The day the Arminian Pride Parade came to Geneva
The Genevans were outraged to learn that the mayor had declared April 1 “Arminian Pride Day.” “Political correctness run amok!” the Calvinists growled. “And right here in our fair city. Why can’t those Arminians just go back in the closet?” Rumor even had it that the Home Depot and Disneyland were both sponsoring the Arminian Pride Parade. And perhaps worst of all, there was talk that the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for the military was about to be revoked, allowing prideful Arminians to serve shoulder to shoulder in the armed forces alongside their humble Reformed brethren.
Are Arminians really a prideful bunch, gloating in the superior character that is manifested in our choice to choose God who, in virtue of our choice, chose us? Mac Lee seems to think so: “In order for true free will to exist, that being each person contains within themselves the ability to or not to choose God, without God’s first choice of them, then A’s can say “I am smarter than unbeliever X, because I chose salvation and they did not”….”
I hear this a lot. But I’ve never seen any evidence that Arminians are more prideful than Calvinists. “Well they should be” comes the predictable reply.
Really? Such criticisms leave out an important doctrine, this little thing called prevenient grace.
Consider this illustration of the Arminian view of salvation. A small plane is flying over the Potomac River in winter when it crashes, leaving its two occupants soaked, bruised, and passed out on two jagged rocks. A special rescue team then flies in and one rescuer lowers from the helicopter with an extra harness, a bottle of special oxygen and a mask. He needs to use the oxygen to revive the occupants so that they can climb into the harness with his help and then be carried to safety. He fits the mask over the first man. Moments later he revives, willingly climbs into the harness with the rescuer’s aid, and is carried to safety. Next the rescuer turns to the second man. He fits the oxygen mask over his face. The man revives. But when he sees the rescuer he inexclicably refuses to get in the harness. Instead he jumps into the churning river and is swept away to his doom.
At the press conference later, do you think the first man will make either of the following two statements?
(1) I saved myself!
(2) I am smarter and/or better than my companion who refused to get in the harness!
Of course not! He’ll simply be thankful that he was saved even as he shakes his head sadly that his friend refused the harness. No pride here.
Now let’s turn things around. What about Calvinists? There are two kinds of Calvinists.
Calvinist type A: the kind that believes God loves the elect and hates the reprobate.
Calvinist type B: the kind that believes God has a special love for the elect and only a general, non-saving love for the reprobate.
According to type A, God has from eternity loved the elect and hated the reprobate. According to type B God has from eternity had a special love for the elct and a general love for the reprobate (which happens to look, in practice, a lot like hatred, especially after a few million years of divinely ordained roasting).
So the elect person thinks: “Hmm, why does God love me so much and not my lost friend?” There are two basic options. On option A there is something especially lovely in the elect that is absent in the reprobate. On option B the elect truly is indistinguishable from the reprobate in which case the choice of God to love and so elect one and not love and so reprobate the other is wholly arbitrary. (An aside: it isn’t arbitrary that God chooses to elect some and reprobate others since doing so maximizes his glory. But the specific individuals he chooses to elect and reprobate truly is arbitrary.)
So the Calvinist faces a dilemma. S/he can think either there is something pretty nice in l’il ole me that makes God love me so. (Ack! Pride!) Or S/he can think God’s love of him/her is completely arbitrary. (A chill goes through the room.)
Tags: arminianism, Calvinism, election, grace, providence, soteriology
43 Comments
2 Trackbacks
-
[...] Dr. Randal Rauser’s “The day the Arminian Pride Parade came to Geneva” This entry was posted in Depravity, Election, Grace, Prevenient Grace and tagged Depravity, [...]
-
[...] “The Day the Arminian Pride Parade Came to Geneva,” by Randal Rauser on his blog, with a somewhat sarcastic response to the claim of Reformed theology that persons exerting faith in Christ is a good work and the basis of pride. [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
drwayman says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 12:01am
You would have to pick April 1st, LOL.
But, then again, April 1st probably doesn’t have the same connotations in Switzerland that it does in North America.
Thanks for such a clearly written post
Linda says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 4:24am
Is it right for a man to love his wife differently than the way he loves other women?
Is it not right for God to love people differently?
Isn’t Jesus called the bridegroom and the church his bride?
Robert says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:11pm
Linda a calvinist, claims that God loves the elect in one way and loves the non-elect in another way. That he loves the elect the way a husband has his exclusive love for his wife and loves others in a different way.
The problem with this claim is an unstated and false assumption.
The false assumption in Linda’s thinking is that God **does in fact love both the elect and the non-elect**. But this is not true at all, not even close, if everything is prescripted by God.
Linda is neglecting the 600 lb Gorilla in the calvinist room.
