Why I Am An ArminianPart VI: Convinced by Scripture

In this final post, I'll look at the most important reason for believing any theology: why I think Arminianism is what the Scripture teaches. One thing that you may notice though is that I am not always using specific Scriptural passages, but rather looking at biblical themes. I have found that it is usually true for Arminians to argue thusly, and it is usually true that Calvinists focus on individual texts.

Personally, I find thematic arguments from Scripture to be far more important. Passages can be taken out of context, and as we saw in the last post, I believe that most of the "Calvinist" passages do exactly that. Scripture wasn't meant to be studied piecemeal like that. Most of the books in the Bible were meant to be read as whole works. Even the ones that are compilations (such as Psalms or most of the Prophets) have predetermined sections that should be treated as whole units. To focus in one portion is, to some degree, dishonest to the nature of Scripture. I recognize that we must do it for the sake of practicality in quoting, but it shouldn't be part of our theology building.

It is also important to note that the biblical themes listed here are not sufficient to develop the Arminian position. Arminianism is a theological system which attempts to balance several different themes in Scripture. No where does the Bible explicitly describe Arminianism (though all of its basic points are either explicit,such as universal atonement, or clearly implicit, such as the freedom of the will), so we need to keep that in perspective. In this post, I am not trying to construct Arminianism from the Bible, but I am demonstrating why I believe Arminianism is more consistent with the Bible than Calvinism is.

So here are the basic biblical themes and passages that I think point towards the Arminian position being more biblical:

• Divine Laments
• Imago Dei
• Potter Metaphor
• Universality of Call/Atonement
• Conditionality of Reward/Punishment
• The Corporate Nature of Biblical Election

Divine Laments

There are many divine laments in Scripture. The basic structure of it is that God proclaims that He regrets what it is that His people are doing. Inherent to the structure of most of the laments is the concept that God wanted one thing, yet His people did something else. A short list includes:

• Exodus 32:10
• Number 14:11-12
• Jeremiah 6:9-13
• Jeremiah 7:31
• Jeremiah 13:15-17
• Isaiah 5:1-7
• Matthew 23:37 (and Luke 13:34)

Calvinists argue that everything which happens, God wanted to happen. Indeed, He decreed that it would happen to establish His plans for creation. However, is that really biblical? Though there are many divine laments in Scripture, I would like to focus on a single set (a triad actually) of them from Jeremiah because not only does it cut directly to the heart of my point here, they also are firm proof against the Calvinist position IMO.

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. -Jeremiah 7:31

See also Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35 where Jeremiah repeats the same basic phrase. One question that I must ask is how much clearer does the Bible have to be that there are things which occur that God did not want? I have trouble with a theology that will take a verse like this and say "well it didn't enter into God's revealed mind, but it did enter into God's secret mind". The statement is pretty blunt: "in no way shape or form did I want this to happen." I know that Calvinists must interact with this text somehow, but I seem to just lack the imagination to think of how.

With that said, the entire collection of laments makes a similar point: there are things which happen which God does not want, i.e. God regrets. By regret, I don't mean to imply that God expected anything else, or that God didn't see things coming. He's omniscient. What I mean is that things happened that God didn't want to happen. This seems to me to be a consistent theme throughout Scripture, and especially the prophets. Calvinism must claim otherwise, and the only way to deal with these Scriptures is to argue that somehow God didn't really mean it (whether it be by accommodation theory, or the two will theory).

Back to Top

Imago Dei
What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Let us first consider the term in its original context:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." - Genesis 1:26

It is interesting that the concept of being in God's image is directly tied to the idea of us ruling over the earth. It is very important to understand that God has given humanity responsibility over creation. We are charged with it. In this, we can understand that God's leadership style is that of delegation: He assigns responsibilities to various creatures.

This is not something which is in direct opposition to Calvinism, but it does stand in contrast to the Calvinist definition of Sovereignty (See link). We can see this basic delegation style of leadership in the parable of the vineyard. It is interesting that this seems to be the biblical model of divine sovereignty, yet Calvinist's insist that God must cause all things to happen in order to be sovereign. That simply doesn't make theological sense, and also has no biblical basis. I contend, as with my Arminian siblings in the Lord, that God is sovereign over His sovereignty, and can rule however He wants.

Back to Top

Potter Metaphor

Where does the concept of God being a potter originate from? Does it come from Romans 9? Actually it comes originally from Jeremiah, whose take on the metaphor is actually rather Arminian.

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. - Jeremiah 18:1-10

What Calvinists have right is that the potter metaphor is about God being sovereign. What it is not about though is absolute minute control of all things (something which Calvinists confuse with sovereignty).
The point of the passage and the metaphor is that God is not bound to Israel (indeed, the reverse is true). In the Israelite/God relationship, Israel has all the real obligations. Just because God has established Israel doesn’t mean that Israel is somehow exempt from God's law (amazingly the same point Paul was making in Romans 9-11). This implies... correction: explicitly states, that Israel can go against the will of God. God intends one thing for Israel, and yet something else happens.

This is the principle of "contrary choice": that one can do other than what they are instructed or intended to do. This is also the basic definition of libertarian free will. For those who don't know, libertarian free will is what non-theologians just call free will.

Now, I know what Calvinists would say here: "But there are two wills in God, and just because Israel could go against God's declared will doesn't mean that they could go against His secret will." Now apart from this being one of the most unparsimonious theological ideas ever, I have a couple of problems with this. First, God's secret will is so secret that He has never bothered to tell us it exists, so how do you know it even exists? Second, where in the Bible does it talk about God having two wills? Yes, God keeps some things a secret, but where does it say that God has a secret will which contradicts that which He has told us He wants? Third, I say that if God tells us He wants one thing, and He secretly wants something else, then He is lying to us (since the secret will is always His true will, since that's always the basis for what He does).
Ultimately, the 2 will theory is sophistry: an attempt to avoid texts like this where we do something other than what God wants us to do. I know many Calvinists would disagree, but hey, that's why I'm not a Calvinist.

Back to Top

Universality of Call/Atonement

Ok, time for a bit of prooftexting:

• Isaiah 53:6 - The iniquity of us all was put on Christ.
• Matthew 11:28-30 - Any who come to Christ are welcome.
• Matthew 18:14 - The Father does not wish that any should perish (anti predestined-reprobation).
• John 1:7 - Jesus intended for all, wants all to believe.
• John 1:29
• John 3:16-17
• John 4:42
• John 6:33, 51
• John 12:32, 47
• Romans 3:23-24 - All have sinned and all have access to justification in Christ Jesus.
• Romans 5:6 - Christ died for the ungodly. Since all are ungodly, Christ died for all.
• Romans 5:15 - Since sin spread to all, Christ's atonement is meant for all.
• Romans 10:13 - Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
• II Corinthians 5:14-15 - All died, yet Christ died for all.
• I Timothy 2:3-6 - God desires all men to be saved, and gave Himself for all
• I Timothy 4:10
• Titus 2:11 - God's necessary grace that leads to repentance appears to all.
• Hebrews 2:9 - Jesus tasted death for everyone.
• Hebrews 10:10 - Christ offered once for all.
• II Peter 3:9
• I John 4:14
• I John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not just for believers, but for the whole world.
• Revelation 22:17

Do me a favor and don't take my word for any of those. Go in and look at the context. A proof-text isn't proof unless you know the context, so please look it up before being convinced.

