Why?

When asked why one chooses Christ and another does not the universal answer from the Arminian is because:




When all is said and done your salvation is up to you:



But that is fraught with:



The mystery of human love still baffles minds as unsolvable. Why? What is it that takes the heart and hurls it over a cliff headlong? How is it that such coarse a smith's hand holds a flower's stem and the cold steel voice becomes as soft as petals and as pleasing as lavender in mist?

Just because? It's up to you? We don't know what love is? Nah!

What love is this? It is a love that gives us a new heart which is spread abroad with the love of God:
So it is now my cause to show that this is exactly the same case for those being regenerated. They choose Christ because they have a new heart. I will demonstrate that the choice to believe must spring from a heart and nature that loves Christ if it is to be a faith that is pleasing to Him. Further the prophet Ezekiel said the result of giving the new heart is that is causes his people to walk in His ways. In other words, there is no heat without a fire, there is no sight without an eye; there is no hearing without an ear; and there is no believing without a new heart. Belief is what is required in the New Covenant and belief is what characterizes those who have been born again (1 John 5:1). We believe the gospel because it is now in our nature to love Christ and see his beauty and excellence. Our natural hostility has been disarmed because it was replaced by another affection. Now to all those who choose Christ do so because their new nature compels them to. A regenerate person never resists the desire to believe. He believes because he wants to and cannot do otherwise.

That's what love is.

Universalism Squeezing Arminianism

This post from Steve Hays at Triablogue presents an interesting question that I think all synergists (not merely Arminians) need to answer.  Read his post. It doesn't start out as an attack on Arminianism, but rather winds up posing some sticky questions re: "evangelical" universalism.

If you're too lazy to read the post, here's the point that is interesting. Universalism is on the rise in modern "evangelicalism" (so-called.) The Universalists use a lot of the same texts to prove their case that the Arminians use to combat Calvinism, texts focusing (supposedly) on God's great desire to save each and every individual. And, it seems, it's the Universalists who take these texts at greater "face value." This highlights the oft-made observation that many of the Arminians proof texts, if they prove Arminianism, really prove more than that: Universalism. (e.g. When the Bible tells us that Jesus is the "savior" of the whole world, on the face of it that would seem to support Universalism more naturally than it would Arminianism, especially when Arminians hold such statements up as proof against the idea of decretal election.)

Since we are graced here with the presence of some thoughtful Arminians and other synergists on occassion, I'm curious what your answer is to Hays' post. And, of course, I'd challenge you to answer him directly. I've got my popcorn ready.

Arminianism and Regeneration-Prior-to-Faith

Article 3 of The Five Arminian Articles of 1610:

That man has not saving grace of himself, not of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);

[A fairly strong statement that fallen man can do nothing, including have faith in the Gospel of Christ, that is anything other than evil. -GR]

but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in his understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John XV.5; 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

-from pages 546-547 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III. (Brackets mine, of course.)

Note well the phrase "it is needful that he be born again of God," and its relation to understanding and doing that which is "truly good"; and, note that the article has specified that faith is included in that true good. This Arminian confession, the foundational Arminian confession, which is the basis of the famed Remonstrance, has clearly specified that being born again must precede, logically, faith in Christ.

What this means is that when synergists of any stripe, even those claiming to be Arminian, argue against regeneration-before-faith, they are not advancing the cause of true Arminianism. Rather, they are denying the doctrine of Total Depravity (which both Calvinists and Arminians affirm) and are siding with teaching of Pelagius. Pelagius, of course, maintained that

a) Adam's fall into sin did not render his posterity incapable of doing Good, and

b) the fact that men are commanded to do Good is proof that they can.

These concepts undergird the position of the mainstream leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is the position that was advanced at the John 3:16 Conference. It is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian in its origin. Classic theologians in both those camps would label the theology of J316C as some form of Pelagianism.

Granted, it is not "hard" Pelagian: it is some greatly softened version, but it maintains the core ideas. Specifically, man's fallen state does not render him incapable of truly doing Good, and the fact that the Gospel commands him to do so is proof that he can.

Again, for those keeping score, Pelagianism is a heresy. Whether or not the J316C version of it is damnable is up to God the Judge; but we can certainly render the verdict that it is a different gospel, and thus anathema (Galatians 1.)

Get the "L" Out Of Here

Of the five points, "L", the central column upon which the other four depend, is the most hated, the most attacked, and really where the war will be won or lost.

This has been the attack point for those of the J316C. As we approach Christmas, the who and why for what to whom, is a question we should look into when contemplating the incarnation.

Follow John's links for some insight-filled listening and reading.

Remember the Arminian/4 Pointers Motto: Just Believe. The Gospel will become real, you are the power behind it, you make it efficacious. As long as you try, you always find it was worth it. Just believe...



Then again, the demons believe.

Why I'm A Harrier Guy

Asked why one with prevenient grace believes and not another, the libertarian answers, “one believed and the other did not”. But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. 'One believed' is no answer at all. It is merely saying the same thing in other words. Our libertarian friend never really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy which he imports into the Scripture, since he believes that it was not the nature of his heart (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.



Harry means:

1. cause distress by repeated attacks: to cause somebody physical, mental, or emotional distress by repeated physical or verbal attacks
2. raid or pillage: to raid or pillage a place, especially during a war

Or: smallest piglet:

the smallest or weakest piglet in a litter

To be harried:

looking or feeling tired and annoyed

A harrier:

1. somebody who harries somebody else: somebody who repeatedly attacks another person or group physically or verbally 2. raider or pillager: somebody who raids or pillages a place

We don't expect a small weak piglet to be a threat, really. It is the squealing that takes on the attribute of another type of harrier:

dog for rabbit hunting: a small hound resembling a foxhound used for hunting hares or rabbits

The only annoyance there is when they're caged and still howl and yip as if they were hunting.

We appreciate it when one shows tireless endurance like:

runner: a cross-country runner

but when the runner loses the race and keeps running anyway and claims victory because no one else is, that's an annoying harrier.

Generally we don't think of one as a sleek or an able hunter with remarkable eyesight and soaring above its prey:

a slender graceful hawk with long wings and a long tail that hunts by flying low over marshland and grassland to catch mice, snakes, frogs, and fish

when being harried. We think of the squealers, instead, used car salesmen, telemarketers, bill collectors and the like.

We think of Paul being harried by what at first was a tolerable follower. And when someone is a harrier of this kind, we can forgive them, but when they are a harrier of this kind we find them a little more than tiring.

Why? Just answer the why. Why or why won't you answer the why oh harrier guy? Could it be? Or, this?

Why, oh, why?

By Grace God Is The Monergistic Causal Agent

22Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD," says the Lord GOD, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. 31Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32Not for your sake do I do this," says the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!"

33"Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt. 34The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by. 35So they will say, "This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.' 36Then the nations which are left all around you shall know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted what was desolate. I, the LORD, have spoken it, and I will do it."

37"Thus says the Lord GOD: "I will also let the house of Israel inquire of Me to do this for them: I will increase their men like a flock. 38Like a flock offered as holy sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem on its feast days, so shall the ruined cities be filled with flocks of men. Then they shall know that I am the LORD."'"

In the above passages from Ezekiel 36, a unique thing occurs. Something that the Lord says is not done for anything that man has done. verse 32 The sequencing is familiar:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

What must happen to a man first so that he believes into Christ is the Dividing Line.

As John Hendryx explains:

God does indeed give a prevenient grace to man: According to Scripture, all people are born dead in sin (Eph 2:1). This simply means that, as a result of the Fall, people are born without the Holy Spirit and therefore, (left to themselves) are hostile to Christ and unable to understand to spiritual things (1 Cor 1:21). It does not mean they can do (or think) nothing in their state of common grace, but it means they can do nothing spiritual or redemptive ... that they will always think God's word is foolish (1 Cor 2:14) until the Holy Spirit, who comes from the outside, works grace in their hearts.

Now, what may come as a surprise to many is that even the most hardened Arminian believes this. Semi-pelagians do not believe this, of course, but Classic Arminians along with Calvinists believe, with the Scripture, in the necessity of some kind of prevenient grace prior to belief. And it is important that we make this distinction so we do not misrepresent anyone's views. So to the question: can any person come to faith in Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, both the Arminian and the Calvinist would definitively answer "no".

As is demonstrated in the Ezekiel passage it is not something with which man must in the beginning cooperate. Quite the opposite. Man in his state of rebellion will not. To be able to will to love God and keep the first commandment, God does a miracle, removing the heart of stone and putting in its place a heart of flesh, verse 26. That is not owing to man, not for his sake, verse 32, not that there is anything worthy in man, for he is no different than all the nations around with hearts of stone. Israel profaned the name of the Lord and caused the nations to do likewise. It is not because of some effort on their part, either, that they are caused to obey. For the following verse tells us from where the power which enables them is derived and how it is that power exerts its influence in causing the keeping of the ordinances of God such as the commandment of repentance unto salvation or any other righteous work required for entrance into the kingdom.