In Piperesque type calvinism (which is merely a regurgitation of Jonathan Edwards type calvinism: a form of calvinism held by Piper, Sproul, etc.) God preplans and predecides everything. In this way of thinking God decides in eternity that there will be lucky people who will be the elect and unlucky people who will be the “reprobates” (I say lucky and unlucky because an elect person could just as easily have been reprobate and vice versa, dependent solely upon which particular total plan God selected to actualize: as election to salvation and election to damnation under this system has nothing to do with the human person and solely is based upon God’s decision, which is further based upon what particular total plan God decides to actualize, in this one you may be elect and in another reprobate).
The 600 lb gorilla in the calvinist room which Linda neglects to mention is reprobation.
Reprobation is the most hateful thing that could be done to a person. And in the calvinist system reprobation is what God does to most of the human race. Few calvinists are self conscious enough about their own system/theology to be forthright about what reprobation logically entails.
Angus Stewart a five point calvinist pastor, who is completely consistent with his calvinist theology and accurately presents what reprobation entails. Is a contemporary calvinist holding the same ideas as John Calvin. In a sermon in which he discussed the response of Calvin to Pighius, Stewart speaks clearly on reprobation.
Stewart says:
“This is talking about a will of God in reprobation to damn people forever for their sins in hell. That is hatred. There could not be a greater demonstration of hatred than that. Think about it. Any idea this is something less than hatred just will not do.”
Note Stewart a consistent calvinist openly admits that reprobation is hateful and that “there could not be a greater demonstration of hatred than that.”
Now some calvinists attempt some spin to lessen the hatred, cover it up by claiming that God merely “passes over” the non-elect and leaves them to their fate (but this carefully skirts the fact that if all is prescripted by God, like a novelist who decides who will be the hero and who will be the villain in his novel, then God actively decides both who will be elect as well as who will be reprobate before writing the novel). This evasion fails.
Another attempt at spin and evasion is to suggest that the reprobates “had it coming” because of their sin (i.e. they chose to reject God and due to their unbelief and sin they are then worthy of condemnation for this unbelief and sin). The problem here is twofold. First, everybody “has it coming” if God dealt with people strictly according to justice without mercy or possibility of forgiveness. Secondly, the elect also engaged in both unbelief and sin prior to their conversion (unless they were born saved) so they “had it coming” as well just as much as anyone else. And yet God chose to save them. And here is another catch. In the calvinistic system since only the elect are saved and God easily saves the elect. God could have saved everyone just as easily. But instead He intentionally chose to make most people reprobates. So He easily could have saved the reprobates, just as He easily saves the elect, but He intentionally chooses not to save them, to reprobate them from start to finish. And as Stewart correctly points out that **is** hateful (that is not a lesser “love” for the non-elect).
Stewart also says:
“If that is supposedly loved less I ask you what more could God do if He really hated them? To destroy people forever. To have indignation eternally. If that’s not hatred, I don’t know what hatred is.”
Again, Stewart is correct, if reprobation is hateful treatment of human persons, then by no stretch of the imagination or attempts at spin control can those whom God reprobates be described as **receiving love from God**.
And Linda’s attempt at spin control by drawing up an analogy suggesting that God loves the elect one way and others merely less or in a different way: completely neglects the 600 lb. Gorilla in the calvinist room(i.e. reprobation). Once we understand the calvinist concept of reprobation then all the attempted spin and redirection of attention fail.
Stewart further says:
“Regarding the elect God hates our sins and loves us: Regarding the reprobates God hates the sins and He hates them. Because they are outside of Jesus Christ. Outside of Christ God would hate you and me too because there is nothing in us but sin and corruption.”
Again Stewart forthrightly and clearly brings out the 600 lb Gorilla in the calvinist room. In this theology God loves the elect and hates the reprobates. Once we see this, talk of God loving the elect differently, unlike the love of a husband for his wife, rings hollow and does nothing to deal with the Gorilla. In fact if “love” is what God does to the reprobates in the calvinist system, then as Wittgenstein once remarked: “language has gone on holiday.”
Robert
Linda says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 4:28am
Don’t you know you cannot refuse God’s grace, enjoy the song…
http://youtu.be/x0nUizWjaFM
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 6:29pm
As any good Calvinist would tell you, option A is explicitly denied by the second point of traditional Sovereign Grace theology: unconditional election. The eternal choice of God to save his elect is not conditional on any inherent goodness or foreseen choice on our part (as it is in Arminianism).
But this does not mean that option B, completely arbitrary election, is necessary: even with respect to us. God may choose to save those who are less (relatively speaking) worthy of divine favor, so as to maximize His glory and our love for Him. “She loves much because she has been forgiven much.” Since no one can make the choice to be less or more “worthy”, God is still both sovereign and just.
So….false dichotomy.
drwayman says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 7:06pm
David – You are painting a false picture of Arminianism (as you accuse Dr. Rauser of doing regarding Calvinism). There is no inherent goodness in the Arminian system.
We love because God first loved us (I John 4:19). We can do nothing meritorious to save ourselves. In fact, we don’t even know we need saved until there is a quickening of His offered grace. God “chooses” to save “those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:21).
The haunting question about unconditional election is, “why did God choose you?”
On a good note, Arminians vehemently agree with you that God is both sovereign and just.
