once married, a man is prohibited from intimacy with another woman. That it is impossible for me to forsake my marriage to Christ, or that I cannot be married and still see other women?
Thanks for the input,
Doug
Doug,
I think your last sentence nails it.
I should say the last part of the last sentence…”or that I cannot be married and still see other women?”
Thanks Ben, That is always what seemed the most natural and expedient interpretation that I could discern. To take it as strongly as the Calvinist does, would, it seems to me, lend credence to the idea that we are unable to sin at all, for the passage does not really reference the issue of security per se, but just the standard of the normal Christian life: we do not live lives of sin.
Doug
Hi
How would you interpret 2 Peter 1:1 which says that Christians have “received a faith”. Would the word faith here mean personal faith in which case it has not been generated by the individual? My Calvinist friend thinks this supports the view that faith is all up to God and not us.
Thanks
Again, thank you for your reply.
Please let me attempt to refine my previous post.
I was trying to describe how the picture of how it is precisely those who are already in the right covenant relationship with God are the ones given to Christ does not really match the conversion experiences of many ungodly enemies of God. I was also trying to say that in the aforementioned testimonies we see a consistent testament to God’s soverign grace as the final deciding factor to people’s conversion. We were not willing to come to Christ and God didn’t just make our willing to come to Christ possible, but he actually made us willing to come to Christ.
But aside from these experiences, please bear with me as I share with you what I just saw from the verses that seems point to prevenient grace in that they actually point to soverign grace that makes us willing and eternal security of the elect.
In his essay, Robert Hamilton spends much space in explaining sufficient conditions for faith, however I am not quite so convinced that the Arminian interpretation for the necessary conditions are correct. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Firstly, it seems to me that those who are given by the Father are different than those who are drawn by the Father according to Hamilton’s position. Those who are given by the Father (sufficient condition) are those who were in right covenant relationship with the Father and those who are drawn (necessary condition) are all who have been given prevenient grace which enables all to respond to God in faith although whether they do or not depends on their own free choice. I am not convinced that this distinction is really warranted from the text.
*Validity of this point does not affect the following points.
Secondly, according to John 6:44, those who the Father draws him come to Christ are those who Christ will raise up. Either that or at most it means those who the Father draws him and is made able to come to Christ are those who Christ will raise up. What’s clear is that John 6:44 is not saying that those who the Father draws him and responds to the drawing by coming to him will be raised up.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
There are two statements in the verse.
1. Father’s drawing is a necessary condition for being able to come to Christ.
2. Then the second statement:
And I will raise him up on the last day.
So who will be raised up?
The one the Father draws.
Hence Christ is saying, “I will raise the one who the Father drew on the last day.” Even if you do insist on including the “No one can come to me” part here, Christ is not making coming to Christ as the sufficient condition but rather drawing of the Father and at most being made able to come to Christ as the sufficient condition for being raised.
Of course the bible teaches in many places that those who persevere to the end will be saved. However Christ’s statement here in v.44 can logically include those.
Anyways I am saying v.44 teaches:
Able to come to Christ -> Drawn by the Father
And
Drawn by the Father -> Will be raised up
*These are not necessarily chronological nor causal but logical implications
Thirdly, I think it makes more sense to discredit universal application of prevenient grace. John 6:64, 65 says
“But there are some of you who do not believe… This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Remember v.65 is also saying here:
Being able to come to Christ implies that one is drawn by the Father.
When Jesus says, “some of you .. do not believe” and refers to v.65, does he not mean that they don’t come to Christ because they are not able to come to Christ? Otherwise why would he say what he said in v.65?
And if they are not able to come to Christ then it means that they were not drawn by the Father.
What do you think?
Again, Thank you for your replies in spite of your busy schedule.
I am in the middle of re-examining Calvinism and considering Arminian perspectives, but I need to check and double check. As you can see, I am quite biased for the Soverign Grace of God that makes us willing to obey him. I have quite a bit of history (well perhaps short in the eyes of my seniors) with it.
Thank You and God Bless You.
Hello,
I am very impressed by Hamilton’s essays…
After reading more from different sources, I think I misunderstood
the concept of prevenient grace. Hamilton’s essay on Romans 9
was helpful for me, and another website explaining the process
involved in leading Saul to make the decision to put his faith in Christ
, it’s making sense now. It’s even making sense of my own conversion/sanctification. I realize that it wasn’t that particular special moment where God “irresistibly” made me willing, but rather He gave many prevenient grace to soften my heart to him.. Anyways… one of the things that are helping me not conclude the matter so easily even after my post is that when I previously examined John 15 with some help from your own input, it just couldn’t make sense of the fact that those who do not remain are those who wither and are thrown and burned. It’s not that they are never truly in Christ, but they did not remain in Christ. Otherwise, what kind of sense does Christ’s command make? Also Romans 11.. It’s interesting how Calvinists insist on election of individuals in Romans 9 but fail to apply it in Romans 11…
Anyways, I hope other Calvinists can come across Hamilton’s essays.
Even after I try to make very precise arguments on John 6:44 and so on… This kind of thing is just proof-text work, and doesn’t not really make sense of the Gospel as a whole. However, Hamilton’s essay on John 6 makes a lot of sense of Apostle’s John’s explanation of why many Jews and their leaders did not believe in Christ. Both of his essays seem to make sense of the whole Bible and the authorial intent in the letters or gospels themselves.
I wonder when he will write the essay on Ephesians. Anyways, do you recommend any other authors who have deep understanding of the flow of the Bible? I realize that closer reading apart from understanding the flow of the Bible can be dangerous, and Calvinists (including me) seem to bank on so called “clear” verses and then “harmonize” other seemingly contradictory verses.
I was beginning to think the Bible actually contradicts itself.. but it’s only because I am ignorant of the Bible.
What do you recommend that I do to acquire knowledge of the Bible as a whole. I don’t mean an exhaustive study, but a comprehensive one.
Thank You for your patience.
God Bless
Hey Ken,
2 Peter 1:1 could possibly imply that faith is a gift, but it could also have reference to the content of our faith being what is “received.” So it is not explicit.
However, it is important to note that Arminians shouldn’t really have a problem with faith as a gift. We would only differ in not seeing it as an irresistible gift given only to some. And in the end, faith as a gift must have reference to being enabled to believe, since faith is an action. Since Calvinists do not believe that God believes for us, they must also see faith as a gift as having reference to enabling.
So for the Arminian, receiving the gift of faith is simply to believe as God enables us to believe. That is what the Calvinist view must be as well unless they want to affirm that God believes for them. So again, it comes down to the nature of enabling. Is it irresistible or not? Is it selective or not?
Samuel,
You write:
Secondly, according to John 6:44, those who the Father draws him come to Christ are those who Christ will raise up. Either that or at most it means those who the Father draws him and is made able to come to Christ are those who Christ will raise up. What’s clear is that John 6:44 is not saying that those who the Father draws him and responds to the drawing by coming to him will be raised up.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
There are two statements in the verse.
1. Father’s drawing is a necessary condition for being able to come to Christ.
2. Then the second statement:
And I will raise him up on the last day.
So who will be raised up?
The one the Father draws.
Actually, the one who is raised up is the one who comes in response to drawing. That is the most natural way to read the passage. In the first part of the verse it is simply stated that drawing is necessary for anyone to come. In the second half of the verse Jesus is describing the one who comes (and that he comes in response to drawing is necessarily implied by the first part of the verse). But to say that all who are drawn are raised up is reading something into the text that is simply not there.
For example: No one can ride the bus unless they are have a ticket and they will reach their destination.
This is the same basic structure. Now can we conclude from this that all who have tickets will ride the bus? No. We can only conclude that without a ticket it is impossible to ride the bus. So can we conclude that all who have tickets will reach their destination? No, for the same reasons. But the one who does ride the bus (and by necessary implication has a ticket) will reach his destination.
It is an unnecessary leap in logic to assume that all who are drawn will be raised up. The text simply does not say that.
As for verse 65, Jesus is saying that nobody can have the Son unless they have the Father, and vice versa. The Father will not grant access to the Son for those who resist the Father’s leading or those who try to have the Son on their own terms, rather than on God’s terms. Here is something I wrote in a dialogue with someone on the nature of drawing that you might find helpful:
____________________
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; Luke 16:27-31).
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).”
These comments originally were written in this post: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/%E2%80%9Csaved-by-grace%E2%80%9D-through-faith/
You can also find them here, along with other similar comments on these passages: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/various-thoughts-on-the-calvinist-use-of-john-6-and-related-passages-from-johns-gospel-to-support-calvinism/
Samuel,
You write:
Also Romans 11.. It’s interesting how Calvinists insist on election of individuals in Romans 9 but fail to apply it in Romans 11…
A very good point and one I have made to Calvinists without getting any good answers in return.
I wonder when he will write the essay on Ephesians. Anyways, do you recommend any other authors who have deep understanding of the flow of the Bible? I realize that closer reading apart from understanding the flow of the Bible can be dangerous, and Calvinists (including me) seem to bank on so called “clear” verses and then “harmonize” other seemingly contradictory verses.
What is it about Ephesians that you need help with?
As far as recommendations, I would highly recommend articles and books that deal with corporate election, esp. those by Dr. Brian Abasciano (who gives the strongest and most Biblically accurate version of the view in my opinion). Once you really understand the corporate view, the Bible will make much more sense to you as a whole. It would be best to start with this one (which also deals with Ephesians 1:4),
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-clearing-up-misconceptions-about-corporate-election/
Here is a list of quotes from solid advocates of the view that can really help in understanding it:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
And here is a post with more resources (both articles and books),
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Enjoy.
Thank You for your recommendations.
I agree with your point about John 6:44 in the light of the context.
I think Arminians should focus on making sense of the context and flow of the text rather than try to “disarm” Calvinists’ arguments on close-reading. If one were to focus just on that verse, it’s very hard to avoid Calvinist interpretation. However, based on the context (in your example, person riding on a bus) a meaning of a phrase or a sentence, a statement can have a very different meaning in its contribution to the meaning of the whole text. I think this is the reason why I very much appreciate Robert Hamilton’s essays. He tackles the issue with the right emphasis.
I may have misread the essays but it seems that Hamilton’s concept of Election in Romans 9 seems different than Dr. Abasciano’s.. I will closely read these essays this week, but I must say that an exposition of the biblical text itself is more helpful in leading a Calvinist to “see” (at least for me) the meaning of the text.
What is your view on Hamilton’s essay on Romans 9?
What’s your critique?
Thanks for your answer.
Ken
Samuel,
It has been a long time since I read Hamilton’s essay. I remember there being a very strong emphasis on prevenient grace, but I don’t remember much beyond that. I would have to read it again before being able to critique it and I am not sure when I would be able to do that. I do, however, think the corporate view as expressed by Abasciano and others is the correct view and makes the best sense of Romans 9 and other election texts.
Dr. Abasciano is currently working on his third volume of a three book series on Romans 9. His first book (covering Romans 9:1-9) is an edited (and smaller) version of his dissertation and you can read his dissertation free online at the SEA site: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-pauls-use-of-the-old-testament-in-romans-91-9-an-intertextual-and-theological-exegesis/
You would have to buy his second book (covering verses 10-18) to read it and it is expensive because it is a high level academic book. But it is available in paperback for much cheaper here: https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Use-Testament-Romans-9-10-18/dp/0567653226/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478006407&sr=1-1&keywords=brian+abasciano
I m not sure when the third book will be released, but in the end this will be the most detailed and extensive treatment of Romans 9 in the history of Biblical scholarship, and from an Arminian perspective.
Ken,
My pleasure. Did you find that answer helpful?
Yes I found the answer helpful. I’ve normally thought of faith as being generated solely by the individual, but if as you say, the gift is resistable then this wouldn’t conflict with passages that warn Christians from apostasizing. Anyway, I’m glad to see that Calvinists don’t own this verse.
Thank You very much for your response.
I am purchasing the two books you mentioned along with Piper’s book.
I remember trying to read the Justification of God by John Piper in the past. However, I never read it too critically or with much interest.
It seems Brian Abasciano argues against Piper’s book in parts of his two books.
Would it be safe for me to conclude that these two authors represent the finest of Calvinist and Arminian Interpretations of Romans 9?
How do you recommend a theologically untrained Christian such as I who have no background in formal biblical education approach the biblical text itself and the books aforementioned?
For example, are there any pre-requisite or co-requisite skills required?
I am thinking of skills such as being able to read the bible in its original languages, seminary courses, etc.
If there are any, please give me some leads thank you.
Hello,
I recently emailed Dr. Abasciano regarding the questions I asked.
I also read the first of his books (read about half of it without skimming and the other half I did skim due to the technicality) and some parts of his second book. After reading them, I can say that I have more respect for the allusions and quotations of the O.T. in the N.T. Dr. Abasciano spends the first 130 pages or so on the validity and importance of intertextuality in exegesis. I cannot say that I understood even 10% of the actual meat of the book, i.e. use of the O.T. in Romans 9. However, I did get a general sense of the approach that one should take in exegesis. As it pertains to the issue about corporate election, I quote an excerpt on Page 314:
“Is the group elect as a corporate entity, and individuals elected by their inclusion in that group, or is the individual elect, and the group elected as a group of elect individuals (i.e. only because it is an association of elect individuals)? The answer to this question is found in the socio-historical context of first century Judaism and the New Testament. For the first century Jew, the corporate view was clearly
dominant. This was also the orientation of the Old Testament, from which Paul is developing his theology and argument. Piper’s own question is telling: “How else could Paul have argued from the OT for the principle of God’s freedom in election, since the eternal salvation of the individual as Paul teaches it is almost never the subject of discussion in the OT? Of course, it is possible that he departed from the Old Testament conception. But the burden of proof should lie upon those who claim that he did.”
This hit me because even from my own cursory reading of the O.T, it never occurred to me that it taught individual election, but it does teach corporate election.
In his article, “CORPORATE ELECTION IN ROMANS 9:
A REPLY TO THOMAS SCHREINER ” Dr. Abasciano gives his own explanation of the concept of corporate election through an analogy of a baseball team, which Schreiner used in an attempt to demonstrate how individual election is necessarily implied in corporate election. I also read Thomas Schreiner’s version as well, but after reading this article, the whole concept made sense.
“Anyone familiar with the workings of professional baseball knows that
when a new owner buys a team, he does not individually select each player he wants to be on the team, but acquires the individual players on the team as a consequence of his corporate purchase. The actual individual membership of the team is rather fluid and can be different from one day to another before or after a sale. But as long as the owner owns the team, he “owns” whoever belongs to the team. There is a distinction between the purchase of the team/the team’s status as owned or elected on the one hand and the addition of individual players to the team on the other hand. The team remains primary, and the addition or exclusion of individual players is oriented toward the team, participation in which ties the individual player to the benefits, responsibilities, and destiny of the team. Thus, while formally correct as stated, Schreiner’s assertion that corporate election entails individual election is not correct as he intends it.
The identity of a professional baseball team transcends the simple collection of its individual members as well as the identity of any of its individual members. It is a corporate entity that in many cases spans generations, tying all who participate in it together by their identification with its corporate identity. To take the analogy further, we could imagine that every year the American League randomly selected one of its teams by lot for a special award that would grant the team special notoriety as its “team of the year” and a special $20,000 bonus for each team member. This is equivalent to an unconditional election. But no player could claim that he was individually chosen as “the player of the year” or even to receive the bonus. The unconditional
election of the team would not translate into the unconditional election of the individual players as individuals. While the team would indeed be unconditionally elected, the individual players would only be elected as a consequence of their membership in the team. At the same time, one could say that the individual players were unconditionally elected as members of the team. Moreover, players who joined the team in mid-season would come to share in the team’s unconditional election. ”
I think the aforementioned points are crucial in leading a Calvinist see the error of its teachings.
On a side note, I emailed Dr. Abasciano regarding Hamilton’s point about particular prevenient grace to ethnic Israel. Tied with this question is how one should interpret promises in the O.T. regarding return of the Jews to their land and its fulfilment. I also asked about Romans 11:28-29 as it pertains to ethnic Israel right now.
However, it doesn’t seem like he will reply any time soon.
What do you think?
I don’t know if he will answer you anytime soon or not. As far as understanding corporate election (CE), while his books can be very technical (and they cover more than CE, but a careful inter-textual exegesis from the text from which CE is derived), it is probably better to focus on his articles for a better grasp on CE. It is also interesting to note that a recently published major study on election in second temple Judaism (Judaism in the time of Paul) came to the same basic results: corporate election was the predominant view. You can find that book, as well as all of Abasciano’s articles here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
I think one of the best ways to get quickly familiar with the view (without getting overly technical) is to look at this post of various quotes from proponents of CE:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
As far as Israel today, Dr. Abasciano takes a fulfillment approach to the church (in that all the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His body: the church). God is still working to bring Jews to Himself, but that happens the same way it does with anyone: through faith in Christ. Today, many Jews are being grafted back into the olive branch through faith in Christ and becoming a part of His body.
As far as the land promises, I am not sure how he interprets that, but think he might see those as fulfilled in Christ as well in an eschatological sense, since the writer of Hebrews equates the passages that look to entering that final rest as fulfilled in Christ and something that all believers will experience in the end (through perseverance). But I do know that he has said that the CE approach does not rule out a more dispensational approach, though it probably fits better with the fulfillment view.
Hope that helps.
By the way, Samuel, have you read the FACTS at the SEA site? That is an excellent overview of Arminian theology (with numerous Scriptrue references) that you might find helpful in continuing to explore the Arminian view. I highly recommend it. Also, it was written by Brian Abasciano:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/
Thank You again,
I came across it before, but I did not read it at the moment, because I was so focused on making sense of certain passages at the time. I used to think that Reformed Systematic Theology makes much sense of the Bible, however looking back, it really doesn’t make sense nor gives account for the passages that demonstrate the concern that God and His servants have for unbelievers and believers alike. FACTS seem to make sense of the Bible across the board much better than TULIP now. I realize now that TULIP really has going for it certain “prooftexts” but it really fails on explaining many different parts of the bible.
In particular, the concept of prevenient grace or preceding grace makes a lot of sense both of the Bible and of real experience. I used to think that people who believe, believe because of God’s irresistible grace in a moment. But now I see that coming to believe or persevering to believe is a process.
However, I still have a vague sense of this process of salvation, and I wish to read or hear someone expound on the dynamics of unbelief and faith; of God and Satan; of treasures in Heaven and of this World; of spiritual sight and spiritual blindness… Right now, I feel that Arminian Theology fares slightly better in expounding on this dynamic, however it’s often very vague and oversimplified just in general. Of course, this dynamic is as dynamic as life itself, and may deal with issues innumerable, but I want to see at least an attempt to explain the role of God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), the role of the corporate (Nations, Churches, Different Communities, Families), the role of the individual, the role of angels, the role of Satan, the role of demonic beings, the role of the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers. The role of prayer, meditation on God’s word and/or His Handiwork, and other means of grace. The role of means of unbelief or disgrace such as failure to pray but to commune i.e. to hear and talk with worldly influence.
Also, I have questions in regards to coming to faith in God and persevering in God.
Are there levels of faith in God?
For example, faith to hear with attentiveness and open heart.
Faith to understand and to seek truth in Christ.
Faith to accept and receive and to be convinced of Christ.
Faith to trust Christ in spite of difficulties and trials.
Ultimately, why does one choose to believe and the other not? Why does one ultimately fail to persevere and one doesn’t?
It seems that people don’t really meditate or reflect on these but think in oversimplified terms. But surely in our prayer life, fight against sin and unbelief, there are nuances. There are things that stand out and there are more silent things that need to be dug out. I am not sure if it’s adequate to simply say, rely on the Holy Spirit, give yourself to God, etc… but people don’t meditate on what this actually means. It sort of ends at the altar call or after sermons. We fail to live it out because we don’t really understand it, and we don’t understand it, because we don’t think deeply about it, i.e. meditate on His Word day and night to search the scriptures, to call upon Him for wisdom; to understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.
Thank You and
God Bless, Samuel Kim
Samuel,
If you are looking for theology resources from an Arminian perspective, I would recommend the following list: http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-short-partially-annotated-list-of-arminian-systematic-theologies/
Hello,
I’ve been reading Thomas Schreiner’s book, Run to Win the Prize. He advocated the Means of Salvation View which is basically same as the hypothetical view. I think this view is the “best” Calvinist interpretation of the warnings in scripture as it rightly answers the following 3 questions:
Who is being warned? Christians
What is the nature of the warning? Apostasy
What is the consequence? Loss of Eternal Life
This is identical to the Arminian view, however Schreiner says that the warnings are prospective and not retrospective.
He writes, “The warnings are prospective. The author does not cast a glance backward retrospectively and indict them because they have fallen away. He admonishes them lest their sluggishness will lead them to fall away.”
He also quotes Charles Spurgeon who refutes those who say that the hypothetical view makes the warnings unnecessary. From what I felt, Arminians tend to dismiss this view, however I think it should be given a serious consideration. Here’s an attempt to knock it out:
Prospective Warnings for a believer in the present carry weight because of the Retrospective/Concurrent Reflection on Apostasy of another believer in the past/present.
We are warned not on just hypothetical terms. When the Bible warns us, it warns us by discussing actual apostasies.
John 15
“Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away.”
Romans 11
“They were broken off because of their unbelief.”
Hebrews 6
“It is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance.”
1 Cor 10
“Our fathers were all… Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ”
Given that the Means to Salvation view agrees that the audience is genuine believers, and that it warns of apostasy and damnation, the examples that are given cannot be of another paradigm.
The examples that the bible gives are not hypothetical but actual examples. That much I believe they will agree. Given this fact, we can argue the following:
If these people in the examples were never believers, then they didn’t commit apostasy. Then the warnings are non sequitur.
Even if these people were believers, but they only lost rewards, then the warnings are still non sequitur.
How does it make sense to warn people of punishment via apostasy by using examples of punishment via non-apostasy?
What do you think?
I think that is a solid strike against the view. I find the argument to be very weak and desperate. It is one thing to say that warnings are a means towards perseverance (which anyone should be able to agree with), but it is quite another to say they are an infallible and irresistible means. The Bible nowhere suggests such an idea. It has to be 100% read into those warning texts with no contextual justification. The driving force is simply to try to uphold a doctrine of perseverance at all costs.
And as soon as someone knows that the warnings are a means that the elect cannot help but adhere to, then they lose all force. The only way they do not lose force (esp, in the context of Calvinism) is to totally undercut salvation assurance.
If one has assurance of salvation, then they do not need to worry about falling away, therefore the warnings against falling away have no force. And if one is threatened by the warnings of falling away, he is essentially proving that he does not have salvation assurance, since he is admitting that the warnings might truly attain and they could possibly fall away, which would mean they have no confidence in their present elect state (otherwise they would know they cannot possibly fall away).
And as you mention, if they can truly fall away, then they are not warnings directed to them, since they are intended to cause the elect to necessarily persevere.
This is just another example of the unnecessary mess created by the attempt to make the square peg of Calvinism fit into the round hole of Scripture. That is why Calvinists are forced to swallow so many contradictions (oops, I mean: “tensions”).
The basic message is this: Be sure to take those warning passages very seriously, for they are God’s way of scaring his elect into perseverance; but of course, you have no need to worry about them since you know that you are eternally secure.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
Here is a concise post on the subject that might interest you if you have not seen it already:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-contradiction-between-perseverance-of-the-saints-and-the-scriptural-warnings-against-apostasy/
I’ve been following this discussion with Samuel with interest and wanted to respond to your most recent post. I have not read Schreiner’s book (I am however reading his book, Still Sovereign) but I suspect Schreiner might agree with you that the warnings by themselves are not infallible, but rather they are one ingredient in the means of preservation. I also suspect he would agree that Hebrews 6 does not provide contextual justification for irresistible grace. He would probably turn to a text like Rom. 9 or John 6 to try to prove that.
I also suspect he does not believe that Christians have total assurance of salvation. Rather, they believe as Arminians do that assurance comes from various sources. I point to three: 1) internal evidence (Rom. 8:16), 2) external evidence (fruit bearing), and finally 3) objective evidence (promise of Scripture). Some might argue that #3 is enough but the reality is that the heart is deceitful and many will think they are saved but on the last day Jesus will say, “depart from me, I never knew you.” So assurance is something that grows with time as you mature in Christ, not a birthright from the moment of salvation. Therefore your concern that Calvinists will loose the gravity of the warning is not necessarily valid. A Calvinist who thinks as I described, would still take the warning seriously because he is not 100% sure (though growing closer toward that point in Christ).
Speaking of Romans 9 (sorry to transition subjects, but it’s all related), I read the Hamilton article that Samuel mentioned and liked it so much I shared it with a friend. What I found particularly helpful was his explanation of prevenient grace in the context of Paul’s anticipation of his reader’s objection to the injustice of God’s sovereignty (9:14,19). Hamilton says that God freely gives more grace to some while others he hardens (though even the hardening is ultimately to eventually lead us back to Him). Nevertheless, there seems to be an imbalance in God’s grace (my word not his).
