Grace continued…. Does grace save sinners or just make salvation possible
The troubling thing about the theology of Arminianism is that some men have an extremely better opportunity than others of choosing salvation through Jesus Christ. If this system is correct, and men must by their own free will make the crucial decision to accept Jesus Christ, then there are many factors that either increase or decrease the likelyhood that they will choose Jesus as their savior. A man that lives to 80 has more time and thus an advantage over one who dies at 17. Billy Graham’s children have a much greater chance than Ben Laden or Saddam Hussein’s children. Children from Christian families have a better chance than children born to devout members of false religions and cults. Many factors totally out of person’s control would make salvation almost impossible for some and very likely for others. Arminianism is an unbelievably unfair system when such factors are considered.
Under the theology of Calvinism, no one has an advantage as none will choose salvation apart from the Holy Spirit drawing and regenerating them. The only people who come to salvation are those who respond willingly to the grace and mercy that is given them by Almighty God. Without a doubt the Bible speaks of several people that came to Jesus this way. The Apostle Paul was a very dramatic case of God’s application of grace. Paul did not use his free will and respond to an offer, but was reborn by the dramatic power of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is an example of what grace looks like. God does it all. Jesus saves sinners. There is no boasting by the sinner in thinking that he made the crucial decision (Eph. 2:8-9).
Arminianism theology says that God only makes salvation possible, and the sinner must make a free will decision for Christ. This leaves open the possibility that Christianity could completely die out, or never have gotten started in the first place. This is not Biblical and God’s sovereignty and control of his creation is evident throughout the Bible. The Kingdom of God will not fade from this earth.
13 comments:
SJC,
The troubling thing about the theology of Arminianism is that some men have an extremely better opportunity than others of choosing salvation through Jesus Christ.
Ah, so difference in opportunity to believe constitutes unfairness. Let's examine your reasoning with this premise in mind.
A man that lives to 80 has more time and thus an advantage over one who dies at 17.
But Calvinism as a system states in effect that the elect have infinite advantage compared to the non-elect in receiving salvation, since only the elect receive irresistible and permanent regeneration; the non-elect do not, and thus effectively have no realistic ability or opportunity to be saved whatsoever.
Many factors totally out of person’s control would make salvation almost impossible for some and very likely for others.
So is depravity outside a person's control? Is the bestowal of 'irresistible grace' outside a person's control? Don't these factors taken together within the Calvinistic framework in fact make salvation a de facto impossibility for the non-elect and the only de facto possibility for the elect?
Arminianism is an unbelievably unfair system when such factors are considered.
So you end up arguing that the disparity between 'likely' and 'unlikely' for different people makes Arminianism unfair, while arguing that the disparity between 'impossible' and 'inevitable' for different people makes Calvinism fair? You make this a matter of comparisons, but I'm baffled as to what form of mathematics you're employing which leads you to conclude that the difference between two finite amounts must be greater than the difference between infinity and zero.
Therefore the line of reasoning you employ in your own smear that Arminianism is "unbelievably unfair" can only lead to the inescapable conclusion that Calvinism is, by the standard you employ, "infinitely more unfair."
J.C.
Thanks for the comment....
Ah, so difference in opportunity to believe constitutes unfairness. Let's examine your reasoning with this premise in mind.
Opportunity is in play with Arminianism, but not with Calvinism.
But Calvinism as a system states in effect..........
In Calvinism God has mercy on whom he will have mercy and it thus depends on God and no man has an advantage over another. IOW, apart from God's saving grace none would be saved regardless of how old they lived.
So is depravity outside a person's control? Is the bestowal of 'irresistible grace' outside a person's control? Don't these factors taken together within the Calvinistic framework in fact make salvation a de facto impossibility for the non-elect and the only de facto possibility for the elect?
Yes and again no man has an advantage over another under Calvinism because it depends on God's mercy entirely.
Therefore the line of reasoning you employ in your own smear that Arminianism is "unbelievably unfair" can only lead to the inescapable conclusion that Calvinism is, by the standard you employ, "infinitely more unfair."
Not at all. You are interjecting a vertical comparison of unfairness between God and man, while my unfairness comparison is a horizontal unfairness between one man and another under the system of Armininianism as compared with Calvinism.
Opportunity is in play with Arminianism, but not with Calvinism.
