Arminian apologist and theologian Roger Olson questions the Christian faith of his fellow Arminians. As he recently observed, “I have my doubts about the authenticity of a person’s evangelicalism (to say nothing of his or her Christian faith) who blatantly and knowingly denied…salvation by grace alone through faith alone…”
http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/07/31/addendum-to-my-first-post-about-evangelicalism/
Needless to say, Arminians, including Olson, blatantly and knowingly deny salvation by grace alone in favor of synergism. For them, God meets us halfway with grace, while it’s up to us to say yes or no. Grace is a necessary condition of salvation, but salvation is also contingent on the independent variable of man’s libertarian freedom.
The fact that Olson doubts the salvation of Arminians must be unsettling to Billy Birch, whose devotion to Scripture is second only to his devotion to Olson.
I'm far more devoted to Arminius than Olson ; )
ReplyDeleteOur saying yes doesn't do the saving; God's grace does.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan
You're being duplicitous. If grace is only a necessary condition of salvation, and not a sufficient condition, then we aren't saved by grace alone. Rather, our libertarian consent is an additional factor, independent of God's grace, without which grace cannot save us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all familiar with these controversies, but it doesn't seem like Arminianism is a denial of salvation through grace alone. God may only give salvation to those who freely accept it by faith, but that doesn't mean the person's free response actually caused salvation: if God did not actually do the work of saving, no amount of pleading for salvation on the person's part would make any difference.
ReplyDeletePut it this way: if salvation is pushing a cart out of a ditch, the Arminian view (it seems to me) is not that both God and the person must be in the back pushing, so that if the person is not pushing then God can't push it all the way up the hill. Rather, the person is sitting inside the cart and gives God permission to push it up. God does all the work, contingent upon the person's free acceptance of His offer for help.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how that's being duplicitous. In both Calvinism and Arminianism a person is still helpless to effect their own salvation. Acceptance of God's offer of salvation has always been a prerequisite of salvation. When Peter says to the people gathered at Pentecost, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," who is he commanding to believe? Isn't it the people themselves? All throughout the Bible the act of belief which is counted for righteousness is presented as an act of the actual people involved. Abraham believed the Lord, and it was counted for righteousness. The sick person's faith made them whole, said Jesus.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'm not at all familiar with these controversies, but it doesn't seem like Arminianism is a denial of salvation through grace alone. God may only give salvation to those who freely accept it by faith."
In which case, saving faith is not included in saving grace. That's not part of the package. Rather, that's something by which the package is received or rejected. Hence, salvation is not by grace alone.
"Rather, the person is sitting inside the cart and gives God permission to push it up."
If permission is a necessary condition of salvation, and saving grace does not entail permission, then permission is an independent factor. In that event, we're not saved by grace alone.
"I don't see how that's being duplicitous. In both Calvinism and Arminianism a person is still helpless to effect their own salvation. Acceptance of God's offer of salvation has always been a prerequisite of salvation."
And in Calvinism, unlike Arminianism, acceptance of God's offer of salvation is, itself, wholly the result of God's grace. Therefore, your comparison actually illustrates the difference, and reinforces my original charge.
"The sick person's faith made them whole, said Jesus." _JD
ReplyDeleteLazarus was sick, and in fact died. Jesus prayed to His father, and Lazarus was brought back to life, after being dead for 4 days.
That's God's grace 100% pure.
Another time Jesus saw a woman who was in deep sorrow, for her only son had died. The Lord with compassion went and raised this corpse as well.
"And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother." Luke 7:13
This is a vivid truth as how God quickens dead sinners to life.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf grace is only a necessary condition of salvation, and not a sufficient condition, then we aren't saved by grace alone. Rather, our libertarian consent is an additional factor, independent of God's grace, without which grace cannot save us.
The necessary/sufficient cause or condition distinction is unimportant in this discussion as can be seen by the fact that Calvinism affirms man is responsible despite sufficient causes. The key here is that faith does not save, God's grace does.
God be with you,
Dan
JD,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of this in light of your comments:
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Dan,
Where do Calvinists assert that God's ordination by itself is sufficient for an action?
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete"The necessary/sufficient cause or condition distinction is unimportant in this discussion as can be seen by the fact that Calvinism affirms man is responsible despite sufficient causes."
You're jumping categories. The question at issue is not what's sufficient to render us responsible, but what's sufficient to ensure our salvation. Those are hardly convertible propositions.
"The key here is that faith does not save, God's grace does."
Faith is a necessary condition of salvation. So the question is whether or not saving faith is a necessary result of saving grace. If not, then you can't say we're saved solely by grace.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhere do Calvinists assert that God's ordination by itself is sufficient for an action?
Typically, Calvinists who are also causal determinists (recognizing that you are not one) express sufficiency for action in terms of the means God decrees and not the decrees themselves.
At least as far as sufficent causation is concerned. Sufficent conditionally is a different story and I would think that Bob will do X is a necessary consiquence of God's decree that Bob will do X. But even that I suppose is in light of God's power and knowledge.
God be with you,
Dan
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSalvation, in the expression salvation by grace alone through faith alone) is typically referring to justification, forgiveness, redemption, and adoption. Apparently you mean something else - something that precedes faith. But it's not like faith is through faith alone.
Again, even if faith is a necessary result of grace, man still believes, per Calvinism. That's synergistic. By couching the discussion in terms of necessary/sufficient conditions; you enter a labyrinth you can't escape from.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteHow does that become synergistic? Synergism means more than one worker. If faith is given to you, how is it your work to have faith, that the existence of faith would be synergistic?
