I thought it would be interesting to contrast two books I have received in the past weeks. The first quote is from Steve Lawson’s Foundations of Grace which I wrote about a couple of days ago. In this quote he contrasts Calvinism and Arminianism:
Never have two systems of thought been more polarized. The first system, Calvinism, is a God-centered, Christ-exalting way of viewing salvation. God alone is the Savior and, thus, God alone is the object of praise. In the other system, Arminianism, a completely opposite perspective is presented. Arminianism, also known historically as Semi-Pelagianism and Wesleyanism, divides the glory between God and man in the salvation of the human race. As a result, it diminishes the glory given to God. In the first system, that of the doctrines of grace, salvation is completely of the Lord. God alone supplies all that is necessary, both the grace and the faith. But in the latter scheme, salvation is partly of God and partly of man. Here God supplies the grace and man supplies the faith. Man becomes his own co-savior. In the first system, all glory goes to God alone. But in the latter, praise is shared by God and man. The only problem is, God will not share His glory with another.
In his recently published work Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger E. Olson says that typifying Arminianism as being Semi-Pelagian is unfair. He distinguishes between Arminianism of the heart and Arminianism of the head.
Arminianism of the head is an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that is most often found in liberal Protestant circles (even among liberalized Reformed people). Its hallmark is an optimistic anthropology that denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation. It is optimistic about the ability of autonomous human beings to exercise a good will toward God and their fellow creatures without supernatural previent (enabling, assisting) grace; that is, it is Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian.
Olson distinguishes himself and other “true” Arminians from the charges of Semi-Pelagianism that have often been held against those who hold to Arminian theology. He speaks of “Arminians of the heart:”
Arminianism of the heart—the subject of this book—is the original Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley and their evangelical heirs. Arminians of the heart emphatically do not deny total depravity (even if they prefer another term to denote human spiritual helplessness) or the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a good will toward God. Arminians of the heart are true Arminians because they are faithful to the basic impulses of Arminius and his first followers as opposed to later Remonstrants (who wandered away from Arminius’s teachings into early liberal theology) and modern Arminians of the head who glorify reason and freedom over divine revelation and supernatural grace.
In distinguishing between Arminians of the heart and Arminians of the head he seems to fall into an all-too-common practice among Christians, setting himself apart as a member of a select group who “get it.” According to Olson’s definitions, the vast majority of those who consider themselves non-Reformed Christians would be Semi-Pelagian. However, there is a small group that have held to the true principals of Arminius. “When conservative theologians declare that synergism is a heresy, they are usually referring to these two Pelagian forms of synergism. Classical Arminians agree. This is a major theme of this book. Contrary to confused critics, classical Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian! But it is synergistic. Arminianism is evangelical synergism as opposed to heretical, humanistic synergism.”
Such claims always make me nervous. Much like those who hold to Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul, their claims depend on suggesting that other theologians of the past and present just haven’t properly understood. When Steve Lawson, R.C. Sproul and countless others have examined Arminianism and declared it to be Semi-Pelagian, they just haven’t quite understood the details. They unfairly typified Arminianism, confusing it with Semi-Pelagianism. Or so men like Olson have to conclude. Careful and skilled researchers that they are, I think this is unfair and uncharitable to the large number of Reformed scholars who, based on honest assessment, have reached such a conclusion. To redefine Arminianism before defending it seems more than a little disingenuous.
According to Olson’s definition, I’m sure he could, in many ways, agree with Lawson’s comments. He would simply state that Lawson is reacting against the Arminianism of the head that has become predominant in evangelicalism. But I doubt Lawson and most other Reformed scholars would care to make such a distinction.
Comments (124) »
1. Blake
October 13, 2006
10:22 AM
Well… they had to think of something, didn’t they? As I read his defense it just makes me kind of amused and interested, because it was that same type of reasoning that I used to use to resist the procession of good, Biblical, reformed theology taking over my system of belief, back when I was about 18. I used some of the same justification as “Arminianism of the Heart”, which is, in my opinion, expressed by Arminians often as “I don’t believe in a God who could be like that of Romans 9 as you read it!” They do think they are “set apart” and they “get it” because of a heart knowledge that teaches them how God should or should not act, based on emotional experiences. Wow
2. Rey
October 13, 2006
10:27 AM
Let’s say someone doesn’t make a distinction and in reaction lumps all of Arminians in one category of Semi-Pelagianism—isn’t that lumping without distinction, scholarship or not, wrong?
Some Calvinists believe in some form of determinism of the elect and others believe in determinism of both elect and non-elect and then we have a group of non-Christian religions who are fatalists chalking everything up to inevitable. Lumping all those groups together and labeling them all Fatalists wouldn’t be fair to any of the systems under the heading and I don’t see how it’s unfair for someone to point out that there are distinctions.
It’s probably more wrong to ignore the one pointing out the distinctions…
3. marc
October 13, 2006
10:36 AM
Tim,
I hate this post. Of course, I’m redefining the word “Hate” to mean “Love”.
Hate,
Marc
4. Josh
October 13, 2006
11:10 AM
Hi Rey,
I think your question is a good one, but I don’t think the comparison holds up.
Even if there are Reformed believers who believe in fatalism, it is not true across the board. One of the fundamental beliefs of Arminianism (whether they will admit it or not) is that man is not completely dead in their sins. Or that somehow, even in its dead state, man is able to choose God. Man is somehow “good enough” to choose God (semi-Pelagianism). So Arminians are consistently semi-Pelagian, but Calvinists are not consistently fatalists (in fact, I think that this would be rare among Calvinists). If anyone thinks I have oversimplified, please correct me!
Josh
5. garret
October 13, 2006
11:24 AM
I wonder if the “heart-Arminians” are just 4-point Calvinists? Some of my Arminian friends have said as much. It’s the Limited Atonement with which they have their biggest beef. They often say they embrace Total Depravity, Uconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, but it’s the big L they can’t stomach.
Upon further probing, however, it sometimes becomes apparent that they really can’t abide the U-I-P either.
In 412 A.D. at the Council Of Carthage, teachers of semi-Pelagianism were declared anathema. As Paul would have stated it: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (I chose the NIV here because it speaks more “loudly” than the ESV for this passage.)
The thing we must remember is that God will still have mercy on whom He wills, whether Arminian, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Augustinian or Calvinist.
6. Ochuk
October 13, 2006
2:07 PM
Hmm. If Olson is doing the “setting himself apart as one who gets it” error, I don’t think it is answered by the “I can’t believe Reformed scholars are wrong” answer. Why wouldn’t Olson say they are wrong when he is an Arminian and critics of Arminianism are Reformed?
All I see happening is a representative of a position stating it, distinguishing it, and defending it. And from the likes of the Lawson quote, its a good thing too.
7. Jason Ferguson
October 13, 2006
2:23 PM
I’ve read Olson’s book, and you’re right that his claim is that many people, including some Reformed critics, have misunderstood Arminianism. But he then proceeds to spend the entire book defending that claim—that is, he looks through the primary sources and demonstrates again and again that his distinction between Arminians of the head and Arminians of the heart holds up.
Tim, what you seem to be arguing is that you suspect that his argument can’t be right because it casts the interpretation of Arminianism made by generations of Reformed scholars on its head. But that was the purpose of Olson’s book. He thinks that they’re wrong, that they’re believing myths about Arminiansim instead of the realities of it, and he goes back to the sources to show that and debunk the myths.
It seems me me that you can’t simply dismiss his arguments out of hand because they make you nervous without dealing with the substance of his argument. Yes, he’s claiming that the scholars of the past have misunderstood. And yes, he thinks that they don’t “get it.” But he then spends 250-odd pages showing why he’s making those claims. A critic is going to have to show why those claims are inaccurate—and why there can be no distinction between Arminianism of the head and Arminianism of the heart—if they’re going to deal with his argument. But simply dismissing Olson’s argument that there is a distinction by saying “I doubt Lawson and most other Reformed scholars would care to make such a distinction” is making Olson’s point for him.
8. Scott
October 13, 2006
2:24 PM
Today’s post sort of struck me funny. Help me understand how we are all not [setting (ourselves)apart as a member(s) of a select group who “get it.”] We all do that. We disagree, sure, but we have to think we are right and others wrong to disagree.
So then the critique becomes, “Okay, but this dude is redefining Arminianism.” Despite not being Arminian, I really don’t think the Calvinist view of Arminianism that I see here is accurate either. Who are we to say what other people believe “whether they admit it or not”?
I don’t think Arminianism is Pelagianist at all, but then again, perhaps that is just based on my definitions of Arminianism and Pelagianism.
9. Jason Ferguson
October 13, 2006
2:26 PM
Josh said, “One of the fundamental beliefs of Arminianism is that man is not completely dead in their sins…anyone thinks I have oversimplified, please correct me!
Josh, Olson deals with that issue in his book. From his examination of the primary sources from Arminius and other Arminians of the heart, he demonstrates that this claim is false. Some “Arminians” have held this view, but they have broken off from the tradition when they have done so. True Arminians believe that man is completely dead, and a reading of the primary sources makes that very clear.
10. Doug Simmons
October 13, 2006
2:52 PM
Professor Olson is at Baylor’s Truett Seminary in Waco, TX, not exactly at all a bastion for conservative thought. He has consistently sided with moderate/liberal sides of theological dialogue for years here in TX. He does oppose the ordination of women into the pastorate position. If he turns Scripture on its head in that area, he’ll turn it on its head elsewhere. Beware his leaven when reading his published works.
11. Doug Simmons
October 13, 2006
2:54 PM
I mispoke in my earlier message. I meant to say that Prof. Olson does NOT oppose the ordination of women into the pastorate position. If he turns Scripture on its head in that area, where will he stop?
12. John R.
October 13, 2006
3:05 PM
I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me that Olson simply evades the semi-pelagianism charge by making semi-pelagianism the same thing as pelagianism and saying “Arminianism isn’t that.”
But that’s where the semi comes from—it means something. Granted, semi-pelagianism is a perjorative term, and I can understand him objecting on that basis. But what those who have used the term have always meant by it is synergism. Pelagians believe everyone can will to choose God without any operation of the Spirit. Semi-pelagians believe everyone can will to choose God because whatever the Fall has done to us, God has equally remedied in all. In other words, the effects of the Fall are mainly theoretical now as it regards choosing God, since he’s given equal grace to all.
Reformed theologians have always differentiated between “semi-Pelagianism” and Pelagianism for precisely this reason, as I understand it.
13. Michael Garner
October 13, 2006
3:12 PM
Interesting.
Anyone who reads anything that I write should be able to see Calvinism running through it. I am a Calvinist to the core. However, I happen to agree with Olson.
It is not proper to place Arminianism under Semi-Pelagianism. Don’t get me wrong; both are wrong systems of thought and I believe they deprive glory due unto God. However, they are not the same thing.
Part of our problem is that we have been calling Semi-Pelagianism (in the church) Arminianism. I am quite confident that Arminius would have MAJOR issues with a lot that is taught in these churches (including the matter of Salvation).
Notice the progression:
Pelagianism - Man’s will is good enough to come to God without God’s grace. God’s grace may be helpful but it isn’t necessary. What God commands must be possible to be accomplished.
Semi-Pelagianism - Man cannot come to God completely alone. However, man must take the first step. That is - as we step out in faith, God then comes and assists us with his Grace and we can be saved.
Arminianism - Man’s will is not essentially good. Rather, we are depraved beings. However, God in his grace helps us all enough to make it Possible (but not necessary) to come to Him. Notice, Salvation is still synergistic (like Semi-pelagianism), but it is not the same thing.
Amyraldianism - Man is essentially depraved and only by God’s grace will man come to Salvation. However, on the cross, Jesus secured this salvation for all people, but it is only applied to some.
Calvinism - Jesus’ work on the cross for the elect has secured Salvation for all of His own, and by that Grace alone, they will come to see His beauty and trust in Him.
Point being, I think Semi-Pelagians and Arminians both have a similar problem (namely their synergistic regeneration), but I think Olson is correct in saying that they are not the same thing.
As Calvinists (those of us who are), we’re going to have enough differences with Arminians to start with, we need not add to it with a baseless charge that they are semi-pelagians (and therefore condemned as Heretics already!).
Just my thoughts.
In Christ alone,
mike
14. julie
October 13, 2006
3:22 PM
I grew up in the Wesleyan church and went to a Wesleyan bible college. I am now in the opposite camp, but in my experience most arminians don’t know they’re are arminians and couldn’t tell you what reform doctrine was. I couldn’t have (even after bible college).
I think it’s important not to seperate ourselves from ( or elevate ourselves above) true believers, no matter what label they wear. There are many arminians who are not truly saved, but there are many calvinists in the same boat. I think most arminians are just plain ignorant of much doctrine, but on the other side, I’ve met lots of knowledgable calvinists who were arrogant self-righteous fools (most of these I met when I was an arminian hehe). Granted I was just as arrogant and self-righteous, if not more.
I do tend to view arminianism as false teaching in some ways and I understand the concern. But I was saved in an arminian church, even though I didn’t have the best understanding of that salvation. And I also tend to think Wesley was much stronger in God’s sovereignty than today’s Wesleyans.
15. Stephen Newell
October 13, 2006
3:37 PM
Just a q:
Don’t Calvinist writers do the same thing; namely asserting that non-Calvinist writers lump Calvinists together with Hyper-Calvinists?
Now, never mind for just a moment that is actually a true statement. What I am getting at is: is it not possible that Calvinists have done the same thing to Arminians?
As careful as Calvinist and Calvinist-sympathetic writers generally tend to be, we can still not avoid portraying “opposing” viewpoints in ways that are not exactly faithful to what is actually taught. Arminianism tends to get painted with the brush of the “logical conclusions” Calvinists see. Even I, a non-Calvinist, am guilty of such.
I also want to ask: are there any good sources (beyond the primary) on Arminianism? Is there anything out there on the level of the Calvinistic sources?