One who has no opportunity to be saved clearly cannot be saved, therefore it's linguistically ridiculous to say that 'opportunity' is not in play with Calvinism where the elect are concerned. Sorry, I don't play word games.
Yes and again no man has an advantage over another under Calvinism because it depends on God's mercy entirely.
Again incorrect, the man who is elect does have an advantage, because God shows mercy to him to the exclusion of the non-elect.
Not at all. You are interjecting a vertical comparison of unfairness between God and man, while my unfairness comparison is a horizontal unfairness between one man and another under the system of Armininianism as compared with Calvinism.
And again incorrect, my comparison was clearly not between God and man, but between elect and non-elect in terms of opportunity to be saved, which is what I believe you were arguing if you recall. Ergo, by the standard you yourself employ, it can only be deduced that Calvinism is infinitely more unfair than Arminianism.
I am sorry you cannot discern the logical conclusions that flow from man’s inability to revive himself from a condition of spiritual death verses the logical conclusions that flow from a man having the ability but varying degrees opportunity. In one case it depends on God and his sovereign choice alone and in the other case it depends on the circumstances of a man’s birth, parents, location, and length of life.
But I don't believe man can revive himself: regeneration of the heart is performed by God to those who hear Christ and respond in faith, our opportunity to believe not arising from the circumstance, but from God's grace.
You speak of 'logical conclusions,' but so far your line of reasoning with which you've tried to impugn Arminianism incriminates Calvinism to the furthest degree. The difference between 'much opportunity' and 'little opportunity' can necessarily never be greater than the difference between 'opportunity with no chance of failure' versus 'no opportunity whatsoever.'
J.C.,
I am not impugning Arminianism, I am just pointing out that I think it is wrong.
In your first paragraph, you seem to give God all the credit just as Paul does in Rom. 8:29-30. We are very close to agreeing.
In your second paragraph's last sentence you describe the grace of God that is the logical conclusion drawn from Rom. 8:30 where all that God calls, He justifies (and them alone). Since all men are not saved, what are we to conclude other than God gives some kind of effectual call that is 100% effective to those who receive it? Put this with 100% of sinners who are not predestined do not respond (John 6:44, 65 and elsewhere) and the principle is established.
If Romans 8:30 were the only place in the Bible that taught this, we might could parse it and conclude something else. But, the same thing is taught throughout Scripture and to fully understand it, a person must come to grips with total inability as taught in Romans 3:10-11, Eph. 2:4-5, and elsewhere.
SJC,
I am not impugning Arminianism, I am just pointing out that I think it is wrong.
Hmmm...... do you then still hold that Arminianism is 'unbelievably unfair' based upon your previously tendered argument?
...you describe the grace of God that is the logical conclusion drawn from Rom. 8:30 where all that God calls, He justifies (and them alone).
Romans 8 says that all who are predestinated are called, not that all who are called are justified.
"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)
Since all men are not saved, what are we to conclude other than God gives some kind of effectual call that is 100% effective to those who receive it?
I personally would conclude that many are called, but that some resist the Holy Spirit and the will of God.
"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." (Acts 7:51)
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (Luke 7:30)
But, the same thing is taught throughout Scripture and to fully understand it, a person must come to grips with total inability as taught in Romans 3:10-11, Eph. 2:4-5, and elsewhere.
But I already believe that men are utterly incapable of believing apart from grace. I also hold that grace is resistible, and that one is not regenerated until he or she believes in Christ.
...buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)
So I do accept the 'T' wholeheartedly, but reject the other four points along with exhaustive determinism.
I hope you'll pardon me if I'm being rude in asking, but what area of Mississippi do you live in?
Hmmm...... do you then still hold that Arminianism is 'unbelievably unfair' based upon your previously tendered argument?
If Arminianism is correct and God’s grace only goes so far and man must make the crucial free will decision, would you rather be born to a Muslim in Iran or to a Christian family in middle America? Which would be dealt the better hand for exercising their free will? Would someone living to age 60 have a longer period of time to exercise their free will than someone dying at age 20? I would also refer you to Acts 17 where Paul explains God’s sovereignty in determining where and how long people will live.
Romans 8 says that all who are predestinated are called, not that all who are called are justified.
You must distinguish between the gospel call that goes out to many that do not accept with the effectual or inward call of the Holy Spirit that goes out to the elect only. (John 3:3, Eph. 2:4-5, Acts 16:14, etc.)
