Arminian vs Reformed Theology (Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election)

Lot escapes Sodom with his two daughters

In this series, we have been contrasting five major points of Arminian theology with the five points of Reformed/Calvinistic theology known as "TULIP". The series now continues with an examination of the contrasting views of Arminian and Reformed theology regarding the topic of election.

Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election

The prominent Arminian view holds that election is conditional, that is, God elects those whom He foresees responding positively to the gospel. Fred Olson, an expert in Arminian theology writes, "Arminians believe that election is corporate, that God has chosen to have a people and that predestination is God’s foreknowledge of who will freely choose to be among God’s people".

In contrast, the Reformed view says that election is of individuals, and that it is unconditional, because God's choice of particular individuals is not conditioned upon man's response, but is independent of it. The Reformed view would agree with the statement “God has chosen to have a people”, but more specifically would say that He has, independent of constraints or influence from anyone or anything, chosen particular individuals. This is against the Arminian view that God has made a corporate choice of all people in Christ, and that people then choose themselves for inclusion "among God's people".

How the Arminian view of election plays out

The Arminian view on election is connected with its teaching that man has restored ability to say yes to the gospel offer, as one of the benefits of "prevenient" grace. With the freedom of the will that was lost in the Fall now restored by prevenient grace, a person can say yes to the gospel. God, foreseeing those who will respond positively, elects such persons for salvation.

Flaws in the Arminian argument: Prevenient Grace not Scriptural

There are a number of problems with the Arminian depiction of election. Both classic Arminians and Calvinists agree that man's spiritual condition as the result of the Fall is a total depravity/inability that renders him unable to choose God. So for people to be able to choose God, they must somehow rise above this state. For the Arminian this has been accomplished through prevenient grace, by which the effects of the fall have been negated and people have restored ability to respond to the gospel. This grace grants us light enough to see the gospel, yet it is a grace that may not be ultimately effective, since Arminians say we may still reject it. This Arminian concept of prevenient grace is neither supported nor proven by Scripture, as we have argued in previous posts in this series.

Flaws in the Arminian argument: Either God is sovereign in election, or we are

An election which is made according to God's foreknowledge of what the human being will do with their restored freedom redefines the term "election"—- it makes election to mean that God merely ratifies the action of the person. If God's “election” of us is based on our choosing Him, who is acting as the sovereign?

God is sovereign in election, rather than man. This is shown by the fact that election is a decision made by God alone in eternity, before we were born or were able to make any choices. We will look at this more closely later, when we examine the Reformed/Calvinistic picture of election.

Flaws in the Arminian argument: God's fairness based on His character, not inferred by His method of election

As we have said in previous posts, the Arminian position apparently wants to ensure that man is "free" to decide for Christ, operating under an extra-biblical assumption that such freedom is necessary in order to preserve fairness or justice on God's part. With its notion that God foresees actions of certain people and elects them on that basis, it means also to show that election is not "arbitrary", but based upon God looking ahead and seeing something that makes particular people apt candidates for election.

The Fairness of God

Again, the Arminian view of election here is at odds with Scripture, for a number of reasons. First, Scripture does not defend the fairness of God by telling us that God has chosen people based on foreseen responses to Him. The foreknowledge of God spoken of in Romans 8:29, for example, is a foreknowing of people, not just their future actions. In declaring that God has "mercy on whom He will have mercy and compassion on whom he will have compassion (Romans 9:15, cf Exodus 33:19)" Scripture tells us that no actions of men form the basis for His choices. When Moses asked God to show him His glory, God graciously answered the request in this way:

..."I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.(Exodus 33:19)

We see here that God reveals His glory in two ways: first, by proclaiming His name as "The Lord". And second, by acting as Lord-- it is His divine prerogative to alone determine who will receive His grace and who will receive His mercy- in this way God reveals His glory, and His Lordship over all.

The Arminian reasons that in providing people choice as to whether or not to respond to His gospel, and electing those who freely choose Him, God acts lovingly and fairly. But this is only partly true. While God indeed calls on people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30), and holds people accountable for their response to His call (John 3:18,36), nevertheless, God knows that none will come to Him unless He draws them (John 6:44,65). Therefore, God does not elect people on the basis of their response to Him. Rather He elects, according to His sovereign good pleasure, certain people, irrespective of anything good or bad they have done (Romans 9:11-18). Those He elects are enabled to respond to the gospel and be saved (John 6:37,44,65; Acts 13:48). Yet in so choosing, God acts fairly and justly, because He is a God of righteousness and holy justice (Psalm 7:1, Psalm 9:8, Psalm 33:4-5, Psalm 45:7, Psalm 50:6, Deut 10:18, Deut 32:4, Psalm 37:28, Psalm 89:14, etc.) and because, as we have said, it is His prerogative as God to make such determinations (Romans 9:21-24).

Through the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus, God Himself removed the barrier –sin- that separated us from His holy presence. At the Cross He fully satisfied His wrath against man's sin. What would have been just or fair is for God to have condemned all, since all sinned and the wages of sin is death (Romans 3:9-26). Instead, He has preserved for Himself a remnant (Romans 11:5). Those who do not avail themselves of the offer of Christ remain in their sins, and are condemned by their own choice (John 8:24, John 3:18). This teaching I believe is an example of biblical antinomy— when two truths that seem contrary to one another (from the standpoint of limited human reason), co-exist in the Scriptures. The two truths are that God gives efficacious grace only to His own people and not to all (John 6:37-39, John 10:1-4), yet at the same time, holds man responsible for his choice regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:18). This tension cannot be resolved by the finite human mind, yet I believe Scripture presents both of these truths.

The Bible does not tell us why one person is elected and another is not, yet it affirms that a good, holy, omniscient and all-powerful God makes these decisions. Therefore, we can trust that His decisions are both fair and right.

Flaws in the Arminian argument: Merit-based election?

If God omnisciently sees those who will choose Him and others who won't, the question remains: why do some respond positively to grace while others do not? In the Arminian scheme the one who exercises faith to believe does so of their own accord- that is, he or she freely chooses God in a faith response to grace, while another sinner, who received the same offer of gospel grace, refuses it. Logically, this view forces the conclusion that some --by nature-- are better than others. Yet Scripture teaches that no one may boast of having come to the Lord, because without His drawing no one can come to Him and because the faith that brings salvation is His gift. God has purposely designed His system to exclude human boasting (John 6:44,65; Romans 9:16; Eph 2:8-9; 1Corinthians 1:29-31; 1Corinthians 4:7).

Flaws in the Arminian argument: God's sovereignty must entail both foreknowledge and fore-ordination

If God sees every person's future actions, then those actions must be foreordained in some sense, their outcome sure. For if God has nothing to do with foreordaining these human actions, how does He reign over them? Is God truly sovereign over all things if He is merely reacting to future actions/choices of His creatures?

And if He elects someone on the basis of knowing that the person will believe, does that person remain always elect, or does that person stop being "elect" if they then decide not to believe (as they may, according to the Arminian view)? It seems in the Arminian view election is ultimately not God's working but man's.