16. Jason Ferguson
October 13, 2006
4:03 PM
Careful and skilled researchers that they are, I think this is unfair and uncharitable to the large number of Reformed scholars who, based on honest assessment, have reached such a conclusion. To redefine Arminianism before defending it seems more than a little disingenuous.
Tim, as I’ve thought more about it, I have to say that I really don’t understand this conclusion. Since when is it “unfair and unchairtable” to correct a misinterpretation if you think one exists? Especially if you do so by going back to Arminius and other sources and try to demonstrate why it is a misinterpretation? To me, that seems like the very thing a Christian thinker should be about. We’re about the truth, and we should be committed to getting things right. If a number of Reformed scholars have missed the mark on their description of Arminianism, and if we can demonstrate that through the textual evidence, then how is that disingenous? Wouldn’t it be disingenous to not offer a correction and let an error stand? Which is more “unfair and uncharitable”—letting an error stand or seeking to correct it? There would be all kinds of error abounding if this were so!
To me, your post and your statement that he is “redefining Arminianism” seems kind of slanted to me, since Olson’s book doesn’t seem to be intended to “redefine” Arminianism as much as properly “define” it. It seems like it was written as an attempt to correct misinterpretations about what Arminians believe through a close reading of the primary texts. The title communicates it pretty clearly: “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities”
The equivalent would be if there was a common misunderstanding of Calvinism, and a Calvinist scholar turned back to Calvin’s writings and to those of his key interpreters to correct that misinterpretation by showing how it was wrong. That’s not “redefining” Calvinism—that’s “defining” it.
That seems like a good thing to me. We have a calling as Christians to represent people accurately, even when we disagree with them. If we are unintentionlly misrepresenting their positions, we should welcome correction. Of course, we have to look at the primary sources and judge for ourselves to be able to decide who is correct or not. But that’s what we should be doing anyway.
17. Paul
October 13, 2006
4:15 PM
Talk about redefining…
Now Arminus, who was ruled a heretic by the church, is the conservative theologian, and the Remonstrants are the liberals. If that is not reconstructionist history then nothing is.
18. Calvinist Gadfly
October 13, 2006
4:26 PM
“True Arminians believe that man is completely dead, and a reading of the primary sources makes that very clear.”
If you are familiar with Arminius’ primary writings, (which I am) then you must also be aware that Arminius wrote that everyone’s total depravity is “neutralized” by common grace (prevenient). This is an important fact that I have not seen stated yet on this thread.
What is the purpose of saying that you believe in total depravity when at the same time you believe that total depravity is removed in everyone by prevenient grace, which is suppose to “neutralize” the depraved will that enables all to be a position to assent or reject the grace?
In other words it was disingenuous for Arminius to claim he believes in total depravity and claim that everyone is has the free will to assent or reject God’s grace.
Arminius writes,
“In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine Grace…..” (Arminius, James, The Public Disputations of James Arminius, D.D.., in James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius The London Edition, 2:192)
This language by Arminius of the depravity of man sounds just as strong as Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. So given these statements, it is true he affirmed total depravity, our falleness of our condition and its grave effects on the will. He wants to go beyond the idea that the fall of man is simply wounded or in a weaken state (contemporary Arminianism); rather, it is “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” So far so good. He seems to be orthodox on the depravity of man’s will.
Further, Arminius affirmed that the Holy Spirit’s work is absolutely necessary. Grace can only remedy man’s horrid condition. He describes the Spirit’s work as such,
“…. Being liberated from the kingdom of darkness, and being now made “light in the Lord” (Eph. 5:8) he understands the true and saving Good; that, after the hardness of his stony heart has been changed into the softness of flesh,…he loves and embraces that which is good, just , and holy; and that, being made capable in Christ, co-operating now with God he prosecutes the Good which he knows and loves, and he begins himself to perform it in deed.” (Ibid., 2:194-5)
Immediately after this though, he begins to break from Reformed thought when he teaches, “This work of regeneration and illumination is not completed in one moment; but…it is advanced and promoted, from time to time, by daily increase.” (2:195). Here he seems to be thinking that regeneration is a progression that occurs alongside of sanctification throughout the Christian journey, rather than regeneration completed in one act followed by sanctification.
In quoting Augustine he says,
“Subsequent or following Grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing [i.e., prevenient] Grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by Grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without Grace, but is inspired by Him….“(Ibid., 2:196, Arminius is quoting Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians.)
But Arminius has a different notion of prevenient grace than Augustine. For Augustine and the Reformers the grace that God gives is effectual in the heart of the sinner. This effectual grace was the internal call of the Spirit. The nature of this regenerative grace is such that it will necessarily produce a heart of conversion. The implication of course is that not all receive this particular grace, otherwise all would attain salvation. Arminius rejected the effectual notion of grace. He says, “internal vocation is granted even to those who do not comply with the call.” (Ibid., 2:721.)
This disagreement of Arminius is consistent with the semi-pelagians. They rejected Augustine’s view of “irresistible grace” and believed that the Holy Spirit could be “resisted” by the will of man. So, though Arminius affirms the absolute depravity of man, he insists that the grace of God in the Reformed sense is not effectual but can be overridden by his understanding of the “free will” of man. At this point, someone may ask how can Arminius speak of the unregenerate being absolutely depraved and having a “free will.” This is key to understanding his view of prevenient grace. We are all born absolutely depraved; yet God gives all equally this prevenient grace in which “neutralizes,” if you will, this absoluteness of the depraved will. We still are not at a converted stage, but one step closer. In other words, the result of prevenient grace is that the will is roughly neutral: we are at a state in which we can choose Christ or reject Christ. The tradition of Reformed thought calls the grace that come before salvation “effectual” or “efficient,” which necessarily will produce regeneration. And the Arminian tradition calls grace that come before salvation “prevenient” grace, which does not necessarily produce conversion.
Thanks,
Alan Kurschner
19. Jason
October 13, 2006
5:03 PM
“What is the purpose of saying that you believe in total depravity when at the same time you believe that total depravity is removed in everyone by prevenient grace, which is suppose to “neutralize” the depraved will that enables all to be a position to assent or reject the grace?…In other words it was disingenuous for Arminius to claim he believes in total depravity and claim that everyone is has the free will to assent or reject God’s grace.”
If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that Arminius was giving back with one hand what he was taking away with another. That is, while he affirmed that man was totally depraved and thus destroyed by sin, he also argued that prevenient grace enabled man to freely assent or reject God’s offer of grace. So why argue for total depravity if you’re just going to neutralize the effects of that depravity with prevenient grace?
The reason is to shift the foundation of the act of free will away from man and to God’s grace. In other words, what Arminius is basically doing is offering a robust affirmation that we are saved by grace alone. By affirming total depravity, Arminius was affirming that man is dead in his sins and thus has no ability on his own to make a decision for God—he is dead. Man cannot make a free will decision for God in Arminian theology on the basis of his own fallen nature. However, by affirming the effect of prevenient grace on everyone, Arminius was affirming that man is able to make a free decision for God—but only on the basis of the healing effects of God’s prevenient grace which make that decision possible.
He is thus able to affirm free will—which is important for him because he thinks not affirming it eventually makes God responsible for sin and evil. But by affirming it on the basis of prevenient grace he attributes the decision not to man’s inherent abilities, but solely to healing effects God’s grace. That’s why you make the move he did—it’s simply an affirmation that salvation is by grace alone. What’s disingenous about that? It’s different than Calvin or Augustine would do it, but Arminius thought that their way of doing it inevitably led to a God responsible for evil. He was intended to offer an alternative to it, while never falling into the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian error of putting giving man credit for making a decision for God.
20. Timmy Brister
October 13, 2006
5:21 PM
Olson defines “Arminianism of the head” but doesn’t define “Arminianism of the heart” except saying that it is “faithful to the basic impulses of Arminius and his first followers as opposed to later Remonstrants” and not the “Arminianism of the head.” So what exactly, then, is Arminianism of the heart, according to Olson? Evangelical synergism? Uh, no. It appears that the goal is a reclamation of Arminianism by redefining it to make it appear more palatable to a growing interest in Reformed theology. In other words, Arminianism of the head is not really that synergistic, not thatArminian, not that …
21. Michael Garner
October 13, 2006
5:41 PM
If you are familiar with Arminius’ primary writings, (which I am) then you must also be aware that Arminius wrote that everyone’s total depravity is “neutralized” by common grace (prevenient). This is an important fact that I have not seen stated yet on this thread.
Calvinist Gadfly,
You are correct, and if you read my summary of Arminianism (contra semi-pelagianism) then you will see that I agree. However, I think it is exactly this point that separates Arminians from Semi-Pelagians. It might have the same end result, the same synergistic problem, but Arminianism does start with a dead man, and does require grace to come before human response. Semi Pelagians start with a hurt (but not dead) man and require man to take the first step.
Again, both teachings are false, but both are not identical.
22. Alan Kurschner
October 13, 2006
5:57 PM
Jason said,
“In other words, what Arminius is basically doing is offering a robust affirmation that we are saved by grace alone….But by affirming it on the basis of prevenient grace he attributes the decision not to man’s inherent abilities, but solely to healing effects God’s grace. That’s why you make the move he did—it’s simply an affirmation that salvation is by grace alone. What’s disingenous about that?
There is a flawed loophole.
For Arminius, the grace of God is not effecual. That is, prevenient grace for Arminius will affect some people different than others. So the determining factor that someone chooses Christ is found in man, not the nature of grace itself.
It goes back to the question: Why does one person choose Christ and another does not? If everyone receives the same amount of grace according to Arminius, then the difference lies in man, not the gift of grace.
Arminius’ anthropology would have eveyone walking around with a neutral will. And if one of those persons chooses Christ they can boast that it was themselves—not grace by itself that caused it. Arminius admitted himself that prevenient grace prepares someone to choose Christ, but something in man must be the deciding factor.
And since Arminius affirmed synergism, his theology is not a theology that is grace alone.
A grace that only “enables” or “prepares” a heart is not saving grace. Grace that actually changes the heart is Biblical saving grace.
Thanks,
Alan Kurschner
23. Alan Kurschner
October 13, 2006
6:08 PM
Michael Garner,
That’s correct. The semi-pelagians during and after Augustine believed in a weakened will, as well as affirming that man must take the first step. Classic and contemporary Arminianism both affirm that God is taking the first step in prevenient grace. (Most contemporary Arminianism rejects total depravity and thus affirms a “partial dead” will—excuse the contradictory terms ;-)
And indeed, what is important is that they are both synergistic.
Alan
24. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 13, 2006
9:01 PM
Alan,
I think you have hit on something that is at the heart of this issue. Even though I would call myself Reformed in my theology, and a Calvinist…I still am not so sure that I like the use of labels such as Arminian, semi-Pelagian (by the way…I’m sure everyone knows there was no one back in history named ‘semi-pelagious’), etc…save two: monergistic and synergistic.
I think these two distinctions probably do the best job at separating those who hold to a high view of God, and those who don’t (even though most of them would jump up right now and yell that they do).
All labels aside…Arminius, Pelagious, Wesley, Finney, Graham, Adrian Rodgers, Charles Stanley, The Caners, and sadly, Hank Hanegraaff…all fall into the camp of believing in synergism. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Augustine, Luther, Gill, Spurgeon, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Dever, etc…all believe(d) and teach monergism.
So, as Alan noted, whether one says they line up with Arminianism, Pelgianism (semi or not), only 4 points of calvinism, prevenient grace or an island of righteousness within the person…they are ALL synergists.
25. Jason
October 13, 2006
10:28 PM
Hi Alan. You said, And since Arminius affirmed synergism, his theology is not a theology that is grace alone.
From what I can tell, you seem to be thinking of synergism in terms of some sort of equal cooperation between God and a human in salvation, where a human is contributing something crucial or decisive to salvation. But that’s not Arminius’s synergism. He held to an evangelical synergism that reserves all the power, ability, and efficacy in salvation to God’s grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only “contribution” humans make is non-resistance to grace. This is the same as accepting a gift, and Arminius did not understand why a gift that must be freely received is no longer a gift.
So when you say, “For Arminius, the grace of God is not effecual. That is, prevenient grace for Arminius will affect some people different than others. So the determining factor that someone chooses Christ is found in man, not the nature of grace itself.—that just doesn’t make sense to Arminians. For Arminians, the one and only decisive factor is the grace of God—from beginning to end. For example, if a begger accepted money from a rich man to feed his family, what was the decisive factor in his family’s survival? Obviously, it’s the money—not the beggar’s acceptance of it. Another anlogy would be the endorsement of a check. If you received a check to pay a debt, who says that endorsing the check constitutes the decisive factor in paying the debt? That would be absurd. Obviously, the check was the decisive factor. Human acceptance is performing an analogous function in the Arminian view of grace and Arminian evangelical synergism: the bare act of deciding to rely totally on God’s grace for salvation and to accept the gift of eternal life is not the decisive factor in salvation. That status belongs to God’s grace alone. The grace is what is effectual. Grace is the sole determining factor. Grace alone is decisive. To say otherwise is a distorting of what Arminius taught. [Olson goes through all of this in his book, by the way, by looking at the primary texts].
You said, “A grace that only “enables” or “prepares” a heart is not saving grace. Grace that actually changes the heart is Biblical saving grace.”
Obviously, the term “prevenient grace” is not in the Bible. But Arminians believe that prevenient grace is a biblical concept assumed everywhere in scripture. They see it as the powerful but resistible drawing of God that Jesus spoke about in John 6 (Olson deals with this in his book, for example). Arminians believe that if a person is saved, it is because God inititated the relationship and enabled the person to respond freely with repentance and faith. Prevenient grace, in the Arminian depiction, includes four aspects: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. No person can repent, believe, or be saved without God’s supernatural support from beginning to end. All the person does is cooperate by not resisting. The movement toward salvation is grace all the way down. Most Arminians would argue that you are narrowing the definition of grace down to something more limited that was appears in scripture.
26. Jason
October 13, 2006
10:32 PM
Timmy, you said, “So what exactly, then, is Arminianism of the heart, according to Olson?”
That’s what he spends his entire book explaining!
It appears that the goal is a reclamation of Arminianism by redefining it to make it appear more palatable to a growing interest in Reformed theology.
Or, one could say: it is a reclamation of Arminianism from those who would falsely characterize it to make it less palatable to Reformed theology. In fact, the first myth that Olson tackles is the one that says that Arminianism is not Reformed theology. Those who say that it’s the opposite are guity of misrepresenting it to make it appear less palatable to their own views than it actually is.
27. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 13, 2006
10:56 PM
They see it as the powerful but resistible drawing of God that Jesus spoke about in John 6 …Arminians believe that if a person is saved, it is because God inititated the relationship and enabled the person to respond freely with repentance and faith.
The problem, though, with this thinking, Jason, is that it still leaves man’s destiny ultimately in his own hands, and not in the hands of God.
I wonder if you can, in your own words, explain how God’s drawing can be powerful and resistable at the same time. If it can be resisted…then how powerful can it be?
I encourage you to do a word study on the Greek word for ‘draw’ in John 6…it is ‘helkuo’ and means to draw or drag off…and it is the same word that is translated elsewhere as dragged, haul, & drag. And in all the places where it is translated ‘draw’ or ‘drew’ (save two - John 6:44 & John 12:32), it is denoting a physical action, like drawing water out of a well, or drawing a sword.
In light of that information, doesn’t it make more sense that the metaphorical (or spiritual) use of it in the two verses in John denotes more than just a mere wooing or pull by God, and in fact indicates something much stronger, much more certain…something we know as irresistable grace?
28. Alan Kurschner
October 13, 2006
11:45 PM
From what I can tell, you seem to be thinking of synergism in terms of some sort of equal cooperation between God and a human in salvation, where a human is contributing something crucial or decisive to salvation. But that’s not Arminius’s synergism.
Synergism does not require “equal” cooperation such as 50% of man doing the work, and 50% of God. The point is both are necessary to bring about a new heart.
Billy Graham is known for saying that “salvation is 99% God and 1% man. Graham is a synergist.
[Arminius] held to an evangelical synergism that reserves all the power, ability, and efficacy in salvation to God’s grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it.
His view is very similar to the Lutheran synergism. But that’s besides the point.
By your own admission of Arminius’ view, all the power of God in heaven cannot save an individual sinner—it only grants the creature ability, not the efficacious desire. Hence, his view is unbliblical.
Everyone that God raises from spiritual death is not raised to “neutrality”; they are raised to spiritual life. Am I wrong?
Again, Arminius’ understood grace only as “savable”; if he believed that prevenient grace was efficacious he would end up with universalism.
“Prevenient grace, in the Arminian depiction, includes four aspects: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling.”
Notice the absence of “saving.” And this is the watershed difference between Calvinism and Arminianism: God’s grace actually saves, it does not make it possible.
“All the person does is cooperate by not resisting.”
Which is another way of saying that the creature can resist or not resist the grace: The creature can still thwart God’s salvific purposes for his or her life. (I have had this same argument with many Lutherans. At the end of the day God’s grace only makes salvation possible, not certain.)
This is elementary logic: If one believes that prevenient grace is given to every individual equally, and some assent to it and some individuals reject it, then the determinative factor is found in the creature, not in the grace itself.
Thanks,
Alan Kurschner
29. francisco
October 14, 2006
9:27 AM
Alan,
Thanks for your contribution. I have but one question that bugs me:
What is what Reformed Christians call ‘common grace’. Is it a different concept than Arminius’ prevenient grace? and how?
30. Brian W
October 14, 2006
10:12 AM
What Calvinists fail to see is their view is unbiblical as well. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, man does not have responsibility. I can see the fumes rising. I know almost every single Calvinist would say humans have responsibility. But, taken to its logical conclusion, human responsibility doesn’t fit within God’s complete deterministic control. So, good Calvinists say “this is a mystery”. Obviously, compatibilistic views of freedom don’t provide reasonable direction (only Calvinists think compatibilistic freedom makes sense). Honest Calvinists acknowledge the difficulty of understanding human responsibility with God’s complete deterministic control.
So why are Calvinists so comfortable with an unbiblical view (bastions of biblical truth as they are)? Well, at least God isn’t rob of his glory. And I appreciate this.
But why is Calvinism or Arminianism the only options for evangelicals? They both admit difficulties (i.e. Grudem for Calvinists). Maybe some of the shared assumptions of both Calvinists and Arminians is the problem. Maybe the our faulty metaphysical and philosophical framework leads us to admitted incoherent views. Thankfully, there are evangelical writers out there that can see through some of this fog that has plagued American Evangelical theology.
31. David B. Hewitt
October 14, 2006
10:17 AM
Alan,
I do very much enjoy your postings. Thanks for linking to this from your blog so that I had the opportunity to follow your arguments!
SDG,
DBH
PS — For common grace, per the request of the previous poster, try the link I just provided. :)
32. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
11:10 AM
Brain W said,
“What Calvinists fail to see is their view is unbiblical as well. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, man does not have responsibility.”
Does not the traffic law apply to drunk drivers? According to your logic you would excuse the responsiblity of the drunk driver because he is incapable of driving properly and obeying the law.
You have made a flawed leap from equating “free will” with “responsiblity.” Responsiblity does not require ability. And if you disagree, then I would be glad to demonstrate Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on this matter of the inability of the unregenerate will.
“So, good Calvinists say “this is a mystery”.
I don’t recall Paul in Romans 1-7 saying that our human condition is a “mystery.” In contrast, both Jesus and Paul says we are under the law and slaves to our sinful nature and yet we are still guilty (i.e. responsible).
I know you really don’t believe what you asserted above. If you have a wife who is killed by drunk driver, I don’t believe you would be amendable to a judge and jury who says to the drunk driver, “I am not going to hold you responsible to the law since you were incapable of obeying it.
Thanks,
Alan
33. francisco
October 14, 2006
11:16 AM
David,
Thanks for the link. I perused several of the articles at monergism.com about common grace. This one in particular caught my attention:
“This is how the common grace of Kuyper found its way into the CRC. In her three points of common grace adopted in 1924 the CRC reflected the influence of Kuyper. Particularly in her second and third points is this revealed. In her second point the CRC stated her belief that there is a “restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community…. God by the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart of man, restrains the unimpeded breaking out of sin, by which human life in society remains possible.” This is Kuyperian common grace pure and simple. Thus also in her third point the CRC expressed her belief that “the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good.” This too is nothing but Kuyper’s doctrine. And the CRC has continued to develop and promote this teaching throughout her history. It is the doctrine that dominates her theology and practice. And, sad to say, it has borne an evil fruit in her midst. Because of her adoption of common grace the CRC has steadily departed from the historic Reformed faith and practice. Due to her belief in God’s general favor toward and good work in the world she has imported the “blessings” of higher criticism of the Bible, evolutionism, feminism, unbiblical divorce and remarriage, rock music, and movies.”
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?ID=11
After reading I am quite intrigued to ask this: how different is kuyperian common grace from arminian prevenient grace? I mean, if by kuyperian common grace we understand a God-given grace that restrains sin of man and enables him to do civil good and yet does not save a man, how far -or close- is that from arminian prevenient grace that ‘neutralizes’ man’s depravity making him potentially saved to exercise his ‘free will’. Perhaps I am confusing the terms but my point is that arminians would say that their view of prevenient grace is equivalent to the Reformed kuyperian view of common grace in the fact that none of them saves.
To close, I have a couple of questions: is there any other reformed view on common grace? and is really that bad the kuyperian view?
34. francisco
October 14, 2006
11:31 AM
I found also at monergism.com this excerpt from Calvin. But it seems to me that deals more with covenant theology that with what many would understand common grace is (kuyperian view?)
“…that God adopts the children together with the fathers; and so, consequently, the grace of salvation may be extended to those who are as yet unborn (Romans 9.7). I grant, indeed, that many who are the children of the faithful, according to the flesh, are counted bastards, and not legitimate, because they thrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief. But this in no way hinders the Lord from calling and admitting the seed of the godly into fellowship of grace. And so, although the common election is not effectual in all, yet may it set open a gate for the special elect.”
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_calvin/special_and_common_election.htm
Does anyone know if Augustine wrote something about common grace?
35. Brian W
October 14, 2006
11:41 AM
Alan,
I think you are assuming too much about me/my view from my post.
I wasn’t saying humanity’s condition is mysterious; I was saying that Calvinists appeal to mystery in understanding humanity’s responsibility in light of God’s complete deterministic control over all creation. Like I mentioned, most Calvinist acknowledge this and are comfortable living with the inconsistency. Grudem is good example.
With the Calvinists’ (and Arminians) philosophical presuppositions, there’s only one way to understand the texts you are implying. I want to suggest there are flawed assumptions shared by Calvinists and Arminians that lead them to positions that ultimately are incoherent.
Your analogy argues against your view as much as it argues for it. For it implies what Calvinists can’t understand in light of God’s complete deterministic control; namely, a person acted irresponsibily. How can one do that when another is in complete deterministic control of them?
36. John R.
October 14, 2006
12:56 PM
Brian,
The determinism/responsibility issue is only a problem if one assumes “free will” as the basis for responsibility. But that, of course, is begging the question. Before telling me it’s a problem, I would ask you to define what you mean by “responsibility.”
Incidentally, Gordon Clark has more than adequately dealt with this issue in his Religion, Reason, and Revelation.
37. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
2:30 PM
Brian W,
“But, taken to its logical conclusion, human responsibility doesn’t fit within God’s complete deterministic control.
…and why?
Let’s take a Biblical example,
God determined the evil sin of Herod, Pilate, Gentiles, and the people of Israel to conspire against Jesus; yet they were still held responsible for their actions:
[Determined] Acts 4:27-28
“Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”
[Responsiblity] John 19:10
Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
“namely, a person acted irresponsibily. How can one do that when another is in complete deterministic control of them?”
God has freedom to withdraw his hand of grace.
No one can be held responsible for their actions if in fact there were no antecedent causes to bring about an effect. I have commented on this suject before on my blog so I can refer you to that discussion:
http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=263
“I was saying that Calvinists appeal to mystery in understanding humanity’s responsibility in light of God’s complete deterministic control over all creation. Like I mentioned, most Calvinist acknowledge this and are comfortable living with the inconsistency. Grudem is good example.”
Could you give me the exact quote from Grudem in which he calls this an “inconsistency”?
God is sovereign over all, and he demands his creatures to live by his law.
Because we live in a deterministic world is precisely why there is a basis for responsibility.
Arminian theology asserts that if we could not have chosen to do something otherwise, then there is no free will. Here is their irrational fallacy in a nutshell. They are resisting any idea of a guaranteed result from any same conditions. It is irrational because there is no explanation for the effect of an action.
If they object, “oh yes, there can be an explanation,” then I ask, “Will it always be guaranteed to produce the same action?” They of course being the libertarian have to say “no.”
This is ironic because Calvinists are frequently accused of having no basis for personal responsibility. It is the Arminian who has no basis for personal responsibility because there are no conditions that can exist in their system that can produce the desired result every time.
For personal responsibility to exist there must be the same set of conditions to always bring about the exact same result. How else can you hold someone responsible if they can claim no reason (i.e. set of antecedent conditions) for their actions?
Thanks,
Alan
38. Brian W
October 14, 2006
3:23 PM
Alan,
I appreciate you comments. As I’ve mentioned before in comments like this on blogs, this forum doesn’t provide the opportunity to seriously engaged in these discussions. So these attempts are limited by the medium. I simply try to offer suggestions and direction.
Firstly, I don’t mean to say that Grudem says he’s comfortable with Calvinistic “inconsistencies”. But in his Systematic Theology, he acknowledges the “unaswered questions” left by Calvinism and says he more comfortable with them than the ones left by Arminianism. I should make another rule not to blog away from my office, for I don’t have a copy of his systematics at my disposal for a page number. Again, all I’m trying to do is remind people that there are in fact “difficulties” if you will, with Calvinism. Primarily, if God determined all creaturely acts before time (as if he is before time) than how can creatures be held accountable for their actions? I know the Calvinistic answer: Because God says so. But that doesn’t help explain anything. In fact, its contrary to what we experience in this world. For example, I saw in the news that the coach who told his player to throw a baseball at a handicapped kid was found guilty and sentenced for his action. Recognizing the limits of all analogizes, we rightly hold the coach responsible for the kids action (throwing the ball) because we recognize the incredible influence and “control” he has over the boy. We all would be up in arms if the coach walked and the boy who through the ball got the book thrown at him. But yet, as Calvinist contend, my actions are determined before time by God, yet I’m responsible for them. For most (those who aren’t Calvinists), this is hard to understand.
Secondly, we don’t live in a deterministic world contrary to what you say. Science has shown that the 17th century mechanistic assumptions can’t explain all natural phenomenon. That’s why theologians are moving to a “priveleging of the future” in our understanding of God’s relationship to creation. Your last 4 paragraphs illustrate your priveleging of the past. Scientists have demonstrated that at times, we have no antecedent explanations for particular phenomenon.
Much effort is being given to eschatological ontology to demonstrate that creaturely movement and actions is best understood in light of what’s coming, namely God and his Kingdom. And when we incorporate a true view of infinity, where God isn’t merely really, really big/powerful/knowledgable/whatever, but is the origin, condition and goal of all creaturely existence in whom we live and move and have our being, we see that God’s sovereignty constitutes our movement rather than an overpowering power that is set against our limited ability.
39. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
4:23 PM
I don’t mean to say that Grudem says he’s comfortable with Calvinistic “inconsistencies”. But in his Systematic Theology, he acknowledges the “unaswered questions” left by Calvinism and says he more comfortable with them than the ones left by Arminianism.
i) I’d like a citation of Grudmen’s mention of “inconsistency” on that issue.
ii) “unasnwered questions” of what? You fail to provide any specifics.
iii) Interestingly, it is the Calivnist who is confident to allow God’s freedom and man’s will to co-exist. The Arminian will not allow for this “mystery” and thus they jettison the freedom of God and retain the libertarian “free will” of man.
How can God create something out of nothing? Sounds like an “inconsistency” to use your language. Yet, I am going to embrace this fact as truth because the Bible teaches it.
“Primarily, if God determined all creaturely acts before time (as if he is before time) than how can creatures be held accountable for their actions? I know the Calvinistic answer: Because God says so. But that doesn’t help explain anything.”
i) Gary, you just finished saying that you want this to be a mystery and now you want an explanation! —> “But that doesn’t help explain anything.”
Which is it? Do you want to accept both truths and leave it as a mystery, or now you are saying you want an explanation of this divine mystery? And if you don’t get one you will keep “free will” and reject God’s freedom.
By that reasoning you must also reject the truth of ex nihilo and the truth that Jesus is all fully God and fully man because our sensibilities are not in accord with this reality.
“In fact, its contrary to what we experience in this
world.”
With all due respect, I believe you have just revealed your problem: Theological truths must accord with our human sensibilitlies. Again, your being inconsistent in that previously you have stressed that we need to accept certain “mysteries,” and now the exact same subject you want explanations that agree with our experience.
“Secondly, we don’t live in a deterministic world contrary to what you say. Science has shown that the 17th century mechanistic assumptions can’t explain all natural phenomenon.”
Who is functioning from scientific and philosophic pressups? It is I who wants to stay in the Biblical text.
“Scientists have demonstrated that at times, we have no antecedent explanations for particular phenomenon.”
Misleading. They may not have specific explanations, but they admit that their are causes of some sort. And while we are on the subject, I want to make note that you are arguing for a position (indeterminism) that leaves no basis for human responsibility: I can commit evil acts and claim that there were no causes for my actions.
Lastly, I noticed that you did not respond to my Biblical example of Acts 4 and God ordaining the evil acts of men and holding them accountable.
It is inconsistent to say: We should leave human responsibility and God’s determinism of his creation a mystery, and then at the same time demand an explanation for these two co-existent truths otherwise you will reject it.
Thanks,
Alan
40. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 14, 2006
5:29 PM
if God determined all creaturely acts before time (as if he is before time) than how can creatures be held accountable for their actions?
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
I know the Calvinistic answer: Because God says so. But that doesn’t help explain anything. In fact, its contrary to what we experience in this world.
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
41. Brian W
October 14, 2006
5:38 PM
Your post is a perfect example of why I started #38 as I did. This forum is obviously a poor one to debate these issues. I either did a terrible job explaining myself, you misunderstood me or simply took my words and spun them for your own purposes. Let’s assume the first. Here’s a few comments, hopefully clearer.
1. There’s a huge difference between recognizing and embracing mystery and living with logical incoherence.
2. You say, “And if you don’t get one you will keep “free will” and reject God’s freedom”. I don’t even believe in “free will”. Free will assumes a faculty psychology that has long been abandoned by everyone except American Evangelicals. You just assume I believe in free will. So I certainly wouldn’t privilege free will over God’s freedom since I don’t even believe in it. I’m reformed in my intuitions. I’m trying to practice what the first reformers championed, which is continual reformation. So I’m unwilling to try to put the square peg of Calvinism into the round hole of reality. Thankfully, there are reformed theologians out there who are actively engaged in the continual process of reform and have abandoned the philosophical presuppositions that plague this debate.
3. I obviously never said I wanted the mysteries of God “resolved”. But if a person contends that two contradictory notions are in fact both true, than its up to them to show how they are not. For a third time, most honest Calvinist writers say, “ultimately, we don’t know how to understand our responsibility and God’s sovereignty”. Apparently, you are unwilling to say such things. (more on this point below).
4. I agree that all phenomenon has an explanation. You just assume that it always comes from the past. I was suggesting that those actually following in the reformation tradition (i.e. continually reforming) are coming to see that it makes more sense from scripture and science to privilege the future.
5. “Inconsistency” was my word, not Grudem’s. On page 351 of his Systematic Theology, he points out that both views leave crucial unanswered questions, but (in his view) the questions left by Calvinism are not so bad. (An illustration of what honest Calvinists say). In fact, on page 350, Grudem has two questions that he says Calvinists “must say they do not know how to answer”.
#1) Exactly how can God ordain that we do evil willingly, and God not be blamed for evil.
#2) Exactly how God can cause us to choose something willingly.
I’m glad you drove me to what he said, for he’s more unsure than I remember.
5. As for Acts 4, I agree with it.
Rather than go on, I just point out LeRon Shult’s book “Reforming the Doctrine of God”. It demonstrates many of the new trajectories of those in the reformed move and he elevates the discussion from the typical Calvinist/Arminian banter.
My name is Brian, by the way.
42. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
6:17 PM
“1. There’s a huge difference between recognizing and embracing mystery and living with logical incoherence.”
Which law does the co-existence of Divine determinism and the creature’s moral responsibility violate?
“I don’t even believe in “free will”. Free will assumes a faculty psychology that has long been abandoned by everyone except American Evangelicals.
I prefer to speak Biblical about these realities. So you would deny that Jesus came to set the will free?
“I’m reformed in my intuitions.”
I’m reformed in my study of the Bible.
“But if a person contends that two contradictory notions are in fact both true, than its up to them to show how they are not.
Since I have been trained in deductive logic I challenge you to explain according to the law of non-contradition how those two premises are contradictory. You keep on asserting this with an absence of support.
“For a third time, most honest Calvinist writers say, “ultimately, we don’t know how to understand our responsibility and God’s sovereignty”.
“ultimately” What? If you mean that the Bible teaches these two truths than all Reformed thinkers including myself will not say that we cannot undestand that fact. But if you mean by God’s wisdom and purposes in such a matter, no one is going to claim to know those.
Further, it is irrelevant to our discussion since you reject these two truths.
You must also reject that Jesus is fully God and fully man since they have just as much mystery (not contradiction) as the metaphysical workings of Divine determinism with human responsibility.
““Inconsistency” was my word, not Grudem’s.
Right. And it is there to see that you were suggesting that this was Grudem’s terminology.
Further, stop suggesting that I have said we can know all the answers on this subject. I am defending the notion that these two truths are taught in Scripture and since the freedom and sovereignty of God is a reality and he demands responsibility, then we are to cover our mouths with our hands.
“1) Exactly how can God ordain that we do evil willingly, and God not be blamed for evil.
If you mean “how” as in purpose, no one can fully know that; if you mean “how” as in metaphysically, I suggest that God withdraws his hand of grace—that is my theodicy.
“2) Exactly how God can cause us to choose something willingly.”
He gives us that desire in our heart. How he does that exactly such as withdrawing his hand of grace, God only knows.
“5. As for Acts 4, I agree with it.”
Glad to see now that you affirm that God ordains evil for his good purposes and holds those vessels accountable for their sinful actions.
Look foward to your logical explanations of how these two truths are contradictory. I have been asking this quesiton for 10 years and have yet for someone to cite and explain a logical law for such a claim.
“I just point out LeRon Shult’s book “Reforming the Doctrine of God”. It demonstrates many of the new trajectories of those in the reformed move and he elevates the discussion from the typical Calvinist/Arminian banter.”
*Alan Chuckles*
Thanks,
Alan
43. Stephen Newell
October 14, 2006
6:34 PM
Hey, play nice, Alan. The chuckle was unnecessary. We aren’t the Caners, are we?
Unless, of course, it was predestined. ;-)
44. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
6:39 PM
Stephen,
?
45. Jason
October 14, 2006
6:54 PM
Alan, sorry I didn’t get to check back to your response until today. Here are a few quick responses:
You said, This is elementary logic: If one believes that prevenient grace is given to every individual equally, and some assent to it and some individuals reject it, then the determinative factor is found in the creature, not in the grace itself.”
I just don’t think that your elementary logic is all that logical. If a poor man in debt is given a check by a rich man which eliminates the debt, what is the decisive element in paying off that debt? The check or the poor man’s endorsement of it? What man would go around bragging that his endorsement of the check was the decisive factor? THAT would be illogical.
You said, “By your own admission of Arminius’ view, all the power of God in heaven cannot save an individual sinner—it only grants the creature ability, not the efficacious desire.
That’s not what I “admitted.” As I said, in the Arminian view, all power for salvation is from God alone, and God’s grace along is efficacious for salvation. It alone causes any movement toward God.
You said, Notice the absence of “saving.” And this is the watershed difference between Calvinism and Arminianism: God’s grace actually saves, it does not make it possible
This comment was in reference to my comment on prevenient grace. The absence of “saving” shouldn’t be surprising, since that effect isn’t included under the depiction of “prevenient grace” at all! That’s why it’s prevenient! You’re basically arguing that the Arminian term for prevenient grace doesn’t do something it was never intended to do.
I’ll wrap up my discussion with those all-too-brief remarks, since we could go back and forth quite literally for years. I do hope you’re read Olson’s book, since it seems that your understanding of Arminius’s teachings falls into some of “mythical” readings that he corrects. I’m sure you’ll still disagree with Arminianism at the end of the day, but at the very least, you’ll have a more accurate view of what Arminians actually believe.
I think that’s the goal of Olson’s book, and it’s certainly my goal here. Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa. But if we can get a better grasp of what both sides actually believe—instead of dealing with false depictions, mischaracterizations, etc—then we’re honoring God by our discussions. Where Calvinists and Arminians persist in presenting demonstrably false views of each other’s positions, we fail to honor God. Olson’s attempt to “define” Arminianism in the face of the various myths about it thus seems like a helpful enterprise to me, and one worth embracing even if we ultimatley disagree with his conclusions.
46. donsands
October 14, 2006
7:28 PM
“Arminianism … Semi-Pelagianism. … they deprive glory due unto God”
This could be the bottom line.
Does synergism bring glory to God?
Monergism surely does.
Nice post to read. And some excellent comments. I love these kind of debates. It’s a way the Lord makes us go to His Word and read, study, and chew, so we can become strong in our faith for Him.
47. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
7:37 PM
“I just don’t think that your elementary logic is all that logical. If a poor man in debt is given a check by a rich man which eliminates the debt, what is the decisive element in paying off that debt? The check or the poor man’s endorsement of it? What man would go around bragging that his endorsement of the check was the decisive factor? THAT would be illogical.”
i) Could you provide for me a logical law that I am violating in the following statement:
If one believes that prevenient grace is given to every individual equally, and some assent to it and some individuals reject it, then the determinative factor is found in the creature, not in the grace itself.
ii) Your analogy fails to take into account the quality of God’s grace and its effects on the sinner’s heart.
“ As I said, in the Arminian view, all power for salvation is from God alone, and God’s grace along is efficacious for salvation. It alone causes any movement toward God.”
Your in error. Arminianism does not believe that God’s grace is efficacious. They deny this. Um…this is what most of this thread has been discussing.
“The absence of “saving” shouldn’t be surprising, since that effect isn’t included under the depiction of “prevenient grace” at all! That’s why it’s prevenient! You’re basically arguing that the Arminian term for prevenient grace doesn’t do something it was never intended to do.”
Hence, the reason why Arminian notion of grace is defective: it does not save, only prepares the heart, but does not actually efficaciously bring a sinner to grace. Christ did not raise us up to spiritual “neutrality”; he raised us up to life.
“Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa.”
On the contrary, I meet many believers who are ex-Arminian and delight in their Reformed precious truths (myself included.)
Thanks,
Alan
48. Alan Kurschner
October 14, 2006
11:47 PM
Jason and Brian W.,
Thanks for the discussion on this thread and sharing your thoughts. I just sense that the convo is a bit protracted, and I will be preoccupied in the next week to spend time here, so going to move on. If you wish to continue the discussion maybe someone else here can take over, otherwise, feel free to email me.
Possibly the occasion will arise again on this topic. Until then…
Thanks,
Alan
49. Stephen Newell
October 15, 2006
12:03 AM
Alan, I’m just saying that belittling someone’s reading is kinda dumb. Counter-productive. Disrespectful. It’s kinda as if we belittled Tim for some of the books he’s put up here and thoughtfully critiqued.
It’d be better to point the guy to something you think is more worthy, if you’re going to put yourself out here as someone who knows better about the reading.
50. Alan Kurschner
October 15, 2006
1:23 AM
Stephen,
Your accusation is misguided.
Ironically, it was the following statement that was in fact “belittling,”
“I just point out LeRon Shult’s book “Reforming the Doctrine of God”. It demonstrates many of the new trajectories of those in the reformed move and he elevates the discussion from the typical Calvinist/Arminian banter.”
Since the current Calvinist/Arminian dicussion is sub-level and mere “banter,” we should aspire to “new trajectories.” Hence, the chuckle.
Further, I did not belittle his reading. I chuckled at the fact that he suggested my arguments were “banter” and that we should elevate the dicussion to “new trajectories.”
Thanks,
Alan
51. Jake
October 15, 2006
1:46 AM
I encourage you to do a word study on the Greek word for ‘draw’ in John 6…it is ‘helkuo’ and means to draw or drag off…and it is the same word that is translated elsewhere as dragged, haul, & drag. And in all the places where it is translated ‘draw’ or ‘drew’ (save two - John 6:44 & John 12:32), it is denoting a physical action, like drawing water out of a well, or drawing a sword.
Not quite. When the context indicates it’s a physical action, then we conclude that it’s a phycial action. Most dictionaries that I’ve seen, however, don’t make the mistake of restricting the context, so they include “attract” or some such similar word. For instance, in the LXX there are various uses of the word, including the opening of S 0f S where the maidens are sexually drawing the King to themselves. Or in one of the Macabees, where the love that a mother has for her son (about to be burned alive) draws her to him, but she resists and is therefore considered a noble woman.