The kind of grace that God gives is not the faulty grace of the Arminian which may or may not fulfill the commands of God. It is bound to the very Spirit of God, verse 27. Just as men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, so also the righteous appeal of repentance and the cry for mercy is a gift carried out in vessels of flesh by the Holy Spirit's efficacious power. He causes and He carries His own to do what he commands.

Not only that, but the sanctification is accomplished by Him and Him alone. It is called circumcision of the flesh, or mortification of the flesh, by the Spirit. See Galatians also where Paul is concerned, not with just definitve sanctification but progressive sanctification which he parallels as being of the same type concluding that if one is saved but submits to rules and ordinances for sanctification and perseverance in salvation, the death of Christ avails nothing. A little leaven leavens the whole lump and eventually the doctrine of salvation by grace is abandoned and the Jewish religion of works takes its place. That is what Paul accused Peter of, introducing accursed heresy which usurps the Gospel's rightful place, replacing it with a gospel of bondage again to the law. It is a gospel, which is no gospel, of a god who is no god able to save.

Ezekiel tells us that all that comes before in prevenience is all that will ever be given, and all that is given is all that is necessary, and that it is complete in reference to the glory of God (verses 33-37) which otherwise would be blasphemed if it should fail to fulfill the thing it was sent to do. Jesus summed this glorification up in John 17. And as Hendryx explains, all those that the Father has given to the Son will be given a new nature in regeneration, and it does not fail, of all that the Father has given no one is ever lost.

Hendryx sums up:

To use some biblical imagery, we cast the seed of the gospel indiscriminately because the Holy Spirit alone can “germinate” the word unto life in Christ. The fallow ground of our hearts must first be plowed up by God, for the soil of our heart is not good by nature, but only by grace. The seed will not find good soil until God makes it so. For Ezekiel the prophet says:

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Notice that in order for obedience to take place the Lord must first cleanse our hearts, put a new spirit in us and remove our hardened uncircumcised heart. No one believes and obeys while their heart is still stone. Our blind eyes must be opened, our deaf ears unstopped, and our corrupt nature supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit, before we can begin to have any good thoughts about Christ. The Bible likens the new birth, or regeneration, to the first creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God let light shine into what was darkness. And God breathed life into lifeless man and then man, because of the new principle of life now within him, breathed and walked. Likewise regeneration can be likened to God's first breath in man, and faith, to Adam's first breath. The former is monergistic and the later, while it springs from the principle of grace that now exists within, is participatory. Both the creation and the maintaining are all of grace, but only God's breathing life into us (ex nihilo) is monergistic (that is, it is the work of God alone). When God brings forth something out of nothing, it is monergistic, but when we breathe (or have faith) as a result of God's act, we are now participating, so by definition this is not monergistic, but all springs forth from God's initial monergistic act of giving life from nothing.

"Regeneration is the fountain; sanctification is the river." - J. Sidlow Baxter

This is what I call passive/active sanctification, because as Jesus, Ezekial, Paul explain, except that we abide in Him we can do nothing. Nothing. By definition it is not monergistic if what we are saying is that man acts at all. The import of Hendryx, just as it was with the Council of Orange, and as it has been recognized in the orthodox faith since the patriarchs, is that man is carried along. All that flows from the fountain of monergism is what carries out the work and therefore the glorification of God. It is by grace alone and not the prevenient grace of the Arminian, or of any other form of common grace like that of the Pelagian or semi-pelagian. It is a prevenient grace that is preventive, that will not allow failure to save and that eternally. The grace of Christ, that is the Christian grace, is complete in all that is required of righteousness in man that fits him for salvation. And this all bought by the blood of Christ. His reward given to him by the Father is that we are made to partake in the adoption as sons. It is his righteousness, his deeds, his righteous confession and love of the Father freely given to us grace. It is his drawing, his spinkling of us, his cleansing us. He does it all, even making us active by it.

Our passive/active obedience is well expressed in the Hebrew term in Ezekiel for cause. Like the word receive in 1 Cor 4 it is active but can also be passive, and it can at the same time be both. The one thing that it cannot be is neutral. Like the term in Ezekiel for God santifying Himself in his people, all three are the case. Just as when it is said that his works have been finished from the beginning of the world yet he never stops working. But what always comes first is the activity of God so we also have the Promised One who is in us not by the power resident in us, that is we cannot ascend into heaven to bring Christ down, but by the power resident in Him. We are also in Him by the same power. Likewise we walk by the Spirit, passive/active. But we are at first passive while He takes the active role of causing us to walk according to His commands such that we put to death the deeds of the flesh. Though like Isaiah says he also causes us to walk not according to his statutes for a season, he is always faithful to save his people from utter destruction. His discipline moves us to diligence so we work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it is He who is a work in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. We do not do as we want. Therefore Paul tells us that Christ is our salvation, both our justification and sanctification, in whom alone is the promise, to whom alone belongs the promise, who is alone the promise. He leaves nothing to the chance of our choosing.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 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; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Thank God that from these stones he is able to raise up children.

ENJOY!

It's All Grace Unless You Run Out of Will Power

The condemnations of Arminianism from Dort:

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Who teach that in spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it - or else not to will or choose it.

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

JCT said:

Once again you display your raving ignorance of Christian doctrine, Twitchell. You demonstrate quite succinctly what I pointed out before: you have no clue as to what the word 'Pelagian' even means; you toss the term around heedlessly, using it as a tar-brush to spuriously incriminate Christians who dare to disagree with you.

Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were not condemned for being synergistic, they were condemned as heresy because they denied the necessity of grace (The Canons of the Council of Orange, Canon 5); the very same canons affirmed that men are saved by aid from and cooperation with Christ.

I never mentioned Orange. To disabuse any who think JCT's claims are true:

From the Council of Orange:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

What is evident is that Orange did indeed condemn synergism. So did Dort. The Arminian position is always in some facet of explanation heresy, whether the dishonesty resides in a well respected SBC hero, or in the rantings of bitter internet preachers. And while the Canons of Orange did soften the notions of imputation and exclusivity of God working monergistically in all ways in sanctification, it can plainly be seen that the initiation, source and completion of all things is finally God's work alone:

Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us

My position has always been that it is exclusively a monergistic work of God, but agree, that man is not merely passive. I describe it as passive/active, acknowledging what Paul taught, that he worked harder than all, yet not he, but Christ who was in him. As the White Horse Inn selection explains, the Pelagian error is more than just the particulars of Pelagius' original sin rejection. It goes to the usurpation of God's work of grace as monergistic. In both the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian systems grace is only that assistance to the natural ability of self-attainment, turning grace into works. Pelagius even went so far as to say that man did not need grace at all. And, as I have contended, as RC Sproul and John Hendryx conclude, as the men of WHI conclude, when it comes to Arminianism, the result of their view of grace and man's cooperation with it simply results in Pelagius' Island, that little area, where man does not depend upon the grace of God as sufficient for all things, but is finally on his own to make the choice.

I hope this is enough to convince the readers of this blog just who JCT is. Both Orange and Dort condemned the semi-Pelagian notions of grace. Again, I refer the reader to Canon 5 that JCT referenced and see that what JCT claimed about it was false:

For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers

And also later in Cannon 6:

if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Notice, that JCT does not make faith itself the grace which is given. And notice that the Cannon clearly states that it is a supernatural faith not common to man. In effect the grace of faith is the "conduit" or that which receives and rests in Christ, and not the will of man. It is also clear that it is grace that bends the will towards God and not man, contrary to the assertion of JCT. It is not left to man to will from neutrality, but it is the very gift of grace that kills the resistance and moves the will irresisably to trust in Christ.

Our final authority is not the concils, it is Scripture. We do however look to them as an appeal. What we find is that men before us saw in the Scripture undeniable evidence of the monergistic work of God in all facets of our salvation. It was the impetus of the Reformation. To exalt the humanistic free-will and the power of contrary choice is to embrace Erasmus and to return to Rome and condemn Luther. Our separation from Rome hinges upon the denunciation of the free-will doctrine. As Luther said, this is the hinge pin of all the protestation.

What's Depraved? (Reprise)

Continuing the discussion from the previous thread and post I thought it might be ripe to reference Edwards more completely concerning the imputation of Adam's guilt as congruent with the depraved nature.

What is evident, as Edwards points out, is the condition of man is that of unrighteousness at conception. Unrighteousness he posits is the negative principle. That is, when God removed the constraining influence of the positive, the righteousness of the will of God, man was then left to his own natural propensity to self-love but without the highest regard in self-love which is the love of God. It then is resolved that evil is no positive influence created by God in man but is rather the result of the negation of righteousness.

