Clarifications and Rebuttal: Responding to Paul Manata

Below is my response to Mr. Paul Manata’s Captian Kangaroo post. The post appears in its entirety. He quotes me in red and my responses are in blue:

"I want to dig a little deeper and get into what I believe to be an inconsistency within Calvinistic monergism."

Okay, let's get out our shovels and dig.

"I want to dig a little deeper and get into what I believe to be an inconsistency within Calvinistic monergism. Before I do that I want to say that I don’t believe monergism vs. synergism is the proper way to frame the debate. These terms are too ambiguous, and often misunderstood (especially synergism), and I believe that Arminianism has both monergistic and synergistic elements so it is not proper to call Arminianism entirely synergistic. For me the debate is best described as a disagreement over whether or not salvation is conditional or unconditional."

He better disambiguate the term since one can't show a logical ‘inconsistency’ if his terms are ambiguous. We're not getting off to a good start. This isn't atypical with these guys; sorry to say.

Well, if Paul would have followed the two links I provided in the section of the first paragraph he neglected to quote, he would have gotten quite a bit of clarification as to how I understand the difference between synergism and monergism. He would have also discovered that I believe the term “synergism” does not properly convey the Arminian understanding of conditional salvation since synergism literally means “to work together” and Arminians deny salvation by works. I use the term in the sense that God will not (not “cannot”) credit the work of Christ to the sinner unless he or she first meets the condition of faith. He would also have gotten a pretty detailed description of how I understand faith’s operation in the individual (e.g. faith is not a “work” and is synergistic by virtue of the need for God’s enabling prevenient grace). So things could have been disambiguated quite a bit if he had followed the links I provided before deciding to criticize my post.

Second, by ‘salvation being conditional’ does he only mean ‘If you believe, then you will be saved.’ As he says, that's just a quote from the Bible. So he just means we read statements that have the logical form of a conditional? Well, no Calvinist denies this. So is he saying there is no debate? His best way of describing the debate is to parse it out in terms the Calvinist doesn't debate.

I wrote the post with an audience in mind that would have some basic understanding of the general meaning of such terms as “conditional” and “unconditional” with regards to this soteriological controversy. I am a little surprised that Paul finds things so confusing. I thought he had been defending Calvinism and “dismantling” Arminianism for quite some time now. So for Paul’s sake, allow me to disambiguate a little.

By conditional I mean that God requires man to meet a condition before He will save. That condition is faith. Faith is the receiving of the free gift of God’s salvation. God refuses to save those who reject Him. He chooses only to save those who receive Him by faith. “Faith” can be defined narrowly as a complete trusting in the work of Christ for salvation (Rom. 3:25). It is submitting to the righteousness of God rather than attempting to (fruitlessly) establish ones own righteousness before God (i.e. by “works”, cf. Rom. 10:3, 4; 9:31-33). Paul actually seems to agree with my definition of faith below. He would only assert that regeneration must precede faith and in fact produces faith. This is founded on the Calvinist view that election is unconditional. It is not dependent on how the sinner responds to God’s grace. Faith is just a part of the salvation package that God brings about irresistibly on the passive sinner. God causes faith in the same way that He causes regeneration. Faith is a guaranteed result of irresistible regeneration and not a condition that must be met prior to it (to say, as Calvinists often do, that the one who is irresistibly regenerated then “freely” believes is misleading). The sinner is just being passively and unconditionally “worked on” by God in salvation and this “work” infallibly produces faith.

Third, we'd have to bring in qualifiers. Sometimes 'salvation' is spoken of in terms of just regeneration, or just justification, or just sanctification (progressive or definitive), or just glorification, or the whole package. Or, another qualification: in what sense do we speak of ‘conditions?’ Are we speaking of conditions in any sense whatsoever? Well then why think the Reformed theologian believes any of the items in the ordo are not wrought with conditions attached? Election is a condition for regeneration. Jesus’ resurrection is a condition for ours. Etc.

All of salvation is conditioned on faith. We are justified, regenerated, and sanctified by faith. Glorification takes place after death but only for those who die in the faith. So, there is a sense in which even glorification can be said to be by faith, though not in the same way as the other necessary components of salvation pre-glorification.

Perhaps he just means ‘conditional’ on exercising faith?’ Well then, on this scheme, regeneration isn't 'conditional,' for example. On the other hand, ‘if you have faith, then God will justify you,’ comes in the form of a conditional. That is, in the form of an if-then statement. But it is not conditional in the sense of, say, Adam's conditions for remaining in the garden. The faith we have is in something outside of us. In someone who did all the work required. Thus the faith we express trusts and rests in the alien work of Christ. But we must express faith. Faith is the instrument of justification. This faith is also a gift, it is not wrought by our own power apart from God's Spirit in our lives. So, in this sense faith is instrumentally conditional.

I am not sure I would disagree with too much that Paul has to say here except for the apparent implication that regeneration is irresistible and not conditioned on faith in the second sentence.

Fourth, Calvinism has 'monergistic and synergistic' elements too it as well. For example, monergism with respects to regeneration and justification. But take progressive sanctification. Many protestants have called this synergistic in the sense that it is really we who battle our sin. I am an active participant in the fight. I actively partake of the means of grace. I don't 'let go and let God,' as it were. And of course none of this can be accomplished without the work of the Spirit in our lives.

I agree that sanctification is conditional and in that sense “synergistic”. We must yield to the Spirit’s working in us to produce holiness. This does, however, create problems for Calvinism (see my post, Examining Inconsistencies in Calvinistic Monergism Part 2: Sanctification).

Fifth, it is not necessary for final, complete salvation that one be progressively sanctified. God can regenerate a soul, justify that person, and strike them dead that minute. Thus a monergistic work is the only thing necessary for salvation (e.g., the thief on the cross might not have been progressively sanctified. If so, we can think of others who might die 1 second after justification, say).

I suppose we could think of such things, but for the believer who is not immediately “struck dead” sanctification is certainly a necessary component of the salvation process, and anyone who ceases to remain in this process will fall short of final salvation (Heb. 10:29, 36-39; Rom. 6:16, 21-22; 8:12-14; Gal. 5:17-25; 6:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:3-16, etc.). We could just as well say that infants are not necessarily justified by faith but are unconditionally saved by God’s grace, while adults must meet the condition of faith to receive the gift of God’s salvation. Such speculations and hypotheticals are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand and can really serve only as deflections by which the main issues are obscured.

Thus with his sloppy categorizing, nothing interesting follows from the above.

Or perhaps Paul’s sloppy reading skills and inability to comprehend fairly simple theological definitions with which most who are familiar with the debate do not seem to have difficulty.

Given the vague and ambiguous way he's using terms, a Calvinist might agree with everything he's said. Once wonders why all the hubbub. Since there is hubbub, we should cast a suspicious eye on the way he has framed the discussion so far. Many a disaster has started because of being unclear. I recall a the child's joke we had when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. It went like this: 'No, I meant I wanted a Bud light.' (For those that remember the old Bud light commercials.)

Lovely illustration. I hope that Paul will at least consider the possibility (remote as it may be) that the confusion lies squarely and only in his own mind and has little if anything to do with my inability to properly communicate.

"When I say that Arminianism is both synergistic and monergistic I mean that the Arminian sees salvation as a work of God alone. God alone forgives. God alone regenerates. God alone sanctifies. We are not capable of removing our own sin or making atonement for ourselves. We are not capable of creating new life within us. We are not capable of making ourselves holy. All these are monergistic acts of God. When the Arminian says that one needs to believe in Christ to be saved we are just echoing the testimony of Scripture that says that faith is the condition that God requires be met before He will save."

When Scripture speaks of if you believe then you will be saved, it is speaking about justification. But this faith isn’t a 'working' it is a 'receiving.' No 'working together,' then. No 'synergism.'

And again we can see just how beneficial it would have been if Paul had decided to follow those links I provided before criticizing my post. As I said above, I don’t believe the strict literal meaning of “synergism” is rightly applied to Arminianism. I believe with Paul (and St. Paul) that justification is “received” and not worked for. So why the hubbub? His arbitrary assertion that justification is only in view when the Bible speaks of being saved by faith is plainly fallacious as will be demonstrated below.

And, we are not saved by faith. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

I agree. However, I don’t think Paul is wise to get hung up on the difference between “through faith” and “by faith”. They mean essentially the same thing and there are plenty of Scriptures that indicate that all of salvation is “by” or “through” faith, and not just justification proper. For instance, we become God’s children (adoption) through faith (Gal. 3:26). Peter tells us that we are receiving “salvation” as the outcome of our faith (1 Peter 1:8, 9). Christ dwells in our hearts “by faith” (Eph. 3:17, cf. 2 Cor. 13:5). We receive the Holy Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:2; 3:14). We are sanctified by faith (Acts 26:18), and it doesn’t take much reading from John’s gospel before we realize that eternal life is received by faith as well (e.g. John 19:31). That seems to pretty much cover all the bases as far as I am concerned.

