Posted on 07/15/2002 7:01:32 AM PDT by RnMomof7
==
|
Selection from:
CALVINISM AND EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM
by John L. Girardeau
But let us go on. What precisely is meant by the possible salvation of all men? It cannot mean the probable salvation of all men. If it did, the word probable would have been used; but facts would have contradicted the theory. Not even the Arminian would assert the probable salvation of all men, in consequence of the atonement. It is then only a possible salvation that is intended. Now what makes the salvation of all possible? It is granted, that all obstacles in the way of any sinner's return to God are, on God's side, removed. The Calvinist admits that, equally with the Arminian. Where then lies the difference? What does the Arminian mean by a salvation possible to all? He means a salvation that may be secured, if the human will consent to receive it. To give this consent it is persuaded by grace. But it is not constrained by grace to give it. It holds the decision of the question in its power. It may accept the offered salvation; it may not. The whole thing is contingent upon the action of the sinner's will. This is what makes the salvation of all men merely possible; and it inevitably follows that the destruction of all men is also possible.
I shall, with divine help, presently prove that a possible salvation, contingent upon the action of a sinner's will, is really an impossible salvation. But conceding now, for argument's sake, that there is such a thing as a merely possible salvation of all men, it is repeated, that it cannot be shown to exhibit the beneficence of God one whit more clearly than does the certain salvation of some men. Upon the Calvinistic scheme, the absolute certainty of the salvation of countless multitudes of the race is provided for; on the Arminian, the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. But let it be admitted that although not provided for, yet in some way, the final result will in fact prove to be the certain salvation of countless multitudes. How can the Arminian show that these multitudes will exceed in number those which are saved upon the Calvinistic scheme? He can not. The human faculties have no data upon which they can institute such an equation. But until that is shown, it is impossible to see how his scheme more signally displays the saving goodness of God than the Calvinist's. One thing is clear: according to the Calvinistic doctrine, those who are saved will praise God's goodness for having saved them; and, according to the Arminian, they will praise his goodness for having made it possible for them to be saved. Which would be the directer tribute to the divine benevolence, it may be left to common sense to judge.
The Arminian, however, if he should candidly admit that his scheme labors under the difficulties which have been mentioned, will still reply, that it has, in regard to goodness, this advantage over the Calvinistic: that it makes possible the salvation of those whose salvation the Calvinistic scheme makes impossible. He charges, that while the Calvinistic scheme makes salvation of some certain, it makes the destruction of some equally certain. The one scheme opens the door of hope to all; the other closes it against some. This, it is contended, cannot be shown to consist with the goodness of God. It is not intended to deny that this is a difficulty which the Calvinistic scheme has to carry. Its adherents are sufficiently aware of the awful mystery which hangs round this subject, and of the limitations upon their faculties, to deter them from arrogantly claiming to understand the whole case. The difficulty is this: If God can, on the ground of the all-sufficient merit of Christ, save those who actually perish, why does not his goodness lead him to save them? Why, if he know that, without his efficacious grace, they will certainly perish, does he withhold from them that grace, and so seal the certainty of their destruction? These solemn questions the Calvinist professes his ability to answer only in the words of out blessed Lord: "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."
But should the Arminian, professing to decide how the Deity should proceed in relation to sinners, use this conceded difficulty for the purpose of showing that the Calvinist imputes malignity to God, it is fair, it is requisite, to prove that he has no right to press this objection -- that it is incumbent on him to look to his own defenses. What if it should turn out that he is oppressed by a still greater difficulty?
In the first place, the Evangelical Arminian admits that God perfectly foreknew all that will ever come to pass. Consequently, he admits that God foreknew what, and how many, human beings will finally perish. He must also admit that God foreknows that he will judge them at the last day, and that what God foreknows he will do on that day, he must have eternally purposed to do. The final condemnation, therefore, of a definite number of men is absolutely certain. The question is not now whether God makes it certain. Let us not leave the track. What it is asserted the Arminian must admit is, that it is certain. Now this is very different from saying that God eternally knew that all men would perish, unless he should intervene to save them. For he foreknew his purpose to make such an intervention in behalf of some of the race, and so foreknew the absolute certainty of their final salvation. The case before us is, not that God knew that those who will actually perish would perish unless he intervened to save them. It is, that he foreknew that they will finally perish. But if this must be admitted -- that God foreknew with certainty that some human beings will be, at the last day, adjudged by him to destruction, then their destruction is certain. Now we crave to know how a provision of redemption which made their salvation possible can exercise any effect upon their destiny. Their destruction is to God's knowledge certain. How can the possibility of their salvation change that certainty? It cannot. Where, then, is the goodness to them of the redeeming provision? It is impossible to see.