Jeff says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 8:40pm
A sincere question (I don’t often jump into the heated Calvinist/Arminian fray, so I don’t know all the finer points of the debate):
How exactly is it that unconditional election maximizes God’s glory? I’ve heard that asserted time and again, but I’ve never seen the logic spelled out.
Say, for example, I have been elected to salvation but my wife and son have been elected to damnation (or have been passed over for election to salvation, or whatever the precise terminology is). As I partake in the joys of heaven, does my love and admiration for God increase as I pause to imagine my wife and son agonizing in the eternal horrors of hell (or even more so, as I hear their wretched cries, as Tertullian, Aquinas, and others would have it)?
Quite the question, I realize. But it’s an honest question, and it flows directly from Calvinist theology, at least as I understand it. Arminians who believe in eternal conscious torment (or even annihilationism) aren’t off the hook either, but this is especially damning of Calvinism, it seems to me.
William W. Birch says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 9:11pm
Jeff,
When I was a Calvinist, I would have answered that God’s glory is maximized in both actions: one due to His grace and mercy (unconditionally electing some unto salvation), the other due to His severity and justice (rightfully condemning sinners).
One problem I noted while a Calvinist was that the latter, though true, was foreordained of God — meaning, even the reprobate’s sin (indeed, all events and choices, etc.) was foreordained by God, since He has foreordained all things by His sovereign plan. (I remained a Calvinist for less than two years, 1998-2000.)
As for eternal conscious torment, an Arminian would merely remind everyone that God desired the salvation of those in hell, and He graced them. They are not in hell merely by decree, nor are they there merely to glorify God’s wrath. They are there because they willfully sinned against God, who graced them and granted them mercy and the invitation to salvation through the gospel.
Scripture asks, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant . . . and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29 NASB)
The Lord bless.
Jeff says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 2:32am
William, I appreciate the thoughtful reply! And I realize you’re not arguing for Calvinism, but you seem an able and gracious devil’s advocate, so I’ll play off your response (and invite any interested Calvinists to join in).
“When I was a Calvinist, I would have answered that God’s glory is maximized in both actions: one due to His grace and mercy (unconditionally electing some unto salvation), the other due to His severity and justice (rightfully condemning sinners).”
Here’s where I think this reasoning falls apart: “Rightfully condemning sinners” cannot possibly do anything to maximize (or even elevate) God’s glory in any ontological sense, because God (according to the Westminster Confession, at least) is perfectly whole and self sufficient, quite apart from humanity. So to say that “rightfully condemning sinners” maximizes God’s glory in an ontological sense is to say that God was not as maximally glorious prior to having rightfully condemned sinners–an impossibility.
I suppose here we could take a detour around the concept of “justice” in Calvinist theology, although I’m not sure that’s relevant to this discussion.
Anyway, as I was saying, if “rightfully condemning sinners” cannot maximize God’s glory in an ontological sense, it must rather be that it merely does so in a perceptual sense, from the human perspective of those God has elected for salvation. But that strikes me a quite an impossibility as well, for reasons I have already illustrated.
Am I missing something?
Jeff says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:03am
I should add:
It seems quite obvious to me, that if maximizing God’s glory is the primary good to be considered here, and furthermore, that such maximizing is not in an ontological sense but rather in a perceptual sense from the human perspective, then universal salvation is clearly and undeniably the best option. Surely God could accomplish universal salvation from the Calvinist perspective, so it seems quite clear to me, given Calvinist assumptions, that anything short of that would actually detract from God’s glory.
“I take no pleasure in the death of anyone.” Nor should we.
And just for the record, I would not consider myself an Arminian. I’m a former evangelical adrift in the sea of theological uncertainty (though the waters are surprisingly soothing and healing, I might add). But certainly I have far more sympathy for Arminianism than for Calvinism.
William W. Birch says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 7:27pm
From my Arminian perspective, even if the theory of unconditional election were true, such would not necessarily make God unloving; after all, no one deserves salvation.
The caveat, of course, is the language of God in Scripture. If God is going to make sweeping remarks about His love for all people (John 3:16), wanting to see them saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth in Christ (1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Ezek. 18:23; 33:11), then the inevitable question is, How can God be genuine in His “love” for all people when He has only unconditionally chosen to save a few?
Is God obligated to love all people, and all people in the same exact way? No. But when Scripture affirms as much, then who are we to philosophize our way out of it? Certainly, appealing to the truth of a husband having a special love for his wife over any other woman is not tantamount to an omni-benevolent, sovereign Being who has claimed to love all the creatures whom He created in His image, wishing their salvation in Christ.
David,
If you wouldn’t mind, might I suggest one correction to your statement: The eternal choice of God to save his elect is not conditional on any inherent goodness or foreseen choice on our part (as it is in Arminianism).
You probably didn’t mean to suggest that in Arminianism God chose to save anyone due to “any inherent goodness.” I just wanted to clarify that, no matter what label one may don himself, anyone who suggests that God chose to save a person due to any inherent goodness is not an Arminian. I feel better having stated that. Thanks for your patience.