Even worse for Paul is that the passage he seems to quote above indicates that the whole of salvation, including regeneration, is conditioned on faith:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together [regeneration] with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him [regeneration] and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus (in whom alone are all spiritual blessings which would include regeneration, Eph. 1:3)…for by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it [i.e. salvation] is the gift of God; not as the result of works, that no one should boast.” (Eph. 2:4-9 Emphasis mine)

The salvation of verse 8 is the same that was described in verses 4-7 and therefore includes being raised up with Christ [i.e. given spiritual life: regenerated], and all of these gracious blessings are said to be conditioned on faith (verse 8). All spiritual blessings are found only “in Christ” and Eph. 1:13 (cf. Eph. 3:11, 12) makes it quite clear that we come to be “in Christ” by faith. Paul expresses this same truth in Colossians 2:12 where he says that we have been “raised up with Him [regeneration] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” The context of verses 6-11 emphasize the same “in Him” dynamic that is so prevalent in Ephesians, and verse 13 builds on the regeneration language of verse 12. God’s saving grace is accessed by faith union with Christ (Rom. 5:2, cf. Eph. 2:18; 3:12).

And, of the above, God does not of it unless our Arminian first has faith. All of it, then, is conditioned on his faith. Thus it is incorrect to say that he only thinks justification is conditioned on his faith.

It would indeed be incorrect (see above). I never claimed that justification alone was conditioned on faith since the Biblical testimony is clearly against such an assertion.

"God has sovereignly determined to make salvation conditioned on faith. He could have made salvation unconditional but He chose instead to make it conditional. That salvation is conditioned on faith does not mean faith is a work or a contribution to salvation. It is just the meeting of a condition and the nature of that condition disqualifies it from being something one can boast in before God."

Yes, the promises come in the form of a conditional, but Reformed theology teaches that Christ has met any and all conditions man must meet in order to have everlasting life--either by his work, or by securing for us what we need.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this either unless he is implying that Christ meets the condition of faith for us.

So, in regards the former, Christ lived a perfect life in our place, he met that condition for us. In regards the latter, he did not have saving faith for us.

I fully agree then.

But, he purchased, or acquired them for us. The Holy Spirit then applies this all to us.

This seems like a lot of assertion and is very confusing. I am not familiar with any passages of Scripture which say that Jesus purchased or acquired our personal faith. I don’t, however, have the entirety of Scripture memorized, so maybe I missed something. I am certainly not familiar with any passages which state that the Holy Spirit applies faith to us. Again, Eph. 1:13 tells us that we receive the spiritual blessings that reside in Christ (Eph. 1:3) because in response to our faith the Holy Spirit “seals” us in Christ. I agree that there is a sense in which faith is a gift of God, but only with regards to divine enablement (that synergistic element). I agree with Robert Picirilli, who after examining the texts which Calvinists assert teach that faith is an irresistible “gift” of God, concludes:

“But if the terminology is to be used [that of faith being a “gift”], one must clarify exactly what it means, as follows:

1. The capacity to believe is from God.
2. The possibility of believing is from God.
3. The content of belief- the gospel truth- is from God.
4. The persuasion of truth which one believes is from God.
5. The enabling of the individual to believe is from God.

But the believing itself can finally be done by no one other than the person who is called on to believe the gospel, and that will to believe savingly is the free decision of the individual. If calling faith “the gift of God” is meant to depreciate that, then I must deny the terminology. Since it is not Biblical terminology in the first place [based on his analysis of the relevant passages], perhaps it is best to discard it.” (Grace Faith, Free Will, pg. 167)

Thus Reformed theology can agree with the conditions of salvation, it's just that we see Christ fulfilling or acquiring them all for us.

So Christ fulfills your conditions for you, which essentially means that with regards to you salvation is unconditional which is what I have been “ambiguously” saying all along.

If it may be called a condition, it is not something we must do, it is something that has been done for us.

And “to” us I suppose. Didn’t he say earlier that Christ does not “believe for us”? Now he seems to say that the condition (of faith) is “done for us”, and a moment ago he asserted that Christ fulfills all conditions (which would seem to include faith) for us. How is that different than saying that Christ believes for us? And Paul accuses me of being confusing and ambiguous.

Our faith is not the ground of our salvation, but is but an instrument for receiving all of Christ.

I agree completely, and that is why all grounds of boasting are cut off since faith is the receiving of a free gift and total reliance on another. The “grounds” of salvation are the work of Christ and the gracious gift of God resulting from that work. Faith is the condition for receiving that salvation which is grounded solely in Christ’s atoning work. I never claimed otherwise; so maybe we should again ask, with Paul, what all the hubbub is about?

Thus we are not saved by faith, at all. Since we are not, then this Arminian has failed to show any synergism in his only admission of synergism.

We are saved by (or “through”) faith as a “condition” and we are saved by Christ’s work and the gracious gift that results from it as “grounds.”

In fact, the Bible nowhere says that we are saved by faith.

That is an amazing assertion. See the passages I cited above. It should also be noted that justification is correlated with “salvation” in James 2:14-26 and Romans 5:9, and 10, to name a few. Since justification is part of salvation and the beginning of salvation (with regard to logical order: see my post Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), it is quite proper and Biblical to say that we are “saved by faith” even according to his narrow definitions.

So, yes, in history, in this historical administration by which we travel the road of the covenant of grace unto completion, we must exercise faith. Thus I would rather call faith the sole instrument in justification, rather than the 'condition' of justification.

Paul can “rather” call things whatever he likes, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is Biblically acceptable to call faith the condition for justification and salvation.

But, I can grant that in the Bible we see a hypothetical statement, technically called a 'conditional.'

Paul just can’t seem to get through a post defending Calvinism without some sort of appeal to “hypotheticals.”

At any rate, we are not even justified by 'faith' qua 'faith' but, rather, faith in Christ. It's not that we have 'faith' it's who are faith is in.

I agree completely. Well said Paul.

The problem with all of this is that the Arminian views faith as a prerequisite to all the rest. He performs a positive action, in turn God gives him the rest. This is much different that the Reformed conception of God's monergistic work being the prerequisite for faith. And even so, this faith is not a positive work on our end, but a passive reception.

I agree that faith is a passive reception with regards to a surrendering and submitting to the work of God (Rom. 9:30-10:3), or the receiving of a free gift (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8). I disagree with “passive” being defined in a sense of inability to resist. I also agree that a monergistic work precedes faith. Arminians, oddly enough, call this preceding work prevenient grace.

A naked and weak hand receiving all the benefits of Christ. It's not a head-on meeting of an condition, but rather a passive receiving of something.

I agree again. That is a very nice way to put it, not unlike the way I put it below in my post, and not unlike I put it in the posts I linked to which Paul neglected to read or reference. When Arminians say that we must “meet” the condition of faith we only mean that it is by faith (i.e. a complete trusting in Christ) that we receive the free gift of salvation in Him.

Our view is Christocentric, his is Anthropocentric.

I can’t imagine how this assertion follows from anything Paul has just said, except perhaps from his grossly inaccurate understanding of Arminian theology. Strangely enough Arminius’ two main gripes with regards to Calvinist soteriology were that it inevitably made God the author of sin and that it was not sufficiently “Christocentric.” Arminians believe that all salvation blessings are “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3) and only those who come to be in Christ through faith in Him can experience those blessings (Eph. 1:13; 2:1-9; 3:11, 12). You can’t get much more Christocentric than that. Calvinists, on the other hand, maintain that regeneration (the beginning of spiritual life) somehow takes place outside of and logically prior to faith union with the only source of life- Jesus Christ (John. 1:4; 5:25; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John. 1:2; Heb. 5:9; Col. 3:3, 4). By doing this they also assert that one can somehow receive new life logically prior to being forgiven and made righteous on the merits of Christ blood (justification)! They also view election as something outside of Christ contrary to Arminians who affirm that election is “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4). Calvinists seem to see Eph. 1:4, for example, as an election of certain eternally pre-selected sinners to be “in Christ”, but the text cannot be made to conform to such an interpretation:

“Just as He chose us [believers] in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be blameless before Him.”