Now, this is why limited atonement is the 5th point in 4 point Calvinism. It is really really difficult to justify in the face of Scripture. Mind you, people manage to do so, but you should never underestimate the creativity of the aptly self-deceived mind (a little saying of mine).

Back to Top

Conditionality of Reward/Punishment (assumed responsibility to the law)

This is one of the primary arguments that all Arminians, indeed all non-Calvinists, use, and there's a reason for that. Calvinists seem to believe that we believe in free will because we want control. I guess this makes sense from those that build their theology on the theme of control. But that isn't the primary issue for Arminians. Instead it is a matter of us being responsible for our sins, and God being true to His word.

It is important to note that this is distinct from us being responsible for salvation, because we aren't. Salvation comes to undeserving sinners by the grace of God. Indeed, both Calvinists and Arminians agree on these two basic points: we are responsible for sins and God is responsible for salvation.

However, one basic quality that is necessary (though not sufficient) for responsibility is the ability to do otherwise. It is inherit within the definition of responsibility, and Calvinists believe that human sinners could not have done otherwise.

But when we look at how the law is phrased in Scripture, we get a clear sense that conditionality is built into the law. The Jews were expected to do right, and not to do wrong. This implies some measure of free will.
I'll give Calvinists the point that implication is not the same thing as the Bible actually saying it. However, the idea that God expects someone who He commands to do something to have the ability to do it... is just a common sense reading of the text. You can try and get around this by man-made philosophical ideas like Calvin's accommodation theory (God needed to dumb things down for us... because He couldn't predestine us to understand) or the modern day two-will theory (God really wants us to do good, but really really wants some of us to not do good so He can demonstrate how just He is by condemning us), but none of these theories coincide with the simple reading of the text.

This idea of "the plain sense of Scripture" is known as perspicuity. The most perspicuous reading is not always the most "literal" (whatever that means) but the one which conforms most easily to the common sense of text, especially how it would have been understood by its original hearers. So let us consider the perspicuous reading of the following verses:

• Deut 11:26-28: See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.
• Josh 24:15: And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
• Jeremiah 21:8: And to this people you shall say: 'Thus says the LORD: Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death.
• Ezekiel 18:30-31: Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

(Again, please check the context of these verses. Do not take my word for it)

So, were the Israelites capable of doing other than what they indeed did? That is the question. In these cases, we see that God gives conditional demands, and then explains what He will do in one case, and what He will do in another. I don't see how someone can argue that the original hearers would understand this to mean, "Those who I preordain to do good, I will reward. Those who I preordain to do bad, I will punish." Anyone reading the plain sense of these texts will see this as a king's edict to His people, explaining how His government works. No king issues decrees explaining how and why he is doing things. He issues decrees on how he expects his subjects to behave.

It is interesting to me how the Calvinist definition of sovereignty fails to coincide with the common sense meaning of the word in English, or in any language for that matter. Likewise, they are forced to take such texts as these, and create some kind of interpretive framework within which they can be placed. However, as an Arminian, I can just take them as they are.

Back to Top

The Corporate Nature of Biblical Election

N. T. Wright and the New Perspective of Paul have done a lot in the area of election recently. It is important to note that election is a very minor theme in the New Testament (which raises the question as to why Calvinists focus on it). This means that it is rather inappropriate to try and form our understanding of election from a few isolated passages.

However, in the Old Testament, election is all over the place, if you take the time to remember that 'elect' and 'chosen' mean the same thing. In "My Basic Stances" (see top of page) I discuss my fundamental hermeneutical assumption (the basic idea upon which I base Biblical interpretation): that one should form a basic worldview from the Old Testament, and then allow the events and words of Christ to come in and challenge, reshape, and edify that worldview. Therefore, when building a biblical theology in regards to any subject, we are to first construct a basic understanding of that subject from the Old Testament, and then see how that subject is modified by the New Testament.

Election is no exception to this. It is interesting to note that there are no Old Testament passages on election that teach a concept of personal unconditional election to salvation. They don't exist (I don't really think they exist in the New Testament either, but I recognize that there are a couple that "sound" like they do [see last post]).

It is also important to note that within the New Testament, the concept of election is never explicitly laid out. Indeed, an understanding of election seems to be assumed within the texts, especially within Romans and Ephesians. As such, we must rely on the Old Testament to define the concept, and then see if it can be imported into the New Testament texts.

What results is some sense of corporate election: that God operates by choosing a singular man through whose line a people will be defined as God's people. In the Old Testament, this chosen one was Abraham; in the New Testament, it is Jesus. Thus, by being in Christ, i.e. the nation of Christ, we become part of the chosen: the chosen people of God.

More can be said on this of course, but if the biblical language of election refers to this corporate sense of election, rather then the defining tenant of Calvinism (individual unconditional election unto salvation) is void of any biblical support. Though I would not say that corporate election is a defining attribute of Arminianism, since it wasn't even held by Arminius itself, it is compatible with Arminianism. With Calvinism, though it does not contradict Calvinism, it does remove all sense of Scriptural support, making Calvinism nothing more than a free-floating man-made philosophy.

Back to Top

Why I Am An ArminianPart V: Unconvinced by Prooftexts

Here I intend to go through certain Scriptural arguments that I have heard from Calvinists, as well as providing links to more extensive examination of them. In the post after this, I'll look at the Scriptural arguments for Arminianism which I think are quite solid:

• Romans 9
• Ephesians 1
• Romans 8:29
• Ephesians 2:8
• John 6
• Acts 13:48

Romans 9

Romans 9:8-24: This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

First, may I offer the traditional Calvinist interpretation. In the interpretation, the offspring of God are God's elect. Isaac and Jacob are examples of God's unconditional election and Ishmael, Esau and Pharaoh are examples of God's unconditional reprobation, as made evident by the fact that Jacob was chosen before Jacob and Esau were born, and the quote from Exodus. The potter metaphor is then employed to show that reprobation and election are God's creative purposes for individual people. Therefore, this is a glorious example of the might of God's sovereignty.

In all of this, I have to agree with one thing: this passage is about God's sovereignty. Paul's argument indeed is that God has the right and the power to do what He will, and to elect as He will. However, the problem with the above interpretation is that it does not properly engage with the OT references being made, and it does not properly appreciate the passage within its greater context in Romans.

First of all, Paul's thesis in all of Romans is to be found in Chapter 1, verse 16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. " Paul's thesis is concerning what the gospel is: the means of God's saving grace. This thesis contains two parts. First, this grace is dispensed by faith, or belief. The second is that this grace is extended to everyone, both Jew in Gentile. Though he treats both sides of this thesis throughout the book, in Chapters 1-8, Paul is focusing on his first point. This is where you get the comparison's between faith and works.

But in chapter 9, and extending through chapter 11, Paul shifts topics and begins to focus on his second point: the inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation. If this is the case, why does Paul start with a discussion of God's sovereignty?

