Dr. James Dobson Supports Free Choice (arminianism): "God does not force people to accept Him"

I'm sure you are aware that there has been a debate going on for centuries, often referred to as the Calvinistic/Armenian debate, with Scriptures to back up both sides of the argument.

Anyway, in light of your belief, following is a message I have received from Dr. James Dobson/Focus on the Family. Please advise if this viewpoint is the same viewpoint you hold to.

You asked about Dr. Dobson's beliefs regarding eternal security. He holds to the classic Armenian view -- that is, he believes God never violates the free will of the individual. Dr. Dobson feels that God does not force people to accept Him, nor will He lock them into an earlier commitment if they subsequently choose deliberately and willfully to disobey His known will.

But while Dr. Dobson does not affirm the doctrine of eternal security, he is at the same time confident that our loving God will not banish us from fellowship with Him for our mistakes, human frailties, faults, and failings. God's forgiveness for sin is one of the foundation stones of the gospel message. Still, this does not change Dr. Dobson's conviction that the choice is ultimately ours. He believes it is possible for an individual to remove himself from the grace of God, and exit by the door through which he originally entered -- the will.

This means that, in Dr. Dobson's view, it is possible for a born-again Christian to shake his fist in God's face and say in essence, "I will have my own way!" When that occurs, "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." This scripture, which is quoted below in its larger context, is one of at least fifty references that may be cited in support of the theological perspective to which Dr. Dobson ascribes:

*For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* Heb. 10:26-31 KJV

Dr. Dobson realizes many good Christians have drawn different conclusions regarding this issue. He feels it is an honest difference in understanding on the part of equally committed people who are seeking the truth through imperfect eyes. "We see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (I Cor. 13:12)

We would emphasize the following points. The Bible teaches very clearly that it is possible to fall from faith (1 Corinthians 10:12). It also assures us that God will protect us from falling (1 Corinthians 10:13). The first passage warns us when we are complacent. The second comforts us when we are troubled. Among the other passages that deal with this are Matthew 13:18-23, Hebrews 10:26, and John 10:27-29.

We would, therefore, agree with the basic points which Dr. Dobson makes about the possibility of falling from faith but not with some of the other aspects of his answer. The Armenian view held by Dobson affirms that our free will cooperates in our conversion to Christ. We believe that our natural will resists God, and our will only cooperates with the Holy Spirit after conversion. We do not by nature have a free will to make a decision for Christ. We do not by nature have the freedom to choose for Christ. We do have the freedom to chose against him. From our perspective then, Dobson's answer is half right.

I need simpler multiple-choice questions . . .

For example . . .

CCWoody and w_over_w are?

a. Sons of God with full Sonship rights.
b. Joint heirs with Christ.
c. Seated in the heavenly.
d. Children of light.
e. More than conquerors through Christ.
f. Righteous, Justified, Redeemed and Sanctified.
g. Reigning like Kings.
h. Infused with the Spirit of the most high God.
i. Transformed by the power of The Word.
j. All the above plus an eternal list other blessings.

. . . again have a blessed day!

<><

I'll take "a"-"j" obtained through a generous dose of grace which is shed out abundantly for us, given to us before time began, and manifested in these last days by the appearance of Christ Jesus.

Now, if you will permit me to answer your question:

We could not save ourselves so by the grace of God (only) and the accomplished works of His Son Jesus we (mankind) could be saved. Let me ask you something . . . when you did Roms. 10:9,10 did you choose to act on your beliefs or were you forced?

As to your first statement, I agree that it is utterly impossible for us to save ourselves. Salvation may be obtained only by the shed grace of God being given to us.

Romans 10:9-10 ... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.

Let me say with certainty that I chose the Lord Jesus under absolutely no force or compulsion. However, my statements must be consistent with the scriptures:

Luke 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasures of his heart brings forth good; and evil man out of the evil treasures of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

And we do know that scriptures declare to us:

"By grace ye are saved."