...God can't push it all the way up the hill. Rather, the person is sitting inside the cart and gives God permission to push it up.
ReplyDeleteNow we're giving God permission to save us?
Ee gads!
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Salvation, in the expression salvation by grace alone through faith alone) is typically referring to justification, forgiveness, redemption, and adoption. Apparently you mean something else - something that precedes faith.”
Typically, salvation by grace alone through faith alone stood in contrast to Roman Catholic synergism. And that debate certainly included the preconditions of saving faith.
“But it's not like faith is through faith alone.”
Which ducks the question of what causes saving faith.
“Again, even if faith is a necessary result of grace, man still believes, per Calvinism. That's synergistic. By couching the discussion in terms of necessary/sufficient conditions; you enter a labyrinth you can't escape from.”
You’re attempting to redefine “synergism” to suit your personal agenda, but “synergism” has a specialized meaning in historic theology. The fact that faith is a human mental act doesn’t make that relation “synergistic” in historic theological usage.
This is really quite simple, we are saved by grace through faith. How is an Arminian being duplitious for taking Paul at his word?
ReplyDeletePaul doesn't define faith in contrast to grace. Rather, Paul defines faith in contrast to works.
ReplyDeleteUnless saving faith is a gracious faith, we're not saved by grace alone.
Steve,
ReplyDeletePaul doesn't define faith in contrast to grace. Rather, Paul defines faith in contrast to works
That right there should tell us that faith isn't the stuff of works, which is often the argument Calvinists make against Arminians. Faith is not at odds with grace, so not contrastible.
If salvation is likened to sunlight, faith would be the window that lets in the light. The light is what it is, the window doesn't produce it, it is merely the means for it to get inside the room.
Unless saving faith is a gracious faith, we're not saved by grace alone.
That confounds grace and faith. Faith by this reckoning is just a category of grace. In that case, the five solas should be reduced to four to avoid repetition.
It's quite clear that grace cannot be earned. Grace is unmerited favor. Those who have faith in God have been regenerated by God's grace. Where the arminian fails is in thinking that he has done something to get God's grace. Grace comes first and then repentence and faith and then we recieve salvation.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating how such differences (monergism vs. synergism) can produce such disparate outcomes.
ReplyDeleteTypically, Arminianism leads to liberal theology, even apostate liberal theology, and politically liberal clergy and laity. ISTM, more Arminians than Calvinists are deniers of inerrancy, embracers of egalitarianism and women's ordination, and promoters of theistic evolution.
Typically, Calvinism leads to staunch defense of biblical and reform orthodoxy, and politically conservative clergy and laity. ISTM, more Calvinists than Arminians are defenders of inerrancy, defenders of biblical patriarchy, and promoters of Intelligent Design and/or creationism.
Truth Unites,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see some statistics for that. My experience is exactly the opposite.
"Unless saving faith is a gracious faith, we're not saved by grace alone.
ReplyDeleteThat confounds grace and faith."
I don't think it does.
"and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 1:14
" For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" Phil. 1:29
Faith is granted to dead sinners, just as is the presence of Christ through the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Holy Spirit is the One who produces the fruit of the Spirit within us. We don't produce our own kindness, love, joy, peace, faith, etc.
And yet it is our faith, love, etc., but only by the grace of God.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." -Paul, the Apostle
Steve,
ReplyDeleteTypically, salvation by grace alone through faith alone stood in contrast to Roman Catholic synergism. And that debate certainly included the preconditions of saving faith... You’re attempting to redefine “synergism” to suit your personal agenda, but “synergism” has a specialized meaning in historic theology. The fact that faith is a human mental act doesn’t make that relation “synergistic” in historic theological usage.
The Protestants did not deny that men cooperate in their own conversion, taking that word in the sense in which the Romanists used the term (and the still broader term justificatio), as including the whole work of turning unto God. No one denies that the man in the synagogue cooperated in stretching out his withered arm or that the impotent one at the pool was active in obeying the command of Christ, “Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” But the question is, Did they cooperate in the communication of vital power to their impotent limbs? So Protestants do not deny that the soul is active in conversion, that the “arbitrium a Deo motum” freely assents”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.iv.xiv.vi.html
God be with you,
Dan
Peter,
ReplyDelete“all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active"
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html
God be with you,
Dan
Here is what Roger Olson actually said:
ReplyDelete"Much of the debate about who is and who is not an evangelical comes down to differences of opinion about the importance of certain doctrines. I have my doubts about the authenticity of a person’s evangelicalism (to say nothing of his or her Christian faith) who blatantly and knowingly denied the deity of Christ, the Trinity (God is one substance shared equally by three eternal persons), salvation by grace alone through faith alone or the sole supreme authority of Scripture for all matters of faith and Christian life. HOWEVER, these core doctrines are open to varying interpretations and it is not always easy to tell who really does and who does not believe them."
If you're (Mr. Hays) going to misquote someone simply to add an unrelated 'Needless to say...' then just leave out the quote. It's dishonest.
It's dishonest for you to accuse someone of dishonesty without pointing out how my quote misrepresented his views. Try again.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's equally dishonest for you to ignore my supporting argument. But you're just a partisan, so you only perceive dishonesty in one-direction.
Dan N.,
ReplyDeleteAre you personally:
(1) For the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? And against and oppose those who promote that the Bible is not inerrant?