God bless
Mac Lee says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 9:24pm
YEY! I made it into a blog, now I guess I have to respond….
Not sure where all the A’s stand on this point but it goes hand in hand with what I think David is trying to say…
“Say, for example, I have been elected to salvation but my wife and son have been elected to damnation (or have been passed over for election to salvation, or whatever the precise terminology is). As I partake in the joys of heaven, does my love and admiration for God increase as I pause to imagine my wife and son agonizing in the eternal horrors of hell (or even more so, as I hear their wretched cries, as Tertullian, Aquinas, and others would have it)?”
If Arminian thought were true then, in the same scenario, as you enjoy the blessings of heaven and your wife and son are cast into outer darkness etc., you would have to say to yourself “why didn’t they just do what I did?” (there’s your boasting)
drwayman says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 9:39pm
Mac – I wish you would continue to not misrepresent Arminianism. I wonder about why you do so.
Dr. Rauser already answered that in his post. You can find it above:
“(2) I am smarter and/or better than my companion who refused to get in the harness!
Of course not! He’ll simply be thankful that he was saved even as he shakes his head sadly that his friend refused the harness. No pride here.”
randal says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 1:33am
Thanks to drwayman and William W. Birch for doing all the heavy Arminian lifting.
William W. Birch says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 10:27pm
And by this admission, Mac believes that Jesus Christ admonishes boasting (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). Hey, if Christ is okay with it, I guess it’s okay!
randal says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 1:31am
Mac, your conditions for ascribing the term “boasting” to a speech act are, to say the least, idiosyncratic. Indeed, they’re suprious. To ask “why didn’t they just do what I did?” isn’t boasting. It’s asking a question out of genuine puzzlement and, I suspect, deep existential anguish as well.
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 5:27am
then let me re-phrase the question one would ask, HOW did I choose and they not?
Salavtion comes at the point when one submit’s their life in repentance and faith, is it not? Hopefully you don’t all believe that all it takes is a mere admission of truth “believing”, because as we know the demons know Jesus is who he says he is… so at the place we trust in Christ and turn from our sins… what made us do that? what gave us the ability to understand THAT truth, and what allowed us to submit our lives to Christ, if we were truly at ground zero (prevenient grace) with those who’ve been graciously offered salvation? What, AT THAT POINT, is the mechanism/act/work (whatever you want to deem it) that we use to submit our lives that other’s with the same mechanism/act/work don’t submit their lives with?
or simply questioned… are you able to understand/know/do/think anything without God giving you the ability to do so, if you can act outside of God’s sustain-ment, then i have can’t argue, because you are greater than God.
William W. Birch says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 1:46pm
Mac,
You continually ask the same questions, over and over, after we’ve given you ample and sufficient answers. I don’t understand this. You are being dishonest in perpetually insinuating that Arminianism promotes an inherent free-will position which excludes the necessary enabling ministry of the Holy Spirit. This dishonesty on your part — while typical of many Calvinists — makes an objective dialogue on these issues impossible.
It would be like me insisting that Calvinists do not believe in missions. No matter how much you protest and demonstrate that Calvinists in fact do believe in and practice missions (and, yes, I know that they do), I, nevertheless, keep insisting that Calvinists do not believe in missions. How would that make you feel? But that is what you have done here, and it is sad. Hopefully in the future your dialogue on these issues will change; they certainly need to.
God bless.
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 8:52am
here is another point worth mentioning, and I apologize if Rauser doesn’t agree COMPLETELY with Birch, but on the other post Birch states ” faith PRECEDES regeneration” however Rauser’s illustration shows the reverse… i’m assuming climbing into the harness equals faith
“He needs to use the oxygen to revive the occupants so that they CAN (caps added) climb into the harness with his help and then be carried to safety. He fits the mask over the first man.”
it seems to me as though revive=regeneration is PRECEDING/ENABLING faith=getting into the harness…
drwayman says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 12:15pm
Mac – Three questions:
1) Have you actually read anything by Arminius, the Remonstrants or any contemporary Classical Arminian authors?
2) Can you answer Dr. Rauser’s question, “Hmm, why does God love me so much and not my lost friend? (in referring to Calvinism)”
3) Why won’t you answer questions that are directly asked of you? (if you notice, several people answer your questions, over and over and over yet you won’t answer direct questions)
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:11pm
Drwayman,
1) to answer the question, have I read ANYTHING by arminius or those authors, yes i have read some things, i clearly havent immersed myself in their teachings as much as you have, and hopefully you don’t fault me for that, just as i cant fault you for not immersing yourself in calvinist leaning, if you are implying that in order to have an opinion i must read thoroughly then i guess it seems as though you just want people who already think your stand point is the only one repeating, but i know you are open for healthy convo, so i’ll continue, even further so, as one person convicted me earlier, i’m not neccessarily concerned when it comes to what does the true theology of dead men teach, i’m concerned as to what the living word of God says, and to that point I chug along
2. answer – because the bible says so (He first loved us) I’m not going to argue against the bible, I will lose that battle
3. i believe those 2 above where the only ones directly at me, and so i’ve answered, if there are others that i’ve missed then I’m sorry for not responding, however you must excuse the fact that i am one person, with one life and one mind, trying to get one point (rather unsuccessfully at this point in time) across and I’m being confronted with several opinions based on several years of experience and entrenched thinking, so I’m doing the best with what I have
now, I’ve wasted both of our times with PERSONAL conversation, as a request lets keep all future conversations about the topic at hand.
