Tuesday, July 07, 2009

On Why Those Who Hold to Resistible Grace Must Hold to a Strong Form of Depravity

Even when Arminians pretend that they believe in Total Depravity, this doesn’t cash out the way it does in Calvinism. Calvinistic views are quite simple: because man is depraved, then it is only the grace of God that can change the sinner to a believer, and when that happens man is truly changed and thus he responds automatically in faith. Because God initiates this on whom He will, and because the change is effectual, those who receive this regenerating grace are guaranteed salvation.

The Arminian view is quite different, of course. Even those who hold to depravity do not hold to God’s grace being effectual grace, for such grace can still be resisted by the sinner. Thus, an Arminian who believes in depravity is left with the following system: Because man is depraved, then it is only the grace of God that can enabled a sinner to potentially believe in God, and God does this for everyone (or at least all those who have the opportunity to hear the Gospel). Arminians who do not believe in depravity have nearly the same system: man can potentially believe in God, and God does this everyone, etc.

I want to focus a bit on the concept of irresistible grace. First, it should be noted that the grace referred to as irresistible is only the regenerating grace of God; it is not everything that God graciously gives to people (elect or reprobate). Thus, when Calvinists speaks of irresistible grace, it is only saying that the regenerating power of God is effectual and must succeed at what it does: namely, bringing spiritual life to the dead sinner.

It should be obvious that this concept of grace cannot be the same concept of grace that an Arminian believes can be resisted, for in a sense it is little more than God “flipping a life-switch”*—something that happens instantaneously, and has an immediate change. Just as flipping a light switch, for all intents and purposes, instantly causes a light to go on, so God flipping a life-switch immediately causes the dead person to be regenerated.

[* I think I must trademark “life-switch” before Joel Osteen steals it.]

In any case, it is obviously impossible to resist being converted from death to life. It’s an action that happens without your input. Once you were dead, then you were alive. To paraphrase Steven Wright in reverse: Everyone’s regenerated instantly. You’re dead, you’re dead, you’re dead, you’re alive!

The key is, of course, that the living soul is radically different from the dead soul. They do not operate the same way. The dead soul is set on death and cannot submit to God’s will (Romans 8:5-8). The living soul, however, is the slave of Christ (Romans 6, especially verses 11-14). In short, being regenerated in Christ is to be dead to sin.

The Arminian view is not like this. In the Arminian view (those who believe in depravity, at least), God in essence sets man’s will to “neutral.” While man was once depraved, God sets him in a position where he can either choose to do good or evil. (Those who don’t hold to depravity believe this is where man is by default.) The Arminian seems to think that he avoids all the emotional problems associated with God’s sovereignty by allowing man to take some kind of role here. Therefore, the Arminian believes that if someone rejects God, it spares God blame (and this brings the Arminian emotional comfort).

But ask a simple question here. What kind of person would reject the grace of God? What kind of person resists the Holy Spirit?

We know that the righteous person submits to the will of God. We know that the mind that is enslaved to sin is hostile to the will of God and cannot submit to the will of God. Therefore, if someone cannot submit to God’s grace, is that not itself an indication that the person is depraved? In other words, if we resist God’s grace, it can only be because we are depraved!

The reason is because our choices do not determine our nature, but rather our nature determines our choices. This is important, and seen in such passages as Luke 7:16-20.

Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
The fruit (that is, what people do) is dependent upon the nature of the tree (that is, what people are). The key is this: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit.” Likewise, a diseased tree cannot bear good fruit. The fruit shows us whether or not the tree is healthy or diseased, even if the two trees look identical.

Thus, who does not resist God’s grace? The healthy tree. Who does resist God’s grace? The diseased tree.

But this bears a great problem for the Arminian. If a man chooses to believe in God, then it is because he is already a healthy tree—God’s grace has been irresistible, for the sinner went from spiritual death to spiritual life! But if he chooses to reject God, then it is because he remains a diseased tree—he hasn’t had his depravity removed at all! A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, so either God’s grace was effectual or it was not and the man is still depraved.

The only way around this would be to claim that there must be a tree that exists in a state that is neither healthy nor diseased, a concept utterly foreign to the Scriptures. Indeed, Christ says plainly: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Luke 11:23).

Assuming everything from an Arminian perspective, we’re left with:

1. Those who resist grace are depraved.
2. There are those who resist grace.
3. Therefore, there are those who are depraved.

4. Those who do not resist grace are not depraved.
5. There are those who do not resist grace.
6. Therefore, there are those who are not depraved.

