Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God

[Doulos Iesou]

Arminianism is a theological distinction regarding the doctrines concerning man's will and God's sovereign decisions to govern creation and plan his salvation.

Sadly, many people today have almost no accurate understanding of what Arminianism actually is, and have been led to believe in caricatures presented by famous teachers. Here I will speak a little bit about Arminianism in general, but more specifically clarifying what it is we believe about the sovereignty of God.

The famous Calvinistic TULIP was actually a response to the to the five articles of the Remonstrance, where those who followed in the footsteps of Arminius made five contentions.

I will give my own take on the Arminian version of the TULIP.

Total depravity - Arminians, like Calivnists embrace that man is totally depraved. To quote Jacobus Arminius, "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."

Resistible Grace - Having substantiated the fact that man's free will towards the true good being totally lost, we too embrace that a sovereign act of God must be taken in order for man to believe the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of the gospel to excite and enable faith in those who hear, to "open the heart" as Scripture says, to hear the message. This enabling grace is however not irresistible as Calvinists believe, and the person can choose otherwise to reject the message of the Cross and therefore be responsible himself for his unbelief.

Corporate Election - God has predetermined before the foundation of the world, that he would have a people. It was not an individual election, but rather he elected a Covenant Representative, namely his Son Jesus. From whom he would bless the whole world, not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well! That in Christ, God would have a people of all nations through whom he would redeem and restore the world and undo the sin of Adam. God has elected a people, not persons, these persons are elect on condition of their being positioned in Christ who was foreknown from the foundation of the world.

Universal Atonement - Christ's death was for the whole world, all of humanity. God desires for all to believe and be saved, and is awaiting the return of Jesus so that more can repent and believe the gospel. The atonement therefore is effectual only for those in Covenant with God through faith, and only then do they share in the blessings of the New Covenant purchased with the blood of Christ.

Perseverance of the Saints (Conditional or Unconditional) - There is no official agreement among Arminians regarding this issue, Arminius himself didn't really state an explicit opinion. Rather it is to be stressed that one must endure in faith and bear fruit in keeping with the truth of the gospel, and so demonstrate that they are truly Jesus' disciples. Whether or not ultimate salvation can be forfeit for a true believer is not necessary to decide for one who is an Arminian.

Lastly, I will quote Arminius on the Sovereignty of God and then say something brief about it myself.

"I consider Divine Providence to be “that solicitous, continued, and universally present inspection and oversight of God, according to which he exercises a general care over the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his [intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the design of preserving and governing them in their own essence, qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that “God both wills and performs good acts,” but that “He only freely permits those which are evil.”" Jacobus Arminius

If a person didn't know this was Arminius, they would almost think it was a Calvinist! The truth is there isn't too much difference regarding the sovereignty of God when it comes to Arminianism and Calvinism. What I would say though, is that we believe God is responsible with his sovereignty and does nothing further than permitting the actions of sinful humanity. This means that while God's sovereignty and providence extends to all intelligent beings, this does not exclude their autonomy at the same time. God has given humanity a degree of dominion, and in his fallen state mankind can resist for themselves the will of God to their own demise. This is not so that God's will is frustrated, but rather that his will is fulfilled by expressing his goodness by inviting mankind to genuine Covenant relationship.

Blessings in Christ,
DI

 

[eng35]

Arminianism is a theological distinction regarding the doctrines concerning man's will and God's sovereign decisions to govern creation and plan his salvation.

Sadly, many people today have almost no accurate understanding of what Arminianism actually is, and have been led to believe in caricatures presented by famous teachers. Here I will speak a little bit about Arminianism in general, but more specifically clarifying what it is we believe about the sovereignty of God.

The famous Calvinistic TULIP was actually a response to the to the five articles of the Remonstrance, where those who followed in the footsteps of Arminius made five contentions.

I will give my own take on the Arminian version of the TULIP.

Total depravity - Arminians, like Calivnists embrace that man is totally depraved. To quote Jacobus Arminius, "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."

Resistible Grace - Having substantiated the fact that man's free will towards the true good being totally lost, we too embrace that a sovereign act of God must be taken in order for man to believe the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of the gospel to excite and enable faith in those who hear, to "open the heart" as Scripture says, to hear the message. This enabling grace is however not irresistible as Calvinists believe, and the person can choose otherwise to reject the message of the Cross and therefore be responsible himself for his unbelief.