I read somewhere else on your site that God’s dispensing of prevenient grace is complicated (not formulaic). As the potter, He has the right to dispense as He chooses. One could argue that since God is able to grant more grace that would draw an individual nearer (I’ll stay away from the issue of irresistible drawing), yet chooses not to, He is in a sense electing unconditionally. The one who came received enough grace (by virtue of their coming) but for the one who does not come it is unclear. Did he not receive enough grace or did he just resist the grace given? Obviously, Arminians argue the latter. But either way there is room for imbalance in God’s dispensing of grace. And either way God knows whether the amount of grace He gives will ultimately be “enough” to persuade, so He is choosing to stop short of that amount. Is this a Molinist (middle knowledge) argument?
Perhaps you could argue that God’s choices are a response to our response to initial prevenient grace. If we draw near to Him, He will draw near to us (and vice versa). But the thrust of Romans 9 seems to be that God acts independently according to His will. But if that will is motivate by His love for us then perhaps it can still be seen as “conditional.” But I’m not convinced that God’s motives for hardening Pharoah were love (his ultimate salvation, like future Israel in Romans 11). But I believe Arminians accept that God may have prepared Pharoah as a vessel of wrath because he rejected God’s initial prevenient grace.
Yet there are others like Nebuchadnezar who got a second chance. I keep coming back to Hamilton’s position that God dispenses grace unequally as He chooses and is free to draw some more “forcefully” than others. I suspect many Arminians would have a hard time with that though. What do you think?
Changing the subject again (but still related), regarding John 6:44, a friend asked me a question that I would be curious to hear your response. He asked, “why did Jesus tell his audience that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them?” I believe you have offered in previous posts that Jesus was telling these Jews that they were not in right covenant relationship with the Father and so the Father does not give those who don’t know Him to His son. Therefore Jesus is admonishing them to get right with the Father, then the Father will unfailingly give them to the son.
This seems to be a plausible explanation but the follow up question is this: “If the drawing is a form of prevenient grace, and God gives sufficient prevenient grace to everyone, then why would Jesus tell them that no one can come unless the Father draws [grants prevenient grace] when in fact God has already granted sufficient grace to everyone?”
The best answer I could think of was that Jesus is guarding them against self-reliance and presumption that their genetics or presumed law keeping assures them that they are automatically right with the Father. The argument would then be, even though the Father has already granted sufficient grace to believe, if you think that you don’t need any help from the Father, that will tend to push you away from the truth rather than draw you closer to it.
I also read your teaching analogy where the math teacher says, “you’ll never learn algebra unless you learn your times tables.” So Jesus could be saying, “no one can come to me unless [or until] the Father [first] draws them,” The words “or until” or “first” have to be read into the text but again, it seems plausible. Can you offer a better explanation?
Thanks for your insight. God bless,
Dana
Dana,
There is a lot to respond to here, and I am not sure I can do it justice with the little time I have right now. But I will try to quickly address the main points:
I have not read Schreiner’s book (I am however reading his book, Still Sovereign) but I suspect Schreiner might agree with you that the warnings by themselves are not infallible, but rather they are one ingredient in the means of preservation. I also suspect he would agree that Hebrews 6 does not provide contextual justification for irresistible grace. He would probably turn to a text like Rom. 9 or John 6 to try to prove that.
That may be true, but the means of perseverance are indeed irresistible, whatever they may be. If that were not the case, then the elect could resist (or ignore) the warnings and fall away. But Schreiner does not believe that. Falling away is impossible in his view, so failing to heed the warnings is likewise impossible. If it is impossible for the elect to fall away, then warnings against falling away are meaningless for the elect. And this means that the only way for the warnings to have meaning in Calvinism is for someone to be constantly doubting their elect status.
I also suspect he does not believe that Christians have total assurance of salvation. Rather, they believe as Arminians do that assurance comes from various sources. I point to three: 1) internal evidence (Rom. 8:16), 2) external evidence (fruit bearing), and finally 3) objective evidence (promise of Scripture). Some might argue that #3 is enough but the reality is that the heart is deceitful and many will think they are saved but on the last day Jesus will say, “depart from me, I never knew you.” So assurance is something that grows with time as you mature in Christ, not a birthright from the moment of salvation.
Yes, assurance can come to us in different ways. I am not saying that Calvinists cannot have assurance (as the Spirit can certainly testify to them that they belong to God, despite their theology), but their doctrine still effectively undercuts that assurance, since it is impossible to know if one’s present faith in Christ is genuine since the validity of someone’s present faith can only be proven in final perseverance. And Scripture does indeed tell us that we can know we are saved now (1 John 5:13). But Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance necessarily contradicts that. For more on that, see the following:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-13-salvation-assurance/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/a-telling-and-ironic-tweet-by-john-piper-on-waking-up-in-the-morning-as-a-believer/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/an-important-admission-on-salvation-assurance-from-prominent-calvinist-c-michael-patton/
For an Arminian, taking the warnings seriously does not necessarily call into question present faith and salvation (leaving a legitimate grounds for present assurance). For the Calvinist, taking the warnings seriously must (logically) call into question present faith and salvation.
A Calvinist who thinks as I described, would still take the warning seriously because he is not 100% sure (though growing closer toward that point in Christ).
Can the Calvinist ever arrive at that “point”? If so, would they still take the warnings seriously since they then know that falling away is impossible for them?
I think Robert Shank puts the matter very well in his book “Life in the Son”,
“But is the peril real? Are believers actually in peril of apostatizing? Some do not think so. Many apologists for the doctrine of unconditional security in an attempt to reconcile the warning passages with their a priori doctrine, explain them as being only God’s means of ensuring that believers shall not fall away from the faith.”
“One will not read long from advocates of the doctrine of unconditional security before encountering this “explanation” of the presence of so many urgent warnings against apostasy so obviously addressed to believers. The folly of their contention is seen in the fact that, the moment a man becomes persuaded that their doctrine of unconditional security is correct, the warning passages immediately lose the very purpose and value which they claim for them. Strong quotes Dr A.C. Kendrick on Hebrews 6:4-6: “The text describes a condition subjectively possible, and therefore needing to be held up in earnest warning to the believer, while objectively and in the absolute purpose of God, it never occurs.” But how can there be any “earnest warning” to the believer who is sufficiently “instructed” to understand that the “warning” is directed against an impossibility? How can something be subjectively possible for the person who knows it to be objectively impossible? The only possible circumstance under which the warning passages could serve the purpose and function which they claim for them would be the total rejection of the doctrine of unconditional security and inevitable perseverance.”
On Hamilton and Romans 9 I have not read that article in quite some time. For me, the issue is not how much grace is shown, but whether or not that grace is sufficient to lead one to Christ. There is more to it than that as I believe God wants us to be a part of that process, which can give more opportunities for response, but there is no point at which a response becomes inevitable unless the grace is irresistible at that point. Just because someone resists all along the way does not mean they had to resist, and that grace to come to God remaining present in the person’s life cannot guarantee a positive response.
On Pharaoh’s hardening, he got a lot of chances, and the reality is that we never know how many chances a person gets or how God has been working to bring them to Him. We can’t judge that by just looking at their reactions and responses. I also do not agree with Hamilton’s view of hardening in that particular case, since I think that despite the hardening, Pharaoh could have repented (or relented) along the way (though God knew he wouldn’t). In other words, the hardening was not irresistible. This view has been put forward powerfully by Dr. Brian Abasciano in his second book on Romans 9 (covering verses 10-18). He argues that the hardening of Pharoah actually helped to preserve his freedom, rather than forefully remove it.
The best answer I could think of was that Jesus is guarding them against self-reliance and presumption that their genetics or presumed law keeping assures them that they are automatically right with the Father. The argument would then be, even though the Father has already granted sufficient grace to believe, if you think that you don’t need any help from the Father, that will tend to push you away from the truth rather than draw you closer to it.
That might be part of it, but it is also an indictment on their attitude that they can have the Father (or be right with Him) and yet reject the Son. If they come to the Son, then it shows that they have the Father in the way that they are following His leading, a leading that will ultimately bring them to Christ unless they resist it. They cannot reject Christ and continue to have the Father because the Father will always be drawing people to the Son. So if they do not come to the Son, then they are resisting the Father’s leading. John 6:45 say that all will be taught by God. But it is only those who are willing to learn (who yield to God’s gracious teaching about the Son and through the Son) who will come to (be given to) Christ.
In a similar way, John 6:65 is saying that the Father will not grant access to the Son to anyone who tries to have the Son on their own terms, rather than on the Father’s terms. That is why many turned away. They would not come to Christ as Christ was leading them. They relied on on their own (natural) understanding and desires instead and resisted the leading of the Spirit and therefore missed an opportunity to come to Christ as a result (John 6:63). But the fact that they relied on their own understanding and were denied access to Christ doesn’t mean they had to, and it doesn’t mean they were not being drawn. It only means they did not yield to that drawing (they were taught, but they refused to learn, cf. John 6:45, 63-65).
I also read your teaching analogy where the math teacher says, “you’ll never learn algebra unless you learn your times tables.” So Jesus could be saying, “no one can come to me unless [or until] the Father [first] draws them,” The words “or until” or “first” have to be read into the text but again, it seems plausible. Can you offer a better explanation?
I am not sure what you are looking for, but if you read Jesus’ dialogue with resistant Jews in John 5, that will help you understand what I was saying.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and the links (I read each of them). I’m still not sure I see a real distinction between Arminian and Calvinist assurance of salvation since both acknowledge that we cannot have 100% assurance of our ultimate salvation. What good is assurance of “present” salvation if it does not endure? As James says, “can such faith save him?” (i.e., can a profession alone without future ongoing fruit offer any real assurance?)
I also question whether 1 John 5:13 is really offering 100% assurance even in the present. There is a difference between being confident and being 100% guaranteed (insurance rather than assurance). It seems to me that Arminians could struggle just as much as Calvinists as to whether their present faith is genuine. You point out that we are encouraged to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith, but this is an ongoing process, not a one-time test. The notion that Arminians enjoy a more real assurance in the present seems unfair. Calvinists can apply the same test and reach the same level of present assurance as the Arminian. It’s just not absolute, which we all agree.
But would you agree that it is possible for a person to be deluded in thinking that they “know” when in fact they are mistaken? Is that not what Jesus says in Matt. 7:21-23? While I see your point that Jesus describes their true actions as working iniquity (rather than genuine fruit), it is clear that these professing ones believe they are saved. Is it not possible even common for an Arminian or Calvinist to be mistaken about his present assurance of salvation?
Let me add though that you make a good point in the first link that the Arminian’s doctrine does allow him to have 100% assurance that God loves him (is for him), while the Calvinist doctrine does not (only if he is truly elect, which he cannot know for certain). While not an assurance (or insurance) of ultimate salvation, it is certainly hope building to know you are loved. Thank you for bringing that it my attention. I will meditate on that further. I am convicted I do not appreciate the breadth of His love enough.
But both sides can have some assurance in knowing that God promises to grant persevering power to everyone who genuinely believes. The Calvinist does not know for certain that power applies to him personally but the Arminian does not know for certain that he is genuinely saved either. Both can be confident, but not 100% sure.
By the way, I like the train analogy. The rider can be confident (though not 100% sure) the train will get him to his destination with the condition that he not jump off. And since God is all powerful, we don’t have to worry about some outside circumstance derailing the train. But the way I would relate the analogy to my point is this: How sure are you that you got on the right train? You can be pretty sure for many reasons, but you don’t really know until you get there. That sounds terribly agnostic, which I am not, but do you get my point?
_______________________________________________________
As for Romans 9, the issue according to Hamilton was precisely how much grace. According to Hamilton, the fact that God gives varying degrees of grace is the reason Paul anticipates an objection of injustice. I thought this was an interesting alternative to the Calvinist’s view of the perceived injustice (unconditional election).
I understand Arminians want to clarify that even initial prevenient grace is sufficient to save, but the point is that God gives more grace to some than to others, at least making it easier to believe, if not effectual or causal. And since God knows whether it will be enough to reach our tipping point, is He not in a sense unconditionally choosing how much grace to give? I think this is a form of Molinist (middle knowledge) philosophy, though I’m not well versed in philosophy.
My impression is that Arminians tend to lean toward the notion that God gives equal grace to all and the differences in perceived grace (or chances) are caused by our responses to each previous dispensation of grace rather than God’s unconditional choice. It is understandable in Arminian thought because if God loves everyone equally, why would he give more opportunities to one than another? That would seem unfair or unjust (9:14&19).
I read some of Dr. Abasciano’s response to Tom Schreiner and he claims that the objection for injustice is that “God elects based on faith rather than works or ancestry.” This is a plausible alternative, but I just found the Hamilton argument more compelling because it fits with my own experience that God seems to treat everyone different. I don’t think I read Abasciano’s argument for why it actually preserved Pharaoh’s freedom. Do you have a link you can send me?
By way of clarification, I don’t think Hamilton was saying that Pharaoh did not have a chance to repent after being hardened. On the contrary, since Israel’s hardening results in jealousy which ultimately leads to their salvation, the same could be true for Pharaoh. It was my own commentary that Pharaoh’s hardening appears to be for the purpose of judgment not ultimate restoration. That doesn’t mean necessarily that Pharaoh never had a chance, but he at least ran out of chances with God, in my view.
_______________________________________________________
Finally, John 6:44. I don’t think you answered my question directly (totally understandable considering the length of my post). My question was why would Jesus tell them that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them, if the Father has in fact already drawn them all by prevenient grace? Doesn’t universal prevenient grace make this an awkward statement? I suggested two possible answers:
1) Jesus is identifying their lack of awareness of the Father’s initial prevenient grace. Though if that’s what He was saying He could have said just that.
2) He is using a teaching technique you mentioned in a previous post where the student is admonished to appreciate the vital importance of the first step (Father) before the second (Son).
The second explanation seems more plausible. Sorry if I gave the impression I wasn’t satisfied. I was just wondering if you could offer any other thoughts on the likely motivation for Jesus’ words in John 6:44.
Thanks so much for your patience. This is tremendously helpful for me to talk through these things and learn from your perspective.
God bless,
Dana
Ben,
When I asked you your thoughts on my friend’s question regarding John 6:44 (why would Jesus tell them they cannot come to Him unless the Father draws them when presumably the Father has already drawn them by universal prevenient grace?), I forgot to mention how I responded:
I said, “that’s a good question, I don’t know how an Arminian would respond,” which is why I asked you. I needed a better understanding of prevenient grace and was intrigued by your description of God’s grace and drawing as “complex.”
But I forgot to mention that I countered with another question: “Why would Jesus presumably tell them that they have no hope of coming to Him because the Father has not drawn them? If they are not going to be drawn by the Father, knowing this fact does not help them.” My friend responded, “maybe Jesus told them to teach his disciples and us or He told them as a means of grace.” This is possible but I think it shows just how difficult this statement is, regardless of your doctrinal position. Maybe you don’t think its difficult but I am still strugging with it.
Grace to you,
Dana
Dana,
Thanks for taking the time to read through all of that material. On the issue of assurance, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. For me, it is obvious that the Calvinist view undermines assurance in ways that the Arminian view does not. I do think we can have assurance of present salvation in Arminianism while in Calvinism, that becomes impossible. As to final salvation, that is not something we can have iron clad assurance on, though I still think the Arminian is in a better position to have confidence in final salvation as well.
I don’t think 1 John is saying that we can just have confidence but not really know. It actually says we can know. Likewise, Paul assumes that if we examine ourselves we can determine if we are presently in the faith or not. Otherwise, there is no point in examining ourselves. I can know that I am in the faith while also heeding the warnings against falling away because I know that falling away is a real possibility and if I fall away, I will no longer be saved. But if Calvinists think they can fall away, it can only be because they cannot know that they are “presently saved”, they cannot know that their present faith is real.
I understand your hang-up seems to be the reality of self-deception, and that is a real probelm. But I think Scripture gives us sufficient means to avoid self-deception. If it didn’t, none of us could have much hope, let alone assurance.
I would also make the point that grounds for assurance is different than experiencing assurance or maybe “feeling” you are saved. What I am saying is that Calvinism necessarily ruins the fundamental grounds for assurance, since it makes it impossible to know if present faith is genuine. I don’t think that is the case in Arminianism (though it is the case that we can struggle with assurance).
Another way to look at it is that in Arminianism, the warnings (even the warnings of false faith) are a safeguard to protect our faith. In Calvinism, they cannot really be a safeguard, for the only way to take them seriously is to assume present faith is not real, since the elect cannot fall away and be ultimately deceived. But again, I sense you will disagree, and that’s fine.
On Romans 9 and the distribution of grace, Arminius did not think everyone got the same opportunity to come to Christ, and it is hard to disagree with that. I think we all get an opportunity in the sense that we will all experience sufficient grace at one point or another. And I think some of that depends on a lot of factors, not just circumstances we find ourselves in, but also the faithfulness of believers to pray for the lost and evangelize. But some do have advantages. However, even those advantages do not guarantee a response. Here is something I wrote recently to someone who told a Calvinist God gives everyone a fair chance, and was getting some push back on that claim:
I would just reword your argument like so: “I argued that everyone gets an opportunity to respond to the grace of God which can ultimately lead them to salvation.” I think this makes it an issue of sufficient grace and not fairness with regards to how much grace one person receives as compared to the next. It also informs issues of those who may not hear the Gospel in assuming that God revealed Himself adequately enough for them to respond to that revelation, and in responding to that revelation God would give more grace, ultimately leading them to an encounter with the Gospel (like through a missionary, or even dreams and visions, if necessary).
I would also say that God judges us fairly based on the grace we received and how we responded to that grace (to whom much is given much is required, etc.). There is no doubt that someone born into a good Christian home has an advantage over someone who is born in an atheist home ruled by an atheist government, for example. But even in those cases people come to the Lord through varying circumstances. Likewise, some who grow up in Christian homes still turn away from God. So it might be best to just think of it in terms of God’s grace being both sufficient to save and resistible, not necessarily “fairly” or “equally” distributed. I think this verse speaks to the issue as well:
“From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’…(Acts 17:26-28)
As far as God knowing a “tipping point” and not bringing someone to that point, I don’t think that follows. I think it still smuggles in the idea of irresistibly at a certain “point”. But even if it does not, it still wouldn’t equate to unconditional election, since the person still had real opportunities to believe and yet refused (resisted). You might call it something else, but “unconditional” doesn’t seem to fit the bill. And really, if we believe the grace that was resisted was sufficient, then any of those opportunities could have been a “tipping point”. The reason they were not? The person’s free will response of resistance.
On John 6:44 I thought I did answer the question, but I think there can be many reasons why Jesus mentions drawing:
1) So they know that God is the One who leads them to truth. If they are resisting Christ, they are resisting God.
2) The Father draws people to the Son, so one cannot reject the Son and still have the Father.
3) One must come to the Son on God’s terms, by learning from the Father. If One refuses to learn from the Father, they will not be able to come to the Son (this is where the teaching analogy fits in, esp. in light of what Jesus was saying in John 5, esp. verses 33-47).
4) Drawing is mentioned because there is danger in resisting what Jesus is saying to them, since the Father is teaching them through the Son so they can be saved (John 6:45). And if they resist this drawing (refuse to learn), there is no other way (cf. they will not be “raised up” at the last day).
5) It emphasizes their full dependence on God in order to be saved, in light of the fact that, according to Jesus, God will only save through the Son.
There is some overlap in these, and some might just be different ways of explaining the same basic concepts.
I guess the main thing is that Jesus isn’t so much concerned with if they are being drawn, but how they are responding to that drawing.
Your point to your friend was well taken. If these are supposed reprobates (as Calvinism assumes them to be), then Jesus is simply mocking their hopeless state. And yet this does not fit with the full dialogue as Jesus is certainly inviting them to come to Him in faith.
When you go back to other verses in John 6 that lead up to John 6:44, we can see that rather clearly. He asks them to do the work that God requires, which is to believe in the Son (vs. 27). He makes the point that the bread of life God is offering them (Jesus) is meant for the world (vs. 33, 51), and that obviously includes them specifically:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
And John 5 is even more pronounced:
“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (vss. 31-34)
Likewise, in a similar passage in John 10,
Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (vss. 37-38)
In other words, even though you do not believe in my claims, look to the miracles as they testify that my claims are true and can lead you to faith. He is telling them to believe, not saying they cannot. But He is telling them to look at the miracles which back up the claims He is making that they are not believing. In a similar way as in John 5 and John 6, Jesus is saying that the Father is working to lead them to Christ through the miracles, and they need to yield to that leading which will validate what Christ is saying and bring them to faith in Him.
Hope that helps.
Oh, and on Abasciano’s treatment of Pharaoh’s hardening, you would need to purchase his book. You can get a soft cover copy for about $40.00 here: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0567653226/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1VZBJ7RBSXP7Q&coliid=I2CZ0DF1LKM6T5
Ben,
Thanks again for taking the time. Your responses have been very helpful. I don’t care for the term “agree to disagree”. Let’s just say we have an ongoing difference of perspective on the issue of Arminian assurance of present salvation so further study is warranted. We can at least say we understand eachother, I think.
You hit the nail on the head calling my hang-up the problem of “self-deception.” John 5:39 is another example of this pervasive problem:
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
The emphasis on human volition in v. 40 is notable to the broader discussion, but to my point, clearly these people thought they were saved. A little fear that this could be us is healthy I think.
_______________________________________________________
I don’t think it’s fair to say Calvinism forces us to see Jesus as “mocking” the non-elect in John 6:44 (sounds like a straw-man argument). But if He is speaking to non-elect (in the Calvinistic sense) then for them it cannot have an evangelistic purpose, only a pronouncement of judgement or at best a statement of fact for the benefit of others (my friend’s position).
But to your point, if it is a statement of judgment, it seems to undermine the non-elect’s responsibility since it was the Father that kept them from coming to (believing) Him. If this is true, it would not make sense for Jesus to cite this fact in judging them. And it seems odd that Jesus would speak to them solely for the benefit of others since He is clearly addressing all of them.
I’m inclined to agree with you that His purpose is evangelistic, though my friend would conceed it could also be evangelistic toward any elect (in the Calvinistic sense) in the crowd. But again, He is speaking to all of them not just a subset.
I appreciate the discussion and all the information your site provides. On a lighter note, I find it ironic that this text editor does not recognize the spelling of Arminianism but does recognize Calvinism! I’m sure I’m not the first to notice. 🙂
God Bless,
Dana
Hello Dana,
I mention agreeing to disagree because it seemed we reached a point where we were just repeating ourselves and yet neither of us was being convinced by the other person’s view. When that starts to happen it can be best to leave it alone because saying the same thing over and over doesn’t seem to help after a while.
For example, you continue to think that the Calvinist view offers just as much assurance as the Arminian view because of the possibility of self-deception. I mentioned Paul’s request to examine ourselves, and you didn’t seem to see how that made any difference. So at the risk of repeating myself, I will try one more time.
If we are called on to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, that is meant to be a safeguard against self-deception. It means we really can determine if our present faith is genuine. We can also discover that we have drifted away and need to get back on track. If it were impossible to know due to the possibility of self-deception, then Paul’s admonishment doesn’t make sense. It would be like saying: examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith, but realize that you cannot possibility ever know for sure because you can always be deceiving yourselves.
It is also significant that Paul says that if we fail the test, we believed in vain. It doesn’t say “you never really believed to begin with.” Paul isn’t suggesting that if the test is failed, true faith was never there (as Calvinism asserts). He is saying that if we fail the test, the benefit of that faith is lost, because we have not continued to believe into the present (in context, Paul is saying: check yourself to see if you are still believing the Gospel- particularly the Gospel which includes the reality of resurrection). But Calvinism’s inevitable perseverance makes it so you cannot know if your faith at any point is genuine until you endure to the end. That’s not what Paul is saying at all and flatly contradicts such an idea.
Likewise, John does indeed say we can “know” we have eternal life. As I said before, if the possibility of self-deception ultimately make it so no one can ever know for sure that they are believing, then there is no assurance for anyone and no way to guard against such self-deception. But Scripture tells us to guard against it and instructs us how to do so, while also telling us we can know that we are in the faith and that we have (presently) eternal life.
Does this mean no one can be deceived? Of course not, and we see that some will be surprised when that final day comes. But according to Scripture, they did not have to be deceived. They had opportunities to check that self-deception and embrace the truth. But I get the feeling you will still find this inadequate,which is why I mentioned agreeing to disagree (because really I have just repeated myself yet again).
You write:I don’t think it’s fair to say Calvinism forces us to see Jesus as “mocking” the non-elect in John 6:44 (sounds like a straw-man argument). But if He is speaking to non-elect (in the Calvinistic sense) then for them it cannot have an evangelistic purpose, only a pronouncement of judgement or at best a statement of fact for the benefit of others (my friend’s position).
I don’t think this is a straw man. I think it is a legitimate implication based on the language of the entire passage. Calvinists might still refuse to own the implication, but that doesn’t make it a straw man.
Jesus is telling them how to be saved and making it clear that coming to Christ is the only way for this to happen. Jesus is telling them that this salvation is desirable, something they should want and something they need. But then, in the Calvinist view, he also tells them they cannot have it because God makes it impossible for them to have it. He is essentially saying: your only hope is to come to me (believe in me) for life, but God won’t let you come because He isn’t drawing you and is making it impossible for you to believe and be saved. That doesn’t seem like mockery to you?
I appreciate the discussion and all the information your site provides. On a lighter note, I find it ironic that this text editor does not recognize the spelling of Arminianism but does recognize Calvinism! I’m sure I’m not the first to notice.
I have never seen any spell check that recognizes Arminianism as a word, unfortunately.