Well, he doesn't. Paul starts his argument back in verse 1, and it is verses 1-7 that provide the necessary context for understanding what Paul is saying. He starts with a beautiful description of Israel's elective status (verse 1-5) and then shifts gears, arguing that the present inclusion of the Gentiles by faith (his point from chapters 1-8) does not mean that God failed by choosing Israel. He is talking about what it means to be the elect people of God.

It is important here that we understand that by election, the Scripture is talking about the election of nations. This is evident if we assume that Paul is not taking these verses out of context. The first verse referring to Jacob and Esau reads: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger." It is important to note that Esau never served Jacob, but Edom did serve Israel and it is only if we take this to be nations that we recognize that it was fulfilled. Additionally, the second quote from Malachi 1 is directly talking about God's historical commitment to Israel over Edom, not about the two individuals.

Thus it is important to note that the text is not trying to describe unconditional election, but is in fact denying election by lineage. The Jews thought that they were elect by birth and justified by works. In other words, the entered the covenant by birth, and maintained it by works. Paul's original thesis makes this clear. These examples are not examples of God choosing Isaac and Jacob, but examples of God not choosing Ishmael and Esau (as well as their descendants), even though they were sons of Abraham.

Thus, when we come to verse 14, this protest is not spoken by an Arminian or a Pelagian. These are not categories that Paul was familiar with (nor was Calvinism). Instead, this protest comes from the incensed Jew who was discovering that his lineage wasn't providing him with an in.

For more on Romans 9, view my thoughts and some links here and thoughts from Arminius here. Also, I found that one of the most fantastic and in-depth works I've seen on the subject is Brian Abasciano's doctoral thesis.


Back to top

Ephesians 1

Ephesians 1:3-12: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, for we are blessed in all spiritual blessings, in the heavenly things, in Christ, seeing that He chose us in Him before the inception of the world to be holy and unblemished within His presence in love, thus predestining us into adoption to Him through Jesus Christ, according to the good judgment of His will in praise of His glory and His grace by which He favoured us in the Loved One.

In Him, we have redemption through His blood: the excusing of sins according to the abundance of His grace which He teemed into us in all wisdom and understanding having revealed to us the secret of His will, according to His good judgment, which, through Christ, was preplanned for managing the fulfillment of times in order to coalesce all things in Christ throughout the heavens and the earth.

Furthermore, in Him we have been chosen by lot (being predetermined according to the plan by which all things are worked out and according to the purpose of His will) to be who we are, for the praising of His glory; we who first hoped in Christ.

This is my own translation.

To be perfectly fair, I totally get why Calvinists find this passage so convincing. In fact, I will say that this is the strongest passage the Calvinists have. However, I remain unconvinced. Why? Because nothing uniquely Calvinist is actually stated here.

I mean, sure, Paul talks about election, but he never defines it as being unconditional. He talks about predestination, but he never claims that God predestined everything that ever came to pass. Most Calvinists I have interacted with seem to believe that the mere mentioning of either election or predestination is enough to prove Calvinism. However, Arminianism confirms both of these concepts, and thus has no problem with the text at all.

However, there are a couple of other factors why I believe that this doesn't, in the end, serve as a Calvinist prooftext. First, the context is not doctrinal but liturgical. Paul isn't trying to lay down a foundation on the doctrines of predestination and election. Instead, he is using the concepts of predestination and election to praise God for the inclusion (or predestining) of the Gentiles in election.

Second, this text does not apply directly to all Christians (though indirectly it does). The text above is directly talking about the election of the Jews. God predestined the Jews to be the sons of God on this earth, and to establish them to be who the are. This is evident in verse 13 where Paul directly contrasts the "we" in the above verses with the Ephesians themselves. The text only applies to us in the sense that we are now given something that we didn't have before: inclusion in the promises of the Jews.

Third, the central themes here are also not election and predestination. Instead, they are revelation, redemption, and the dominion of Christ. When you begin to try and make this text to be a proof-text for Calvinism, you lose sight of Paul's heart.

Finally, to believe in unconditional election undermines Paul's whole point in the book of Ephesians. Paul makes his point most clearly in 3:5-6: In former generation this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Remember the paragraph in chapter 1. Paul was talking directly about the promises and the inheritance. This is because this was something that belonged only to the Jews, and now such divisions have been cast down. That wall of separation between the elect and the reprobate has been torn down and the two peoples have been made one by faith. However, in the Calvinist system, the wall isn't brought down, but merely moved. There isn't now one people, but two simply defined differently. This is simply not what Paul was talking about.

I have more thoughts on Ephesians here, and I highly recommend this articles as well: The New Perspective and Ephesians and Divine Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1.


Back to top
Romans 8:28

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

OK, this is one of the silliest proof-texts that Calvinists use. First question, what does this text teach? It teaches that when bad things happen to God's people, God will take that bad thing, and turn it into something good. And an Arminian and a Calvinist both believe in this concept so this isn't a point of contention at all.

The difference is how we understand how God does this. For the Calvinist, they believe that when a bad thing happens to the elect, God caused it to happen in order to accomplish something good later on. In other words, all bad things have a good reason. This interpretation isn't in the text, but it doesn't contradict it either.

For the Arminian, we believe that though God punishes and chastises His people to correct them, no truly bad thing has an origin within Him. However, due to human sinfulness in the world, bad things do happen, but He is here with you through it, and ultimately He is in control and everything will turn out alright. It is also important to note that this interpretation also doesn't contradict the text. Thus the text cannot be considered a Calvinist proof-text at all.

I would also argue that the Arminian view is the plain sense interpretation of the text. If you look at the context, it is eschatological in view. The next couple of verses list all of the blessings that Christians receive from God (listed with a crescendo order, not a chronological order), ending in glorification which is the greatest in the list. Thus the basic sense of the text is that though bad things happen, we are going to be glorified, and that far exceeds any present pain or trouble. Any interpretation that doesn't have this sense as its base is taking the verse out of context.


Back to top
Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 For you see it is from grace that you have been saved through faith; not from yourself. This is a gift of God, not from works so that none may boast.

Ah yes, we are all familiar with this verse. I think it is important to understand what Paul's theology is here really. It is important to note that the basic clause of the first sentence is "you have been saved through faith". Everything else in that first sentence, and even the entire above passage, relies on us understanding that this is the basic view that Paul has about the salvation process. Indeed, the fact of salvation by faith isn't even Paul's point; it is Paul's assumption.

Paul's point is that the fact that salvation is through faith instead of works is something worth celebrating. It is the fact that salvation is through faith instead of works that is a gift from God, and the cause of any boasting being void. When we remember that God has the sovereign right to decide upon what terms He is going to base salvation, and then realize that humans would expect it to be based upon works (hence every man-made religion doing so), we can then recognize how gracious it is for God to base it upon something as simplistic as faith!

And faith here doesn't simply mean mentally believing something. It is talking about utter reliance and trust on Christ. This is why it is impossible to boast about faith, because the very nature of faith is relenting our own power and abilities. It is saying, "I give up. Christ, You do it." Who can boast in that?

For more, please see this article on "the gift of God", and And I casually treat it in this article. 