(2) For Biblical patriarcy and complementarianism and against egalitarianism and women's ordination?
(3) For Creationism and against theistic evolution?
I quoted Olson in full to illustrate how your misrepresented him. However if that wasn't enough (as I thought it was), I'll explain here.
ReplyDelete(This is probably a little bit more than basic)
The article is a continuation of Roger Olson's "delineation of the term 'evangelical' and the movement called 'evangelicalism.'” The primary aim of his article is to 'discuss' what beliefs are necessary such that one may be considered 'evangelical' or not. Olson starts:
My basic point is that there are five general hallmarks of authentic evangelical faith, but these are not litmus tests that can be used to kick someone out of the movement (if that were even possible
Says Olson, "Much of the debate about who is and who is not an evangelical comes down to differences of opinion about the importance of certain doctrines". He continues:
I have my doubts about the authenticity of a person’s evangelicalism (to say nothing of his or her Christian faith) who blatantly and knowingly denied the deity of Christ, the Trinity (God is one substance shared equally by three eternal persons), salvation by grace alone through faith alone or the sole supreme authority of Scripture for all matters of faith and Christian life. HOWEVER, these core doctrines are open to varying interpretations and it is not always easy to tell who really does and who does not believe them.
Again, of primary concern to Olson is the "authenticity of a person's evangelicalism", not the validity of their Christian faith as a whole. He only notes in passing the validity of their faith, because (I imagine), as I think we would all agree, denying the doctrines mentioned is a much more serious thing than being considered evangelical or not.
So no, I don't think it's entirely honest for you to take a post meant to discuss evangelicalism, write a post yourself entitled "Why Arminians say Arminians are damned" and then tack on 'Needless to say...' Roger Olson didn't say other Arminians are damned - you did. Olson, as an Arminian, could tell you all day long that he believes in salvation by grace through faith, and you - being Calvinist - would still say that he "blatantly and knowingly [denies] salvation by grace..."
What Olson is doubting is the salvation of those who claim Christ and yet hold incorrect Christological and soteriological beliefs. He's not doubting the salvation of Arminians because he agrees with the Arminian formulation of 'grace through faith'.
Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteIt would behoove you to discover the literary genre known as satire. The title of the post was satirical. Attributing to an Arminian the sentiment that Arminians are damned is self-evidently satirical. This isn't difficult to grasp.
It's only because you're prepositioned to assume the worst that you're tone-deaf to the obvious.
Sorry, I can't agree with that.
ReplyDeleteWhat Olson is doubting is the salvation of those who claim Christ and yet hold incorrect Christological and soteriological beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI praise God every day that He is the One in charge of salvation and that I am saved by grace through faith in spite of the fact that I (most certainly) don't have 100% of my doctrinal ducks in a row.
I've said this before. The Holy Spirit permits us to hold to wrong or insufficient understandings, perhaps for a very, very long time, without that changing our final elect status before God. If it pleases Him to do so, we will be corrected in our understandings and embrace truth more and more.
Yes, theology matters. But that doesn't trump God's plan. He will not be thwarted from His purposes because we're mistaken about some things about Him.
I praise God every day that He is the One in charge of salvation and that I am saved by grace through faith in spite of the fact that I (most certainly) don't have 100% of my doctrinal ducks in a row [...]
ReplyDeleteThis would appear to be a wise position to take - how is it to be practiced? If you don't mind answering a question for me.
Concerning salvation: if I believed that "God does all the work, contingent upon the person's free acceptance of His offer for help." (a comment you didn't particularly agree with - "Ee gads!"). Would you attempt to correct my theology, or would you, "praise God every day that He is the One in charge of salvation..." being aware that "The Holy Spirit permits us to hold to wrong or insufficient understandings, perhaps for a very, very long time, without that changing our final elect status before God" Would you do both, but why argue about it?
DonSands,
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to show that a distinctive quality known as "gracious faith" is contrasted with some other supposed variety called "non-gracious faith" in the Bible to make your point. The Bible does not do that, it just calls faith, faith. I will not argue against you, in fact I quite agree with you, that faith exists because the grace of God (or even that it is a gift of God to humanity). The question at hand is whether or not an Arminian conception of "through faith" countermands sola gratia. I still do not see that the case has been made.
Tweaking my comment a little:
ReplyDeleteNascent,
Thank you for your comments.
This is why Calvinists are frustrated with those (Peter Lumpkins, for example) who say that Calvinists only think Calvinists are saved. Calvinists view Arminians (corporately) as true believers and brothers in Christ, in spite of whatever errors we see in theology because we believe in God's salvation accomplished and applied to His elect at Calvary. "Arminian" doesn't automatically mean "unsaved" to the Calvinist; after all, most of us were Arminian once. In my case, I would have to deny that I was a true Christian for some 17 years before embracing Reformed theology, and I don't believe that for one minute. The fruits of the Spirit working in my life say otherwise, and that's no "burning in the bosom."
Now granted, I may be at odds with some here, but I am confident that God has His people placed in most denominations, including Roman Catholicism, and He has them there to suit His purposes. If the Spirit reveals enough to them so that at some point they feel compelled to leave a particular congregation or even a particular denomination, then they should by all means do so. Otherwise, there are people there who may need your sound spiritual guidance in many matters, and you may have doctrinal influence on them so that as you grow, they grow. All I'm saying is, let's try to be thoughtful about where God has placed us and obey Him accordingly. He knows what He's doing and will inform us on a need-to-know basis as He takes us from one point to another along the journey. Having said that, of course we have an obligation to follow Christ as intelligently as we can, by regular use of the means He has provided through the Scripture, prayer and the sacraments. The "right use of means." But we always find new ways to improve our understanding over the years, do we not? We are (or should be) always growing, ever changing as He conforms us more and more to His image.