52. Grant
October 15, 2006
9:47 AM
“Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa.”
I suppose that depends upon your definition of “many.” I, along with many other friends at my seminary, converted from Calvinism to Arminianism.
53. donsands
October 15, 2006
1:56 PM
Some good thoughts. Here’s another thought.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me: and him that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out. … that all that He has given Me I should lose none, but should raise it up again at the last day. … No man can come to Me except the Father who has sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. … Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come to Me, except it were given unto him of My Father.” John 6:37,39,44, & 65
Seems verse 65 & 44 compliment one another.
Whatever draw means in this passage, whether drag of attract, it’s certainty within the context of the whole discourse of our Lord, that it’s the Father’s sovereign and efficacious doing which our Lord is explaining to His disciples, and the false disciples.
54. Jake
October 15, 2006
4:49 PM
Whatever draw means in this passage, whether drag of attract, it’s certainty within the context of the whole discourse of our Lord, that it’s the Father’s sovereign and efficacious doing which our Lord is explaining to His disciples, and the false disciples.
Not really. The invitation is listen to the Father, who has sent the only messenger who has seen Him. Doing so will lead to Christ, who has life in himself. In other words, the Father’s drawing is done through the proclimation Jesus is making, so listen.
Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
7:16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
5:24“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life
55. donsands
October 15, 2006
5:08 PM
How about these verse:
“I have manifested Your name to the men which you gave me out of the world: they were Yours, and You gave them to Me; … I pray not for the world, but for them which You have given Me; for they are Yours.” John 17:6,9
Seems to me the Lord is saying the Father gives to the Son. The Son lays down His life for those the Father has given Him.
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life , that I may take it again. … My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand. My Father, who gave them to Me, is greater than all”. John 10:17,27-28
God shows mercy to whom He will. Surely we respond to His call, and we embrace the good news of Christ, as we see our own sinfulness, there’s no question, but it’s His mercy and grace alone that brings us to this. We love Him, because He first loved us.
56. Jake
October 15, 2006
5:25 PM
Ummm… My comment was concerning “draw” in the context of John 6. I wasn’t intending to address any other issue/docrine, or intending to cover the entire Bible with anyone.
However, since you mention John 10, I will take a moment to address it. Again, as mentioned above, those who listen to the Father are made members of Christ’s new community. As such there were those who listened to the Father before Christ arrived and awaited his arrival.
10:7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
Prior to Christ’s arrival (“before me”) there were those who listened to God and awaited Messiah. Proir to Christ’s arrival, they were believers. The verse doesn’t say that all future believers never followed a false God, but that there were sheep who did not. Upon Christ’s arrival, he assumes the position over the Father’s community of believers.
Again, I’m intending to address “draw” in John 6, not any other verse anywhere else in the Bible. I simply don’t have the time.
57. Jerry M
October 15, 2006
5:32 PM
“Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa.”
In heaven - I think we’ll all be Calvinists. But let the debate continue as it certainly will ‘til He comes.
58. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 15, 2006
6:57 PM
Jake,
Your comments regarding my thoughts on ‘helkuo’, translated ‘draw’ in John 6:44 are not really on point with what I was talking about.
The examples you provided were from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament…those examples are translations of the original OT language, and I would submit that they are therefore not the best examples to use to refute what I was saying concerning the Greek word, ‘helkuo’.
Unless you can show me somewhere in the NT an example that differs from what I was saying, the fact still remains that everywhere helkuo is used in the NT (except John 6:44 and 12:32) it denotes a physical action.
I quote my initial comments, “In light of that information, doesn’t it make more sense that the metaphorical (or spiritual) use of it in the two verses in John denotes more than just a mere wooing or pull by God, and in fact indicates something much stronger, much more certain…something we know as irresistable grace?”
There is a one-to-one correlation between those that are drawn by the Father, and those that are saved. The drawing in John 6:44 is the same as the calling in Romans 8:30. The ‘drawing’ that God does in John 6:44 is much more than a wooing, or invitation…the drawing He does is certain, it is efficacious, and it always results in salvation.
“I have been found by those who did not seek Me, and I have revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”
59. Jake
October 15, 2006
8:50 PM
The examples you provided were from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament…those examples are translations of the original OT language, and I would submit that they are therefore not the best examples to use to refute what I was saying concerning the Greek word, ‘helkuo’.
Unless you can show me somewhere in the NT an example that differs from what I was saying, the fact still remains that everywhere helkuo is used in the NT (except John 6:44 and 12:32) it denotes a physical action.
Actually, only one example was from the GOT, the rest from the apocrypha (in some cases, originally in Greek). Other examples abound, including those from the patristics. However, I reject your line in the sand, since it’s up to you, not me, to prove that the normal figurative sense (normal semantic range) is used abnormally to indicate the equivalent of a physical sense. That method of exegesis would turn hundreds of verses using other vacublary words on their heads. Sorry, I just don’t buy it, and the context doesn’t support it, as far as I’m concerned.
I suspect you were reading something written by R.C.S. and weren’t offered full explanation.
60. Jake
October 15, 2006
8:52 PM
Sorry, both of the first two paragraphs in the above post should have been in italics.
61. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 15, 2006
9:09 PM
However, I reject your line in the sand, since it’s up to you, not me, to prove that the normal figurative sense (normal semantic range) is used abnormally to indicate the equivalent of a physical sense.
Why is it up to me to prove that the figurative sense is much the same as the physical sense? I think it is up to you to prove that the figurative sense for helkuo is totally unrelated to the physical sense. You turn the figurative use of the word into something that is completely foreign to the way it is used when describing physical action. Why?
Why, according to you, is the normal figurative sense for helkuo a wooing instead of a bringing? Why, according to you, is it a benign act instead of an efficacious one?
I suspect you were reading something written by R.C.S. and weren’t offered full explanation.
You suspected wrong…I don’t even know what/who ‘R.C.S.’ is.
I simply did a word study on this for the first time several years ago, and saw how powerful the action is that the word describes.
62. Jake
October 15, 2006
9:39 PM
Why, according to you, is the normal figurative sense for helkuo a wooing instead of a bringing? Why, according to you, is it a benign act instead of an efficacious one?
Why would I assume the figurative sense is efficacious since it’s not used that way in general? Also, why would even “bringing” necessarily be irresistible? It wouldn’t. Even maidens could be said to “bring” a king to themselves via their sexual charms, but we would understand that within limits. However, “draw” is best.
63. Jake
October 15, 2006
9:44 PM
Oh yes, one more thing…The dates of the latter two Maccabees are usually dated a few years before or after Christ’s birth.
64. donsands
October 15, 2006
10:03 PM
“I wasn’t intending to address any other issue” -Jake
Sorry that I over-shot your intentions. It’s been a good discussion between you and Brian.
A side thought: we do have to have the whole counsel of God. That is, we need the whole of the Scriptures. And we need to always look at the immediate context.
65. Jake
October 15, 2006
10:16 PM
A side thought: we do have to have the whole counsel of God. That is, we need the whole of the Scriptures. And we need to always look at the immediate context.
Agreed!
Thanks,
Jake
66. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 15, 2006
11:09 PM
Why would I assume the figurative sense is efficacious since it’s not used that way in general?
Not used that way in general? So, you are saying that when it is used in general, like in the other passages in the NT, that it is not efficacious? Let’s see:
John 18:10 - Simon Peter therefore having a sword, DREW it, and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.
-Was the sword effectually drawn from its sheath? Did the action Peter intended with the drawing of the sword have its intended effect of getting the sword out of the sheath?
John 21:6 - They cast therefore, and then they were not able to HAUL it in because of the great number of fish.
-If not for the negative ‘ouketi’, the hauling would have been efficacious. The nature of the action is still efficacious, but the net was too heavy. In other words, the general sense of the word in this verse is, in fact, efficacious, but in the negative.
John 21:11 - Simon Peter went up, and DREW the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.
-The nature of the word and action of drawing here is efficacious…Peter intended to draw the net in, and he did.
Acts 16:19 - But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and DRAGGED them into the market place before the authorities,
-Her masters effectually dragged Paul and Silas into the market place.
Acts 21:30 - and taking hold of Paul, they DRAGGED him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut.
-Did they woo or invite Paul out of the temple?No…they effectually dragged him out. Dragging him accomplished its desired effect…getting Paul out of the temple.
James 2:6 - But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally DRAG you into court?
-Another example of efficacious dragging, albeit against the will of the one being taken to court…nonetheless, the natural sense of the word being efficacious.
If these verses aren’t using helkuo in a sense that is efficacious (having the intended effect), then what sense are they using it?
67. Jake
October 16, 2006
2:44 AM
Not used that way in general? So, you are saying that when it is used in general, like in the other passages in the NT, that it is not efficacious?…..If these verses aren’t using helkuo in a sense that is efficacious (having the intended effect), then what sense are they using it?
Ok, I’ve had about enough of this. I’ve tried to point you in the right direction, but all you can do is repeat yourself. You totally ignored what I said. I said that the figurative use of the word is generally not used that way. So what do you do? You list all the non-figurative verses from the Bible and pretend you didn’t have any idea what I said. Yet in Christ’s time the figurative use (which I demonstrated) was used exactly as I described!
Let’s look at another example, which is just one of hundreds of examples that we could draw from the Bible. In Romans 8:17 Paul uses the men…de conctrustion in a way that is common in Greek literature — to show that not only are we heirs of God, but co-heirs with Christ (complimentary). Yet elsewhere in Scripture, that construction is only used to contrast ideas. It would be absurd, however, to say that we are heirs of God but not co-heirs with Christ (granted, there were a couple of dispensationalists in the 70’s that did argue that).
But our issue here is even more clear than in the previous example. Not only is John the only one to use “helkuo” in the typical figurative sense, but also there’s no evidence to refute the normal understanding of the figurative sense. In other words, you can show us all the apples in the world, but no matter how many you show us, by doing that you can’t stop us from eating oranges by saying they don’t exist.
But I did enjoy the discussion.
Thanks,
Jake
68. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 16, 2006
10:14 AM
Why would I assume the figurative sense is efficacious since it’s not used that way in general?
Sorry, Jake…by ‘general’ above, I thought you meant in the general sense of how it is used in the rest of the NT. My bad. The scope of my comments was never intended to go outside of the NT…I was merely making an observation of how the word is used in the NT.
I still disagree with you, though (with respect to what ‘drawn’ means in John 6:44), and I believe when you look at the truths found in Scripture taken as a whole on this issue, it becomes clear that the ‘drawing’ in John 6:44 is efficacious. If you believe there are some who are drawn but who do not come to Christ in repentance and faith, the you must believe that the drawing is nothing more but an enabling…a wooing…a luring. It sounds more like prevenient grace, which is no grace at all.
Let me try a different angle with you…do you believe that there are people who are drawn in the sense of John 6:44 but who do not get saved? If so, what does this ‘drawing’ consist of that some get saved as a result of it and some don’t?
Secondly, do you believe there are some who are ‘drawn’, but are not part of those who are given to Christ by the Father, since all those who are given to Christ come to Him? In other words, are ALL people drawn equally, with the same drawing force? If so, then what is so special about it, and why would Jesus even mention it?
Finally, IF the drawing in John 6:44 is not efficacious, and two unsaved people standing next to each other hear the same gospel message and are drawn equally by the Father as you appear to believe they are (assumption here), and one gets saved and the other doesn’t,…why would one respond and the other not?
An example of this would be the gentiles who were saved in Acts 13:48. Why were some of them saved and others not? Why were some of them appointed to eternal life and some not? Were they all drawn equally as in the drawing of John 6:44?
Thanks
69. Kyle
October 16, 2006
10:33 AM
Three thoughts (not sure if they’ve already been addressed - I skipped a few comments):
1) In John 6, when Jesus said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” it seems to me that if prevenient grace were a biblical reality, this would have been a perfect place for Jesus to say something like “Everyone can come to me, because the Father who sent me has drawn everyone.” Conversely, if prevenient grace is a biblical reality, Jesus’ exclusive language is a very odd choice.
2) Romans 8:29-30 single-handedly turn the notion of prevenient grace on its head. “Those he foreknew, he predestined… those he predestined, he called; THOSE HE CALLED HE ALSO JUSTIFIED; and those he justified he also glorified.” There’s no room there for any whom God has called to slip through the cracks. If God’s calling is of the prevenient nature, then of those God called, some would be justified. But Paul seems pretty certain that God will ultimately justify and glorify everyone whom he calls.
3) If you’re going to support the notion of prevenient grace, do it on biblical grounds. I’ve seen plenty of logical discourse in this discussion that says something to the effect of “Prevenient grace still grants the truth of man’s depravity, and recognizes the necessity of God’s grace for salvation.” But what I have failed to see is a single biblical indication of the reality of prevenient grace. Prove me wrong.
Rejoicing in grace,
Kyle
70. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 16, 2006
12:47 PM
Kyle,
Good comments. I agree with you on Romans 8:29-30…it certainly is a chain that cannot be broken. To only have some part of those being called in v. 30 being justified, would result in some of those being predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ NOT being justified!
I did a post on this very passage on my site, contrasting the commentaries of Matthew Henry and John Wesley. The differences are vast and obvious.
71. Jake
October 16, 2006
2:34 PM
Brain,
I believe that most of your questions asked of me today were answered yesterday in a conversation with someone else. Although, if I had the time, I would have written those posts a little more clearly, they answer all your questions. See above.
Thanks,
Jake
72. peter
October 17, 2006
8:41 AM
Dear Tim,
I like your post on Olson’s book. I too reviewed it but came to some different conclusions than you.