I believe the Arminian view robs us of much of the comfort and assurance about our salvation that Scripture means to give believers, in such passages as Romans 8:29-30 or 1John 5:10-13. This comfort comes as a witness of the Spirit, in knowing we belong to God. It also comes from recognizing the spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3) and absolute dependence on God (John 15:5) that thrusts us into the arms of God's all-powerful grace as we walk out our faith. We are confident, not of ourselves (Phil 3:3), but of God's faithfulness (Phil 1:6).

The Reformed Picture of Election

The Reformed/Calvinistic picture of election is quite different from the Arminian one. God's election is not a response to our choosing of Him (as if!), since left to our sinful ways, no one would choose God. As discussed in the previous two articles, total depravity leads to an inability to choose God, since in our sin we do not seek God, want nothing to do with Him, and are on a natural course of rebellion and separation from God. Apart from the sovereign mercy of God, all human beings would continue on this self-destructive path that would ultimately lead to eternal separation from God. However, God the Father in His mercy has reached out to us, sending His Son Jesus to take the penalty for our sins upon Himself. Christ Jesus is the bridge by which we may be reconciled to the Father. And yet our state as fallen people is such that we are blind and deaf to the gospel. The natural man-- all of us, before the miracle of regeneration-- cannot comprehend the importance and the value of the gospel, so as to embrace it. God mercifully grabs hold of us, and through supernatural, spiritual rebirth grants us eyes that may see and ears that can hear. Therefore He rescues us from destruction, just as the angels grabbed hold of Lot and his family and mercifully dragged them out of Sodom. Certainly we all would have perished, if left to our own choice.

And yet a great mystery in saving election is that God does not choose on the basis of merit in people, any good or bad we have done, any anticipated works of good or bad. As we have noted, God simply has compassion on whom He will have compassion and shows mercy to whom He shows mercy (Romans 9:15). Election is not a reward for faith, nor for works we have done or might do in the future. Rather God sets His affection upon certain people by His own eternal counsel:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:3-6).

"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began... (2 Tim 1:8-9)"

And those whom He "foreknows" in this way he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified (Romans 8:29-30).

We see how the tenets within each of the two ancient theological systems connect and build upon one another. In Arminianism, prevenient grace makes it possible for people to choose God of their own accord, thus an election in which God foresees this free choice and elects people on that basis seems both logical and fair. In Reformed teaching, man's condition of total depravity/inability means that God must sovereignly act to elect unto salvation those who otherwise (because of their sinful hearts and inclinations) would not turn to Him.

Final Comments
I have been finding completion of this series to be very challenging, in that I am wrestling with the arguments on both sides as I do my research, and trying to make my conclusions my own, rather than reiterating the conclusions of others. Of course, one can't be very original really, in writing on these themes. I plan to continue with the series, but will probably also take some breaks from it, as a way of refreshing my creative energies (and hopefully keeping readers from utter boredom).

I leave you now with this quote from Martin Luther:

As man, before he is created man, does nothing and endeavors nothing towards his being made a creature; and as, after he is made and created, he does nothing and endeavors nothing towards his preservation, or towards his continuing in his creature existence, but each takes place alone by the will of the omnipotent power and goodness of God, creating us and preserving us, without ourselves; but as God, nevertheless, does not work in us without us, seeing we are for that purpose created and preserved, that He might work in us and that we might cooperate with Him, whether it be out of His kingdom under His general omnipotence, or in His kingdom under the peculiar power of His Spirit; — so, man, before he is regenerated into the new creation of the kingdom of the Spirit, does nothing and endeavors nothing towards his new creation into that kingdom, and after he is re-created does nothing and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone effects both in us, regenerating us and preserving us when regenerated, without ourselves; Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, Sect. CXXXI

.



Other Posts in this Series:
Reformed or Arminian- What Difference Does Theology Make?(Introductory Post)
Reformed or Arminian- Theological Definitions
Contrasting Reformed/Calvinistic Theology with Arminianism (Related Views)
Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Pt I)
Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Pt II)

Arminian vs Reformed Theology (entire series)

For further study:

Are There Two Wills in God? John Piper
An Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism - Part II: Unconditional Election by Brian Schwertly
The Doctrine of Election by John Reisinger: Part I and Part II
Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility by Charles Spurgeon
God's Purpose According to Election: Paul's Argument in Rom 9
More links on election at Monergism.com

Tags: Arminianism vs Calvinism, Reformed theology, doctrine of election, conditonal election vs unconditional election

Just So You Know...

UPDATE 3-28-07: Sorry for the great delay in posting this next article in the series. I expect to have it up by tomorrow.

Just so you know... I am indeed working on the next post in my series on Arminian vs Reformed Theology (dealing with the doctrine of election) and aim to have it up sometime next week.

Thanks for those of you who have been following this series-- again, please feel free to send me any comments or suggestions.

I am hoping that upon completion of the articles comparing and contrasting the major points of Arminianism vs Calvinism, that my understanding (and that of readers) of these doctrines will be improved. As you can tell thus far, I am not persuaded by Arminian objections to the "doctrines of grace", yet I hope that I have not been unfair or inaccurate in my representation of the Arminian view.

It is my goal to conclude the series with a hopefully informed and persuasive argument as to why I think these theological matters matter, and why, if the Reformed doctrines are true we must preach them to ourselves and to others.

Tags: Arminian, Reformed, Calvinism, doctrines of grace, series on Arminian vs Reformed theology

Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Part II)

In comparing the Arminian teaching of prevenient grace with the Reformed teaching of total depravity/inability, we began by examining the arguments for prevenient grace, and concluded that the doctrine of prevenient grace as formulated by Arminians is not biblically justifiable (Part I). We looked at assumptions underlying the doctrine, noting that the teaching of prevenient grace tries to resolve thorny issues arising from the tension between a holy and just God's sovereignty and fallen man's responsibility:

Is it important that people possess "free will" prior to being born again, so that if they do choose Christ, their choice may be said to be genuine, as the Arminian asserts? Has prevenient grace restored to fallen man, prior to re-birth in Christ, an ability to say yes or no to the gospel, and even the ability to perceive the truth of it? Is God fair if He does not preserve our "free will" in the matter of salvation, and only enables some (not all) to respond to His saving grace?

Some parts of the assumptions of the Arminian view-- that God is just, that He desires all to be saved, that He is fair in election-- the Calvinist does not deny. Yet in the Reformed scheme the justice and righteousness of God in election does not depend upon the supposed existence of man's free will, but rather is founded upon the righteous character of God revealed in the Bible. This view acknowledges that in one sense God's will/desire is that all be saved, yet in another sense, He does not will/desire the salvation of all, since salvation is not universal (and as sovereign, omnipotent God, He could bring about the salvation of all, if it was His will to do so). The answers Arminianism provides to these difficult questions are valiant in their attempt to preserve God's sovereignty/fairness together with man's free will/responsibility, but they are based on conceptions of fairness and of the "free will" of man not demonstrated in Scripture. The following is a summary of points we have discussed thus far.

1. Classical Arminianism and Reformed teaching agree that man is under "original sin", and that apart from the working of God's grace, no one can be saved. This is because in our fallen sinfulness no one moves towards God or genuinely seeks Him.