The point of all of this is, if I am going to be consistent in my view of God's sovereignty, I'm going to have to understand that He guides His elect into all truth in His time, not ours. How can it be that someone who is by all accounts a real man of God, one who loves Jesus Christ, and whose life reflects the fruits of the Spirit to all who came across his path, nonetheless had some doctrinal misunderstandings at the time of his death? The answer is because God is in charge of what we know and when. Even, if. If we are saved by God's grace through faith in Him, then we are saved by Him period, in spite of our wrong-headed thinking in some matters.
Finally, I would hope that every Arminian would embrace Reformed theology. But as I said, that is up to God's timing. However, I have grave concern about those who rail against the doctrines of predestination and election. Those are Scriptural teachings, and if you're going to preach about what is in Scripture as being "of the devil, Satanic in origin," etc., now we have a new set of very serious problems. It's one thing to disagree about something and struggle to understand the Biblical teaching on it, but to call fellow believers in Christ "Satanic" demonstrates a real and serious spiritual problem in one's own spiritual life that shouldn't be easily dismissed.
Truth Divides: Your contention that Arminianism leads to theological liberalism while Calvinism maintains orthodoxy is historically inaccurate. Holland used to be a Calvinist enclave; Kuyper served as Prime Minister for a time. Now Holland is the most un-Christian nation in Europe. Would it be fair to say that Calvinism leads to government tolerance of heavy drug use and open prostitution and the promotion of euthenasia as is the case in Holland today? It was Puritan New England that morphed into New England Unitarianism. There are few Calvinist theological institutions over 100 years old that can still be classified as orthodox in its teachings. The current Calvinist denominiations, such as the Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church are not that old; they are formed by those who came out of liberal denominations which had at one time been orthodox. Yes, there are some Arminians who deny the inerrancy of scripture and what scripture teaches concerning Creation. Yet there are Calvinists who also fall into this category. It is Tim Keller who wrote "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People" for Francis Collins' Biologos website, stating that our belief in God is genetic in origin and that Adam was the product of evolution while Eve was specially created and that Genesis one is not to be read as history but as poetry. There has been little if any criticism of Keller from prominant Calvinist spokesmen. It is Bruce Watke who has said that if the Church does not embrace evolution the Church will be seen as a cult. No Christian theological system, whether Calvinist or Arminian, is a preserver of theological orthodoxy by itself.
ReplyDeletePilgrim, a wise position to take - I agree.
ReplyDeleteDan (Godismyjudge),
ReplyDeleteHow does that even remotely address my question?
"The Bible does not do that, it just calls faith, faith." SLW
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says that deamons believe, and tremble. That's a different faith methinks.
And Paul says to the church in Corinth:
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain."
Jesus tells us that some believe, but riches choke it, and the world pressures it, and so it is unfruitful.
And He says: "For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” Mark 4
And in Luke it is a bit more clear: "Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.”" -Jesus
And you also have the man Simon in Acts 8 who believed, but his heart was not right with God, peter tells us.
So you have the faith delivered to us, the saving faith which God grants to all who are ordained to believe.
And you have devil's faith, which a lot of people have. It's not true faith, not fruit from the Holy Spirit.
That's how I see it.
JC Ryle says: "There are myriads of professing Christians in every Church whose union with Christ is only outward and formal....Christians of this stamp are aptly represented by branches in a vine which bear no fruit. Useless and unsightly, such branches are onlt fit to be cut off and burned."
Their faith is vain.
Dan (Godismyjudge version!):
ReplyDeleteAn analogy comes to mind.
Suppose you build a car. You put all the pieces together. You weld metal, you link electrical systems, you screw bolts in place, put on belts, etc. Further suppose that somehow in the midst of all this, you manage to make the vehicle self-aware (it's an analogy, so don't fret over the impossibilities here).
Now suppose that in order for cars to not be destroyed, they have to be fully functional. The engine has to work, in other words, and they have to be able to drive from point A to point B.
So after you're finished building this car, you climb in and turn the key. The car roars to life and you drive from point A to point B. When you climb out of the car, the car looks at you and says, "I am so glad that I synergistically worked with you."
Would you agree? Or would you instead say, "Excuse me, car, but I put you together in such a way that you, of necessity, would accomplish exactly what I wanted you to accomplish. At no point did I need *you* to manufacture something on your own to contribute to how this process worked. I built you, I ensured all the parts were needed to get from point A to point B. What did you contribute of your own power?"
Does this help you see your problem, Dan? Because when we go back to the issue of salvation, synergism requires that the one being saved produce something *apart from the work of God* so that they are saved. Since Calvinism says that faith is from God, then having faith is not apart from the work of God.
Yes, it is true that Calvinists have faith; but it's true in the above that the car's engine ran. Just as you cannot say the engine running in the example was due to something apart from the mechanic who built the car, so too you cannot say that under Calvinism faith comes apart from God. There is only ever one worker involved in salvation, and that is God; hence, monergism.
donsands,
ReplyDeleteNone of those passages define one sort of faith as gracious and another as non-gracious. They just relate faith in different kinds of circumstances. Any effort to label them isn't coming from the texts, but from the reader of the texts.