Corporate Election - God has predetermined before the foundation of the world, that he would have a people. It was not an individual election, but rather he elected a Covenant Representative, namely his Son Jesus. From whom he would bless the whole world, not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well! That in Christ, God would have a people of all nations through whom he would redeem and restore the world and undo the sin of Adam. God has elected a people, not persons, these persons are elect on condition of their being positioned in Christ who was foreknown from the foundation of the world.

Universal Atonement - Christ's death was for the whole world, all of humanity. God desires for all to believe and be saved, and is awaiting the return of Jesus so that more can repent and believe the gospel. The atonement therefore is effectual only for those in Covenant with God through faith, and only then do they share in the blessings of the New Covenant purchased with the blood of Christ.

Perseverance of the Saints (Conditional or Unconditional) - There is no official agreement among Arminians regarding this issue, Arminius himself didn't really state an explicit opinion. Rather it is to be stressed that one must endure in faith and bear fruit in keeping with the truth of the gospel, and so demonstrate that they are truly Jesus' disciples. Whether or not ultimate salvation can be forfeit for a true believer is not necessary to decide for one who is an Arminian.

Lastly, I will quote Arminius on the Sovereignty of God and then say something brief about it myself.

"I consider Divine Providence to be “that solicitous, continued, and universally present inspection and oversight of God, according to which he exercises a general care over the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his [intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the design of preserving and governing them in their own essence, qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that “God both wills and performs good acts,” but that “He only freely permits those which are evil.”" Jacobus Arminius

If a person didn't know this was Arminius, they would almost think it was a Calvinist! The truth is there isn't too much difference regarding the sovereignty of God when it comes to Arminianism and Calvinism. What I would say though, is that we believe God is responsible with his sovereignty and does nothing further than permitting the actions of sinful humanity. This means that while God's sovereignty and providence extends to all intelligent beings, this does not exclude their autonomy at the same time. God has given humanity a degree of dominion, and in his fallen state mankind can resist for themselves the will of God to their own demise. This is not so that God's will is frustrated, but rather that his will is fulfilled by expressing his goodness by inviting mankind to genuine Covenant relationship.

Blessings in Christ,
DI

Doulous Lesou,

Thanks for taking the time to start this thread and explain your Armeniastic views. These views do seem to have much more in common with Calvinistic views than the Armeniasm I grew up with; however, I do realize that a lot of beliefs are simply classified as Armenian if they espouse free will even if none of the other views line up with those you've described.

Of the 5 points you've listed, I am having trouble seeing how you can claim both total depravity as well as resistible grace as they seem to me to be mutually exclusive. If man is totally depraved, then wouldn't it also follow that the only way he could choose to follow grace would be if grace were irresistible? Let me use an example to explain why I struggle with this. Let's say you have 2 people, person A and person B. Both person A and person B have both grown up in identical situations and gone through the exact same situations in life, always making the same decision. One day they are faced with the decision to follow Christ, person A chooses to follow and person B doesn't. If both people are extended the same amount of grace, then it would seem that person A was not actually totally depraved because he was able to choose to follow Christ when person B wasn't. In some sense, person A must be morally superior to person B apart from the grace of God in order to be able to follow Christ. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding Armenius' point of view on this. I'm just trying to gain more understanding.

 

[Deborah13]

"“BECAUSE of the effects of the fall, that original relationship of fellowship with God was broken and man’s entire nature was polluted. As a result no one can do anything, even good things, that can gain soteriological merit in God’s sight. Therefore, we may concisely define total depravity as the unmeritoriousness of man before God because of the corruption of original sin.

The concept of total depravity does not mean (1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean (2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been affected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean (3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.

Positively, total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his entire being; and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favor with God.”
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology quote Charles Ryrie

This is what I believe about Total Depravity

 

[chessman]

...
I will give my own take on the Arminian version of the TULIP.
...
Corporate Election - God has predetermined before the foundation of the world, that he would have a people. It was not an individual election, but rather he elected a Covenant Representative, namely his Son Jesus.
...
God has elected a people, not persons, these persons are elect on condition of their being positioned in Christ who was foreknown from the foundation of the world.

...

Perseverance of the Saints (Conditional or Unconditional) - There is no official agreement among Arminians regarding this issue, Arminius himself didn't really state an explicit opinion.

DI

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." -The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 248, italics in original.