2. Regarding the will of man, both Arminianism and Calvinism conclude that the will is so damaged by sin that apart from grace, the will of man is not free to choose God. However, the nature of divine grace, and how it is applied by God, is very different in the two systems.

3. In the Arminian view, prevenient grace counteracts the effects of the Fall, freeing and restoring man's sin-infected will to be able to accept, or to reject, the gospel. Man is drawn, convicted and enlightened by prevenient grace, yet without being "born again". He also has freedom to resist the wooing of prevenient grace. But if he does respond positively, by placing faith in Christ, he is then "born again"(regenerated).

4. Again, the Arminian view of prevenient grace is built upon various suppositions more based on human reason that upon the testimony of Scripture, such as:

a) Man must possess "libertarian free will", otherwise his choice for God cannot be genuine. An article from Theopedia defines libertarian free will as meaning "that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God";

b) God would not command things if men were unable to do them, and will not hold us accountable for that which we are unable to do.

c) God is obligated, by His loving nature, to provide universal means to the saving gospel. Since prevenient grace provides provides all with opportunity to respond to the gospel, God is fair in judging us if we reject this grace.

[In Part I we have presented arguments to refute these suppositions. See also the Articles listed in the "For Further Study" section below].

5. Arminian prevenient grace makes God's sovereign plan depend upon the fallen creature's decisions. The Reformed view argues that if God is truly sovereign, His plans are not contingent upon the actions of sinful men.

6. Prevenient grace gives men something to boast about, since it does not explain why some respond to it positively while others do not. Arminians say that the difference in responsiveness is not due to God's enabling. One is led to conclude therefore that something inherent in man accounts for differences in ability to respond to grace. Are some men better (i.e., more worthy) than others in this respect?

7. Prevenient grace is only partly effective in bringing man to salvation, since it may ultimately be resisted, and must be completed by man's action. Arminian prevenient grace thus makes man the "captain of his own salvation", since man's choice is the deciding factor in his being saved or not.

Thus I concluded at the end of the last post, "The state man finds himself in as a result of sin clearly demands a solution much more thoroughgoing and effective than prevenient grace". Let us turn now to examine more closely the Reformed teaching regarding total inability, to see if this statement is justified.

The Refomed View of Total Depravity/Inability
As we began to discuss in the previous post, in the Reformed view God's grace effectively (irresistibly) regenerates people who are spiritually dead as a result of the Fall; this grace effectively removes their natural resistance. In regeneration people receive a new spiritual nature that has new desires and new motivations. The will is thus enabled to choose to come to God. Prior to this new birth, people's desire/wills may be said to be "free" in the sense of being able to make choices and act upon them, but due to the debilitating effects of sin on every part of human nature (total depravity), people consistently and inevitably act according to their sinful nature/desires and therefore do not desire, nor will, to choose God. It is in this sense that people are "unable"-- the inability is not physical (people could physically obey God and His commands, if they wanted to do so), but moral (we simply do not want to).

The "total" aspect of total depravity/inability as taught by Reformed teachers refers to the fact that the effects of the original sin touch upon every facet of human nature-- mind, will, emotions, body. It does not mean that all people are as completely evil as they might be, in everything they do, or that as a result of the Fall, people are unable to perform any actions at all that may be considered good (from a standpoint of conformance to moral law and God-given conscience). Yet Reformed writers point out that it is only in relation to God can the "goodness" of human actions truly be judged.

Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Romans 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation. - John Frame

Why it it claimed that fallen persons, though "capable of externally good acts", are yet considered from God's standpoint to have "no goodness, in thought, word, or deed?"

In his article "Total Depravity", John Piper explains:

"...it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.

However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God... Piper also writes:

"Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Romans 14:23)". This is a radical indictment of all natural 'virtue' that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.

It is because the Bible describes the plight of fallen man as so completely desperate and beyond his ability to cure that the doctrine of total depravity/inability is so integral to the Reformed view. The Reformed view stands in stark contrast to other views we have discussed in this series.

The Pelagian says man is basically good-- we have not inherited the sin of Adam-- therefore man can come to God by his own power, and divine grace, though helpful, is not necessary. In this view, Jesus is our model and provides an example to follow.

The semi-Pelagian and the Arminian both say that grace is necessary, but either that man is not so fallen that he is completely unable to initiate the first steps towards God, or else that prevenient grace has completely restored his lost ability to respond to God. In this view, Jesus is a potential Savior. Salvation is dependent on human actions. My initial response to Jesus saves me, and only my continued responses to Jesus keep me saved.

But Calvinism/Reformed teaching argues that salvation is not best depicted by the Arminian picture of a drowning man who grabs hold of the "hand" of the life-saving gospel as it is offered to him. Rather, Scripture portrays fallen man as the walking dead (Ephesians 2:1-2); blinded to the truth of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4); enslaved and led by our own sinful, fleshly desires (Eph 2:3, John 8:34, James 1:4-15), and also by Satan (1 John 5:19; Eph 2:2, 2 Tim 2:26); in our consciences aware that the things we do are wrong, yet suppressing the truth of that knowledge as we progressively sink into evil (Romans 1:18-32), and store up for ourselves the wrath of God (Romans 2:5). In our unrighteousness, we are not seeking God (Romans 3:10-11) nor do we acknowledge and worship Him; rather, we worship and follow after gods we have made (Romans 1:21-23). We are alienated from the life of God; disobedient, led astray, envious, malicious, hating, and being hated (Titus 3:3); not only are we darkened in understanding and hard-hearted, but also we personify "darkness" (Ephesians 4:18, Colossians 1:13,21, Ephesians 5:8); we are separated from Christ, excluded from God's covenant promises, without hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12). And unless we believe in Jesus, we remain under the wrath of God (John 3:36).

So obviously, anyone "in the flesh" (unregenerated, not "born again", not believing in Jesus) cannot and will not please God (Romans 8:8). While it is true that believers too may live "according to the flesh" (that is, live by responding to the flesh that remains in us though we have been born of the Spirit and are indwelt by the Spirit), the unregenerate has no other choice than to live a "fleshly" life. This is because until a person is born-again they do not possess spiritual life (John 3:6, Romans 8:9, I John 5:12). Therefore they live "in the flesh", which, as we have said, is naturally dominated by sin and Satan (Eph 2:3).

So, apart from Christ we were DEAD (Ephesians 2:1), DEAD (Colossians 2:13), and DEAD (Ephesians 2:5),

"but God, being rich in mercy, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast...(my emphasis; Ephesians 2:4-9)

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him";(my emphasis, Colossians 2:13-15)

In the Reformed view, Jesus is an actual, powerful, sovereign Savior who saves us from the wretched plight we were in as a result of our sin. We were not just weakened, not just damaged, but spiritually dead-- and Jesus' death saves those that the Father has given Him (John 6:37,39). We are hostile rebels, with no spiritual life in us, but God makes us alive by His sovereign mercy, needing no help from us to do so.