If anything these texts leave the onus of what becomes of faith on the person professing it.
Mr. Guthrie: "Holland used to be a Calvinist enclave; Kuyper served as Prime Minister for a time. Now Holland is the most un-Christian nation in Europe. "
ReplyDeleteNo argument here. Holland has gone down the tubes.
"Would it be fair to say that Calvinism leads to government tolerance of heavy drug use and open prostitution and the promotion of euthenasia as is the case in Holland today?"
It would be fairer to say that the abandonment of Biblical Christianity and the Doctrines of Grace has lead to the current situation in Holland.
"It was Puritan New England that morphed into New England Unitarianism."
It sure did. What a travesty.
"There are few Calvinist theological institutions over 100 years old that can still be classified as orthodox in its teachings."
That damned Perverter is doing his thing.
"The current Calvinist denominiations, such as the Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church are not that old; they are formed by those who came out of liberal denominations which had at one time been orthodox."
God preserves a remnant, thankfully!
"Yes, there are some Arminians who deny the inerrancy of scripture and what scripture teaches concerning Creation."
I think there's a Triablogue post or two about Arminianism and the aberrant doctrine of Open Theism.
"Yet there are Calvinists who also fall into this category. It is Tim Keller who wrote "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People" for Francis Collins' Biologos website, stating that our belief in God is genetic in origin and that Adam was the product of evolution while Eve was specially created and that Genesis one is not to be read as history but as poetry. There has been little if any criticism of Keller from prominant Calvinist spokesmen."
I have seen criticism of Keller. Whether the people who are critical of Keller's theistic evolution are prominent enough in your eyes, I can't say.
"It is Bruce Watke who has said that if the Church does not embrace evolution the Church will be seen as a cult."
Bruce Waltke has definitely be critiqued for his theistic evolution promotion.
"No Christian theological system, whether Calvinist or Arminian, is a preserver of theological orthodoxy by itself."
Okay. But Calvinism is better than Arminianism.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThe intuitive point of the analogy is that we are not responsible for our actions if they are predetermined by someone else – but this works against Calvinism as a whole. If you admitted that you would win the battle but lose the war. I just don’t see how you can use this analogy at all – it’s predicated on distinctly Arminian ideas. Apply the same analogy to the reprobate. Would you say they don’t deserve hell since they contribute nothing of their own power?
Some Calvinists appeal to asymmetry between God’s dealings with the elect and the reprobate. Perhaps you think man is responsible for unbelief, but not belief? But your analogy doesn’t explain how that could be. Given determinism, any asymmetry would relate to HOW God pre-determines what we do, not THAT He pre-determines what we do. Effectuious grace is a direct intervention on God’s part, whearas His dealings with the reprobate could be explained via indirect means. But still, if the predetermination of our actions is based on some combination of our nature and circumstances; then it boils down to creation and providence. Me hiring someone else to drive the car or allowing someone to steal it knowing they would drive it from A to B doesn’t seem like a significant modification to the analogy.
But more to the point, the car is passive in driving whereas we are active in believing (per Dort). Sproul puts it this way: When God regenerates a human soul, when He makes us spiritually alive, we make choices. We believe. We have faith. God does not believe for us. Faith is not monergistic.” Chosen by God p 118.
Ultimately it’s not about sufficient/necessary cause of faith; the key is that faith does not save, God’s graces does.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not dealing with responsibility. If I were dealing with responsibility, I would have used a different illustration. I'm dealing with synergism verses monergism. It is quite difficult to have a conversation with you if you're going to keep changing the topic.
"None of those passages define one sort of faith" SLW
ReplyDeleteGod grants genuine faith to sons of wrath who are dead, those who are His elect, His sheep, who believe.
The sons of wrath that don't believe are not His sheep. If they were His sheep they would.
Yet they say they believe, but their faith if not genuine.
The true sheep have been given faith. The false sheep have their own faith, their own righteousness, and own love.
Our love is from the Spirit, who pours it into our hearts. Faith is a gift of the Spirit, a gracious gift.
So, it seems simple to me.
You see it different.
All the Bible I read and shared is awesome truth of God's grace toward rotten sinners like us.
He grants us an incredible honor to repent, believe, worship, and love our Lord, and be heirs with Christ of all things.
One day we will have perfect righteousness and love, and we will have no more faith, that gracious gift will be gone, for ever.
But now we need to trust God with all our hearts, and not to lean to our own understanding, and He will lead us in His paths of service and goodness.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI did address monergism/synergism directly. Not that pointing out your inconsitency between your views of monergism and responsibility is off topic here. God's reason for saving us by grace through faith is so that we would not be able to boast.
We do believe. That's our act, not God's. So from that point of view there are two acters, two energies, two erges, synergism... But faith does not save, God's grace does.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan said:
ReplyDelete---
Not that pointing out your inconsitency between your views of monergism and responsibility is off topic here.
---
But you miss the whole point of analogies, which is to reduce the level of complexity so that one particular aspect is in view at any given time. Hence, my analogy was only focused on monergism vs. synergism. As I said, if I wanted an analogy dealing with responsibility, I would have given you an analogy on responsibility because I would have focused on that particular issue. Had I wanted to focus on *both* I would have given yet another analogy that would deal with two issues simultaneously. In other words, it's highly uncharitable for you to claim a contradiction in an analogy when the author of the analogy never intended to address your alleged contradiction in the first place.