drwayman says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:35pm
Mac –
1) What have you specifically read? I’m not asking you to immerse yourself in man’s teachings. It is much better to read the Bible than books about the Bible. The reason why I ask this question is that your questions have been specifically answered and if you have read Arminian teachings you would have seen no need to ask such questions. You would already know the Arminian stance as you should by now. The first sentence in this paragraph is a direct question.
2) Arminians believe the same, that we can only love because God loves us first. In fact, I John 4:19 is one of the verses that Arminians cherish. That is why it is so confusing that you keep insinuating that Arminianism promotes an inherent free-will position which excludes the necessary enabling ministry of the Holy Spirit. However, you didn’t answer the second part of the question, which is “why does God not love your lost friend?”
I enjoy PERSONAL conversation and I don’t see it as detracting from our objective: to understand God’s Word better and apply it to our lives.
3) You haven’t answered the question that Birch asked you above. “How would you feel if someone kept misrepresenting Calvinism in spite of overwhelming evidence that you present to the contrary?” Note his example and question above, which I have rewritten.
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 6:35pm
i will answer that one guy later but i want to ask these questions so i can come back and address multiple subjects…
how does one respond to the gospel to be saved?
it’s repentance = turning your desire FROM sin TO God
and faith – trusting that the penalty of your sins has been placed on Christ at the cross, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to you
is that how A’s see it as well?
if no, please explain
also, do A’s believe you are either FOR God or AGAINST God, there are only 2 places one can be, or do you believe something different? to elaborate, from my understanding of your theology, one is either;
Against – pre -prevenient grace & after rejection
indifferent – during prevenient grace
For – after salvation
please correct me if I’m wrong
and hopefully you see by me asking questions for clarification I’m not purposefully misrepresenting your beliefs, questions are the doorway to understanding
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 6:54pm
I have an even further question, the more I try to understand this partial/ineffective regeneration that is prevenient grace —
if baptism is supposed to represent our passage from death into life where does prevenient grace come in, because in your illustration it seems as though we are brought out of death into _____ (nothing it seems) into a place where we can either choose death again or choose life, how can you believe in the symbolism of baptism? you would have to (if my understanding is correct) GET placed under by a person — who represents God in the symbolism — and then STAND UP YOURSELF? because it’s not God who BRINGS you out of death into life, unless
thinking out loud, you do believe in eternal security right?
drwayman says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 8:39pm
Mac – We are back to square one.
What have you specifically read that is Classical Arminian? I’m not talking about other people’s opinions about Arminius or the Remonstrants or any other Classical Arminian author. I am talking about reading Arminian soteriology from a Classical Arminian, something that already has the answers to your questions.
If you need a suggested reading, I would recommend Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Dr. Olson. That is a terrific starting place. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Theology-Realities-Roger-Olson/dp/0830828419
Also, you can go to the Society of Evangelical Arminians website, there are tons of writing there for you. Here is the link: http://evangelicalarminians.org/
The reason why I ask this question is that your questions have been specifically answered and if you have read Arminian teachings you would have seen no need to ask such questions. You would already know the Arminian stance, as you should by now since we have spoon fed you the answers.
The first sentence in this paragraph is a direct question.
You most likely won’t be hearing from me anymore on this thread as this is not on topic. I don’t want to insult Dr. Rauser by hijacking his blog.
Mac Lee says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 7:29pm
Dale,
I’m not trying to insult anyone, but Rauser did put my name as a “look at the un-knowledgeable Calvinist” in his entry so I figured it was open range for opportunity, because, as I’m sure you feel, if i could just see the “truth” then I would feel the same way about the topic…
so questions ensue, I hope all can answer, I did go on your website recommendation, it seems to be similar to this one, so i figure since we already have a dialogue going, lets continue down the path
i’m still having an immensely difficult time figuring out “prevenient grace” in the aspect of this “partial regeneration”, if i’m understanding it correctly,
from: http://evangelicalarminians.org/The-Arminian-and-Calvinist-Ordo%20Salutis-A-Brief-Comparative-Study
“Again, it is important to note that strictly speaking prevenient grace and faith are not part of salvation but are necessary to salvation. Prevenient grace makes the faith response possible”
A’s state
that man’s mind or will, in his INHERENT state, is at enmity with God? correct?
then by PG, God changes their minds to no longer be at enmity with Him? correct?
then after that they have the possibility to either choose God or reject God (IN THE PG STATE)? correct?