"What the unregenerate person desperately needs in order to come to faith is regeneration. This is the necessary grace. It is the sine qua non of salvation. Unless God changes the disposition of my sinful heart, I will never choose to cooperate with grace or embrace Christ in faith. These are the very things to which the flesh is indisposed. If God merely offers to change my heart, what will that accomplish for me as long as my heart remains opposed to him? If he offers me grace while I am a slave to sin and still in the flesh, what good is the offer? Saving grace does not offer liberation, it liberates. This is what makes grace so gracious: God unilaterally and monergistically does for us what we cannot do for ourselves" -(Grace Unknown by R. C. Sproul p. 188).

"You must be born again" (John 3:7)
Jesus Christ our Lord

In conclusion, if Arminian prevenient grace is not taught as God's solution to man's sinfulness and separation from Himself (and we have tried to show that it is biblically unproven), then man is still under the effects of the Fall. And the Reformed view insists that the Fall has affected man's total being and made him spiritually dead to the things of God-- just as God prophesied would happen (Gen 2:17). Thus total depravity/inability is an accurate diagnosis of man's spiritual condition apart from Christ, and if we understand our true condition, then we will also recognize that the biblical cure is not leaving sinful men to use their free will to decide their own salvation, but that a sovereign, powerful, merciful Savior chooses us (John 15:16) and saves us from our sins (Matthew 1:21).

In the next post we will look at the topic of election, comparing the Arminian view (Conditional Election) with the Calvinistic/Reformed view (Unconditional Election). I hope this series has been helpful so far. Feel free to leave comments or to point out any deficiencies in my arguments.

For Further Study:

Do God's Commands to the Unregenerate Imply Moral Ability?

Total Inability/Total Depravity (links at Monergism.com)

Articles on Original Sin (links at Monergism.com)

The Unregenerate Will: Self-Determined But Not Free This is an excellent essay speaking to the subject of the supposed "free will" of unregenerate man. It shows that that the Arminian definition of the free will of men-- having ability to choose between two opposing alternatives, is simply not backed up by Scripture. We may do whatever we like, no physical force is coercing our choices, but man's sinful nature determines his desires and therefore his choices.


Other Posts in this Series:
Reformed or Arminian- What Difference Does Theology Make?(Introductory Post)
Reformed or Arminian- Theological Definitions
Contrasting Reformed/Calvinistic Theology with Arminianism (Related Views)
Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Part I)

Arminian vs Reformed Theology (entire series)

Tags: Arminianism vs Calvinism, Reformed Theology, prevenient grace, total depravity, total inability, unregenerate, born-again, regeneration, free will, libertarian free will, "in the flesh", spiritually dead

How To Get the Most Out of Jordan's View

Whether you're visiting this site for the first time or have checked it out before, in this post I'd like to let you know about the many resources available through Jordan's View.

Blogs, of course, vary widely in style and purpose. Some try to be "up-to-the-minute" sources as they provide links to breaking news items, the latest intelligence regarding a particular sphere of interest, or reaction to what's happening in the blogosphere. Other blogs, like this one, are generally more content-driven.

Some blogs become gathering points of public debate and discussion, while many others are content to be more personal in nature, visited mostly by friends and family.

At Jordan's View, besides trying to provide quality content that explicates a Christian worldview, it is my aim to serve the community by providing convenient link access to some of the best Christian resources on the web.

To give you an idea of what is available here at Jordan's View, I have listed below all the resources gathered at this site, as of today, February 13, 2007. I continue to add new links on a regular basis, and periodically to add new resource sections.

In the "Featured Ministries (Outstanding Resources)" section, I will be listing sites I have found to be a "cut above" most, in terms of content, organization or vision.

Blips on the Blogosphere
This is where I share links to recent web articles I have found valuable and interesting. Click on the "Read More" link at the bottom of the section to read all the shared articles on one web page.

Devotionals and Bible Resources
Devotionals, Bible Study (both for the layperson and for the more scholarly), Info about Bible Translations, Search the ESV Bible, Bible Reading Plans, Listen to the Bible (Audio Resources)

Christian Teaching
Online Audio Sermons, miscellaneous sites featuring Christian Teaching

Reformed Theology
Reformed and Charismatic Teaching/Ministries, Reformed Theology Resource links, Reformed Teaching Podcasts, Seminaries and Educational sites

General Theology
Charismatic Theology sites, miscellaneous general Christian Theology sites

Apologetics
Apologetic Teaching/Ministries, Christianity and Science links

Culture
Ministries Engaging Culture, Music/Arts/Culture/Media links, Film Reviews from a Christian perspective, Christian History links, News and Media from a Christian Slant

Web Community
Jordan's View Blogroll and miscellaneous Blogrolls of interest, Blog directories

Godly Counsel
Christian Counseling links, Ministries of interest to Christian singles, Ministries that help people stay sexually pure, Men's Ministries

And many other resources as well:

• "Multi-link portals", through which you can find many other websites in various categories


• Free online Christian books


• Resources for PDA users


• NYC churches


• Resources for Bloggers


• Web Browsers


• "Blogger Beta" hacks and hackers

So, to get the most out of Jordan's View, I highly recommend exploring these resources, remembering of course that "Jordan's View does not confirm or necessarily approve of all the views and content found through these links. One should always be "Berean": comparing truths expressed on this site or others against the standard of the Scriptures" (from my disclaimer).

I hope that you do find something that will edify, encourage and bless you. Please drop me a line with your comments or suggestions.

Blessings,

Alex

P.S. If you plan on coming back to visit Jordan's View, make it more convenient for yourself. Visit my "Syndication" section, where you can click the "Add to any Feed Reader" button to add this blog to your favorite reader (eg, Google Reader, My Yahoo, Bloglines), or click the orange icon to do the same via Feedburner. You can bookmark Jordan's View using your favorite social bookmarking tool (eg, Del.icio.us, furl), or subscribe to the latest posts via email. You can even add me to your "blogroll" with just a click. So many options...

Tags: Christian resources on the web, resources at Jordan's View blog

Blips on the Blogosphere Redux

Some time ago I began a regular feature on this blog which I decided to call "Blips on the Blogosphere". Through this type of post, I brought attention to various articles I encountered on-line and which I thought were well-written or of interest, so I shared them here with my readers.

Well, the innovators at Google have come up with a tool called Google Reader, which I find is a useful way to subscribe to, read, and also share articles from various blogs/websites. So instead of creating a new "Blips" post each time I discover articles I want to share, from now on I will simply share them publicly through Google Reader. And through a nifty widget, these shared articles will appear here in my new "Blips on the Blogosphere" section, with content automatically updated whenever I share something new. Click on the "Read More" link at the bottom of the section to read all the shared articles on one web page. Check it out!

Tags: Google Reader, sharing, blogosphere

Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Part I)

With this post I am at last launching into deeper analysis of the doctrines of Arminianism, compared with those of Calvinism (Reformed Theology).

I will contrast five points of Arminianism against the Reformed "T.U.L.I.P" (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints). As you may recall, the five points known by the acronym "T.U.L.I.P" were devised as a point-by-point response by the Synod of Dordrecht to the five articles of the Arminian Remonstrants.