Romans 8:30 ESV And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
1. God calls all he predestines (This is clear)
2. Those whom he calls (this is those whom he has predestined)
3. The group that he has called is the same group as the predestined and they are justified.
If you make the case that Paul is referring to the general call, then your conclusion must be that all who hear this call are justified, and you are asserting universalism. I think we can agree there are many who hear the gospel who never come to faith. Therefore, the call Paul is referring to is an inward call that goes out to the elect only and they are justified (after they willingly respond to this effectual call and come to saving faith).
"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)
Exactly. Many are called with the external general call, but few are chosen and given the effectual inward call.
I personally would conclude that many are called, but that some resist the Holy Spirit and the will of God.
This is your presupposition that does not fit Romans 8:30 where Paul says, “those whom he called he also justified.” This is either an effectual call that goes to those mentioned in Matthew 22:14 or it is asserting universalism.
But I already believe that men are utterly incapable of believing apart from grace. I also hold that grace is resistible, and that one is not regenerated until he or she believes in Christ.
We agree that a measure grace is resistible and that many hear the gospel call, resist it and will be without excuse. The difference is the Bible teaches that unless God intervenes with effectual saving grace, 100% of mankind resists the general call of the gospel message. John 6:44, 65, John 3:3, Rom. 8:30, Romans 9:15-16, Eph. 2:4-5, Acts 16:14, 2 Thess. 2:13, Mt. 22:14 to name a few. Do a word study on the following words: predestined, called, call, appointed, chosen, destined, etc. and you may be surprised at the volume of passages that speak on this issue.
I am from the Jackson area in central Mississippi. Where are you from?
If Arminianism is correct and God’s grace only goes so far and man must make the crucial free will decision, would you rather be born to a Muslim in Iran or to a Christian family in middle America? Which would be dealt the better hand for exercising their free will? Would someone living to age 60 have a longer period of time to exercise their free will than someone dying at age 20? I would also refer you to Acts 17 where Paul explains God’s sovereignty in determining where and how long people will live.
Those factors may allow one more or less opportunity, but if one having more opportunity to be saved than another is 'unfair,' then by that same token, those upon whom regeneration is irresistibly conferred have infinitely more advantage over those who don't. I do already believe that God has predetermined how long individuals can live btw.
Romans 8 says that all who are predestinated are called, not that all who are called are justified.
You must distinguish between the gospel call that goes out to many that do not accept with the effectual or inward call of the Holy Spirit that goes out to the elect only. (John 3:3, Eph. 2:4-5, Acts 16:14, etc.)
...
Many are called with the external general call, but few are chosen and given the effectual inward call.
But none of those passages speak about a different sort of call being given to elect and non-elect, I would venture to say no area of scripture does.
I personally would conclude that many are called, but that some resist the Holy Spirit and the will of God.
This is your presupposition that does not fit Romans 8:30 where Paul says, “those whom he called he also justified.”
That's not my presupposition, that is scriptural fact as cited from Acts 7 and Luke 7 above.
1. God calls all he predestines (This is clear)
2. Those whom he calls (this is those whom he has predestined)
3. The group that he has called is the same group as the predestined and they are justified.
If you make the case that Paul is referring to the general call, then your conclusion must be that all who hear this call are justified, and you are asserting universalism.
Well, it does not say, "all who are called with this call are justified," but "whom He did predestinate, them He also called;" if one was not predestinated according to God's foreknowledge, then one would not fit in the category of people being spoken of in this passage's context, and hence could still receive the same call, but not necessarily respond.
We agree that a measure grace is resistible and that many hear the gospel call, resist it and will be without excuse. The difference is the Bible teaches that unless God intervenes with effectual saving grace, 100% of mankind resists the general call of the gospel message. John 6:44, 65, John 3:3, Rom. 8:30, Romans 9:15-16, Eph. 2:4-5, Acts 16:14, 2 Thess. 2:13, Mt. 22:14 to name a few.
I don't recall anywhere in scripture teaching that. John 6 says that no one can come to God unless drawn by Him (one of the reasons I strongly believe in prevenient grace); John 3 states that no one can see the kingdom unless he is born again/from above (that is, saved); Romans 9 states that election is not of man, but of God (according to His good pleasure and foreknowledge, as we see elsewhere); Eph 2 states that God has made us alive with Christ (which all Christians believe); Acts 16's telling of God opening Lydia's heart is characteristic of prevenient grace; 2 Thessalonians 2 talks about election, which we both believe in; and Matthew 22 only mentions a call given, with no details about it being different kinds of calls.