Further, how can salvation be possible to those who are certain to be lost? How can their salvation be possible, if their destruction be certain? There is but one conceivable answer: it is, that although God foreknew that they would be lost, he also foreknew that they might be saved. That is to say, there was an extrinsic impossibility of their salvation created by God's certain foreknowledge, but an intrinsic possibility of their salvation growing out of their ability to avail themselves of the provision of redemption. It may be pleaded that their case is like that of Adam in innocence. God knew that he would fall, but he also knew that he might stand. This brings us to the next point, and that will take us down to one of the fundamental difficulties of the Arminian scheme.
In the second place, a possible salvation would be to a sinner an impossible salvation. Mere salvability would be to him inevitable destruction. It will be admitted, without argument, that a possible salvation is not, in itself, an actual salvation. That which may be is not that which is. Before a possible can become an actual salvation something needs to be done -- a condition must be performed upon which is suspended its passage from possibility to actuality. The question is, What is the thing which needs to be done -- what is this condition which needs to be fulfilled before salvation can become a fact to the sinner? The Arminian answer is: Repentance and faith on the sinner's part. He must consent to turn from his iniquities and accept Christ as his Savior. The further question presses, By what agency does the sinner perform this condition -- by what power does he repent, believe, and so accept salvation? The answer to this question, whatever it may be, must indicate the agency, the power, which determines the sinner's repenting, believing and so accepting salvation. It is not enough to point out an agency, a power, which is, however potent, merely an auxiliary to the determining cause. It is the determining cause itself that must be given as the answer to the question. It must be a factor which renders, by virtue of its own energy, the final decision -- an efficient cause which, by its own inherent causality, makes a possible salvation an actual and experimental fact. What is this causal agent which is the sovereign arbiter of human destiny? The Arminian answer to this last question of the series is, The sinner's will. It is the sinner's will which, in the last resort, determines the question whether a possible, shall become an actual, salvation. This has already been sufficiently shown in the foregoing remarks. But what need is there of argument to prove what any one, even slightly acquainted with Arminian theology knows that it maintains? Indeed, it is one of the distinctive and vital features of that theology, contra-distinguishing it to the Calvinistic. The Calvinist holds that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God applies salvation to the sinner; the Arminain, that the grace of God although communicated to every man is inefficacious and resistible, and that the sinner's will uses it as merely an assisting influence in determining the final result of accepting a possible salvation and so making it actual. Grace does not determine the will; the will "improves" the grace and determines itself. Grace is the handmaid, the sinner's will the mistress. Let us suppose that in regard to the question whether salvation shall be accepted, there is a perfect equipoise between the motions of grace and the contrary inclinations of the sinner's will. A very slight added influence will destroy the equilibrium. Shall it be from grace or from the sinner's will? If from the former, grace determines the question, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. But that the Arminian denies. It must then be from the sinner's will; and however slight and inconsiderable this added influence of the will may be, it determines the issue. It is like the feather that alights upon one of two evenly balanced scales and turns the beam.
Moreover, this will of the sinner which discharges the momentous office of determining the question of salvation is his natural will. It cannot be a gracious will, that is, a will renewed by grace; for if it were, the sinner would be already in a saved condition. But the very question is, Will he consent to be saved? Now if it be not the will of a man already in a saved condition, it is the will of a man yet in an unsaved condition. It is the will of an unbelieving and unconverted man, that is, a natural man, and consequently must be a natural will. It is this natural will, then, which finally determines the question whether a possible salvation shall become an actual. It is its high office to settle the matter of practical salvation. In this solemn business, as in all others, it has an irrefragable autonomy. Not even in the critical transition from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God's dear Son, can it be refused the exercise of its sacred and inalienable prerogative of contrary choice. At the supreme moment of the final determination of soul "for Christ to live and die," the determination might be otherwise. The will may be illuminated, moved, assisted by grace, but not controlled and determined by it. To the last it has the power of resisting grace and of successfully resisting it. To it -- I use the language reluctantly -- the blessed Spirit of God is represented as sustaining the attitude of the persuasive orator of grace. He argues, he pleads, he expostulates, he warns, he beseeches the sinner's will in the melting accents of Calvary and alarms it with the thunders of judgment -- but that is all. He cannot without trespassing upon its sovereignty renew and re-create and determine his will. This is no misrepresentation, no exaggeration, of the Arminian's position. It is what he contends for. It is what he must contend for. It is one of the hinges on which his system turns. Take it away, and the system swings loosely and gravitates to an inevitable fall.
Now this is so palpably opposed to Scripture and the facts of experience, that Evangelical Arminians endeavor to modify it, so as to relieve it of the charge of being downright Pelagianism. That the attempt is hopeless, has already been shown. It is utterly vain to say, that grace gives ability to the sinner sufficient for the formation of that final volition which decides the question of personal salvation. Look at it. Do they mean, by this ability, regenerating grace? If they do, as regenerating grace unquestionably determines the sinner's will, they give up their position and adopt the Calvinistic. No; they affirm that they do not, because the Calvinistic position is liable to two insuperable objections: first, that it limits efficacious grace to the elect, denying it to others; secondly, that efficacious and determining grace would contradict the laws by which the human will is governed. It comes back to this, then: that notwithstanding this imparted ability, the natural will is the factor which determines the actual relation of the soul to salvation. The admission of a gracious ability, therefore, does not relieve the difficulty. It is not an efficacious and determining influence; it is simply suasion. The natural will may yield to it or resist it. It is a vincible influence.