"Although Calvinism is sometimes identified with these five points, they more properly function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism on the doctrines of grace and predestination, not as a general summary of John Calvin's writings, of Calvinism as a theological system, or of the theology of the Reformed churches (indeed, Calvin never fully discussed doctrines such as limited atonement in his writings, but only hinted at his opinion) (Five Points of Calvinism, Wikipedia)".

Yet because the five points do illustrate key differences between Calvinism/Reformed theology and Arminianism, I will continue my analysis using the following outline:

1. Universal Prevenient Grace vs. Total Depravity (Inability)


2. Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election


3. Unlimited (or Universal) Atonement vs. Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement)


4. Resistible Grace vs. Irresistible Grace (or Efficacious Grace)


5. Uncertainty of Perseverance vs. Perseverance of the Saints (or Preservation of the Saints)

Universal Prevenient Grace vs. Total Depravity (Inability)


Classic Arminianism agrees with Calvin that, as a result of the Fall, human beings are rendered powerless to choose "true good", including the ability to say yes to the gospel offer. Arminius said,

In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, 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. (489/Disputation 11 "On the Free will of Man and its Powers" Respondent: Paul Leonards)

The Reformed view would say that mankind, as a result of its thoroughly sinful condition (Total Depravity/Inability) produced by the Fall, is unable to do anything at all to save itself-- it is "dead in sins and trespasses- Eph 2: 1". Thus both Arminians and Calvinists agree that mankind requires the grace of God to be saved. But a key difference between them lies in their conception of how God's grace functions to bring the sinner to salvation. We will examine the differences between the Arminan and Reformed views of grace in greater detail in a future article ("Resistible vs. Irresistible Grace"). However in this post we will also touch on the subject, as we focus upon the difference between the Arminian conception of prevenient grace and Reformed views of how grace interacts with man's "Total Depravity" (or Total Inability).

Does prevenient grace really solve the problem of reconciling man's free will with God's sovereignty and fairness in election? Is it Scriptural? Does man's "total inability" to move towards God demand a grace that goes beyond what prevenient grace claims to accomplish? These are some questions we will attempt to answer.

The Importance of "Free-Will" in Arminian soteriology

In Arminian soteriology, God elected to salvation those He foresaw choosing Him by their own "free will" prior to their regeneration (being "born again" by the Spirit). The Arminian places strong emphasis on the necessity of man's free will in the making of the choice to either accept, or reject, the gospel offer. Without such freedom, the Arminian sees such a choice as not genuine. For God has not created human beings as programmed robots, but desires to preserve our freedom to choose or reject Him, so that if we do choose Him, it is a "real" choice. At the same time, the classic Arminian position sees fallen human beings as having no natural inclination to choose God. Arminians say God has solved this problem through His granting of "prevenient grace" to all, which nullifies the effects of the Fall upon the human will, freeing man to accept or reject the gospel offer (this concept of prevenient grace was particularly developed by John Wesley). It is once a person has freely said yes to the gospel by placing faith upon Jesus that they are regenerated (born-again); yet it is also possible to resist the influence of prevenient grace. Thus in this view, as man responds positively to prevenient grace, faith becomes his "gift to God". This is in contrast with the Calvinist view which states that an unregenerated man cannot exercise faith in God and can only receive faith as "God's gift to man". Note that in the Arminian view faith precedes regeneration, whereas in the Reformed view regeneration precedes faith.

"Wesley insisted on prevenient grace as a solution to two great problems in Christianity: the reality of original sin and the Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Developing the idea based upon the witness of Scripture, Wesley felt that prevenient grace enabled the doctrines of original sin and salvation by grace to co-exist while still maintaining God's sovereignty and holy character as well as human freedom" (Prevenient Grace, Wikipedia article). With prevenient grace, the Arminian can maintain that man is sinful as a result of the Fall and yet that he is saved by grace alone, since the Arminian argues that man does nothing to merit or earn salvation, but merely exercises faith in response to prevenient grace. God is sovereign in that He foresees who will accept this gift and makes such people the elect; He is fair and righteous because the opportunity to accept grace is given to all; He doesn't exclude anyone from the offer.

Arminian assumptions
There seem to be several assumptions underlying Arminian thinking with regard to prevenient grace:

1- In order to be justly held accountable for our choice, we must be able, by our own free will, to obey (or not obey) the command to believe the gospel;

2- The choice to accept or reject the gospel must ultimately come from ourselves; otherwise it is not genuine;

3- Prevenient grace preserves the justice of God. Because of His benevolence and love for all God desires that all would be saved, and His nature constrains Him to do everything He can to save all. Thus He provides means to all (prevenient grace) by which they may say yes to the gospel and thus be saved; therefore if anyone rejects this grace and is damned, it is their fault, not God's. God is not the cause, nor the author of, sin.

These assumptions underlying the Arminian concept of prevenient grace follow human logic, but are not supportable from Scripture.

Must we be "free", to be held accountable?
For example, let us examine the first of the assumptions above-- that in order to be held morally accountable for his choice, man must be able to freely choose or reject the gospel.

The Arminian agrees with the Calvinist that mankind is sinful as a result of the Fall. Certainly the Arminian would not argue that as a result of the Fall we are no longer responsible to uphold the moral law God has established. Are we not also responsible then, despite our fallen condition, to obey the moral command to believe the gospel and be saved?

The Arminian position seems to follow the logic that God would not command something if man was unable to do it. Yet this is not proven by Scripture. The Reformed position argues convincingly that while Scripture teaches we are all by nature sinful, even dead in our sins (Romans 5:12, Eph 2: 1-3), we are nevertheless obligated to uphold the moral law, the righteous standard the Creator has established (Romans 2:12-13, Matthew 5:17-20). There is no indication in Scripture that because sin has infected us that God has either canceled our responsibility for keeping His holy law or removed our guilt when we fail to do so. Yet our failure to be able to keep the law is designed for the very purpose of driving us to the righteousness that can only be found in Christ(Romans 7: 13, 24).

Limited grace?
In the helpless, lost state man finds himself in-- a sinner with no desire for God-- only God's grace will save him. Is that grace the Arminian "prevenient grace", which brings him only to the brink of salvation but must finally be completed by an act of the unregenerated (though "enlightened") human will? How enlightened by prevenient grace is the will anyway, since it may also finally decide that the gospel isn't true, after all? If all receive the same amount of prevenient grace, then why is it effective only in some, and not all? The fact that all receive the same portion of prevenient grace implies that there is something within people that would be the determining factor in whether or not they respond positively to the influence of prevenient grace and say yes to the gospel. Would not this act of believing then, become something about which such people could boast? (Eph 2: 8-9, 1 Cor 28-29 ).

Prevenient grace manages to preserve the freedom of the creature to say yes or no to the gospel, but at the expense of the power and the sovereignty of God, which this doctrine limits by saying that a man will not be saved unless he makes the choice to accept the gospel, and that God's sovereign plan depends upon the creature's decision, rather than the other way around. It is an odd grace of an omnipotent, sovereign God that would be so limited and indefinite in its effectiveness, and which would give men something to boast about!