Now, if we are to believe the Lord, my confession of the Lord Jesus must be spoken from the abundance of my heart. And the Lord Himself has explicitly declared to me that if I have an evil heart then I will bring forth evil treasures and if I have a good heart then I will bring forth good treasures, including the treasure of confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior. In order for my salvation to be by grace then even my confession must be a direct result of the grace of God.

However, what I have been endeavoring to show is that a salvation which provides for the possible salvation of all men, but the certainty of the salvation of no man CANNOT of necessity be a salvation of grace. For if the grace of God has provided for a possibility of salvation but NOT the certainty of salvation, then there must be something else that will "tip the scales" so to speak of a man's salvation or damnation.

No matter how small...

... if this something is by grace, then God alone elects persons to salvation through the gift of that grace. Man is saved solely by grace.
... if this something is by man, then man alone elects himself to salvation apart from grace. Man is saved apart from grace.

Sir,

The eloquence of your response is a testament not only to your faith but also to the goodness of your heart for God. I hope one day (should the Lord tarry) that my continued studies of God's Word will result in being able to communicate as graciously and wise as you have. I also hope to better understand the factor that "tips the scales" of man's salvation or damnation.

As of now I do not. I take full responsibility for my confusion . . . it is not a reflection of your words or heart . . . it is my ability (or lack thereof) to understand and mine alone. The good news is I am at peace with the salvation that is mine through the life giving works of the risen Christ, Jesus.

In the meantime I pray for God's mighty hedge of protection around all who "fight the good fight" and look forward to the Hope in Christ's return . . . soon. Take care and God bless . . .

Ted

While some "Calvinists" may teach that all our choices and actions in life were predetermined by God, Calvinism does not teach such. I ask this of you...do you believe that the Holy Spirit guides believers in their decisions?

My friend, to the extent that your first sentence above is true, then we would have great fellowship.

2nd sentence: I certainly do believe that the Holy Spirit guides believers in their decisions. And I believe that the "preparing the heart" type of God's grace "prepares" unbelievers to come to the point of salvation.

Actually, Fru, Calvinism indeed ~does~ teach that ALL THINGS which come to pass have been ordained by God.

In doing so, however, God cannot be said to be the author of evil or sin.

It should also be said, therefore, that God does not 'force' anything on anybody. Yes, God ordains all things which come to pass. Yet, man freely chooses all that he does.

See the classic (and earliest) Calvinist confession called the 'Belgic Confession' -written in 1561.

Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground^20 without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

And yes, Calvin, himself, also taught this.

This is ~not~ 'Hyper-Calvinism'.

Jean

You asked about Dr. Dobson's beliefs regarding eternal security. He holds to the classic Armenian view -- that is, he believes God never violates the free will of the individual. ~ From Article. Thus, salvation is NOT by the grace of God, but by the free will of man. Man wills his own salvation!

No, man believes for his salvation, just as the Lord commanded him to do (1Jn.3:23, Jn.3:16) Grace and faith are not antithetical but complementary. If you are going to prove your 'thesis' that is what you would have to prove. That if man uses his faith, it is not grace. Stating something over and over again does not prove the argument. You have to establish your premise, 'if man uses his own will to believe (faith) it is anti-grace'

Now, since it is works vs grace, and faith is not a work, man using his God-given volition to make a decision does not constitute a work and is therefore not going against the plan of God, but obeying it (1Jn.3:23)

He believes it is possible for an individual to remove himself from the grace of God, and exit by the door through which he originally entered -- the will. ~ From Article

An incorrect view, once you are in Christ, you cannot choose to get out of Him. Once you are 'born again' you cannot be 'unborn again'

Thus, salvation is NOT by the grace of God, but by the free will of man. Man enters into salvation by the force of his own will!

Yes, man's will has a role in the salvation event, so what? Man has to accept the free gift. Now, since Faith is not a work, faith is a part of the grace process. It is man's responsiblity to accept the free gift of salvation through faith(Eph.2:8)

Yet, my Bible says explicitly and unapologetically says: "By grace ye are saved."