Now this being the real state of the case, according to the Arminian scheme, it is perfectly manifest that no sinner could be saved. There is no need of argument. It is simply out of the question, that the sinner in the exercise of his natural will can repent, believe in Christ, and so make a possible salvation actual. Let it be clearly seen, that, in the final settlement of the question of personal religion, the Arminian doctrine is, that the will does not decide as determined by the grace of God, but by its own inherent self-determining power, and the inference, if any credit is attached to the statements of Scripture, is forced upon us, that it makes the salvation of the sinner impossible. A salvation, the appropriation of which is dependent upon the sinners natural will, is no salvation; and the Arminian position is that the appropriation of salvation is dependent upon the natural will of the sinner. The stupendous paradox is thus shown to be true -- that a merely possible salvation is an impossible salvation.
If in reply to this argument the Arminian should say, that he does not hold that the merely natural will which is corrupt is the final determining agent, but that the will makes the final decision by reason of some virtue characterizing it, the rejoinder is obvious: first, this virtue must either be inherent in the natural will of the sinner, or be communicated by grace. If it be inherent in the natural will, it is admitted that it is the natural will itself, through a power resident in it, which determines to improve communicated grace and appropriate salvation; and that would confirm the charge that the Arminian makes the final decision to accept salvation depend upon the natural will, which would be to render salvation impossible. If this virtue in the will which determines it to make the final decision be communicated by grace, it is a part of the gracious ability imparted to the sinner; and then we would have part of this communicated gracious ability improving another part -- that is, gracious ability improving gracious ability. Now this would be absurd on any other supposition than that grace is the determining agent, and that supposition the Arminian rejects. To state the case briefly: either this virtue in the will which is the controlling element is grace or it is not. If it be grace, then grace is the determining element, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. If it be not grace, then the will by its natural power is the determining element, and that is impossible, -- it is impossible for the natural will, which is itself sinful and needs to be renewed, to determine the question of practical salvation.
Let us put the matter in a different light. There must be some virtue in the natural man to lead him to improve grace -- to use gracious ability. Now whence is this virtue? It must be either from God, or from himself. If it be from God, then the cause which determines the question of accepting salvation is from God, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. If it be from himself, then it is the natural will which uses the gracious ability, and determines the appropriation of salvation; and that is impossible.
Further, the Arminian must admit either that the will makes the final decision in consequence of some virtue in it, or that it makes it without all virtue. If in consequence of some virtue, then as that virtue is distinguished from the grace it used, it is merely natural, and the natural will is affirmed to be virtuous enough to decide the all-important question of salvation; which is contrary to the doctrine, maintained by Evangelical Arminians, that the natural man is depraved, and destitute of saving virtue. If the will makes the final decision without all virtue, then the natural will, as sinful, improves grace to the salvation of the soul, which is absurd and impossible. The Arminian is shut up to admit that it is the natural will of the sinner which improves grace and determines the question of personal salvation; and it is submitted, that such a position makes salvation impossible.
There is another mode of showing that, according to the distinctive principles of the Arminian system, salvation is impossible. The Scriptures unquestionably teach that salvation is by grace: "By grace ye are saved." Not only so, but with equal clearness they teach that none can be saved except by grace; that no sinner can save himself: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." There is no need to argue this point, since it is admitted by Evangelical Arminians as well as by Calvinists. Their common doctrine is that no sinner can save himself. If his salvation depended upon his saving himself it would be impossible. But the distinctive doctrines of Arminianism -- the doctrines which distinguish it from Calvinism -- necessitate the inference that the sinner saves himself. This inference is illegitimate, the Arminian contends, because he holds that had not Christ died to make salvation possible and were not the Holy Spirit imparted to induce the sinner to embrace it, no man could be saved. This, however, is no proof of the illegitimacy of the inference from his doctrine that the sinner is after all his own savior. The proof of the legitimacy of the inference is established in this way: According to Arminianism, sufficient grace is imparted to all men. Every man has, consequently, sufficient ability to repent, believe and embrace salvation. This sufficient grace or ability, therefore, is common to all men. But that it does not determine all men to be saved is proved by the fact that some are not saved. This the Arminian holds. Now, what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved? Why is one man saved and another not saved? The answer to these questions is of critical importance and must be rendered. What answer does the Arminian return? This: The reason is, that one man determines to improve the common grace and another does not. He cannot hold that grace makes the difference, for grace is the common possession of both. The specific difference of their cases is the respective determinations of their own wills, undetermined by grace. He therefore who determines to use the common gift cannot be saved by it, but by his determination to use it. If it be not that which saves him, but the grace itself, then all who have the grace would be saved by it equally with him. No, it is not grace which saves him, but his use of grace. And as he might have determined not to use it, it is manifest that he is saved by the exercise of his own will; in other words that he saves himself. The saving factor is his will; he is his own savior. This is made still plainer by asking the question, Why is another not saved, but ruined? He had the same sufficient grace with him who is saved. His own determination not to use it, it will by said, is the cause of his ruin -- he therefore ruins himself. In the same way precisely the determination of the saved man to use it is the cause of his salvation -- he, therefore, saves himself. Granted, that he could not be saved without grace; still, grace only makes his salvation possible. He must make it a fact; and beyond controversy, he who makes his salvation a fact accomplishes his salvation. He saves himself.