Does Arminian "freedom" keep us from becoming robots and God from being an unfair Tyrant?
Why is prevenient grace so interested in keeping the decisions of mankind "free"? Again, this would seem to be because Arminianism assumes that unless a person's will is free to choose, apart from any outward influence, the act of choosing does not reflect genuine desire on the part of the chooser. But why is this important? Presumably because of these further assumptions: a) for true affection to exist between man and God, those affections must not be coerced, but freely chosen; and b) God would not hold us culpable for not choosing him, if in fact we have no other choice but to reject Him. In other words, if our choice is not free, how can God blame us for it? Therefore, it must be free.

Examining the Scriptural validity of these Arminian assumptions, however, they are found wanting.

It is true that affections for God need to be genuine, that is, we show that we truly love God through acts of obedience freely (in the sense that they are not programmed) chosen (1 John 4:16, I John 5:2, John 14:15). However, the Reformed view reminds us that because of our sinful condition, a person who is in the flesh cannot, and has no desire to, please God (Romans 8: 7-8, Romans 7: 18). The will is not free because, apart from Christ, it is in bondage to sinful impulses (Romans 7: 18). Only one who has been regenerated by the Spirit and now by faith walks after the Spirit can truly act in a way that pleases God (Romans 8: 3-6, Hebrews 11: 6, Romans 14:23, Romans 8: 13-14, Gal 5: 16-17, 24).

We love because he first loved us... 1 John 4:19

The Arminian thinks if God has predestined us to love Him, but man's free will does not play any part in the decision to be in relationship with God, then how can such a relationship demonstrate real love? However, the Arminian is overlooking the fact that, apart from God's work of regeneration, our wills are enslaved to sin (Eph 2: 1-3, John 8: 34) and therefore unable to love or obey God. The Reformed view of total inability teaches we must first have our natures changed (Eph 4:24), our will/desires renewed (2 Cor 5:17) and turned towards God by an act of His sovereign mercy (Romans 5: 8), and then we will be able to love Him as we ought, because a change has been brought about in our very nature(Matthew 12: 33, I John 3: 9, Hebrews 10:16 ). God's saving grace does not turn us into programmed robots who now must love Him-- rather He removes the sinful "heart of stone" and replaces it with a righteous "heart of flesh" that is now actually free and willing to love Him, rather than continuing to prefer its old sinful ways (Ezekiel 36:26).

Prevenient grace and God's fairness
The Arminian tries to preserve the fairness and justice of God's character in His action of bringing people to salvation by saying it is ultimately man's choice to either believe or disbelieve, rather than a choice forced upon us by God. The Arminian reasons that for God to be fair, He must provide equal opportunity to all to be saved. For how can God elect only some, enabling only them to believe and be saved, yet hold those He has not elected and similarly enabled accountable if they do not choose Him?

Yet Scripture, says Reformed theology, does not present this notion of fairness. Since all are guilty of sin and rebellion against God, all would be justly condemned (Romans 1: 18-25), but God has mercifully provided a way of escape, has elected many and enabled them to find it. It would be just and fair of God to condemn all people to hell, but He has shown His mercy and His justice through Jesus Christ, saving many from their deserved end (Eph 2:3-7, Matthew 20:28. Indeed, Paul speaks to this question of whether it is fair of God to show compassion to some yet harden others:

"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this? (Romans 9: 19-20)"

Paul's answers the above very natural question that arises from his teaching that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills". And his answer is that God as sovereign Creator has a right to act as He pleases; we His creatures are not in a position to question Him about it. Of course, we also know from Scripture that God's essential nature is good and it is for this reason that His his actions are always right. Exodus 33:19 shows the interesting juxtaposition between the goodness of God and His sovereignty in displaying mercy and compassion:

"And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."

Knowing the character of God from Scripture, there is no reason to assume that God's choices and decisions in matters of election are unfair, though from our standpoint they may seem so. We will be looking more at the issue of the fairness of God in a subsequent article that examines and contrasts the Arminian view of election (Conditional) with the Reformed view (Unconditional).


Thus far, we have seen that the doctrine of prevenient grace seems built upon certain assumptions, but the Scriptures do not appear to support those assumptions. But is there Scriptural support for the teaching of prevenient grace itself?

Prevenient grace in the Wesleyan scheme

Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace [prevenient grace]; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God.

On Working Out Our Own Salvation, Sermon 85, John Wesley

For Wesley, prevenient grace functions much as "common grace" does for Reformed thinkers. Prevenient grace is the means by which sinful people are able to do some good things, as their conscience is enlightened by it. This conception of grace bears some similarities to the Calvinistic "common grace". Common grace is that benevolence of God that causes Him to extend mercy and blessings to His enemies, such as allowing the sun to keep shining on them, giving material blessings, etc. In short, common grace may give the natural man all variety of good blessings-- but only by supernatural faith in Jesus Christ can man be saved, and this is not bestowed by common grace. This is the critical difference: Arminian prevenient grace may lead one all the way into salvation, but in Reformed thinking it is saving grace, rather than common grace, that brings salvation.

Tom Schriener, in "Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?" (Chapter 18 of the book Still Sovereign) describes further the Wesleyan notion of prevenient grace:

"Prevenient grace does not guarantee that the good will be chosen. It simply provides the opportunity or liberty to choose salvation. People may stifle the grace given and turn away from God, or they may respond to God’s grace and turn to him in order to be saved.

Obviously, prevenient grace fixes a large gulf between Calvinism and Wesleyanism. Calvinists contend that the unregenerate have no ability or desire to choose God. God’s election of some is what brings them from darkness to light, from Satan’s kingdom to God’s. Wesleyans believe that God has given prevenient grace to all people. As descendants of Adam they were born with no ability or desire to choose God, but God has counteracted this inability by the gift of prevenient grace. Now all people have the ability to choose God. The ultimate determination of salvation is the human decision to say no or yes to God."

Let us turn now, to examine some of the Scriptural evidence that some Arminians have argued to support the teaching of prevenient grace (I am heavily indebted to Mr. Schriener's article for the following arguments):

Argument #1: Jesus comes as the Light to bring universal illumination

John 1: 9
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

The metaphor of Jesus as the Light of the world expresses a truth rich with meaning. But does Jesus as "the true light, which enlightens everyone" necessarily accord with the Arminian idea of prevenient grace? Does Jesus' coming into the world as the Light mean that every person has now been illuminated by Him so that their will and their minds are sufficiently freed to perceive and believe the truth of the gospel? Such an interpretation of this verse seems highly speculative. Additionally, Jesus' words to Nicodemus, and later to His disciples, seem to best explain the purpose of the coming of the Light described in John 1:9:

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God. John 3:19-21

In John 12: 35-36 Jesus tells His disciples :

"The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."

It would seem then, that in John 1:9 the primary meaning of Jesus as the light is that His presence in the world exposes (like a light in a darkened place) the moral state of one's heart, and also brings light that illuminates a pathway out the darkness we find ourselves in. Those who believe in Him show themselves to be righteous when they come into the light of God and give Him the glory for their good deeds. They have received Jesus and have been born of God (John 1: 12), while those who are evil neither know him nor receive Him (rather, they prefer the darkness, to hide their evil deeds) (John 1: 10-11). This meaning of the Light of Jesus is far different from the Wesleyan notion that Jesus brings universal inward illumination and ability to respond to the gospel.