God determined from all eternity to elect and love believers in His Son Jesus Christ. Christ is the center and bases of election from all eternity. Arminius put it well when he described election as:

“The decree of God, of which, by Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in (or through) Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life, to the praise of His grace….The love with which God loves men absolutely to salvation…has no existence except in Christ….Christ Jesus is here to be considered not only as the foundation on which is based the execution of the decree, but also as the foundation on which the decree itself is based….Since God can love no sinner unto salvation, unless he be reconciled to Himself in Christ, hence it is, that there would be no place for predestination, except in Christ….Christ according to the Apostle is not only the means by which the salvation, already prepared by election, but, so to speak, the meritorious cause, in respect to which the election was made, and on whose account that grace was prepared….God can ‘previously and affectionately regard as His own’ no sinner unless He has foreknown him in Christ, and looked upon him as a believer in Christ”

He rejected the Calvinistic understanding of election because it was “not that decree by which Christ is appointed by God to be Savior, the Head, and Foundation of those who will be made heirs of salvation” (Various selections from The Writings of James Arminius, Nichols and Bagnall, quoted in Grace, Faith, Free Will, Picirilli, pp. 48-50, 78).

So Arminius’ view could be summed up as: “Christ (not election per se) is the foundation of the church; salvation is by Christ (not by election, except as election is an expression of God’s love in Christ); the gospel is about Christ (not about God’s decree of election). When God saw man as lost, He said: ‘I will make my Son a mediator and love men in Him.’” (Picirilli, pg. 51)

Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that God unconditionally elected certain sinners to be put in Christ (only as the means for effecting the unconditional decree), and so Christ is not the foundation, beginning, or bases of election in Calvinism which makes their theology far less Christocentric than Arminian theology.

"By faith we recognize our inability to save ourselves and cast ourselves on God’s mercy. Faith is surrender to God. It is giving up on ourselves. It is abandoning our own works and clinging to the work of God. If there is one element that is synergistic in salvation it is faith. God enables the depraved sinner to respond in faith, but the sinner must do the responding. God does not believe for us and God does not cause faith in us irresistibly. That is the only synergistic aspect of Arminianism. The rest is monergism. The synergism of faith is the only area where one could say that the sinner in a sense “saves himself”, but that is only in the context of re-positioning oneself in God’s favor through faith and repentance (Acts 2:40)."

None of this could be done if it were not for God's prior, and monergistic work of regeneration.

This is nothing more than baseless assertion at this point. Paul knows that as an Arminian I reject the priority of regeneration.

A dead men doesn't "recognize our inability to save ourselves and cast ourselves on God’s mercy."

Arminians agree; hence, the doctrine of prevenient grace. I am sure that Paul finds this doctrine un-Biblical but he should at least acknowledge its existence within Arminian theology, especially seeing that he has made it his purpose to criticize that theology.

But, yes, the Reformed would agree that men actually do the believing.

In the same way that a man hooked to a respirator does the “breathing” I suppose. Notice again how Paul essentially contradicts his previous statement that, “If it may be called a condition, it is not something we must do, it is something that has been done for us.”

We don't think God believes for us. And we agree that the normal operations are that if a man never places his faith in Christ, he will not be justified (I say normal operations to make room for the infants and the mentally disabled. There is some debate whether they exhibit faith or not. But mere exceptions don't refute). The main difference, again, is in the priority between faith and regeneration and the nature or character of faith. Is it a 'meeting' or a 'receiving?'

Actually, the nature and character of faith is alone sufficient for understanding its function as the receiving of a free gift which cuts off all grounds for boasting (Rom. 3:27; 4:1-5). The priority between faith and regeneration as Paul sees it is irrelevant. If faith is by nature the receiving of a gift and is itself God enabled, then there is no room to boast and no rightful charge that the sinner took the “first step” etc. We “receive” God’s free gift through faith. Again, saying that we must “meet” the condition of faith only means that faith is the means by which the gift of salvation is received. Not that complicated is it?

This Arminian's conception is of a man who, without regeneration and thus a dead sinner, throws up his hands, declares that he can't do it on his own, and so lets God do his work.

Without regeneration: Yes. Without prevenient grace: No. It seems to me that “…lets God do His work” is a pretty good way to describe receiving a free gift, surrendering to God’s grace, etc.; Biblical definitions of faith that we both seem to agree upon.

But he must allow God into his life in the first place.

Not entirely accurate. God enables our response through the power of the gospel and the Spirit’s work without our consent (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12; John 16:8-11). He does not, however, force us to receive His gift after He has enabled us to do so.

God waits for mans permission to work. And, as I pointed out above, since faith doesn't save, it's impossible for our Arminian to think he has shown any soteriological synergism!

I am afraid that Paul has so far repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding the basics of Arminian theology. Since he refuses to define Arminian soteriology the way that an Arminian would define it, he will not be able to properly criticize it. He has also made startling claims regarding the idea that the Bible nowhere says that we are saved by faith and has continually misunderstood the Arminian conception of synergism. Not a good start, as he would say.

"Yet, Calvinists still insist that faith is a work of merit if it is not irresistibly caused."

No, if it is something we must do in order to be saved. That is, if we are justified by having faith. In that sense it would be a work. And since you concede, you admit of a works based salvation.

Not when faith and works are understood according to their Biblical definitions, rather than the spurious definitions assigned to them by “Reformed” theologians.

You 'meet' God halfway there. Justification couldn't be accomplished if it wasn't for your initiation. Your movement forward. Your 'meeting.'

I really can’t understand where Paul is getting this stuff from. He might be criticizing someone’s position, but he is certainly not criticizing mine.

"Some Calvinists will go so far as to say that Arminians believe that man has the capability to save themselves."

No, you have the capacity, as you admit, to 'meet' the lifeguard part way there.

You are only speaking for yourself here Paul. You may not agree with those Calvinists who have said such things to me, but it doesn’t change the fact that they said them. And again, Arminians do not believe that we have the natural capacity to meet the life guard part way there; at least this Arminian doesn’t and neither did James Arminius himself.

The Reformed view is that you are dead. Dead men don't 'meet' people anywhere. God must administer CPR. Without CPR you could not breath that first "thank you." If a man can even breathe a little, he needs no CPR.

And here Paul wrongly draws a strict parallel between physical death and spiritual death in a way that the Bible never does. Arminians gladly affirm total depravity with regards to natural inability but also believe that God is powerful enough to graciously overcome that depravity. If Paul wants to better understand the Arminian understanding of dead in sin and the ordo salutis as well as why Arminians find the Calvinist claim for the priority of regeneration Biblically indefensible, I can refer him to several posts I have written on the subject.

Our view isn't that an Arminian can't be consistent, it's that an Arminian can't be consistent if he wants to be faithful to all the teaching of the Bible.

Funny, that’s what Arminians think of Calvinists as well.

Given your assumptions, you may not have any problems. The only time a problem arises is when you try to say that your view is fully consistent with all the biblical witness.

Mere assertions don’t amount to much, especially when you are trying to demonstrate the falsity of someone’s claims.

"I have often heard Calvinists point to intercessory prayer as a problem for Arminianism. The argument says that in Arminianism prayer would be pointless since God will not irresistibly save the sinner. If our prayers cannot guarantee conversion, then they are pointless. As long as free will exists intercessory prayer cannot really be effective."

No, we just point out that if a man freely chooses to remain in his sins, then if God desires that he does not, God can't secure a salvation. On your view, man must meet God, and God cannot make sure man will do this.

Again, I object to the “meet God” terminology as it does not reflect my position as noted above. God could, however, “make sure” that man would believe. He “could” also save every single person irresistibly without creating any real difficulty within a Calvinistic framework as well. But it is not an issue of what God can or cannot do for either of us, but an issue of what He will and will not do according to His own sovereign choice. Paul again criticizes a position that I do not hold.

That is, the Calvinist can pray that if it is God's will, save so and so. And, God can answer this. The Arminian, on the other hand, cannot with confidence say that if God so wills, so and so will be saved.

Actually, the Arminian doesn’t need such “if it’s God’s will” qualifiers when praying for the lost since the Arminian believes that the Scriptural testimony plainly indicates that God wills to save all (1 Tim. 2:1-8). I think the burden of proof lies with Paul to provide a single Biblical example of praying for the lost with an “if it’s God’s will” formula.

That is, if it is God's will he can actually answer our prayer. On the Arminian scheme, if is God's will then this isn't enough to secure a positive answer.

No, it cannot infallibly secure a positive answer but it doesn’t mean that such prayers do not have a profound influence in the process. Like I said in my post, which Paul again neglected to quote:

“Arminians also believe that God has the sovereign right to harden hearts. However, we believe that this hardening is always in response to willful rejection of God’s grace. Often times, this hardening is temporal and not necessarily irrevocable (Rom. 11:7-32). Intercessory prayer, then, can impact God’s decision with regards to whether He will continue to show mercy and give further opportunity for repentance, or entirely give the sinner over to his or her depravity and unbelief (Rom. 1:24-32). It may be that through intercessory prayer, the work of God can become so strong in the sinner’s life that a negative response would become almost impossible. The almost preserves the integrity of the response and genuine nature of the subsequent relationship that results [and continues] from it.”