The 'Arminianism' of today has evolved a long way from Arminius' theology.

Correct me if I am wrong, as you've probably studied this more than me, but Arminius taught directly that individuals were elected (saved) via God's foreknowledge and preserved as saved individuals as well.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulous Lesou,

Thanks for taking the time to start this thread and explain your Armeniastic views. These views do seem to have much more in common with Calvinistic views than the Armeniasm I grew up with; however, I do realize that a lot of beliefs are simply classified as Armenian if they espouse free will even if none of the other views line up with those you've described.

Of the 5 points you've listed, I am having trouble seeing how you can claim both total depravity as well as resistible grace as they seem to me to be mutually exclusive. If man is totally depraved, then wouldn't it also follow that the only way he could choose to follow grace would be if grace were irresistible? Let me use an example to explain why I struggle with this. Let's say you have 2 people, person A and person B. Both person A and person B have both grown up in identical situations and gone through the exact same situations in life, always making the same decision. One day they are faced with the decision to follow Christ, person A chooses to follow and person B doesn't. If both people are extended the same amount of grace, then it would seem that person A was not actually totally depraved because he was able to choose to follow Christ when person B wasn't. In some sense, person A must be morally superior to person B apart from the grace of God in order to be able to follow Christ. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding Armenius' point of view on this. I'm just trying to gain more understanding.

I think a misunderstanding of Free Will is something that would be important to address now, at least in so far as it relates to this conversation. As Arminius said, that man's Free Will as it regards the True Good is entirely lost apart from the grace of God. That means that without God intervening in a big way, man cannot believe the gospel on account of his depravity. However, a better term would be called "Freed Will," where God effectively opens their heart to be able to receive the gospel, but ultimately the person must choose to believe for themselves.

Jesus uses the analogy of the story in Israel where if the people just look up to the staff, they would be healed. He then connects that with what he is doing, that he is to be lifted up for the whole world, and who ever would look to him (believe in him) they would be saved. The Holy Spirit then enables the person to look toward Jesus, but just as the Jews did in Acts 7:51, they can resist the work of the Holy Spirit.

Also, in regards to your second example, I don't think it is proper to imagine potential doctrines within philosophical constructs that you would never see in the real world, for the following reasons.

1) God exists in THIS world, not some philosophical probable world, so we must deal with real situations.
2) No two people have the exact same experiences.
3) Beyond grace, there is no ultimate reason for why a person believes, but it can be said that they reject it by their own depravity.

This common Calvinistic construct usually is argued like this too, if person A chose to follow and it was due to something about him rather than God's election, then he can boast that he earned his salvation. This argument, we will see, ignores Scripture.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 8:27-28 (ESV)

Paul is addressing the issue of boasting in v.27 of Romans 3, where he talks about the kind of boasting that was common among the Pharisees. That their Covenant relationship with God was earned and kept on account of their obedience to the works of the Law. However, Paul argues that it is on account of faith that receives the finished work of Jesus, and therefore we are justified by faith apart from those works of the Law. This is why a boasting is excluded Paul argues, not because God irresistibly made you believe, but rather because of the nature of faith itself.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Acts 4:27 (ESV)

He then goes onto argue in the next chapter that it depends on faith, IN ORDER that the promise may rest on grace. Again, salvation is by grace because it is through faith according to Paul's reasoning here. This to me completely invalidates any Calvinistic reasoning that would try to make faith a reason to boast for the Arminian, our one boast is the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as that was Paul's only boast.

Ultimately, I really don't know nor could I give a clear answer about why particular persons did or did not believe, and I think it is important not to go beyond Scripture and try to philosophically work out every bit of doctrine to the point where we now miss the point. This I can say.

Those who humbly receive the free gift of grace, by the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ, will be saved.

Blessings,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." -The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 248, italics in original.

The 'Arminianism' of today has evolved a long way from Arminius' theology.

Correct me if I am wrong, as you've probably studied this more than me, but Arminius taught directly that individuals were elected (saved) via God's foreknowledge and preserved as saved individuals as well.

This is a minor distinction, I embrace Covenant Election and reject Election on account of Foreknowledge. There are still many Arminians who embrace election on the basis of foreknowledge, but I think the arguments for Covenant Election are far stronger, and is in keeping with all of Scripture.