Ben,
I agree we can have a strong degree of assurance of our present salvation as 1 John 5:13 suggests. I also agree that those who are self-deceived don’t have to be. You make a good point that Paul gives us the solution to self-deception in 2 Cor. 13:5 – test yourselves. But I don’t think it undermines Paul’s intention for us to have a healthy amount of doubt. We should not live in fear of damnation but rather always be vigilant and continue to test ourselves lest we be deceived. I think we agree on a lot. Thanks for persevering with me!
Regarding John 6:44, maybe straw man is not the right description (I use philosophical terms that I may not fully understand, sorry). My point was that no one could rightly argue that Jesus was mocking the crowd. Calvinists would agree that such an attitude is inconsistent with Jesus’ character. The crowds would mock Him and yet He opened not His mouth. Thinking hypothetically, if you were to reach the conclusion that Calvinism is biblical, I suspect you would not then conclude that Jesus is mocking the crowd in John 6:44. It may be a logical implication on some level but it is not a necessary implication. If Calvinism is true then Jesus could be telling them simply as a matter of fact (and perhaps to instruct others). I think the better argument is that Jesus has an evangelistic motive – another point we agree on! But you are right, we are repeating ourselves.
Thanks again for helping me through my thoughts. You have given me lots to think about.
Dana
The quotation posted today on your site intrigued me: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/great-quotes-daniel-whedon-on-foreknowledge-and-free-will/
I’m an Anglican layperson and I consider myself Reformed in belief. I agree with the statement “foreknowledge and…freedom are compatible.”
I also agree with the assertion that how God came by that foreknowledge is no greater problem than how he came by his omnipotence or his self-existence.
As far as it goes, the Whedon quotation seems entirely consistent with what I understand of the Reformed view of God’s sovereignty, so I was surprised to see it appear on your site.
Perhaps I am overlooking something; what could it be?
Jim,
Whedon is speaking of freedom in the libertarian sense, which Calvinists typically assert is incompatible with foreknowledge. Most Calvinists will still say they hold to free will, but they mean it in the compatibilist sense, not in the libertarian sense (and I would argue that compatibilist freedom is not freedom at all).
Also, Calvinists typically base foreknowledge on an eternal divine decree. That eliminates the mystery of how God can foreknow the future since they maintain that the future is foreknown by God only because He has decreed every bit of it. So God only foreknows what will happen in the future because He has decreed it and will irresistibly bring it about in time.
You might find these posts helpful in that regard:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/calvinism-on-the-horns-the-problem-of-divine-foreknowledge-in-calvinism-and-why-you-should-be-an-arminian/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
Hope that helps clear up any confusion. BTW, you can leave comments at the original post, rather than posting them here, if you like.
Thanks for your reply.
You say you would argue that compatibilist freedom is no freedom at all. How so?
PS – Only after posting my question here did I realize i could have replied to the post itself. Oh well!
How so? Because it is still fully deterministic. Look at how Calvinists Peterson and Williams describe compatibilism:
“A person chooses or acts according to his character. The will is not independent of the person and nature who chooses. We do what we want to do (Duet. 30:19; Mt. 17:12; Jas 1:14), even though our characters, which are themselves determined by a myriad of forces external to us and outside of our control, determine what we want to do.
(Peterson and Williams, Why I Am Not An Arminian, pp. 155, 156, emphasis mine)
All compatibilism says is that we are “free” to do what we “want to do.” That in itself gives the impression of real freedom. The problem is, of course, that we have no control over our “want to” or which “want” (desire/motive) will prevail upon us. As Peterson and Williams candidly admit: “…our characters, which are themselves determined by a myriad of forces external to us and outside of our control, determine what we want to do.
So really, it is saying that we are free to do what we must do (have no power to resist doing).
Here is an interaction with Feinberg from a footnote in the “Calvinism on the Horns” post I referred you to, that should help:
Feinberg’s description of compatiblism or “soft determinism”, as quoted by Forlines, is instructive on this issue and more fully reveals the serious moral problem inherent in the position,
‘Like many other determinists, I claim that there is room for a genuine sense of free human action, even though such action is causally determined. This kind of freedom cannot be indeterministic [or free in the libertarian sense of the power of contrary choice in the will], of course. Instead, determinists who hold to free will distinguish two kinds of causes which influence and determine actions. On the one hand, there are constraining causes which force an agent to act against his will. On the other hand there are nonconstraining causes. These are sufficient to bring about an action, but they do not force a person to act against his will, desires, or wishes. According to determinists such as myself, an action is free even if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining. This view is often referred to as soft determinism or compatibilism, for genuine free human action is seen as compatible with nonconstraining sufficient conditions which incline the will decisively in one way or another.’
“Later in this same treatment, in commenting on human responsibility, Feinberg explains,
‘People are morally responsible for their actions because they do them freely. I agree that no one can be held morally accountable for actions that are not free. But as has already been argued, compatibilism allows the agent to act freely. The key is not whether someone’s acts are causally determined or not, but rather how they are determined. If the acts are constrained, then they are not free and the agent is not morally responsible for them.’ (Quoted in The Quest for Truth, pp. 308, 309)
My response:
For our purposes, this will require some unpacking. First, to Feinberg, people act freely as long as they are not forced to act “against their will.” That is, if they are forced to act contrary to their own “desires, or wishes.” An example of this might be someone being forced to do something they do not desire to do because they are at gun point (though even in this scenario a person could choose not to obey the gun man). In such a case, Feinberg would say the person is not acting freely and is therefore not morally responsible for his actions. However, if we act in accordance with our desires, that means that we act freely and are for that reason morally responsible. Moral relevance is attached to “freely” acting in accordance with our desires. But this explanation gets very strained when we realize that even in Feinberg’s view, God determines those desires which act irresistibly on the will. In his view God irresistibly moves the will to “freely” act as it does (“freely” only in the sense that nothing hinders the will from acting just as God irresistibly controls it to act), but the will cannot help but to move just as it is moved. So it is difficult to see how Feinberg’s solution solves anything at all.
________________
Here is a section from “The Reality of Choice and the Testimony of Scripture” (linked above)
As a result of their commitment to exhaustive determinism, Calvinists deny that the will is free in the sense that most people would naturally understand it to be. Yet, they refuse to jettison these commonly used terms despite holding to a theology that denies these concepts as normally understood.
They simply redefine “free will” so that it becomes essentially meaningless as normally understood. It becomes the “freedom” to do what one must in fact do. It is the “freedom” to do what has been predetermined from all eternity for one to do. It is the “freedom” to do what we have been irresistibly programmed to do (and free will has essential reference to “willing” and not just “doing”, i.e one might be hindered from “doing” what he has freely “willed” to do). It is essentially a necessitated freedom (a “freedom” that means “necessitated”) which betrays the inherent contradiction in the Calvinistic use of terms.
For most people this does not seem at all like freedom in the sense that people normally understand it when speaking of free will. In fact, most people understand that a will that acts by necessity is the opposite of a free will….
_________________
Basically, the Calvinist defines freedom in a deterministic sense in order to make it “compatible” with determinism. But all that is really doing is turning freedom (the opposite of determinism) into determinism. When you do that, you are not proving that freedom is compatible with determinism. All you are really proving is that determinism is compatible with determinism, and who would deny that?
Wow! That’s a lot to take in!
Let me ask this: Did Pilate and the other human agents who brought about Jesus’ crucifixion act of their own free will? If so, was God merely reacting to their choices to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, or did he determine from eternity past that Christ would go to the cross?
Jim,
When you find the time, you should really read through the posts I linked to above. For example, your question about the level of freedom involved in those who brought about the crucifixion is answered in great detail in this post:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
I have a question. I have received Jesus but then I visited an atheistic page which confused me, and I stopped to believe about three days. Then I have repented but I ask if I should still hope for salvation?
I think that anyone who comes to Christ will be received by Him in accordance with John 6:37. If there is an apostasy without remedy, all seem to agree that if someone committed such an act, there would never again be any desire to return to God. That obviously is not the case with you.
thank you very much. So something like Romans 11:23?
Yes, something like that. And if it is the passages in Hebrews that have you particularly concerned, here is a post you might find helpful by a solid Biblical scholar that makes the case that even the apostasy described in Hebrews is not necessarily without remedy:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-my-argument-for-apostasy-not-being-irremediable-in-hebrews-6/
God Bless,
Ben
I’m pretty stressed. I am afraid that i have no chance of rescue. But I noticed that in the Old Testament, God calls the apostates to came back to him. I’m not very good in English. But most commentators in hebrew 6 4-6 seems to me they sey I had no chance. I need some scriptural evidence.
Jacob,
Hopefully, the article I linked to above will be of help in that regard, and as I said before, the same people who would say that the apostasy being described in Hebrews 6 is irremediable would also say that such an apostate would never again have any desire to return to the Lord. Obviously, that is not true of you.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
I’m studying Matt. 22:1-14, The Parable of the Wedding Feast and was interested in an Arminian perspective on the parable and particularly v. 14:
“Many are called but few are chosen.”
Since Jesus ends the parable with this phrase it seems to be key to the interpretation, but what strikes me as odd is the word “chosen”. Based on the content of the parable I would expect Jesus to say, “Many are called (invited, NIV) but few respond.”
The point of the parable seems to be that many receive the invitation of salvation by hearing the gospel but few are actually saved (I don’t buy the argument that the man without garments is saved and only lost his reward). But no where in the parable are we encouraged to assume that the reason the many do not come is because the king did not choose them. In fact, he did chose to invite them and it was their response to that invitation which determined their fate. This fits well with Arminian soteriology.
In fact, all three parables in the context deal with man’s response to God, and the last two both include the consequences for failing to respond properly. So why does Jesus seem to turn the tables at the end with his concluding statement, seemingly giving the parable a more deterministic flavor?
A Calvinist might say that Jesus is continuing to keep these Pharisees in the dark through his use of parables by hiding the real reason that they have not responded, namely they were not unconditionally chosen, and only reveals this hidden truth in his cryptic conclusion for his disciples benefit. But this seems like a stretch since it doesn’t fit the parable at all.
A Compatibalist might say that Jesus ends by adding the parallel truth that while our response is real and necessary, the sovereign unconditional choice of God is real at the same time (like a bonus truth). i.e., chosen and respond are somehow compatibalistic synonyms. But again, you have to read that into the text.
I’m thinking the Arminian might say that the king’s sovereign choice was to invite all (though he did not initially invite all) and to welcome in all who come properly clothed by faith. Therefore the choice is more corporate in nature than individual. The reason Jesus switches from “respond” to “are chosen” is to emphasize that our response is no cause for boasting. We are still just guests and the king has the right to exclude those who fail to meet his conditions for entrance to the feast. Ultimately it is his choice not ours that matters. Is that how you would see it or can you offer any other insight?
In Christ,
Dana
Hey Dana,
I think you are reading it right, and I think this passage is big trouble for Calvinism on multiple fronts. I have been meaning to write a detailed post on it for quite some time. I have addressed it briefly in this post on the atonement:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/provisional-atonement-part-2-provision-is-consistent-with-foreknowledge/
I have also used this passage to argue against Calvinists with great success in online discussions.
I agree that the chosen are the chosen because of their response. They do not respond because they are already chosen. That is massively reading into the text and the text implies exactly the opposite. So this passage is strong support for Arminian conditional election by faith.
On your last thought and the man without proper clothing, the invitation does not initially go out to all as you mention. Why is that? Jesus is addressing Jews who have a sense of ethnic and religious superiority based on the idea that they are God’s chosen people (descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). But they are rejecting Christ and for that reason have lost their place at the kingdom’s table. They might think they are “chosen” but they are not, since chosen status is not based on ethnicity, but faith (responding properly to the invitation – the Gospel of Christ).
An important element to notice is that the meal was specifically and deliberately prepared for those who were initially invited. Everything was there for them to enjoy and the host (or king) told them the meal had been prepared for them. The king meant it for them, but they did not want it.
To add to that, we have Jesus paralleling this same idea in Matthew 8:9-13 in response to a Roman soldier’s faith,
“Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Here Jesus says that while many will come to the table who are, by implication, not ethnic Jews, the “sons of the kingdom” (ethnic Jews who refuse to receive Christ) will be cast out. They are called the sons of the kingdom because as God’s chosen people the kingdom was intended for them. But they will not receive it because they reject their king. They will be “cast out” as a result, while Gentiles, who were formally not God’s chosen people, will sit at the table with the patriarchs and enjoy the feast. Why? Because like this Roman, they put their faith in Christ.
I think the parable strongly parallels what Jesus is saying here. So the man without proper wedding cloths is like the Jew who tries to enter the wedding feast on his own terms (ethnicity, works), rather than on God’s terms (faith in Christ), and is for this reason “cast out” despite his efforts.
The key again is that the kingdom was intended for those who are cast out. That is why they are called “sons of the kingdom”. It was meant for them, but they refused to accept the invite (on God’s terms) and were therefore cast out. That is big trouble for the Calvinist idea that God only provided salvation (and atonement) for those he intended to save and will certainly and irresistibly save. In Calvinism, the kingdom and the feast was never intended for those who will reject it.
Hope that helps.
Ben,
Thanks for the link and the additional response. The Matt. 8 reference is particularly useful for my study. I didn’t read your part 1, but much of what you said about provisional atonement agreed with an article I read at this site:
https://arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/feedback-arminians-limit-the-power-of-the-atonement/
I was particularly fascinated by that author’s use of the OT examples of the Passover, Bronze Serpent and the Cities of Refuge. The fact that the NT writers reference these events seems to validate their applicability to soteriology.
I was also glad to see you acknowledge in your post that the atonement may not be specifically in view in this parable of the Wedding Feast. I think the feast represents our joy and fellowship in heaven, not the atonement. Maybe I need to chew on John 6 some more. 🙂 But for the invitation to be bonafide, there must be an atonement, even though not specifically mentioned in the parable.
I’m sure you’ve heard the Calvinist’s argument that the invitation (general call) to the non-elect is still a genuine/bonafide offer even though no provision was made for them personally. Some say that the atonement is sufficient for all but applied only to the elect. I don’t find this explanation convincing. What is the significance of the sufficiency if it is not provided? The general call is then, “Come, even though a provision may not have been made for you.” As you pointed out, both sides really agree on the provisional nature of the atonement. As one stuck in the middle, I love finding common ground!
Calvinists might also object to your use of the Wedding Feast parable to draw out other principles of soteriology on the grounds that they go beyond the parable’s intent. For example, I don’t think foreknowlege is in view so implying that the king made the provision knowing they would reject the invitation is unwarranted (IMO). The king was not omniscient, but this is not a proof that God is not omniscient. It’s just not the point of the parable.
This is why I appreciate your reference to Matt. 8 so much. It gets to the heart of the matter. Jesus is speaking to the Jewish leaders. I think He is looking at them and saying that they are called but not chosen. It is ironic that many of the “chosen ones” are not chosen. This is one reason why the Calvinist explanation rings hollow to me. If Jesus is sharing the “other side of the coin” with his disciples, then he is changing his audience at the last minute with no other textual indication to support it.
To be fair, one point of clarification from my last post. I said that the Arminian could see v. 14 as a guard against boasting. “Don’t think you have earned salvation by your choice, God is the one who chose first when He established the condition of faith by which you are saved.” But in truth, Calvinists could claim the same guard against boasting. “Don’t boast in your choice, God chose you first!”
But regarding boasting in general, I know of no biblical example where we are warned not to boast in our choice to believe. I’m not saying it is inconceivable to do so, it just does not seem to be top concerns. It’s not even on the Bible’s radar as I can tell.
Thanks again for your help.
Dana
Hey Dana,
Thanks for the response. I want to quickly address some of your push back. First, the idea of foreknowledge. I agree that the parable is not specifically addressing that idea. However, the parable is most certainly about God and the message of the Gospel. In the parable the king (or host) does indeed prepare the meal for those who will reject it. In the parable, the king (or host) wouldn’t be seen to know in advance if any would reject it, but the king or host does indeed represent God here.
So the one truth we can certainly get from this parable is that God prepared a banquet for those who would reject it. Now when we add this to other things we know about God (like His foreknowledge), then we can rightly draw those conclusions. Why? Because God’s foreknowledge is a truth about God just as it is true that He prepared a banquet for those who would reject it. The parable highlights only one of those truths, but that doesn’t change the fact that the other truth still applies to God. So if both truths apply, the implication still follows. And the Matthew 8 reference reinforces this. So I do think it is a reasonable inference, though not the main point of the parable itself, as you well point out.
On the Calvinist retort of the genuine offer, that is really a canard. And it is a canard exactly because these same Calvinists will say there was never any provision made for the non-elect. They will all affirm that the atonement was not intended for the reprobate and that salvation was not intended for the reprobate. If that is the case, then certainly the kingdom banquet was not intended for the reprobate. But Jesus says it was. So the Calvinists might try to say it is still a genuine well meant offer, but this is inconsistent with other claims they make about the intention of the atonement and God’s intention to save the elect alone. For more on that, see part 3 here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/provisional-atonement-part-3-the-integrity-and-justice-of-god-in-the-gospel-offer/
You seem to agree with me on this point, but I just wanted to be sure you fully understood the problem and why the Calvinist response doesn’t work.
God Bless
Hi Dana, I just wanted to add to what Ben said. It almost seems like you pit being chosen against human response or something. But conditional election perfectly marries God’s choice and human response–he chooses those who respond positively to him. So it is not odd for Jesus to word it, “Many are called, but few are chosen” rather than with “few respond.” His purpose in his wording could have been to prevent boasting, but I think it is more likely that it is just addressing what is most important, acceptance with God, belonging to him, membership in his people/family. And the point that “Many are called, but few are chosen” makes is, “”Many are called, but few are accepted by God,” and as you clearly see, the parable makes clear what makes for acceptance with God, proper response to him. If we were going to flesh that out theologically based on NT teaching, going beyond the parable since it does not really address what is actually involved in wearing proper wedding clothes, we would identify that condition as faith that produces obedience or the obedience of faith or allegiance.
How does James Arminius rectify the difference between Hebrews 6 and 10, and The Prodigal Son?
Hey Mike,
First, I am not sure that James Arminius ever compared the two passages. Also, with regards to the possibility of apostasy, Arminius never took a firm stance, though he did seem to lean in the direction of seeing apostasy as a legitimate possibility. His main concerns in the controversy were the nature of grace (as resistible) and the horrible theological implications of Calvinist determinism.
I would say that we need to remember the context of those two passages are very different. In Hebrews, the writer of Hebrews is warning believers in Christ not to fall away and denounce Christ.
In the parable of the lost son, Jesus is addressing the fact that many “sinners” are receiving him while the religious leaders are indignant that Christ is spending time with them.
While we tend to focus on the son returning to the father, the main focus of the parable is actually the attitude of the “brother” as his attitude reflects the attitude of the Pharisees. Look at verses 1-2 that led directly to Jesus telling several similar parables, along with the parable of the lost son…
“Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:1-2)
So this is primarily about Jews who have lost their way returning to God by receiving Christ, while those who claim to know God are out of touch with the heart of God since they do not share in the Lord’s joy in seeing those who have wandered away come into the kingdom. Their priorities were way out of whack and motivated by self-interest, rather than love (Luke 16:14-15)
I think there is a difference between wayward Jews accepting Jesus as their Messiah and Christians later denouncing Christ. Paul mentions that broken off natural branches (the unbelieving Jews) can yet be grafted in again through faith in Romans 11. He also warns believing Gentiles that they can also be broken off through unbelief, but does not mention the possibility of them being later grafted in again. So it could simply be the case that these are dealing with two entirely different situations.
It could also be that there are two types of apostasy, one from which recovery is possible, and one from which there is no possibility of return. In that case, the prodigal would have committed the lesser apostasy from which return was possible. For more on that see these two posts:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-11-can-apostates-be-restored/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/does-scripture-describe-two-types-of-apostasy/
Another possible way to harmonize the accounts is in seeing the apostasy described in Hebrews 6 and 10 as remedial, rather than irremediable. For a concise presentation of that view from an Arminian scholar, see here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-my-argument-for-apostasy-not-being-irremediable-in-hebrews-6/
Hope that helps.
Ben,
I’ve been meaning to ask you about the relationship between Arminianism and modern evangelistic methods. To explain what I mean I will list some examples: alter-calls/invitations/going forward, the sinner’s prayer, revival/tent meetings, use of music to set a receptive mood, sending ushers forward to prime the pump, reporting a large number of decisions and re-dedications, etc.
I often hear Calvinists refer to these methods as “Arminian techniques”, perhaps because they are attributed in large part to Charles Finney, though he may be more Palagean than Arminian. I believe the link in the mind of Calvinists is also tied to the perception that Arminians believe that all men are enabled by the prevenient grace of God to respond and therefore the only thing keeping anyone from responding is proper motivation/persuasion, which is where the evangelist takes over with a calculated psychological leverage.
From reading your posts and many other Arminian sites, I do not think that is an accurate view of Arminian evangelism. I believe you would say: Though God does grant some measure of prevenient grace to all (which Calvinists would call common grace) God continues to be actively involved in the drawing of sinners to faith in Christ with additional grace. Therefore the Arminian evangelist never actually “takes over.” The main distinction from Calvinists is that the drawing grace is not irresistible.
In my view, at least some of these techniques are more properly linked to “easy-believism” and OSAS. Do you have any thoughts or can you direct me to any resources which explain the Arminian view toward these modern evangelistic techniques?
Thanks so much.
Dana
Arminian,
Thank you for the additional comments. You wrote:
“It almost seems like you pit being chosen against human response or something. But conditional election perfectly marries God’s choice and human response–he chooses those who respond positively to him. So it is not odd for Jesus to word it, “Many are called, but few are chosen” rather than with “few respond.” His purpose in his wording could have been to prevent boasting, but I think it is more likely that it is just addressing what is most important, acceptance with God, belonging to him, membership in his people/family.”
I didn’t mean to pit being chosen against human response, but they are not identical concepts. As you said, they are married to one another. My point was that the parable leaves us with the impression that the king “chose” to invite everyone. First he chose to call his closest countrymen, but they proved unworthy by their rejection of the invitation. Even though they were chosen as invitees, they were not ultimate included as dinner guests. Likewise, the king then chose to call everyone else including the man without proper garments. But when the king saw him in the hall, he was cast out, also excluded from the feast. Therefore, I expected Jesus to say, “many are invited but few properly respond to the invitation.”
My issue with connecting God’s choice to belonging and family membership is these analogies are not presented in the parable. Rather the parable presents a universal call with a limited response based not on the king’s choice but the invitee’s choice. The idea of the king “choosing” who will be allowed into the feast seems only vaguely implied. The focus of the parable is on man’s choice.
Another problem that just occurred to me is the fact that the parable suggests that there are as many if not more who will enter the feast than those who do not, but v. 14 dispels that perception. Just another reason this v. 14 seems out of place. That being said, the many/few motif is consistent with other scriptures (Matt. 7:13-22), it just doesn’t fit the parable as well as I would expect. Perhaps it is meant as a warning: “don’t think that you are safe because you are a Jew.”
Talking this through with you and Ben has helped me to better reconciled v. 14 in my mind. The point of the parable seems to be that the king is justified in inviting others to the feast and rejecting those who do not respond properly (i.e., the king is justified in choosing only a few). The focus is on the king’s right to choose his dinner guests, not necessarily the basis on which he chooses. Though to your point, it is clear that the king intends to exclude no one who responds favorably and provision is made for all. I agree the parable highlights the reasonableness of this condition of election, thus defending God’s right to chose. The reason why some do not join the feast is not based on a mysterious purpose of the king, but rather it is obvious and reasonable.
Following the logic of the parable, the Jewish leaders should have no reason to believe that they will be granted entrance into heaven precisely because they rejected God’s invitation and His messengers. Likewise, Gentiles who fail to properly cloth themselves by faith in Christ, have no reason to believe that they will be granted entrance into heaven precisely because they have rejected God’s Son. The man’s speechlessness highlights this fact. He has no defensible excuse. The reason for the king’s choice is clear.
Thanks for pressing me on this. Responding to you helped me think it through more thoroughly.
Dana
Dana,
I don’t think any of that has anything in particular to do with Arminianism. As you say, much of it began with Finney I believe. But really, I don’t see why alter calls would be a problem for Calvinists. It is simply a way to get people to respond to the Gospel when God is working on their hearts. Why should that be bad?
As far as manipulative tactics, I am not a big fan of that. But even that can be hard to determine. Music can simply create an atmosphere of worship and reflection, but it could also be used to manipulate emotion. Such things can always be misused, but there is nothing necessarily nefarious about them either. Calvinists often use stories and illustrations (or memes) to persuade or get a response, and I think that can easily come across as manipulative in some cases (and I would say they often are). Even if it is not about the Gospel, they will do such things to persuade someone towards adopting Calvinism (like saying that if you are not a Calvinist you are not “enlightened” or are resisting God or trying to be sovereign over God or believe in a weak God, etc.)
I do think it is more of a reaction to easy believism. But what would a Calvinist do? Just say if you believe you will be saved and never give people an opportunity to do that? And why would that be a bad thing in the church to do?
What is funny to me is that Calvinists will say that since God works irresistibly in the hearts of the elect, they don’t have to worry so much about how the Gospel is presented. They don’t really have to be persuasive since God does all the work and cannot fail in that work.