This reasoning conclusively shows it to be a necessary consequence from the distinctive doctrines of Arminianism, that sinners are not saved by grace but by themselves in the use of grace; and as that position contradicts the plainest teachings of Scripture, the system which necessitates it makes salvation impossible.
To all this it will be replied, that the ability conferred by grace pervades the will itself, and enables, although it does not determine, it to make the final and saving decision. But this by no means mends the matter. Let it be admitted that the will is enabled by grace to decide; if it is not determined by it to the decision, then it follows that there is something in the will different from the gracious ability, which uses that ability in determining the result. What is that different element? It cannot be a gracious power. To admit that would be to contradict the supposition and to give up the question; for in that case it would be grace which determines the decision. What can that be which differs from the gracious ability conferred and uses it, but the natural power of the sinner's will? But his will, apart from grace, is sinful and therefore disabled. So the Arminian admits. How, then, can a disabled thing use enabling grace? How can it determine to use that grace? Over and beyond the enabling power there is postulated a determining power. The enabling power is grace; over and beyond it is the determining power of the sinful will. The thing is inconceivable. Sin cannot use grace; inability cannot use ability; the dead cannot determine to use life. To say then that grace is infused into the will itself to enable it to form the final volition, which makes a possible salvation actual, does not remove the difficulty. If it does not determine the will, the will determines itself. The very essence of that self-determination is to use or not to use the enabling grace, and therefore must be something different from that grace. The determination is not from grace, but from nature. Again the impossibility of salvation is reached. A doctrine which assigns to grace a merely enabling influence, and denies it a determining power, makes the salvation of a sinner impossible. To say to a sinner, Use the natural strength of your will in determining to avail yourself of grace, would be to say to him, You cannot be saved. For if he answered from the depths of his consciousness, he would groan out the response, Alas, I have no such strength!
The truth is, that a thorough examination of the profile of the Arminian discloses the fact that, in the last analysis, it is not essentially different from that of the Socinian and Pelagian. It is cheerfully conceded that the Arminian soteriology is different from the Socinian and Pelagian. For the former professedly holds that the atonement of Christ was vicarious and that it rendered a perfect satisfaction to the retributive justice of God. But, according to it, the atonement did not secure salvation as a certain result to any human beings; and when it comes to the question how the sinner practically avails himself of the salvation made only possible to all, the Arminian answers it by saying, that the sinner in the exercise of his own self-determining power, which from its nature is contingent in its exercise, makes salvation his own. The connection between his soul and redemption is effected by his own decision, in the formation of which he is conscious that he might act otherwise -- that he might make a contrary choice. There is no real difference between this position and that of the Socinian and Pelagian. The Arminian professes to attach more importance than they to the influence of supernatural grace, but, in the last resort, like them he makes the natural power of the sinner's will the determining cause of personal salvation. Every consideration, therefore, which serves to show the impossibility of salvation upon the anthropological scheme of Socinianism and Pelagianism leads to the conclusion that the same consequence is enforced by that of Arminianism. In both schemes it is nature, and not grace, which actually saves.
Still further, the distinctive doctrines of Arminianism not only make salvation impossible by denying that it is by grace, but also by denying that it is by works. Not that it is intended to say that Arminians in so many words affirm this. On the contrary, they endeavor to show that their system is not liable to this charge. We have, however, tothe logical consequences which it involves. The question is, Do the peculiar tenets of the Arminian scheme necessitate the inference that salvation is by works? I shall attempt to prove that they do.
It must be admitted that a system, one of the distinctive doctrines of which is that sinners are in a state of legal probation, affirms salvation by works. The essence of a legal probation is that the subject of moral government is required to render personal obedience to law in order to his being justified. It is conceded on all hands that Adam's probation was of such a character. He was required to produce a legal obedience. Had it been produced it would have been his own obedience. It makes no difference that he was empowered to render it by sufficient grace. A righteousness does not receive its denomination from the source in which it originates, but from its nature and the end which it contemplates. Had Adam stood, he would have been enabled by grace to produce obedience, but it would have been his own obedience, and it would have secured justification on its own account.