I am from the Jackson area in central Mississippi. Where are you from?
I'm from the Mississippi Gulf Coast originally, around Gulfport/Biloxi.
if one having more opportunity to be saved than another is 'unfair,
IF???? Are you arguing that it is in question under your system?
then by that same token, those upon whom regeneration is irresistibly conferred have infinitely more advantage over those who don't.
The elect have no advantage whatsoever since their grace flowed from God who will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. God did not give them an advantage to achieve salvation through their own free will, he gave them the gift of eternal life. He does not do this for everyone for his own sovereign reasons. The elect should be extremely humbled and thankful to know that God showed them mercy by giving them the gift of faith and eternal life. There is no boasting when God does it all as opposed to a system that requires a free will human decision.
(1) Calvinist – Nothing to the cross I bring, simply to the cross I cling.
(2) Arminian – I am so glad that “I” chose to cling to the cross through “my free will” faith.
But none of those passages speak about a different sort of call being given to elect and non-elect, I would venture to say no area of scripture does.
Then the only conclusion from Romans 8:30 is that everyone will be saved (universalism). Also by looking at John 6:37, 44, 65 we see that all the father gives will come and none will come unless enabled. Do a little dot connecting here. Therefore, you would venture to say wrong!
That's not my presupposition, that is scriptural fact as cited from Acts 7 and Luke 7 above.
The scriptural facts you cite is that men can resist the outward call and the preceptive will of God. I agree totally.
Well, it does not say, "all who are called with this call are justified," but "whom He did predestinate, them He also called;" if one was not predestinated according to God's foreknowledge, then one would not fit in the category of people being spoken of in this passage's context, and hence could still receive the same call, but not necessarily respond.
Exactly! The non-elect do not respond to any call. Or, are you suggesting that God predestines some and others achieve salvation apart from being predestined? That won’t stand up to thorough exegesis.
I don't recall anywhere in scripture teaching that. John 6 says that no one can come to God unless drawn by Him (one of the reasons I strongly believe in prevenient grace);…………………………... etc.
And John 6 also says that all the father gives me will come to me (Also check out John 10). (Must be drawn and all come – connect the dots) Your problem here is that Scripture points to God’s gracious call being 100% effective to those God has elected unto salvation and to them only. If you choose to assert that this gracious call is the same for everyone, then you have no choice but to assert universalism, and I do not believe you want to go there………..
Have you ever considered that Christianity could completely die out if Arminian views are correct?
"if one having more opportunity to be saved than another is 'unfair,"
IF???? Are you arguing that it is in question under your system?
Read my statement again please.
The elect have no advantage whatsoever since their grace flowed from God who will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
That's double-talk by the way. Irresistible grace from God is an advantage, its source is not an issue, ergo the elect do have advantage as compared to the non-elect, rendering Calvinism grossly unfair by your own argument.
God did not give them an advantage to achieve salvation through their own free will, he gave them the gift of eternal life.
Free will is really beside the point, the argument was much advantage versus little, which if that constitutes unfairness, then Calvinism is infinitely more unfair than Arminianism.
There is no boasting when God does it all as opposed to a system that requires a free will human decision.
Since men as free agents are incapable of believing outside of God's grace, then there is no viable room for boasting...unless of course you believe that people are performing meritoriously or deserve credit for receiving freely offered gifts.
(1) Calvinist – Nothing to the cross I bring, simply to the cross I cling.
(2) Arminian – I am so glad that “I” chose to cling to the cross through “my free will” faith.
But ignoring the factor of the necessity of prevenient grace, that's little more than a simplistic caricature.
"But none of those passages speak about a different sort of call being given to elect and non-elect, I would venture to say no area of scripture does."
Then the only conclusion from Romans 8:30 is that everyone will be saved (universalism).
Only if read woodenly out of context, I addressed this issue in my fourth paragraph above.
Also by looking at John 6:37, 44, 65 we see that all the father gives will come and none will come unless enabled. Do a little dot connecting here.
...
And John 6 also says that all the father gives me will come to me (Also check out John 10). (Must be drawn and all come – connect the dots)
Being 'enabled' is not the same thing as being 'given.'