But then they also think that an improper Gospel presentation (like those examples you mentioned) will somehow keep the elect out of the kingdom. They can’t have it both ways. If Calvinism is true, they shouldn’t need to worry about such things at all. Here is a post that touches on this a bit that you might find helpful:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/some-basic-thoughts-on-decisional-regeneration-from-an-arminian-perspective/
Ben,
I guess the reason these methods are sometimes associated with Arminianism is because the churches who use them tend to be Arminian (or maybe I’m wrong about that). I think the key to avoiding this pitfall is to remain humbly dependent on the Lord. The minute we begin thinking, “it’s all up to me”, we lose our way. You seem to get that which I appreciate and is helping me to trust Arminians more.
As you said, Calvinists can be guilty of manipulation as well. The Calvinist’s motivation to do anything is a tricky issue. They have a strong sense of duty (obedience is the right thing to do) and hope (blessing and rewards will eventually come) and the glory of God. But to avoid fatalism, they have to embrace the mystery of compatibilism by faith and just believe that somehow it matters what they do even though in a sense it doesn’t. So when Calvinists (or any Christian) sees other Christians manipulating the unsaved for decisions and giving folks a false sense of security, it makes them mad, even though they believe it won’t change who is elect. I guess you could call it righteous indignation or concern for God’s glory (even though God’s glory is assured). Maybe its like watching a movie where you already know the ending but you still get mad at the villain?
Thanks for the link.
Dana
Dana,
You write, “I guess the reason these methods are sometimes associated with Arminianism is because the churches who use them tend to be Arminian (or maybe I’m wrong about that).”
I think that might be accurate, but would change “Arminian” to “non-Calvinist.”
I want to hear your opinion. There are verses saying we were saved or we are saved now, but there also verses saying we will be saved.
James,
Salvation is tied up in a relationship with Christ. So when Scripture speaks of being saved in the past, it is referring to the time when that person was joined to Christ by faith. We are saved presently through an ongoing relationship with Christ and we will be saved in the end if we continue in that relationship with Christ.
Hope that helps.
I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian. I am a seeker of truth found wholly in Scripture. I am not interested in debating. I am interested in understanding.
You see, I find most Calvinistic preachers compelling, holding close to scripture. There are a few significant areas where I don’t see the biblical connection, primarily predetermination and God’s attitude toward the non-elect, the over emphasis on God’s sovereignty, and the over emphasis on assurance of salvation.
My quest: I am looking for the best, most scholarly, least emotional, least polemic books and articles on Arminian theology and scriptural challenges to Calvinistic theology.
Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Consider “The Other Side of Calvinism” by Lawrence Vance.
I think you will find a lot of that right here if you browse around (the category tags to the left should be a great help).
As far as other resources, I would start by recommending Roger Olson’s book “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” which does a great job of rightly explaining Arminian Theology and addressing common misrepresentations and misunderstandings.
For a more exegetical approach, I would recommend Robert Picirilli’s “Grace, Faith, Free Will.” He does a great job exegetically engaging Scriptural support for Arminianism and Scriptures that Calvinists hold up as supporting their Theology, while giving a very solid and accurate overview of these opposing approaches to Scripture and Theology
Both of these books are very irenic and fair in their tone while still strongly disagreeing with Calvinism.
For articles, I would start with the FACTS article at SEA: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/
On election and predestination, I would recommend those articles which focus on the corporate election (CE) view, especially those written by Dr. Brian Abasciano (president of SEA and the author of the FACTS article above).
These articles are very scholarly and very powerful in arguing for the corporate view of election (which will serve as a nice complement to Picirilli’s book which argues for the individual “election by foreknowledge” view). I personally think the CE view best explains and represents all of the Biblical data.
Here is a link to many resources on the CE view, along with several articles by Brian Abasciano, and even his dissertation on Romans 9:1-9 (which was eventually edited to be the first of three books on Romans 9, the last book is still to be published),
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/
Also, I would suggest looking at this, as many who claim to not be “Arminian” often do so because they do not fully understand what Arminianism teaches. You might actually be Arminian and not even know it:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/
That should get you started.
Thank you!
This is a sincere question. I am not a Calvinist. I just want to know. How does an Arminian respond biblically to the question, “Why did I choose Christ and while my neighbor did not?” There are some things we can be certain of. Before conversion, I was not in any way better than my neighbor. I was not less sinful, not less selfish, not any less depraved. Calvinists have an easy quick answer to that. God chose you. That’s why you chose him and your neighbor did not. Is there a biblical Arminian answer to this? Frankly, I would understand if there wasn’t There are many areas where Calvinists don’t have a biblical answer either.
Eric,
Here are a few posts that might be helpful:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-addressing-the-calvinist-challenge-why-did-you-believe-and-your-neighbor-did-not/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-1-if-we-have-libertarian-free-will-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-2-arminianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-9-faith-is-some-reason-to-boast/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-10-wait-now-faith-is-a-work/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacies-14-conditional-election-makes-god-a-respecter-of-persons/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/does-paul-support-calvinisms-view-of-irresistible-grace-in-1-corinthians-14/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/richard-watson-on-who-maketh-thee-to-differ-from-another-as-an-argument-for-calvinism/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/sanctification-by-works/
If you still have questions, feel free to ask.
God Bless.
Eric,
Here is one more really good one:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/thomas-ralston-on-freedom-of-the-will-part-9-the-doctrine-of-motives/
Hi guys,
I’m struggling with the following…
1). Some say God does have a hand in single or double predestination, it seems like a paradox to have a God wanting all to be saved and a God who saves only a few and let the rest be lost and not electing them. How to deal with this?
2). Arminians believe God foreknows who will be saved and who won’t (even before birth). I see problems with that because then God let’s people be born without them having a chance to be saved. Seems not very loving…
Can you help me with these questions? Thanks!
Deider,
Thanks for dropping by. On the first question, I do don’t think Calvinistic single or double predestination is Biblical, so I don’t see the need to deal with it. I deal with it by denying it. Biblical predestination has to do with God’s predetermined destiny and plan for believers, it is not God’s predetermination about who will believe and who will not.
The second question is loaded with assumptions and misunderstanding. In Arminianism, God’s foreknowledge does not cause things to happen. God foreknows things because they will happen; things do not happen because He foreknows it. His foreknowledge simply mirrors the future. The causes for what will happen are an entirely different matter.
The idea that God’s foreknowledge leaves someone without a “chance” to be saved does not follow at all. Indeed, His foreknowledge would fully comprehend all the chances to be saved that were available and yet rejected.
The cause of condemnation is not God’s foreknowledge, but the person’s future free choices. God foreknows what those choices will be, but they are still perfectly free and belong to the person, not to God. So the person who is ultimately condemned did have a chance to be saved (perhaps numerous chances), but simply rejected those opportunities. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t change that.
The further idea that God could foreknow such rejections and then not “create” the person as a result is logically problematic. It suggests that God could use His foreknowledge of a future free will act of a creature to then not create that creature in the first place. But if God will not create that person, then there will never be any person to know anything about, which include future choices.
So God would essentially be using His foreknowledge of a real future person making real future choices to then falsify His foreknowledge by not creating such a person, which means there was never anything to foreknow in the first place, which cannot be. It is logically self-defeating.
This idea also assumes a “creationism” view of the human soul, rather than a “traducianism” view, which is an issue that is hotly debated in Theology. So if the traducian view is accurate, this argument cannot even get off the ground in the first place.
Hope that helps.
Here are some good articles that might help you better understand the nature of foreknowledge in Arminianism and why #2 does not work:
Click to access Picirilli.%20Foreknowledge,%20Freedom,%20and%20the%20Future.pdf
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/thomas-ralston-on-freedom-of-the-will-part-8/
Click to access Picirilli.-Arminian-Response-to-Open-Theism.pdf
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/great-quotes-daniel-whedon-on-foreknowledge-and-free-will/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/calvinism-on-the-horns-the-problem-of-divine-foreknowledge-in-calvinism-and-why-you-should-be-an-arminian/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/some-quick-comments-regarding-free-agency-and-foreknowledge/
The further idea that God could foreknow such rejections and then not “create” the person as a result is logically problematic. It suggests that God could use His foreknowledge of a future free will act of a creature to then not create that creature in the first place. But if God will not create that person, then there will never be any person to know anything about, which include future choices.
So God would essentially be using His foreknowledge of a real future person making real future choices to then falsify His foreknowledge by not creating such a person, which means there was never anything to foreknow in the first place, which cannot be. It is logically self-defeating.
This idea also assumes a “creationism” view of the human soul, rather than a “traducianism” view, which is an issue that is hotly debated in Theology. So if the traducian view is accurate, this argument cannot even get off the ground in the first place.
—
Can you explain this a bit more brother?
Why it’s self defeating and the last part?
Are we sort of Looking at a mystery here? On the one hand God wants all to be saved and it waiting and longsuffering, on the other hand He knows who will be saved and humanity is free to accept or reject. There is a bit of a tension over there if we look at it.
You write: Can you explain this a bit more brother?
Why it’s self defeating and the last part?
Are we sort of Looking at a mystery here?
The only mystery is how God has foreknowledge of the future, but that is no more a mystery than wondering how He created the world out of nothing.
I am not sure I can explain things any differently than I already have. Reading through the posts and articles I linked to should help quite bit.
Basically, God cannot use His foreknowledge of someone as a basis to decide whether or not to create that person in the first place because if God will not create the person, there will never be any person to know anything about, and therefore no basis for the foreknowledge God supposedly used to decide not create that particular person. You don’t see the logical problem there?
You write: On the one hand God wants all to be saved and it waiting and longsuffering, on the other hand He knows who will be saved and humanity is free to accept or reject. There is a bit of a tension over there if we look at it.
Not necessarily since God’s foreknowledge comprehends all things. Yes, God foreknows who will ultimately reject Him, but only because they will be given those opportunities and will ultimate reject Him. Remember, God’s foreknowledge is of what will actually happen, it is not separate from how things will unfold, it just mirrors or “knows” how things will unfold.
So God truly desires all to be saved and works to bring people to salvation (but not irresistibly so) and he foreknows all people and all their choices, as well as His interactions with them to bring them to Himself, but only because those things will actually happen.
So there is no real tension there since God’s foreknowledge does not make such future choices or interactions any less genuine or real. God is both patient and foreknows His patience and how that patience will unfold as people actually respond to it in faith or rejection.
Hopefully, that helps some.
Basically, God cannot use His foreknowledge of someone as a basis to decide whether or not to create that person in the first place because if God will not create the person, there will never be any person to know anything about, and therefore no basis for the foreknowledge God supposedly used to decide not create that particular person. You don’t see the logical problem there?
—
Well the problem and tension is that in creatief someone God knows the person will be lost. If He foreknows that, then the person is in this world without Any hope or possibility to be saved. While at the other hand God really wants all to be saved and they can be saved. I see a tension betweem these two things.
Deider,
Once again, you say that there is “no hope” for them to be saved, just as you said there is “no chance” to be saved before. But that is clearly false. They had as much hope and chance as anyone, but refused those opportunities. They could certainly have been saved, but were not because of their own choices, not because of foreknowledge and not simply because they were created. It is simply false to say that because God created them and knows how they will choose, they are without hope.
Suppose God has no foreknowledge at all. Now suppose He creates someone and patiently and continually works in his or her life to give that person opportunities to believe and be saved, but despite God’s gracious working and patience the person still freely rejects the Gospel and is eternally lost as a result.
Would you say that person never had any hope to be saved? Of course not. Adding God’s foreknowledge doesn’t change that at all. You seem to think that just adding God’s foreknowledge removes all hope, but that is simply not the case. It just means that God knows how things will turn out, it does not determine how things will turn out. What determines that is still the free choice of the individual.
Now what if the person did respond in faith? Then God would have foreknown that instead. His foreknowledge simply mirrors what will happen…it does not make it happen. It is not causative.
Please read the posts and articles I linked to. They will help.
Another question.. is Luke 10:22 about Jesus choosing to reveal to some and not to others as in electing? Or as more in he chooses to reveal to the children and not to the wise (as the verses before that state and the parralel text in Matthew 11:27).
Hello Deider,
I think that in both of those passages Jesus is speaking of His choice to reveal the Father to believers, or those who are open to learning from the Father, even as the Father speaks through the Son and reveals Himself through the Son (cf. John 5:18, 24, 26-27; 6:44-45; 7:16-17).
Hiding from the wise probably has reference to those who thought they were wise by studying the Scriptures and being religious leaders to Israel, but because their hearts were not right with God, they did not recognize the Son as the perfect revelation of the Father or His message about the Father (John 5:37-47; 8:19, 42-47; 10:37-38).
In Matthew 11, we see Jesus immediately give an invitation after saying He reveals the Father to whom He chooses, and that invitation is for all who are weary and burdened to come to Christ and find rest in Him (cf. Isaiah 11:10). So Jesus is appealing to those who, like “children”, humbly recognize their need for God, and respond to that by coming to Jesus.
You might also find this helpful: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/various-thoughts-on-the-calvinist-use-of-john-6-and-related-passages-from-johns-gospel-to-support-calvinism/
And here is an article from another site specifically addressing Matthew 11. I have not read the article myself, but generally everything from that site is pretty solid:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Matthew11_25.html
This is good bro! Biblical stuff, I love it!
How would you deal with a text like Luke 22:31 – it says satan asked to sift Peter. Since satan is Gods enemy I find it strange if He needs to ask to do that / permission. Some people say satan is Gods scapegoat but that would make God look very strange / his character. Then He would use satan for the stuff / evil stuff he himself can’t do. How do we look at this from another way. Not to inflict God with harming Peter / or allowing / being peter tempt by evil while God has nothing to do with evil / sin.
Dieder,
Real quick, I would say it is very similar to Job’s situation. Satan wanted to prove that Job was only faithful to God because of God’s blessings and protections, take those away and Job will curse you. God then allowed Satan to harm Job in a variety of ways to test his faith and commitment to God.
In the same way, Satan wanted to prove that Peter’s devotion was superficial. Peter did give into fear, but did not give into despair as Judas did…he wept bitterly when he realized he had let Jesus down and did what he swore he would not do. He recognized that he was not as strong or devoted as he had once believed, when his faith was tested to the limit. But Jesus had prayed for Peter, and through that prayer Peter was enabled to overcome his short fall, and was ultimately restored.
The lesson is that God will enable us to overcome temptation and find restoration (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). Satan cannot overwhelm the believer because God has give us all we need to remain in Him (2 Peter 1:3-11), but we can still fall away if we choose to give in to temptation and freely walk away from the Lord (2 Peter 1:9-11).
The point is that we can give into the enemy, but we do not have to, since God’s grace enables us to stand strong, and if we do fall, we can find restoration in Christ.
Hope that helps.
Much is made of verbs being in the present tense which denotes continuous action, such as John 10:27 – hear/follow meaning continuous hearing & following. Someone has mentioned John 4:14 – “but whoever DRINKS of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again” … and that the verb “drinks” is in the present tense, and that if the present tense always meant continuous, how could this verse make sense? If you drink once you shouldn’t have to continue to drink because the verse says you’ll never be thirsty again. So does the present tense ALWAYS mean continuous action?
Tom,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. With respect to the continuous aspect of such verbs, Greek scholar Dan Wallace makes the point well that this is indeed the pattern, especially in soteriological contexts with very few exceptions, and this emphasis, especially when it comes to believing, seems to be very important for that reason. Here is an entry from His Greek Grammar with footnote included:
John 3:16
πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων
everyone who believes
The idea seems to be both gnomic and continual: “everyone who continually believes.” This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of πιστεύω, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT [22] (pp. 620-621)
Footnote 22: The aspectual force of the present ὁ πιστεύων seems to be in contrast with ὁ πιστεύσας. The aorist is used only eight times (plus two in the longer ending of Mark). The aorist is sometimes used to describe believers as such and thus has a generic force (cf. for the clearest example the v.l. at Mark 16:16; cf. also 2 Thess 1:10; Heb 4:3; perhaps John 7:39; also, negatively, of those who did not [μή] believe: 2 Thess 2:12; Jude 5). The present occurs six times as often (43 times), most often in soteriological contexts (cf. John 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18; 3:36; 6:35, 47, 64; 7:38; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 2:44; 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22 [bis]; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13; 1 Pet 2:6, 7; 1 John 5:1, 5, 10, 13). Thus, it seems that since the aorist participle was a live option to describe a “believer,” it is unlikely that when the present was used, it was aspectually flat. The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. Along these lines, it seems significant that the promise of salvation is almost always given to ὁ πιστεύων (cf. several of the above-cited texts), almost never to ὁ πιστεύσας (apart from Mark 16:16, John 7:39 and Heb 4:3 come the closest [the present tense of πιστεύω never occurs in Hebrews]).
________________
As far as John 4:14, this is not present tense, but an aorist subjunctive.
Super … thanks!
You have a quote on your site that says Arminius said faith precedes regeneration. But 1 John 5:1 seems to say all who are believing now have already been born of God. How do the two become reconciled?
Stephen,
Feel free to look around the site as there is tons of information on the ordo salutis. That particular passages has also been addressed. Basically, as you stated, the one “believing now” (present participle) has been born again. That alone says nothing of what came first, the believing or being born again. It would be true if one was born again first, and it would be true if the believing came first. In other words, if being born again is the result of believing (Arminianism), rather than the cause (Calvinism), it would still be perfectly true that the one believing has been born again.
For more on this, see:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/examining-a-rather-strange-proof-text-for-irresistible-regeneration/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/biblical-scholar-brian-abasciano-refutes-the-popular-calvinist-argument-that-the-language-of-1-john-51-means-that-regeneration-precedes-faith/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-interviewed-on-the-claims-of-james-white-concerning-the-greek-of-1-john-51-and-the-order-of-faith-and-regeneration/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/dr-brian-abascianos-second-response-to-james-white-on-1-john-51/
On other related passages, and on the ordo salutis in general:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/does-jesus-teach-that-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-ezekiel-3626-27-teach-regeneration-precedes-faith/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/does-regeneration-precede-faith/
There are more, but that should get you started. God bless.
I was reading Ezekiel 3:4-7 and had a question pertaining to Arminianism:
4 Then He said to me: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. 5 For you are not sent to a people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, but to the house of Israel, 6 not to many people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, had I sent you to them, they would have listened to you. 7 But the house of Israel will not listen to you, because they will not listen to Me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted.
God tells Ezekiel about an alternative reality in which had Ezekiel preached to foreigners, they would have listened unlike Israel who is hard-hearted. But if God loves those foreigners and knows they would believe, then why does he send Ezekiel to Israel and not the foreigners?
Calvinists would say it is because Israel was chosen and the foreigners were not. God is selective in his dispensing of grace. What do Arminians say?
I see a lot of human responsibility and resisting of grace in this text, which fits well with Arminianism, but what about God’s character and intent toward the foreigners? How do you reconcile that?
Is God just using the foreigners as an example for comparison? If so, he may in fact send another prophet to the foreigners, or the repentant Jews to witness to them, or he may draw them to Israel to receive the grace of God (through you all the nations of the earth will be blessed).
Those seem like plausible reconciliations but I wonder if we are not meant to leave it un-reconciled, to be content with the reality that God gives more chances to some than others. e.g., Israel was given many chances to repent while foreigners had fewer opportunities to believe. Like it or not, is that not God’s prerogative to dispense grace as he sees fit?
Dana,
My first thought is that you are reading too much into this passage. I think it is hyperbole for the sake of making a point. It is like saying, even if you brought my message to people who could not understand it, they would be more apt to respond than Israel because their hearts are so hard. Maybe it is much like us saying today, “I might as well be speaking Chinese” when someone doesn’t seem to want to listen. I don’t think this is about an alternative reality or a statement on God restricting grace from some while giving it to Israel, but just a hyperbolic expression of just how stubborn and resistant to God Israel truly is.
Commentator John B. Taylor puts it like this: “The words are used to point the contrast between the excusable inability of people of a foreign language to understands and the quite inexcusable stubbornness of Ezekiel’s Israelite hearers.” (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Ezekiel)
Hi there, calvinists say man / unbeliever always acts according to his greatest desire. Doesnt man have a will or choice to make then? How can they be held responsible if That’s the only thing they can do. I find that harsh.
Hi Diedr,
You may find these posts helpful:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/thomas-ralston-on-freedom-of-the-will-part-9-the-doctrine-of-motives/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-necessitarian-calvinist-argument-from-strongest-motive-force-is-based-on-circular-reasoning/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-5-choices-apart-from-intent/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-3-we-choose-by-chance/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-1-if-we-have-libertarian-free-will-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/
https://tyndalephilosophy.com/2015/03/23/the-c-in-calvinism/
God Bless.
Ben,
Regarding your response to my post on Ezek. 3:4-5, you wrote:
“My first thought is that you are reading too much into this passage.”
From an exegetical perspective you are probably right. The main point is not to describe God’s discriminatory dispensing of grace. I agree with Taylor that the main point is a contrast to highlight Israel’s inexcusable stubbornness.
However, I don’t see it as hyperbole as you suggest. When Jesus says, “unless you hate your father and mother, you cannot be my disciples” (paraphrase of Luke 14:26), that is hyperbole. We are not expected to hate anyone, but our devotion to Christ should so far supersede all others, it is as if it were hate in comparison. Hate is an exaggeration of a subordinate devotion to make a point. But is God exaggerating when he says that if he sent Ezekiel to foreigners, they would listen? For it to be exaggeration, there would have to be a subordinate state to listening. Would they in reality only listen a little bit? That doesn’t make sense.
Another text which makes a similar point is Matthew 11:20-24
“20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
I think these texts suggest that God does not necessarily do all he can to save in every instance. Had he performed miracles, Tyre, Sidon and Sodom would have repented (i.e. been saved). He is not guilty for choosing not to perform those miracles. He is not obligated to anyone. This does not mean that these people never had a chance. They are rightly condemned because they could have repented but chose not to. Nevertheless, had God done more (performed miracles), they would have repented. If this is hyperbole, then the reality is that they would actually do something less than repent.
Maybe I am fussing too much over technicalities, but my main point is that it is God’ prerogative how much grace to give any individual. He can give sufficient grace to one and a more effectual amount of grace (or chances) to another. Even if it is not the main point of the passage, it is still a true statement that Jesus and God are making in these texts. I don’t think it can be hyperbolic.
Dana
The Ezekiel 3:4-7 passage does not necessarily say what Dana thinks it says. There are issues in the Hebrew. The NASB translates it like this, e.g., “But I have sent you to them who should listen to you.” The issues are that one of the Hebrew words could be translated “if” or “surely,” another part could be “they will listen” or “they should listen,” and there is a “not” in the Hebrew that does not seem to get translated by the type of translation Dana is following. Literally, the Hebrew reads: “Surely [or if] I did not send you to them; these should [or will] listen to you.” This seems the best translation IMO: “Surely I did not send you to them; these should [or will] listen to you.” The point is that God did not send Ezekiel to those who could not understand him, and so would have a tough time listening to him, but to those who can listen to him and should listen to him.
Woops, I left the brackets in what I recommended as the best translation. That should be: “Surely I did not send you to them; these should listen to you.” And that refers to not sending him to those of a different language, but to fellow Hebrews, God’s people, who should listen to him.
Arminian,
Thanks for the response. I’m not an expert in Hebrew, but I should have checked other translations. The translation I quoted was ESV, but KJV, NKJV, NIV, YLT and NET are similar. The NASB includes a footnote with an alternate translation that is closer to the others. It reads, “Or If I had sent you to them, they would listen to you.” This alternate reading links the “them” to the potential gentile listeners.
So I can agree there is some question as to the better translation, but what is your reason for thinking the NASB was the best when it seems to be a minority opinion?
Also, how would you interpret Matt. 11:20-24 which I mentioned in my last reply to Ben? NASB agrees with ESV on that one.
Dana
Dana,
I only have a minute, but wanted to quickly respond to your last post. First, I was only addressing your reference to Ezekiel. You hadn’t brought up any other texts so it is strange that you assume my response to Ezekiel (that it was likely hyperbole) would be the same response for other passages. I never said that. It does seem like you conceded the point on Ezekiel, but then went to other passages to try to make the same point. That’s fine, but you can’t assume my response to those passages would be to see them as hyperbole when I was only addressing Ezekiel.
On Sodom and Gomorrah (or Tyre and Sidon), I think it is more than just miracles in general that are being described. Jesus is talking about the specific miracles that He is performing as evidence for His identity,
Mt 11:20 “Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.”
The repentance He is talking about is repentance that has reference to recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and receiving the Gospel. His miracles pointed to that reality and confirmed that message. So again, this is not just miracles in general, but miracles performed by Jesus as evidence for His claims.
If Jesus came (through incarnation) in the fullness of time, then it is unreasonable to think that He could have also been sent to Tyre and the other nations he mentioned.
So while it can be perfectly true that if Christ performed such miracles in those nations long ago, that they would have repented, it does not follow that this would have been possible. It is not so much hyperbole as it is a hypothetical to make a point. These cities saw the fullest revelation of God in Christ and His miracles and yet they still rejected that revelation. While it was not possible for the cities Jesus mentioned to experience this same revelation in Christ (and He doesn’t say it was possible), if they had, they would not have responded in the way that the Jews had, which is a powerful indictment on their resistance to Jesus’ message and claims.