The part i don’t get;
in this PG state, what is the state of man’s mind? for or against God?
PLEASE don’t say someones already answered this, I’m exhausted from searching through these blogs and the other website to try to find someone who answered this
drwayman says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 8:09pm
Mac -
When there is prevenient grace, there can be three responses: 1) the person stops resisting and accepts Christ into his/her life, 2) the person is not sure but becomes more aware of God’s movement in the world and in his/her life (this usually leads to more PG), or 3) s/he continues to resist (at this point, PG may come again or that may have been the person’s last opportunity).
PG is not a one-shot opportunity. It can be but usually is not. Classical Arminians believe that PG can only be administered thru the preached word.
Wesleyan-Arminians believe that God uses many things to bring an awareness of His working in someone’s life. They have a much broader view of PG.
I’ve been told by my fellow Arminian brothers that I have an “ancient” or “primitive” view of grace. I don’t segment grace. I see grace as one continual act, a “wooing”: God constantly reconciling the world to Himself. Where I part company with the electionist is that I believe that one can resist God’s grace while electionists believe that God’s grace is irresistible.
Your questions can be answered by a reading of Olson’s book as I mention above. If you can’t afford the book, you could at least download the free kindle sample so that you can get a flavor for it.
Mac Lee says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 8:39pm
Dale,
I’m sorry if i wasn’t clear, and I’m hoping you can answer the question if the answer is in the book and you’ve read it…
I’m not asking about the responses one has from PG, I’m asking about one’s mind DURING PG
is it or is it not at enmity with God?
the bible states that an non-believer’s mind is at enmity with God, those pre-conversion are non-believers, therefore against God
you are either for God or against God, as the bible states
so WHAT state of mind is someone DURING PG/pre-conversion, for or against?
Tom says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 2:57pm
Why does God choose me and not the other guy? Because through a fool like me, he can bring glory to Himself.
1Cr 1:27 “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;”
So what have I to be proud of? That I was so weak and foolish that God chose to take the most broken to bring himself glory?
He chooses them to bring Himself glory. Not because of what they can do, but because of what He can do in them. Why is that wrong? Do you not know that He is God,Sovereign, Maker of all things?
We are all dirty, worthless criminals. We don’t deserve anything. We don’t go to hell, because we didn’t choose Jesus, we go to hell because we are sinners. A man doesn’t drown because he never got the chance to be saved, he drowns in the ocean because of the millstone around his neck. This is what all arminian reactions to election boil down to:
“It’s not fair because they didn’t get the chance to choose!”
Following this line of logic, then what can be said for the man who lives in the isolated hut in china? He’s never heard the gospel, he’s never had a chance to get saved, how is it that he should go to hell?
Would you be so heretical to say that he doesn’t go to hell? For if that is the case then we should not preach the gospel for it becomes bad news. The Apostles should’ve never spread the Good News, they should’ve died with such news if such is the case.
It is for such reason that everyone “getting a chance” is irrelevant. You are sent to hell because of your sins, not because you had the chance and didn’t take it. It may be an additional reason, but it is not the reason alone. Refusal to accept the Gospel is just another sign of the depraved heart, the blind man. Such a man can only receive such sight from the Healer. It is only when we can see that we can then choose salvation.
drwayman says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 4:38pm
Tom – Much of what you say, a Classical Arminian wouldn’t have trouble with. None of us deserve heaven. Due to total depravity, we all deserve hell.
However, I believe you misrepresent Classical Arminianism with this statement, “This is what all arminian reactions to election boil down to: “It’s not fair because they didn’t get the chance to choose!”
Arminianism is not about choice. It is not about free will. It is about the character of God. The question that Arminians ask (if you read Robert above, he hammers this point home) is, “what does it say about God’s character as revealed in God’s Word to have a belief that God at the beginning of time selected some individuals for salvation and some individuals for reprobation?” and further “How does reprobation give God glory?” Robert calls reprobation the 600 lb gorilla that many choose to not address.
Also, Dr. Rauser made a post just to answer your questions. You can find that here:
http://randalrauser.com/2011/08/calvinism-and-the-arbitrary-camp-director/
Jeff says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 4:31pm
“Following this line of logic, then what can be said for the man who lives in the isolated hut in china? He’s never heard the gospel, he’s never had a chance to get saved, how is it that he should go to hell?
Would you be so heretical to say that he doesn’t go to hell?”
Tom, I would be quite happy to state that I’m “so heretical.”
“Why does God choose me and not the other guy? Because through a fool like me, he can bring glory to Himself.”
How exactly does this bring glory to God? I’ve posed this question at some length in my entries above, and have not received any answer from any of the Calvinists here.
Nick says:
Friday, August 26, 2011 at 4:39pm
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.-Eph 2:7
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? – Rom 9:22-24
Mac Lee says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 8:10pm
this maybe posted twice, but i wanted to start a new comment to have it’s own reply thread
also, in your illustration, you use getting into the harness (action) as salvation, correct?