Back to top
John 6:25-71

John 6:36-40 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44-45 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

I used an excerpt here because, although all passage is in purview here, these are the texts that Calvinists focus upon, and I am trying to be brief (though I know I am failing :)).

Quick run-down of the Calvinist interpretation (this is an oversimplification): The text is distinguishing between those that follow Jesus and those that do not. To be given to the Son implies that the Father unconditionally elected them and then gave them to the Son. Indeed this is emphasized with the word 'draw' in verse 44 which implies being dragged against your will and is thus a picture of irresistible grace. Therefore the point of the passage is the futility of these Jews trying to come to Jesus on their own, and Christ is telling them that they can't because the Father isn't drawing them.

The good thing about this interpretation: John 6 is one of the most enigmatic speeches that Christ ever gave, and most of us need some kind of model in order to even begin to understand what Jesus is saying here. The Calvinism interpretation, for all intents and purposes, works. It explains the oddities in the text while being consistent with itself.

The problem: While Calvinism easily answers many of our questions about John 6, it is purely eisogetical, not exegetical. In other words, Calvinism can be offered as a comprehensible explanation for the text, but one cannot claim that one can derive Calvinism from the text. The two terms in discussion here are never defined within the context, and are not even at the heart of what Jesus is saying. Therefore, it can't be a proof-text for Calvinism at all. There is a basic apologetic confusion here. Just because your position has an answer, it doesn't guarantee that your position is the answer.

Here's what the Calvinists get right. John six is absolutely differentiating between those that come to Jesus and those that don't. But the distinction being made is not one of unconditional election, but previous devotion. The disciples and others that are coming to Jesus during Jesus' ministry are doing so because they already are devoted to the Father and because of this recognize the Father in Christ. Those that don't come were never really committed to the Father to begin. Thus the call to them is repent.

If you think about it, it is kind of odd that Christ would waste this much time to convince the crowd that they didn't have a chance of coming to salvation. Saying that He said it so that it would be written and we could understand doesn't answer this either. He could have easily have explained things (clearer I might add) to the disciples when they were alone to accomplish that. Additionally, why did He say it so bizarrely?

This makes more sense if we see that Christ is trying to convince these people to look beyond their physical wants and needs and to focus on heavenly things. The entire rhetoric of the passage is Christ pushing them to go beyond their understanding, and to truly commit to God. Why would Jesus do this if they could not be saved?

Therefore, we understand the terms "be given to" to refer to the Father already having them in possession, and giving them over to Jesus. Indeed, "be given to" can only refer to this point in Jesus' ministry because of how Christ uses the term in John 17 (note the transition in verse 20). The term "to draw" doesn't refer to irresistible grace, but to the Father having taken possession of them. In other words, the Father must have them first. The resistibly is just never discussed.

For more details on John 6, I have a fuller breakdown of my thoughts here, Richard Coords has a good break down of the Calvinist argument, Daniel Whedon's commentary is a good read, and Eric Landrstrom's work.


Back to top
Acts 13:48

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Here I used the KJV because the source of this being a prooftext for Calvinism has to do with the KJV translating tasso as 'ordained'. This is also what makes this verse easy to counter. The word tasso doesn't mean 'ordain'. It means 'to set' or 'to position'.

That's not the only problem. It also completely betrays the construction of the Greek text. The Greek runs as follows:

kai (and) episteusan (believed[aorist {or past} tense]) hosoi (as many as[nominative {subject}]) esan (were [verb]) tetagmenoi (positioned [nominative particple]) eis (into) zoen (life[direct object]) aionion (eternal[adjective])

The word order doesn't work in English, so there's nothing wrong with it being rearranged, but when you are interpreting a sentence, you first look for the verb, and then the subject. This sentence has two verbs ('believed' and 'were'), and two subjects('as many as' and 'positioned').

Let's talk a little about the participle. In English the participle (-ing) usually is used as an adjective: "This is a boring book", though occasionally it can be used as a noun (such as "human being") or present tense verb ("I am going to the store"). In Greek, it is usually used as a noun, usually meaning a thing which is defined by the action ("For the asking will receive, the seeking will find, and the knocking will have the door open for them"- Matthew 7:8). It is important that the past tense participle form of tasso is being used here as a noun (tetagmenoi), meaning "those who are positioned".

Given all of this, the common sense reading will assign the first subject with the first verb, and the second subject with the second verb. Therefore we would get this: "And as many who believed; the positioned in eternal life were." Well, that doesn't really make sense. However, with the verb 'to be' in the Greek, if the verb is being used to equate two things as the same, both words can be in the nominative form (i.e. the subject). Therefore it would read: "And as many who believed were those positioned in eternal life" or "And ones who believed were the ones that were set in eternal life". This is really the best rendering.

As such, we can see that the text doesn't blatantly say whether the positioning or the believing came first. It merely equates the two things: if you believe, then you are positioned in eternal life. Additionally, belief being mentioned first makes it the primary point of the text. Considering all of this, I find it very difficult to believe that Luke was trying to argue that "everyone there who God had predestined to have eternal life began to believe that day". That is really not doing the text justice. The text is clearly arguing that "everyone who believed that day was set to live eternally". If anything, the text simply implies that eternal life comes by faith.

For more on this text see Joseph Benson's commentary (highlight here), Dr. Whitby's Discourses on the 5 Points (highlight here), and this nice commentary on Wesley's thoughts.


Back to top

Christmas according to John (repost)

Many believe that there are only two tellings of the Christmas story in Scripture: Luke 3, and Matthew 1-2. But there is a third telling: John chapter one.

In the beginning was the Word, andthe Word was with God, andthe Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, andthe life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. -John 1:1-17

I do not want to take away from the greatness of the other Christmas stories in Scripture, but this is my favorite out of the three, and it saddens me that it is often forgotten. It may not give historical details of his birth, but it says most clearly the heart of why we celebrate on Christmas.

The focus of Christmas isn't that Jesus was once born. I have often asked people why Christmas is important and their answer is that it needed to happen for Jesus to get to Calvary. Well, that is true, but there were a great number of things that needed to happen for that, and we don't celebrate them all.

The reason we celebrate Christmas is the reason that John gives: The Word of God became flesh. The light of God came to men. That the Holy God thought it good to come down to Earth and get His hands dirty with our mess. That is something worthy of celebration.

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

It is very important to contemplate what John means by 'the Word'. The brilliance of it though, is that John means a great many things by 'the Word'. But I believe that its primary meaning is to tell us the primary aspect of the economy of the 2nd person of the Trinity: He is God's self-disclosure to humanity. He is what God has "said" about Himself, and the source of our understanding of Him.

This says a many things about the Word. The Word existed at the beginning of things. The Word was God's means of creating the world. That the Word is distinct from God, but is yet God Himself (hence Trinity).

It also says that the Word is the source of life and light to humanity. Light is a major theme in John's gospel, introduced here. For now, he speaks merely of its strength, and how it can overcome darkness. Like the term "word", light here refers not the concept of goodness, but to the concept of revelation. The light reveals the things in the dark. John will describe this in more detail later.