Anyway, you also said:
---
I did address monergism/synergism directly.
---
Really? All I saw was a quote from Sproul, which if I recall correctly, was more concerned with sanctification than justification. No Calvinist denies that sanctification is synergistic. But given what I know of Sproul's view, there is no way he would have said faith, in the context of justification, is synergistic.
Furthermore, this renders the passive/active distinction you make irrelevant too. After all, when we say we are justified by faith, it is to say that the one who has faith *already has* all that is needed for salvation. Which, under Calvinism, means that he has already been regenerated, and by the basis of that regeneration he has faith. This is before his faith *does* anything. He is declared justified and is saved. *THEN* his faith produces works and the process of sanctification begins.
And remember, I don't have to argue for the *actualization* of any of these for our current discussion, because it is *your* claim that Calvinists have synergism because of the requirement of faith (and that requires you to assume Calvinism true for the sake of argument). You still have yet to demonstrate this synergism.
The current Calvinist denominiations, such as the Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church are not that old; they are formed by those who came out of liberal denominations which had at one time been orthodox.
ReplyDeleteThis is a minor point but it goes to credibility; that's the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, not the Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
But you make an excellent point. Believers all throughout history have found it necessary to return to their first love, the Lord Jesus Christ, through more and more faithfulness to His Word, even when that meant abandoning something that once was faithful to begin faithfulness anew someplace else. Semper Reformanda!
Pilgrims Harbor, I placed Reformation in front of Orthodox Presbyterian Church because the local OPC around here is called Reformation OPC. When refering to the OPC I sometimes make that mistake. Thanks for your input, as well as the input from Truth Unites...Truth Divides
ReplyDeleteDan N.,
ReplyDeleteAre you personally:
(1) For the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? And against and oppose those who promote that the Bible is not inerrant?
(2) For Biblical patriarcy and complementarianism and against egalitarianism and women's ordination?
(3) For Creationism and against theistic evolution?
Truth Unites and Divides,
ReplyDeleteYes I am. I also know many Arminians who are in agreement with me, and many Calvinists who would NOT affirm the things you said. Especially when it comes to Evolution vs Creationism.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteMy point about responsibly didn’t start with your analogy, but if you say the analogy was just focused on monergism/synergism, without looking at responsibility, OK, I am willing to relook at it.
I take it that the point of the analogy is to define and explain monergism with respect to faith. Your main point seems to be that “synergism requires that the one being saved produce something *apart from the work of God* so that they are saved” . I take *apart from the work of God* as a way of expression libertarian freedom, rather than a denial that Arminians hold to prevenient grace. I also take it that the analogy does not deny that believing is our mental action nor does it deny that we are responsible for believing. In essence you are saying LFW (not action or responsible action) is a if not the key element in defining synergism.
If that’s what you mean, then I agree that Arminianism is synergistic and Calvinism is not, but I disagree that this understanding of synergism conflicts with the idea that we are saved by grace through faith. This is because faith does not save us, God’s grace does. I also disagree that this is a good way to understand synergism and it’s not what Arminians mean when they say they are synergists and I doubt it’s what you meant when you said sanctification is synergistic in Calvinism.
By way of response, I would first off point out that such a definition of synergism is irrelevant to the issue of salvation by grace through faith. If you hold that 1) believing is our act, 2) we are responsible for our acts and 3) believing is part of salvation, then it follows that we are responsible for part of our salvation. I reject 3, faith does not save, God’s grace does.
To be clear, I understand that salvation can be taken in a narrow or broad sense: either it can mean justification, forgiveness, redemption, and adoption (heretofore justification) or salvation can mean the whole process leading up to justification including the precursors to faith. As I explained to Steve, in the phrase, ‘saved by grace through faith’ saved must be taken in the narrow sense as justification – otherwise we end up with the absurd idea that faith is through faith. He rejected the narrow sense and maintained the broad sense. In which case it follows that, per Calvinism (or at least per Steve), we end up being responsible for part of our salvation. This violates grace alone in the expression “saved by grace through faith” without even getting around to your definition of synergism.
Further I would define synergism in terms of two parties working together, as you did before your analogy and as Sproul does. BTW, Sproul, in context is talking about justification not sanctification. The topic at hand is the relationship between regeneration and faith (i.e. choosing or receiving Christ).
God be with you,
Dan
Dan said:
ReplyDelete---
If that’s what you mean, then I agree that Arminianism is synergistic and Calvinism is not, but I disagree that this understanding of synergism conflicts with the idea that we are saved by grace through faith
---
You can disagree if you want, but that's a different issue. This whole thing got started because you said:
---
Again, even if faith is a necessary result of grace, man still believes, per Calvinism. That's synergistic.
---
And then I asked:
---
How does that become synergistic?
---
That's all I was ever focused on in our discussion, and now you've agreed with me that Calvinism is not synergistic. But don't worry, as I don't mind that you answered a bunch of questions I didn't ask you in the process too as in the future I won't have to ask you those questions :-)
By the way, I love how my word verification this time is "eperp." Makes me feel like a hacker or something.
Your too funny Peter.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan
Me: "Dan N.,
ReplyDeleteAre you personally:
(1) For the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? And against and oppose those who promote that the Bible is not inerrant?
(2) For Biblical patriarcy and complementarianism and against egalitarianism and women's ordination?
(3) For Creationism and against theistic evolution?"
Dan N.: "Yes I am."
