Anonymous
wrote:
Calvinists appeal to Lazarus in as an illustration of the the unregenerate man's encounter with the new birth:
Calvinist, James White, explains: “On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of ‘self-resurrection.’ It would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask Lazarus for ‘permission’ to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversations. No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ’s command to come forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus’ condition first: Lazarus’ heart was made new; his mind revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can heart the voice of his beloved Lord, ‘Come forth!’ The term ‘irresistible’ then must be understood as speaking to the inability of dead sinners to resist resurrection to new life.” (The Potter’s Freedom, pp.284-285)
Rather than show why I disagree with this being a valid description of the unregenerate man's experience with the new birth, I will instead offer and explain an alternative illustration for the Arminian view of regeneration.
Actually, I think you need to deal with the way that Scripture depicts the new birth. It various depicts it as a birth, not by the will of man but of God, as a result of the wind blowing, and a resurrection, and being made a new creation.
Mark 3:1,3,5 (ESV, Emphasis mine)
1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand...3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, Come here. ..5 (then Jesus) said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
How is this an alternative view? First, the man with the withered hand had no ability to "heal himself." This parallels the Arminian's view of depravity. Arminians rightly proclaim man could not save himself in the same way this man could not heal himself.
A few preliminary observations:
1. The text is, in context, related to Jesus, Lord of the Sabbath and Lord over sickness.
2. Consequently, it is disanalogous to the state of man before he is "saved." This Arminian interlocutor is forgetting that men are dead in their sins, not sick. It does not make sense for him to use this as an illustration of the inability of men, for if he was consistent with his statement, he would affirm the man could not even rise up to come to Jesus at all.
Moving on...
1. It's true Arminians affirm, at least in principle, the inability of man to save himself.
2. Our quarrel with them, however, lies in the fact that their doctrine of UPG, if consistently followed out, makes that inability cease to be a functional category, which this Arminian, in using the text in this way, has borne out for us rather nicely. He does not, in fact, see men as unable to come, unable to save themselves, etc. Men are not, for him, dead in sin and unable to rise, they are merely sick.
Second, Arminians rightly believe that without prevenient grace, yes, the wooing/drawing influence/direction of the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate man would not repent of sin and come to Christ believing in Him in the same way that the man with the withered hand would not have been healed had Christ not came to him and said "stretch out your hand."
Scripture never speaks of the Holy Spirit "wooing" anybody. When it speaks of drawing, it says clearly that all who are drawn come. "Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me."
Where does Mark 3 have anything to say about UPG? Since he's chosen this text as an illustration, he needs to find it to make this illustration stick. By way of contrast, the use of the Lazarus story as an illustration by Dr. White and others obviously contains everything needed to demonstrate the effectual call. Jesus does not call everybody. He calls only one. He calls a dead man. That man rises from the dead and then comes out of his grave.
Third, Arminians do not believe that choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to this prior grace gives one room to boast. In the same way, this can be compared to the man with the withered hand's response to Jesus. Does his response which got him healed give room for him to boast? After all, he did choose to do what Jesus told him to (i.e. stretch out the hand). He was healed as he stretched out his hand after Jesus said to do so.
This misconstrues our objection. Why, given UPG, does one man reach out and not another? We do not object to the
fact of a choice. Rather, the question is,
"What lies behind that choice?" The Arminian says UPG, but, at most, this results in a state of equipoise. Within the constraints of LFW, why, then does one man believe and not the other? If this action results from the agent, in an unregenerate state, then what is the reason for it? Please answer this question. We keep asking it for a reason.
UPG only moves the answer to this question back by one step, for UPG relieves the bondage only to place the will in a libertarian state.
If the Calvinist wants to claim that the idea that faith precedes regeneration gives room for boasting, they must also say the same thing with the man with the withered hand, that Jesus gave this man room for boasting.
If it arises from his own libertarian free will and not the grace of God
alone, e.g. effectually then yes, it does.
This is something Calvinists wont do/say, and rightfully so.
Because we deny LFW and we affirm grace alone. We affirm that such grace moves effectually, not ineffectually. It is qualitative, not quantitative.
It logically follows then that such their claim against the Arminian is unwarranted and erroneous.
It does not logically follow, for your argument is fallacious.
Therefore, they need to refrain from making such a claim.
We will gladly do so when you provide a cogent answer for why one person believes and not another, given the constraints of LFW. It would really help a great deal if you would provide an exegetical argument for LFW while you're at it.