Also, Arminianism is simply a theological distinction, I don't get my beliefs from Arminius but rather from the Bible and I just so happen to agree with certain things that he taught. Most Arminians don't really know Arminius' writings too well (I have never read him that widely to be honest). I even think that when we shape the conversation in this light, it can lead to mistakes as the NT writers wrote things not within a 16th Century theological struggle, but a 1st Century one. Therefore I try to always make that clear in my exegesis.

 

[eng35]

I think a misunderstanding of Free Will is something that would be important to address now, at least in so far as it relates to this conversation. As Arminius said, that man's Free Will as it regards the True Good is entirely lost apart from the grace of God. That means that without God intervening in a big way, man cannot believe the gospel on account of his depravity. However, a better term would be called "Freed Will," where God effectively opens their heart to be able to receive the gospel, but ultimately the person must choose to believe for themselves.

Jesus uses the analogy of the story in Israel where if the people just look up to the staff, they would be healed. He then connects that with what he is doing, that he is to be lifted up for the whole world, and who ever would look to him (believe in him) they would be saved. The Holy Spirit then enables the person to look toward Jesus, but just as the Jews did in Acts 7:51, they can resist the work of the Holy Spirit.

Also, in regards to your second example, I don't think it is proper to imagine potential doctrines within philosophical constructs that you would never see in the real world, for the following reasons.

1) God exists in THIS world, not some philosophical probable world, so we must deal with real situations.
2) No two people have the exact same experiences.
3) Beyond grace, there is no ultimate reason for why a person believes, but it can be said that they reject it by their own depravity.

This common Calvinistic construct usually is argued like this too, if person A chose to follow and it was due to something about him rather than God's election, then he can boast that he earned his salvation. This argument, we will see, ignores Scripture.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 8:27-28 (ESV)

Paul is addressing the issue of boasting in v.27 of Romans 3, where he talks about the kind of boasting that was common among the Pharisees. That their Covenant relationship with God was earned and kept on account of their obedience to the works of the Law. However, Paul argues that it is on account of faith that receives the finished work of Jesus, and therefore we are justified by faith apart from those works of the Law. This is why a boasting is excluded Paul argues, not because God irresistibly made you believe, but rather because of the nature of faith itself.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Acts 4:27 (ESV)

He then goes onto argue in the next chapter that it depends on faith, IN ORDER that the promise may rest on grace. Again, salvation is by grace because it is through faith according to Paul's reasoning here. This to me completely invalidates any Calvinistic reasoning that would try to make faith a reason to boast for the Arminian, our one boast is the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as that was Paul's only boast.

Ultimately, I really don't know nor could I give a clear answer about why particular persons did or did not believe, and I think it is important not to go beyond Scripture and try to philosophically work out every bit of doctrine to the point where we now miss the point. This I can say.

Those who humbly receive the free gift of grace, by the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ, will be saved.

Blessings,
DI

Hello Dl,

Regarding your point about free will, I agree with terming it as freed will rather than free will. I believe it is the most Biblical definition to uphold. It also goes along nicely with Plato's cave analogy in 'The Republic' .

Regarding your point about using philosophical constraints to understand doctrine, I think I'd have to disagree to an extent. I agree that we should be wary of trying to work out every detail such that we miss the point of the doctrine we are trying to uphold, but I do believe that if we can keep the point of the doctrine that we are trying to uphold in sight then philosophically analyzing that doctrine can be beneficial. Philosophically analyzing hypothetical situations can help us to better understand God's nature and thus better understand how he operates in this world. There are 2 reasons why I think this hypothetical situation provides us with benefit when trying to understand free will and total depravity. The first is that if you uphold a molinistic ideology, then the before mentioned hypothetical situation is actually a very real situation and thus not unrealistic. The second reason is that even if molinism is not reality (I personally loosely dismiss it), bringing up unrealistic examples is beneficial because it reduces variables and thus allows us to extrapolate into real world situations based on the conclusion we come to when only 1 variable is present. If we were to simply ask the question, "why does one person choose to follow and another person choose not to?" We then have so many variables present that we can't even really begin to answer the question that we are asking. If, however, we do simplify the question down to one variable, we are then able to provide and answer much easier and we can then begin to understand the real world based on our conclusions.