Yay!!! An inerrantist Arminian who's for biblical patriarchy and creationism.
If anyone's going to be an Arminian, I hope they're all doctrinally like you, Dan N.
SLW SAID:
ReplyDelete“That right there should tell us that faith isn't the stuff of works, which is often the argument Calvinists make against Arminians. Faith is not at odds with grace, so not contrastible.”
Actually, you just confirmed the accuracy of the charge. Faith would be a work if you decouple faith from grace.
“If salvation is likened to sunlight, faith would be the window that lets in the light. The light is what it is, the window doesn't produce it, it is merely the means for it to get inside the room.”
Your metaphor is not an argument. And it’s not exegeted from relevant prooftexts. It’s just a distraction.
“That confounds grace and faith. Faith by this reckoning is just a category of grace. In that case, the five solas should be reduced to four to avoid repetition.”
Illogical. Grace/faith is a cause/effect relationship. As such, faith isn’t reducible to grace–anymore than effects are reducible to causes.
Godismyjudge said...
ReplyDelete“The Protestants did not deny that men cooperate in their own conversion, taking that word in the sense in which the Romanists used the term (and the still broader term justificatio), as including the whole work of turning unto God. No one denies that the man in the synagogue cooperated in stretching out his withered arm or that the impotent one at the pool was active in obeying the command of Christ, ‘Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.’ But the question is, Did they cooperate in the communication of vital power to their impotent limbs? So Protestants do not deny that the soul is active in conversion, that the ‘arbitrium a Deo motum’ freely assents.’
You’re using “cooperation” as if it were a synonym for “synergism.” That’s incorrect.
i) In historical theology, “synergism” is a technical term. It’s not equivalent to “cooperation.”
If you want to use “synergism” in a popular, modern sense (i.e. “interaction”), you’re free to do so, but don’t anachronistically substitute that innovation for historic theological usage, then accuse me of using “salvation” in “atypical” fashion.
ii) To say man is “active” in “conversion” is also equivocal. At which stage of the process? In Reformed theology, man is passive in regeneration. However, regeneration produces faith (among other things). Man is “active” in believing, but saving faith is the effect of saving grace.
So the “activity” or “cooperation” is still grounded in monergism.
Godismyjudge said...
ReplyDelete“This is because faith does not save us, God’s grace does.”
You keep resorting to that evasive, palpably defective formula. But in Scripture, faith in Christ is clearly a necessary condition of salvation (excluding special cases).Therefore, you can’t separate faith from salvation.
Your only out is to separate faith from grace. But since faith and salvation are inseparable (see above), if you separate faith and grace, then you deny salvation by grace alone.
“If you hold that 1) believing is our act, 2) we are responsible for our acts and 3) believing is part of salvation, then it follows that we are responsible for part of our salvation.”
That’s another one of your evasive equivocations. “Responsible” has more than one meaning. It can mean “accountable/liable,” or it can denote a causal relation, as in: “pilot error was responsible for the crash” (i.e. the pilot caused the plane to crash).
In Calvinism, we are “responsible” in the sense of having a duty to believe, and being culpable in case we shirk that obligation.
But a Christian is not the cause of saving faith. Rather, God’s grace is the cause of saving faith. So a Christian is not “responsible” for saving faith in the causal sense. And that’s what makes it monergistic rather than synergistic (in the technical sense of the terms).
“As I explained to Steve, in the phrase, ‘saved by grace through faith’ saved must be taken in the narrow sense as justification – otherwise we end up with the absurd idea that faith is through faith.”
To say that saving faith is the result of saving grace is hardly a tautologous formula. That’s not reducible to “faith is through faith.”
That’s just one of Dan’s rhetorical gimmicks. And it fails.
“He rejected the narrow sense and maintained the broad sense. In which case it follows that, per Calvinism (or at least per Steve), we end up being responsible for part of our salvation. This violates grace alone in the expression ‘saved by grace through faith’…”
The “violation” only ensues if we allow Dan to trade on conspicuous equivocations.
“Further I would define synergism in terms of two parties working together.”
Which is not what “synergism” means in the conflict with Rome.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteMe: “If you hold that 1) believing is our act, 2) we are responsible for our acts and 3) believing is part of salvation, then it follows that we are responsible for part of our salvation.”
Thee: That’s another one of your evasive equivocations. “Responsible” has more than one meaning. It can mean “accountable/liable,” or it can denote a causal relation, as in: “pilot error was responsible for the crash” (i.e. the pilot caused the plane to crash).
In Calvinism, we are “responsible” in the sense of having a duty to believe, and being culpable in case we shirk that obligation.
But a Christian is not the cause of saving faith. Rather, God’s grace is the cause of saving faith. So a Christian is not “responsible” for saving faith in the causal sense. And that’s what makes it monergistic rather than synergistic (in the technical sense of the terms).
Putting on hold the issue about defining synergism for the moment... you seem to be saying we are accountable for a part of our salvation, despite the fact that we don’t cause it. But the issue with “saved by grace through faith” one of accountably – God’s reason for saving by grace through faith is so we will be unable to boast. If the cause of faith doesn’t determine accountability, and accountability is the issue, then the cause of faith isn’t the real issue at hand. In short, you are not really denying one of the premises, so you are stuck with the conclusion.
As for your statement that we do not cause faith, many Calvinists are satisfied by saying we do not cause regeneration even if we do cause faith. The new nature desires to follow Christ. You have, at times, said faith includes an act of the will.