However, I do agree that it is God’s prerogative to dispense grace, and since we are a part of the process (through prayer, witness, discipleship, etc.), it follows that this grace can increase in certain situations. But it seems to me that the main point is that we are responsible to respond to whatever amount of grace and revelation God gives us, and that grace is sufficient to bring about the proper response.
The Jews who rejected Christ’s miracles were given an extraordinary amount of grace, and yet their hearts were still able to resist it. If anything, this again demonstrates the resistibility of grace because Christ makes it clear that His miracles were intended to bring about repentance, and yet they did not. That alone is big trouble for the Calvinist paradigm.
Dana,
You said: “I can agree there is some question as to the better translation, but what is your reason for thinking the NASB was the best when it seems to be a minority opinion?”
**** I actually spelled that out in my comment. I gave a literal translation and pointed out the ambiguities in the text that allow for differing translations. I also pointed out that those other translations leave out the word “not” that is in the Hebrew. But looking closer at the text, there are more options for that word because of possible connection to the word that precedes it. So it could be translated along with that word, the two of them together, as “surely” (though that is valid only in certain circumstances, which are not in play here, though some translations still go that route) or “if not” or “but” or “even if not”. But is the most likely option, and that is the meaning that the most authoritative biblical Hebrew lexicon (Koehler/Baumgartner) indicates is used in the verse we are talking about, Ezekiel 3:6. So I would revise what I regard as the best translation to this (which is very much like the NASB’s): “But I sent you to them. They should listen to you.”
I would say that “surely” is not a good option because of what I already mentioned. Beyond that, context backs the NASB best. God makes the point that he is not sending Ezekiel to foreign people of different language, but to to Israel. And he repeats the thought, I did not send you to foreign people you can’t understand. So it calls out for a completion of the repetition, that he has sent him to Israel. ***But*** I sent you to them (i.e., Israel, mentioned as who he is sending him to in the previous sentence). And then a fitting parallel: unlike the foreigners who Ezekiel cannot understand and presumably who cannot understand him, they should listen. So the thought is, I am not sending you to those who speak a different language and so can’t understand you, ***but*** to those who can understand you and should listen to you. Making the point that the ones speaking a different language would listen relies on translating “surely if” or something like that, but that is not represented in the lexicon as a real option. It should either be “Surely”, which as mentioned above is only an option in circumstances not in play here, or “if not” or “even if not”, which do not make sense here. Sorry to get into complicated details. But the NASB is the best translation here in my opinion.
By the way, are we to think that the foreign nations would have listened to Ezekiel? Really? That also seems highly unlikely on its face. Of course, if the verse is saying that, then we must accept it. But the unlikeliness does weigh against that if that meaning is in question. Would the original hearers be likely to get that meaning or would they be likely to understand and Ezekiel be likely to express something more likely, not that the godless nations would heed Ezekiel when Israel would not, but that Israel, who can understand Ezekiel, should listen to him?
“Also, how would you interpret Matt. 11:20-24 which I mentioned in my last reply to Ben? NASB agrees with ESV on that one.”
***** See Ben’s response above.
Arminian,
Thank you for providing additional explanation as to your reasons for preferring the NASB translation of Ezek. 3:6. I don’t have the Hebrew lexicon you reference but that is interesting to note. My concern was that NASB seems to be in the minority among mainline translations. I wonder why this is when the Hebrew lexicon presumably supports the NASB version. Surely the other translations considered the textual issues and lexicon. Why would so many versions ignore these factors? And the fact that NASB footnotes the majority translation affirms that they were not sure either!
That being said, you may be right about the translation. It certainly makes sense in context. You raise a good point that it was improbable (even naturally impossible as Ben noted) for a foreign nation to respond (although not unprecedented, e.g. Ninevah). I guess that is why the majority translation seems so shocking. I think your response, “Really?” is how the original audience would respond too. This could then be hyperbole as Ben suggested, or if it is true, it could be intended to shock them with the reality of the truth – Israel was actually (not exaggeration) more hard-hearted than their Gentile neighbors!
At the risk of belaboring an admittedly minor issue, let me offer an interpretation of two literal translations (YLT and yours):
The YLT reads, “If I had not sent thee unto them — they, they do hearken unto thee,” This is similar to your literal version, “Surely I did not send you to them; these should listen to you.”
Here’s one possible interpretation of the YLT:
“If I had not sent thee unto [the Jews, but instead foreigners], they [the foreigners], they do [or would] hearken unto thee.” This preserves the “not” but also follows the majority translation.
Or if I just interpret the second pronoun “these” of your literal translation differently:
“Surely I did not send you to [foreigners], [if I had] these [foreigners] should [or would] listen to you.”
One thing you have helped me to see is that the text is not clear and should not be used alone as a “proof” text for my main point which is: God does not do all that he can to save. He is selective in the dispensing of grace.
Apart from the lack of clarity in this Ezekiel text, do you care to comment on my thesis in general? This is why I asked you about Matt. 11. Since you side with Ben on that text I will respond to his post next.
I really appreciate your helpful comments.
Peace and grace,
Dana
Ben,
I am continually amazed by how much you pack into a “minute” response! Thank you.
I also want to apologize for assuming that you would interpret Matt. 11 similar to Ezek. 3. Personally, I see them as making very similar points so I could live with a “hypothetical” view for both text. But as you can see, another poster alerted me to other possibilities with the Ezekiel text. It was helpful.
I appreciate that your “main point” is to present the Arminian theology of sufficient yet resistible grace to all. My purpose however, in citing these two texts, was not to undermine this theology but rather to understand how an Arminian views my assertion as I summarized in my last post –
“God does not do all that he can to save. He is selective in the dispensing of grace.”
This assertion does not rule out resistible grace or universal enabling (though I still struggle with the latter), it speaks more to the character of God. Is it inconsistent for an all-loving God to be selective? I don’t think so. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most Arminians see the love of God (his desire for all to be saved) as the primary reason for believing in universal enabling. So I guess it does come around to that issue eventually.
Thanks again for engaging my questions.
Glory to God,
Dana
Is it inconsistent for an all-loving God to be selective? I don’t think so
Well, that depends on quite a bit. If the selectivity is the selectivity of Calvinism, then it would seem to be quite inconsistent. It might be best to leave the issue with this important verse (which I might have already mentioned at some point),
“From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27)
Not everyone has the same opportunities or advantages, but that does not mean that they cannot respond, and it does not mean that God is not near, and according to this verse, God does indeed desire for all to find Him. That is enough for me. I will trust Him to take care of the details.
Ben,
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your willingness to trust God with the details. As I mentioned in another thread, this type of appeal to the goodness of God is similar to Abraham’s appeal in Gen. 18:25 “will not the judge of all the earth do right?” In the end, Abraham let go and trusted God to do what was right. To “take care of the details” if you will. Which God did by the way in saving Lot and his family.
Though God could do more to persuade and save, he has as you said done enough. And though he does more for some than others, he owes no apology for his choices in dispensing grace. I think there is some common ground here where Calvinists and Arminians can agree and work together. We can debate conditional v. unconditional election, resistible v. irresistible grace, but one thing is sure: The judge of all the earth has and always will do right!
Praise God!
Dana
I have a question – why use the term synergism to describe Arminianism? I always viewed that as a strawman accusation that Calvinists throw out. Synergism is two things working together to make a more potent whole – such as two drug ingredients interacting for more potent medicine. But the patient agreeing to take a prescribed drug, or swallowing the drug with water, wouldn’t be synergistic acts.
I certainly disagree with the Calvinist theory of monergism that doesn’t view faith as the thing God requires to credit Christ’s righteousness to our account, but synergism doesn’t seem to be an accurate representation of Arminianism either. If monergism was simply ‘God alone saves’ I would agree, but they take it several steps beyond to claim that man can’t even have faith that God alone saves without somehow ‘saving himself,’ which makes no sense.
I see synergism as more of a fuzzy term to be avoided. Here is an brief examination I did of the terms a while back: http://ebible.com/answers/17977?ori=167400
Admittedly I am not as familiar with the Arminian view as the Calvinist view, since I haven’t studied it as much, and Arminians aren’t generally trying to ‘convert’ me to their view or calling me a heretic for daring to test their claims against scripture.
Jenai,
Thanks for stopping by. I understand your concern about the term synergism since strictly defined it means to work together and that would imply salvation by works. But historically in theology it does not carry that meaning. It is about cooperation. Cooperating is not necessarily the same thing as “working.”
I wrote a post on this a long time ago (one of my first posts) and got into this a bit. In that post, the main point was that synergism represented conditional salvation and meeting a condition isn’t necessarily a “work.”
Today I tend to focus more on what is synergistic and what is not. I think that faith is synergistic since we believe as God enables us, but our faith is a genuine personal response and is not irresistible. But faith is just the condition for receiving salvation, so synergistic faith is not the same as synergistic salvation. Salvation is monergiistic since God alone can save us.
Faith is the perfect condition for receiving salvation since it places full dependence on the one being trusted. That is why it is the antithesis of works and excludes boasting, because by its nature it is reliance on another, rather than self (Rom. 4).
That is why the common Calvinist charge of self-salvation is so ridiculous. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. That we need to trust in Christ to save us is proof that we cannot save ourselves.
Here are my first two posts that I ever wrote for this blog (I think) which deal with synergism and the nature of saving faith. I would probably write them a little differently today, but they still might be helpful. I will have to check yours out when I get some time.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-nature-of-saving-faith/
BTW, there are some Arminians who reject the label of synergism altogether and affirm only monergism (typically, Free Will Baptists), but I think they are just misunderstanding what synergism means in theological discussions. I could refer you to some posts and articles along that line if you like.
God Bless,
Ben
Synergistic faith but monergistic salvation makes sense! That’s a great way of putting it, thank you. I would love to read any articles you recommend.
Jenai,
Feel free to explore the site. There are lots of post and articles that you might find helpful. A good place to start would be the “Categories” section on the left side bar. There are also links on the right, but some of those links need to be updated as they don’t work anymore as they are.
I would also highly recommend the SEA site (Society of Evangelical Arminians). Here is the link: http://evangelicalarminians.org/
Hope that helps.
Ben, Could you please help me understand what is the difference between Corporate Election and Southern Baptist Non-Calvinist position? (as put forward by Malcolm Yarnell) They seem to me to be the same, yet the Non-Calvinists seem not to regards themselves as Arminians?
Thank you very much for your help. God bless.
Aihesha.
Aihesha,
Thanks for stopping by. Corporate election is sort of a different issue than what would make the difference between Arminians and non-Calvinists in general. What basically makes someone a non-Calvinist is seeing salvation (and election) as conditional rather than unconditional.
Corporate election is just one way of looking at conditional election, but it is not the only way. Also, there are different versions of what corporate election entails. I think many in the SBC see it in the sense of an election to service that has little or nothing to do with salvation. The corporate election I advocate for sees election as entailing salvation when ti some to the election of God’s people. I think this is the strongest and most Biblically supported view of election. Here is a link to a list of quotes form some of the best proponents of that view along with links to where you can read more. It is a good place to start:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
Getting back to the difference between Arminians and non-Calvinists in general, the Arminian position affirms total depravity and the need for enabling grace to come to faith in Christ. Many non-Calvinists deny total depravity and the need for enabling (prevenient) grace to come to faith.
My guess is that the main reason many in the SBC refuse to embrace the Arminian label is because they hold to OSAS, which traditionally is not a feature of Arminianism as Arminians tend to hold that true believers can abandon the faith and forfeit salvation. However, while Arminius seemed to lean in this direction, he was undecided on this issue during his lifetime (though the Remonstrants quickly affirmed the possibility of apostasy after his death). So there is room for the view that true believers cannot fall away in Arminianism. The Society of Evangelical Arminians allows for that view among its membership.
However, the version of OSAS which denies the need for perseverance at all so that one can later become an unbeliever, die in rebellion against God and still be guaranteed heaven, is incompatible with true Arminianism. Since this extreme version of OSAS is held by many in the SBC, it is little wonder they are not willing to embrace the label of Arminian. Hope that helps.
Hi Ben,
It has been a great help, thanks very much!
Please can you direct me to a site where I can obtain a Corporate Election exegesis of Romans 9.
I have been searching high and low, on every possible Arminian site, YouTube and the Web. It is nowhere to be discovered. I have read Dr Brian Abasciano’s Explanations, refutations. clearing up of misconceptions and summary of Corporate Election but nowhere is their a line by line Corporate Election interpretation of Romans 9 available. I have looked at all the proponents of Corporate Election’s available web documents. No Romans 9.
If you have a copy of such a document could you email it to me or provide such an exegesis on your site, or both? It is hard for people to evaluate the truth of Corporate Election without being able to see how it makes sense of the pivotal chapter on election in the Bible.
Your help will be very much appreciated.
Aihesha.
Aihesha,
You may not be aware, but Brian Abasciano is currently writing the last of a three volume academic series on Romans 9! The first volume is an edited version of his dissertation and looks at Romans 9:1-9. You can read the dissertation online at the SEA site (see link below). The second volume is on Rom. 9:10-18, and you would need t buy that one. The hardcover is very expensive, but you can get a paperback version for about $40.00. I will leave a link to it at Amazon below. As I said, the last volume is currently being worked on, but when it is published it will complete what will be the most extensive treatment of Romans 9 that has ever been published, and from a corporate election perspective!
Here is the link to the dissertation: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-pauls-use-of-the-old-testament-in-romans-91-9-an-intertextual-and-theological-exegesis/
Here is a link to the second book: https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Use-Testament-Romans-9-10-18/dp/0567653226/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524148458&sr=8-1&keywords=brian+abasciano
In the meantime, Brian usually recommends people read these two posts on Romans 9. The first (written by Keith Schooley) takes an NPP reading of the passage, and the second is a post that I wrote that addresses verse 19 specifically (an important verse that the first article does not really address), but gives an overview of the chapter in the process, and is from a CE view:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/romans-9-an-arminiannew-perspective-reading/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
Hope that helps.
Also, Ben Witherington’s book on Romans takes a CE view of chapter 9, though it strangely leaves out a detailed treatment of verse 19, which is a major weakness in my opinion.
Aihesha,
Since you mentioned reading many of Brian’s articles, I assumed you had already read his article on CE in Romans 9, but just in case, here is the link: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-j-abasciano-corporate-election-in-romans-9-a-reply-to-thomas-schreiner/
Ben,
Have you ever heard the choosing of Gideon’s Army (Judges 7) as an analogy for conditional corporate election? I have not found anyone to make this point but it keeps coming to my mind. Maybe you can help me put it to bed.
God did not specifically choose which 300 individuals would accompany Gideon on his mission. He established conditions by which they would be chosen. First those who did not want to fight were sent home, then only those who drank in a certain pre-determined way were included. Any of the 10,000 who remained could have drank the required way, but only 300 did.
Maybe it is not cited because the required condition was not known to the solders. All 10,000 wanted to fight. But they did not know that the way they drank would determine whether they were chosen. So its not a great analogy for salvation, but as a simple analogy for how corporate election works, it seems to fit.
What do you think?
Dana
Hi Aihesha, you might also like my series on Romans 9 at https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/romans-blog-series/ I address election in most detail at https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/romans-117-10-who-are-the-elect/
I have a question about Romans 8:29-30 as it relates to the corporate election view. Where does faith fit into the chain? Wouldn’t it be prior to predestination? (i.e., foreknew, believed, predestined, called, justified, glorified) We (individually) are predestined (bound for heaven) after we believe. Predestination means an anticipated future destination without reference to a particular point in time (such as before the foundation of the world). We could be predestined after believe and still be considered predestined for heaven, because we are not there yet.
But in relation to Rom. 8:30, that puts faith before calling which doesn’t make sense. He doesn’t call those who already believe, except to special service. I don’t think that is the kind of calling in view. We (the elect) could be predestined in a corporate sense before I (individually) believe, then later I believe individually and am added to the group of elect who are already predestined (corporately). In that case faith could be after called, which makes more sense.
But that would seem to make a special exception for predestination as uniquely corporate in the “chain” or as appearing twice (once corporately then later individually). It might look something like this: foreknew (individual), predestined (corporate), called (individual), believed (individual), justified (individual), predestined (individual), glorified (individual). Seems like special pleading.
I’ve read the posts on ordo salutis and Rom. 8:29-30 and the so-called golden chain, but I don’t recall this specific issue being discussed.
Any thoughts?
“Calling” in this passage should be understood in a naming sense (God calling/naming us/beleivers His people), not in the sense of a divine summons to faith and salvation (cf. how “called” is used in Rom. 9:7, 23-26). Once that is understood, everything else falls into place.
Here are two articles that talk about “call/called” in the naming sense:
Click to access Abasciano-on-calling.pdf
Click to access Klein.-Pauls-Use-of-Kalein.pdf
Here is how I briefly explained this passage in the CE sense in my response to Patton on Romans 9:
“I would also argue that Paul is primarily speaking of the corporate body of Christ, the church, in Rom. 8:28-30 and of individuals secondarily only as they relate to and are identified with the elect corporate body that ultimately finds its identification in Christ (for more on the corporate election view see here). So while these things are true of the corporate body of believers, they are only true of the individual on the condition that he or she remains in that elect body through faith. This truth is clearly brought out in Romans 11:16-24.”
From: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/
Here are some brief comments by Brian Abasciano on the passage in response to Schreiner:
“You assert that “calling in Paul isn’t merely an effectual naming based on faith, but is an effective action that creates faith (Rom 8:30). Faith is a consequence of calling, not a presupposition for it (cf. 1 Cor 1:23–31).” But these are mere assertions that beg the question. The passages you cite are not particularly supportive of your assertions of a call that creates faith over against a call that is based on faith. These passages work just as well, and even better, with an effectual naming by faith. Rom 8:30 is best understood as meaning, “And those whom he predestined he also named as his own, and those whom he named as his own he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (adapting the ESV). 1 Cor 1:26a is best understood as meaning, “For consider your naming as God’s own children, brothers . . .” (adapting the ESV), obviously referring to the Corinthians’ conversion.
The strength of the Calvinist doctrine of effectual calling has always been the instances when calling seems to clearly have reference to those who have already become Christians. Hence, the idea of a call that is “effectual.” But an effectual naming fits such instances just as well. In fact, it fits them better because it does not rely on assuming an extra, unstated element—positive response to the call—as part of the meaning of the term. One might argue that it does assume something extra, namely, faith. But the term itself does not. It refers to the act of naming people as God’s children, which in effect, makes them God’s children. Biblical theology is what informs us that such a calling can only come through faith, for we become God’s children through faith. The fact that “the called” in Paul’s epistles = “believers” goes along much better with the fact that “God’s children” and “those who belong to God” = believers than does the idea that “the summoned/invited ones” = believers. Moreover, the fact that the Old Testament background of calling in Rom 9:7 (Gen 21:12) speaks of an effectual naming strongly supports the naming sense in Romans 9 as does the fact that Rom 9:25-26 indisputably employs the naming sense of the terminology. So we know that the naming sense is used in Romans 9. But there is no indisputable usage of summoning in Romans 9 nor anywhere in Paul for that matter (i.e., if one does not assume a summoning sense a priori, there is no instance of calling language in reference to Christians in Paul’s epistles that is unquestionably of summoning whereas we do have unquestionable instances of the naming sense in Romans 9 itself!).”
From: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-a-response-to-thomas-schreiners-review-of-my-book-on-romans-910-18/
Here is another article (a book excerpt) that takes this passage in a CE sense (specifically related to the possibility of apostasy):
http://evangelicalarminians.org/perseverance-oropeza-on-romans-8-28-39/
Hope that helps.
Is there an English translation of the bible which translates the word “named” rather than “called”? You may be right but I am always skeptical when I can’t find any translation that agrees.
Dana,
It depends on the passage, but there is no doubt that call/called/calling can be understood that way. This is true in English as well. I can call my dog (as a summons), or I can call my dog (by name, or just call my dog a dog, etc.). So it really comes down to context and what makes the most sense. The idea of a summons does not fit very well with Romans 8, as it assumes an additional positive response to the call for it to make sense. It is better to see it as a designation.
As far as named being used instead of called, we do have that in Rom. 9:7. That passage is translated a variety of ways. It has to do with the identity of God’s covenant people through identification with the patriarchs and the promises given to them. The idea of a summons does not makes sense there, as it is clearly about being designated as belonging to God. For example, the NIV has “offspring will be reckoned.” The NASB has “descendants will be named.” The ESV and ISV also have “named.” The KJV has “called.”
As we move into verse 8, we see that this is clearly about being designated as God’s people, children of the promise. That is actually the same issue being discussed in Rom. 8:30. We could say that Romans 9 is written to bring greater clarity to the issue, as Paul turns his attention to those Jews who have now been cut off from those promises and identification with God’s people, through unbelief. This idea of identification and God’s divine right to name/designate His people through faith (receiving the covenant promises by faith) carries through to 9:24-26 where the words call/called are clearly used again in the sense of identifying (naming) God’s people.
So all of that works in favor of reading Rom. 8:30 in the same way. We don’t need it to be translated as named. The point is that called can carry the sense of naming just as it can carry the sense of summoning. There is no reason to assume it should be understood as a summons when the sense of naming works just as well (better, in my opinion). Along with that, we see the same word being used again in a naming sense as Paul continues to talk about these issues in Romans 9.
Dana,
I can’t really add much to the excellent answer kangaroodort has given, but ‘name’ is one possible translation of the Greek kaleó.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2564.htm
Here are a couple scriptures that make it clear that calling can be tied instrinctly to being identified as God’s people:
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” II Chron 7:14
“As He says in Hosea: “I will call them My people who are not My people, and I will call her My beloved who is not My beloved,” and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Rom 9:25-26 [This one is especially important, as it is the same author continuing the thought of Rom 8, so the words are very likely used in the same manner.]
Rom 8:1 shows the passage is also specifically about ‘those in Christ Jesus,’ so it is more contextual to understand the predestination/calling of Rom 8:30 as referring to those who have faith, not those who have yet to get faith, much as in Eph 1 the text shows that God, before time, predestined that those in Christ Jesus would be made holy (not that he predestined them to get faith.)
Jenai,
Yes, exactly. I brought up Rom. 9:24-26 in my response, but it is good to have it written out to clearly see. We could also add 1 John 3:1,
“See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.” (NASB)
Thanks Ben.
I see the word can mean summon or name but my point is that if the context fits named better, why did every English translation leave it ambiguous when it could have been clarified by using named rather than called? I realize you can’t speak for every translator, but the uniformity of word choice gives me pause.
If you know that the word can also mean name you might consider reading it that way (even without the word choice) but the English construction favors summon even if it does not rule out named. The context may in fact favor named but all the more reason to translate it named! Is it fair to say the translators do not agree that the context favors named? I’d be curious to hear their reasoning.
I read Jenai’s responses to my question (which I really appreciate) and it seems that the distinction between this text and the other examples is that there is no proper name listed after the word.
If Rom. 8:30 read “those whom he predestined he also called sons of God” then the English reader would readily understand the word called in the sense of named, much like the other texts referenced (called children of God, called by my name, called them my people). But without the proper name included, it is not so natural to think named.
If you are right then changing the translation from called to named would have cleared up any confusion. I thought bible translators were interested in that kind of clarity. At least one translation. Yet no one chose this option. I wonder why?
Rom. 9:7 does provide an example how the word can be used without listing the proper name. I think the reason is because the immediate context (v. 6 & 8) both mention children. Thus as you suggested, the text implies “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named children of promise.” If the translators had chosen “called” instead of “named” would it have been less clear? I think so.
I don’t see the same proper name included in the immediate context of Rom. 8:30 unless we are called “brothers” from v. 29. I suppose that’s possible, but generally, when I use the word called without an proper name to follow, I mean summoned.
I’m no linguistic expert, just drawing on my normal use of English. To use your example, if I said “I called my dog”, you would assume summoned. If I said “I called my dog Spot” you would assume named. See my point?
Regardless, you and Jenai have given me lots to think about. I appreciate your time and the dialog.
In Christ,
Dana
To see how the context fits better requires some exegesis in many of these examples, and that is typically not the main concern of the translator. And as I mentioned, the word can carry the sense of naming, so there is no real need to translate it as “named”. And if they did translate such instances as “named”, they would be taking a stand on what the word is meant to convey in those passages. But since there is room for either view of called, translators would typically be hesitant to do that, leaving such issues to interpreters instead. One could just as well ask why the translators did not translate it as summons in those passages, rather than the more ambiguous called?
Now you might assume a summons when you read the word without an immediate qualifier, but I would suggest that part of the reason for that assumption is because that is what you have always been taught, that call/called/calling in such texts has to do with being called unto faith, or called unto salvation. It can be hard to re-examine such long held and reinforced assumptions, but that is always a good thing to do. Did you read the articles I linked to by Abasciano and Klein? I think they make a very compelling case.
Also, one does not need a proper name to go along with “called” to take it in a naming sense. It can simply mean they have been given a designation by God as those belonging to Him (and those who likewise bear His name). That designation can carry different ideas, e.g. His children, His people, His faithful servants, etc.
And as has been pointed out, there are contextual markers all throughout Rom. 8 as well. Verse 27 directly connects the called of verse 28 and 30 with “saints”. Verse 28 says the called ones are those who love God. And leading up to these verses, Paul has been talking about the benefits of belonging to God, being His children, belonging to Christ, being co-heirs of Christ, etc. Basically, what it means to be God’s people. God’s “purpose” is to have a people belonging to Him through faith in Christ.