I agree with you when you say that salvation depends on faith so that it can rest on grace, but my question would then be where does that faith come from? Paul says "By the grace of God I am what I am, not that God's grace was without effect, no I worked harder than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God that is within me." - 1 Corinthians 15:10. If it is the grace of God that forms us into who we are, then wouldn't it also be the grace of God that generates faith within us? Based on what you've said, I believe we'd agree on that point. I believe the point of disagreement simply comes in that I would claim that the grace which allows faith to be generated within us is irresistible; however, I don't think grace being irresistible takes away free will. I think, as you have expressed, as God opens our hearts, we have even more free will. I believe once we are in heaven we will have complete free will yet we will never sin, not because we are not able to but because God's grace is irresistible. If we claim that God's grace is resistible, then I think we are just pushing the question of election back one level. It seems that we'd have to claim that "some people resist God's grace and some people accept it. Therefore, when God creates people with free will, he creates some such that they are able to make morally superior choices and thus their free will is better or more free than those whom do not choose to follow Christ." If that is the case, then having a more free or better free will is in itself a form of grace.

I will say this. In general I don't view Armenian's as people who are claiming to choose to follow Christ so that they can add to their salvation or boast in their decision to follow. I think we agree on every point that really matters. I just don't understand how total depravity can be reconciled with resistible grace since, as I stated earlier, if grace is resistible it seems that there is at least enough good in someone to choose to accept it and thus they are not totally depraved, just mostly depraved.

Blessings,
eng

 

[eng35]

"“BECAUSE of the effects of the fall, that original relationship of fellowship with God was broken and man’s entire nature was polluted. As a result no one can do anything, even good things, that can gain soteriological merit in God’s sight. Therefore, we may concisely define total depravity as the unmeritoriousness of man before God because of the corruption of original sin.

The concept of total depravity does not mean (1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean (2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been affected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean (3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.

Positively, total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his entire being; and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favor with God.”
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology quote Charles Ryrie

This is what I believe about Total Depravity

Deborah,

I think I would disagree with the 3rd not which you've listed. The reason being that total depravity (in this context) seems to imply that God's grace is completely removed. It is only by God's grace that we are able to do anything good at all. If that is true, which Paul seems to espouse, then the opposite would also hold true. Resisting temptation is a form of good and thus only possible by God's grace. Therefore, if God's grace is completely absent then every temptation would lead to sin.

Blessings,
eng

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hello Dl,

Regarding your point about free will, I agree with terming it as freed will rather than free will. I believe it is the most Biblical definition to uphold. It also goes along nicely with Plato's cave analogy in 'The Republic' .

Cool.

Regarding your point about using philosophical constraints to understand doctrine, I think I'd have to disagree to an extent. I agree that we should be wary of trying to work out every detail such that we miss the point of the doctrine we are trying to uphold, but I do believe that if we can keep the point of the doctrine that we are trying to uphold in sight then philosophically analyzing that doctrine can be beneficial. Philosophically analyzing hypothetical situations can help us to better understand God's nature and thus better understand how he operates in this world. There are 2 reasons why I think this hypothetical situation provides us with benefit when trying to understand free will and total depravity. The first is that if you uphold a molinistic ideology, then the before mentioned hypothetical situation is actually a very real situation and thus not unrealistic. The second reason is that even if molinism is not reality (I personally loosely dismiss it), bringing up unrealistic examples is beneficial because it reduces variables and thus allows us to extrapolate into real world situations based on the conclusion we come to when only 1 variable is present. If we were to simply ask the question, "why does one person choose to follow and another person choose not to?" We then have so many variables present that we can't even really begin to answer the question that we are asking. If, however, we do simplify the question down to one variable, we are then able to provide and answer much easier and we can then begin to understand the real world based on our conclusions.

The problem is this really ends up with the person philosophizing doctrine, rather than gaining it through exegesis.

There has never been twins who have had the exact same personality, temperment, experience, etc. Since this is an impossible situation, it would be difficult to say whether or not all those things take part in how the decision is made. I know that when I came to the Lord it was something very deep and personal, directly tied to the unique experiences of my life.

So, I'll go back to what I always say. What do the Scriptures say?

I agree with you when you say that salvation depends on faith so that it can rest on grace, but my question would then be where does that faith come from?

It comes from God, faith is created in those who hear the gospel. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ." However, God does not believe for us, and it no where states that this is an infallible work. We are therefore commanded to believe and can only do so by grace, but it seems we also can choose reject the offer of grace to our own destruction.