To say that saving faith is the result of saving grace is hardly a tautologous formula. That’s not reducible to “faith is through faith.”
We are saved through faith. If salvation includes coming to faith, then we come to faith through faith. From this it’s clear (at least to me) that in the context of saved by grace through faith, that saved is equivalent to justified, forgiven, redeemed and adopted. The grace that leads to faith is a different topic.
You keep resorting to that evasive, palpably defective formula. But in Scripture, faith in Christ is clearly a necessary condition of salvation (excluding special cases).Therefore, you can’t separate faith from salvation.
Faith and justification are related concepts, but the two are conceptually distinct. We believe; God justifies the believer. It’s true, simple, and cleanly solves the problem you find yourself in above.
Me: “Further I would define synergism in terms of two parties working together.”
ReplyDeleteThee: Which is not what “synergism” means in the conflict with Rome.
To my knowledge, the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Knox….) didn’t use the terms monergism or synergism, nor did their Roman Catholic opponents. But in the 1800’s folks started using the terms to define Luther and Calvin’s view in contrast to Melanchthon’s view. But as best I can tell they were not talking about LFW. Rather, they were talking about the cause of regeneration. Is it just God or God and us? In the 1800’s, many of the theologians I have read that combat synergism are combating a “moral influence” theory of regeneration.
In discussion about Catholicism, there’s a slight shift in the context since some Catholics either give faith an instrumental role in justification or define justification as the infusion of grace to produce good works in us. LFW isn’t really the issue since in this sense, even a Dominican would be a synergist.
Likewise, when Calvinists say sanctification is synergistic, they are not denying sanctification is by grace, nor are they saying man has LFW with respect to sanctification.
Not that you cannot find some Calvinists who equate LFW with synergism and some Arminians who accept the label synergist, since they hold to LFW. But even then the issue seems to be if God alone is responsible for faith or God and man.
So I think what is going on here is that synergism retains the meaning “two parties working together”, but the connotation shifts along with the context.
God be with you,
Dan
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Putting on hold the issue about defining synergism for the moment... you seem to be saying we are accountable for a part of our salvation, despite the fact that we don’t cause it. But the issue with ‘saved by grace through faith’ one of accountably – God’s reason for saving by grace through faith is so we will be unable to boast. If the cause of faith doesn’t determine accountability, and accountability is the issue, then the cause of faith isn’t the real issue at hand. In short, you are not really denying one of the premises, so you are stuck with the conclusion.”
i) I’m discussing “accountability” because you’re trying to artificially reduce and shift the issue to “responsibility,” and in the process you equivocate. That obviously doesn’t mean I accept your framework. Indeed, I made it clear that I don’t accept your framework.
ii) Accountability is by no means the only issue. There’s the central issue of what it means to be saved solely by grace, which you’re attempting to divert attention away from.
iii) ”Responsibility” is a moral or legal category. It isn’t “synergistic” in the sense of “two parties working together.” You’re jumping categories again.
That’s analogous to the distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification, like responsibility, is a forensic state, not a subjective process.
“As for your statement that we do not cause faith, many Calvinists are satisfied by saying we do not cause regeneration even if we do cause faith.”
What Calvinists typically say is that faith is a gift of God. They also say monergistic regeneration causes faith. Born-again Christians exercise faith, but they don’t cause faith.
“We are saved through faith.”
I never said we're “saved through faith.” Faith is a necessary condition of salvation. And we are justified by faith (alone).
Cont. “If salvation includes coming to faith, then we come to faith through faith.”
ReplyDeleteWrong again. We “come to” justification through faith, we “come to” faith through regeneration, and we “come to regeneration” through saving grace.
“From this it’s clear (at least to me) that in the context of saved by grace through faith, that saved is equivalent to justified, forgiven, redeemed and adopted. The grace that leads to faith is a different topic.”
”Clear to you” because you confuse and oversimplify the process.
“Faith and justification are related concepts, but the two are conceptually distinct.”
I never conflated the two. That’s just your tendentious way of first imputing to me something I never said or implied, then “correcting” my alleged mistake.
“We believe; God justifies the believer. It’s true, simple, and cleanly solves the problem you find yourself in above.”
To the contrary, that only pushes the problem back a step. What’s the source of justifying faith?
You’re doing a fine job of illustrating how little credit Arminians give to God. You want the least God you can get away with.
“To my knowledge, the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Knox….) didn’t use the terms monergism or synergism, nor did their Roman Catholic opponents.”
You’re back to your bad habit of committing the word=concept fallacy. The question at issue is the concept of sola gratia. Is it monergistic or synergistic?
“Likewise, when Calvinists say sanctification is synergistic, they are not denying sanctification is by grace, nor are they saying man has LFW with respect to sanctification.”
i) When using “synergism” in the technical sense, they avoid “synergism” in reference to sanctification. Instead, they use “cooperation.”
ii) The comparison with sanctification doesn’t help you, for that’s another case in which Arminianism denies sola gratia. In Calvinism, the process of sanctification is the inevitable result of monergistic regeneration. Moreover, God preserves the regenerate from committing apostasy. So the human will is not an independent variable, unlike Arminianism. Rather, we have a cause/effect relation.
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteThere's not much of substance for me to respond to in your last two posts. I suppose I could go through your comments and show how you are context dropping or changing the subject, but that would feel like arguing for the sake of arguing rather than seeking truth.
God be with you,
Dan