Argument #2: The Atonement brings prevenient grace

John 12: 32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

The above verse has been used by some Arminians to argue that the atonement of Christ makes grace available to all in such a way that all are drawn to Christ, at the same time maintaining that this drawing grace may be cooperated with or resisted.

However many Reformed thinkers say that the context of Jesus' statement here in John 12:32 is crucial in understanding who comprises the "all" that Jesus is referring to. Jesus is responding to His disciples who have informed Him that some Greeks were wanting to speak with Him. Upon hearing this, Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit..." He continues and then concludes with the statement, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself (John 12: 23-24, 32)."

Thus Reformed scholars point out that when read in context, Jesus' words here are not indicating that His death on the cross will draw all individuals without exception to Him. Instead Jesus' means the gospel, having been first proclaimed to His own people (the Jews) (Matthew 15:24), will now, by the act of His death on the cross, be spread to all (to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews).

Argument # 3: God must grant the power to choose Him because otherwise the warnings, invitations, and commands in Scripture are meaningless

We have spoken above about the faulty assumption underlying this argument. Nevertheless there is a certain logic in the expectation that if God commands us to do certain things that He will also give us power to obey. Indeed, verses such as the following seem to provide biblical backing for this idea:

John 16: 8- 11
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Romans 1: 20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 2: 4
Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

These and other passages do show that God is calling us to repentance, that the call to acknowledge God's claim upon us as Creator is universal (for even if we have not heard the gospel we can know God exists and is to be acknowledged, through the things He has made), and that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of its unbelief in Christ.

Despite our obvious responsibility to heed the call to repentance, the Scriptures declare that none of us--in ourselves-- has life/ability to obey (John 3:5-7, John 6:53, 63). Jesus invites all to come to Him (Matt 11: 28-30) and says of His followers that they must "be perfect" (Matt 5:48). Yet He also says that human beings are "evil" (Matt 7:11), that "no one is good except God" (Mark 10:18), that "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (John 6:44), and "all that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Jesus is saying that although we are obligated to obey His call and live holy lives, we are unable to believe, have life in ourselves, and do so, unless enabled by God.

For example, He said to some who did not believe, "you do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (John 10:26). This supports the Reformed teaching of human inability-- it is because we are Jesus' sheep that we are enabled by Him to believe. Even as believers, all ability to act righteously depends upon continuous abiding and empowering from the life of God, as in John 15:5, "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing".

Rather than support prevenient grace, the biblical evidence refutes the concept, argues Tom Shriener in his article Is Prevenient Grace in the Bible? where he shows that passages such as Matthew 11:21-27 and Mark 4:11-12 teach the very opposite of what prevenient grace is saying about God's intention to save all. In these passages we find that God's purposes may sometimes involve an intentional obscuring of the message or withholding of what might make people repent (such as miracles), in such a way that people are not saved. For example, in Mark 4: 11-12, Jesus explains why the parables He speaks are not understood by "those outside":

And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

We have seen how the Arminian concept of prevenient grace has important objectives. It appears to provide an explanation for how man can be sinful and yet move towards God, yet without his free will being violated. It seems also to preserve a certain ideal of fairness and justice, in that it says that through universal prevenient grace God has reached out, as it were, to all mankind, and if we do not receive his offer we are the guilty party, rather than God. Yet we have also found that the assumptions seeming to underlie prevenient grace are not proven by Scripture, and that neither is the doctrine itself justified or supported by Scripture.

And though in classic Arminianism prevenient grace is built upon the foundation of the thorough sinfulness of man, which makes him unable to do any true good, it nevertheless seems to remove this sinfulness and inability from man too neatly, and yet, not very efficiently. The state man finds himself in as a result of sin clearly demands a solution much more thoroughgoing and effective than prevenient grace.

With this we turn now to the Reformed teaching on Total Depravity (Total Inability), which I will discuss in the next post.

Previous posts in this series:
Reformed or Arminian- What Difference Does Theology Make?(Introductory Post)
Reformed or Arminian- Theological Definitions
Contrasting Reformed/Calvinistic Theology with Arminianism (Related Views)

Tags: Armianism, Prevenient grace, Total Depravity, Total Inability, Reformed vs Arminian Theology, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Wesleyan Arminianism, Classic Arminianism, TULIP

March for Life 2007 Ignored by Major Media

The FRC (Family Research Council) reports this Tale of Two Marches that I think is a revealing commentary on the liberal bias of the media and of some members of Congress.

A March for Life event that gathered anywhere from 134,000 (as reported by the National Catholic Register) to 200,000 pro-lifers (according to FRC reports) barely received media attention, while the story of a group of 10,000 anti-war protestors was plastered all over media front pages.

Check out also these interesting commentaries which question the lack of media coverage for events such as the March for Life, and the disproportionate attention paid to smaller (but more liberal) events.

Why Roe vs. Wade is Losing Ground
Media lacks fair, objective coverage of religion
Where was coverage of March for Life in Washington?
March for Life 2007
Evidence of Media Bias: Big Three Networks Ignore March for Life but not 'Peace Surge'

Tags: March for Life 2007, Liberal media bias, Family Research Council, Roe vs Wade, Pro-Life

Contrasting Reformed/Calvinistic Theology with Arminianism (Related Views)

This is the third post in my series on Reformed vs. Arminian theology. The first post described the main purpose for this series: I want to examine whether being Reformed or Arminian in one's theology is important; specifically, to find the practical difference one's theology makes to living faithfully as a Christian. In the second post, I provided brief historical background and definitions for Calvinism and Arminianism. You will recall that "Calvinism" (after John Calvin) is the name by which the views of the "Reformers" and their theology has come to be known, and that Arminianism (after Jacobus Arminius), is the name by which the theology based on the teachings of Arminius and his followers has come to be known.

Although I am very eager to get into the meat of this series-- a deeper examination and contrasting of the views of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) and Arminianism, I think that examining first some of the related theological/historical views would benefit our understanding.

Although Arminianism and Calvinism have become the most well known and the predominant theological systems in Christendom, we should note that they have developed over hundreds of years as a result of conflict and debate (sometimes extremely heated). Various alternative views, for example, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, have arisen and were denounced as heretical by the official church councils of their times. And within the Calvinistic and Arminian traditions, there have been, and still exist today, numerous strains. Classical Arminianism, for example, sees Arminius as its figurehead, while Wesleyan Arminianism (as the name suggests), is more influenced by the teachings of John Wesley. Among Calvinists, there are those who describe themselves as "four-point" Calvinists (Amyraldism), although strict Calvinists would argue that the 5 points (T.U.L.I.P.) of the Calvinistic scheme all hang together and therefore must be taken as a whole. There are other views in Calvinism as well.

Within the broad scope of church history, Arminianism is closely related to Reformed theology, and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common. In fact we will remember that Arminius was originally a Calvinist himself, and that while in his teaching he sought to correct what he saw as its errors, he was in agreement with much of Calvinism. Sometimes Arminianism is even referred to as a "moderate Calvinism." Nonetheless, today they are often viewed as arch-rivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement over the doctrines of predestination and salvation.