Paul says "By the grace of God I am what I am, not that God's grace was without effect, no I worked harder than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God that is within me." - 1 Corinthians 15:10. If it is the grace of God that forms us into who we are, then wouldn't it also be the grace of God that generates faith within us? Based on what you've said, I believe we'd agree on that point.

Indeed.

I believe the point of disagreement simply comes in that I would claim that the grace which allows faith to be generated within us is irresistible; however, I don't think grace being irresistible takes away free will. I think, as you have expressed, as God opens our hearts, we have even more free will.

Your position is a bit different though than mine, not the will is free, but that the individual has been transformed through regeneration and then they believe. Is this correct?

If so, then this highlights another big difference between us.

I think, as you have expressed, as God opens our hearts, we have even more free will. I believe once we are in heaven we will have complete free will yet we will never sin, not because we are not able to but because God's grace is irresistible. If we claim that God's grace is resistible, then I think we are just pushing the question of election back one level. It seems that we'd have to claim that "some people resist God's grace and some people accept it. Therefore, when God creates people with free will, he creates some such that they are able to make morally superior choices and thus their free will is better or more free than those whom do not choose to follow Christ."

Why does God have to create some people who are able to make morally superior choices? All are born fallen and prone to the things contrary to God. None can make the decision to follow Christ except by the grace of God. A person's fate isn't locked in from birth, their experiences and life contribute to who they are, and the decisions they make.

I will say this. In general I don't view Armenian's as people who are claiming to choose to follow Christ so that they can add to their salvation or boast in their decision to follow.

Thank you for this, it is one of the most frustrating things to encounter when Calvinists do make this argument.

I think we agree on every point that really matters.

Amen agreed.

I just don't understand how total depravity can be reconciled with resistible grace since, as I stated earlier, if grace is resistible it seems that there is at least enough good in someone to choose to accept it and thus they are not totally depraved, just mostly depraved.

Total depravity is not utter depravity, mankind still is made in the image of God, and while every bit of his is affected by sin, it does not mean that everything he does is sinful. In fact, in order to embrace Christ as our savior, we don't need to do the morally right thing, but acknowledge that we have done the morally wrong thing and sinned against our creator, and then believe in Jesus for our forgiveness. It is the man who acknowledges that he is a sinner in need of salvation who goes home justified.

Blessings,
eng

Blessings to you friend,
DI

 

[Butch5]

Arminianism is a theological distinction regarding the doctrines concerning man's will and God's sovereign decisions to govern creation and plan his salvation.

Sadly, many people today have almost no accurate understanding of what Arminianism actually is, and have been led to believe in caricatures presented by famous teachers. Here I will speak a little bit about Arminianism in general, but more specifically clarifying what it is we believe about the sovereignty of God.

The famous Calvinistic TULIP was actually a response to the to the five articles of the Remonstrance, where those who followed in the footsteps of Arminius made five contentions.

I will give my own take on the Arminian version of the TULIP.

Total depravity - Arminians, like Calivnists embrace that man is totally depraved. To quote Jacobus Arminius, "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."

Resistible Grace - Having substantiated the fact that man's free will towards the true good being totally lost, we too embrace that a sovereign act of God must be taken in order for man to believe the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of the gospel to excite and enable faith in those who hear, to "open the heart" as Scripture says, to hear the message. This enabling grace is however not irresistible as Calvinists believe, and the person can choose otherwise to reject the message of the Cross and therefore be responsible himself for his unbelief.

Corporate Election - God has predetermined before the foundation of the world, that he would have a people. It was not an individual election, but rather he elected a Covenant Representative, namely his Son Jesus. From whom he would bless the whole world, not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well! That in Christ, God would have a people of all nations through whom he would redeem and restore the world and undo the sin of Adam. God has elected a people, not persons, these persons are elect on condition of their being positioned in Christ who was foreknown from the foundation of the world.

Universal Atonement - Christ's death was for the whole world, all of humanity. God desires for all to believe and be saved, and is awaiting the return of Jesus so that more can repent and believe the gospel. The atonement therefore is effectual only for those in Covenant with God through faith, and only then do they share in the blessings of the New Covenant purchased with the blood of Christ.

Perseverance of the Saints (Conditional or Unconditional) - There is no official agreement among Arminians regarding this issue, Arminius himself didn't really state an explicit opinion. Rather it is to be stressed that one must endure in faith and bear fruit in keeping with the truth of the gospel, and so demonstrate that they are truly Jesus' disciples. Whether or not ultimate salvation can be forfeit for a true believer is not necessary to decide for one who is an Arminian.

Lastly, I will quote Arminius on the Sovereignty of God and then say something brief about it myself.

"I consider Divine Providence to be “that solicitous, continued, and universally present inspection and oversight of God, according to which he exercises a general care over the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his [intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the design of preserving and governing them in their own essence, qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that “God both wills and performs good acts,” but that “He only freely permits those which are evil.”" Jacobus Arminius

If a person didn't know this was Arminius, they would almost think it was a Calvinist! The truth is there isn't too much difference regarding the sovereignty of God when it comes to Arminianism and Calvinism. What I would say though, is that we believe God is responsible with his sovereignty and does nothing further than permitting the actions of sinful humanity. This means that while God's sovereignty and providence extends to all intelligent beings, this does not exclude their autonomy at the same time. God has given humanity a degree of dominion, and in his fallen state mankind can resist for themselves the will of God to their own demise. This is not so that God's will is frustrated, but rather that his will is fulfilled by expressing his goodness by inviting mankind to genuine Covenant relationship.

Blessings in Christ,
DI

Total Depravity is one reason I disagree with both Arminianism and Calvinism.

 

[Deborah13]

Cool.


The problem is this really ends up with the person philosophizing doctrine, rather than gaining it through exegesis.

There has never been twins who have had the exact same personality, temperment, experience, etc. Since this is an impossible situation, it would be difficult to say whether or not all those things take part in how the decision is made. I know that when I came to the Lord it was something very deep and personal, directly tied to the unique experiences of my life.

So, I'll go back to what I always say. What do the Scriptures say?


It comes from God, faith is created in those who hear the gospel. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ." However, God does not believe for us, and it no where states that this is an infallible work. We are therefore commanded to believe and can only do so by grace, but it seems we also can choose reject the offer of grace to our own destruction.


Indeed.


Your position is a bit different though than mine, not the will is free, but that the individual has been transformed through regeneration and then they believe. Is this correct?

If so, then this highlights another big difference between us.


Why does God have to create some people who are able to make morally superior choices? All are born fallen and prone to the things contrary to God. None can make the decision to follow Christ except by the grace of God. A person's fate isn't locked in from birth, their experiences and life contribute to who they are, and the decisions they make.


Thank you for this, it is one of the most frustrating things to encounter when Calvinists do make this argument.


Amen agreed.


Total depravity is not utter depravity, mankind still is made in the image of God, and while every bit of his is affected by sin, it does not mean that everything he does is sinful. In fact, in order to embrace Christ as our savior, we don't need to do the morally right thing, but acknowledge that we have done the morally wrong thing and sinned against our creator, and then believe in Jesus for our forgiveness. It is the man who acknowledges that he is a sinner in need of salvation who goes home justified.


Blessings to you friend,
DI

I agree, good post. Thank you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I agree, good post. Thank you.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah,

I think I would disagree with the 3rd not which you've listed. The reason being that total depravity (in this context) seems to imply that God's grace is completely removed. It is only by God's grace that we are able to do anything good at all. If that is true, which Paul seems to espouse, then the opposite would also hold true. Resisting temptation is a form of good and thus only possible by God's grace. Therefore, if God's grace is completely absent then every temptation would lead to sin.

Blessings,
eng

What is your definition of God's grace?
Can you give some examples of that definition?

 

[DRS81]

Arminianism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Arminianism?s=t
the doctrinal teachings of Jacobus Arminius or his followers, especially the doctrine that Christ died for all people and not only for the elect.

I agree w/definition, Christ died for all and not just the elect. Christ died for all, but many people will not make it to salvation.

 

[Stan1953]

My experience over the years, has been, and still is, that most who support the synergistic POV, don't call themselves Arminian. This can't be said for the mongergistic POV, who normally use the label Calvinist, although I normally refer to their POV as RT(reformed theology).

In any case I know very little of what Jacobus Arminius taught, but have learned a lot about what Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) taught.
It may interest some to know that as an ex RC, he believed that infant baptism would save a person.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

My experience over the years, has been, and still is, that most who support the synergistic POV, don't call themselves Arminian.

If someone asked if I was an Arminian, I would say yes. However, I don't normally go around telling people that, Arminius isn't as widely studied as Calvin. I just like to tell people what I believe about it.