I do have a very simple observation: to wonder as do you, Tim, how it possibly could be that so many good reformed folk could “misunderstand Arminianism” and, consequently, you feel is “uncharitable” of Dr. Olson to state such brought a smile for me today. Thank you!
And, should others desire a similar smile, simply recall how often the case is when Calvinists claim “no one understands us” or “misunderstands” us or “misrepresents TRUE Calvinism.” If you want a current example, read Dr. Ascol’s evaluation of Dr. Vines’ message about Calvinism on Foundersblog. Why the nerve of Dr. Vines! To “misrepresent” true Calvinism and lump it in with false Calvinism (Hyper). “To the tents, O Israel!”
Ummm. Let’s see now. Could it be that Professor Olson is only making a similar distinction that Calvinists themselves make? That is, Calvinists painstakingly make the distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. And though both obviously flow from the same theological spring, it remains only Calvinism—not Hyper-Calvinism—that is true to Calvinist thinking.
Similarly, Olson argues that though “Heart” Arminianism and “Head” Arminianism flow from the same theological spring, it is only the “Heart” Arminianism that is true to historic Arminian thinking. If Calvinists get a discount here, it remains humorously difficult why Arminians cannot get the same special price.
I hope you have a great day. With that, I am…
Peter
73. peter
October 17, 2006
9:22 AM
Dear Brother Doug,
Thank you for informing me about Dr. Olson’s views on women in ministry. I really did not know his personal position though it probably would be predictable enough given his affiliation with Truett Theological Seminary.
Thanks also for stiring my hermeneutical concerns about how one principle—say, becoming soft on those passages that traditionally have been the mainstay of complementarians, of which I am one, by the way—can bleed over and compromise other significant doctrines.
I hear you saying, my Brother Doug, that, given Dr. Olson’s views about non-Calvinist soteriology, it should not surprise us that he would go soft —or, as you put it, “turn Scripture on its head”—and embrace Women in Ministry. Am I correctly reading you, Doug?
Wow! If that’s the case, I am wondering if someone does not need to get to Professor Roger Nicole before it’s entirely too late! After all, he is a staunch gender egalitarian, and, him being the staunch Calvinist he is, I’m quite sure, assuming you are correct, my Doug, that his turning Scripture on its head in one area—women in ministry—could very likely cause him to turn Scripture on its head in another area and forfeit his Doctrines of Grace. What would Founders then do? :)
Even more alarming for Calvinists, however, should be the possibility that Professor Nicole may not at all be turning Scripture on its head. That is, given his exact Calvinist soteriology—which happens to be precisely what Scripture teaches, according to the Calvinist—Professor Nicole is only being consistent with his sound hermeneutical approach when he argues Scriptural egalitarianism. If so, perhaps it is the Baptist Calvinist that has turned Scripture on its head—at least the passages that explicitly affirm, according to Nicole, women in ministry.
I trust your afternoon filled with Grace, my Brother Doug. With that, I am…
Peter
74. Rey
October 17, 2006
11:16 AM
Those last two comments were the best yet.
75. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 17, 2006
11:49 AM
Similarly, Olson argues that though “Heart” Arminianism and “Head” Arminianism flow from the same theological spring, it is only the “Heart” Arminianism that is true to historic Arminian thinking.
My Brother Peter…
Can you answer me two questions with respect to “heart” Arminianism?
1. How does it (faith, repentance. salvation) get from the head into the heart?
2. Does “heart” Arminianism, like Wesley, hold to the belief that salvation can be lost (purposefully given up, rather), that a person can receive that special ‘calling’ from God yet never be justified because they have chosen to fall away?
Thanks.
76. Tom
October 17, 2006
1:34 PM
I know I’m a bit late in the discussion, but I’m curious as to whether anyone has read, and has an opinion on, Robert Picirilli’s book Grace, Faith, Free Will.
I’ve heard positive comments about his view of “Reformation Arminianism,” and that from reformed folks! I’m wondering how similar/dissimilar it is to Olson’s view.
Tom
Doctrine Matters
77. Jake
October 17, 2006
2:50 PM
Tom,
I believe that Robert’s term is “Reformed Arminianism,” not “Reformation.” That terminology is not new.
Yes, I’ve read the book, and it is intended to do away with the same myths as Olson’s book, yet it goes a bit farther because it’s also intended to point out the Scriptural basis for his perspective.
Overall it’s a good book. I agree with his conclusions, but a couple of the arguments are not approached the way I would approach them, so I think they are weaker than they could be.
Also I think the book was intended for a broader audience, but those not familiar with all the flavors of Calvinism may get fatigued in the section that discusses that. Finally, because his generation was so influenced by Jewett and saw him through Jewett’s eyes, he misunderstands Barth’s view of atonement (but that’s only one sentence in the book).
78. peter
October 17, 2006
3:49 PM
Dear Brian,
Thank you for your questions. Unfortunately, in my comments I was not “defending” Olson’s postion but only defending his appropriate use of making distinctions between “true” and “false” Arminianism in the very same way Calvinists often do.
As for the “head” vs. “heart” distinction, Dr. Olson was borrowing British theologian, Alan P.F. Sell’s usage in his work entitled “The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation”, who by the way, borrowed the image from an earler work by theologian/historian, G.F. Nuttall, “The Puritan Spirit.” The point I am making, my Brother Brian, is that the distinction within Arminianism itself is a well-worn garment. Calvinists have apparently refused to slip it on.
And, since it is an image which is designed, for the most part, to describe a theological distinction, I see no real point in the question of how salvific elements such as repentance and faith go from head to heart.
In addition, your question about Weslyan understanding of justification and apostasy, I am afraid has left you again without any real help from me. Sorry. I neither consciously embrace the Weslyan understanding at this point nor have I studied it enough to give you a definitive answer.
God’s grace guide you today. With that, I am…
Peter
79. Jake
October 17, 2006
5:23 PM
I need to make some corrections in my last post, so I repost (My bad.):
Overall it’s a good book. I agree with his conclusions, but a couple of the arguments are not approached the way I would approach them, so I think they are not as strong as they could be.
Also, although, I think, the book was intended for a broader audience, those not familiar with all the flavors of Calvinism may get fatigued in the section that discusses that. Finally, because his generation was so influenced by Jewett and saw Barth through Jewett’s eyes, he misunderstands Barth’s view of atonement (but that’s only one sentence in the book).
80. Brian Thornton
October 17, 2006
5:36 PM
Peter,
Thanks for your comments. I noticed on your site that you call yourself a ‘non-calvinist’, or ‘post-calvinist’, and that you more and more find yourself agreeable to classic Arminianism.
I had asked a question about Wesley’s views on being able to fall away from the faith and no longer be justified, to which you replied that you were not familiar enough with Wesley to answer. You also said, “I see no real point in the question of how salvific elements such as repentance and faith go from head to heart.”
If, as you say on your site, you are ‘learning more to appreciate the thinking of classic arminianism”, does that include the classic Arminian positions of unlimited, ineffectual atonement, and conditional perseverance? And, do you agree also with the classic Arminian position that God elected those whom He knew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith, as well as the classic Arminian position of a grace from God that enables humans to respond, but does not effectuate salvation?
Thanks.
81. peter
October 17, 2006
7:26 PM
Brian,
Thanks for stopping by SBC Tomorrow. You write, Brian, pertaining to your question to me about Wesleyan belief: “…to which you replied that you were not familiar enough with Wesley to answer”. Actually, I said I neither was consciously Weslyan in my undersatnding at that point nor had I studied sufficiently enough to give a definitive answer from particularly a Wesleyan perspective.
There are, Brian, not only Arminians of the “heart” and “head” within Arminianism proper, but there are also differing theological nuances within each respectively. In this sense, Arminianism seems to be much richer historically than Calvinism.
Given that, I suggest if you desire a more worthy understanding of particularly Wesleyan Arminiansim, to drop by the Wesley Center Online (http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.htm) and read to your heart’s content on a first hand basis. Also, I think you will find that not all Arminians believe in “falling from grace”. In my interview with Roger Olson, he said that Arminians historically have never settled on a definitive universal statement on perserverance.
In addition, Brian, the way you framed the last series of questions may have tipped you hand somewhat so I could see your deal. Classic Arminianism definitively does not believe in an “ineffectual atonement” but rather that atonement was perfectly effectual toward our Sovereign Lord’s design. No Arminian of the “heart” argues Christ’s atonement was ineffectual.
Nor is Classic Arminiansim, at least from my elementary understanding of it, based unequivocally upon “their own free will and perserver[ence] in the faith”. Rather, grace begins, sustains and enables a believer from beginning to end of their salvation experience. Whether Calvinists like it or not, Arminians will every bit as much proclaim the same Reformation solas as do other reformed believers—justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Jesus Christ alone.
You are correct, at least from the way I read classic Arminians, Brian, in your final statment that Arminians believe what they term “previenient grace” which, according to Arminians, is, as you rightly point out, non-irrestible. That is, Arminians believe that humans whom God made in His own image are capable of resisting His grace.
It is less clear that all Arminians believe that “previenient grace” is universally given apart from the preaching of the Gospel. Some hold Gospel preaching is necessary, some hold that Gospel preaching is not necessary for previienient grace to be available.
I trust I have at least helped some whether or not you agree with my response. Trusting for you, mercy, with that, I am…
Peter
82. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 17, 2006
8:37 PM
No Arminian of the “heart” argues Christ’s atonement was ineffectual.
- Okay, so whose salvation was effectually secured at the cross? Maybe they won’t use the term ineffectual, but they do not believe Christ’s death on the cross was a propitiatory sacrifice. They do not believe that He secured salvation for anyone by His death…but that He merely provided a way for salvation, and that Christ’s death is not effectual until a person believes.
Nor is Classic Arminiansim, at least from my elementary understanding of it, based unequivocally upon “their own free will and perserver[ence] in the faith”
-Uh, I believe that this is one of the major tenets of classical Arminianism.
Tell me if you agree with this statement:
“Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) - man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation. “
Classic Arminianism has always held that man makes the final decision in whether or not he is saved, hasn’t it?
83. peter
October 17, 2006
10:19 PM
Brian,
The last thing I desire Tim’s thread here to evolve (or devolve, which might be a better term from his perspective) into is a lone conversation between you and me. Indeed I am sure we may have ample opportunity in the future to dialog on a number of issues pertaining to the Calvinist/Arminian conversation at SBC Tomorrow since I have a notable interest in the issue.
However, may I simply suggest, Brian, that you reveal one of the very myths on which Professor Olson spends much of his space in his book Tim reviewed here. In pertaining to free will, you write: “Uh, I believe that this is one of the major tenets of classical Arminianism.”
Chapter five in Dr. Olson’s book is noteworthy: “Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism is Belief in Freewill”. Here he exposes what most Calvinist critics misunderstand. He writes: “Perhaps the most damaging calumny spread by critics against Arminiansim is that it begins with and is controlled by belief in freedom of the will”. Not that Arminians do not believe in free will. They most certainly do. Yet most Calvinists do as well.
However, Calvinists and Arminians have decidedly different views of free will. The former opt for a definition that is consistent with their understanding of God’s Sovereignity. That is, a compatibilist view of free will. The latter hold a libertine view of free will.
Yet to argue that free will is a major tenet of Arminianism or the heart of its expression of faith is entirely wrong-headed. Olson attempts to set the record straight. BTW, have you read his book, Brian?
Finally, by assuming as you do that “Classic Arminianism has always held that man makes the final decision in whether or not he is saved, hasn’t it?”, you seem to reveal a basic misreading of Arminianism of the heart.
It is always and ever, for Arminians, God Who determines salvation, beginning to end. He ever and always makes the rules. No one could possibly or ever be saved apart from God’s salvific action. Period.
Can we resist salvation God has provided according to Arminianism? Most certainly. And, of course, that strikes at the heart of one major difference between the two visions of salvation: resistibility factor in salvific grace. Calvinists deny it. Arminians affirm it.
Can we be saved apart from God’s exclusive intervention into our lives. Most certainly not. It was indeed Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice that saved us, according to Arminiansim. Unfortunately, Brian again you appear to misread Arminianism at this point. They emphatically do believe Christ paid for our sins.
But even more interesting is that you evidently misread Calvinism as well, Brian. You write of Arminiansim: “but they do not believe…Christ’s death is not effectual until a person believes.” My challenge to you, Brian, is to find a Calvinist who actually believes Chrrist’s death for them is effectual apart from their explicit faith in Jesus Christ. If you do, we’ve got some serious problems. We have saved people before they acttually are saved. We have unbellieving, children of wrath, spiritual dead, God-haters whose sins are actually and already forgiven. A not too NT idea, I’d say.
I think, Brian, you may be simply forgetting what John Murray called “Redemption Accomplished AND APPLIED”. If I am hearing you correctly, my Brother, you seem to have collapsed the “applied” into the “accomplished” and made it of no real significance—a sorta an abbreviated view of redemption. For my part, I just do not see it that way, my Brother. Sorry. Indeed, I do not think the NT revveals it that way either. But that’s just my opinion.
Good night, my Brother Brian. Dialog with you has been keen and helpful. Stop by SBC Tomorrow anytime for a good old chat. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
84. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 18, 2006
12:08 AM
Can we resist salvation God has provided according to Arminianism? Most certainly.
-Sorry, Peter, but any way you cut it, this puts the final act of salvation in the hands of men.
My challenge to you, Brian, is to find a Calvinist who actually believes Chrrist’s death for them is effectual apart from their explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
-I never said anything of the sort. This is a classic straw-man tactic. You are setting up this challenge based on something I never said.
It is interesting that Paul (in Romans 8:29-30) describes God’s work of salvation, from calling to glorification, as a past-tense act…isn’t it? According to Paul, it is a thing already done for those who have been predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.
Grace and peace,
Brian
85. Joop
October 18, 2006
6:37 AM
***Can we resist salvation God has provided according to Arminianism? Most certainly. ***
***-Sorry, Peter, but any way you cut it, this puts the final act of salvation in the hands of men.***
Brian, in seems to me that, according to NT, some people were actually rejecting Jesus, so -may I say- they resisted their salvation. See Mat. 11:21-24, for one example.