Evil in man is still, as Edwards would confirm, a reality, a thing which is created, but through negation. God does not need to place in man evil created ex nihilo, but merely to withhold his favor and evil is without the will of God that which wills its own. His favor is that constraint which is called the righteousness of God, or his will. It is not the will of his creatures, firstly, as derived from them, for what is the clay? Man's nature is as a river, the heart of a king in the hands of God, and water by its nature flows according to the constraint of the course set by the banks. Can man make God to see? Who has been God's counselor? None. It is God who has made man and the eye and given it sight to see. And more than that, he has given all that can be seen. All things, purposes, plans and means are from his hand. The negative principle does not mean that the nature itself is evil created, rather, that by the negation of the positive influence of righteousness in both nature and mind, that which was created good, and fit, does by its own tendency bend toward its own destruction being left without the unifying principle of the law of righteousness. Further, the whole creation was subjected to sin and the like principle known in physics, according to its natural bent, finds its terminus via the law of entropy in chaos.

Adam's action is not alone, nor at first where guilt resides. It cannot be, for even the "good" acts of fallen man are accounted as evil. Guilt was by imputation. It is the judgement of the righteous God who cannot abide with unrighteousness. Indeed, guilt as Edwards describes, is congruent with the nature of unrighteousness. By imputation of guilt, then, we have a legal decree, the finding of God which is assigned, not to the act, but to the individual who acted and that because man who acts is one with his nature which acts in the totality of the being. Adam's sin then is not like ours seeing as he had the righteousness of God constraining his actions and was innocent in the beginning. What we know is that he was deceived into believing that the action that he would take was righteous.

Our first exposure is in Genesis 3, and Paul tells us in Timothy as confirmation that the woman is not allowed to teach the man to reflect the original order of creation, and, to remind us of the deception that was first in Eve, who being in transgression taught her husband. Further, that he was cursed because he both listened to his wife and ate. Genesis says that Adam listened and that it was the woman's voice he heard. Adam was made first and from him is derived the woman whose position is not the dominance of her will over his, but is to be in submission to his headship, i.e., his will as a help fit for the purpose. Adam reversed the order by submitting himself to her in violation of the type which is the order of creation, itself the reflection of God's headship and his will as the primary source of will in man. When Eve fell, the conclusion is that Adam also, being one flesh, fell with her. Even though she ate first, the guilt is imputed to Adam as her head. That is the reality, for in Adam, all sinned, including Eve even though it was she and not he who first sinned. The offense Godward is to make God over into the creatures image, reversing the order or creation, now corrupted by that which opposes the will of God, exalts the will of man, and supresses the truth in unrighteousness. It is to do what Satan intimated, to make God to be unrighteous and ascend to equality with him, even above him.

One must consider that the evil tendency (the negation of righteousness) was not in Adam, nor in Eve from the creation, contrasted to James who locates it in fallen man, and not external. Rather, they were created in holiness in the image of God. The evil resided outside of them in an influential spirit called the Serpent of Old, or Satan, who Scripture declares as being what he was from the beginning. His influence was directed toward the mind and not the nature of man which was righteous. The mind operates under the influence of the nature unless some other influence impinges upon it. Unlike we who have inherited both the guilt and corruption, the faculties of Adam's mind had not yet been infected with thoughts directed only toward self-love to the negation of love of God resulting in chaos. Theirs was a righteous nature and beside it was given a righteous commandment, another influence, to guide the mind. So we have the statement that Adam's sin was not in the similitude of the many sins of his posterity. We sin because the corruption that was introduced into Adam by deception (a contradiction of the commandment) is passed along to us and resides in us. To that effect, God has assigned to man the stature of unrighteousness, removing from him the constraints of God's will which is righteous. The effect of Adam's guilt was sealed to him by God's imputation of guilt and the removal of righteousness which leads to life, simultaneously. The result was that Adam became the condemned according to his nature. We then have the history of Scripture and of all mankind, that the likeness of Adam is now transferred to his posterity rather than the likeness of God. Such that, the unrighteousness that was imaged by Satan in the Garden, Jesus assigns to man. To that end, man is continually attempting to make others over into him own image just as his father the devil did.

I will add this paper also.

As Shedd says, the reality of sin is far deeper than the superficial reality that guilt inheres in actions alone as the Arminian would propose. Guilt inheres in the nature. Nature permeates the entirety of our being. But some will say, then how was Adam accounted guilty? Was it not in the action? Again, I say, no. Guilt has to do with the declaration of God as Judge, just as righteousness has to do with God's declaration of righteousness which is foreign to man, an action outside of himself given to him. Man was not in the beginning neutral having both tendencies, therefore guilt was external to him for unrighteousness was not in him. Guilt inheres in nature precisely because God has declared the nature to be unrighteousness, not merely in an abstract way, but in truth, man has been "unrighteoussed." So also, the guilt is imputed congruently with depravity. "In the day you eat you will die." Not, in the day you eat you will become guilty, then later die. But, at once, simultaneous. "In the day" is colloquial meaning at the point of time. So later, we have Scripture using the term judgement to connote both the passing of the sentence and the execution of it as simultaneous though temporally expressed. To our feeble minds we see things from a temporally bounded perspective. But, the reality is that though man is born with an unrighteous nature and will proceed to actual sins, those sins are nothing more than the expression of one thing, sin. And sin is guilty of offense toward the nature of God by its very nature, whether it acts or not.

Man was created in innocence, but not in moral neutrality. He was created righteous. As righteous he could not sin, but God had left the will to its native freedom, being that which chooses according to the highest regard of the mind (in this sense it means volition where Shedd rightly uses Will to mean essential being or nature and all the attributes of it including its actions). It was there, in the mind, that deception entered,

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

To this Jesus adds, what a man desires in his heart, that is what he is. So that, a man lusting after a woman has already committed adultery. It does not become sin in action but in conception (the woman saw), and conception is accomplished in the inmost place where no one knows. The entrance of the deception was below perception, precisely the definition of deception. Then, it was at the point that Eve saw, that it was concluded that she had already eaten. The corruption though entered in disguised as a beautiful creature. This does not take genius, just attention to the texts. It was by imputation, in other words, by the introduction of the lie, beyond the view of consciousness, that she was corrupted, and obviously that without her consent for no true consent is given to a lie.

The text tells us that their eyes were opened, but what it means is that their eyes were closed, blinded by the darkness that had entered and they had chosen over the light. They saw themselves as naked, where God saw them as he had clothed them. Who said they were naked? Not God. Nakedness to them became shame but it was not so, God had clothed with righteousness and nakedness was what he had clothed them with. As we can see, the doctrine of imputation is demonstrated in Satan's very actions. For it was he who introduced deprivation into Eve and she into Adam. The deception itself is guilty. The corruption itself, at once the judgement, death sentence and execution. Through Adam we have, as Scripture declares, received God's curse, he having concluded that we were all in Adam, the whole of creation, subject to sin. Which is of course the truth even though the action of our birth had not yet occurred. Therefore David says he was conceived in sin. Not his, but his by imputation and that by the negation of righteousness as a result of the curse upon Adam's kind.

Guilt then is at once congruent with and consequent of depravity. That depravity is primarily the deprivation of righteousness. It is deprivation of righteousness in nature, nature being that which permeates the entire being, body, soul and mind. Righteousness itself cannot abide with any kind of sin, whether of nature, or of the actions of mind or body. In the entrance of sin into the world, God withdrew himself by removing the righteousness which constrains the will to love of God alone. Later we see this in the veil. It is not man who has placed the barrier to entrance between God and man, (see the Garden event), but God. In fact by God's action God prevents man from doing so by the unrighteousness of man's own will. In the reconciliation that is in Christ, that veil is removed to the glory of God, through Christ's flesh, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, effectually securing regeneration in the elect so that they can enter. Christ, who has put to death sin in his flesh has reconciled them to God in himself for the benefit of the elect and secured them forever by the vital union of the Spirit. But, no sinful choice can enter and no sin nature would will itself to, either.

As Shedd concludes, this is the great rift between one set of theologians and the other. What was begun in the Reformation was a return to the doctrine of original sin and clearer understanding than that which was held by the Pelagians of all types who rejected the doctrines of the Protestation both before and after Luther. This is what separates us, today. Misunderstanding the doctrines of the fall is the seminal beginning of all errors and offense against the doctrines of grace. The Arminian faction would contend against Shedd's statement:

"The prayer of David is the proper prayer for us to the lay of our death:

"Search me, O Lord, and try me, and see what evil ways are within me; cleanse Thou me from secret faults."

A prayer, it may be remarked, that is utterly unintelligible on the hypothesis that there is no sin deeper than consciousness."

Far then from being that it is only the conscious sin that it under the guilt of condemnation, David is repeating what he had learned by the Law, as well from his own innate sense. We must remember that the Law was added because of transgression not transgression because of the law, even though the law would produce the effect of making sin recognizably, exceedingly sinful through the unavoidable violation of it.

Let's not forget that we wage our war not against flesh and blood but against every lofty thought that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (my compilation). It is not individual Arminians, or Romanists, or any other people of Pelagian persuasions who are the real enemy. And each of us shall give an account of himself to God. Our challenge is to declare the truth and let the sword of his word divide that which is his from that which is not. It is not a new battle and all of the elect at first fight against the kingdom of God until they finally hear, "Do you kick against the goads?" I did, for I did not begin completed with this knowledge, nor have I yet arrived at a full understanding of it. Like the disciples we all believe ourselves the possessors of our own destinies at first self-assured that we have found the way until we hear the Lord say, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."