John 1:6-8

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The introduction of John the Baptist is a curious addition to the story. Its introduction here is to deal with a common Jewish theory at that time, which was that John the Baptist was the Messiah. Here the Apostle dispels that theory, and claims that it was John the Baptist's purpose to point to the Light. The other reason has to do with the Apostle's claim that the John the Baptist himself was sent by God, and to dispel any erroneous thoughts that might suggest. However, this also serves as an introduction to John the Baptist himself, whose role in coming of Christ will later be revealed.

John 1:9-13

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is where John goes into more detail about the light. Again, by enlighten it means reveals things. This light came into the world that rejected and hated Him, and was even hated by His own people. But He came anyway, knowing this out of love so that we may become children of God. Those who become children are those that receive Him, those that believe in His name. Even here we have the NT emphasis that salvation isn't just to the Jews, but to any who may believe. Salvation does not merely come to those who it is "supposed to come", but it comes to whoever may believe for God is no respecter of persons.

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And this is what makes this a Christmas story. This is the celebration of Christmas: that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He ate like us, bathed like us, smelled and spoke and walked like us. And now we can know who God is, because we have witnessed the Son and have seen His glory.
However, John's point here of having seen the glory of the Son is to testify that Yeshua truly is the Son of God. John knows that He is the Son of God, for John has indeed seen his glory, being an eyewitness to the Word, and therefore we know this testimony that he is setting forth is true.

John 1:15-17

John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Bearing speaking again of the Baptist gives further proof to John's testimony.

But what is most interesting is the comparison between Moses and Yeshua. The gospel of John is very Jewish, and one of his concerns is to understand the coming of the Son of God in light of the first century Jewish world view. How he, and the other apostles I might add, do this is by recognizing that in Moses we have been given the Law, the understanding of righteousness and God's justice. But in Yeshua the Christ we God graciousness and the fullness of God's mind. For though God is far above us and we cannot see Him, He has made Himself known to us through Yeshua the Christ!

For this reason I say Merry Christmas, and to challenge you to take the time and think about what it means for the Word to become flesh, for the true God of glory to come to us, even when we were yet sinners, knowing full well what the end of His time on Earth would bring.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Amen.

For original post, see here.

Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians

I just finished Dr. Olson's book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God's character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:

Molinism... is the belief that God possesses "middle knowledge" -- knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom -- freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does -- but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]

Molinism wasn't originally conceived to support Calvinism, but Semiaugustian (which similar to Arminianism). However, some Calvinists have attempted to use it nonetheless. Again Olson explains:

In order to assure that the sin God wants to happen does happen without him being its direct cause of responsible for it (in a guilty sense), God simply places the creature in a situation where he knows the creature will develop a controlling motive of his own accord and act sinfully out of it. [Ibid]

None of this is new to me. Olson does a very good job of explaining why this concept doesn't work (essentially no matter how much space you put between the cause and the effect, if the cause makes the effect definite, it is culpable). Still, as I was reading this I remembered this verse:

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. -1 Corinthians 10:13

This is exactly the opposite of what a Molinist Calvinist claims. According to Scripture, God will never tempt you beyond what you are capable of resisting. According to the Molinist Calvinist, God determines the limits of what you are capable of resisting, and then intentionally tempts you in that exact way, when that sin would be for His glory of course.

I wonder how regular Calvinism would deal with this verse as well. The very fact God always provides a way of escape strongly implies, if not describes, the concept of contrary choice (i.e. libertarian free will): the capacity to have done other than what you actually do. If God forces you to sin (and yes Calvinists, I said "force". Just own it), then how does He also give you a way out? I don't think it makes sense.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOOD: Being Naughty

Children are so innocent, aren't they? Well, no they aren't. One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that we are all born with a predisposition to sin. It is very easy to see that as a parent.

Now I've met kids before. I've never been ignorant that kids are sometimes bad. Everyone knows that kids misbehave. What has really been incredible for me is how quickly they figure it out. It is so instinctual.

The first rule that my son learned was to not touch the trash can. Often my wife or I are doing dishes in the kitchen, or maybe preparing food for him or us, and he's running around the kitchen playing. Every once and a while, he was wonder over to the trash can and try and touch it. We would tell him "no" and if he tried to touch it again, we would move him away. Eventually he learned that the trash can was off limits.

However, it is important to note how I knew he knew it was off limits. It wasn't that he started to stay away from it. It was that he started to watch me when he was about to touch it. His first overt act of sin immediately followed when he first became aware of a rule.

Paul says:

Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. -Romans 7:7a-8

When Paul says, "sin lies dead" he does not mean that sin doesn't exist apart from the law, but that sin is inactive with it, for transgression needs something to transgress. We see this in our children, where often the rules we create to protect them and teach them end up becoming the very source of their misbehavior.

So all we can do as parents is to keep trying, and to teach our children that laws are there for a reason. We need to teach them to trust in the laws that we give them, and hopefully they will learn to trust the one from whom all justice and righteous comes.

Corporate Election Analogies

Baseball

I wrote on this analogy a couple of years ago, but it is worth repeating. For many, corporate election doesn't make sense because groups, or certain kinds of groups, aren't real entities. James White once referred to it as a "impersonal nebulous group" in his debate with Michael Brown. This doesn't quite make sense considering that the group is formed through personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but I digress.

My point of the baseball analogy is that one can in fact elect groups, and have personal connection to both the group and to the members of the group in a way that makes sense. So I use something which is very familar: the election of one's sports team, in this case baseball.

My father grew up on Staten Island, which is Yankees territory, and seeing how I fell in love with baseball watching it with my father, naturally I am a Yankee fan. But I didn't choose a bunch of players, and then thoe players were my team. I chose a group.

And it isn't like I have no attachment to the players either. But my attachment to Jeter or Petite is due in part to their being Yankees. It is a natural part of being a baseball fan.

Not it is not exactly the same thing. That's what makes it an analogy. The sole point that I am making here is that electing corporately does make sense, and an individual being part of that group recieves affection through the group.

Old Testament: Rahab

Now I want to talk about two biblical examples of corporate election unto physical salvation. These go beyond simply being analogies to being examples of how corporate election works. They are only analogous in the sense that they are physical salvation instead of spiritual salvation.

Onto my OT example:

Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you. Give me a sure sign that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and that you will save us from death." "Our lives for your lives!" the men assured her. "If you don't tell what we are doing, we will treat you kindly and faithfully when the LORD gives us the land." -Joshua 2:12-14

If I were to ask you why Rahab was saved, what would you answer? It is rather simple really. She was saved because she preserved the spies. So what is corporate about her salvation? Not much.

But let us think a little broader than this. Let's say that Rahab had a brother, let's call him Achrahab. What about Achrahab's fate? He was saved as well. So why was Achrahab saved? Answer: because of his relationship to Rahab. In this way, Rahab operates as a corporate head, and all those connected to her are saved corporately. Achrahab did nothing to deserve his salvation. All he did was when his sister came to him and told him to stay in her room, he trusted her. That's it.

Now Achrahab could have ignored his sister. He could have said, "Sis, you're crazy. I need to help in the defense of the city." Perhaps she had some relatives who did precisely that. But instead he trusted his sister and stayed with her. So he was saved, not because of anything that he had done, but because of what his sister did.