So and so must take the first step; he must 'meet' God.

Paul never seems to tire of beating up this straw man. What he continually describes is Semi-Pelagianism and not Arminianism. I know that many Calvinists like to think that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are the same things, but they are simply wrong and should be embarrassed by such ridiculous and unfounded assertions. At least Calvinists Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams had enough theological and historical integrity to admit that Arminianism is neither Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian:

“Does the antipathy between Calvinism and Arminianism suggest that Pelagius, the arch-opposite of Augustine, is the proper ancestor of Arminianism? Calvinists have often sought to paint Arminianism in Pelagian colors. Associating your opponent with a position that the historic faith has repeatedly judged heretical can only help one’s cause. However, the allegation that Arminianism is Pelagian is unfortunate and indeed unwarranted. From Jacob Arminius and the ‘Remonstrance Articles’ on, the Arminian tradition has affirmed the corruption of the will by sin and the necessity of grace for redemption. Arminianism is not Pelagianism….The Semi-Pelagians thought of salvation as beginning with human beings. We must first seek God; and his grace is a response to that seeking. The Arminians of the seventeenth century, however, held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person cannot seek grace without the enablement of grace. They therefore affirmed the necessity and priority of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person’s response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-Augustinianism than it is to Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism." (Why I Am Not An Arminian, pg. 39)

The sole disagreement between late Augustinianism (Calvinism) and Arminianism is whether or not that necessary prevenient grace irresistibly leads to regeneration. It is not over the necessity of that prevenient grace.

So, we don't say that it is 'pointless' for the Arminian to pray, but we note that many times he prays as if he were a Calvinist.

Kind of like how Calvinists often preach like Arminians? Actually, I have never heard of an Arminian praying “if it’s your will God, save so and so”, which is apparently how Calvinist should pray according to Paul. The example of Falwell’s prayers (which Paul cites below) are not really in harmony with Calvinism as Paul suggests because one might very well be praying against God’s will by asking Him to irresistibly save someone whom He has irrevocably ordained for destruction.

I personally have a suspiscion that Calvinists often pray like Arminians. For instance, how would Joe Calvinist pray if we made "so and so" a little more personal? What if Joe C was praying for the salvation of his daughter? Would he really pray something like: "Dear God, if it is your will to save my daughter according to your eternal and irrevocable decree, then I thank you that you will infallibly do so; but if it is instead your will to damn her forever in accordance with your just decree of irrevocable reprobation, according to your good pleasure, then I give you all the praise and glory for her just condemnation." I can't help but to wonder if Calvinists start praying an awful lot like Arminians when things get personal. Praying “God save my daughter”, for example, is far more in harmony with Arminianism (since God truly desires to save all) than Calvinism when all is said and done; so no, Arminians don’t pray like Calvinists. Nice try though Paul.

The Calvinist can pray knowing that God will answer his prayer, if he has so decreed that so and so believe.

Does God need your prayers? What if you don’t pray? Will God still save His elect?

The Arminian cannot. We also at times see inconsistencies in your prayers. For example, Falwell said,

"He will not force you against your will to come to the cross."

and this,

"Do not let one person say ‘no’ to your precious will. Save the lost."

During the same prayer. What could it possibly mean, on an Arminian scheme, for God not to 'let' someone say 'no' who freely chooses to say 'no?' Take a person S. If S says no, that's it. God cannot make sure that S enters the kingdom. A Calvinist, on the other hand, can pray that God not let S say "no." If God has chosen to save S, he will not let S say 'no.' And so at the very least you must admit that you only have fellow Arminians to blame for these confusions. In other words, the saying: 'Clean up your own backyard,' is applicable here.

So it is my duty to make sure guys like Falwell don’t say dumb things? I would think Paul might need to do plenty of backyard cleaning himself in that case.

"It does not follow that if intercessory prayer cannot guarantee a result, then it is pointless. Arminians believe that God works persuasively on the human heart through the gospel to bring about a faith response. Prayer can have a profound effect on that process. The Arminian can pray for more opportunities to witness. He or she can pray that God will use circumstances to bring the sinner to a point of desperation. We can pray that God will continue to reveal Himself to the individual. We can pray that God will remove obstacles and barriers to unbelief. All of these things will increase the chance of conversion."

The Arminian prays for barriers to be removed so that it is easier for the lost to 'make that first move.'

If God is removing barriers then how is it the lost that is “making the first move”?

But the road can be clear of everything down to the last pebble, and if the lost decide to stay where they are at, all the prayer in the world will change nothing.

Yes. Grace can be ultimately resisted and very often is (Acts 7:51, which has nothing to do with Calvinistic “common grace”). Prayers, however, can make it harder for the lost to make that decision to “stay where they are at”, even to the point of making such a decision nearly impossible as I stated above in the section of my post that Paul ignored.

On the Calvinist scheme, if God chooses to save the lost person, he will climb over all the barriers, and then administer life-giving serum to the dead sinner. This effects a new life and results in the completion, for what good work God begins in the man he will see it to the end. The Calvinist knows that no matter what barriers stand in the way, if God has so chosen, he will save the sinner.

Which only proves Cavinistic intercession pointless because God can even overcome the “barrier” of a complete lack of intercessory prayer for those who are lost. No lack of praying can prevent Him from saving those He unconditionally and irrevocably elected for salvation from before the foundation of the world. Therefore, intercessory prayer in Calvinism is a pointless waste of time. Paul just demonstrated that quite nicely.

The Alleged Inconsistency

"The underlying assumptions of Calvinist theology make a mess of intercessory prayer. Calvinism teaches that one is saved or lost on the sole basis of an eternal and irrevocable decree. Nothing can effectively change that decree. It is fixed. It is permanent. The decision was made for us before we were born. The decision was made before the universe was created. With this in mind the problems of intercession within Calvinist thought become quickly apparent."

Now we're at the meat of the post.

"The Arminian contends that intercessory prayer within a Calvinistic framework is pointless. Our prayers cannot have any effect on the eternal destiny of any individual. That destiny was fixed from eternity. No lack of prayer can prevent God from saving the elect and no amount of prayer can help the reprobate. Worse yet, the believer might waste countless hours praying for a reprobate who has no chance at heaven without realizing it."

Sure they can, as means. So, if God has decreed that S will be saved by means of X, then if X doesn't obtain, S wouldn't be saved. It is a package deal. Thus it is false to say what you say.

But prayer really has no affect on God in Calvinism. He is going to save the elect no matter what. He is not moved by our prayers because He has already unconditionally decreed from eternity to save “S” without reference to any prayers, so what “X” does amounts to nothing more than a show of sorts which doesn’t really accomplish anything.

Perhaps Paul is saying that God decreed from eternity that the prayers of “X” would irresistibly move God to save in time. That would seem to indicate that the believer can force God to do things, which strikes me as quite contrary to Paul’s position. If the prayers of “X” don’t really force any kind of response from God, then they really have nothing to do with the means or His decree as Paul seems to be describing. Again, they don’t accomplish anything. “S” will be saved regardless and the prayers of “X” have no real bearing on the process. The best we can say is that they have an imaginary bearing on the process (i.e. they only appear to have something to do with it).

That is not to say that God could not have decreed that “X” pray for “S” but those prayers would not really be “means” at all; just the inevitable result of God’s sovereign decree. The prayers of “X” can have no real influence on God since God made the infallible decision to save “S” without any consideration for the prayers that “X” would eventually make. If He had, which I don’t even think is logically possible, then God’s choice of election was actually based on the eventual prayers of “X” which I can’t imagine any Calvinist being comfortable affirming. They could only truly be “means” if they had some real influence on God prior to His decree to save “S”, which is plainly impossible. Only in Arminianism can intercessory prayer be a genuine means to an end. Despite Paul’s best efforts he still cannot make any sense of intercessory prayer in a Calvinistic framework.

But you address this response below. So let's move on.

"The Calvinist objects on the basis that God decrees the “means” as well as the “ends” and intercessory prayer may well be the means that God uses to bring His elect to repentance. Let us then call on the Calvinist to define “means”. Do “means” have reference to the process by which God accomplishes something? If it does then the Calvinist must still admit that believers contribute to the salvation of the elect by way of intercessory prayer. Their prayer is part of the means and therefore a contribution. If that is the case, then salvation is not monergistic as Calvinism defines it. The only way that I can see to avoid such a conclusion is to deny that intercessory prayer is truly a means to an end (albeit God ordained). The moment that is admitted, we are right back to the problem of intercessory prayer serving no real purpose within Calvinist theology."