With Isaiah let's us declare as we come into the presence of God, "Woe to me, for I am undone," recognizing that sin is the un-doing of God's will in man, of which we are all guilty. Humanistic concepts of will as mere volitions of single choices do not go deep enough into the soul well of depravity. Instead, rightly defined, Will is the entire being according to Shedd's usage as expressed by Isaiah's totally coming apart in the presence of the Lord, peirced to the deepest part, divided soul and spirit, searched in the inmost being, where secrets of the hearts of men so desperately wicked that no man can know it, reside. That depravity is not found just in the foaming of the surface waters, nor in the merky deep and darkness below, but issues forth from the very sping of its existence. A Reformation understanding then, is not that of the will as a ready instrument wielded distinct from self, but Will is the wielder, himself. Will is what Shedd says, in concert with Edwards, man is, and man is born bound by a creature's nature, a child of wrath, exhaustively unrighteous, thoroughly.

So we do not speak a common language when speaking of will. For we do not mean mere volition as the Arminian formula would have it. Rather, we speak of that which is reflective of the whole image of God into which we were created. It follows then, we also have a greater appreciation of what it means to love the Lord God with the whole mind, the whole soul, the whole spirit, the entire substance of our being and not just our volitions, and then why it is that total depravity is the only other reality, and being sin, stands guilty of hating God with its entire being and not just the actions that flow from it. Knowing this, we also gain a deeper appreciation for repentance, and forgiveness, for those who love much have been forgiven much by he who has become sin for us. With Isaiah we know our native state, but also who it is that has given us the righteous confession of the lips that comes from the throne of God.

Arminianisms and Hobbs

Saturday's post brought up one of the more troubling features of modern-day Arminianism - that it is often, especially in its more educated and influential advocates, highly philosophical rather than founded in the Bible.

J.I. Packer wrote an excellent article, originally a paper at the 1968 Puritan Conference, entitled 'Arminianisms' . In it he distinguishes between different strands of Arminian theology, principally the Wesleyan type and the more philosophical and rationalistic type taught by the Remonstrants (those expressly condemned at Dort). It sounds like Hobbs falls into the Remonstrant or rationalistic category - I note how his theology seems a massive logical and philosophical construction rather than being firmly rooted and grounded in the Scripture. It was this sort of Arminianism that led the old English General Baptists into Unitarianism in the eighteenth century, and the Wesleyan or evangelical type was the basis of the formation of the New Connexion of General Baptists by one of Mr. Wesley's converts. These two versions of Arminan theology are significantly different.

Rationalistic Arminianism was the basis of the old English General Baptists, as I have said. This body was always smaller than the Particular or Calvinistic Baptists, and its theology left it wide open to the killing influences of the 18th century enlightenment. The result was all too plain. An example of one of the old General Baptist Churches can be found here, at Chatham in Kent. Another is here, at Godalming in Surrey. Yes, they went Unitarian. A few were saved through the work of evangelical Arminians, but as a rule in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in particular, where the General Baptists were strongest, the old General Baptist churches are now Unitarian where they still exist at all. Presbyterian churches like the Octagon in Norwich had first embraced Arminianism before they abandoned the deity of Christ for Arianism, then Socinianism. It is indeed a form of liberalism and assumes that man as man is able to respond to God of his own ability.

Wesley taught a fairly robust doctrine of total depravity, as will be seen by any who care to read his answer to Dr. Taylor of Norwich on the subject of Original Sin. Taylor was a Socinian, a rationalistic unitarian who was the pastor of the Octagon Chapel, Norwich (indeed the Octagon was built for him). Thus Wesleyanism set itself against the Rationalistic Uniarianism that had captured the English General Baptists. Wesley taught substitutionary atonement (inconsistently), and his theology was in general founded on the Bible, not philosophical speculation. Unfortunately many who followed Wesley fell into the same errors that the Remonstrants had, leading to today's liberal Methodism.

Wesleyan Arminianism, as Packer noted, contained a lot of its own antidote. Hobbs' Arminianism is a long ay down the path that leads to the Octagon Chapel's doors. John Wesley noted that the Octagon was the finest chapel in England: "But who can think that the plain old Gospel should ever enter here?"

"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

Now, as I have criticised Packer elsewhere for his stance on co-operation with ritualists and Romanists, I commend 'Arminianisms' to all our readers.

The Whole Enchilada

Here's a link to a huge debate that went on between the Triabloggers and Victor Reppert.

There's hours and hours of Calvinism vs. Arminianism all on one page.

Enjoy!

Looking for a Theological Term?

You might want to try these online resources:

Calvinist Dictonary

Arminian Dictonary

Paedobaptist Guest Article

By the power vested in me as a founding Don of the Reformed Mafia, I hereby dub R.C. Sproul Jr. an honorary member of the Reformed Mafia for the duration of this post. With that, I want to share an article Sproul Jr. has written. It was sent out via email from the Highlands Study Center last month. I hope it is edifying as well as thought provoking. [Edit: the article was written in response to a question from which the title cof the piece also comes.]

(Not to worry, after this post, we shall remain a solidly credobaptist blog! -RK)

"Do Arminians go to Heaven when they Die?"

by Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr.

From one perspective, to even ask this question seems almost ghastly. From another perspective, asking this question seems like surrender. On the one hand, no one believes in justification by having all our theological ducks in a row. On the other hand, many of our fathers saw the divide between Arminian theology and Calvinistic theology as a decisive one. We want to honor our brothers if they are our brothers, and we want to honor our fathers, if they are right on this issue. Better still, we want to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely. What he is getting at, one should not be surprised, is wisdom. First, the problem. Why would we even have to ask? The difficulty is two-fold. First, we are blessed with the atoning work of Christ when we repent for our sins, and trust in His finished work on our behalf. How much of our sin must we repent for? All of it. In the Arminian scheme there remains in man a part of him that is still righteous, that part out of which comes his ability to choose the good as it is offered in the gospel. The Arminian is not, according to his theology, fully repentant. Second, we must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. In the Arminian schema, he trusts a great deal in the finished work of Christ, but trusts some in his own ability to choose the good. If a man believes that God does 99% of the saving, and man 1%, then that man is not truly saved. The Galatian heresy is dealing with just this issue. These were people who believed that Christ’s life, death and resurrection, combined with obedience to the ceremonial law, brings one peace with God. Such a belief will not bring you the work of Christ. It will only bring His judgment.

So they don’t make it, right? Well, have any of us repented fully for all our sins? Of course we say we repent for all our sins, but have we truly? Do we know all our sins? Is it not because of our sin that we look at some of our sins as virtues, that which should be praised rather than condemned? Ought we not, after seeking to enter more fully into our sin, after living in sackcloth and ashes, should we not then repent for our repentance? Won’t we all come woefully short of full repentance on this side of the veil? Did not Jesus die for sins such as these?

In like manner, it is one thing to articulate a doctrine of justification wherein we are utterly dependent on the work of Christ. It is altogether another to actually trust fully in that work. I would suggest that heaven is full of Calvinists who affirmed with great vigor sola fide, but who in the dark recesses of their hearts, subconsciously, believed that God was pleased with them because of their fervor for sola fide, or because of their fidelity in keeping their quiet times, or their passion for honoring the Sabbath. We are all Pelagians at heart, even those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists.

The long and the short of it is that no human is fully consistent with respect to his saying and his doing. No human being is even consistent within his saying. The Arminian says at the same time and in the same relationship, “It’s all Jesus” and “It’s mostly Jesus and partly me.” They are inconsistent, self-contradictory. In the end, those who most fully believe it’s all Jesus will be with Him forever. Those who more fully believe it’s Jesus and them will hear Him say, “Depart from me I never knew you.” To put it another way, we are justified by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, not by articulating a doctrine of justification by faith alone. We too, we Calvinists that is, make it into heaven by a happy inconsistency. That is, we all have error in our thinking. And every error contradicts what is true. Were we to adjust the true things we believed to make them consistent with the false things we believe, we would all end up in damnable heresy.

We have to affirm, at the same time, that Jesus came to save sinners, but not all sinners. He will save those sinners to whom His Spirit gives the gift of faith. That will include those who don’t know where the gift came from, as long as they actually have the gift. We ought also to remember that if we are right on this issue, if Calvinism is true and Arminianism false, we are right by the grace of God, not our own wisdom. What do we have that was not first given to us?

Monkeying with the Bible

It never ceases to amaze me how the Arminians wriggle out of obviously Calvinistic passages of Scripture. Reading Dave Hunt's part of Debating Calvinism with James White is physically painful, and Steve Gregg's efforts on his radio debate with the said Dr. White caused a similar reaction.
But there is nothing new about this. Here is a section from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament that I found while preparing a sermon on 1 Thessalonians 5.9. "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Our Lord Jesus Christ." Verse 10 goes on: "Who died for us, that, wheher we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him."