So it makes perfect sense to take called as a reference to those who already belong to God and love God, those who have been designated as God’s people. Even saints carries that same idea, since it means set apart. Set apart as what? Set apart as God’s people. Notice, “saints” alone does not tell us what we are being set apart for (or as), but it is still a designation for God’s people. We are His set apart ones, His called ones: set apart as belonging to Him/called His people.
And then 8:29 refers to those foreknown, and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ as his brothers. So why would called not refer to those who are called brothers of Christ/children of God, just as in Rom. 9:24-26?
Ben,
Thanks again for your time persevering with me on my question. I agree the word called is more ambiguous than either named or summoned and translators try to avoid becoming interpreters. I hadn’t considered that.
I re-read the Abasciano and Klein articles. Neither of them were specifically dealing with Rom. 8:30, but they did touch briefly on the text. I think Brian suggested that the name implied in Rom. 8:30 is “brothers” which I acknowledged as a possibility since it appears in v. 29. i.e., “Those whom he predestined he also called brothers.” It just feels a little awkward to me assuming that connection grammatically.
Maybe I am biased by my background but I did not realize that English speaking Arminians use the word “called” in their everyday conversations to imply named without listing the proper name. I can’t think of a specific example. Can you help me?
I like your suggestion to think of called as set apart ones, saints. But typically I associate that sense of called with the definite article: the called. The text could then be rendered, “Those whom he predestined, he also set apart as his called ones.” I agree that makes perfect sense with the context and corporate election, it just seems like a lot of added words to get there.
I’ll continue to chew on it.
Dana
Dana,
I am not sure I can help you beyond what I have already said, but I will try to directly address some of what you say here.
As far as Rom. 8:30, I think in the article Brian was referencing the familial language that seems to nearly always accompany “called” etc., which strongly supports the idea that it has to do with a creative naming as those who belong to God, rather than a creative summoning. So within chapter 8 we have a lot of familiar language which also deals with belonging to God as His children and belonging to Christ (8:9, 12-17, 21, 23), as well as the same familial language in Paul calling believers brothers of Christ (vs. 29), which of course leads right into verse 30.
In the one article I linked to and quoted from above (a response to Schreiner), Brian, speaking of verse 30, says,
“You assert that “calling in Paul isn’t merely an effectual naming based on faith, but is an effective action that creates faith (Rom 8:30). Faith is a consequence of calling, not a presupposition for it (cf. 1 Cor 1:23–31).” But these are mere assertions that beg the question. The passages you cite are not particularly supportive of your assertions of a call that creates faith over against a call that is based on faith. These passages work just as well, and even better, with an effectual naming by faith. Rom 8:30 is best understood as meaning, “And those whom he predestined he also named as his own, and those whom he named as his own he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (adapting the ESV). 1 Cor 1:26a is best understood as meaning, “For consider your naming as God’s own children, brothers . . .” (adapting the ESV), obviously referring to the Corinthians’ conversion.” (bold emphasis mine)
As far as called implying naming without listing a proper name, we have two examples of that in Rom. 9, as mentioned before. Rom. 9:7 uses called as an identifier, but does not give a proper name or an immediate qualifier. Now the context goes on to help us understand what is being said, but the phrase is still used without any immediate qualifier. In the same way, the context of Roman 8 helps us know what is meant by called as well (as explained above), and it matches what Paul is now saying in Romans 9. So if we had any questions about what called meant in Rom. 8, Paul now answers that in Rom. 9:7, and this is further bolstered by the familial language that is used all throughout Rom. 8 leading up to Paul’s comments in Rom. 9.
We have the same thing in Rom. 9:24,
“What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?”
Again, there is no immediate qualifier for called, but as we continue to read we can see how called is being used, and of course it is being used in the same way as it was being used in Rom. 9:7, with the same familial language that we find there and in Rom. 8.
So again, we have every contextual reason to take “called” in Rom. 8 in the same sense, and no good reason to see it as referencing a simple summons or invitation.
On my bringing up saints as meaning “set apart ones” I think you missed my point. My point was that it is used as a designation for believers, but it does not explicitly tell us what we are set apart to or as, which seems to be your main concern with “called” being understood as naming. So with “set apart” we could easily wonder, “set apart to what?” or “set apart as what?”. We can surmise that it means set apart as belonging to God, etc., without needing to see that actually in the text. I think we can assume the same thing with calling/called, based on the context and the familial language consistently used in these passages.
Perhaps another example could help. Jesus is called “Christ” or “Messiah”. Eventually, that became a title (even a proper name), though at first it was just a descriptor for His identity. “Christ” just means “anointed”. So we can ask, “anointed for what?” or “anointed to what?”.
Anointed carries with it (implies) the idea of being chosen or designated for something. But again, we could ask, “chosen for what?” or “chosen as what?”. Yet we see this applied to Jesus over and over again in Scripture without the answers to these questions being explicitly spelled out for us. In the same way, Scripture often speaks of God’s people simply as the “elect”, without adding “people.” So we have many examples of such designations being used without those designations being carefully or immediately qualified. It is the same with called.
While I think you misunderstood what I meant by bringing up “saints” in the way you tried to reconstruct vs. 30 in your last comment, you mentioned that you didn’t like the idea of so many added words to rightly understand the text. But we have the same problem if we take called as a summons. A summons to what? The text does not explicitly tell us. We could say that from the context it might mean a summons to salvation, but we have just as many contextual markers (more, really) leading us to take it as being named as God’s own people.
So if we go with summons, we need to add something like “to salvation” or “to faith” in order to understand it. So either way, it will not stand on its own. But there is even more to add if we see it as a summons to faith (faith that is not even mentioned in the passage). In that case it would have to be,
“And those he predestined, he also called [to faith]; those he called [to faith and who also responded to that call by believing], he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
The same would be true if we took it more broadly as a call to salvation, “And those he predestined, he also called [to salvation]; those he called [to salvation and who also responded to that call by believing], he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
As you say, that is a lot of added words. I think it makes far more sense to read it as Brian A. suggested,
“And those whom he predestined he also named as his own, and those whom he named as his own he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified”
This also has the advantage of making better sense of the flow of the passage, since the foreknown ones have already been identified as those who have been predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son (and to be identified as His brothers). Indeed, that seems to be plainly implied in “foreknown” which starts the sequence. So it would be,
“For those God foreknew [as His people] he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called [named as His own]; those he called [named as His own], he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
This makes the best sense by seeing them as already belonging to God when they are called [named], while the summoning view would not see them as belonging to God until they responded to the summons in faith, which is not even mentioned in the text. In the same way those who are “called” according to God’s purpose have already been identified as those who “love God” in verse 28.
So again, it seems to me, that both views require us to add some additional information by way of necessary implication. In that case, we have far more contextual reasons for seeing “called” in the sense of God naming a people to Himself, than we do for just taking “called” as a summons. And when we watch the flow of thought that leads to Rom. 9 and how called is used in those passages, we have no good reason to see “called” in Rom. 8 as a summons to faith or salvation.
If you are still not able to see how the weight of the evidence stacks up in favor of taking called in a naming sense in Rom. 8, I don’t know what else I can say.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
You make a good point about “extra words” needed to clarify the meaning of called, regardless of how you take it. Thanks for pointing that out. Shorthand expressions are commonly used in both Biblical languages and our modern English. There is nothing wrong with adding words to clarify your understanding of a text’s interpretation, as long as your interpretation is sound and consistent with the context.
My initial intention was not to challenge your analysis of the textual evidence for interpreting kaleo as “named” rather than “summoned” in Rom. 8:30. I was simply pointing out that in English I would personally avoid using the word called without qualification if I meant named. It is confusing because it is unnatural, in my opinion. I am speaking strictly about English in general, not its use in this text.
But since you have argued so strongly for your view, allow me in brotherly love to push back for a moment against your claim that “named” is the only option for Rom. 8:30. You wrote,
“So again, we have every contextual reason to take “called” in Rom. 8 in the same sense, and no good reason to see it as referencing a simple summons or invitation.”
Here’s a good reason in my estimation:
Paul is encouraging those of us in Christ (vs.1, 9) to avoid walking according to the flesh because a lifestyle of fleshly living leads to spiritual death (v. 13). But we might object as Paul did in chapter 7 that while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. To encourage us that we can in fact walk by the spirit he points to the ministry of the Holy Spirit who helps us in our weakness (v. 26). Our salvation is rooted in the belief and hope that ultimately we will be delivered from our weak bodies (v. 24). Our weakness is only temporary.
But not only do we believers have a future hope, we have a present help in that God is working all things together for our good (v. 28). As you noted, the called ones are those who love God. The Greek word for called is kletos which is different than kaleo in v. 30. Strong’s #2822 does not include “named” in the semantic range of kletos but rather “called, invited, summoned by God to an office or to salvation.” I’m not a Greek expert but it seems to establish a contextual precedent for summoned.
Why should we believers/saints/called ones be encouraged to think that we can in fact avoid walking habitually according to the flesh? Because we have the Holy Spirit helping us within (vs. 26-27) and because God is working for us externally (vs. 28-31). How do we know He is for us? Because He summoned/invited/called us to come to Him. If we simply came of our own choice, perhaps God is indifferent to whether we remain. No, God called us and thus wants us. God’s summoning of us to salvation is an assurance of His intention to continue to help us persevere walking in the Spirit.
Now to be fair, I think “named” also works in this context. The fact that we are called sons/heirs/children/brothers means we are more than just visitors passing through. We belong to Him, so of course He will continue to help us. In many ways this is an even stronger encouragement than simply being summoned, though they are not mutually exclusive. After we are summoned and come, we are named children of God.
Again, I think your position is valid but I wonder if your inability to see any good case for summoned shows your bias. I say this in love knowing we are all subject to bias, wanting to see that which supports the views we hold dear.
But you have already answered my original question as to how CE explains calling after predestination. It is calling in the sense of naming or identifying us as children of God and brothers with Christ. As I conceded, this is a possible interpretation of kaleo and fits just fine with the context. I just wish the translators helped us out by choosing a clearer word than called. I understand you think the context is sufficient to clarify the connotation. I guess I am just not as certain as you are.
I appreciate your time and thoughts. Thank you.
Grace & peace,
Dana
We live in Las Vegas Nevada and are having difficulty finding Christian fellowship here with like minded people. Although Las Vegas has a vast amount of Churches per capita we find the overwhelming majority condone magic, sorcery and super hero worship, Halloween celebrations, trunk or treats and participating in Trick or treating. They have excuses such as we don’t let our kids wear the “evil” costumes never realizing that the bible teaches to stay away form all sorceries and magic and to separate from the world and worldly, non biblical, traditions of man.
We also hold to the belief that Jesus is only coming back again once, on the final day and that the rapture will happen on that final day. The pre trib argument is not essential to us as its just a matter of timing before the inevitable but we find the even more dangerous false doctrine of eternal security, completely ignoring the fact that the falling away described in the Bible must be of believers. Can’t fall away from something you were never in. In short it seems like most of the pastors and church doctrines we find here are rooted in Calvinism and we simply can not agree with these doctrines
My question to you is: through your ministry are you aware of any fellow pastors, students, friends or know of any churches, home groups etc. here in Las Vegas who do not fall into these false Calvanistic doctrinal traps and are of a like mind to your teachings?
Ben,
In a recent discussion with a friend on Prevenient Grace, I stated that Arminians are divided into two main camps: 1) Wesleyans who believe in universal prevenient grace and 2) Classical Arminians who believe that prevenient (enabling) grace is given with the presentation of the gospel. Thus the preaching of the gospel remains essential.
The question that arose regarding the Classical view is whether it is possible or even common for the gospel to be presented yet the hearer remains unable to respond to it. If the gospel always enables a positive response, that begs the question, “How much of the gospel must be presented to produce ability?” If I say the name “Jesus” is that enough? Do I need to say “Jesus Saves”? What if I say, “Jesus died for your sins”? Where’s the tipping point? I don’t believe the gospel words have magical powers to enable. The Holy Spirit can use a deficient or even erroneous gospel presentation to enable and draw a sinner to repentance.
To put it in practical terms, when I preach the gospel to a group of people, should I assume that every single person listening is either now or already was enabled to believe? That sounds strange.
I would be more comfortable saying that often when the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit moves in the hearts of the hearer enabling them to respond with faith and repentance. But does that go far enough for the Classical Arminian?
To clarify, when I suggest that the Holy Spirit doesn’t always accompany a gospel effort with enabling grace, that does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit does not want that person to respond. It could be that the Holy Spirit knows whether that person will respond to enabling grace at that time and thus withholds it either temporarily or permanently. Or it could be that the Holy Spirit knows it will glorify Him more to wait. My question is not intended to undermine God’s gracious intentions toward all sinners.
Dana
Dana,
Sorry it took me so long to get to this. Without getting into much detail, things have been rather crazy around here for a while now, and these comments (and others) were lost in the craziness.
I am just going to comment on a few things you say here.
You write: “But since you have argued so strongly for your view, allow me in brotherly love to push back for a moment against your claim that “named” is the only option for Rom. 8:30.”
I did not say it was the only option. I said that it was the best option based on the context and Paul’s continuing use of the word in Romans 9, etc.
You write: “Again, I think your position is valid but I wonder if your inability to see any good case for summoned shows your bias. I say this in love knowing we are all subject to bias, wanting to see that which supports the views we hold dear.”
Actually, it was bias that kept me from seeing the possibility of “called” in the naming sense. I naturally understood it as “summons” for a long time, because that is what everyone seemed to think. It was bias that kept me from looking at it another way. Indeed, my first interaction with this text on my blog took it that way (as a summons), but saw it as a call to suffer persecution as a follower of Christ. I still think that is a possibility, just as your suggestion is a possibility, just not as likely as the naming sense based on the full context and how Paul continues to use the word moving into his argument in Rom. 9, which is directly related to what he says in Rom. 8. So it was only through carefully considering the naming sense that I was able to overcome my initial bias in reading and understanding this passage.
Again, I would suggest that it is bias that leads us to automatically think “summons” when we read this word in such passages, rather than taking it in the naming sense. I found Abasciano and Klein compelling on this point, suggesting that based on how Paul uses the word in specific contexts, the naming sense should be the default view instead, unless there is compelling contextual reason to see it as a summoning. For me, I see no compelling reasons for seeing it as a summoning in Rom. 8, but do see very good reason to take it in a naming sense. That is what I meant in my comment that: “So again, we have every contextual reason to take “called” in Rom. 8 in the same sense, and no good reason to see it as referencing a simple summons or invitation.”
In other words, if we can get beyond our biased view that called means summoned, and rather see “named” as the default view in Paul’s writing, then we have no compelling reason to understand “called” as “summoned” in this passage. It is fine if you do not agree, but that is how I see it.
Hope that helps.
Kenneth,
Sorry it took me so long to respond, and I am also sorry that I cannot really help you with your question. I live on the other side of the country.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
Not sure if you forgot to respond to my 7/23 question on Prevenient Grace or you are just busy. I feel bad asking another question before you have answered the last but I figure it can just wait until you have time.
What are your thoughts on 1 Thes. 1:4-5 as it relates to corporate election?
4 For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. (NET Bible)
Unlike other election texts (e.g. Eph. 1:4) that could just as well refer to God’s choice of a group as it could to His choice of an individual, this text seems to favor election of individuals preceding their individual faith. Their response to the gospel is the evidence that they were chosen, not the cause of their election. Corporate election (as I understand it) teaches that we are elect because we believed. But Paul describes their election with a past participle indicating it was completed in the past (not necessarily before the foundation of the world, but prior to something). What does their election precedes if not their faith (reception of the gospel)?
Maybe chosen does not mean unto salvation but unto receiving of the gospel? God chose to send Paul to them so they could hear the gospel. Their positive response was evidence that Paul’s ministry was of God and not his flesh. i.e. I know that God chose to send you the gospel through me because you responded to it. If it had been simply my choice to preach to you, it would not have received such a profound response.
Or maybe Paul is speaking specifically about the external evidence (fruit) of their faith not the faith itself. If so, the order goes like this: 1) they believed, 2) they were included among the chosen, 3) their response was evident to Paul giving him confidence that they are indeed included among the elect.
But the plainest reading seems to be that Paul knows that God chose them because they responded to the gospel with the power and deep conviction that only the Spirit can produce. He does not say that he knows they are now elect since they responded. He says he knows they were elect since they now responded.
Grace and peace to you,
Dana
Ben,
As I continue to think on 1 Thes. 1:4-5, I am coming to the conclusion that the power and conviction were describing the character of Paul and his missionary team rather than the Thessalonians. The fruit that proved their election is actually described in the following verse 6 – they received the message with joy despite great affliction. Had they received it without affliction there would be less certainty in Paul’s mind, but because they were joyful despite the risks, this was a strong indication of genuine faith and thus their election.
This still begs the question, when were they elected? I wonder if the past participle could be in relation to Paul’s present. In the recent past, they received the message with joy despite affliction and thus Paul is confident that at that time they were “chosen” in the sense that they became included among the elect. Thus we are chosen corporately before the foundation of the world, but chosen individually at the moment we individually receive the gospel message with joy. Would you put it that way or can you suggest a better wording?
When you have time of course. Relating to that, I prayed for you today brother, that whatever you do, you do to the glory of God.
Dana
Dana,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond (again). I do appreciate you remembering me in your prayers. That is a real blessing.
First, I am not sure what past participle you are referring to. Could you be more specific. The word used for “chosen” is actually a noun in that passage and not a verb or participle. “Beloved” is in the perfect tense. Is that what you are referring to?
Regardless, however Paul might be using the past tense here, it does not mean that being chosen preceded faith. If you were chosen to receive some benefit that required you to first apply for that benefit, saying that you were chosen for that benefit (using the past tense) would not imply that you were chosen for the benefit prior to applying for it. It would only refer to the time you were chosen to be someone who receives the benefit. It would not tell us anything about what led to being chosen or what might have happened before you were chosen.
As far as the verse in general, I will paste in some good comments and responses from a Biblical scholar who was addressing some of the same basic questions about this passage in a discussion forum:
“The text doesn’t present the reason the gospel came to them so powerfully and they believed, but the reason Paul believes they are elect. And what he says makes sense that would indicate to him the people were elect, that the there was power in the proclamation (prevenient grace), and the Holy Spirit was given (which we know comes as the result of faith), and there was great certainty (the meaning of the Greek word here) [in the truth of the gospel], which I would say refers to them believing. So Paul knew they were chosen by God because his message came to them in power, they believed the message, and received the Holy Spirit (I put that in their logical order while Paul does not seem concerned to do so; he’s just listing these great evidences of them being saved). And that makes sense on Arminian theology and is basic biblical theology–we know someone is saved if they believe and show evidence of the Holy Spirit being in them. The passage could be read differently–Paul’s language is a bit vague here, which should caution against relying on this text to prove a position on election–but this a reasonable reading and I think the one that makes most sense. However, I don’t think it is in dispute that if you look at the wording of the text, Paul is not talking about the reason the gospel came to them so powerfully and they believed, but the reason Paul believes they are elect/saved.”
“Actually, the logic can easily work in the other direction. If someone has faith, conversion, and conviction then it is evident the person is elect since election is conditioned on faith”.
“Someone else commented: Isn’t the “conviction” that Paul is referring to the conviction of Paul and others who shared the gospel with the Thessalonians? He seems to be saying the gospel *came* to them with conviction and power. He’s drawing the conclusion that thus God chose them.”
I replied: “Some think the conviction is on the part of the Thessalonians. But that is neither here nor there. If it is Paul’s conviction, what is it a conviction of? That the Thessalonians were elect? So he knew they were chosen because he knew they were chosen? That God wanted to save them? Paul knew they were chosen because he was certain God wanted to save them as opposed to others? Obviously that goes against what we know of God’s will, though the Calvinists would say differently. It seems pretty speculative though. The Greek word used for conviction is certainty. So the gospel came to them with great power and certainty. If it is certainty on Paul’s part, it would seem to be certainty in the gospel or certainty in its power or that God was going to save these people. Ministers do sometimes get a sense of God’s power and that he is going to do something powerful on a certain occasion. But that does not necessarily imply that God wanted to work powerfully in people’s lives on that occasion as opposed to other occasions. There are a variety of factors that might contribute to God working in special power on a particular occasion, including the openness of those being ministered to, where they were at specifically in their own lives/spirituality/attitudes, etc. Think of Jesus not being able to do many miracles on one occasion because of lack of faith. So if it is certainty on Paul’s part, it is uncertain about what he was certain about, but I would think most naturally it would have been something to do with his gospel preaching (we just knew God was going to work mightily that night, or we just knew many would get saved that night). That’s perfectly consistent with an Arminian view. Critically, one of the reasons Paul gives for assurance of their election is faith (v. 6).”
“To add on just a little, it could have even been what we might refer to Paul “feeling on his game” that night. He felt God’s power and could tell that he was really operating in the power of the Spirit and his preaching was just really on target and clear and flowing on that occasion. Preachers still experience that sort of thing.”
“it is important to note that other things mentioned too, and more definitive things. Their faith and obedience for example. Indeed, I think it is safe to say that if Paul had not had special conviction on the occasion of ministering to them, but they believed and walked in obedience, he still would have been sure of their election/salvation, but not the other way around.”
_________
“I think you are missing something. And that something is that Paul lists several things together that gave him assurance of the their election, faith and obedience being most important. Indeed, faith and obedience are definitive whereas the other ones are not. I think it is safe to say that if Paul had not had a sense of God’s power on the occasion of ministering to them, but they believed and walked in obedience, he still would have been sure of their election/salvation, but not the other way around.”
Dana,
I think your follow up comment gets the gist of things fairly well, but at the end you write:
This still begs the question, when were they elected? I wonder if the past participle could be in relation to Paul’s present.
Again, I am not sure what past particle you are referring to, so I can’t be sure. The perfect would be related to Paul at the time of his speaking/writing, and would include the present as well.
In the recent past, they received the message with joy despite affliction and thus Paul is confident that at that time they were “chosen” in the sense that they became included among the elect.
Yes.
Thus we are chosen corporately before the foundation of the world, but chosen individually at the moment we individually receive the gospel message with joy. Would you put it that way or can you suggest a better wording?
Not sure why you would conclude this. As you said in the previous comment, they became “included in the elect [corporate people of God]” when they received the message (believed). That states things quite well. The moment they are joined to the chosen corporate people of God through faith, they become personally elect as a consequence of being joined to that body. They are now “chosen” because they are now part of that chosen corporate entity.
I would not say that we are corporately elected from the foundation of the world. Rather, we join the corporate elect body (which shares in Christ’s election from the foundation of the world through its identity with Him) the moment we believe, becoming members of that corporate body (the covenant people of God in Christ).
The basic idea is that when we are joined to Christ and His body, we share in His identity in many ways. In one sense we share in His history (just as we share in His death and life). So what is true of Christ becomes true of us. For that reason, it can now be said that we were chosen from the foundation of the world, because Jesus was chosen from the foundation of the world to be the Head of the new covenant and to sum up His people in Him.
Think of a foreigner becoming a US citizen. Before becoming a citizen, the foreigner cannot identify with the US, but afterwards he can. Once he is a citizen, his identity is tied to that citizenship/union with the country, which includes the history of the country.
So the new citizen can rightly say “we won the revolutionary war” even though he was not there to fight the war and was not a citizen at that time. Prior to becoming a citizen, he could not say “we won the revolutionary war” because he could not rightly identify himself with the US or its history as a nation. It is only upon becoming a citizen that this changes. In the same way, as a citizen, he will now share in the nation’s future/destiny. That is the same idea being conveyed when Paul talks about us also being “predestined” in Christ.
Thanks Ben. Good to hear from you. I am embarrassed to admit I can’t remember what participle I was referring to. It doesn’t help that it has been some time since I wrote it, but that is a poor excuse. My best guess is that I mistakenly took the word “chosen” as a verb since it is translated that way in most English versions. In my mind I think I knew it was a noun but maybe I forgot and was careless. Sorry to confuse you.
I think this correction alone helps clear up some of my questions. Paul was certain of their election (noun) for several reasons including their Spirit-led presentation but most importantly the Thessalonians’ response of faith. A literal summary would be, “For we know your election because you believed.”
This phrase does not really indicate when they became elect. In corporate election, they became elect when they believed. In Calvinism they became elect before the foundation of the world. I’m now satisfied that either fits and this is not a problem for the corporate election view.
Thanks also for clarifying that corporate election means only Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world, while the elect began to be including from the foundation of the world up to the present day, but are not elected until they believe. I guess I was trying too hard to salvage my conceptions of pre-historic individual election. I realize the classic view of foreseen faith does this but not in a satisfying way for me.
Regarding Paul’s conviction, I hear what you are saying about a minister sensing that God is using them to effectively reach people with the gospel. If I sense the Holy Spirit giving me the words to say to an individual, and they respond, I am more certain of the genuineness of their faith simply because I am more confident that it was God’s words and not my own persuasiveness.