Looking at the most stripped down understanding of human decision making, one decides (in this instance to get in the harness or not) based on their strongest desire at the time (not sure if you can argue this point, but I sure hope you have some examples of people choosing something they desire the least), if you say God has given us the desire to either get in the harness or not, equally, then you enacted an independent choice based on your strongest desire from prevenient grace, so A’s are saying they get into the harness because they desire it more than a (future) non-believer, so did man 1 want it more? better yet, since we both agree than both men before the crash, by nature, wanted nothing to do with the harness, and after the oxygen, man 2 STILL wants to have nothing to do with the harness, did he ever really have his nature changed? did he ever really get an opportunity to desire the harness?
if he did then man 1 can boast that since he chose it, he wanted it more, because by choosing one shows their greatest desire at that point in time.
I only got into the harness because God created in me the desire and caused me to get in the harness (Ezekiel 36:26-27 (ESV))
Linda J says:
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 4:58pm
This may be the confusion: God creating in you the desire is not regeneration, it’s conviction, wooing. That is what theologians call prevenient grace, and it is largely the work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness to Jesus, to what the word of God says about Him. Because you respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, you have the desire to be saved. The man offering the harness to you is wooing you to put it on; speaking to you about the predicament you are in, he convinces you to put on the harness and be saved. Your friend had the same opportunity to put on the harness, was wooed by the promise of this offer of rescue, but didn’t let that create a desire in his heart. He _chose_ to jump in the river for reasons of his own, not because he didn’t have a legitimate, true opportunity to do otherwise. The rescue team mourns that he chose to die, since that is what they were there for–he didn’t need to die–but they are glad for the one they have. You chose to receive the rescue where your friend rejected it, but it hasn’t entered your mind to be proud that you took advantage of the offer. You wish your friend had, too, but that does not make you ungrateful for your rescue, especially when you think of what risk (and perhaps loss) it cost your rescuers. And it wasn’t their fault your friend refused rescue; they wanted him to come, too.
So, what “made” you choose to be saved? Nothing and nobody “made” you. And that does not put it down to some reservoir of your own righteousness that you draw on to make the choice, either, but it is not God who makes that choice, it is you, and there is no mechanism to explain why one does and the other doesn’t. Jesus said, no one can come to me unless the Father draws him, but He also said, if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world and men preferred darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. But we all do evil! Since this is true, Jesus had to be talking about this one righteous choice, which we all can make with God’s willing help, even though all the demons headed for hell say otherwise. After you receive Him, believing the gospel, you are then saved, meaning you are then regenerated, receiving newness of life. That newness of life is a work of the Holy Spirit, and so was that quickening from which you received the desire to be saved, but that quickening is an act of grace before you were saved; the newness of life is His work in you after you are saved.
mac lee says:
Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 8:06pm
Linda,
i have a few problems with the logic of the following points:
“After you receive Him, believing the gospel, you are then saved, meaning you are then regenerated, receiving newness of life. That newness of life is a work of the Holy Spirit, and so was that quickening from which you received the desire to be saved, but that quickening is an act of grace before you were saved; the newness of life is His work in you after you are saved.”
^^ After you receive Him, believing the gospel, you are then saved, meaning you are then regenerated, receiving newness of life.^^ — that newness of life in your view does what? and what was wrong with the old life/heart/will? if it could respond to the Lord, which is submission (that’s the only response God’s looking for) what’s wrong with our old self, it seems as though regeneration is either superflous or not total, in that we had 99.9% evil but in our .01% we chose submission to God (were able to please God in the flesh) and that part doesn’t need regeneration – thoughts?
^^ That newness of life is a work of the Holy Spirit, and so was that quickening from which you received the desire to be saved ^^ so we don’t have ANY innate DESIRE to be saved, it must be given to us, so then if the Holy Spirit gives us a desire to submit which overules our desire to lead our own lives, you have to admit that not everyone is given a “strong enough” desire to overule their own innate desire,
because
we ALL innately are born with the desire to lead our own lives that is our nature (Eph 2:3), and not submit to the Lord, and if unbelievers continue to react to the strongest desire in us, which is innately to lead our own lives, then we were never given a strong enough desire to REPENT “2Tim 2:25″(the action stemming from the desire of turning from our own leadership and submitting to God’s),
essentially you are saying one is quickened to a desire to repent, so either everyone who does repent is irresistably given a desire that they enact out, which goes against A’s, or not everyone is given a strong enough desire, therefore the one giving the desire out isn’t distributing all desire evenly and essentially choosing who will repent. –> you can’t believe that we are all individually given an equal desire to be saved that rivals individually our desire to lead our own lives equally “50/50″ because there is no biblical foundation for that… the bible talks CONSTANTLY that we are either good or bad, dark or light, loving one master & hating the other, there never is a middle ground on which we have no outside/inside influence swaying us, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Matt 12 – a good tree produces good/bad produces bad, there never is a tree that is disinclined either way presented in Scripture, and I would love to see a passage that says otherwise, because that would sway me to consider Arminianism theology as orthodox.
drwayman says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 9:40pm
Mac -”so WHAT state of mind is someone DURING PG/pre-conversion, for or against?”