Verse 9. For God hath not appointed us to wrath
"So then it appears that some were appointed to wrath, ειςοργην, to punishment; on this subject there can be no dispute. But who are they? When did this appointment take place? And for what cause? These are supposed to be "very difficult questions, and such as cannot receive a satisfactory answer; and the whole must be referred to the sovereignty of God." If we look carefully at the apostle's words, we shall find all these difficulties vanish. It is very obvious that, in the preceding verses, the apostle refers simply to the destruction of the Jewish polity, and to the terrible judgments which were about to fall on the Jews as a nation; therefore, they are the people who were appointed to wrath; and they were thus appointed, not from eternity, nor from any indefinite or remote time, but from that time in which they utterly rejected the offers of salvation made to them by Jesus Christ and his apostles; the privileges of their election were still continued to them, even after they had crucified the Lord of glory; for, when he gave commandment to his disciples to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, he bade them begin at Jerusalem. They did so, and continued to offer salvation to them, till at last, being everywhere persecuted, and the whole nation appearing with one consent to reject the Gospel, the kingdom of God was wholly taken away from them, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles. Then God appointed them to wrath; and the cause of that appointment was their final and determined rejection of Christ and his Gospel. But even this appointment to wrath does not signify eternal damnation; nothing of the kind is intended in the word. Though we are sure that those who die in their sins can never see God, yet it is possible that many of those wretched Jews, during their calamities, and especially during the siege of their city, did turn unto the Lord who smote them, and found that salvation which he never denies to the sincere penitent.

"When the Jews were rejected, and appointed to wrath, then the Gentiles were elected, and appointed to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Gospel they gladly received, and continue to prize; while the remnant of the Jews continue, in all places of their dispersion, the same irreconcilable and blasphemous opponents of the Gospel of Christ. On these accounts the election of the Gentiles and the reprobation of the Jews still continue."

Note how Clarke does not actually quote any Calvinists at all, but gives what may be seen as his summary of what Calvinists say: " These are supposed to be "very difficult questions, and such as cannot receive a satisfactory answer; and the whole must be referred to the sovereignty of God."
Ah, but, Clarke replies: "If we look carefully at the apostle's words, we shall find all these difficulties vanish."
What is his solution? Very simple, it is the Jews who were appointed to wrath, and the Gentiles to salvation. Really? Dr. Clarke, Paul says 'US', not 'YOU'. What was Paul, Jew or Gentile? Was he not "an Hebrew of the Hebrews", an Israelite? Therefore he CANNOT have in mind a distinction between Jew and Gentile in this passage. In any case, as Paul says in Romans 11, "God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew" (in passing we have to ask how the Arminian fiction of prescient election applies to Israel). The trouble is that Clarke has an Arminian presupposition operating here. He has already concluded that election is always of nations to privilege, so that he takes this verse as saying that the Jews have been appointed to wrath (i.e. AD70), while the Gentiles have been appointed to what? To the possibility of obtaining salvation! But there is nothing here about possibility, it is a real obtaining of salvation. Verse 10 makes it clear that those for whom Christ died (only Gentiles, Dr. Clarke? But that is the implication of his remarks on verse 9!) will certainly live with him. This is not about possibilities, it is about realities and certainties.

This is not some way-out free-will preacher (although some of Clarke's ideas are a little far-out, most notably his belief that the serpent in Genesis 3 was an orangutan, hence the pictures on this post), it is one of the most respected and used Arminian commentaries in existence. Yet the best Clarke can do here is to try to say that elction is of nations to privilege, a common Arminian dodge, popular with Dave hunt in the present day (though Adam Clarke knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, and about a dozen other languages, while Dave Hunt does not). This is not the only passage in the Thessalonian epistles that Clarke uses this method of eisegesis on. In his comment on 2 Thessalonians 2.13 Dr. Clarke maintains that 'God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation' actually means:

" In your calling God has shown the purpose He had formed from the beginning, to call the Gentiles to the same privileges with the Jews."

Really? is that all Paul is saying, that he gives thanks for the Gentiles because God has appointed a plan of Salvation for them? Or that he gives thanks for the Thessalonian Church because God has chosen to save them?

Well, Adam Clarke still has some supporters here, but for myself, I think this is blatant Arminian eisegesis. Not to mention monkeying with Scripture.

A. W. Pink on the Modern God

I recently obtained a copy of A. W. Pink's book The Attributes of God. Yesterday I was skimming through the chapters and I came to the Pink's chapter on the Supremacy of God. The following comes from the beginning of that chapter. It really struck a chord with me because this is the very thing I believe is wrong with the "majoritartian" view of God in the SBC and other movements in our day:

"In one of his letters to Erasmus, Luther said, "Your thoughts of God are too human." Probably that renowned scholar resented such a rebuke, the more so, since it proceeded from a miner’s son; nevertheless, it was thoroughly deserved. We too, though having no standing among the religious leaders of this degenerate age, prefer the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teaching of others. The most dishonoring and degrading conceptions of the rule and reign of the Almighty are now held almost everywhere. To countless thousands, even among those professing to be Christians, the God of the Scriptures is quite unknown.

Of old, God complained to an apostate Israel, Thou thoughtest that I was altogether as thyself. (Ps. 50:21). Such must now be His indictment against an apostate Christendom. Men imagine that the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather than actuated by principle. They suppose that His omnipotency is such an idle fiction that Satan is thwarting His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change.

They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citadel of man’s "free will" and reduce him to a "machine." They lower the all efficacious Atonement, which has actually redeemed everyone for whom it was made, to a mere "remedy," which sin-sick souls may use if they feel disposed to; and they enervate the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an "offer" of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please.

The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind." (A. W. Pink: The Attributes of God. Chapter 5)

Photo Credit: Providence Baptist Ministries website

Defeating Calvinistic blogs

The following is a reprint from my personal blog, a post that has become, by far, the most popular one I ever wrote. I have resisted the temptation to go back through and update it, or to add to it. No doubt, we'll soon see in the meta that an Arminian has done a version of this from the other side... And, I've also learned, to my surprise, that I need to actually say that what follows is supposed to be halfway humorous.

-----------------

As a public service to all the anti-Calvinistic Christians out there in the blogosphere, I am publishing a selection of pre-written comments that you can leave in reply to Calvinist postings of whatever kind.

Save your brainpower for more important things and just copy this list and have it handy, so that you can cut-and-paste wherever it becomes needful. However, I must be clear that I have not come up with the substance of any of this myself, but have simply collated what I have found in the blog world as people try to argue with the Bible's teaching on the sovereignty of God in salvation.

And don't worry about actually fitting these into the flow or context of whatever debate happens to be going on: I've found them all over, and so must conclude that they are wonderful, powerful arguments wherever they may be placed...so...have a blast!

1. "Y'know, if you Calvinists spent as much time and energy on evangelism as you do on bashing your brothers in Christ who are really out there preaching the gospel, then we might really see revival!"

2. "When's the last time you actually witnessed to someone?"

3. "How many folks have you saved in the last six months?"

4. "Calvinism is one man's theology, one man's system. I prefer to listen to Jesus."

5. "The only JC I follow is not John Calvin, but Jesus Christ."

6. "You guys are so mean. Even if you're right, no one listens because you are snooty and arrogant. Always name-calling."

7. "I'm not Calvinist or Arminian. I'm Baptist."

8. "Calvinism splits churches and puts a screeching halt to evangelism wherever it becomes prominent."

9. "I don't know about all your complex theology. I just believe John 3:16."

10. "I just can't believe that someone will be kept out of heaven, even if they loved Jesus with all their heart, just because they weren't part of the chosen few."

11. "You guys are mean. You think you know everything. You just want everyone to think like you do. You just want to win arguments and have everyone admit you're right. You have no business judging someone's thoughts or motivations."

12. "Calvinism is a virus that kills good churches."

13. "Calvinists are worse than Moslems."

14. "You can bet that anyone who wastes time reading or writing at your blog is being disobedient to the Great Commission."

15. "Why can't you just put aside your differences with Arminians and work together for the greater spread of the Gospel? All this arguing about how a man is saved...let's stop arguing about it and just preach the Gospel. As long as we agree on the important things, like the pre-trib Rapture, why can't we just get along?"

16. "Calvinists hope dead babies go to hell."

17. "Calvinists hope innocent people in Africa who haven't heard of Jesus will go to hell."

18. "Calvinists hope all non-Calvinists go to hell."

19. "Calvinists don't want to preach the Gospel too much, for fear that some people who are destined to go to hell might actually believe and wind up in heaven."

20. "You guys are mean. You think only your interpretation of Scipture is correct. You refuse to submit to the Catholic Magisterium."

21. "You guys are mean. You think only your interpretation of Scripture is correct. Unlike me. I know I'm wrong. But still, you're mean."

22. "Mean people suck."

23. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist. Now, he is mean."

24. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist, and now he doesn't have altar calls at his church."

25. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist, and now he bakes babies into his communion bread."

---------------------

Okay, I realize this is not a complete list, but it will certainly suffice for its intended purpose. You will now win every debate on Calvinism you get into. Just use one of the above, as all 25 of them are beyond argument and positively prove that Calvinism is unbiblical. However, if you run into a really smart Calvinist, of which there are a tiny handful, you can completely bamboozle them by combining several of these arguments into one comment. Try also using the same comment over and over again, but just change the wording a little.