Now it will not be denied that Arminian divines assert that men are now in a state of probation. It would be unnecessary to adduce proof of this. They contend that, in consequence of the atonement offered by Christ for the race, all men become probationers. A chance is given them to secure salvation. The only question is, whether the probation which Arminians affirm for sinners be a legal probation. That it is, may be proved by their own statements. If they take the ground that the obedience to divine requirements may be rendered through the ability conferred by grace, and therefore the probation is not legal, the answer is obvious: the obedience exacted of Adam he was enabled by grace to render; but notwithstanding that fact, his probation was legal. That men now have grace enabling them to render obedience cannot disprove the legal character of their probation.
The argument has ramified into details, but it has not wandered from the thing to be proved, to wit, that a possible salvation is an impossible salvation. All the consequences which have been portrayed as damaging to the Arminian theory of a merely possible salvation flow logically from the fundamental position that sufficient ability is given to every man to make such a merely possible salvation actual to himself. One more consideration will be presented, and it goes to the root of the matter. It is, that this ability which is affirmed to be sufficient to enable every man to make a possible salvation actual is, according to the Arminian scheme, itself a sheer impossibility. This may be regarded as an extraordinary assertion, but it is susceptible of proof as speedy as it is clear. The Evangelical Arminian not only admits the fact, but contends for it, that every man in his natural, fallen condition is spiritually dead -- is dead in trespasses and sins. The problem for him to solve is, How can this spiritually dead man make his possible salvation an actual salvation? It must not be done by the impartation to him of efficacious and determining grace, for to admit that would be to give up the doctrine of a possible salvation and accept that of a decreed and certain salvation. Nor must it be done by regenerating grace, for two difficulties oppose that supposition: first, this regeneration grace would necessarily be efficacious and determining grace; and secondly, it could not with truth be maintained that every man is regenerated. A degree of grace, therefore, which is short of regeneration grace, must be conferred upon every man. What is that? Sufficient grace -- that is to say, a degree of grace imparting ability sufficient to enable every man to make a possible salvation actually his own. Now, the argument is short: a degree of grace which does not regenerate, would be a degree of grace which would not bestow life upon, the spiritually dead sinner. If it did infuse spiritual life it would of course be regenerating grace; but it is denied to be regenerating grace. No other grace would be sufficient for the dead sinner but regenerating or life-giving grace. How could grace enable the dead sinner to perf |
You mean this one?
The unAmazing Grace
The very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God. However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting. The entire wording of such a construction then is reduced to this simple contention: God has made a "possible salvation" for all men. Please note though, that the very wording of this construction implies that a "possible salvation" by grace is not in and of itself a salvation by grace, but at best is a salvation in the use of grace by the man.
It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" by grace is most definitely NOT an actual salvation by grace; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. This grace led NONE to salvation. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. Those who defend a mere "possible salvation" must contend then that man must perform that something for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation. The efficacious act comes from the man who can accept or stifle and kill the grace of God.
The Calvinist maintains that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God saves a sinner through the bestowal of the grace of God. Faith itself is a gift from God and is the result of the bestowal of grace.
--ON THE OTHER HAND--
The Arminian maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes NOT from the bestowal of saving grace but from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation. Faith is generated by man using the grace given to him.
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's position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.
Is the inequality:
the GRACE of God?
the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?
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 Calvinists 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 efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.
It must be stated that for the Arminian construct to prevail the will cannot be a will renewed by the grace of God with desires for God, but merely a natural fallen will full of fallen desires merely "enabled" by the grace of God. It is NOT a will determined by desires which flow from the grace of God, but by its own inherent self-determining power and desires.
Yet, a will following natural desires will follow those natural desires.
So, the Arminian will put for the idea that the grace of God communicates something of the goodness of God to the natural will for it to decide either for or against salvation. Well, is the determining factor what is communicated by God and nothing more required--the Calvinist's position is maintained--or is the natural desires inherent in man the determining factor? If it is the natural desires, then the Arminian is still left with the problem that a will of sinful desires is making the final decision for Christ. It is still the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN that is the determining factor and not the grace of God.
Thus, a "possible salvation," which cannot become an actual salvation until the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN, cannot be a salvation by the grace of God. It must therefore be a salvation of the works of man. But, the Arminian steadfastly maintains that his salvation is not of works. Unfortunately for the Arminian, we have shown that it cannot be by grace. He is left then with an impossible conundrum.
Of course, according to Arminianism, sufficient grace is imparted to all men. But, what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved? Why is one man saved and another not saved? The Arminian cannot hide under the grace of God for ALL MEN have this grace in common, and in sufficient amounts. This only produces a "possible salvation." Therefore, grace cannot save until the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN is applied to the mix. Then, and only then does a "possible salvation" become an actual salvation. The determining saving factor then is entirely of man, of his own works righteousness. Man saves himself.
Now, we will grant that the Arminian maintains that salvation is impossible without the grace of God, but such grace only makes salvation possible. The grace of God does not have the POWER to make an actual salvation, only a possible salvation. The POWER of salvation then is entirely from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.
This reasoning conclusively shows that, according to Arminianism, sinners are not saved by grace but by themselves in the use of grace, and that position contradicts the plainest teachings of Scripture. The system which necessitates such a salvation is an impossibly unScriptural doctrine.