And, if those cities, Chorazin and Bethsaida, were predestined to eternal damnation anyway, so why then was Jesus there, preaching and performing miracles?
So, as for me, I stick to the logic, picked up by Arminianism.
Do you consider me heretic now…. :-)
God bless,
Joop
P.S. I like reading your points of view on this matter,
86. Jake
October 18, 2006
9:10 AM
It is interesting that Paul (in Romans 8:29-30) describes God’s work of salvation, from calling to glorification, as a past-tense act…isn’t it? According to Paul, it is a thing already done for those who have been predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.
Technically they’re aorist. However, Paul’s point is clear here. God has a people who love him (the antecedent of hous is “those who love him,” starting at verse 28). From looking back from the end of time, God has predestined their conformity to the image of Christ.
However, individuals can join or leave that group, as the singular “you” clearly indicates in the warning passage of 11:22-24. Those of the olive tree are predestined to glory, so remain attached, or what did happed to the others will happen to you. The warning in 8:12-16, then, is no mistake, because if “the brothers” do not “live according to the Spirit” they will return to death, so they must “share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”
All this means is that they must continue in the faith. If they do, they remained attached to the body of God’s people - “those who love God.” He has predestined them to be conformed to the image of His glorious Son - to be “glorified.” So “…share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”
Praise God.
87. Jake
October 18, 2006
9:13 AM
Sorry about the bold print above. My fat fingers must have turned on me. The only word I intended to be in bold print was the first word: “did.”
88. Tim M
October 18, 2006
9:47 AM
Just to chime in on this great conversation…
1. I find that my wife and I’s Arminian friends really despise when I describe their beliefs as “Arminian.” They whole idea that a label frames their beliefs, that they may not be their own, that they may be to some extent a traditional concoction, or perhaps just that the label has a derogatory ring of it, seems to put them off. I need to be careful. At the same time, it is a fairly accurate label. They may believe in believer’s security to some extent, yet their theology is, at heart, “Arminian.” It is synergistic, and it basically denies original sin.
2. Many of these friends seem to have no knowledge of or concern for history. When I mention to them that these issues have been dealt with before, or that they seem to be denying the doctrine of “original sin,” they sort of just laugh it off. It is a bit troubling. I appreciate that it embraces the Scripture as the only true authority, but it neglects the work of great men, by God’s grace, in ages past who have dealt with these same issues.
3. The core objection to Calvinism I have received, from these friends of ours, is that it “isn’t fair.” Hence, while there may be a formal affirmation of our fallen-ness in sin, our sinful nature, our corruption, there is a tacit implication that these things are not so pervasive as to destroy our ability. In fact, the presence of human ability, to them, seems paramount. If we are unable to choose Christ, then, in their logic, we are robots and we have no ability to “love” (since “love involves choice”). So, the starting point, no matter how close they get to a Reformed understanding of some peripherals, is man and his ability.
I recall listening to a broadcast recently (I can’t remember what it was) where the speaker identified the number one issue as the view of man and sin. It matters not what you *say* you affirm. Many times we say one thing and embrace something totally contradictory to it. It does seem true that when the doctrine of man’s corruption in sin is compromised it leads on the road to nowhere (or… back to Pelagius). I have received resistance even to the doctrine of God’s free justification in Christ, and that simply should not be, among evangelicals!
It all seems to go back to the issue of being “fair.” If salvation can be “fair,” then that frightens me quite a bit. I don’t want “fair” - I want mercy!
89. donsands
October 18, 2006
9:48 AM
I enjoyed the debate going on. I was Non-Reformed for years, and am now Reformed. My two cents:
The Reformed view of resisting I believe, is that everyone resists God. Everyone hates God. And it’s their free will that says I will not bow to God. I don’t want Him to tell me what to do.
The natural man will always resist the Holy Spirit of God. Unless he is born again he will never see the kingdom of God. He cannot but be hostile toward the things of God. Rom. 8:7-8
But God, with His great love and mercy, sent His Son to die for the sins of His people(Matt. 1:21), those He chose before the foundations of the world. This is truly amazing grace indeed.
“but for the elect’s sake, whom He has chosen”
Mk. 13:20
There is no neutral ground as far as I can see in the Holy Scriptures. Our free will will take us away from the the Lord and His grace. Unless He quickens our dead hearts, our hearts will die a second death.
So let us be about our Father’s charge, and take this awesome gospel to a world in total darkness, and we will see the magnificient holy gospel light penetrate dead hearts, and He will have all the glory.
It’s the gospel that is the POWER that changes a dead heart. God does it. Why does He save people who blaspheme and are ungrateful? I don’t have an answer for that, except that he wants to glorify His holy name, and His inestimable grace and love.
All for Jesus. Gal. 6:14
90. peter
October 18, 2006
9:53 AM
Jake,
Thank you for your words. You write, Jake: “***-Sorry, Peter, but any way you cut it, this puts the final act of salvation in the hands of men.***”
You appear to be assuming I was refering in my statmemnt to the nature of human free will. However, Jake, my words were just as much pertaining to the nature of grace. That is , grace, by nature, does not seem to be irresistible. If grace is necessarily irresistible, could you please explain how so? Scriptural evidence would be appreciated.
But, granting for the moment we are speaking solely in terms of the last “act” of redemption being human. I am unsure, as evidently you must be, Jake, that a person’s response to God’s ACT of redemption in Christ is or should be considered an “act of salvation in the hands of men”. That is, Biblically, faith responding is not viewed as a salvific work. I think the NT is clear here in its redundant insistence of being saved by faith not works.
Interestingly, Jake, supposing you are correct, it may be just as well applicable to the Calvinist redemptive grid as the Arminian. For Calvinism does not view our faith response to God as God’s faith response to God. God does not FINALLY believe for us. Gift or not, a Calvinist’s faith is his/her faith and he/ she MUST do the believing. Faith is his/her “act”.
Consequently, since your assumption that “this puts the final act of salvation in the hands of men” appears to be equally applicable to both Calvinism and Arminianism, that somehow seems to bled out its significance.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
91. peter
October 18, 2006
10:03 AM
Oops!
Sorry, my Brothers Jake and Joop.
My post was to Joop not Jake though I put Jake not Joop. I wished I had put not Jake but Joop, because Joop not Jake posted to me. But since I put Jake not Joop, I now joke about juggling up Jake with Joop.
With that, I am…
Peter
92. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
10:07 AM
Jake,
Your theology of perseverance is not only unbiblical…it is quite dangerous.
I am sad to hear that you think you must hold onto Christ (maintain your faith) in order to maintain your salvation.
I am not that strong…and I praise my Savior that no one is able to snatch me out of His hand. And the Father, who has given me to Christ holds me also, and no one is able to snatch me out of the Father’s hand. - John 10:28-29
God has a people who love him (the antecedent of hous is “those who love him,” starting at verse 28).
Jake,
You need to read a little further in verse 28:
Not only does God cause all things to work together for good to those who love God, but the clarifying statement of that group is that they are those who are called according to His purpose.
Then Paul clearly states that the ones predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ are the ones who are called….and the ones called are justified, and ones justified are glorified.
Jake, my heart truly goes out to you if you really think that you are maintaining your standing before God through your faith.
Justification is a one-time declaration of right-standing before a holy, righteous and just God…it is not an ongoing state that must be maintained by us.
93. Joop
October 18, 2006
10:34 AM
To Peter,
So now, I’m responding to your post, Peter, directed to Jake while you meant to direct to me (Joop).
And my post was directed (in the first place) to Brian (with whom I disagree); rather I agree with you, Peter. Please reread my previous post again.
Yes, I do agree we can resist grace and salvation. See my examples and prooftext in my previous post.
I was expecting kind of rebuke from some Calvinist here. I am very disappointed up till now!
;
94. peter
October 18, 2006
10:41 AM
Joop,
oops again! Sorry Joop, my brother. I knew I should have not had that louzy cup of Starbucks and stuck with my Batdorf & Bronson. Never again!
But I am quite sure a REAL calvinist will come along :)
Mercy today for all. With that, I am…
peter
95. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
11:30 AM
How can you expect us “REAL” Calvinists to explain the sovereignty of God to you when you guys can’t even keep each other’s names straight! ;-)
96. donsands
October 18, 2006
12:19 PM
joop,
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”
“For if Abraham were justified by works, he can glory; but not before God. … Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that works not, but believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Rom 4:2-5
Not much to say on Enoch, if that’s who you meant.
The foundational truth is grace, God’s grace; (actually it’s the cornerstone, and that is Christ our Lord, He is our grace). And that’s for anyone; or else, it becomes a debt that God owes us.
Paul said: “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” 1 Cor 15:10
Behold what wondrous grace
The Father has bestowed
On sinners of a mortal race
To call them sons of God!
97. Joop
October 18, 2006
1:29 PM
To Donsands,
In my native language, ‘Enoch’ is ‘Henoch’. My apologies!
You said:
***
The foundational truth is grace, God’s grace; (actually it’s the cornerstone, and that is Christ our Lord, He is our grace). And that’s for ANYONE; or else, it becomes a debt that God owes us.
***
[capitals mine]
So you believe grace is for anyone?
I agree, but are you, Don, a REAL Calvinist?
:-)
To Brain T.
I now wonder what a REAL Calvinist is like, or what he/she believes.
O, yes, of course, the sovereignty of God!
So you believe God is sovereign?
I believe so too.
I also believe Mao was sovereign. And Mussolini. And Hitler. And Saddam Hussein. And now, Kim Yong Il(l).
So, what’s the difference? The answer: holiness and love. God is, being sovereign, also holy and love.
You see what I mean?
God bless you all!
Joop
98. donsands
October 18, 2006
2:20 PM
joop,
Jesus says, “Come unto Me”. That’s for every soul.
And the Lord will have mercy on whom He will. And harden whom He will, as well.
God’s grace is for everyone whom He calls. Rom 8:28-30
Oh yeah, Abraham, Noah, and Enoch were all born again. No doubt about it.
99. Jake
October 18, 2006
2:34 PM
Brian,
Your theology of perseverance is not only unbiblical…it is quite dangerous.
Wow, that was deep.
You need to read a little further in verse 28:
Not only does God cause all things to work together for good to those who love God, but the clarifying statement of that group is that they are those who are called according to His purpose.
You can read as far in any direction you want. Not only did I address that, but it doesn’t refute anything I said.
Then Paul clearly states that the ones predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ are the ones who are called….and the ones called are justified, and ones justified are glorified.
Addressed already.
Jake, my heart truly goes out to you if you really think that you are maintaining your standing before God through your faith.
Yeah, Romans 11:22-24 is kind of dumb. I concede.
21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
I now side with you and against Paul. It isn’t “those who love (presently) God” that all things work togther for their good, but “those who loved God ONCE” for which all things work together for their good. It isn’t the people of the olive tree, but even those who get “cut off”!!(Not!)
100. Jake
October 18, 2006
2:40 PM
How can you expect us “REAL” Calvinists to explain the sovereignty of God to you when you guys can’t even keep each other’s names straight!
I am a Calvinist. I’m a recovering Calvinist.
101. Jake
October 18, 2006
3:37 PM
Oh man, I clipped the first verse I wanted to quote.
20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
102. John
October 18, 2006
6:26 PM
In Romans 10:3 Paul says that the Israelites were not saved because “they did not submit to God’s righteousness.” From a Calvinist perspective this can only be a predestined outcome. They were destined not to submit. And at first it does appear this is so. In chapter 11. Paul recalls God’s statement to Elijah (1 Kings 19) that he had “reserved” 7000 believers. In 11:5-7 he says
It’s a very Calvinist statement, one I’m sure Alan and others would agree gets to the heart of unconditional election and efficacious grace. Here’s the problem, a few verses later Paul says this (11:11a):
How can being predestined to not submit and being hardening not place one beyond recovery? A bit further on, still speaking of his fellow Jews, Paul says :
What does the Calvinist make of this? How can Paul possibly hope to “save some of them” by any action he can take? Put another way, if God is against them, who can be for them? Yet Paul continues in vs. 23:
So the people who were unsaved in chapter 10 and “hardened” at the beginning of chapter 11, can still be saved if they “do not persist in unbelief.” Paul then goes on to say:
So the same people Paul says did not submit and were hardened are also called. I take it Alan would read this entire passage as: God hardened them and he will unharden them, but ultimately they were called.
Why then is Paul going on about instigating jealousy in his people (vss. 11 and 14). From a Calvinist perspective, what do the feelings of these Jews (or anyone) have to do with their salvation? The Cavlinist can only say nothing whatsoever, which makes nonsense of Paul’s statements.
Paul does not appear to be a Calvinist. He seems to be under the distinct impression that his own actions could lead others to turn from unbelief and accept salvation. In sum, he says that those who were called resisted, but perhaps he can make them jealous enough to stop persisting in unbelief at which point God will graft them back in. I’d say that’s synergystic thinking on the Apostle’s part. If he believed that grace was efficacious in the Calvinist sense, why did he not simply say “They’re doomed” or “They’re saved.” Paul clearly thinks the calling has been thwarted and can be unthwarted.
As for prevenient grace, I take this to be the Gospel itself. This is the role God has given us — to be ambassadors of his grace. Faith comes by hearing…so we carry this treasure in jars of clay in order to extend it to all men. The Gospel is the prevenient grace by which men are offered a choice, for or against Christ.
Can man choose rightly apart from God’s grace? No, Augustine was quite right and Pelagius was wrong. But the Gospel itself is the prevenient grace by which men are given a choice to either submit in humility or resist in pride. We see Christ saying as much in the parable of Luke 11.