No need to thank me. I do what I can.

2 Peter 3:9 and the Analogy of Scripture

Here is the challenge: even if all the verses in Scripture which speak of God's electing grace in predestination were missing, would we be able to turn to 2 Peter 3:9 and get from it the idea that God has an active desire that each individual on the planet should repent at all times? Will the rest of the Bible allow that to be the meaning of this text?

This is a long post, and frankly boring, but I think it answers the question.

----------------------

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (ESV)

1. Is the phrase “not wishing that any should perish” an accurate description of God’s desire for every single individual on the planet? That is, is that a blanket statement that accurately describes God’s thoughts toward all people at all times?

a) If it is, one must account for why any do, in fact, perish. This becomes rather sticky once you take it home, and (like a roll of new carpet) begin to push it into all the corners. The baby that is stillborn, or miscarried, or dies of something like SIDS in the crib…are you going to postulate that God at no time willed or desired or “allowed” their deaths? What about the multitudes, including entire people groups, who lived and died for centuries before the first Christian missionary even found his way to their location? Or what about those ethnicities for whom, to this day, not even a scrap of the Word of God exists in their language? These examples represent multitudes spread across millennia, who lived and died with no access to the Word of God. If God actively desired that none of these should perish, it is then at least odd that He has allowed, and continues to allow, them to perish.

b) If it is, one must account for instances in the Scripture in which God plainly decrees that some should perish. Take for instance, all the multitudes that were living in Canaan at the time of Joshua’s entrance into the area. God commanded Israel to annihilate them utterly, even down to the babies. He commanded them to have no mercy upon them, to show them no pity. This is a strange command to give, if your active desire is, at all times, that none should perish.

i. Specifically, we mention the story of Eli the priest and his two wicked sons. In 1 Samuel 2, Eli rebukes and warns them, and we find this telling commentary on the situation in v.25: “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.” Now, with reference back to the phrase we’re considering “not wishing that any should perish” we have here a specific statement that the Lord actively willed, or desired, the death of these two evil men. This story will also be useful when we begin to analyze the phrase from Peter that some take to mean that God always, actively desires that every individual on the planet should repent, and that this desire is so strong that it even causes Him to delay the Day of the Lord.

c) It is possible that some would, in consideration of a) and b), speculate that God has more than one will, or that He exists with competing and conflicting desires, such that the phrase “not wishing that any should perish” can indeed be accurate with regard to each individual on some level. It would exist in the realm of God wistfully dreaming that it sure would be nice, but not at the level of Him actually doing anything about it to make it happen that way.

But any maneuver of this sort immediately guts the verse of any force that it might have had against the Calvinistic concept of election and predestination. That is, if God’s active wish is that none should perish, but this wish does not reside on a level that actually causes anything to happen; and, in fact, the opposite does happen all the time, then this wish can hardly be said to nullify the idea that God has chosen from eternity to save some and not others, any more than it could be said that this wish keeps God from actively desiring and commanding the death of some.

CONCLUSION 1: “not wishing that any should perish” cannot be interpreted to mean that God always, actively desires that no individual on the planet should die, or perish in their sins.

2. If God actively, always desires that every individual on the planet should “reach repentance,” then why does God not give the gift of repentance to every individual?

a) Paul’s statement concerning repentance in 2 Timothy 2:25 is enlightening here. He tells the young preacher that he ought to patiently correct his opponents, gently, and then adds the reason why this is a good thing to do: “God may perhaps grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth.”

Two things to note from this:

i. Repentance is a gift. It is not a native, human ability. It is something that must be given to us, and not something we stir up from within ourselves. Other texts that show us that repentance is of God include Psalms 80: 3, 7, and 19; Acts 5:31, 11:18, and Romans 2:4.

ii. Paul did not consider that the gift of repentance is automatically, or universally, given to all men. He hopes that God “may” do it. It is a thing that resides in the realm of “perhaps.” Maybe God will, but maybe He won’t. This comports well with the astonishment that the converted Jews experienced when they realized that God had granted repentance to Gentiles in Acts 10-11: this is not the reaction of people who believe that God wants every individual, everywhere, at all times, to repent.

CONCLUSION 2: The fact that most individuals on the planet are not given the gift of Repentance is proof that God does not actively desire the repentance of every individual.

3. If Scripture itself shows God actively keeping persons from repentance, then it cannot be said that He actively and always desire that every individual on the planet should repent.

a) We reference again the inspired commentary on Eli’s sons from 1 Samuel 2:25. The text says that they did not heed their father’s voice (and thus, repent of their sins) specifically because the Lord desired to slay them. One must ask, then, which is it? Did the Lord actively desire that they repent? Or did He actively desire that they go on in their sins and be destroyed? The text will only allow one answer.

b) In Matthew 13, the disciples ask Jesus why He is teaching in parables. “And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (v.11) Jesus taught in parables in order to both reveal the truth to His own disciples, and, at the same time, to conceal the truth from others. Now, note that this concealing of the truth has certain consequences, which Jesus explains in the verses that follow, culminating with this quote from Isaiah, in Matthew 13:15:

“Lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn [or, repent], and I would heal them.”

This is a hard teaching for modern ears, accustomed to a light and breezy tickling. But what Jesus has just said is that He taught in parables in order to conceal the truth from some, with the end result being that they should fail to turn to Him and be saved.

Is this the action of a Messiah who actively and always desires that all individuals everywhere should repent?

c) Other instances could be adduced, which show God hardening a sinner’s heart (think Pharaoh) which would have the effect of making the sinner persist in his unrepentance. Did God desire Pharaoh’s repentance, or did He intend to display His awesome power by utterly destroying the most powerful man on the planet?

d) There is also Romans 11:8, but it’s almost unfair to reference that, since it is so clear. God Himself has sent a partial hardening upon the Jews, so that they will be blind and deaf with regard to the Gospel. This is not consistent with a desire that each individual everywhere, at all times, should come to repentance.

e) How about the Antichrist, or the Man of Sin, whichever terminology you prefer? Does God desire that this end-times Bad Guy repent, or hasn’t He already promised to slay him with His breath at the return of the Lord?

CONCLUSION 3: Since the Scripture shows God concealing the truth from some, and actively hardening others against the gospel, it cannot be true that God actively desires that every individual repent.

4. This is admittedly a logical, and not a strictly Scriptural objection, but that doesn’t automatically disqualify it:

If God is delaying the return of Christ because He wants to give every individual on the planet ample time to repent, then how is it that Christ will ever return, since there will always be new generations, new multitudes of people? At some point, if you believe this is why He is delaying, you must admit that His desire for every individual to repent will eventually end. God’s attitude toward sinners will eventually change, and abruptly so, when He says enough is enough.

CONCLUSION 4: God does not and will not delay the end of the world for everyone, or for every individual: at some point Jesus will return. Therefore it is wrong to think this verse means that God has the same concerns regarding every individual on the planet. Some get a long time to repent. Some don’t. Since the delay is not “across the board” then it is inconsistent to think the desire for repentance is either.

More with Kangaroodort

Ben, of Arminian Perspectives, has responded to my earlier post (Revisiting John 5:40.) This is my response to his response. It can't help but get confusing, doing things in this manner, so I apologize at the outset. Here is the code you need in order to follow along: KD is Ben, whose blogger nick is Kangaroodort. He is responding to my earlier post. What I wrote in that post will be prefaced by GR, for Gordan Runyan, or Gregarious Reformer, or Greasy Redneck. My current response to Ben will be in blue.

Also, I apologize ahead of time for the length of this. I did edit a lot of stuff out, I promise. Not for nefarious reasons, but for length. This is still huge. Sorry. You don't have to read it. I won't be hurt.

========

KD: I did not say that John 5:40 was the death knell of Calvinism. I do believe that it is one of many passages which destroy the Reformed view of the ordo salutis.

> Okay, you didn’t use the words “death knell.” That’s my own analysis of what you’ve proposed. You think John 5:40 should “destroy the Reformed view.” Death knell, destroy, tomayto, tomahto.

GR: Here is the verse in the NKJV: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (This is Jesus speaking to the Jews who sought to kill Him.)Ben says this proves Calvinism is wrong. He is fairly certain that the “life” mentioned there must necessarily include Regeneration. He thinks that if I would simply read the text, I’d see that as an inescapable conclusion.Spiritually dead people have to come to Jesus (i.e. believe in Him) in order to be regenerated. Ben sees that as straightforward, if only we Calvinists would read what the Bible says there.