Man is dead in sins and dead men don't exercise spiritually living faith and desires except that they are first Sovereignly re engineered with a new nature to desire the Lord. Faith must of sound Scriptural doctrine be a gift of God, lest salvation be reduced to works righteousness.
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Scriptures unquestionably teach that salvation is by grace:
"By grace ye are saved."
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Therefore, I look...
Heb 12:2 ... unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the JOY that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
1 Pe 1:5 ... kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
No, the theological difficulty is entirely the Arminians. For if the faith that one has is entirely his own doing, then in what way can it be the power of God for salvation that is through faith? It is excluded! It would be the power of man through his own faith for salvation. And I know that God has dealt to each one [of us] a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). And we do know for certain that not all men have faith (2 Th 3:2).
2 Pe 1:3-4 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life... Now, this MUST be talking about saving grace and faith. Saving grace is the only grace which takes a man from death unto life.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be certain to all the seed,....
Furthermore this grace which saves was given to us before time began.
2 Timothy 1:8-11 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, not of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Our Lord saved us according to His own purpose. Our Lord saved us according to His own grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. This divine Power (2Pe 1:3), which is rendered the power of God (2Ti 1:8), saved us and was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. In what way is it possible for there to even be such a thing as a "possible salvation." Grace actually SAVED.
Our Lord has saved & predestined us according to His own purpose (Rom 8:28), the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:5), to the praise of the glory of His grace which He purposed in Himself before time began (2 Ti 1:9).
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Now, the Arminian is free to maintain that God has made a "possible salvation" if they want to mock the scriptures and MOUNT up MAN as the efficacious cause of salvation, but it is the plainly stated Scriptures which testify otherwise. The Arminian is free to maintain that his faith is after the counsel of his own will, but I will give my praise to the One who works ALL things after the counsel of His own will, including the faith which a man has.
"But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. He, therefore, worketh the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth"; and the election which the Lord signified when He said: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not to be repeated. ~ Bishop Saint Augustine of Hippo
Praise the Lord for irresistable Grace.
Actually, what is funny is that in the very way that the Arminian contends that Grace is resistable in salvation with their "prevenient grace" notion is exactly what makes him look most like a Pelagian. They will, of course, scream that they are not a Pelagian, but it is very easy to demonstrate that the very nature of their "prevenient grace" construction is nothing more than a fancy way to hide that they are identical to the Pelagian in espousing the natural VIRTUE of MAN entirely apart from grace. Unfortunately, the Arminian is stuck in the "Lie of Eden" and doesn't even realize that he is. Such is the self-deceiving nature of man.
P.S. How many Calvinists here have figured out that most of the Arminian posters aren't even "EVANGELICAL ARMINIANS"?
Genesis 6: 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Certainly the state of man as described declares total depravity. They were continually evil. Interesting pharase that says Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. It must be poorly worded from your perspective. I mean... certainly Noah wasn't looking for grace because we know he was born of Adam and born into total depravity? From your perspective.... it should say God rebirthed Noah, and then Noah was able to seek grace in the eyes of the Lord?
And it says Noah was a just man that walked with God? After the rebirth that is.
One can read this as an object lesson. Lots of analogies that God saved Noah. The waters become sin and death that are sealed out by God's salvation. Even sealed by God's very own hand as He closes the door. The plan was devised by God. It was communicated to man by God. Noah was picked by God, or chosen.
And what of this deal where Noah had to build the Ark?? Why was something required of him for salvation from the flood? And he had to go get all those animals?? God could have saved the animals or just repopulated the earth with them in a spoken word. Yet he chose Noah, and gave him a command for his salvation. God could have just made the Ark appear for Noah. But instead He required obedience. Does this teach us anything?? A good commentary on the Hebrew text of this chapter is an interesting thing to read. Interesting to read about obedience and how Noah walked with God.
One commentary I read suggested Noah probably preached the end of the world is coming to his friends and neighbors as he built the ark and gathered the animals. They undoubtedly didn't believe him until the rains came. But God had closed the Ark with his own hand. Suggesting there will come a time when salvation is not available.
There are lots of things to think about in this event. And many of them apply to the crux of our discussion. Of course, some people will read Genesis and Noah as merely a history book. Yet we know all scripture is profitable for learning. So what do we learn from the history of Noah?
God saves us to obedience. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" is what Jesus said several times that evening before He was betrayed.
(Why do I get the feeling that many non-Calvinists dismiss us as antinomians?)
Certainly the state of man as described declares total depravity. They were continually evil. Interesting pharase that says Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. It must be poorly worded from your perspective. I mean... certainly Noah wasn't looking for grace because we know he was born of Adam and born into total depravity? From your perspective.... it should say God rebirthed Noah, and then Noah was able to seek grace in the eyes of the Lord?