Left something out didn't you Woody? It is by grace through faith.

But you guys are always leaving something out of the verses, everytime you quote Roman 8 you always leave out foreknowledge also. Nothing new!

As for your thesis it is utter nonsense. I like how Melanchthon stated it

At last (1535) he openly renounced determinism or necessitarianism, as a Stoic and Manichean error and taught a certain subordinate co-operation of the human will in the work of conversion; maintaining that conversion is not a mechanical or magical, but a moral process, and is brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, with the consent, yet without the merit of man. The Spirit of God is the primary, the Word of God the secondary or instrumental agent of conversion and the human will allows this action and freely yields to it...He never gave up the doctrine of justification by the free grace and sole merit of Christ through faith, but in his later years he laid greater stess on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1,p.262-63)

"As for your thesis it is utter nonsense. I like how Melanchthon stated it

At last (1535) he openly renounced determinism or necessitarianism, as a Stoic and Manichean error and taught a certain subordinate co-operation of the human will in the work of conversion; maintaining that conversion is not a mechanical or magical, but a moral process, and is brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, with the consent, yet without the merit of man. The Spirit of God is the primary, the Word of God the secondary or instrumental agent of conversion and the human will allows this action and freely yields to it...He never gave up the doctrine of justification by the free grace and sole merit of Christ through faith, but in his later years he laid greater stess on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1,p.262-63)"

Actually, ftd, these are Schaff's words, not Melanchthon's -and, I should note, there is nothing in Shaff's words in which I would disagree with!

Note ...but in his later years he laid greater stess on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith"

Melanchthon ~always~ held to the Reformational Doctrine of Predestination that Calvin and Luther and all the other Reformational father's espoused. He never gave it up.

I'm glad you (seemingly) like him. Maybe you could learn something from him.

Jean

Now, since it is works vs grace

Faith is not a work (Rom.4:5)

My thesis is as follows: The Arminian contends that God has made salvation possible for all men whereas the Calvinist contends that God as made salvation certain for a vast multitude from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group of which God alone knows the number. For the sake of logical charity, we will concede to the "possible salvation" of all men and examine its characteristics. By doing so we will show conclusively by this concession that a mere "possible salvation" cannot be a salvation by grace.

Is that the same thesis you were working on before? It appears to have changed!

Salvation is possible to all men.(Jn.3:16,Rom.10:13) God wants all men saved (1Tim.2:4).

The grace is God doing all the work of paying for man's sins and then offering salvation as a free gift (Rom.6:23), which man can accept or reject (Jn.3:36)

Woody, you need to spend less time on logical constructs and just go read your Bible.

I do not know where you guys get the idea that you are all logical geniuses.

I do note that you all try to prove Calvinism with a philosophical approach and not a scriptural one.

Actually, ftd, these are Schaff's words, not Melanchthon's -and, I should note, there is nothing in Shaff's words in which I would disagree with! Note ...but in his later years he laid greater stess on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith" Melanchthon ~always~ held to the Reformational Doctrine of Predestination that Calvin and Luther and all the other Reformational father's espoused. He never gave it up. I'm glad you (seemingly) like him. Maybe you could learn something from him.

Hey, Jean, do you ever get tired of being wrong! This is from Boettner,

The position taken by the Lutheran Church was gradually modified. Later Lutherans let go of the doctrine altogether, deonounced it in its Calvinistic form and came to hold the doctrine of universal grace and universal atonement, which doctrine has since become the accepted doctrine of the Lutheran Church. (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.368)

Now, who was it that led the Lutherians away from Predestination?

Schaff footnotes Melanchthon's conversion from error to truth,

In a new revision of his loci communes theologici regogniti, which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes-the Spirit of God, the Word of God and the will of man, and states the will may accept or reject God's grace, Copulationem, Causarum, Verbi Dei, Spirtus Sancit, Et voluntatis This is the chief passage which was afterwards (1553) assailed as synergistic,(Schaff, Creeds, p.262-263)

Now, I understand as a Calvinist you are living in a state of delusion, but history is about facts.