"Well, it does not say, "all who are called with this call are justified," but "whom He did predestinate, them He also called;" if one was not predestinated according to God's foreknowledge, then one would not fit in the category of people being spoken of in this passage's context, and hence could still receive the same call, but not necessarily respond."
Exactly! The non-elect do not respond to any call.
But I was clearly referring to them not responding to the same call as the elect receive.
Or, are you suggesting that God predestines some and others achieve salvation apart from being predestined?
I'm not sure where you think I indicated anything of the sort.
Your problem here is that Scripture points to God’s gracious call being 100% effective to those God has elected unto salvation and to them only.
That concept proves no difficulty for me, since election is not unconditional, but according to God's foreknowledge.
If you choose to assert that this gracious call is the same for everyone, then you have no choice but to assert universalism...
That would require assuming that libertarian choice was no factor, which I assume.
Have you ever considered that Christianity could completely die out if Arminian views are correct?
Given that Arminian soteriology was the only set of factors changed, such a conclusion can only be derived from the presupposition that God was too short-sighted to foreknow such a happenstance (contra Matthew 16:18), too removed from the universe to arrange events, or too weak to control such circumstances.
Do you believe that God would require complete and exhaustive determinism to be able to preserve Christianity?
That's double-talk by the way. Irresistible grace from God is an advantage, its source is not an issue, ergo the elect do have advantage as compared to the non-elect, rendering Calvinism grossly unfair by your own argument.
I would be very careful to call mercy for some and justice for the others as being unfair.
But ignoring the factor of the necessity of prevenient grace, that's little more than a simplistic caricature.
You are simply refusing to admit that Rom. 8:30 and John 6, and 10 point to all that God calls are saved. Thus the prevenient grace does not explain this away.
Only if read woodenly out of context, I addressed this issue in my fourth paragraph above.
Woodenly! Hmmm. O.K!!! How would we put, “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” into a context where it does not mean that God predestined and called sinners? And that those whom he called, he justified?
Being 'enabled' is not the same thing as being 'given.'
That is why you also process the statement that all that the father gives me will come to me. Therefore, sinners must be enabled by God and all that God gives the Son will come. Obvious conclusion: only the elect receive this effectual enabling.
That concept proves no difficulty for me, since election is not unconditional, but according to God's foreknowledge.
If your argument here is God elects and calls only those whom he foreknows will come to saving faith, then you have slipped into nonsense. Why would he have to predestine what he sees is going to happen anyway?
I appreciate your interaction, but it appears we are going around in circles here, and if we both have faith in Jesus Christ, then we will both be saved regardless of our views on this issue.
SJC,
How would we put, “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” into a context where it does not mean that God predestined and called sinners? And that those whom he called, he justified?
The first point (God predestined and called sinners) I agree with. As for all who God calls being justified, the context that the called being spoken of specifically were predestined according to the foreknowledge of God. To turn your question around, where in the text does it specify some special call that goes out only to the elect? Further, in passages such as Matthew 20:16, where does it indicate different calls going out?
"Being 'enabled' is not the same thing as being 'given.'"
That is why you also process the statement that all that the father gives me will come to me. Therefore, sinners must be enabled by God and all that God gives the Son will come. Obvious conclusion: only the elect receive this effectual enabling.
There can be more than one condition to an outcome. That is to say, one may be drawn and enabled, but resistant to the call, and therefore not given to Christ.
...while it is said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Hebrews 3:15)
If your argument here is God elects and calls only those whom he foreknows will come to saving faith, then you have slipped into nonsense. Why would he have to predestine what he sees is going to happen anyway?
God definite knowledge of the future is in context of (contingent upon) His working in it, not what it would be if He did nothing.
I would be very careful to call mercy for some and justice for the others as being unfair.
As would I, but I never made an assertion of unfairness on the basis of difference in opportunity. Comparing the two systems, your argument amounts to:
If God grants some men more resistible opportunity (over others who have little), it's unfair.
If God grants some men irresistible opportunity (over others others who have none at all), them it's fair.
Which makes no sense if you judge the former as unfair based upon difference in opportunity for individuals, since the difference between opportunity for individuals in the latter case is necessarily greater.
...if we both have faith in Jesus Christ, then we will both be saved regardless of our views on this issue.
That I strongly agree with.
Post a Comment