Actually, this entire passage is extremely Calvinistic, even the verse which says that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." This verse has nothing to do with Noah seeking anything, but everything to do with the Lord simply giving grace to Noah. Look at exactly how Noah found grace--in the eyes of the Lord. Very Calvinistic indeed.
The difficulty is entirely yours; you must read your theology into the verse to make it say what you want. I simply read that in the eyes of the Lord Noah found grace and don't assume that Noah was looking for grace.
Gosh, when I finally found the grace of God in salvation I wasn't even looking for it; I thought I already had it. Such is the self-deceiving nature of man. Nevertheless, God had a perfect moment in His eye for me to "find" what I wasn't even looking for; He opened my blind eyes to see what I never knew I didn't have.
BTW, from your Arminian perspective, how can those who are dead in sins do the spiritually living thing of looking for grace?
And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. - Genesis 7:16
Eternal security, for one thing. The LORD shut them in, He didn't have Noah affix eight handholds on the outside of the ark and tell them to hold on for dear life.
Just why would you think that a Calvinist would have any difficulty with any part of this account. For one, it says, as you quoted in Genesis 6:5, that ...GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.. Then, two verses later, we read ...Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD..
Man is sinful, so much so that he is only fit for destruction. Yet, God originates grace, and applies it to Noah. Nope, we Calvinists have no problem with the book of Genesis whatsoever.
Hey, the more I think about it, the more it seems like kjam has opened up a Pandora's box for the Arminian with his post.
Example:
See what I mean?If Noah was looking for grace, then that must mean that God chose him to save from the flood due to his natural righteous act. So, God must have saved him from the Flood because he deserved to be saved!
Plus, how could Noah have been looking for salvation from the Flood? Did he know the "Secret Counsel" of the Lord?
Eternal security, for one thing. The LORD shut them in, He didn't have Noah affix eight handholds on the outside of the ark and tell them to hold on for dear life.
For 40 days and 40 nights, through storm and gale, we hung on for dear life. In the end, our own strength delivered us from the Wrath of God. Really funny when you think about it. Kinda like the Genesis version of "X-games".
Genesis does not tell us what Noah did to find grace in the eyes of the Lord. No Calvinist would presume to tell you that there was any reason for their election other than Gods good pleasure...
So God chose Noah..elected him ..selected him.....and it was the grace of God that made him righteous..
The ark is a type of Christ Kjam and is taught as such by most mainstream Arminian and Calvinist churches.
So why is the story of Noah recorded as such?
Noah (read you and me) need to be IN Christ to be saved....Noah select of God was to enter the ark to be saved.
He was obedient.
Why did Noah have to build the ark ? For the same reason that God saves the elect....for Gods glory .
Think on what was happening around Noah. he was in obedience building this thing that had no meaning to the people.
They had never seen rain, they had no idea what a flood was. So they mocked and derided Noah...laughing at the god that would tell him to do that..
Noah was preaching the gospel Kjam .He was teaching the unregenerate about salvation...
Did any of them repent and seek God? Did any ask to join him in the ark? NO
And so Noah and his family were sealed in the ark....can you hear the laughter of the crowd turn to screams as the water raised to their ankles and then their necks . Can you see that the God showed His arm of justice..and mercy in that ark?
So what became of those that mocked and refused to believe....
Rev 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Rev 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
Rev 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.
Those men died hating God.....a perfect example of the total depravity of man and the mercy of God .
Sola Deo Gloria
I think for either side to argue that the other doctrine isn't fully taught in scripture is narrow sighted. It is difficult for us to understand how predestination, election etc co-exists with the doctrine of freewill. But the bible teaches that it does.
My disagreements with the calvinists on this site are few... but they are certain. The bible means just what it says when it says that it is not God's will that any should perish. That Christ died to extend salvation to all men. That whosoever means whosoever... not whosoever I choose.
I don't try to read different texts with a presupposed opinion. When I read the Bible objectively it is clear that both doctrines are taught. Honestly, I think that to deny either is to preach half a gospel. But if a person were to preach just half.... I would hope that he would preach the faith half. That is our part. Carrying the good news to those that will hear us (regardless of their supposed ability to hear us or not). Calling them to repentance and acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ. I don't think preaching to people that they can't be saved unless they are one of the luck ones helps the kingdom in anyway. I think it is a twist of scripture.
Noah had to make that choice. And when he made the choice.... when he entered into the salvation.... God sealed it.
OOOPS.... now I'm sounding Arminian again:)
The question I asked some of your buddies that was never answered is this. And I'm only asking because I'm curious, I won't take issue with your answer. Do you believe that there are people that God regenerates so that they can act in faith that then don't do so. That then die without salvation?
Well, doesn't it?
It is not intended to deny that this is a difficulty which the Calvinistic scheme has to carry. Its adherents are sufficiently aware of the awful mystery which hangs round this subject, and of the limitations upon their faculties, to deter them from arrogantly claiming to understand the whole case. The difficulty is this: If God can, on the ground of the all-sufficient merit of Christ, save those who actually perish, why does not his goodness lead him to save them?