Melanchthon rejected Luther's view on Predestination and accepted the truth that man had a part in the salvation event.

Next time you want to dispute with me over a fact, bring some with you instead of your stupid opinions!

Note ...but in his later years he laid greater stess on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith"

Melanchthon ~always~ held to the Reformational Doctrine of Predestination that Calvin and Luther and all the other Reformational father's espoused. He never gave it up.

The first statement goes against the second!

See, the word responsiblity, see the word accepting (no irresistable grace), see the word rejecting (no irresistable grace)

We are dealing with words as they really mean, not as the Calvinists would have them mean!

No, man believes for his salvation, just as the Lord commanded him to do (1Jn.3:23, Jn.3:16) Grace and faith are not antithetical but complementary. If you are going to prove your 'thesis' that is what you would have to prove. That if man uses his faith, it is not grace.

Therefore, according to your contention, BY THE VIRTUE OF a MAN's OWN FAITH a "possible salvation" becomes an actual salvation. Man is not saved by grace, but BY THE VIRTUE OF HIS OWN FAITH. Do you agree then that your belief is that faith is the cause of salvation and not grace?

See what I mean about talking with you Woody, you are a real nut. Now, I told you have to prove that 'faith' is not part of grace. You come back with man is not saved by grace, by the virture of his own faith .

Man is saved by grace, through faith.

Since Faith is not a work, it is totally consistent with the grace process. It is the mere acceptance of the free gift (which is the grace) that God has provided.

Now, Woody, take your silly logical contructs somewhere else. It is clear that you have no intention of honestly dealing with what we have to say.

If Mr. Boettner attributes this 'fact' to Melachthon, he is wrong on Melachthon (I see where you assume such, but I don't see where Boettner states this). Melancthon never adopted a 'synergistic' concept of regeneration.

Mr. Schaff is a bit messed up in what he is writing about. Melancthon is not speaking of 'regeneration' in the 'Common Places'. Mr. Schaff gets his 'controversy' from the wrong place. The 'synergism' controversy actually arises from Melachthon's Examen Ordinandorum of 1554 -something he clarified in correspondence to Duke John Albert of Magdeburg in February of 1557.

"Next time you want to dispute with me over a fact, bring some with you instead of your stupid opinions!"

The fact that I have not posted evidence to support my claim should not be construed that I have none! ;)

Perhaps I'd just like you to read from Melachthon himself (It's pretty obvious you have not). As I said earlier, you just might learn something -Lord willing!

Jean

It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" is most definitely NOT an actual salvation; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. You must contend then that man must generate faith for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation.

Therefore, BY THE VIRTUE OF HIS OWN FAITH a "possible salvation" becomes an actual salvation. In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Calvinist position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the VIRTUE OF HIS OWN FAITH then salvation is not by grace.

Of course, the Arminian will protest and say that it is the grace of God which enables the man to have faith. But the difficulty for the Arminian is not resolved for either it is the grace of God which gives the man the faith to believe and nothing more is required--the Calvinist position is maintained--or the grace of God only "enables" the man who must then generate his own faith and salvation is then not by grace, but by the VIRTUE OF HIS OWN FAITH.

Is the inequality:

the GRACE of God?
the VIRTUE of MAN?

"The first statement goes against the second!

See, the word responsiblity, see the word accepting (no irresistable grace), see the word rejecting (no irresistable grace)"

Nobody is going to hell who didn't 'reject' the gospel.

Nobody is going to heaven who didn't 'accept' the gospel.

And, yes, according to calvinism, we have the responsibility to either 'reject' or 'accept' the gospel. This is pretty basic calvinist doctrine, ftd! If your gonna argue against calvinism, then at least argue against what calvinists actually believe -not what you want them to believe.

Jean

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.