This can't be said for the mongergistic POV, who normally use the label Calvinist, although I normally refer to their POV as RT(reformed theology).

There were other reformers who weren't monergistic in their soteriology, so I feel like that distinction kind of hijacks the reformation.

In any case I know very little of what Jacobus Arminius taught, but have learned a lot about what Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) taught.
It may interest some to know that as an ex RC, he believed that infant baptism would save a person.

Many of the Reformers have much stronger views of the sacraments than we do today, John Calvin and Martin Luther especially.

 

[Stan1953]

If someone asked if I was an Arminian, I would say yes. However, I don't normally go around telling people that, Arminius isn't as widely studied as Calvin. I just like to tell people what I believe about it.

I don't. I try to stay away from labels other than Christian. I'm on another Christian forum where most of the Calvinists use a Calvinist faith icon and there is no Arminian faith icon so they normally just use the Christian icon. (plain wood cross).

There were other reformers who weren't monergistic in their soteriology, so I feel like that distinction kind of hijacks the reformation.

Yes, and Arminius was Dutch Reformed. It does seem to me though, that many prefer that designation rather than Calvinist, but I feel like I'm calling someone a name when I use Calvinist, so hence the designation RT.

Many of the Reformers have much stronger views of the sacraments than we do today, John Calvin and Martin Luther especially.

Yes and I was very surprised when I first learned of Calvin's stand on infant baptism. Most RT today don't support that and are surprised to learn it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't. I try to stay away from labels other than Christian. I'm on another Christian forum where most of the Calvinists use a Calvinist faith icon and there is no Arminian faith icon so they normally just use the Christian icon. (plain wood cross).

To other Christians I might agree that a distinction is applicable, but that is simply a recognition that there are theological distinctions among us. It says nothing to the effect that I would be a "follower of Arminius," and I would qualify my statement as such.

Yes, and Arminius was Dutch Reformed. It does seem to me though, that many prefer that designation rather than Calvinist, but I feel like I'm calling someone a name when I use Calvinist, so hence the designation RT.

I preferred the term Reformed Theology, or Doctrine of Grace, until I realized how arrogant those terms were as they painted themselves as the only reformed theology (which isn't true) and the only doctrines that were of grace (which isn't true) and I realized that Scripture actually doesn't teach Calvinism, i.e. the sovereign predestination of individuals to salvation.

Yes and I was very surprised when I first learned of Calvin's stand on infant baptism. Most RT today don't support that and are surprised to learn it.

Some even contend that Calvin wouldn't have been a 5 point Calvinist, but his statements on Limited Atonement seem almost contradictory in places.

 

[childeye]

The term freewill is an expression lost in semantics. Free from sin or free from God draws two separate distinctions and two opposite meanings. Free from sin can only happen after being a sinner. When Satan first introduced the proposition that God could be disobeyed and one would yet live, the choice of whether to believe God or Satan was introduced. The issue therefore is about where one puts their faith. To even ponder the proposition as a viable choice, is already not regarding the Holy God as Holy. It is a subtle lie that pollutes the soul as one counts it as his freedom to disobey the One Who Loves in the purest way. A person of innocence would most likely be unaware of all the implications that follow the proposition. Nonetheless, it would necessarily follow that to even consider the proposition is to not esteem God as God.

 

[Stan1953]

To other Christians I might agree that a distinction is applicable, but that is simply a recognition that there are theological distinctions among us. It says nothing to the effect that I would be a "follower of Arminius," and I would qualify my statement as such.

I have had those who call themselves Calvinists tell me they don't use it to define their allegiance to Calvin, but to confirm their allegiance to the T.U.L.I.P. doctrine. A lot don't even know what Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

I preferred the term Reformed Theology, or Doctrine of Grace, until I realized how arrogant those terms were as they painted themselves as the only reformed theology (which isn't true) and the only doctrines that were of grace (which isn't true) and I realized that Scripture actually doesn't teach Calvinism, i.e. the sovereign predestination of individuals to salvation.

Sadly that is NOT seen by those already indoctrinated.

Some even contend that Calvin wouldn't have been a 5 point Calvinist, but his statements on Limited Atonement seem almost contradictory in places.

A lot does, and then there are the four point Calvinists who spell it T.U.I.P., not agreeing with Limited Atonement.
I'm aware that those who call themselves Arminian are also divided as such, the difference being Eternal Security.