MISREPRESENTING ARMENIANISM BY SOME CALLED ARMINIAN Concerning Arminiuss views on total depravity and total inability, Calvinist R.C. Sproul admits that the language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius. Sproul, naturally, disagrees with Arminius and the Arminians solution to the problem of total depravity and inability, and how it liberates human beings from their bondage to sin; but he, nevertheless, acknowledges that Arminius affirms the ruination of the will [as do all classical Arminians], which is left in a state of captivity and can avail nothing apart from the grace of God.9 Does this mean, then, that fallen people cannot perform a good act? No, for Jesus confesses that evil people know how to give good gifts to those they love (Matt. 7:11; Luke 11:13). Does this mean, then, that fallen people can do anything savingly good? Yes. Arminius and all Arminians affirm that, due to our fallen nature and the lost state of free will toward all spiritual good, due to the darkness of our mind, which is destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and due to the perverseness of the once good affections of the heart, succeeds to the utter weakness of all the powers or ability to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.11 This fact is supported by various scriptures, notably, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Matt. 12:18); we that are evil, how can we speak good? (Matt. 12:34); we cannot come to Christ Jesus except when drawn by the Father (John 6:44); the unregenerate mind is not subject to the law of God, nor has it the innate ability to do so (Rom. 8:7); and we have no innate interest into spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:6-14): To the same purpose are all those passages in which the man existing in this state is said to be under the power of sin and Satan, reduced to the condition of a slave, and taken captive by the Devil (Rom. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:26). So, then, how do we reconcile Libertarian Free Will with total depravity and inability? First, all who hold to the biblical teaching of total depravity and inability do not suggest that fallen human beings are as bad as they could be, by the grace of God. We simply mean that humanity has been affected by the effects of the Fall, in both its physical and metaphysical composition, in every (total) component of ones being. Second, fallen mortals cannot be good enough or do enough good deeds to merit the favor, love, or grace of God. All of our righteous deeds are disgusting and filthy before God (Isa. 64:6); we can do no savingly good act. Apart from Gods grace and mercy, we have no hope. Third, though our will toward spiritual issues was lost in the Fall, we still retain certain abilities, even though they are hampered by the effects of sin -- abilities such as reason, thought, and volition. Our reason remains, though it is darkened by sin; our ability to think remains, though it is tainted by sin; our volition remains, though it has been affected by sin. If an unregenerate individual is to trust in Christ, such ability must be granted to her (cf. John 6:65; Phil. 1:29). Though this ability can be resisted, it is still a sufficient means for enacting faith in Christ. Note that coming to and believing in Christ -- something which an individual does -- depends upon the drawing of the Father (John 6:44); though, the text does not teach that all who are drawn will by necessity come to and believe in Christ. Such a view has less relation to cause and effect than to influence and response, as brilliantly distinguished by Dr. F. Leroy Forlines.12 We do not deny that God could have established humanitys salvation as cause and effect; but we deny that Scripture teaches the doctrine of salvation in such a manner. No one is justified and therefore saved apart from personal and continued faith in Christ Jesus. Hence no one is elected or saved unconditionally. This truth concerns the doctrine of election as well (i.e., those whom God has chosen to save, cf. 1 Cor. 1:21), and leads classical Arminian scholar F. Leroy Forlines to rightly comment: The question that I am concerned about is not whether some constraint is imposed on God outside His will. I do not believe that is the case either. The question is whether His own holy nature forbids him to choose anyone for salvation apart from Christ. Does not His own holy nature forbid Him to choose a person for salvation apart from the application of atonement? Will not His holy nature forbid Him from performing a redemptive act on a person before the death and righteousness of Christ is imputed to him? I think it will. Again, if someone is to trust in Christ, such gracious ability must first be granted to the individual. Only then can someone freely choose to believe. The choice is said to be free because the Spirit of God frees the will from its bondage to sin in order for one to freely choose to believe. Since this gracious ability is resistible, a person may, for whatever reason, choose not to believe, choose to reject this proffered, enabling grace of rightly responding in faith. I think what would be more appropriate to confess is that Arminians believe primarily in freed will more so than free will, with regard to believing in Christ, by the gracious enablement of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) through the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17; 2:4). (See the FACTS regarding the doctrines of grace on the Society of Evangelical Arminians site: Freed to Believe in Gods Grace.) If one admits that God has already predetermined all of our decisions, then we cannot speak of free will in any manner whatsoever, at least, not if words still carry any meaning. We can then only concede to what Dr. Wayne Grudem refers to as the error of fatalism or determinism (though he inconsistently maintains that error) and thus conclude that our choices do not matter or that we cannot really make willing choices -- quite ironic summations given his view that God has predetermined every minutiae of our reality here on earth, including not only our decisions but even our desires!14 Will sin affect what choices we make? That is a possibility, as are chemicals, toxins, emotions, peer pressure, etc. In whatsoever manner the effects of sin may influence our decisions, they do not always, by necessity, determine our decisions, by Gods grace: influence and determination are not synonymous terms and concepts. If the contrary were true, then there could be no semblance of good in the world: people would only choose evil, and fallen human beings would be as bad as they could be. This is not, however, reality. Evil people civilly choose to perform good acts, by Gods grace. Moreover, more often than not, people make decisions based upon more than one option; they possess the libertarian freedom to choose between more than one option. Sometimes they choose poorly and others reap the consequences. However, with regard to sin, which is the chief Arminian concern in the debate between determinism and libertarianism, if God has predetermined by decree an individual to commit sin, giving him or her no other option but to sin -- which is merely consistent Calvinism, in my opinion -- then I find charging God as being the worst and only sinner in the universe the only consistent option, God forbid. Which conclusion grants us one viable answer between two choices: either God has decreed by necessity all that we choose and experience or we maintain some semblance of free will to make our own choices -- again, the choice to trust in Jesus being a gracious response initiated by the Holy Spirit through the gospel of Christ, and not an ability inherent in our fallen nature.
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:08:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015