I would think the concept fairly simple to understand. If you want your friend to give you a bite of his tasty burger, you must communicate somehow. The end is the ingesting the burger, the communication of that desire was a means.

This example is not analogous since there is no third party as in intercessory prayer. I really don’t see how this example relates to the issue at all. We would have to say that if you want your friend to give you a bite of his tasty burger you would need to tell a second friend to communicate that desire to the first friend, or something similar. Even then it does not really relate to the topic at hand as intercessory prayer isn’t about getting something for yourself but asking God to do something for someone else. It also assumes that the friend is truly being influenced by that communication. If the friend with the tasty burger is suppose to represent God, then we have already demonstrated why this doesn’t help Paul make intercessory prayer in Calvinism meaningful above. If Paul wants to disambiguate this a little maybe I can address it further.

Or, take when God parted the red sea. He used a strong east wind as a means to accomplish the end of allowing the Israelites to pass through the sea on dry ground.

This further misses the point and serves only to cloud the issue. Did something influence God to use the wind? God used the wind to accomplish something but did the wind move Him to accomplish something? The point is that in Arminianism God is truly influenced by intercessory prayer and positively responds to it. Prayer is a genuine means to an end and has an actual bearing on the process. In Calvinism, God is not truly influenced because He has irrevocably decreed to save before He even created anybody to pray. These illustrations don’t even touch on the issue I was addressing in my post.

Now the inconsistency is drawn out.(1) If a believer's B prayer is a means to the end, a sinner's S salvation, then B is 'involved' in the salvation of S and thus the salvation of S isn't monergistic.(1) rests on an assumption:

(1*) No one can be involved in salvation in any sense of the word 'involved,' no matter how broad, or else said salvation is not monergistic.

Since monergism means “to work alone” then I fail to see how this is “assumption.” Intercessory prayer is synergistic in the sense of genuine (un-coerced) influence and response. God motivates and encourages the believer to pray for the lost (1 Tim. 2:1-8). When the believer yields to that motivation in active obedience God responds to those prayers. God allows us to participate in the process, but God alone works to save (since He alone can save).

With rests on a broader assumption:

(1**) If anything is involved, no matter how broadly construed, in any operation, then that operation was done by two things and not one.

We are not talking about “things” but “persons” and we are discussing whether one person (the believer) really has any influence on another person (God) and visa versa. The subtle shift here to “things” is the only way that Paul can wriggle out of this dilemma and employ the irrelevant illustrations of the violinist and the wind below.

i) Having drawn out this assumptions, it will be child's play to show the errors in the argument. I'll list them off:

“Child’s play” to show the errors in the argument that I do not hold, which has been the general practice of Paul throughout his entire post.

It should be stated first that Reformed theologians don't deny that other people are involved in a very broad sense of the word.

ii) Take the parting of the red sea. Since God used wind, it is no longer technically correct to say that God parted the red sea. Rather, God + wind parted the red sea. Or, take a violinist. Since the violin was 'involved' in a masterpiece performance, one cannot tell the violinist that she played beautifully. According to (1**), the masterpiece was done by two and not one.

Again, these illustrations are irrelevant to the subject matter of the post that Paul is trying to criticize.

iii) Notice that we are 'involved' (in a broad sense) in all of our salvation. Indeed, there must be a person to be saved. Without my involvement (broadly involved by the act of my existing) in glorification, there would be no glorification since no one would be there to be glorified.

So we are involved in the act of our own existence? Are we self existent or are we dependent on God for our existence? Paul is really starting to struggle here (though he may be speaking in the "broad sense" of eating, breathing, and refraining from commiting suicide I suppose).

Similarly, if there is no party standing before the court then there is no one for God to declare righteous and thus justify. So, I am involved (in a broad sense) in my justification.

And when we get too “broad” things tend to stop making a whole lot of “sense.”

Our Arminian friend must grant all of this, and so when he mentioned those parts of 'salvation' that were monergistic, he must retract according to his implicit assumption in (1*) and (1**). So, then, we 'contribute' to our justification by just being there.

Kind of like the patient contributes to the work of the surgeon by lying unconscious on the operating table I suppose. Does Paul really believe that he is bolstering his argument with such strained assertions?

If we didn't 'contribute' in this way, there would be no justification since there would be no one to justify.

Brilliant. I guess I should consider my post successfully refuted.

iv) Our prayers are not the ground of salvation, Christ's alien work is. His life and death is. So, it isn't even technically correct to attribute our prayers a soteriological synergism.

The correlation I meant to draw was clearly spelled out in my post, which again Paul has neglected to mention:

“God's heart is moved to action through our prayers for others. We would be foolish to say that believers save sinners by praying for them. Our prayers don't earn or merit salvation for others but only move God's heart to act. In a similar way our faith does not earn or merit our personal salvation, but our faith response does move God's heart to respond in accordance with His promise to save believers (John 3:16-18, 36).”

v) So, I haven't needed to deny the means answer, and I've shown that the argument against it is absurd and even turns against the very admissions of monergism the Arminian allows. Given his very broad conception of 'involved' or 'contribute' it would be hard to demarcate my instances of 'involvement' as relevantly different than his.

Well allow me to try to demarcate a bit. My “broad conception” of involvement has to do with the genuine influence that one person has on another. God influences and enables sinners to respond to [i.e. receive] His offer of salvation (John 6:44, 45; 12:32; 16:7-11; Titus 2:11-14). God is influenced to save those who positively respond to His gracious offer of salvation according to His love and promises (John 3:16-18, 36; 6:40; 7:37, 38; Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28-30). Believers are influenced by God to pray for the lost. God is influenced by the prayers of believers to act to save the lost. God works in us by way of the influence and response model that is appropriate to interpersonal relationships. Paul’s “broad conception” of “involved”, on the other hand, is more analogous to the “involvement” of a corpse with the embalmer. Rather than influence and response, it is always cause and effect in Paul’s scheme.

Since my means answer is still in tact, then he cannot show any inconsistency, and so his entire argument, as stands, crumbles.

And so Paul declares victory.

Conclusions:

I will leave it to the reader to decide if Paul has really made his case. From what I can see Paul has recklessly proceeded to criticize my post without a proper understanding of my arguments and has argued heroically against a position that I do not hold. He has misunderstood synergism within Arminian theology. He has ignored the important Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. He has failed to comprehend that his “means” argument just will not hold up to careful scrutiny. He has tried to confuse his readers with irrelevant illustrations and has frequently said things which lend strong support to the position he is trying to argue against. From where I’m sitting his entire rebuttal was just about as pointless as intercessory prayer within Calvinism. But then again, that is just my opinion and no doubt Paul will strongly disagree.

Now I am quite sure that Paul will respond in force. I have seen an example of how this will likely develop with his interactions with J.C. As J.C. continued to dismantle his arguments (and numerous “hypotheticals”), Paul’s posts quickly disintegrated into theological temper tantrums, baseless assertions, ridicule and mockery, and bold and childish claims of victory without ever really even addressing the main issues. They became so long that anyone trying to address them and carefully untangle his sophistry would have needed to shamefully neglect his family in order to take the time to give a detailed response. He is masterful at confusing his readers to the point where they just assume he must be right.

I left a comment in the combox of his post which criticized my arguments asking him why he did not bother to let me know that he made the post. I thought it was just a common courtesy to inform someone that you have just attacked and critiqued something they have written in order to give them a fair chance to defend themselves. Paul told me that to expect such a thing from him clearly indicated that I had an inflated ego which needed to be stroked and that this ego was the obvious result of my man centered theology. I can’t help but to wonder what kind of ego Paul must have that he would think that his leaving me a comment at AP to inform me of his critical interaction with my post would have stroked my ego? It is conversations like that which make it quite clear to me that further dialogue will not be fruitful and will likely not benefit anyone (with the exception of our egos of course), and I just don’t have the time to devote to it. Paul has the right to disagree with me and think my arguments stupid so I will leave him to it (though I do reserve the right to change my mind for the purpose of clarification if he should continue to blatantly and shamelessly misrepresent Arminianism :). He is more than welcomed to have the final word and make whatever baseless declarations of victory he likes. The End.

Wrapping Things Up With Gordan on John 5:40

Gordan posted a response to my latest post concerning our discussion on John 5:40. He made the point to me that our dialogue was becoming cumbersome due the length of our responses. He suggested a cross examination to narrow the focus and end the exchange. In private e-mail we agreed that a cross examination would not be feasible due to time constraints and other factors. I offered to write a final response to tie up some loose ends with regards to his latest response. I promised him that it would be my last post on the subject and offered to give him the final word at his blog. Gordan decided that he would rather let me wrap things up over here instead.