But to be fair, I don’t think it is speculating too much to assume that one of the reasons Paul believes they are elect is because God chose to send him to them specifically with power, and not to Asia Minor. Paul wanted to go to Asia Minor but the Lord directed him by a dream to go to Macedonia instead. Perhaps as you suggested that is because the Lord knew the Macedonians were more open to receive the gospel than the Asians. But that is certainly speculative. I’ll admit the man in the dream certainly seemed “open” as he begged Paul to come, but not necessarily more open than the Asians. It may also be speculative to assume that God had more special intentions (at the moment) to save the Macedonians, but I think we would assume the same if in Paul’s situation. God wouldn’t send me to Macedonia if he wasn’t planning to save them.
Veering off topic a bit, as we have discussed before, it seems to me that though God desires all to be saved, He does not give everyone the same opportunities. Had Jesus performed miracles in Sodom, Tyre & Sidon, they would have believed, but God chose not to for some reason. We are not told why. It is certainly speculative to guess. As far as I know, no missionaries were sent to the Western hemisphere until European explorers arrived. Certainly the American Indians, Incas and Aztecs had fewer opportunities to believe. It would appear they had no gospel to believe. They had general revelation and conscience, but I think Romans 10 teaches they needed a preacher too.
I realize this is a much larger discussion. I’m just saying that when God chooses to send a preacher to someone in a dramatic fashion, it is a strong indication that He is doing something special in their lives and if they respond, we have more reason to believe it is a genuine conversion. I think that is what Paul is saying regarding their election. He is not commenting on whether they were chosen before they believed. But we can see how God was moving in their lives before they believed. I beleive Arminians call that prevenient grace. It was certainly resisted by many of the recipients of this grace (Paul’s coming with power) as only some who heard Paul believed.
Hey Dana,
Just to be clear, some of the comments you are referring to were not from me, but from a Biblical scholar who was responding to similar questions in a discussion forum (everything in quotes).
Yes, much of what you say involves a lot of speculation. I would say that God does indeed give us sufficient witness to allow for a response to his grace, in whatever measure that witness and grace is given. Depending on how we respond to His grace, we may or may not receive more grace. So if someone responds properly to God working through general revelation, then He will work to reveal Himself more, up to and including getting the Gospel to that person.
I would also say that God can do this through dreams and visions as well (as is very common among Muslim converts), so that a missionary isn’t even always necessary. However, it could also be that some people never received missionary help because those who were called did not respond. Paul did respond to the call, but are we to assume that he had to?
If he did not, God could have called someone else as well, but if free will is truly involved, there are possibilities that some people are not reached because of our choices not to obey God’s call of leading. That might be why Paul makes that crucial point about preachers needing to respond to being sent. But even in those cases where no one responds t the call, we do not know how God might have worked to reveal Himself to those people in others way that might have been rejected.
It can also be that God knows some will not respond, regardless of the revelation (think of the revelation the Israelites had, and yet still rejected and disobeyed God, going after idols instead; or the evidence presented to the religious leaders during Jesus ministry, and yet they still did not believe), and so there is no reason to send some people there (which might be the Paul was not allowed to go to certain areas at certain times during his missionary journeys).
On Sodom, Tyre and Sidon, we have discussed that at length, and I don’t think that is a problem at all. It is not feasible to think that God would send the incarnate Son of God in the same circumstances to those cities (or all cities, for that matter) as He did in the “fullness of time.” I don’t think Jesus was referring to miracles in general, but miracles performed by Him in the context of His earthly ministry, which explains why those miracles were not done in those ancient cities (nor could they have been).
Regardless, they had sufficient witness to repent, even if they were not privileged enough to experience the unique ministry of the incarnate Son of God, as the Jews were at that time. That is why the condemnation is so strong for them, because the privilege they had went far beyond what those cities had, and yet they still rejected Christ.
In the end, I think that God will hold us all accountable for how we respond to whatever grace or revelation we receive from Him, and His judgment on that will be totally fair and right. God is indeed working to bring all people to Himself because He loves all people and desires them to be saved. But it is also true that He has chosen to work through us, while giving us the choice to work against Him, rather than with Him, so that some will not get as much of a revelation as others might receive based on the choices we make and our own level of obedience. But again, God has given all people sufficient witness, even if we don’t understand all the nuts and bolts of how this works, as Paul well says:
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27)
Hello Bro. Ben
I am new to this blog feed. What is the best book on this subject (ie- free will, election, original sin, etc.)
Thank you
Ben,
I see you haven’t posted much new to your blog lately. I also left a comment on the dough of Rom. 11:16 a couple weeks ago. I trust your lack of response is because you are busy serving our Lord in other capacities. I pray for you every time I send you a question. If I can pray for you in more specific ways, let me know. So no pressure to respond but I will leave my question here for if and when you have time. Sometimes I find an acceptable answer from other sources, but you have been a great resource to me. You are my go to guy! I pray God will bless you and your family as you continue to serve him.
My question is regarding a familiar text, John 6:44. I reread all your posts on this text but didn’t find a clear answer to my question. The context of 6:44 suggests to me that Jesus is telling these unbelieving Jews that they have not been drawn by the Father. I think he wants them to come and thus wants the Father to draw them so the problem is not the Father’s desire to draw them but rather their lack of desire to submit to and “learn” from the Father. If they do that then perhaps the Father will draw them too. Jesus is not primarily teaching a doctrine of grace, whether prevenient or irresistible, but is making an evangelistic appeal toward his audience (cf. John 5:34). Much of this summary is based on our past discussions so I appreciate you helping me think through these texts.
Here’s my question:
If they have not yet been drawn by the Father, what does this do to the Wesleyan doctrine of universal prevenient grace? I know you are not a Wesleyan but you are familiar with their arguments. They and you often refer to John 12:32 to help define “draw” in 6:44 and support the universal nature of drawing. I think 12:32 talks about the universality of the atonement more than the universality of enabling grace. But if John 12:32 describes a universal drawing in the sense of 6:44, does that mean that every one of those Jews in John 6 who had not yet been drawn will eventually be drawn? That would seem to go against the thrust of Jesus’ argument in John 6.
I suppose a Wesleyan would say that those unbelieving Jews received many forms of prevenient grace prior to that moment – Time and place of their dwelling (Acts 17:26-27), general revelation (Rom. 1), conscience and the law (Rom. 2), kindness/forbearance/patience (Rom. 2:4), and even preaching (Rom. 10:14-15) from Jesus himself no less. But it would seem then that those forms of grace (if that is what they are) are not categorized as “drawing” and are therefore according to 6:44 insufficient to save on their own. They are sufficient to leave man without excuse, but until they are coupled with the grace of drawing, those other forms of grace cannot enable them to come to Christ.
Perhaps we could say that drawing is a form of grace which the Father performs at the moment before conversion, before faith. God drew Lydia by opening her heart before she believed Paul’s gospel. This seems to be within a hair’s breadth of the Calvinist’s view of regeneration. The key difference being the Arminian says it is still resistible. Maybe that is a huge difference but I see a lot of common ground. After all, even a resistible grace is given by God with the foreknowledge of whether it will be effectual. And around the arguments go. 🙂
Dana
Hello Dana,
Sorry I have not gotten back to you, but you are right that I have been very busy (and thank you for the prayers). I just approved your comment on Romans 11 yesterday (I think) and plan on responding to that as well as this question here. However, it still might be awhile. Thank you for your patience.
BTW, if you are on FB you should join the Society of Evangelical Outreach page. That is a perfect place to ask questions like this and get a variety of responses (and most likely much sooner than I have been able to lately). I interact quite a bit there, which is one more thing that ends up keeping me from interacting here in a timely fashion
Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/81731686472/
Greetings from Brazil! I’ll do my best to be clear (English writing is a little difficult to me). I can say that I’m a fierce promoter of Arminianism, but, since Brazil doesn’t have a big amount of Arminian material, I’m always looking for good articles in SEA and other Arminian blogs in english. I didn’t find a good (i.e. that would satisfy me) answer for my question so I decided to ask here. So here it comes. On these last days I’m asking myself about Matthew 11:20-24… If God knew that Sodom and the other cities would repent and believe, why didn’t him perform the miracles in those cities? I know that this text can’t be a Calvinist proof text because it denies the Irresistible Grace (because it shows that the people would believe because of the miracles, not because God regenerated them for they could believe), but my actual view of this text shows some kind of Molinist view, which I see almost as cruel as Calvinist one. I know that not even one man deserves a chance to believe, but in my mind I think that may be a little unjust that if God decided to give a chance, He gives some people a bigger chance than others or that He chose to perform to people who wouldn’t believe miracles that could save others. I hope that I could expose my question with clarity. God bless!
Thiago,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. I have actually addressed this with another commenter who asked a similar question. I will paste in those answers below. If that does not satisfy your question, let me know. I will add a bit at the end as well:
“On Sodom and Gomorrah (or Tyre and Sidon), I think it is more than just miracles in general that are being described. Jesus is talking about the specific miracles that He is performing as evidence for His identity,
Mt 11:20 “Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.”
The repentance He is talking about is repentance that has reference to recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and receiving the Gospel. His miracles pointed to that reality and confirmed that message. So again, this is not just miracles in general, but miracles performed by Jesus as evidence for His claims.
If Jesus came (through incarnation) in the fullness of time, then it is unreasonable to think that He could have also been sent to Tyre and the other nations he mentioned.
So while it can be perfectly true that if Christ performed such miracles in those nations long ago, that they would have repented, it does not follow that this would have been possible. It is not so much hyperbole as it is a hypothetical to make a point. These cities saw the fullest revelation of God in Christ and His miracles and yet they still rejected that revelation. While it was not possible for the cities Jesus mentioned to experience this same revelation in Christ (and He doesn’t say it was possible), if they had, they would not have responded in the way that the Jews had, which is a powerful indictment on their resistance to Jesus’ message and claims.
______________
On Sodom, Tyre and Sidon, we have discussed that at length, and I don’t think that is a problem at all. It is not feasible to think that God would send the incarnate Son of God in the same circumstances to those cities (or all cities, for that matter) as He did in the “fullness of time.” I don’t think Jesus was referring to miracles in general, but miracles performed by Him in the context of His earthly ministry, which explains why those miracles were not done in those ancient cities (nor could they have been).
Regardless, they had sufficient witness to repent, even if they were not privileged enough to experience the unique ministry of the incarnate Son of God, as the Jews were at that time. That is why the condemnation is so strong for them, because the privilege they had went far beyond what those cities had, and yet they still rejected Christ.
______________
Thiago,
The other important thing to realize is how incoherent this passage would be if Calvinism were true. Jesus would be condemning them for not believing in miracles God has not made it possible for them to believe (because that would require an irresistible work of God in Calvinism).
And then Jesus condemns them because had the inhabits of Sidon, Tyre and Sodom seen these miracles, God would have irresistibly caused them to repent (since it would still take an irresistible work of God to bring about repentance).
So Jesus is condemning them for God not working irresistibly in them as He would have worked in the people of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon. How does that make sense?
I understand how Isa 45:7 does not denote that God actually created evil, and I know for sure He didn’t; but how can this accusation by the Calvinists be refuted in regard to John 1:3?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Ben, I know God has not created evil in the world. A Calvinist friend of mine said that Isa 45:7 shows God created evil. I was sufficiently able to respond to him on that. But then he said John 1:3 proves conclusively that God is the author of all evil. I responded to him on this scripture, but my answer was weak.
How would you respond? Thanks for helping.
Paul Trudeau,
I don’t see how John 1:3 is supposed to support Calvinism or determinism. It is about God creating the universe through Jesus, through the “Word.”
John 1:1-3 strongly parallels and alludes to Genesis 1-2. In the Genesis account, all that God creates is called “good” and “very good”, so of course that does not include evil unless the Calvinist wants to say that God calls evil “very good.” John 1:1-3 is about the creation of the universe. Evil is about rebellion against God. It is not something God creates, but something His creatures do when they willfully choose against Him. The Isaiah passage should be translated as calamity or disaster. It is not a reference to moral evil.
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
Ben
Paul,
You might also find this helpful: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
One more question, please. Do you have anything on this site that refutes the calvinistic view of these scriptures? No rush at all. Please take your time. Thanks.
I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself,
that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.”
Jeremiah 10:23
“The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.”
Proverbs 16:33
Paul,
I think I address both of those passages and many similar ones in the article I linked to above. Be sure to look at the end notes as that is where some passages are addressed. Neither of those passage are hard to deal with at all. If you don’t find answers in the article I linked to, let me know and I will leave a quick answer for you.
Dear Administrators of the Wesleyan Arminian WordPress website
I am an Arminian-Baptist Trinitarian Christian living in Canada. I usually look through several Arminian-based resources like your website “arminianperspectives.wordpress.com” to read some articles and learn more about the Arminian Christian Trinitarian faith.
I also looked through the links to the Recommended Resources that you have provided in your webpage. Among one of the resource link is “Pristine Faith Restoration Society (PFRS)”. Upon clicking on it, it led me to a website “pfrs.org”.
When I checked its ‘Doctrinal Statement’, it made generalized claims on church history and the PFRS openly refrained from producing what statements of faith or doctrines they believe in. Through its webpage, it repeatedly make exclusive claims of the PFRS to be the “pristine defenders” of the apostolic faith against gnostic heresies and it also frequently criticizes other Christian denominations for being corrupt or unauthentic. When I checked on its topical studies, it defends the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity against the Oneness Pentecostals. The PFRS states its attempts on their project of a new translation of the Bible’s New Testament based on their own hermeneutics and translation philosophy.
I found out that the main administrator/creator of the “Pristine Faith Restoration Society” is by a team led by Tim Warner and it is supported by the “Oasis Christian Church”. It is now known as the “the Third Day Kingdom” which is part of the larger the “4Winds Fellowships” organization based in Tampa, Florida. Indeed as mentioned by the PFRS’s website, the 4Winds Fellowships led by Tim Warner and his team have produced a new translation of the Bible’s New Testament called the “Last Generation Version (LGV)”.
The 4Winds Fellowships organization is very proactive in spreading their beliefs and their organization like advertising themselves on unsuspecting Christian websites and through different modes of the media. They also upload videos of their sermons on a YouTube Channel by the 4Winds Fellowship ministry and “answersinrevelation.org”. The 4Winds Fellowship led by Tim Warner also runs their own online “Bereans Bible Institute”.
Though the Pristine Faith Restoration Society (led by Tim Warner and supported by the “Oasis Christian Church”) thoroughly defends the Doctrine of the Trinity using early church history and bible exegesis, the 4Winds Fellowships organization (also led by Tim Warner and supported by the “Oasis Christian Church”) flatly denies and reject the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity and the Person of the Holy Spirit.
The 4Winds Fellowships claim to agree with the Creed of the 1st Council of Nicea but without believing in the Trinity, as they believe that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct Person in the Godhead, but as a manifestation of the power and breathe of God the Father. They hold similar views with the Arian heresy in that they believe that God the Father took a part of his own deity to create the Logos Jesus Christ as a subordinate deity to create the world.
Below are some of the websites run by Tim Warner and associates of his “Oasis Christian Church” / “4Winds Fellowships”
1. “Pristine Faith Restoration Society” http://pfrs.org/
2. “Oasis Christian Church” http://www.oasischristianchurch.org
3. “4Winds Fellowships” http://www.4windsfellowships.net
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/beliefs.html
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles.html
4. “Bereans Bible Institute” http://www.4windsfellowships.net/bbi.html
5. their published translation of the new testament of the bible “Last Generation Version (LGV)”
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/LGV.html
http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/index.html
6. “answersinrevelation.org” http://www.answersinrevelation.org
7. “Third Day Kingdom” http://third-day-kingdom.com/
8. YouTube Channel of 4Winds Fellowships ministry https://www.youtube.com/user/answersinrevelation/about
9. Profile of Tim Warner and some of his published books on Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Tim-Warner/e/B004HSRBS0
Furthermore, the 4Winds Fellowships organization led by Tim Warner rejects the existence of hell and the eternal torment of the unsaved sinners. They believe in the “conditional immortality of the soul” where unsaved sinners will not be resurrected in the last day but will remain as dust of the ground forever. In other words they believe that when unsaved sinners die, their soul will perish forever and their conscious of existence will cease to exist (annihilationism).
By denying in the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity and Person of the Holy Spirit, and to hold beliefs in annihilationism, the 4Winds Fellowship is truly dangerous and deceptive in Biblical Christian Standards from my assessment as an Arminian-Baptist Trinitarian Christian. Unfortunately, a vast majority of various kinds of Non-Trinitarian churches and “christian” websites also strongly denounce Calvinistic Reformed Theology and hold believes in “annihilationism”.
Therefore I strongly advise you to very carefully assess the beliefs of the original parent administrator of the Pristine Faith Restoration Society (PFRS) website. Please remove the link as a recommended resource and issue a serious warning on your Arminian Perspectives WordPress website of the hidden dangers it conceals.
Sincerely in Christ,
David Sze
I was raised a devout catholic and have never questioned my faith until I read confession of 1621(so sorry if I have named it wrong, I am stupid) I am in awe of its beauty. Now I feel like me praying to Mary and the communion of saints might be blasphemy. I am very confused and my only goal in life is to be a good daughter to our holy father. Please help me, if I am sinning i must repent as I have had 2 open heart surgeries and my time here is limited. I have young children and can not pass away peacefully knowing that I have been robbing them of the true path to god. May you bask in the glory and love of god.
Danielle,
Sorry it took me so long to get to this. I don’t know much about the 1621 confession you speak of, but if Scripture is going to be your authority, then much of Catholicism cannot stand. That is where Catholics diverge from non-Catholic Christians. If the Bible is true then you have no business praying to Mary as Christ is the only mediator between man and God and He is the only way to the Father (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6).
Mary is no savior or queen of heaven or whatever. She was just a woman who trusted in God and was tremendously blessed as a result. In the same way we are called to trust in God (not Mary or any saint) so we can receive the blessing of eternal life in Jesus name, for it is only through a relationship with Christ that anyone can be saved (John 14:1; Acts 4:17). Put your faith in Christ alone and find a church that preaches Jesus (1 Cor. 2:2). Get into the word of God daily and allow the Spirit to guide you and lead you into His truth (John 16:13). Jesus has promised to answer those who ask, seek and knock (Matthew 7:7-8).
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask and I will try to get back to you sooner.
May God bless you as you seek Him.
Danielle,
Here is a book you might find helpful. It is an easy read from someone who left Catholicism after having some of the same sorts of doubts as you have. It is written with a lot of kindness:
https://www.trinitybookservice.com/once-a-catholic-by-tony-coffey-paperback/
Hi I was wondering if you could explain Jeremiah 24:7? Where it talks about God giving the exiles a new heart. Thank you for your time.
Elijah,
I don’t have the time at the moment to look carefully at that passage but my guess is it is addressing the same new covenant promise as in Ezek 36. Here is a link to a post on that passage: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-ezekiel-3626-27-teach-regeneration-precedes-faith/
If I am saved and my cousin is not. God loves us all, He gave His Son for all, He gave His grace that is to lead us to salvation to all of us. I accepted Christ, but my cousin has not. Prevenient grace gave me the power to accept Christ, but I then used my free will to actually do it. My cousin refused to do that, to accept Christ. Isn’t my acceptance of Christ a good deed? Yes, it is. Isn’t my cousin’s rejection of Christ and salvation a bad deed? Yes, it is. So, am I not then saved in the end by my good deed of accepting Christ? Like, God did 99,99999999999% but then I did that 0,00000000000001 and that saved me. You see, that bothers me. Arminianism seems to put at least a bit of merit for salvation in a human being.
leopold,
Sorry I missed this comment for so long. Somehow it slipped through the cracks.
Isn’t my acceptance of Christ a good deed?
Sure, faith in Christ is certainly a morally good thing to do and it is likewise bad to reject Him, if that is what you mean.
So, am I not then saved in the end by my good deed of accepting Christ?
No, you are save in the end because God has graciously decided to save believers. You are saved in the end because Christ graciously saves you in response to faith since you are powerless to save yourself.
It doesn’t matter that faith is a good thing because no amount of good things can merit salvation from God and no amount of good things can erase a single sin, let alone a lifetime of sin. That is why we need atonement and atonement can only be found in Christ. We cannot atone for our own sins, so we need to trust in Christ to forgive us and save us:
“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.
David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” (Rom. 4:4-8)
Trusting in Christ doesn’t earn anything (as Paul well points out), as it simply receives a free gift that none of us deserve, and it is nonsense to try to take credit for a gift simply because we freely received it and did not reject it.
If you receive a gift from someone with full power to reject it instead, does that mean you earned the gift? Of course not. Does it mean you bought the gift? Of course not. Does it mean you contributed to the gift? Of course not. Does it mean you gave the gift to yourself? Of course not. All of that is plainly absurd.
All you did is receive it. It might certainly be a good thing to receive it, and a bad thing for someone else to reject it, but that does not change the fact that you did nothing to earn it or deserve it, and that is exactly Paul’s point in Romans 4.
Like, God did 99,99999999999% but then I did that 0,00000000000001 and that saved me.
Not at all. You are powerless to save yourself which is exactly why you need to trust in Christ to save you. For more on that see here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/09/07/does-arminian-theology-suggest-that-we-depend-on-ourselves-instead-of-christ-for-salvation/
And here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%e2%80%93-fallacy-9-faith-is-some-reason-to-boast/
Hope that helps.
So if someone deposited $20,000 into your bank account and all you had to do was go to the bank and withdraw it, you would interpret that action as earning it?
Hi Ben,
It’s been a while since I’ve posted here other than my x-Calvinst Corner post I sent recently. I hope you are doing well in these strange times. I have been preaching through 1 Thessalonians and I could use your help.
What do you make of 1 Thes. 5:10? It may have implications for both the extent of the atonement and the possibility of apostasy. The plainest reading seems to be that Christ died for both those who are alert (believe in the day) and those who are asleep (don’t believe but are in darkness).
However, asleep could also be taken to mean spiritually immature (acting like an unbeliever but not actually unsaved). But this seems to water down Paul’s exhortation. It essentially changes the “must” to “ought”. We ought to be alert and sober and put on the armor of faith and love and the helmet of hope” but we will still be saved, even if we don’t. It would be inappropriate to fail to remain alert, but it won’t change you eternal destiny if you fail to heed the exhortation.
A third option is that sleep refers to dead believers as we find in 4:13-15. But that seems to ignore the more immediate context of sleep referring both to those who are unsaved and a state that those who are saved must guard themselves against by staying alert and sober and putting on the armor.
In v.9 “we are not destined to wrath but salvation” cannot mean that our perseverance is guaranteed because v. 10 describes two possible outcomes (alert or asleep). Choosing one of the alternative interpretations above would solve that problem for the OSAS crowd and it might make more sense of the phrase “come to life together with him” but I wonder if this phrase could also be referring to the resurrection of the just and unjust? What do you think? Is v.10 an encouraging statement or a sober warning?
Paul does not say in v.11 as he did in 4:18, encourage one another “with these words” but rather he simply exhorts them to encourage one another and build one another up in light of the fact of v. 10. Perhaps the call to encourage is a safeguard against the reality that everyone will one day face Jesus as savior or judge. Therefore I take v. 10 not as “encouraging words” but as “sobering words” that exhort us to help one another lest we fail to persevere unto final salvation.
Grace and peace,
Dana
Hey Dana,
That is definitely a tricky passage. On my first reading I would just take awake and asleep as referring to the dead and the living as a parallel to 4:13-18 (cf Romans 14:8-9). The parallel with Romans 14:8-9 seems especially strong. But it is really weird that Paul uses different words in 5:10 and one word that isn’t known to be used in the figurative sense (though that doesn’t mean it can’t be, just that it is highly unlikely Paul would not use the same word that he used earlier for the figurative sense of being dead).
I also don’t like the idea that Paul is using asleep and awake in the moral sense of verses 4-8. That doesn’t fit the context either.
So I think I would take awake and asleep in a more comprehensive sense in verse 10. Being awake could be taken in the broader sense of focusing on the coming of the Lord as many in Thessalonica were apparently doing, even obsessing over it to the point where Paul felt he needed to address the issue.
Others are not so concerned with when Christ will return or the details of that return. They are in that sense “asleep.” But being awake or asleep in this sense does not necessarily carry moral implications, though it can as Paul just pointed out. But verse 10 is more benign, more of a comparison between believers who are very focused on Christ’s return (and the circumstances surrounding that return) and those who are not.
So he would be saying that regardless of how focused they are on the return of Christ, what matters most is that He will come for all of them. So while there is merit in wanting to better understand the signs leading to Christ’s coming and paying attention to those signs (and certainly merit in watching the way we live in light of it), it is not such an important issue that it should cause them to lose sight of what really matters, that the promise will be fulfilled regardless for all those who belong to Christ.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Once again I have jumped the gun based on a single translation (in this case the NET bible), which translates the subjunctive verbs in vs. 6,8,&10 (should be awake, alert and sober) as imperatives (must be alert and sober). This sent me down the wrong path. Paul is not saying that being alert is a necessary condition for persevering in salvation, but rather it is the proper response for one who is saved. I was wrong.
You may be on to something that this “alertness” is not moral awareness in general but specifically awareness of the times and seasons of the coming Day of the Lord. That fits the immediate context. But Paul goes on later in chapter 5 to exhort and admonish them to make specific moral life choices. So I’m not sure. Also, Rom. 14:8-9 which you mentioned as a possible parallel thought, has a very clear moral sense to it.