This is how salvation works. We are not saved because of what we have done, but because of what Christ did, and our salvation comes by us being with Him. It is in this what that salvation is in Christ, by Christ, and from Christ.

New Testament: Paul in the Boat

But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of [any man's] life among you, but of the ship. -Acts 27:21-22

This is an interesting little analogy/example. Considering that we are talking about election, and election presumes that there are other options as far as people who could be saved, we have to ask how this is an example of election. In can be answered by framing the context with this question: why does God save the people of this boat, and not those who are on other boats which are caught in similar storms? In this case, it is for the preservation of Paul, thus an election unto salvation of a group through association with one member of that group, Paul.

One of the things which makes this example really worth talking about is what Paul says later:

And fearing that we might run on the rocks, they let down four anchors from the stern and prayed for day to come. And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship's boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow, Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go. -Acts 27:29-32

This talks a little bit about eternal security, or, as it is often refered, OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). A large portion of the texts that advocates of OSAS point at deal with the group at large, and yet there are texts is Scripture which directly warn or discuss individual who fall away from the faith. Here we see a similar kind of comparison. Paul initially says that no one's life will be lost, then he says that anyone who leaves the group would die. Was Paul wrong earlier?

No, and here's why. Initially he was expressing God's promise, and God's promise was to the group. Once someone leaves the group, the promise no longer applies, hence the apparent contradiction. Likewise, our security isn't in some unknown decree where are names are individually listed, but instead our security is in Christ Himself, and as long as we remain in Christ, our salvation is secure.

This concludes my recent run of posts relating to corporate election. I hope you found it enjoyable and elucidating.

Faith as the Evidence of Things Unseen

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1

I have often heard this verse used to define faith as believing in something without evidence. In fact, the NIV rendering has that feel. However, I don't really believe that is what the verse is pointing to.

If you look at the context, the author of Hebrews isn't discussing what faith is, but what faith does. It is by their faithfulness to God that God is pleased by the saints of the OT. It is by faith that those things that we hope for comes to pass.

The word translated as 'substance' above is the Greek word 'hypostasis', which literally means substance. It refers to the fundamental aspect of something; its core, its foundation, its essence. Thus faith makes those things which we hope for manifest. It brings them into reality.

The word translated as 'evidence' is the Greek word 'elegchos' which is derived from 'elegcho' which means "to convict or try". Thus 'elegchos' is a legal term referring to those proofs by which a conviction is made. It can also refer to the conviction itself. However, the meaning "conviction" is unlikely considering that when it is used in this sense it is meant in a condemning sense. However, there is nothing condemning about faith. Therefore it is far more likely that "proof" or "evidence" is more likely. So what does it mean to be "the evidence of things unseen"? It means it is by faith that the unseen things are tested for validity.

If you think about it, all of this makes sense. Faith is essentially trust. You can have faith in seen things and unseen things, but irregardless of what it is you have faith in, your faith is the basis upon which you act. I sit on a chair because I trust that chair to support my weight. I married my wife, in part, because I had faith that she would be true to me.

Therefore, when I have faith in something hoped for or unseen, I act on that faith. If what I hope for is valid, then my actions will bring it about. When that happens, it becomes evidence for acting on it in the future. Indeed, if we look at the rest of Hebrews 11, we do not see saints who hold onto their faith despite evidence, such as Job or Joseph (in the prison). Instead we see men who acted based on their faith in what God had told them and who changed the world through those actions.

This is essentially a call for anecdotal evidence. Paul is calling us to go out and live out our faith for the sake of collecting that anecdotal evidence for the gospel. You want to convince people of the truth of God? Go out and live it. When you do, you will receive confirmation after confirmation of God working in your life that you can then use to tell people of the faithfulness of God. Each day, each moment we have an opportunity to demonstrate the wonders of God if we choose to live His way.

So go out and spread the word by living out the word. As James said, show people your faith by what your faith can do.

A Primer Which Doesn't Prime

I was going to write a second post on Corporate election, but I am postponing it to look at something which Alpha and Omega Ministries has recently put out. He calls it a primer though it is more like propaganda. A primer for a debate should lay out both positions simply in the way in which the respective parties would approve. SEA has attempted to do just that with our own primer. However, Kurschner has absolutely failed in this regard. Indeed, I would suspect that this is simply supposed to poison the well for anyone new to the debate. So I am going to examine this primer to see how it really holds up to scrutiny:

The "Calvinist vs. Arminian" debate is substantially a debate between what is called "synergism" and "monergism." There is no third option (unless one is willing to affirm Pelagianism). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is a primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are two very different ways for believers to view how their salvation was brought about.

Right away it is already apparent that Kurschner and I are starting in different places. First of all, I consider Pelagianism to be a form of monergism. It is merely the opposite extreme as the Calvinist position. I define the terms historically, looking back at the original Pelagius/Augustine debate where their positions both were monergistic, and the two beliefs that followed, Semipelagianism and Semiaugustinianism, were synergistic. I view the synergist theologies to be middle ground positions, while the monergist positions were the extreme positions (or the more pure positions, depending on how you want to spin it).

This is problematic given Kurschner's uses of the terms. Ignoring the differences in our definitions of "monergism", considering his is more commonly used than mine, his framing the debate as monergism vs. synergistic erroneously conflates Semipelagianism and Semiaugustinianism.

It is equally erroneous to attempt to say that the A&C debate encompasses the two perennial branches of Christian theology. What about Catholics? Or the EOC? What about Pentecostalism vs. Cessetionism which divides Christian along a different line? There are others as well. What about the Piest tradition? The Baptist tradition? It is true that the Augustinian and Semiaugustinianism positions represent the two trains of trains of thought on soteriology within Christian orthodoxy, but while it is likely that this is what he meant, it is suspicious for someone of Kurschner's credentials to make such a reduction within a work which is supposed to be introductory.

In general, the first type (the Arminian-Synergist) affirms what is called "synergism." Synergists believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

First of all, this definition of synergism is quite flawed. While I fully admit that, given my historically based definition of the word, Arminians are synergist, we are not given this definition. First of all, Arminians at least do not believe that humanity's role in salvation is "necessary" (note how he even takes the time to italicize this word). Indeed, one of our main points is that God's plan for salvation is not necessary. It shocks me that Kurschner would be either this ignorant or malevolent to suggest this (as those are really the only options). Heck, historically Arminians have often referred to Calvinists as necessitarians precisely because we reject the notion that things are necessary. It is Calvinists who view things as necessary, not us.

Second, he is clearly intentionally implying that we view the human will as a force which rivals God, which is also clearly wrong. The power of the human will only exists and only continues to exist by the will of God.

To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). Synergists will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

Again, gross misunderstanding. The human will is autonomous, but in order to do good it is dependant on the Holy Spirit. This is simply putting the cart before the horse. Imagine a wounded solider who can barely stand. A lieutenant comes over and lifts him up, puts the soldier's right arm across his shoulders, and supports him as they walk across the field. Apparently Kurschner would view the lieutenant as the dependant one in this scene.

Additionally, man's will is not necessary for regeneration to be effective, but that God chooses to only regenerate the faithful. Man cannot even be faithful without grace! It is by grace through faith that we are saved, and apparently Kurschner forgets that Sola Fide is just as important as Sola Gratia.