Those asking are clearly not those who already have the Spirit, but the unregenerate. But how can an unregenerate men ask for the right thing if they are “totally depraved”? They can’t, except by the prevenient grace of the Gospel itself. God offers and we are therefore given a chance to respond in either faith or unbelief. But faith itself is not a work. Didn’t Paul make the distinction clear in Ephesians 2:8-9?
Nearly the last verse of the Bible says:
If accepting the gift of grace by faith is a kind of false grace, the New Testament certainly seems to be riddled with it from beginning to end.
103. Jake
October 18, 2006
6:37 PM
Why then is Paul going on about instigating jealousy in his people (vss. 11 and 14). From a Calvinist perspective, what do the feelings of these Jews (or anyone) have to do with their salvation? The Cavlinist can only say nothing whatsoever, which makes nonsense of Paul’s statements.
That’s a profound observation. It’s rare that I see anyone observe that. In fact, once that point is understood, the apparently conflicting two uses of the “longsuffering” -according to the Calvinist system (one for salvation and the other for damnation)- in Romans are resolved.
104. Jake
October 18, 2006
6:43 PM
Brian: Jake, my heart truly goes out to you if you really think that you are maintaining your standing before God through your faith.
Paul: 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
Brian, your heart “truly goes out to” Paul!!!
105. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
8:03 PM
But the Gospel itself is the prevenient grace by which men are given a choice to either submit in humility or resist in pride.
John and others, one simple question.
IF the gospel itself is the prevenient grace by which men are given a choice to accept or reject…then what is the calling in Romans 8:29-30? It is most definitely something other than a general outward calling of the gospel, seeing as those being called there have also been predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ.
Thanks.
106. donsands
October 18, 2006
8:08 PM
“men are offered a choice, for, or against Christ”
Amen. We need to preach the gospel to everyone. We need to live the gospel as well.
And there’s not a person on this earth that would come to Christ, “unless it has been granted to him by Jesus’ Father.” John 6:65
“the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. 1 Cor. 2:14
“it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jew a stumbling block and to the Greek foolishness, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CALLED, BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1 Cor. 1:21-24
The debate of whether man is totally spiritually dead, or not all the way dead, will continue until the last trumpet.
I believe people are totally, and utterly, dead in their sins, and that God has to make one alive. He shows mercy to whom He will.
All praise and glory to His glorious name, and for His amazing lovingkindness, and forgiveness in Christ His Son. Amen.
107. Jake
October 18, 2006
9:09 PM
And there’s not a person on this earth that would come to Christ, “unless it has been granted to him by Jesus’ Father.”
Right, so don’t reject what the Father is doing. See my previous posts on this very topic.
“the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.
You really missed the point. Paul’s point is that he preaches a message among the “mature” (2:1). He’s speaking about a sapiential message that he has for the Corintians (who are Christians), not the gospel message. If any doubt concerning the context of the statement remains, it’s finally put to rest at 3:1 where Paul tells them that he’s never spoken to them (i.e., the believers in Corinth) as anything but worldly. Never! He “could not.”
“it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jew a stumbling block and to the Greek foolishness, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CALLED, BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
Exactly. In the technical sense “called” means “named.” Believers are named members of Christ’s body. Unbelievers are not.
The debate of whether man is totally spiritually dead, or not all the way dead, will continue until the last trumpet.
I sure hope not. Unbelievers are dead in their sin. What that means to you is another topic. However, to Paul, it refers to the state of all mankind prior to Christ’s arrival, and the state of those outside Christ now. Upon Christ’s arrival a new eschatological era began and life (the Spirit of the risen Christ) was given to all who believe.
Gal 3
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Prior to Christ, believers were not going to hell, but they did not have life because it had not arrived. The believing Jew was just as much a prisoner of sin as the Gentile, but they awaited what was promised in Messiah. The Jew was not going to hell, but life had not yet arrived.
I believe people are totally, and utterly, dead in their sins, and that God has to make one alive.
Of course God has to make men alive. However, they have to believe first. You beg the question with your use of terms.
Col. 2
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
We’ve already seen from Paul’s letter to the Galatians that believers waited for Christ to bring them life. Here we see what happens when a person believes. We are raised from death to life “through faith” (verse 12), not the other way around. Verse 13 repeats what was said in 11-12 in a summary form: the old nature was done away with by Christ. It is “through faith” in Christ and his work on the cross that anyone is transferred from death to life.
108. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
9:43 PM
Of course God has to make men alive. However, they have to believe first. You beg the question with your use of terms.
How does a dead man do anything, including believing? What is the point of Paul’s analogy of comparing a person before salvation to being dead? How does a spiritually dead person assent to anything spiritual? Is it not true that the flesh profits nothing…yet you seem to have it profiting everything, by believing before being made alive?
Any thoughts on my question above:
IF the gospel itself is the prevenient grace by which men are given a choice to accept or reject…then what is the calling in Romans 8:29-30?
109. donsands
October 18, 2006
10:01 PM
Brian,
Good point.
Jake
I would also like to hear your thought on Rom.8:29-30
I disagree with your speaking for the Apostle Paul. I am trying to discern what the Scriptures tell us, but I cannot speak for the Apostle Paul.
110. Jake
October 18, 2006
10:02 PM
Brain,
How does a dead man do anything, including believing? What is the point of Paul’s analogy of comparing a person before salvation to being dead? How does a spiritually dead person assent to anything spiritual? Is it not true that the flesh profits nothing…yet you seem to have it profiting everything, by believing before being made alive?
Your use of terms begs the question. Allow me to challenge you before we continue. I just demonstrated that Paul uses “dead in sins” differently than you do. Knowing that, will you continue to use the terminology as you always have (as I used to) or will you adapt?
Now, I mentioned the “eschatological” status as it relates to the question you posed. Please provide a short essay on your thoughts on the verses I provided from Gal. 3.
Any thoughts on my question above:
IF the gospel itself is the prevenient grace by which men are given a choice to accept or reject…then what is the calling in Romans 8:29-30?
Yes, and the answer to that depends upon the flavor of Arminian you are dealing with. See my last post for your aswer. Or see recent articles in JETS.
Thanks,
Jake
111. Jake
October 18, 2006
10:15 PM
I would also like to hear your thought on Rom.8:29-30
I’ve been discussing it since early this morning. Look at my previous posts and then ask me some questions. I’m not always (ever?) very clear.
I disagree with your speaking for the Apostle Paul. I am trying to discern what the Scriptures tell us, but I cannot speak for the Apostle Paul.
Ok.
112. donsands
October 18, 2006
11:16 PM
jake,
Went back and checked it out. I understand where you’re coming from.
I see the Lord doing all the calling, sanctifying, and ordaining. Jer. 1:5; Gal 1:15
The Lord saves, and grants mercy to whom He will. He owes all mankind hell. And this would be right and just.
But God, with His great love and mercy, opens a sinful selfish, and rebellious heart, so that that heart of granite, becomes a heart of humility, by the power of His Spirit and truth.
We have nothing to do with it. It’s 100% pure grace and mercy.
When we die and stand before the Holy One, what should we say to Him? What words will bring us into to His presence and perfect holiness?
113. Jake
October 18, 2006
11:31 PM
Don,
I see the Lord doing all the calling, sanctifying, and ordaining. Jer. 1:5; Gal 1:15
I see the lord doing those thing too. But regarding those two verses, I see them as the call to be prophets. Perhaps we can return to that issue at another time.
114. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 19, 2006
12:31 AM
Jake,
Are you this confusing naturally, or are you trying to evade direct questions and redirect discussion on purpose?
I asked you a simple question about how a dead man does anything on his own.
I also asked you a direct question about Romans 8:29-30, which you did not answer.
115. Jake
October 19, 2006
4:03 AM
Brian,
Are you this confusing naturally, or are you trying to evade direct questions and redirect discussion on purpose?
Yes.
I asked you a simple question about how a dead man does anything on his own.
A dead man doesn’t do anything on his own. Now, before you get too excited, lets look at the use of the words and defined by the context…
Now, I asked you to explain the verses I quoted from Galatians 3. As described there, the believers prior to Christ were dead in their transgressions. They were prisioners (“the whole world”) of sin, and waited for Christ to bring life, because the law couldn’t do it. I thought I was pretty clear in my post, but now I hope I’m even clearer.
Now, what’s a little stupid Arminian like me gotta do to get a big smart Calvinist like you to write a puny little essay outlining your understanding of those verses from Galatians 3?
I also asked you a direct question about Romans 8:29-30, which you did not answer.
You sure did. And I answered it. I told you to look at my previous post werein I defined “called.” Heck, I discussed those verses yesterday in detail and I’m still waiting for a rebuttal. All you could do was start at ground zero?
Brian: Jake, my heart truly goes out to you if you really think that you are maintaining your standing before God through your faith.
Paul: Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
Brian, your heart “truly goes out to” Paul??
116. Rey (probably a Heretic)
October 19, 2006
9:02 AM
There comes a point in these types of arguments, when they have long left the original post behind, where both sides have plenty of texts to prove their case and plenty of logical evidences to support their case, plenty of words to make their case convincing, and even plenty of Godly men to evidence their case. Several options are available:
1) divide over the matter.
2) acknowledge the differences and let the matter stand as is.
3) Honestly examine those differences and see how they fit in with our own theology
4) Continue fighting.
Both sides agree that salvation is by Grace Alone by Christ Alone, through Faith alone.
Both sides agree that salvation is impossible without God.
Both sides are convinced on Scripture that what they say is true.
Both sides stand before the Lord in the matter—not before men.
Both sides can make our name stink before the world.
117. Matthew Lipscomb
October 19, 2006
11:22 AM
I have really enjoyed this discussion, and I wrote a reply - but since it is rather lengthy I will only post the header of each of my reponses/contestations.
Full text of my response is available at http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=30841718&blogID=182296385
1) There is a danger in perpetually ‘thinking in mono’;
2) The danger of ‘an idolatry of frameworks;’
3) It is a hasty generalization/fallacy to say that God giving free will to the creature diminishes/inherently precludes His own glory/sovereignty;
4) Our ultimate created purpose is to produce Glory/pleasure to God;
5) Fallacy of Evil Created to Define Good
6) The Barthian Soteriological Double Predestination in Christ doctrine.
7) Fallacy of conjoined Mortal/Divine Time
8) Ultimately Vain Attempts to comprehend mysteries and the “otherness” nature and dynamics of God
9) An abuse created in reaction to an abuse is still an abuse
10) The Inescapeability of God’s Purpose and Design - The Sovereignty of the Order of God.
118. Jake
October 19, 2006
4:05 PM
These last two posts are great. How come there are no smart, young guys/gals were I live? Must be something in the water.
119. Andrew Wheatley
October 19, 2006
4:52 PM
“men are offered a choice, for, or against Christ”
Well…more like an command. You must obey or else. A choice is more like saying “I’m leaving it up to you to decide what is right.” but a command is saying “This is right. Do it.”
120. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 19, 2006
9:54 PM
Well…more like an command. You must obey or else.
This sounds more like the convenant of works instead of the convenant of grace.
121. francisco
October 20, 2006
12:21 AM
…or should we pray to God like Augustine: “Command what you wish and give what you command”?
122. GeneMBridges
October 22, 2006
4:39 AM
>>only Calvinists think compatibilistic freedom makes sense
This is is simply false.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Note: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#Bib
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm
>>What Calvinists fail to see is their view is unbiblical as well. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, man does not have responsibility.
This too is false. (A) where does Scripture say that ability limits responsibility? (B) Put another way, if freedom must be contra-causal to be responsible, can God, who has libertarian freedom sin? If not, how is He responsible? Taken to its logical end, your view leads to bondage to sin being the best way to avoid responsibilty. Could Judas have chosen otherwise or not? Was he to blame for his betrayal?
Moral blame requires a moral motive. You seem to be missing that component.
You are conflating responsibility and blame and hard and soft determinism. Responsibility is a necessary, albeit insufficient condition for blame. Man is to blame, because God determines the ends AND the means. Men’s motives are their own. Men are left to their own natural desires, and those hardened in their sins in Scripture (Pharaoh, Judas, apostates) are those who are deserving of it. God is seen as punishing sin with sin and unbelief with unbelief, which is justice perfected. Why do Arminians object to men getting what they actually desire when God does this sort of thing?
We also distinguish between God’s absolute power related to miracles, creation, regeneration, the incarnation, etc. and His ordinary power, related to second causes.
The WCF affirms soft-determinism, not hard determinism. That said, a hard determinist would reply with a Frankfurt case. An example of hard determinism would be Frankfurt-cases. A Frankfurt-case is a thought-experiment in which the subject, unbeknownst to himself, has a failsafe device implanted in his brain which would prevent him from making a certain choice.
Frankfurt-cases are generally deployed to show that LFW is not a necessary condition of moral responsibility. But aside from their relevance to the ethical issues raised in the debate between compatibilism and incompatibilism, they are also relevant to the epistemic question of what would count as evidence for LFW, were it true.
The problem which Frankfurt-cases pose for libertarians is that the subject of the experiment believes himself to be free, even though he isn’t. There is nothing in his experience to falsify his belief that he is other than free, even though his belief is false.
On this view, not only is hard determinism compatible with moral responsibility, it is also compatible with the illusion LFW.
>>Exactly how can God ordain that we do evil willingly, and God not be blamed for evil.
Good question, Scripture does not come with a detailed description of the outworking of God’s decrees, but it does say He works all all things (literally all all) after the counsel of His wil.
Because responsibility is a necessary, but insufficient condition for blame. See above.
123. Mickey Sheu
October 26, 2006
2:24 AM
Loved the comments, so I linked this post here
124. Charlie J. Ray
September 11, 2008
6:48 PM
Roger E. Olson is, from what gather, a Southern Baptist who cam from a Pentecostal/Arminian background. He is also a promoter of Open Theism. That alone makes his claims suspect when he says that Arminianism is not semi-pelagianism.
Have they forgotten the Council of Orange, 529 AD?