Yes, that is the question, and why does Calvinism make dogmatic statements that they know when they clearly do not!
Note that he doesn't address the Arminian argument on the unfairness of the Calvinist position, just falls back on the 'mystery' defense.
Why, if he know that, without his efficacious grace, they will certainly perish, does he withhold from them that grace, and so seal the certainty of their destruction?
That is right! Why does He! Will we get an answer?
These solemn questions the Calvinist professes his ability to answer only in the words of out blessed Lord: "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."
No answer!
They will dogmatically assert that it is so, but they cannot explain why it is so, nor address the fact that it contradicts God's essence. (Rom.9:20)
In the second place, a possible salvation would be to a sinner an impossible salvation. Mere salvability would be to him inevitable destruction. It will be admitted, without argument, that a possible salvation is not, in itself, an actual salvation.
It is not a 'possible' salvation, it is a complete that you must accept. When Christ said it was 'finished' that is exactly what He meant.
That salvation is not the personal possession of someone until he accepts it, is no different then having money in a bank account but it not being yours until you take it out. Salvation is called a free gift not an incomplete gift that we add to.
Now I know where Woody is getting his weird ideas!
That which may be is not that which is. Before a possible can become an actual salvation something needs to be done -- a condition must be performed upon which is suspended its passage from possibility to actuality.
Before the gift of salvation can be real to the individual they must accept it!
When the serpent was raised in the wilderness, the healing properties were complete in it, but you had to look!
Your looking had no effect on the serpent, the serpent had an effect on you!
The question is, What is the thing which needs to be done -- what is this condition which needs to be fulfilled before salvation can become a fact to the sinner? The Arminian answer is: Repentance and faith on the sinner's part. He must consent to turn from his iniquities and accept Christ as his Savior.
And what is the Calvinistic view?
The Arminian acknowledges that is God who does all in the Salvation process and the individual must assent to it.
The further question presses, By what agency does the sinner perform this condition -- by what power does he repent, believe, and so accept salvation?
The Holy Spirit.
The answer to this question, whatever it may be, must indicate the agency, the power, which determines the sinner's repenting, believing and so accepting salvation. It is not enough to point out an agency, a power, which is, however potent, merely an auxiliary to the determining cause. It is the determining cause itself that must be given as the answer to the question.
This guy even talks like Woody!
It must be a factor which renders, by virtue of its own energy, the final decision -- an efficient cause which, by its own inherent causality, makes a possible salvation an actual and experimental fact.
It does? What if if the Holy Spirit makes the issue clear to you and allows you to choose?
What is this causal agent which is the sovereign arbiter of human destiny? The Arminian answer to this last question of the series is, The sinner's will. It is the sinner's will which, in the last resort, determines the question whether a possible, shall become an actual, salvation.
For himself it is, not that Salvation is not already a completed gift.
This has already been sufficiently shown in the foregoing remarks. But what need is there of argument to prove what any one, even slightly acquainted with Arminian theology knows that it maintains? Indeed, it is one of the distinctive and vital features of that theology, contra-distinguishing it to the Calvinistic. The Calvinist holds that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God applies salvation to the sinner; the Arminain, that the grace of God although communicated to every man is inefficacious and resistible, and that the sinner's will uses it as merely an assisting influence in determining the final result of accepting a possible salvation and so making it actual.
No, the sinner doesn't use the grace as 'an assisting influence' he just is not overwhelmed by it, he must respond to it.
Grace does not determine the will; the will "improves" the grace and determines itself.
No, Grace gave man the ability to choose. Grace allows man a choice 'through faith'
Grace is the handmaid, the sinner's will the mistress.
No, Grace is the offer and the will is the choice
It is called a free gift not a forced gift
Let us suppose that in regard to the question whether salvation shall be accepted, there is a perfect equipoise between the motions of grace and the contrary inclinations of the sinner's will. A very slight added influence will destroy the equilibrium. Shall it be from grace or from the sinner's will?
The will is an uncaused cause.
If from the former, grace determines the question, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. But that the Arminian denies. It must then be from the sinner's will;
Yes, in terms of personal salvation and responsibilty.
Thus, we go back to the other comment on the fairness of God, which the author dodged and avoided.
and however slight and inconsiderable this added influence of the will may be, it determines the issue. It is like the feather that alights upon one of two evenly balanced scales and turns the beam.
And if God wanted it that way, so what?
Again, that is the only way that salvation can be objective those who are 'elect' are so because they accepted the free gift (grace) while the rest did not.
Calvinism will accept the notion that God is unfair rather then the idea that it is God who decided to give man the ability to choose or not.
So those that are saved late in life, maybe even on their death beds will have no rewards in heaven. But it won't be because of anything they did or didn't do here on earth. It will just be because God didn't regenerate them early enough in their life that they could serve him and earn rewards.
So accordingly..... not only does God save those whom he chooses.... but He solely in some cases determines what types of rewards / (if any) we will receive in heaven.
Would this follow based on calvin's position?
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.