It could be said that synergists are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

As I said before, I am comfortable with the label, though I reject Kurschner's definition. The reason why many Arminians reject the label is because of Calvinist straw men like this one that Calvinists use the label for.

The second group of believers (the Calvinist-Monergist) affirm what is called “monergism.” Monergists believe that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

I don't have any issues with how monergism is defined here, other than comparative implications, but I've already talked about where he states those implications explicitly, so I won't belabor the point.

In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear, hoping that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

OK, let me explain a few things. First, Arminians don't claim that the Holy Spirit "merely whispers in the hardened sinner's ear", but instead we claim that the Holy Spirit irresistibly quickens the will of the hardened sinner enabling them to have faith. However, He does not irresistibly cause them to have faith itself. This is standard Arminianism.

Second, the Protestant concept of Grace Alone is that salvation cannot be earned by good works, pursued through sacraments, or bought by way of venerated objects, and that humans cannot take the initiative. Arminians affirm this. The Calvinist idea that grace alone must require no human reaction to grace is extreme and unnecessary.

Third, Faith precedes regeneration.

He quotes three verses and for the purposes of this analysis I will only discuss them very briefly. Ephesians 2:4-5 is discussed in the link above, and also I have briefly treated the verses myself here.

John 1:12-13 is odd to me since it explicitly says that regeneration comes to those who believed in His name. Thus to me, it seems to support faith preceding regeneration. When one focuses on the highlighted section, we see that Kurschner is taking the concept of "not by human decision" to mean "not faith". However, faith doesn't cause regeneration, so I don't think his interpretation even applies. However, I don't think his interpretation is accurate either since it is clear to me that John is using synonymous parallelism (a common Hebraic figure of speech) to compare spiritual birth with physical birth. This is a main theme in the book of John.

Another main theme of the book of John is that only the those Jews who were truly loyal to God could recognize Jesus as the Messiah. John 8:47 addresses this theme. Those not understanding Jesus failed to understand him because of a prior lack of commitment to God, not because of a lack of sufficient grace. This is similar to what is going on in John 6.

Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. Inconsistently, Arminians pray (without knowingly) Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” In contrast, the Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

First, as previously demonstrated "grace alone" does not equate monergism. Second, Arminians don't pray Calvinisticly because we affirm the fact that God does affect the hearts of humans, verses Calvinists whose prayers don't make any sense at all (since what's going to happen is going to happen regardless of whether they pray or not).

Finally, I always found this "final determiner" rhetoric to be odd. It admits that God is part of the process of determining one's fate. Otherwise the human will would be the "only determiner" not the "final determiner" (some Calvinists also say "only determiner", but that's clearly fallacious). However, if God is a determining factor, and the human is a determining factor, how does one identify the final determining factor? I would assume it would be the last factor which acts. But that would be God. After all, regeneration comes after faith. Therefore, clearly, God is the final determiner. The only way to claim otherwise is to view God's actions as automatic, as if He couldn't do otherwise once a person has faith. But Arminians don't view it this way. We trust that God will save us if we have faith because He has promised it, not because He will be compelled to in some manner. However, since Calvinists often see God as compelled by His own nature, I guess I can understand why they would assume this. But if this is the reason then they are importing Calvinist presuppositions onto Arminian thoughts and, unsurprisingly, it merely causes them to misunderstand.

The one thing that this "primer" really shows is Dr. Kurschner's complete inability to properly assess anyone's perspective other than his own. While he is one of the best at explaining his own position, he seems to be incapable of thinking outside of it. The biggest shame is people who will read his material and actually believe his descriptions of Arminianism.

Boasting

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists have attempted to argue that Arminianism falls short of this passage by making faith something to boast about. I believe this argument is based off at least one of four problems:

1. The Calvinist not understanding the Arminian position of prevenient grace
2. The application of Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians don't hold
3. A complete misunderstanding of the nature of faith.
4. A complete misunderstanding of the nature of boasting.

In this post, I will be dealing with each of these mistakes in turn.

Misunderstanding Arminianism

One of the ways that Calvinists have expressed the reasons why Arminians should be "able to boast" is because "faith is something that originates inside of man, and thus the thing that saves you comes from you."

There are a couple of different problems with this, but the issue that I wish to point out here is that Arminians do not hold that faith is something that originates within you. Faith is made possible by the prevenient grace of God.

Prevenient grace simply means grace which comes before. In this case, it is the sum total of all those acts of grace which God bestows upon us before salvation which prepares us for salvation. All Arminians believe that prevenient grace is necessary in order for us to be saved. Indeed, it is necessary in order for us to have faith.

Now some Calvinists may argue that the notion of prevenient grace doesn't solve the problem. This seems to be based off of the idea that if man is not 100% passive, than man is 100% responsible for the result, even if God does all the actual work. I have read multiple reasons why Calvinists think this (none of which I find convincing obviously), but I don't have space to go into each one now. What is important for the purposes of this article is that Arminians believe that God is the source of our faith.

It is important for the Calvinist to realize that no one would ever boast off of something that they "should" logically conclude. Instead, if they are going to boast, they are going to boast based off of what they actually believe, and we don't believe that faith originates within us.

Calvinist Presuppositions

One of the common mistakes of Calvinist Apologetics is claiming that Arminianism is internally inconsistent. The term "Internally Inconsistent" means that there are 2 or more beliefs which exist within a system of thought that are contradictory ideas. However, what most Calvinists seem to mean by this term is that certain Arminian conclusions do not naturally follow from Calvinist presuppositions.

There is an excellent example of this within this particular subject. Many Calvinist would argue that because the difference between one saved and one who is not saved is faith, that therefore faith is something to boast about. However, this assumes the idea that any condition within man that God uses is therefore meritous (which it isn't), and it assumes that if God does not directly cause something than it is purely man's accomplishment (which is silly). Both of these ideas derive from the idea of unconditional election, and is therefore a circular argument.

These are Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians do not hold, and because we do not hold them, we are not being inconsistent. We just simply disagree with Calvinists.

The Nature of Faith

Probably the silliest aspect of Calvinists claiming that Arminians "can boast" is that it is impossible to boast about real faith. You can't do it. To boast about faith is like boasting about humility: you negate it by boasting. Just try and think about what that would really sound like:

"I have more faith in my complete depravity and absolute necessity in my great, powerful merciful savior to atone for the sum of my sinful and worthless deeds than you do. You loser!"

I cannot imagine how someone who understands how necessarily humbling true biblical faith is can possibly claim it is something someone can boast about. And as silly as it sounds just by calmly thinking about what it must mean, it amazes me that people are convinced by this. Indeed, it saddens me that this is one of the most popular and successful Calvinist arguments. It shows me that we Arminians have done a poor job articulating our theology.

The Nature of Boasting

So far I have talked about how it false to argue that Arminianism can lead to boasting. Now I am going to change gears a bit and explain why Calvinism doesn't protect one from it.

First of all, let's deal with a misunderstanding of the Biblical text. Here it is again for those who may want to reference it:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists believe that the point of this text is that grace is supposed to take away the ability for humans to boast (as opposed to taking away all reason for boasting). At least, this is how the argument seems to me.