I will not be quoting from Gordan in this post in order to shorten its length. If you are still interested in this exchange then I encourage you to read his latest response here to get the proper context for this post. I appreciate Gordan and all the guys at Reformed Mafia. They are passionate about Calvinism, but more importantly they are passionate about Jesus. I will only be addressing a few of his points below:

Regarding reductio ad absurdum:

Gordan spoke of real and genuine life in Christ beginning at an eternal decree. I mentioned that such a position was absurd and would amount to eternal regeneration of the elect. In his response, Gordan contends that he was positing this idea to demonstrate the absurdity of my own position. The problem is that it was never my position that the life of John 5 could refer to any kind of life. My argument was that it referred to the specific new life in Christ that includes and begins with regeneration when one comes to be in union with Him through faith. The person who was contending that the scope of life could go beyond what I was claiming for it was Gordan. In fact, that was his main argument and the comments concerning real and genuine life in Christ beginning at a decree of predestination was taking his position to an extreme and not my own. The only position, then, that Gordan reduced to absurdity with his comments was his own.

Now I think I understand what Gordan meant and said that I believed he misspoke. Gordan affirmed that he does not hold to a position of eternal regeneration, but that does not change the fact that the language he used says exactly that. If real life in Christ for the believer begins at an eternal decree, then we can only conclude that the believer has been regenerated from eternity. Gordan points us to Ephesians where Paul says that we were chosen in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. This passage, however, does not help him for it does not teach that believers were actually in Christ prior to creation. It only teaches that God determined from eternity to elect believers in Christ. Election is in Christ and only believers come to be in Christ. Real and genuine life, however, does not begin until one believes and is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). For Eph.1:4 to support Calvinism it must read “chosen to be in Him” but it does not. It can only refer to God’s eternal decree to elect believers in Christ. The only other option is to adopt the position that the elect were in Christ from before the foundation of the world, which would mean that the elect have always been alive in Christ, even prior to being born, which is plainly absurd and unscriptural.

Regarding the need for justification, and therefore faith, to precede life in Christ:

I stated that to assert that regeneration precedes faith is to have sinners attaining spiritual life prior to being justified. I explained that we would then have sinners having life prior to being forgiven on the merit of Christ’s blood. Gordan refers us to OT saints, saying that they were saved before there was any blood to apply. I agree that OT saints were saved prior to the cross, but they were still saved on the merits of the blood of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. Gordan would seem to agree. The point to remember, however, is that the OT saints were justified by faith (in a proleptic manner), and could not attain life until God made them righteous. By faith they drank of the Spiritual Rock that is Christ and attained life in Him.

Gordan raises an interesting point regarding John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. Union with Christ through faith is the God ordained principle for those who are old enough to exercise faith. Faith cannot be the condition of union with Christ for unborn and small children who lack the capacity for saving faith. Many Arminians and Calvinists believe that children are under grace prior to an age of conscious and deliberate rebellion (an age of accountability). If that is the case, then it is possible that this grace was applied to John in a proleptic sense to empower him for the unique ministry that God was preparing him for. The fact remains that for morally accountable adults the Scriptures clearly teach that one comes to be in union with Christ by faith and not before.

Regarding temporal order:

Gordan contends that part of my problem is that I am looking at this in a temporal sense. That is not the case. I am concerned with the logical order. That is the same thing that Calvinists are concerned with when discussing the eternal decrees. These decrees can have no temporal order, but they must have a logical order. This order is what separates infralapsarian Calvinists from supralapsarian Calvinists. Calvinists also generally have only logical order in mind when discussing the ordo salutis. That is the case with Arminians as well. I believe, with Gordan, that faith, justification, and regeneration happen instantaneously with regard to time. The logical order, however, is still significant. If it were not, then why is Gordan insisting that regeneration precedes faith? Our positions could be stated as follows:

Arminian: The moment one believes, he or she is regenerated.

Calvinist: The moment one is regenerated, he or she believes.

Gordan tells me that there is no causation in the text of John 5:40. He tells us that we are reading into the text by saying that “coming” in faith precedes having “life”. I agree that there is no causation there because I do not believe that faith causes regeneration. God causes regeneration when a sinner meets the God ordained condition of faith. That seems to be plainly implied when Jesus says, “you will not come to Me so that you may have life”. One must come [in faith] to receive life. I see an order of events there. If Gordan does not, then I don’t know what language could improve on it. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Regarding a wooden use of metaphors:

Gordan agrees that the language of John 5:24, and 25 is consistent with regeneration. He argues, however, that there are other metaphors for regeneration besides spiritual resurrection, and gives some examples. I don’t see how this invalidates the fact that John 5:24, and 25 is using a metaphor for regeneration. To say that there are other metaphors for the same thing does not help things.

I am intrigued by one of his examples. He cites the example of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. He concludes that “opening the heart” is another metaphor for regeneration. Remember that Gordan’s entire argument boils down to saying that my claims that the life Jesus speaks of in John 5 includes regeneration are inconclusive at best; this despite the context containing plain regeneration language [or metaphors]. I cannot think of a more ambiguous passage that Calvinists use to defend irresistible grace than Lydia’s conversion. The text says that the Lord opened her heart so that she could respond to the gospel. The text does not say that the opening of her heart made her positive response inevitable. It is also worthwhile to ask if the heart the Lord opened to respond was Lydia’s old heart. The text gives no indication of a new heart being opened. If it was her old heart that was opened to respond to the gospel then this account beautifully portrays the Arminian understanding of enabling prevenient grace.

The point is that the context and language of John 5 seems to me to be far more conclusive than that of Acts 16:14 which Gordan has no problem seeing as a definite example of regeneration. Surely there is a lesson here for both of us concerning the ease by which we allow our biases to effect our exegesis.

Gordan also insists that I am being inconsistent by holding a wooden view of the spiritual resurrection metaphor in John 5 while making light of the dead in sin metaphor that Paul employs. Arminians do not try to water down the “dead” of being dead in sin. What Arminians try to do is understand it in a Biblical framework and consider carefully what spiritual death means. There really is no contextual warrant for correlating spiritual death with the inability of a corpse. There is good reason to view it in the context of separation from the spiritual life that can only be found through faith union with Jesus Christ. I would contend that it is more accurate to say that Calvinists use this metaphor in a way that the Scripture never intended, rather than saying that Arminians try to downplay the metaphor. Many Arminians would fully agree with the Calvinist understanding of dead in sin while laying the emphasis on the power of God’s grace to overcome that inability. In any case, I just don’t see any ambiguity in the description of passing from death to life and experiencing a spiritual resurrection in John 5.

There is much more that could be said, but I will leave it there. Gordan has given me the last word so I will not over do it. I am flattered that he thought my arguments were worth his time and I have enjoyed the interaction. We may disagree on the particulars of how God goes about saving sinners, but we are both in agreement that we owe everything to Christ and His amazing grace.

Gordan Takes Another Shot at John 5:40

Some of you may remember a short debate I had with Gordan from over at Reformed Mafia concerning the implications of John 5:40 with regards to the Calvinist understanding of the ordo salutis [Gordan Gives Me Props And Rebukes At Reformed Mafia]. Well, it seems that since the first “hit” was unsuccessful; Gordan has reloaded his Tommy-Gun for another go at me. He fires off plenty of rounds but still manages to miss his intended target (probably because he is too busy repeatedly shooting himself in the foot). Below is his latest unsuccessful attempt to wack me out.

His comments are in quotations:

"Recently, I was in a discussion with a friend (who claims to hate me, in a good natured- way, of course) who proposed that John 5:40 is the death knell of Calvinistic soteriology. I mentioned this claim in an earlier post."

I did not say that John 5:40 was the death knell of Calvinism. I do believe that it is one of many passages which destroy the Reformed view of the ordo salutis. The question being addressed is whether the Calvinist claim that regeneration precedes faith is Biblical or not.

"[For the record, I do not hate Ben (Kangeroodort) although I do have a big, big problem with his anti-biblical soteriology, and I in fact pity him for his choice of NFL teams.]"

For the record, I do not hate Gordan either. In fact, I think I have told him that I love him on more than one occasion (as a brother in Christ of course). Likewise, I obviously have a problem with his approach to soteriology and find it to be based more on the necessary implications of a theological system than on sound exegesis. As for the football comment, all I need to say is that both the Steelers and Cowboys have 5 championships to their credit (though it took the Steelers less trips to the Superbowl to gain theirs); the Steelers are 2-1 against the Cowboys in the Superbowl, beat the Cowboys the last time they played each other (with a rookie Ben Roethlisberger at the helm), and have a more recent championship to their credit….‘nough said.

Here is the verse in the NKJV: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (This is Jesus speaking to the Jews who sought to kill Him.)

