Alan: It is not potential b/c though "everyone" "could" choose Christ, very few actually *will* (see Christ's comments on the narrow way vs. the wide way).
SH: It’s precisely the could/will discrepancy which makes it potential rather than actual
Alan: Everyone does not have an *equal* chance to be saved, but everyone does get at least a chance to be saved, some more than others. God decides who gets more chances than others (ie, who will be born in Texas vs. who will be born in Saudi Arabia) but everyone gets at least a chance to make a real choice.
SH: That’s a compromise position. In a way, the Arminian doesn’t have a choice (pardon the pun).
His principles are egalitarian, but the real world is very inequitable.
So, to some extent he is forced to adjust his egalitarian principles to the grim reality.
Hence, he’s left with a compromise position.
Suppose you had two football teams in which one side only had half the players of the other side.
The team with half the compliment of players will still have the off chance of winning once in a blue moon, but the odds would be unfair, and since Arminian theology is all about fairness, it isn’t enough for one team to play at such a disadvantage—just on the outside chance that it might possibly win.
This is why some contemporary Arminians like Davis, Bloesch, Fackre, and Walls resort to the makeshift expedient of postmortem evangelism.
It’s a stopgap to putty over the discrepancy between their egalitarian theory and the inequitable reality.
Alan: (Obviously, this kind of implies that the 5-point Calvinist position does not allow for a "real" choice on the part of the person in question. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that, too. It would be relevant.)
SH: Rather than rehearse the usual arguments for compatibilism, I’d just point out that the deeper problem is internal to Arminianism.
If we attribute sin to the abuse of (libertarian) freedom, then one free agent is free to use his freedom in order to infringe on the freedom of another free agent.
So you very quickly degenerate into a situation where some free agents are far freer than others.
Thus, you have this tension at the heart of Arminian theology. A tug of war between freedom and fairness.
To be free is to be free to be unfair to your fellow free agent. If it’s free, it isn’t fair—if it’s fair, it isn’t free.
Everyone does not have an *equal* chance to be saved, but everyone does get at least a chance to be saved, some more than others.
ReplyDeletePoor Alan, what color is the sky in his world? This statement is a boldfaced lie. Some get none whatsoever, Alan. Salvation is always related to the covenant. Tell us, what happened to the people living in China in the first century? Did they have a chance to be saved? What salvific covenant was operative? If you say the Adamic or the Noahic, you've got a problem, because men are condemned in Romans for rejecting common grace universally. The covenant with Adam can't bless us anymore because the covenant with Abraham is administered through Christ. Men do not find Yahve in the tents of Japheth or Ham; only in the tents of Shem according to Genesis 9.
If you are correct, then how is it that Christ is the only name under heaven by which men must be saved? You see, that cuts the string for evangelism and missions. If people can be saved apart from Christ, then why bother? We call that hyper-Calvinism in the real world, Alan. Isn't it ironic that both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist make the same mistake repeatedly.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhich "Davis" are you reffering to? John Jefferson?
The Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the disadvantages of being a T-blogger is that, since attacks come from all sides, it becomes hard to distinguish attack from honest questioning.
ReplyDeleteI try to communicate my respect for you guys in my posts. I appreciate your work very much. The sky is blue in my world, at any rate, except when a Japanese typhoon comes in, or an Oklahoma thunderstorm.
I wasn't trying to "lie," Gene. I was throwing a possibility out for reaction to it, and I thought it was pretty cool that I got a whole post devoted to it. ;-)
At any rate, I guess what I meant by the "everyone does get at least a chance" was that everyone has a chance in life to respond to the light of general revelation and seek further, at which point they would see more and more, and if their heart is open, might they not come to a situation to hear about and receive the Gospel?
--China in the 1st century
>>Same thing.
--tiny Japanese island before Alan and his wife got there to share the Gospel w/ them
>>Same thing.
--what salvific covenant was operative?
>>This is one of the reasons I was interested in asking you guys. I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by it, b/c I don't think that's where I was heading. I was thinking that there are chances for people to seek God and thus be saved later on, once their seeking has "borne fruit," if you will. Not saying it happens to very many people, but it does happen sometimes. I guess I'm suggesting that most people, though they had the chance, don't seek. Depravity and all that.
Exclusivity of Christ for salvation: Check. We agree. I'm afraid I didn't express my thoughts fully enough.
Still interested in your reaction to my elucidated idea here.
Respectfully,
ALAN