[The following information is culled from articles found at Theopedia(Order of God's Decrees, Semi-Pelagianism) and also at Wikipedia (Pelagianism), which include resource links for further study.]

Other Theological Views

Pelagianism
Little or nothing is known about the life of Pelagius. Although he is frequently referred to as a monk, it is by no means certain that he was one. Augustine says that he lived in Rome "for a very long time," and that he was originally from the British Isles. (St. Jerome suggests he was Scottish or perhaps from Ireland.) He was certainly well known in the Roman province, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life, as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. Until his more radical ideas saw daylight, even such pillars of the Church as Augustine referred to him as “saintly.”

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will, the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine of Hippo, who taught that a person's salvation comes solely through the grace of God, and only by God's pleasure to whomever he chooses to bestow it, with no need of participation on the person's part.

This led to Pelagianism's condemnation as a heresy at several local synods. It was condemned in 416 and 418 at the Councils of Carthage. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431, although it was not considered a major act of that council. Pelagianism as a structured heretical movement ceased to exist after the 6th century but its essential ideas continued to cause dispute.

Pelagianism is essentially a naturalistic view of salvation as opposed to a supernaturalistic view. Man thus has a free will and the ability to justify himself before God. The primary issue between the naturalist and the supernaturalist may be summed up in one question: Does man save himself or does God save him? Pelagianism affirms that all the power exerted in saving man is native to man himself. It could be called a "salvation-by-works" scheme, and it is one that continues to show up in various forms today.

Semi-Pelagianism
Semi-Pelagianism, a moderated form of Pelagianism, taught that man has retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God's grace. Pelagianism denied any real effect of original sin on human nature. Semi-Pelagianism admitted that man's nature was "injured" by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God's grace in the salvation process.

The word appears to have been coined between 1590 and 1600 in connection with Molina's doctrine of grace, in which opponents believed they saw a close resemblance to the heresy of the monks of Southern Gaul at Marseille in the fifth century, which they termed Semi-Pelagianism. This teaching, which aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, was condemned as heresy at the second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 after disputes extending over more than a hundred years.

Although the church generally agreed that Pelagius' teachings were not correct, Augustine's teachings were not universally accepted either. Whereas Pelagius was condemned for being too positive in his views concerning human nature, Augustine was said by some to be too negative.

Vitalis of Carthage and a community of monks at Hadrumetum, Africa (about 427 A.D.), contested some of Augustine's principles, asserting that they destroyed freedom of the will and all moral responsibility. The issue became heated in the fifth century when some monks in southern Gaul, led by John Cassian, joined in the controversy. These men objected to a number of points in the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace, namely, the assertion of the total bondage of the will, of the priority and irresistibility of grace, and of rigid predestination. Hence a compromise was sought, leading to what later became known as "Semi-Pelagianism." On three primary points of issue, Semi-Pelagianism settled for the following positions:

* Human nature is neither good nor bad, but injured. Just as an injured person can't quite do whatever he'd like to do, so likewise because of original sin, man's moral abilities became restricted. His free will remained, but was weakened by the Fall. Man, then, can still decide to seek and receive help.

* Man's need for grace: Although Semi-Pelagianism believes in man's need for God's grace (for man is too weak to help himself), man by his own free will is able to decide whether he wants God's grace. Whereas Pelagius taught that salvation is totally man's own doing, and Augustine taught that salvation is totally from God, Semi-Pelagianism teaches that salvation is a combination of the efforts of both man and God. According to Semi-Pelagianism, salvation is accomplished when man decides to cooperate with God and accepts the grace God offers him. This is often viewed as a synergistic concept of salvation.

* God's sovereignty: Semi-Pelagianism essentially maintains that the sovereignty of God is limited by man's decision to co-operate with God or not. God's gospel of salvation in Christ can be rejected by man and so return to God empty. Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person chooses to accept it and cooperate with grace. Like Pelagianism, it is a naturalistic view of salvation that has man saving himself with God's help.

Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.

Like Pelagianism before it, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 in favor of a moderate Augustinian view. Even though the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation was upheld by Augustinianism to this point, compromises made at the Synod of Orange left an incipient semi-Pelagianism which was eventually revived and accepted by the church at large during the middle ages.

The Amyraldian view
Amyraldism developed historically following the Synod of Dort as a compromise between Calvinism and the early Arminianism by giving up what was perceived as some of the harshness of Calvinism. The Amyraldian view, named after French Theologian Moses Amyraut, 1569-1664, is associated with Calvinism because it retains a particularistic element by acknowledging God's distinguishing grace in the election of individuals.

Amyraldians, however, place divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98).

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. Some see this as inconsistent, for how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men alike and equally, and at the same time to declare that when He gave His Son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men equally, but only for some which He would select.

The primary characteristic of the Amyraldian scheme is the placement of election after the atonement. However, opponents contend that Scripture indicates Christ came in order to execute the purpose of election. He came to die for and give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him (see John 10:15 and 17:2, 9). If this point is true, then the decree to elect some of mankind should necessarily precede the decree to provide an atonement. The Amyraldian scheme assumes the reverse to be true.

I have created the chart below to compare various points of the systems we have discussed (click to view/print a PDF version of the chart, or view the chart online here).



As seen in this chart and the discussion above, there has historically been a wide range of thought and debate concerning these important theological issues-- the nature of humanity in relationship to the Fall, the capacity/freedom of the will to choose God, what the atonement of Christ actually has accomplished, and God's modus operandi in election.

It is my conviction that the Bible provides revelatory answers on these critical questions, and yet, it has not necessarily revealed, in a way that satisfies the human need for logical, linear explanation, all of the mysteries involved. For example, the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is an ancient discussion, and the Bible answers that God is fully sovereign and yet man fully responsible for his actions. In this and other theological issues the Bible addresses, the realities described are so complex that as finite humans we must be careful to guard against the tendency to demand neat answers. The answers we find in the Bible are perhaps incomplete from the standpoint of human ability to understand them, nonetheless, Christians are called to faithfully proclaim the truths the Bible does reveal, fully embracing the tension produced by their antinomic nature, and allowing our thoughts to be guided by what is revealed rather than apriori assumptions.

As we interpret these truths accurately, we will be building a sound foundation for living out these truths correctly, with important implications for how we share the gospel, how we are to fight against sin, and how we are to pray, among other things.

In my next post, I will finally launch into deeper comparison/contrast the two systems, and begin moving towards conclusions about which of these two systems I think is has more support from Scripture. I will contrast the five points of Arminianism against the Reformed "T.U.L.I.P":

1. Universal Prevenient Grace vs. Total Depravity (Inability)


2. Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election


3. Unlimited (or Universal) Atonement vs. Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement)


4. Resistible grace vs. Irresistible Grace (or Efficacious Grace)


5. Uncertainty of Perseverance vs. Perseverance of the Saints (or Preservation of the Saints)

Other posts in this series: Reformed or Arminian- What Difference Does Theology Make?(Introductory Post), Reformed or Arminian- Theological Definitions

Tags: Reformed Theology, Arminianism, Calvinism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Amyraldianism, Comparative chart of Christian theological views