"Ben says this proves Calvinism is wrong. He is fairly certain that the “life” mentioned there must necessarily include Regeneration. He thinks that if I would simply read the text, I’d see that as an inescapable conclusion.

Spiritually dead people have to come to Jesus (i.e. believe in Him) in order to be regenerated. Ben sees that as straightforward, if only we Calvinists would read what the Bible says there.

But after pondering this for some time, both during and since our discussion at his blog, I am left where my objection began. That is, what is the textual evidence for the notion that the “life” of John 5:40 includes Regeneration? (And right here is where we may need a whole ‘nother discussion on what constitutes evidence…)

There are other options for what “life” might mean. It may be synonymous with “salvation,” which I think is not uncommon in John’s writings. Or, it may have to do specifically with “eternal life,” the glorified life post-resurrection.

In fact, I’d propose that this latter idea is suggested strongly by the context of the rest of John 5. (See especially verses 24-26, and 29.) In fact, in the verse right before the one in question (v. 39), it is “eternal life” that is expressly mentioned as that which the Jews have missed in their rejection of the Scriptures teachings about Jesus.

This does no harm to Calvinism. Every Calvinist would say that a person has to believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life."

There is a lot to deal with here. Gordan has been fair enough in representing my view that the “life” spoken of in John 5:40 must at least [if not primarily] include regeneration. Let’s take a look at the passages that Gordan cites in defense of his claims. It should be noted that I was the first one to refer to these passages in our discussion because I believed they further supported my interpretation. Gordan now brings them up as an attempt to bolster his own view.

Before looking at these passages (5:24-26 and 29), something must be said concerning his comment that, “[life] may be synonymous with ‘salvation,’ which is not uncommon in John’s writings”. I agree completely. This is probably the biggest difference in our views. Arminians do not see regeneration as a means to an end (the ability to put faith in Christ), but as the ends itself. Regeneration is the beginning of the new life (which is the eternal life that is found in Christ alone). It is, therefore, the beginning of “salvation”, which Gordan admits is synonymous with “eternal life”. For Calvinists, the purpose of regeneration is to enable (more properly, “cause”) faith in the individual which leads to salvation (i.e. eternal life). The Calvinist, then, sees things like this: life--> faith--> life [eternal life, salvation]. The Arminian sees things like this: faith--> life [eternal life, salvation, which begins at regeneration].

The text in question says, “But you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” Gordan believes that there must be another “life” hidden in between the “unwilling” and “come”. The “unwilling” necessitates a need for “life” so that one can “come” to have “life”. For him we should understand Jesus to really mean: “Because you do not have life, you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life”. I am arguing that Jesus has given us enough information without needing to insert a separate sort of “life” in between the “unwilling” and “come”. I think that Jesus is quite plainly telling the Jews that they must come to Him in order to have “life” (which begins at regeneration).

An important question, then, resolves around whether or not the “life” spoken of in 5:40 has any reference to regeneration (the new birth where life begins). I believe that it must, and found evidence for this in the same passages Gordan now refers us to (John 5:24-26, and 29):

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (verse 24)

Look at that last phrase, “but has passed out of death into life”. Doesn’t that sound like the language of regeneration to you? A transition from death to life is a perfect way to describe regeneration, and many Calvinist have described regeneration with that exact same language. Another favorite metaphor for regeneration is “spiritual resurrection” which is just another way of saying that one has passed from [spiritual] death to [spiritual] life. This is the imagery that Jesus now turns to in describing the life spoken of in this context:

“Truly, truly, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Son of God, and those who hear shall live.”

Here Christ speaks of a spiritual resurrection for those who hear the voice of the Son of God. The previous verse [24] reminds us that hearing unto life includes believing, “…and believes Him who sent Me”. So what have these passages taught us? They have taught us that Jesus is describing the need for these spiritually dead Jews to experience a transition from death to life: a spiritual resurrection! Well what about verses 28-29? Don’t they have reference to the final resurrection? Yes they do, but we must let the context determine Christ’s purpose in looking forward to the resurrection event.

Jesus anticipates that the Jews will object that He has the power to grant new life. Jesus tells them plainly that He does have this power (verse 21, 24, 26) and that not only can He bring about a spiritual resurrection in those who believe in Him, but He will one day call the dead from their graves as well. However, Jesus is speaking not of a specific resurrection to life of believers in verses 28-29, but the general resurrection of the dead. The point Christ is making is that they should not be surprised at His claims to be able to grant life to those who believe since He will one day raise all of creation from the dead in order to judge them (verses 28-29). If He has been given the authority to do that, then surely He has been given the authority to give spiritual life to those who come to Him in faith.

Therefore, I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question. Gordan has much more to say on this issue, however, so let’s hear him out:

"But Ben’s contention is that regeneration must be included in that concept because it is the starting point of eternal life. Can’t have the everlasting life in heaven without first being regenerated, after all. So, then, you have to come to Jesus to be regenerated, since it is the beginning point of eternal life."

[A few quick points here before moving on. Gordan has now correlated “eternal life” with “the glorified life post-resurrection” and “everlasting life in heaven”. While these are not improper ways to understand “eternal life”, the gospel of John does not view eternal life primarily in an eschatological sense. John primarily sees and describes “eternal life” as the present possession of those who are “believing”. This is true of John’s epistles as well (see especially 1 John 5:11-13 which is tremendously helpful in understanding how John uses “life” and “eternal life” interchangeably as a present possession). Perhaps he is uncomfortable with how this passage could favor my interpretation if eternal life is viewed as a present possession for those who believe, and therefore opts to define “eternal life” in a way rarely used by John.]

"A couple of problems with that:

1. It still doesn’t answer the question, Who will come to Jesus to be regenerated? How does a spiritually dead person decide to get resurrected? Ben believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think he’d say, no spiritually dead person would choose to believe. But as an Arminian, Ben believes in Prevenient Grace. According to this doctrine, before any sinner may savingly believe in Christ, God must first grant a gift of grace that allows that sinner to overcome his totally depraved nature and make that decision from something like neutral ground.

In short, Arminian Ben sees the same dilemma the Calvinist does, in that no carnal man will or can receive the things of the Spirit (specifically, the Gospel of Christ.) Where the Calvinist solves this dilemma with the doctrine of Regeneration, the Arminian solves it with resistible Prevenient Grace. The two doctrines accomplish the same thing: they allow the sinner to obey the demands of the Gospel.

Now, here’s the catch for Ben. If John 5:40’s “life” must include Calvinistic regeneration (since that is the starting point of life in Christ) then why does Prevenient Grace get a pass? Doesn’t the Arminian process of receiving eternal life in Christ begin with Prevenient Grace? If so, then it is just as rightly included in the “life” of John 5:40 as the Calvinist’s doctrine of Regeneration. That is, they both stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ.

So, if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient Grace."

Gordan is really reaching here. His argument simply does not follow and seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of how Arminians view prevenient grace. I do not believe that prevenient grace must be included in “life” as he contends. The new life cannot be given until one exercises the God ordained condition of faith. This is the order presented to us by Jesus in John 5:40. The “come” of 5:40 is synonymous with faith, just as the “come” of John 6:44 is synonymous with faith. Jesus is therefore saying that one gains life through faith. Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith. Prevenient grace is described in John 6:44 as a drawing. The Arminian then sees the ordo salutis as: draw [prevenient grace] --> come [in faith] --> life [regeneration, i.e. the beginning of eternal life and salvation]. This order is supported by comparing John 5:40 with John 6:44 [which is what initially provoked this debate]. The fact that one must first come before one can attain life in John 5:40 makes it impossible for us to understand the drawing of John 6:44 as regeneration. It must, therefore, have reference to prevenient grace as Arminians have always contended. Gordan has done nothing to prove otherwise. He has only succeeded in strengthening the Arminian interpretation by drawing (no pun intended) our attention to John 5:21-24, and 26.

Prevenient grace does indeed “stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ”, but that grace is not the same as regeneration. Prevenient grace enables the sinner to believe unto life. John 5:40 tells us that coming must precede life, and John 6:44 tells us that drawing must precede coming. That is exactly what Arminians believe concerning the ordo salutis and Gordan’s statement that, “…if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient grace” is a painfully obvious case of non-sequintur.

"2. Another problem with saying that Regeneration has to be included in any thought of eternal life, is this: why stop there? I mean, why not go back farther? You have to be alive in the flesh before you can be alive in the Spirit, right? So why not include fleshly life in the “life” of John 5:40? You can’t enter into eternal life by faith while you’re physically dead any more than you can believe without being regenerated. So, surely physical life stands just as vitally at the starting point of life in Christ as Regeneration does. Why include one and not the other, aside from the fact that it seems to help your argument?"