7. Grace changes people from depraved to non-depraved.
8. Grace can be resisted.
9. Grace is given to all.
10. But those who resist grace are depraved (1)
11. Therefore, if grace is resisted, then at least one of (7), (8), or (9) must be false.

So I merely ask our Arminian commenters (even BSman, if he wants to answer this specific question can comment): which of those options (7), (8), or (9) is wrong?

10 comments:

  1. "and God does this for everyone (or at least all those who have the opportunity to hear the Gospel)."

    No, it's everyone, otherwise there's zero weight to their complaining over a Reformed doctrine of predestination. So, it's everyone. So, that saves them from total incoherency, but moves them to sheer ridiculousness: anyone can be saved so long as "they respond to the light given to them."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Naturally, I agree with you about the implications, Paul. And since we T-Bloggers have a reputation to uphold, I state that without any Christian love whatsoever.

    However, since Arminians are not all that keen on following through with logical implications, I decided to cover all the bases for them. It's the only way I could ensure that I'd still get called a big meanie for taking away ALL their escape routes.

    But you of all people should know that if we left even a single false statement unexposed, people might begin to think that we were loving individuals. And Steve just can't have that happen to his minions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter, I concur. At the end of the day, either their God is just as mean as Calvin's since some people "never had a chance," or they hold to Poltergeist Theology, i.e., "Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can! Mommy is in the light! Mommy is waiting for you in the light!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please allow me to close off one more avenue of escape...Lest our resident SEBTS student show up in this thread to claim that Arminians also believe man is saved all of grace...

    No, they do not believe this. Arminians who believe in UPG (prevenient grace) can only go so far. Faith is something man must muster (for no discernable reason) from himself. Faith qua faith isn't the gift of God..faith qua LFW is the gift of God under this view.

    Thus, grace is a necessary but insufficient condition of justification/salvation.

    In Reformed theology, Sola Fide is a species of Sola Gratia. God does not leave those upon whom He bestows saving grace faithless. In Arminian theology, that isn't the case.

    So, any claim Arminians make about believing in Sola Gratia is really just that...a claim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really good post and discussion (a friend linked me here kinda randomly). I just want to say that Peter was right when he implied that some Arminians believe that some people are never given the gospel, and that God is completely just in that. I literally just had a conversation with someone about that two days ago. I have a lot of hope for those people, though, because they're more willing to rely on things clearly seen in Scripture than what's running through their head.

    The area I find I get the most resistance is the idea that faith has to be a gift. I've yet to find any verses that come right out and say it, so it usually works out as a logical argument, which doesn't tend to work well. Anyone know of some good ways to use Scripture to show it (rather than a lack of Scripture to imply it)?

    Just remember that we were blind, that the doctrines of grace have been given to us freely (not earned) just like Salvation. So in the same way we owe everyone around us anything that God's given to us... because we are just as undeserving as they are.

    Thanks for the post, I'll probably subscribe and hang around more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cookie of Doom sounds like my kinda cookie!

    Ephesians 2:8,9 come to mind. Naturally, if you get a sophisticated correspondent, they will point out that the word translated as "that" is neuter, so it can't be referring to "faith" being the gift, you can always point out that "that" being neuter means that "that" is referring to everything in the passage. Salvation by grace through faith is all a gift of God, and the gift is likewise not referring to just "salvation" but includes both the grace and faith as well.

    There's no part of salvation that is not a gift from God; that's the reason why we cannot boast in it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Two answers re. faith as gift:

    Eph.2:8-9 where "pistis" (noun), as one part of the package (list) is a present. As has been pointed out, such a composite antecedent virtually demands the neuter.

    Phil.1:29 where "pisteuo" (verb) is also described as the gratuitous gift of God.

    So, "faith/belief" and "having faith/believing", the cognate terms are both denominated as "gift."

    Moreover, in Eph.2:8, "of grace" (charis) describes the giving of the gift (doron), and in Phil.1:29 the verb is "grant" (charizomai), another cognate connection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Phil.1:29 was not a passage I was familiar with, thanks Bruce. I've heard the Ephesians 2:8-9 argument before, and it's difficult to use. I completely agree that every part of Salvation is a gift of God (including sanctification).

    I should point out that I've gone to an Arminian(ish) church most of my life. Just a couple years ago I was kind of confused by our theology and introduced by a couple friends to reformed theology. I'm a bit new to it, so I really appreciate being able to talk to you guys (and others like you).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter,
    The 'neutral tree' is a brilliant argument. Good stuff. (I just wanted to right something 'nice' and 'loving' on here. :-) )

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete