On the one hand, Arminians subscribe to conditional election. God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith.
On the other hand, Arminians believe it’s possible for a regenerate Christian to lose his salvation. They cite Arminian prooftexts for apostasy, like Heb 6.
But are these two Arminian doctrines mutually consistent? Even assuming we operate with conditional election rather than unconditional elect, if God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith, then is it possible for the elect to lose their salvation? If conditional election is correct, then is it possible for the elect to either be saved or not be saved?
The same question applies, not only to apostasy, but to conversion. Is it possible for the elect to either believe the Gospel or disbelieve the Gospel? If God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith, then how is a contrary outcome still in play?
How do Arminians interpret Heb 6 in light of conditional election? To whom does it apply? To the elect? But how is that a live possibility given conditional election?
Similar questions arise if you shift to Molinism. In Molinism, there’s a possible world in which Billy is saved, and another possible world in which Billy is damned. A possible world in which Billy perseveres to the end, and another possible world in which Billy commits apostasy.
But the actual world represents only one of those possibilities. If God instantiates the possible world in which Billy commits apostasy, then is Billy still at liberty to do otherwise in the real world?
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteOf course, your question applies to a foreknowledge based model of election, not a corporate election model.
But as for a foreknowledge view... The way Arminius explained it; the real question is "is justifying faith particular to the elect?"(i.e. do the reprobate have real, but temporary faith). He said:
"For if "faith be not peculiar to the elect," and if perseverance in faith and salvation belong to the elect alone, it follows that believers not only can, but that some of them actually do, "fall away from faith and salvation." And, on the contrary, if it be "possible for believers finally to fall away from faith and salvation," it follows that "faith is not peculiar to the elect," they being the individuals concerning whom the framers of these articles assert, that it is impossible for them not to be saved. The reason of the consequence is, because the words FAITH and BELIEVERS, according to this hypothesis, have a wider signification than the words ELECTION and THE ELECT. The former comprehend some persons that are not elect, that is, "some who finally fall away from faith and salvation."
http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius17.htm
God be with you,
Dan
1. The foreknowledge model is the classic Arminian model of conditional election.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you reject conditional elect (contingent on forseen faith) for corporate election?
2. I don't see how you, as a Molinist, are entitled to opt for corporate election. In Molinism, God is electing individuals–based on what individuals would do in a given situation.
3. If God chooses to save someone based on foreseen faith, then that's based on the fact that the individual in question did one thing rather than another. God's choice is conditioned on that individual taking one course of action (exercising saving faith in Christ) to the exclusion of a contrary action.
4. Are you now claiming that conditional election extends to apostates? That would give us a threefold Arminian schema of conditional election:
i) Those whom God does not choose, because they don't exercise saving faith (foreseen by God).
ii) The faithful (those who exercise persevering faith).
iii) Nominal believers who commit apostasy.
5. Even if you think conditional election extends to apostates, God is still electing individuals based on what they will do–in which case their course of action is not an open-ended affair (vis-a-vis God's elective foreknowledge).
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf you're asking about my personal view, I tend to favor eternal security. I think true believers can, but will not fall away (i.e. I think God uses middle knowledge to preserve them). But few people who call themselves Arminians hold to ES; far more hold to falling from grace. (I say "call themselves Arminians" because a large number of Baptists are ES Arminians who don't call themselves Arminians.)
Non-ES Arminians holding to primarily corporate election without a foreknowledge based component, would view people as moving in and out of elect status as they are saved and lose their salvation. Non-ES Arminians holding to simple foreknowledge would view apostates as the non-elect (with temporary, justifying faith).
God be with you,
Dan
For a long time it has seemed to me that the answer to that dilemma is the difference between the perseverance of all the elect and the perseverance of all the saints. The Calvinist can believe that once a person is regenerated they will remain so. That's because the individuals that make up the group called "saints" are the exact same group as those who make up the "elect". While for historic Arminians (who deny "P" of TULIP, yet affirm exhaustive foreknowledge) and Augustinians, both believe in the perseverance of the elect (but for different reasons). They do so because they understand that the group who compose the "elect" are different individuals from the group who make up the "saints".
ReplyDeleteIf we leave aside for the meantime the Catholic view of regeneration (baptismal) (and all the things that goes into being a Christian, i.e. Catholic), both affirm that people can genuinely become Christians or "regenerate" for a period of time and then cease to be. For the Arminian, the ultimate reason people fall away is because of their own libertarian free wills, while for Augustinians, people fall away not merely because of their libertarian free wills but (ultimately) because God didn't grant the gift of perseverance.
So, it seems to me, that from a merely logical point of view, there's nothing inconsistent between affirming exhaustive divine unconditional foreordination (as Calvinists do) and the possibility that a genuine Christian can fall away. The reason I don't believe that as a Calvinist is because of the other teachings of Scripture regarding God's love toward the elect, the nature of the New Covenant etc etc.
In the same way, from a merely logical point of view, there's nothing inconsistent in affirming (as historic Arminians do) exhaustive divine (conditional) foreknowledge and the possibility that a genuine Christian can fall away. Even if all the elect will not fall away. Since, (as stated above) the "saints" and the "elect" are the exact same group (even if *some* people are in both groups). So, yes, Arminians can affirm the perseverance of all the elect. Since, by definition, they elect are those who persevere.
"In the same way, from a merely logical point of view, there's nothing inconsistent in affirming (as historic Arminians do) exhaustive divine (conditional) foreknowledge and the possibility that a genuine Christian can fall away."
ReplyDeleteEven Dan admits, in his response to me, that conditional election does not extend to reprobates.
When, a la conditional election, God elects believers to be saved, based on foreseen faith, then the elect represent a fixed object of knowledge.
Conditional election does not extend to nominal believers who subsequently defect from the faith.
The last paragraph of my post didn't make any sense. It contradicted what i said earlier. I was in a rush to post it. Here's a better restatement (with typos and clarifications in brackets).
ReplyDeleteSince, (as stated above) the "saints" and the "elect" are [NOT] the exact same group [since some individuals are in both groups ("saints" and "elect"), while some (the others) are only in one group ("saints"). So, yes, Arminians can affirm the perseverance of all the elect. Since, by definition [in Arminianism], they ["the" not "they"] elect are those who [turn out to] persevere.I guess what I'm saying is that in Arminianism, all the saints have been genuine Christians, even if not all of the saints are elect. Since some of the saints will fall away.
Steve, so are you agreeing with me, or not? Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that Dan agrees with my distinction? Are you saying that Dan implicitly denies the "well meant offer" of the Gospel?
I said...
ReplyDeleteSteve, so are you agreeing with me, or not? Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that Dan agrees with my distinction? Are you saying that Dan implicitly denies the "well meant offer" of the Gospel?Steve forget that part. I asked those questions before reading the other comments (which I shouldn't have done especially since there were only a few comments which could have been read quickly).
Hey there Dan. ;-)
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, so are you agreeing with me, or not?"
I agree with myself.