This sounds like a cop-out but maybe there is a double meaning. We are to be specifically alert to the times and season unlike the unbelievers who will be caught unaware, but this also has implications for our moral living as well. The reference to drunkenness and sobriety may also have a double meaning in that sense (i.e. aware of the times and seasons but also abstaining from excess wine).
Thanks also for pointing out that the verb “sleep” in 4:13-15 is a different word than “sleep” in 5:6-10. As you noted, this makes it harder to equate sleep in 5:10 with sleep in 4:13-15. I was beginning to agree with most commentators that sleep in 5:10 refers to dead saints, but the word change has me puzzled.
But the reason I am now leaning toward sleep=dead, is that it makes better sense of the “benign” statement of v. 10 as you put it. Again, the NET Bible steered me in the wrong direction. It reads “we will come to life together with him” which could possibly refer to the resurrection of the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15). But most translations render it “we should/will/might live together with him” (KJV,NASB,ESV,NIV,etc.) It is harder to see how the resurrected unjust would “live with him”. So I am backing away from that option. I agree with you, he’s talking about two types of believers, not believers and unbelievers in v. 10.
But I am really not comfortable concluding only some of the believers are heeding his exhortation to be awake, alert and sober. It seems to undermine the import of his exhortation. Does it not reduce his statement to this: “You should be alert, but if you are not, its ok, you will be saved anyway.” That does not sound like something that Paul would say.
If you limit alertness narrowly to alertness concerning the times and seasons, I see how that could be a solution to the danger of moral licentiousness or easy-believe-ism, but it still seems to undermine the thrust of his argument.
Yet even if we take alert in a broader sense of moral awareness, we must acknowledge that all believers are on a moral continuum. None of us are perfect and yet we will be saved despite our imperfections. Nevertheless, I have a hard time accepting that Paul would back-peddle like that after making an exhortation to stay alert.
1Cor. 3:15 may be an example where Paul qualifies the extent of the danger to believers falling short in these areas, building with wood, hay and stubble that are revealed to be unfruitful on the Day of accountability. Disclosure: I’m a dispensationalist so I see that Day as the Judgement Seat of Christ, rather than the Great White Throne Judgement (sheep and goats from the literal millennial kingdom). In any case, that text also has an eschatological reference. But that text doesn’t feel like back-peddling.
The reason 1 Thes. 5 feels different to me is that there seems to be a clear reference to eternal damnation. V. 3 “sudden destruction…they will not escape” and v. 9 contrasting “wrath” with “salvation”. It seems clear to me is that 5:2-9 are contrasting believers with unbelievers, not different types of believers. Which is why the switch to different types of believers in v. 10 feels awkward.
The best I can conclude at this point is that Paul is exhorting believers to be alert and sober concerning the times and seasons and not be like the unbelievers who are in darkness and are destined for wrath and destruction, but are unaware. We, who are of the day, should stay alert by remembering that we have already put on (aorist participle) faith, love and hope. Our hope in anchored in the atonement of Christ who died for us and the promise of God that he destines believers to obtain salvation in the end. Whether we are awake (i.e., alive and remain (4:17) at his coming) or we are asleep (die before the Day of the Lord) we all share in the hope of living together with Christ forever.
I just wish Paul used the same verb for asleep in 5:10 that he used in 4:13-15. That would have made it clearer (I speak as a fool). Perhaps there is justification in the verb tenses of chapter 5. V. 6 & 10, speaking about believers use the present subjunctive to indicate how we ought to be awake and sober, but not indicating whether we are or are not. While v. 7, speaking about unbelievers, uses the present participle, which indicates an actual present ongoing condition but not necessarily an inevitable one. Those presently in the dark can come to the light. Those presently asleep can awake. So although Paul is contrasting believers and unbelievers, he is speaking about their conditions with different verb moods. Believers are already in the light, but it remains to be seen how alert they will remain and whether they will be alive at Christ’s coming. Unbelievers are presently drunk but they can sober up!
I’m not sure I am articulating that point clearly, but I should (subjunctive) stop writing now.
Grace and peace,
Dana
Can you please explain Romans 8:7-9 and Ephesians 2:1? They seem to support Calvin…
Thanks,
student.
Hello student,
You asked: “Can you please explain Romans 8:7-9 and Ephesians 2:1? They seem to support Calvin…”
In what way do you think they support Calvinism? On Romans 8:7-9 maybe this post will help. It primarily addresses Ezekiel 36 but addresses that passage in Romans as well. If you are still having trouble, let me know:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-ezekiel-3626-27-teach-regeneration-precedes-faith/
On what it means to be dead in sin, here are several posts that you might find helpful:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/what-can-the-dead-in-sin-do/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/paul-washers-doctrine-of-election-an-arminian-critique/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/an-arminian-response-to-john-hendryx-on-the-meaning-and-implications-of-spiritual-death-part-1-what-does-it-mean-to-be-dead-in-sin/
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2020/08/03/an-arminian-response-to-john-hendryx-on-the-meaning-and-implications-of-spiritual-death-part-2-dead-reckoning/
Hope that helps.
Is there a second part of the article “John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”?
Hello Oliver,
Sadly I never got around to responding to the rest. The second part would have addressed Piper’s Two Wills in God argument. Maybe I will still get to it someday, but if you are interested (and have the time) here is a very long and thorough response to that argument from another blogger: https://atheologyintension.com/2014/12/09/the-folly-of-doing-theology-in-an-echo-chamber-a-thorough-examination-of-pipers-two-wills-view/
My question is this: If Hebrews 10:1-14 states that if the sacfrices under the Old Covenant could have made the comers/worshippers “perfect”, they would have ceased to be offered. The worshippers/comers “once purifed” would have had not more conscience of sins. Then it goes on to say that we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all. For by one sacrifice he has “perfected forever” those who are being sanctified. It also says in Hebrews 7 that because he lives forevermore that he is able to save to the “uttermost” those who come to him. It also says that he obtained “eternal redemption”. What is the Arminian explanation of this?
Hey Michael,
I wrote a 13 part series on perseverance and covered the Hebrews passages pretty extensively. Take a look at them and see if maybe they will help you with your questions (see Parts 5-11)
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance-series/
Hi Ben, awesome blog you got going!
I’ve been reading the Arminian Confession of 1621 by Simon Episcopius and I wanted to know your thoughts on Chapter 12 paragraph 4 regarding the 2nd commandment:
“The second commandment is that “we neither worship nor reverence images, or likenesses of any type.” That is, that we do not fall prostrate before statues, pictures or any other images (whether true or imagined, whether something which really is or a figment which is not, whether man, beast, angel or anything else, in heaven or on earth), or perform for them or concerning them any manner of external works which the Sacred Scripture clearly affirms to be signs of religious worship due only to God; indeed even when a man professes and openly declares that he does not hold as a god those images or likeneses before whom he does those things.
For in this manner of forbidden worship, God does not judge actions according to the mind of the worshiper, but rather judges the mind by the actions, so that men are said to make that an idol, and really call it their god and father, which they venerate in this manner, even if they know it is nothing but stone or wood, and indeed also protest that they hold it [as] such. But to the contrary, we are warned against every kind of external idolatry, just as the Apostle John warns us, and that we “flee from idols,” namely, being assured by the Apostle Paul that “the temple of God has no communion with idols.” Finally, that in spirit and truth, wherever we may be, we always worship, adore and venerate the one true God, who is most severely zealous of His glory, according to what was prescribed in His Word, even in an outward manner.” (12.4)
Do you know of any Arminian documents or discussions (earlier the better) that provide the parameters and practical specifics to this view? I understand that this means an early Arminian would staunchly agree with Calvinists in refusing to bow down to a man-made statue of God or Christ, but what about, say, kneeling before a cross? Would the early Reformed Arminians reject that practice? What do you think they would say about stained glass windows, or our use of images in the evangelical churches today?
Thanks for your time!
jgossman,
That is an interesting question but not one I am qualified to answer. Sorry.
Lately I have been concerned that I have committed apostasy because I at one point questioned everything I believed and came to a day where I was tired of being so fearful (it was like something was stalking me and I was paranoid) and just didn’t fully believe. Or at least did think I had full faith for the beginning of this year. However I found myself later praying and have since asked God for forgiveness. Honestly there were so many times that I have said to God “ I believe, please help my unbelief” but I feel as though I have failed God. I think before that was that I struggle(d) with double-mindedness and sought answers where I should not have. For years I have struggled with fear and doubts. At the beginning of the year on a day where I had torturous thoughts, at one moment I thought, “what if I don’t believe?” and it was though something lifted from me and I thought right after what if that thought was a deception. I later was overcome with fear that the Holy Spirit departed from me and that sensation happened again and woke me from me sleep. Amidst periods of doubt and confusion I have worried that I didn’t have faith but would apologize to God. However I believe that the Word of God is true and absolute that if someone falls away they cannot repent and are condemned. Lately I have been feeling numb and before many blasphemous thoughts filled my head. It is truly scary and I pray that it is not too late for me. I also wondered how I can tell that I have the Holy Spirit indwelling in me. I also wondered if I properly repented.
Usually, I was afraid and felt some sort of guilt and I think conviction after sinning that I no longer feel. I do acknowledge wrongs and feel bad but realize that godly sorrow and world sorrow are different. There were moments of doubt in which I questioned whether I believed the bible was accurate or that I properly believed to be saved. I have always been afraid of Hell and fearful of the scripture Hebrews 6:4-6 and similar scriptures. I do not think I can feel the Holy Spirit, I questioned whether I was saved, to begin with, and now I am truly concerned I am severed from Christ due to my sins and lack of faith. I believe the gospel and want to understand and I definitely want to be forgiven. However, I would like to know if it is at all possible that God would listen to my prayer and forgive me and that I am not an apostate?
Hey Lex,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am so sorry to hear about your struggle. Let me just say that you certainly do not sound like an unbeliever. Struggling with sin and doubts is not the same as apostasy. I would also suggest that if the apostasy described in Hebrews 6 is irremediable, it would in part be because the apostate would have no desire to return to the Lord. Again, that doesn’t sound like you at all.
And I think you can also rest in the promise of Christ that He will not cast out any who come to Him (John 6:37), and the promise that if anyone confesses his or her sins He is faithful and just to forgive that person (1 John 1:9). And again, being willing to confess sin and ask for forgiveness is not something an apostate would do. So I don’t think you have anything to worry about as far as you being an apostate without hope.
As far as struggling with sin and doubt, you really need to find someone you trust to help you through that like a Pastor or Christian counselor. Sometimes we face things we can’t get by on our own which is why the ministry of Christ’s body is there.
I would also just point you to this article written by a Biblical scholar which makes a pretty good argument for not taking the apostasy described in Hebrews 6 as irremediable: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-my-argument-for-apostasy-not-being-irremediable-in-hebrews-6/
Hope that helps and I will keep you on my prayers,
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
First of all, thank you for all of the great content that you have on this site. I have found it very helpful.
I recently saw someone online argue that 2 Samuel 16:14 supports Calvinism/divine determinism. The verse reads, “And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.’ For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring harm upon Absalom” (ESV). I have looked on several sites for an Arminian/non-Calvinist interpretation, but I have not found any. What is the best way to interpret this passage?
Thanks!
Keaton
I think you meant II Sam 17:14.
Even if God ordained the counsel of Hushai to win out, and even if in doing so had to ordain the minute thoughts and emotions of every person involved (something the text doesn’t get into detail on, and isn’t required by the text) that is far from proving divine determinism. To use that specific example of proof of how God always operates ends up running into a couple related logical fallacies:
#1 False dichotomy
The debate is implied to be over whether God “always” ordains things or “never” ordains what people decide. This leaves out the vast middle ground where God is free to ordain some things or restrain as He pleases, according to His intent. And since most non-Calvinists would not disagree with the premise that God can ordain things and interfere with people if He wants, it ends up missing the core of the debate since it isn’t over the actual point of contention.
#2 Over-generalization/Fallacy of the Single Cause
Basically, an example of something happening in scripture shows it can happen – not that it necessarily must happen at every point. While the example can be used as support of a more general rule, since it doesn’t contradict and shows it is possible, it doesn’t rise to the level of proof that things must always happen that way.
(Plus, in this case there are scriptures where something happens which God says He “did not intend” – which would counter the argument that God ordains everything that occurs.)
In this fallacy, if event X can be caused by Y, the person assumes that X must *always* be the culprit, rather than considering that multiple factors can play into the same event, or that those involved may potentially have different motives or intents at different times.
Beyond the logical fallacies, the passage itself doesn’t reach the level of a completely deterministic process. It shows a determined ‘event’ – but that is a macro-scale happening. By analogy, consider putting a pot of water on the stove to boil: do you have to ordain the motion of every water molecule to know that the pot will boil in the timing you intend? Does God have to ordain the motion of every water molecule, or are the natural laws He already set enough to ensure the water will boil? That’s the hurdle divine determinism has to overcome – it can’t just point to large-scale important events where God determined something and claim that is proof that every minute detail along the way was determined. There’s a large gap between those claims (A motte and bailey fallacy, actually.)
And as for the verse itself, it doesn’t necessarily show God ordaining the reaction of every individual person. It shows God commanding (Hebrew tsavah) that the advice of Ahitophel be frustrated/of no effect. [Side note, if tsavah was as strong as ‘immutably ordained’ then Adam and Eve could not have eaten of the forbidden fruit as God accused them of in Gen 3:11 – same term. God is likely commanding an angel or some sort of natural force that cannot disobey in this verse, since the sense of it is that God commanded the advice to fail.] This *could* mean God manipulated thoughts and reactions, or determined the specific personalities of those hearing so they would reject it, etc. Or it could be as simple as influencing Ahitophel alone so that his words would not be persuasive, or changing his level of charisma, etc. The verse leaves a lot out as to the “how” – and divine determinism is only one of the many possible ways.
Hello Keaton.
What is your concern with this passage exactly? Is it God using the counsel of Hushai to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel? I don’t see why that would be a problem. And if this is suppose to support exhaustive determinism then why the need to make the point that this event was determined by the Lord? I thought all events were determined by the Lord under Calvinism. If that is the case why the need for Scripture to single out this situation in particular? It would make more sense if this were a special case and not the norm.
By the way, the proper reference is 2 Samuel 17:14.
Hi Ben,
Robert Hamilton, in “Philosophical Reflections on Free Will” responds to an objection to indeterminism quoting Feinberg who argues “the only way to hold to verbal plenary inspiration as set forth in 2 Peter 1:21 seems to be to hold to compatibilism.” In Hamilton’s response, he concedes there are “special cases” where “God overrides the human will and determines human choice.” He lists divine inspiration as a specific example of this exception to the rule. In your experience, is it common for Arminians to concede that divine inspiration of Scripture involved the overriding of the human author’s libertarian free will?
Article VII of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that “The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.” Yet in the very next article (VIII) they “deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.” If the framers of this statement were mostly Calvinists, it would be consistent for them to speak of divine inspiration as “God causing these writers to use the very words that He chose…” They admit mystery in the mode but insist on determinism (which is in essence the mode). But it surprises me that Arminians like Hamilton would seem to agree that in this “special case” God overrode their wills but not their personalities. But can our will and personality be separated like that? To override one would seem to change the other.
My understanding of 2 Peter 1:21 is that the Holy Spirit carried the human writers along like a current in a stream. They remained free to swim left or right while the current carried them in the right direction. They chose which words and sentence structure to use, but the Holy Spirit’s current overpowered their ability to swim upstream into error. The Holy Spirit set boundaries for their will but did not entirely override their will. Otherwise we cannot account for the differences in style between the human writers. This is my understanding of plenary inspiration.
I think it is verbal inspiration that specifically feels like a “special case”. How could every word be God-breathed if at least some words were left to the free will choice of the human author? My understanding of verbal inspiration is that the Holy Spirit acted as the editor in chief. No Scripture was published unless it was first reviewed and authorized by the Holy Spirit. In placing his stamp of approval upon the human author’s word choices, the words can rightly be called “God-breathed” and God’s words. Or as the Chicago Statement concludes and I affirm, “What the Bible says, God says.”
A Calvinist friend of mine recently questioned my understanding of inspiration as potentially novel. Can you suggest any sources for further study on theories of the mode of inspiration? Am I on an island here?
God bless,
Dana
Hello Dana,
I would tend to agree with you. I do think God gave leeway with regards to how His truth would be expressed by the various personalities writing the Scriptures. I think that in most cases what is written could have been expressed differently while communicating the same truth just as well. Different translations serve as a limited illustration in that translations can vary quite a bit in the way the truth of a passage is expressed, but all still communicate that same truth well enough (while acknowledging that not all translations are good).
I also think that the Holy Spirit could intervene at times to prevent error, even in a way that would restrict freedom. So it is probably a combination though I think being guided by the Spirit while in an an attitude of total submission (as was likely the case with the writers of Scripture) is enough to explain the process.
Maybe a passage like Proverbs 21:1 can give us some more insight (cf. 2 Peter 1:21 as you pointed out). In that passage it seems the king is expressing his willing submission to the Lord. Because the king’s heart is submitted to the Lord the Lord can direct Him as He wishes (like directing the flow of water). The flow does not originate in God (only in the sense of our personality and choice with regards to expressing God’s truth, since the truth itself does indeed come from God), it originates in the heart, but God moves it as He wills for His purpose (so that it perfectly communicates God’s truth in whatever way the person chooses to communicate that truth). In that way the human personality and freedom is preserved while the Lord has the final say.
On Calvinism it is hard to see how Scripture would differ from any other writing since even the Satanic Bible would be written in a compatibilist sense according to Calvinism.
Thanks for the affirmation. I like your suggestion that it is probably a combination of God restricting freedom and the human authors voluntarily yielding to the Spirit’s guidance with the restriction being the exception rather than the rule since a heart yielded to God hardly needs such forceful action. Maybe that is all Hamilton was conceding? I guess I would need to ask him. 🙂
Thanks also for the Proverbs reference. I think you meant vs. 1? God’s hand is likened to the banks of a river that directs the flow of water. To stretch the analogy further, streams can erode the banks and change their path but engineers can design armoring and walls in critical areas to prevent the stream from going where we don’t want it to go. God is the Master Engineer. You might have guessed I’m a civil engineer. 🙂
I agree that Determinists have a problem in that all events are equally determined and so in a sense all things are equally inspired/God-breathed. The only distinction being that the Satanic Bible was determined to be full of error while the Word of God was determined to be without error (in the original autographs that is), which to be fair is an important distinction.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience with Calvinists, one of the greatest obstacles to considering Arminianism is the apparent lack of certainty it provides. As my former pastor was fond of saying, “There is comfort in Calvinism.” The comfort that Calvinism offers is certainty. Our flesh gravitates toward certainty because it makes us feel safe, one of our most basic felt needs. We want a guarantee. We want things to be black and white with no grey. Determinism eliminates all uncertainty.
It is a fine line between comfort and complacency though. We also need to be careful not to seek comfort where God’s Word does not provide it simply because it feels good. But when I point these things out to Calvinists, I make them uncomfortable and it sometimes invokes anger, resentment and fear. I’m seeking the right balance of loving my Calvinist brothers and sister with forbearance and speaking the truth in love. I also remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and remain ready for the Word to correct me and for God to direct the stream of my life closer toward the truth. Your website has been part of that course correcting process for me.
Thanks again for your feedback. You are a blessing to me!
Dana
Thanks also for the Proverbs reference. I think you meant vs. 1?
Yes, not sure how I messed that up. I just fixed it.
I agree that Determinists have a problem in that all events are equally determined and so in a sense all things are equally inspired/God-breathed. The only distinction being that the Satanic Bible was determined to be full of error while the Word of God was determined to be without error (in the original autographs that is), which to be fair is an important distinction.
Yes, but it only creates more problems for Calvinism since we have God working to create error and false teaching in the same way as He creates Scripture truth, making God just as much the author of that error as well.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience with Calvinists, one of the greatest obstacles to considering Arminianism is the apparent lack of certainty it provides. As my former pastor was fond of saying, “There is comfort in Calvinism.” The comfort that Calvinism offers is certainty. Our flesh gravitates toward certainty because it makes us feel safe, one of our most basic felt needs. We want a guarantee. We want things to be black and white with no grey. Determinism eliminates all uncertainty.
I think on a surface level that may be true but for those who think more deeply about it determinism can create plenty of uncertainty, especially when it comes to salvation assurance: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/an-important-admission-on-salvation-assurance-from-prominent-calvinist-c-michael-patton/
I’m seeking the right balance of loving my Calvinist brothers and sister with forbearance and speaking the truth in love.
Yes, such an important balance to maintain.
I also remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and remain ready for the Word to correct me and for God to direct the stream of my life closer toward the truth. Your website has been part of that course correcting process for me.
Glad to hear that.
God Bless,
Ben
Hello there! Before I ask my question, I wanted to first state that I have read your work on Perseverance of the Saints/Eternal Security and have enjoyed it while also learning a lot. I would like your opinion on James 5:19-20. How would you explain to those who argue that “save his soul from death” refers only to physical death and not eternal damnation?
I have pointed out to people before that this interpretation cannot simply be referencing physical death because we all experience physical death, and it is inevitable; you can’t save someone from that. Using that logic would imply that anyone who leaves the faith will die physically. However, we all die physically regardless of our faith. Some might argue that those who leave the faith and stray into sin die early deaths or die as soon as they apostatize, but in reality, there are millions of people who leave the faith and do not experience early deaths, even though it’s possible. Wouldn’t we notice all of these people dropping dead if that interpretation is correct?
Furthermore, the passage states that if a brother strays from the faith and you bring them back, you will save their soul from physical death. To suggest that it refers to physical death seems to render James’ exhortation useless if one will still be saved anyway, even if they leave the faith and stray into sin. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Also, what are your thoughts on proponents of Eternal Security who argue that “soul” means physical life and not the actual soul? This interpretation of “soul” meaning physical life has been used by Free Gracers or OSAS proponents in reference to Hebrews 10:39.Thank you, and I’m looking forward to your response. Have a great day!
ChristisKing,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I think your answer is fine. It is basically how I would answer it as well. It is really a weak argument and it is clear from experience that apostates do not just suddenly die when they fall away. As far as “soul” just meaning physical death in 10:39, that is just plain goofy. Your point about James illustrates this and many other passages could be referenced as well. But most importantly, contextually, it just doesn’t work since verses 26-29 (which 10:39 is just a further elaboration on) make it plain that this judgment involves a punishment “more severe” than death (29) which is described as involving the “raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (27).
Heb 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
Heb 10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified
Hello. How are you? I just saw that you had replied to my comment months ago. Thank you so much. I never got a notification because I didd not turn on the button to get updates so I had no idea. However, today I came back to your website today and came to the questions area and saw that you had responded to me.
I have two more questions for you if you don’t mind :
In regards to Romans 11:16-22 I have heard proponents of Free Grace Theology and some Calvinists say that the Olive Tree metaphor utilized by Paul in verses 16-23 have nothing to do with salvation but with blessings.
How would you explain contextually to someone that salvation is being spoken of here? I am a little confused on how to respond or rather on how to articulate my answer.
Here is the quotation from a prominent Free Grace proponents website on Romans 11 :
“The olive tree does not represent the place of salvation. It represents the place of blessing…
They also said that individuals aren’t being spoken of but only nations but I know that’s false from the context and I saw your article on it. They come into pretty much every warning passage with the presupposition that someone can’t lose their salvation instead of proving it from the text but my main question here is how can I demonstrate that salvation is the context of Romans 11:16-22 specifically the Olive Tree (cutting/grafting).
Lastly, in regards to Galatians 6:7-9 I ran into the same problem because some Calvinists have told me that “eternal life” spoken of in verse 8 is not salvation but instead it is speaking of an “abundance of life” or a better quality life but not actually eternal life as in salvation. I don’t see much in that response because it makes no sense but I’d like to hear your response. How would you respond to such a claim?
Thank you, and I’m looking forward to your response. Have a great day!
Hello again,
You write:
“How would you explain contextually to someone that salvation is being spoken of here?”
Because the entire section (chapters 9-11) is about the identity of God’s convent people and that entails salvation in the new covenant since one can only enter the new covenant through faith in Christ. You can’t have Christ and not be saved. That’s why Paul continually mentions salvation in these chapters (9:1-3, 22, 33; 10:1, 8-13; 11:11-15, 19-24, 26, 30-32). So contextually the idea that salvation is involved in the Olive Tree metaphor is really rather obvious. The Olive Tree represents the people of God and, again, in the new covenant, only those who believe on Christ are God’s people. Believing in Christ and being joined to His people obviously entails salvation. How could it not?
So as you have wisely noticed, such attempts to avoid the obvious implications of such passages are driven entirely by a prior commitment to ES, not contextual considerations.
“Lastly, in regards to Galatians 6:7-9 I ran into the same problem because some Calvinists have told me that “eternal life” spoken of in verse 8 is not salvation but instead it is speaking of an “abundance of life” or a better quality life but not actually eternal life as in salvation.”
Well then John 3:16 doesn’t actually mean eternal life either since it uses the exact same Greek words. It is a ridiculous argument and such arguments highlight just how weak and Biblically untenable the free grace position is. Go to Bible hub and put both passages in on separate tabs. Then choose “interlinear” and look at the Greek words in both John 3:16 (or any number of such passages) and Galatians 6:8. The same. No contextual factors would suddenly make Gal. 6:8 mean something different. It is desperation, nothing more.