I feel as if you are trying to trip me up. With your history, these questions don’t come across as an honest searching. You appear to have an agenda but can’t come right out with what you really want to say.
It’s OK if you don’t believe that Arminianism is accurate. Just come right out and say it rather than coming across as inquisitive. We can agree to disagree and we can be Christian brothers who will find out when we get to Eternity.
I have repeatedly stated that arminians believe in total depravity. One does not even know that s/he needs God. The mind is at enmity with God.
PG is not a one-time event (usually). Are you skipping over that part intentionally? The mind continues to be at enmity with God until conversion. As I said, my primitive belief is that grace is a process, a wooing. I don’t segment grace. God is not an easily rejected lover of our souls.
Why don’t you at least download Olson’s kindle sample and read that before you ask more questions?????
Are you gonna answer Birch’s question, “How would you feel if someone kept misrepresenting Calvinism in spite of overwhelming evidence that you present to the contrary?”
drwayman says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 10:01pm
Mac – I forgot to add this. Though not specifically Arminian nor speaking specifically of PG, you might want to conceptually consider:
1) The Gray Matrix (an anthropological model):
http://thegraymatrix.info/index.php?page=15
or
2) The Engel scale’s decision-making model (an interpersonal communications model):
http://www.internetevangelismday.com/engel-scale.php
Kent says:
Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 11:29pm
I was once a Calvinist before for about ten years. I just recently dropped my Calvinism. I don’t want to be called an “Arminian” but I can’t blame others if they call me that now.
I was somewhat shocked to know that Arminians believe in Total Depravity and total inability like that of the Calvinist.
I learned and read about Prevenient Grace and I think I finally understood “faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.”
I am now trying to catch up with Arminianism. I am reading about it for hours deep into the night. It’s already morning here in the Philippines and I will have to get some sleep. But I can’t! I am SOOO interested. It has been almost two weeks now.
I am just beginning to understand Arminianism. AND I MUST SAY THAT IT IS GROSSLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MANY CALVINISTS LIKE ME BEFORE.
I think, I finally found the more biblical view. But don’t call me “Arminian”. I am still uncomfortable with it.
Mac Lee says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 10:57pm
Dale,
I’m not trying to trip you up nor do i have an agenda other than I’m merely trying to understand why it is you (Arminians) believe what you believe, yes I have a starting point, an electionist, but i don’t think I’m too stubborn to learn every view point and see how it fits with what i find in scripture and ask probing questions to either lead me or someone else to a conclusion, that’s all i’m trying to do here, nothing more, nothing less.
noted on TD, and noted on the “not a one time event of PG” so for dialogue sake it starts at a specific time and ends at specific time (be it death or some other time), to clarify, that’s how you see the STATE of PG? – QUESTION
as far as downloading the sample, i will later, but since you read/own it can’t i utilize you to get the answer directly to the questions i have?
birch – i would be angry, INTENTIONAL i’m not though, accidentally am i misunderstanding your points, hence the inquisitive posts
so with those said, i think it’s obvious i’m just trying to get the facts of this laid out for me/someone to be able to make a decision either way
questions ensue;
1. Pre-PG – man is by nature at enmity with God – WE ALL AGREE
2. IN the STATE OF PG (from start X to end Y) God changes man’s nature to what? it has to be either for Him or against Him, or what else could it be?
Mac Lee says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 11:28pm
The reason I find PG SO difficult to understand, is because it, in my opinion, has no biblical founding, follow the line of reasoning below and respond
You can’t serve 2 masters, you are either devoted to yourself or devoted to God, if you are no longer devoted to yourself (PG’s definition of what God does to our old sinful nature) then by default you are devoted to God, so PG can’t exist because God either changes you to be devoted TO Him or you are still devoted to yourself,
drwayman says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 11:38am
Mac – I’m no longer going to continue to hijack Dr. Rauser’s blog to please your questionings.
If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you READ today’s blog entry at THE ARMINIAN and comment there. I may respond to you there:
http://thearminian.net/2011/08/03/arminius-loses-his-cool/
My apologies Dr. Rauser for continuing on such a rabbit trail. Thank you for your patience.
Drew says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 4:27am
So refreshing to know that not everyone thinks I’m ignorant because I think a biblical soteriology is more in line with Arminian theology than with Calvinistic theology. Being raised in a Reformed church with all the other churches in my small town also being Calvinistic in there thinking, I sometimes have felt that way. So thanks to all the defenders of Gods true heart for people, that he “want’s all men to be saved.” Just joined the Society Of Evangelical Arminians.
drwayman says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 11:34am
Drew – Welcome to SEA. You will find we are a well-meant lot who try to stay faithful to God’s Word.