And I thought Gordan was reaching with his last comments. This argument barely deserves an answer. All we need to do is look at the context to understand what kind of life Jesus is referring to in John 5:40. We have done that above, and I am confident that any unbiased reading of the text would reveal that Jesus is speaking of a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life: a spiritual resurrection [i.e. regeneration]. Trying to bring physical life into the text is a desperate attempt to salvage an indefensible interpretation.

"Or why not go all the way back to God’s foreordination before the foundation of the world?"

And now Gordan has really given up the ghost.

"Calvinists would say Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ? So then, Jesus would be saying, “You refuse to come to Me, that you may be predestined.”"

Is Gordan really contending that “real” and “genuine” regeneration in Christ begins at some eternal decree? Wouldn’t that make the elect eternally regenerated? Is this really where Gordan is willing to take us in order to preserve his doctrine? Look at this statement again and let the absurd implications sink in:

“Calvinists would say that Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ?”

Surely Gordan misspoke and didn’t think very carefully about what he was saying since I am quite confident that he doesn’t believe the elect have been regenerated from eternity. I think that it is only fair that we give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

While Gordan’s statement is plainly and painfully ridiculous, he is actually on to something very important when he says, “life in Christ”. It is undisputable that spiritual life resides only in the person of Jesus Christ (John. 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:3, 4). It is just as certain that we come to be in union with Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13; 3:17). The born again believer is truly a “new creature”, but only “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). Gordan’s belief that regeneration precedes faith puts him into the absurd theological position of explaining how someone can be given new life outside of union with the only source of life- Jesus Christ. He must also affirm that a holy God can give life to sinners before the blood of Christ has been applied, since he believes that regeneration precedes justification. His theology forces him to accept the unbiblical view that one can be born again before being forgiven (which is part of what it means to be justified). For more on this please see my post: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

"So this is what I see as the conclusion of the matter, though I am certain others will disagree with me."

…including, I think, most Calvinists.

"As a Calvinist, nothing that John 5:40 says conflicts at all with what I believe is Biblical soteriology."

…which only further demonstrates that his theology controls his exegesis and not the other way around.

"I believe you must come to Jesus to have life. And, ta-da! I remain a five pointer."

…albeit a theologically confused and inconsistent five-pointer.

"The only way this text is a challenge to Calvinism is if you force two things into the text: First, you must force it to include Regeneration when it speaks of eternal life."

No need to force it, just allow the text to speak for itself as has been demonstrated above.

The problem is that there is no good reason to force it that way, and no reason to stop there and not include earlier necessities like Predestination. It can be read in a perfectly harmonious, straightforward manner without that. Second, I think you must conflate Regeneration and Justification. If the two are separate things, this supposed hurdle for Calvinism proves to only be about ankle-high.

The only one who is forcing things into the text is Gordan. The fact that Gordan has to resort to statements about including physical life in the context of John 5 and the absurd idea of eternal regeneration is sufficient proof of that. There is, furthermore, no hint of conflating regeneration and justification in anything I have said. It is true, however, theologically speaking, that justification must precede regeneration. If that were not the case we would have sinners enjoying the new life prior to being forgiven. This may not be the “death knell” of Calvinism, but it should certainly be the “death knell” of the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith.

I appreciate the fact that Gordan and I may never see eye to eye on this subject, but I hope that he will at least admit that his initial charge that my understanding of John 5:40 was not based on sound exegesis was without foundation.

Recommended for further reading:

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Does John 6:44 teach Irresistible Grace?

Does Jesus Teach That Regeneration Precedes Faith In John 3:3, 6?

Fletcher on Being Dead in Sin: Part 1 and Part 2

The Order of Faith And Election in John’s Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep [off site]

Truth and Consequences

In our recent discussion with Triablogue, we debated the issue of the possibility of a true saint falling away and several warning passages in scripture addressed specifically to the saints that warn against the same (from Matthew 5, Hebrews 4, Revelation 22, and to a smaller extent Romans 11). Paul Manata's articles got exceedingly lengthy, and took on a rather odd and insulting tone, but didn't prove very difficult to deal with. Steve Hays attempted to intervene and made at least an intelligible case for the warnings in scripture being only hypothetical, but hits other problems with the questions this concept raises. Listed are the challenge and our latest posts, some of which I quote below.

Original Challenge

Even more cheap insults by Paul Manata

Address on the admonitions in scripture by Hays

My reply to Manata and Hays

Let's look at the practical implications of Hays' argument first. While perhaps explaining a warning being given, the explanation can't fully account for the consequences listed in the warning passages of scripture. Hays writes,

Suppose, though, the libertarian will object that while, as a matter of fact, no driver disregarded the sign, that unless a driver was free to disregard the sign, then the sign would be pointless.

But how does that follow in the least? Suppose the drivers have been brainwashed. Their psychological conditioning is so overpowering that every time they see a warning sign, they take the warning to heart. They are unable to resist their conditioning.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the warning sign has this coercively deterrent effect on the drivers, how would that render the stimulus pointless?

Translation: The warnings are divine shock value, their consequences mere coercion. I'd already factored in this defense into the challenge, concerning which I point out an obvious problem,

All inherent problems aside, even if this were the case and God were simply 'putting us on,' so to speak, for the sake of our living righteously, then is it not better to take the Lord at His word? If God's purpose in giving such warnings was to make us live holy unto Him by indicating that if we walk away from Him, He will cast us away, yet you teach a doctrine that states He would never under any circumstance actually do such a thing, then have you not undone the holy fear which God's word was meant to instill in the hearts of His people and again made it of no effect?

In my latest reply, I add,

The view that the members of Triablogue espouse puts them in a rather awkward position, as when God states 'heed or I shall revoke your part in my kingdom,' their reply is, 'Therefore having our part in God's kingdom revoked is not actually possible under any circumstance by virtue of the fact that God has threatened to do that very thing.' Perhaps as Hays' parallel of stimulus suggests, God preserves the saints by fear of falling away. But if such fear or coercion is His intended purpose in these warnings, then why do Calvinists teach a doctrine that goes directly against any such fear or coercion, which tries to reduce it to no effect in stating that it is not possible for the saints to fall away? I agree that God does indeed spur we who are His on to glory with warnings, but not with hollow threats of Him committing things He would never actually do based on things He won't let happen.

So if God's purpose in issuing warnings with the worst possible consequences is to be compared to bogus, yet highly effective road signs, then how is saying 'Don't worry, those signs are feigned, they're just made to scare you, it's not actually possible for you to fall in' not going against that purpose? Thus even if fear and coercion unto holiness were the sole intent of the consequences in God's warnings to the saints, the teaching of a doctrine that absolutely no saint can fall away directly contradicts such an intent.

Hays tries to defend his view logically,

Even in this case, the sign is still meaningful. Indeed, what the sign says is true. If you were in a position to disregard the sign, and you did so, you would suffer the stated consequences. Conditional statements can be true statements, even if they’re counterfactual statements.

The fact that a hypothetical may never be realized hardly renders it either unintelligible or pointless. Indeed, counterfactuals are a basic feature of moral deliberation. It’s because a hypothetical course of action has certain consequences that we avoid it.

While the logic concerning conditionals is sound, his defense cannot deal with the ends being used to justify such means, since the possibility of lapse from grace is in the estimation of most Calvinists, a serious doctrinal error which they would equate with unfaithfulness on God's part in preserving us. As I'd also stated in the original challenge,

If even the suggestion that a believer could fall from God's grace is a 'false doctrine' or 'Pelagian error', then why does God's holy word testify to that very possibility?

and added in the response to Triablogue,

The very fact that being cut off from Christ is listed as a consequence for not abiding in Him (which is not an obvious impossibility) suggests its possibility; so if scripture makes it so plain that our perseverance is not dependent upon us in the least, and God cannot fail to uphold His end, then why would scripture even bring up the contingency of His failure or unfaithfulness? Why tack on a consequence that plainly constitutes 'heresy?' That is quite beyond incredulity. Are we to seriously believe that God's holy word is touting false and misleading doctrine for the sake of our good practice?

God isn't mumbling crazy impossibilities, heresy, or idle threats into the air to keep us secure. His warnings are true and their consequences are real, for His word is truth (John 17:17). One need only look at the admonitions in scripture to see what the apostles taught concerning security in Christ; to those engrafted Paul writes,

"For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." (Romans 11:21)

But by Triablogue's logic (Triablogic?), folks like us now some kind of false teachers for plainly stating that very thing: "Yes, if you as a saint don't abide, God can and will cut you off!", instead of trying to explain it away with, "Well, while that conditional statement is true, He technically won't ever really cut you off, God's just saying that to deter you...." Apparently, warning actual saints against the possibility of falling away is gospel truth when the apostles proclaim it, but now our affirming the viability of that same truth constitutes deep doctrinal error.