However, history and common experience tells us that humans do not only boast about accomplishment. Indeed, we will boast about any status to makes us superior to someone else, whether that be accomplishments, race, class, etc... Therefore, because being saved is superior to not being saved, it is possible for someone to boast about it, regardless of how one is saved.

I don't see why it is impossible to say, "I'm elected and you're not. So I'm better than you." Well, in some degree you are! I mean God chose you didn't He? Even if His selection was arbitrary, God still chose you. That's pretty sweet, and means that you are in a better position than those who aren't.

"Wait a second," says the Calvinist, "even if someone were to boast about being unconditionally elected, that boasting would be completely unjustified." Well the same goes for having been saved by faith. If the text means that the person has no legitimate reason to boast, than the Calvinist has no basis to use it against Arminians, as I have already shown.

And ultimately, that's my point. Salvation is by faith, which the text clearly says, and it is because of the nature of faith that one cannot boast. Indeed, that fact that it is by faith is what makes it a grace, because God has the right to make us earn it if He wanted to. But we don't have to earn it; we just have to believe. The only boasting salvation encourages me to make is to boast in the glory and graciousness of my God and His Son, and it is vanity to argue otherwise.

Imago Dei

The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it, but ironically when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in one passage of all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 (though referenced elsewhere). However, this is a rather important verse. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.

So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Well there are several things that it doesn't mean. We aren't ethereal. We aren't a Trinity of persons. We aren't omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, and any other omni for that matter. Indeed, there are a lot of ways in which we actually look nothing like God. So how can it be said that we are made in God's image?

Going to Context

Well, if we are going to look at this question biblically, we need to remember the 3 Cs of hermeneutics: context, context, and context. So let's look at the context:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. -Genesis 1:26-30

It is interesting to note that it doesn't go on to describe any divine attributes. However, what it does do is connect the notion of humanity's creation to humanity's authority over the rest of creation. Indeed, I would argue that this is what the concept of being in the image of God means: we have authority over creation.

Authority vs. Sovereignty

"Hold up! How can we have authority over creation, while God is still sovereign?"

To put it simply, having authority is not the same thing as being in charge. When I was a kid, my sister Calin and I had authority over our younger siblings (Calin exercised that authority to a greater extent than I did, but I digress). However, none of us ever confused Calin and me with Mom and Dad. We all knew who really was in charge.

Indeed, it is this kind of fundamental confusion that has lead me to never take Calvinist claims of having "a more sovereign God" seriously. Being more despotic, doesn't make someone more sovereign. It usually just makes them more of a jerk.

In the case of humans and God, the relationship between the two is essentially that of delegation. God delegates a certain amount of authority over to humanity for us to rule over creation. However, what authority we have is only based on our submission to the source of that authority: the Divine King.

The Race of Representatives

Understanding that our authority comes from God's sovereignty, as opposed to being... well, opposed to it, becomes easier when we understand our authority in terms of imago dei. The Hebrew word for 'image' is 'tselem', which is often used to refer to idols.

Now, I am not saying that humans are idols of God, or anything like that. It is very clear in Scripture that we are not to worship each other, but it is important to understand how the word connects to idol worship.In idol worship, one doesn't believe that the idol is truly their god. Instead they believe that the represents their god, or stands in for their god so that they can interact with him/her in a more tangible way. Thus we can consider 'tselem' to mean representation, or representative.

A story from I Samuel works to illustrate this. In this story, the Philistines have captured the Ark of the Covenant, and God has sent plagues of tumors and mice to punish them. Then, in chapter 6, they inquire of their priests what they should do. The answer is to make images (or tselemim) of the mice and the tumors out of gold as an appeasement to God. Note how the images here are not things to be worshiped, but things to represent the tumors and the mice.

Likewise, we can consider ourselves, as human beings, to be things which represent God in creation. We are His delegates, His representatives, and the only power we have is by representing God Himself. Our power is not of our own, but it is an extension of His.

Going to the Story

Now the Bible tells a story. Theologically, we call this the metanarrative, or the overarching story from which our theology is based. When we imagine the image of God in this manner, we find that it influences the way in which we view God's interaction with humanity through history.

At first God sets up humanity to be His representatives among creation. However, humanity rebels and becomes separate from God, deterring humanity's ability to accurately represent Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular people within humanity to represent Him among humanity. He chooses a single man by the name of Abraham, and sets apart his descendants as the Chosen People, or the Elect. They come to be known as the Israelites. However, at Mount Sinai the Israelites reject God out of fear, and wish to remain separate from Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular tribe within Israel to represent Him among the Elect. This is the tribe of Levi, and they become the priests of Israel. Indeed, a priest is best understood as someone who represents God to the people, and represents the people to God. If you remember, it was God's original intention for Israel to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). However, because the Israelites rejected this, only the Levites are priests.

Even so, God still continues to show His desire to rule people through a divine representative by establishing the High Priest, to represent Him to the Levites. Therefore, within the OT, you have:

High Priest
/ \
Levites
/ \
Israel
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Now let's think of the New Testament. In the New Testament, we, the gentiles, are grafted into the vine of Israel, and thus become God's elect as well. However, because of the priesthood of all believers, we manifest God's original design for Israel to be a priesthood to all nations. Thus the Levites and Israel collapse together in the NT picture as the Church. However, we are not grafted in by our own power, but by the power of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, as the Resurrected One becomes our High Priest. Therefore, in the NT we have:

Christ
/ \
Church
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Therefore we see that this is how God chooses to rule over His creation. He does not do so through meticulous predestination of all things, though He could. Instead, He chooses to act through people, and He appoints people and peoples for the purpose of representing Him and acting for Him. This is how God manifests His sovereignty.

What Does That Mean for Us?

A few different things. First of all, it means that we are responsible for what we do. We are responsible to God, not just because we are His creatures, but because we have the unique make-up to act on God's behalf. Therefore in everything we do, we represent God as we do it, whether that be consciously or unconsciously. Our sins are not simply bad things that we do, but they are things that besmear God's image, for we are God's image.

Second of all, we have a responsibility. We are supposed to represent God. As humans, we are to represent God in creation and take care of it and nurture it. Do we behave like crazy environmentalists? No. But we treat creation with respect, do what we can to bring out its beauty, but also organize it, and incorporate our own structures within it as any gardener would.

As Christians, we also represent God to other humans. As such, we need to represent Him in both justice and mercy. We don't back down from what God says is true and just, but we behave in a way that demonstrates God's love and affection for humanity. We are delegates of a benevolent king, and we should be benevolent as well. But we are still representing the king, not just some guy with really good ideas.

Third, we need to see that humans are holy: even bad ones and even unborn ones. The way we treat other humans cannot simply be based out of convenience or judgement. People deserve our respect, not because they have earned it, but because they represent God Himself. I would say, biblically speaking, that it is never good to kill a human being (though it is sometimes necessary). Killing other humans soils our hands. Even David, though he fought in God's wars, was too unclean to build God's temple.

Essentially it means that we need to treat humans with respect, not because they deserve it (because we don't), but because they represent God, and God deserves it.