KD: There is a lot to deal with here. Gordan has been fair enough in representing my view that the “life” spoken of in John 5:40 must at least [if not primarily] include regeneration. … Before looking at these passages (5:24-26 and 29), something must be said concerning his comment that, “[life] may be synonymous with ‘salvation,’ which is not uncommon in John’s writings”. I agree completely. This is probably the biggest difference in our views. Arminians do not see regeneration as a means to an end (the ability to put faith in Christ), but as the ends itself. Regeneration is the beginning of the new life (which is the eternal life that is found in Christ alone). It is, therefore, the beginning of “salvation”, which Gordan admits is synonymous with “eternal life”. For Calvinists, the purpose of regeneration is to enable (more properly, “cause”) faith in the individual which leads to salvation (i.e. eternal life). The Calvinist, then, sees things like this: life--> faith--> life [eternal life, salvation]. The Arminian sees things like this: faith--> life [eternal life, salvation, which begins at regeneration].

> You make a good point here, Ben, and one that will be necessary to remember later: Our definitions of what regeneration is and does are different, and that simple fact is behind of lot of the current disagreement. So, when you submit that a passage has implications for regeneration, since you conceive of the thing differently than I do, I don’t necessarily see how what you’ve suggested has to flow from the text.

KD: The text in question says, “But you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” Gordan believes that there must be another “life” hidden in between the “unwilling” and “come”. The “unwilling” necessitates a need for “life” so that one can “come” to have “life”. For him we should understand Jesus to really mean: “Because you do not have life, you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life”. I am arguing that Jesus has given us enough information without needing to insert a separate sort of “life” in between the “unwilling” and “come”. I think that Jesus is quite plainly telling the Jews that they must come to Him in order to have “life” (which begins at regeneration).

An important question, then, resolves around whether or not the “life” spoken of in 5:40 has any reference to regeneration (the new birth where life begins). I believe that it must, and found evidence for this in the same passages Gordan now refers us to (John 5:24-26, and 29):“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (verse 24)Look at that last phrase, “but has passed out of death into life”. Doesn’t that sound like the language of regeneration to you? A transition from death to life is a perfect way to describe regeneration, and many Calvinist have described regeneration with that exact same language. Another favorite metaphor for regeneration is “spiritual resurrection” which is just another way of saying that one has passed from [spiritual] death to [spiritual] life. This is the imagery that Jesus now turns to in describing the life spoken of in this context:

> I do in fact believe that in order to pass “out of death into life” you must be regenerated. However, I note that you rightly call resurrection a “favorite metaphor” for regeneration. It is indeed a favorite, but it is not the only. Regeneration is also pictured by other metaphors. I’d contend these include effectual calling, teaching, washing, and even (contrarily) death as in Romans 6 and 7.

This is a big part of why I think you miss the boat on this whole issue, Ben. You have to mandate that if spiritual resurrection is spoken of in John 5, it must include regeneration, since that is a common, even “favorite” way of describing regeneration in other places. But the whole work of salvation in a man’s life is also referred to in resurrection terms throughout the Bible, including the disparate elements of repentance, faith, justification, new life, unity with Christ, etc. I’m saying your whole argument here rests on a wooden use of biblical metaphors, where, if resurrection means one thing in one place, it has be speaking of the same thing in the other place. It must include regeneration here since it includes it somewhere else.

I will note at the end of this post as well, that you are quite inconsistent in the application of this hermeneutic, giving your side a pass while demanding this sort of strict usage from Calvinists. But later.

Another point about this text. While it does speak of a resurrection, what it does not do is explain any kind of causation. I mean, you apparently read it to say that hearing and believing causes this new life. He who believes will be regenerated, or something similar. But this idea is really not there. All the text does is state a fact about the condition of the one who believes: that is, he is released from judgment and is spiritually raised from the dead. Who has eternal life? The one who believes in Jesus. There is a vital correlation described there: you can’t have one without the other, but the text itself doesn’t speak to whether one of those connected ideas caused the others.

“Truly, truly, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Son of God, and those who hear shall live.”Here Christ speaks of a spiritual resurrection for those who hear the voice of the Son of God. The previous verse [24] reminds us that hearing unto life includes believing, “…and believes Him who sent Me”. So what have these passages taught us? They have taught us that Jesus is describing the need for these spiritually dead Jews to experience a transition from death to life: a spiritual resurrection! Well what about verses 28-29? Don’t they have reference to the final resurrection? Yes they do, but we must let the context determine Christ’s purpose in looking forward to the resurrection event.Jesus anticipates that the Jews will object that He has the power to grant new life. Jesus tells them plainly that He does have this power (verse 21, 24, 26) and that not only can He bring about a spiritual resurrection in those who believe in Him, but He will one day call the dead from their graves as well. However, Jesus is speaking not of a specific resurrection to life of believers in verses 28-29, but the general resurrection of the dead. The point Christ is making is that they should not be surprised at His claims to be able to grant life to those who believe since He will one day raise all of creation from the dead in order to judge them (verses 28-29). If He has been given the authority to do that, then surely He has been given the authority to give spiritual life to those who come to Him in faith.Therefore, I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question. Gordan has much more to say on this issue, however, so let’s hear him out:

> I don’t have a huge problem with anything in the preceding paragraphs, except Ben’s conclusion:

“I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question.”

“Self evident” normally means that a thing is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be proved. That is certainly how it is employed here. Ben thinks it’s obvious that this text argues against my position, but hasn’t bothered to show how. What in my position is contradicted here, and how? It’s evident to Ben’s self but not to mine. I can agree with nearly all of what he’s written and not feel undermined by it.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong. It just means that Ben’s view is not really self evident. It still has to be proved.

GR: Who will come to Jesus to be regenerated? How does a spiritually dead person decide to get resurrected? Ben believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think he’d say, no spiritually dead person would choose to believe. But as an Arminian, Ben believes in Prevenient Grace. According to this doctrine, before any sinner may savingly believe in Christ, God must first grant a gift of grace that allows that sinner to overcome his totally depraved nature and make that decision from something like neutral ground.In short, Arminian Ben sees the same dilemma the Calvinist does, in that no carnal man will or can receive the things of the Spirit (specifically, the Gospel of Christ.) Where the Calvinist solves this dilemma with the doctrine of Regeneration, the Arminian solves it with resistible Prevenient Grace. The two doctrines accomplish the same thing: they allow the sinner to obey the demands of the Gospel.Now, here’s the catch for Ben. If John 5:40’s “life” must include Calvinistic regeneration (since that is the starting point of life in Christ) then why does Prevenient Grace get a pass? Doesn’t the Arminian process of receiving eternal life in Christ begin with Prevenient Grace? If so, then it is just as rightly included in the “life” of John 5:40 as the Calvinist’s doctrine of Regeneration. That is, they both stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ.So, if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient Grace.

KD: Gordan is really reaching here. His argument simply does not follow and seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of how Arminians view prevenient grace. I do not believe that prevenient grace must be included in “life” as he contends. The new life cannot be given until one exercises the God ordained condition of faith. This is the order presented to us by Jesus in John 5:40. The “come” of 5:40 is synonymous with faith, just as the “come” of John 6:44 is synonymous with faith. Jesus is therefore saying that one gains life through faith. Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith. Prevenient grace is described in John 6:44 as a drawing. The Arminian then sees the ordo salutis as: draw [prevenient grace] --> come [in faith] --> life [regeneration, i.e. the beginning of eternal life and salvation]. This order is supported by comparing John 5:40 with John 6:44 [which is what initially provoked this debate].

> Yes, I am really reaching there, on purpose, in order to show the absurdity of your argument. It’s called a reductio ad absurdum, I think. Using your own argument against you ought to illustrate its illegitimacy, which it apparently does. You react pretty strongly against it, as you should.

Here’s my point, remembering what we’ve said above about the fact that you and I see Regeneration differently: Ben, if you go through the last half of the paragraph you’ve written above and substitute Calvinistic regeneration in all the places where you have Prevenient Grace, you will basically have my argument about why your entire contention on this issue is wrong-headed.

Especially this sentence of yours: “Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith.”

Bravo. I completely agree. Thing is, this is what I’ve been contending: Regeneration comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith.

Your argument about why PG ought to be exempted is exactly the same as mine for why Regeneration ought to be exempted. Somehow your argument is airtight and logical when you employ it and absurd when I do. Nice.

KD: The fact that one must first come before one can attain life in John 5:40 makes it impossible for us to understand the drawing of John 6:44 as regeneration. It must, therefore, have reference to prevenient grace as Arminians have always contended. Gordan has done nothing to prove otherwise. He has only succeeded in strengthening the Arminian interpretation by drawing (no pun intended) our attention to John 5:21-24, and 26.

> If we were in a courtroom, this would be called Assuming Facts Not In Evidence. Specifically, the thing we’re trying to determine in this whole discussion is whether Ben is right to insist that the “life” of John 5:40 must include regeneration. But in this paragraph, he simply assumes he is right and moves on to use the conclusion to help bolster the argument. Life must mean regeneration, so you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, so that proves Ben’s argument about John 6:44, that it must refer to prevenient grace there and in the rest of John 5, thus supporting the argument that “life” in v.40 includes regeneration. Ingenious! Ben, if I’m ever on trial for my life, I want you as my lawyer.

KD: Prevenient grace does indeed “stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ”, but that grace is not the same as regeneration. Prevenient grace enables the sinner to believe unto life. John 5:40 tells us that coming must precede life, and John 6:44 tells us that drawing must precede coming. That is exactly what Arminians believe concerning the ordo salutis and Gordan’s statement that, “…if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient grace” is a painfully obvious case of non-sequintur.

> Again, not non-sequitor, but reductio. If you allow me as a Calvinist to define what this Calvinist must believe about Regeneration, then I tell you that everything you think Prevenient Grace must do is done by what is called Regeneration or Effectual Calling in my view, and so it corresponds to the drawing in the very same manner as Prevenient Grace would in your system.

GR: 2. Another problem with saying that Regeneration has to be included in any thought of eternal life, is this: why stop there? I mean, why not go back farther? You have to be alive in the flesh before you can be alive in the Spirit, right? So why not include fleshly life in the “life” of John 5:40? You can’t enter into eternal life by faith while you’re physically dead any more than you can believe without being regenerated. So, surely physical life stands just as vitally at the starting point of life in Christ as Regeneration does. Why include one and not the other, aside from the fact that it seems to help your argument?

KD: And I thought Gordan was reaching with his last comments. This argument barely deserves an answer. All we need to do is look at the context to understand what kind of life Jesus is referring to in John 5:40.

>Well, right, and it especially helps to read into that context Arminian concepts like decisional regeneration. (Seeing as how they are not there explicitly…) Again, I’d agree with the charge of “reaching.” Guilty!

But I’d contend I’m only reaching in the same manner that you have been the entire time. In this way: If the new life in Christ begins necessarily with Regeneration, then Regeneration must be included in “Life.” But I’m saying that’s an arbitrary place to stop. Calvinists would contend that other forms of life are logically necessary in order for us to experience eternal life. Other things like election and the physical ability to hear the Good News are just as vital, right? So Salvation in its fullness, the “life” we want in Christ, where does that really begin?

KD: We have done that above, and I am confident that any unbiased reading of the text would reveal that Jesus is speaking of a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life: a spiritual resurrection [i.e. regeneration].

>Again, I am happy to agree that spiritual resurrection and new life is in view. But I think you’re hung up on metaphors and analogies and mixing some. Yes, Regeneration is sometimes referred to as a raising from death. But it’s also referred to as a calling, a washing, a circumcision, the opening of the heart, being secretly taught by God, having the Law written on our hearts, having our stony heart replaced, etc. To demand that the “life” of 5:40 must be speaking of the quickening of regeneration is like demanding that the washing of Baptism must be the same thing as the washing of regeneration. (Since Paul spoke once of the washing of regeneration, then every time he speaks of Baptism, Regeneration must be included…) So, you’re inconsistent with your own methodology if you don’t wind up advocating Baptismal Regeneration. Hey, it’s all in there in the concept of spiritual washing. Any fair reading of the context would show how self evident that is….

And again, I must point out the lack of any straightforward causation in any of your “contextual data.” Even if we grant that the resurrection spoken of includes regeneration, there isn’t a hint of explaining what caused that: the verses you’ve called as witnesses on this count merely show correlation, which is a different thing. The believing one is also the regenerated one. The believing one is the one who is resurrected.

To the verse itself, I know you see causation there, but even if I were to grant the whole rest of your argument (that “life” includes regeneration) the text still doesn’t say that belief causes this. It says that the Jews refused to come. They refused to have anything to do with the eternal life that Jesus was offering, regardless of what the process was for that, or what steps are involved in the human heart. Jesus is simply saying that they have refused to come to Him. The blame for their spiritual deadness lies completely with them.

And why? Well Calvinists would say, because they’re unregenerate and they hate the light because their deeds are evil. So, without any reference to what the actual process may be, if they have to come to Jesus to get eternal life, they’re not going to do it.

GR: Or why not go all the way back to God’s foreordination before the foundation of the world? Calvinists would say Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ? So then, Jesus would be saying, “You refuse to come to Me, that you may be predestined.”

KD: Is Gordan really contending that “real” and “genuine” regeneration in Christ begins at some eternal decree? Wouldn’t that make the elect eternally regenerated? Is this really where Gordan is willing to take us in order to preserve his doctrine? Look at this statement again and let the absurd implications sink in:Surely Gordan misspoke and didn’t think very carefully about what he was saying since I am quite confident that he doesn’t believe the elect have been regenerated from eternity. I think that it is only fair that we give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

> Thanks for giving me the “benefit of the doubt” whilst you rant and rave about how absurd and careless I am, btw. Of course, I did not argue for eternal regeneration or anything of the kind. I merely pointed out that election and salvation are logically, absolutely connected, as a way of showing that it would be wrong to disconnect them. That is much different from saying they are the same thing.

KD: While Gordan’s statement is plainly and painfully ridiculous, he is actually on to something very important when he says, “life in Christ”. It is undisputable that spiritual life resides only in the person of Jesus Christ (John. 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:3, 4). It is just as certain that we come to be in union with Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13; 3:17). The born again believer is truly a “new creature”, but only “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). Gordan’s belief that regeneration precedes faith puts him into the absurd theological position of explaining how someone can be given new life outside of union with the only source of life- Jesus Christ.

>Ah, yes, you must be speaking of the “absurd theological position” of affirming that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Anything that God does for us in the process of saving us is “in Christ.” We are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, so that can hardly be outside of Him.

KD: He must also affirm that a holy God can give life to sinners before the blood of Christ has been applied, since he believes that regeneration precedes justification.

> Ummm. ..can you say Old Testament saint? God gave them life before there was any blood to apply. Now, I’d contend He gave them life because He knew perfectly well what He was going to do, and who He would apply that blood to. But your objection is based on the issue of time and space, who does what before which. If God can give spiritual life to the patriarchs thousands of years before the Blood was shed, this is in no way “life apart from Christ.” David claimed to have been made to trust while still a suckling infant, and John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb. So arguing against the idea that the new birth might begin seconds before the sinner mouths the words “I do” seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. These are all examples of God knowing from eternity those who are His. The fact that He does not make us privy to that information prior to their confession of faith shouldn’t freak us out.

KD: His theology forces him to accept the unbiblical view that one can be born again before being forgiven (which is part of what it means to be justified).

>No, it simply means I believe regeneration and justification are different things. As to the issue of “before,”…. again, I think you’re temporally hung up. I happen to think the two things occur as part of one event, time-wise. I don’t at all envision a bunch of regenerate people walking around who still reject the Gospel.

KD: I appreciate the fact that Gordan and I may never see eye to eye on this subject, but I hope that he will at least admit that his initial charge that my understanding of John 5:40 was not based on sound exegesis was without foundation.

>Ben, let’s clear this up. It ought to be easy. I have been accused (albeit humorously) of thinking I was reading your mind in my initial post on this topic. That was totally unfounded on your part, Ben. But I’ll give you props for it: It garnered a chorus of guffaws from your amen corner at your blog. Regardless, what I said was, it looked to me as if you may have employed a certain bad methodology. There is a difference there. Here’s what it looks like vs. Here’s what Ben did.

I am happy to see that what it looked like to me was not the reality.

I agree that we won’t agree about this. I will admit that I charged you with a methodology that you did not, in fact, use. I think you have done your best to exegete the text.

But I can’t agree that your exegesis has been “sound,” no. I’m sure you feel the same way toward me, and worse, as you have stated as much in other words.

Let me summarize my objections to your take on this, by way of closing this:

1. Yes, some of the verses prior to John 5:40 speak of a spiritual resurrection, or raising to new life.

2. Yes, sometimes Regeneration is spoken of as a resurrection. This is, however, not a metaphor that is exclusively used this way. Regeneration is also called other things. But also, the fullness of salvation, including grace, faith, repentance and justification is referred to in such terms (e.g. Ephesians 2, Romans 6, and, I’d contend, the rest of John 5.) Similarity of metaphor is no warrant for conflating all these things. Jesus and the devil are both called lions: this doesn’t make them identical, nor demand that when the Scripture speaks of a lion it must necessarily have both beings in view.

3. Your argument rests completely on the insistence that Calvinists must be very rigid in the application of the resurrection metaphor. And yet, this insistence only goes one way. Your view doesn’t have to do this. You’d get upset, I’m guessing, if I pointed out that you think the text teaches that dead men are upbraided for not doing what is necessary to be resurrected. You’d get indignant if I pointed out that you’ve got dead men coming to Jesus to receive life. The way most Arminians avoid this is by asserting that spiritual death does not make one as unable to act as natural death does, and so the metaphor is not very strictly applied. The dead can still act, in your view. You’d say (I’m guessing) they only can act because God gives them a means for acting through Prevenient Grace. But then, the metaphor doesn’t really hold, does it? Once dead men can act, by whatever miraculous means, they can’t really be called dead anymore.

So, Calvinism is destroyed by a strict and wooden application of a particular metaphor, but Arminianism keeps right on trucking by playing fast-and-loose with the very same metaphor of death/resurrection.

3. John 5:40 remains simply a statement of the Jews’ culpability. They are to blame for not coming to Jesus, and thus, their state of spiritual death is their own fault.