First, I make this point in certain contexts, which you can review for yourself. I constantly address scriptural issues and when there are related points to make, I do so.
Second, I hear constant slurs against Arminian beliefs, Arminian fealty to the Word, the Arminian view of God, the dangers of Arminians, the sloppiness of Arminians — the list goes on and on. And we are allegedly the ones who give ourselves grounds for boasting in our salvation — which would be the very root and heart of pride!
In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.
Faith is not a work which somehow negates the free grace of Christ. How ridiculous. In fact, faith (believing) is the one work that Jesus commanded that we do.
In John 6:28-29 the people asked Him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent.”
Believing in Jesus is the only prerequisite for receiving God’s free grace. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, “Nothing. My Father must regenerate you.”
Even if you believe that personal faith in Christ is a work which would invalidate God’s grace, there are still problems with your conclusions. It seems to me for your beliefs to be true then God would have to take TOTAL possession of your mind and/or mouth. Otherwise, it could still be said that, although God enabled you to believe, you still either mentally or vocally, made the ultimate decision to trust in Christ for salvation; thereby, according to your own theories, performing a grace voiding work.
Sam,
My last post on this (hopefully).
You wrote, “Nobody is claiming that non-Calvinists boast about their choice to repent or receive God’s gift, or that they see any reason to. What we arguing is that if your position is true, then you would have grounds for boasting. Having grounds for boasting follows from your point of view. We don’t claim that non-Calvinists are consistent, after all. This is the argument in a nutshell.”
That’s the whole point. You’re making a claim that God’s Word doesn’t make. Don’t you see it? It’s your logic rather than the truth of God’s Word. If we believe God and receive His gift, there is no grounds for boasting. Period. You claim the contrary, but the Word does not. So I don’t think the issue is misunderstanding each other; I think the issue is you’re failing to see how you’re erecting a system of thought about boasting that is contrary to what the Word says.
You claim I’m being logically inconsistent, but you are the one who is making “logical” deductions contrary to what the Word says. Can you not see this point , or, at least, see it through my eyes?
This is why I often say that Calvinists come with certain theological assumptions (the “grid” of their system) and then try to make the Word fit that system.
Again, we’ll leave things here, but I believe this interchange has only served to prove the point I have been wanting to make re: faith being perceived as a work or as a grounds for boasting.
May the Lord continue to lead all us into His grace and truth, for surely that is all that we desire.
Be blessed!
Dr. Brown, I’m sorry if I have misrepresented your view. I truly did not mean to suggest that you (or any Arminian for that matter) are actually boasting in anything other than the Lord.
You’re right. It’s ridiculous to say that Abram or the prodigal son boasted because of the free gift they received. That was not my point however. What if Abram’s gift was not offered to him alone. What if God appeared to everyone alike and offered them the same gift but only Abram accepted it. Though the gift was not merited and he could never boast before God, wouldn’t he be justified in boasting before all men that, in the very least, he new a good thing when he saw it? I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true. I truly do not see how this is a circle argument.
You say that “God is relational, and He wants us to choose life and salvation and HIM volitionally.” Of course Calvinists also believe this (God’s will of disposition), only that unless God gave us new hearts no-one would be willing to choose Him at all.
I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
S.D.G.
Greg,
Exactly. Here is the scene, in reality: We are confronted by a holy God against whom we have sinned our entire lives, knowingly or unknowingly. We see the incredible magnitude of our guilt and the rightful punishment of our sins. And we see the mercy of our Savior being offered — further intensifying our conviction of sin when we realize that it was our sins that nailed him to the cross. And we cry out, “God have mercy on me a sinner!”
Where is room for boasting in this? Really, the charge boggles my mind. Again, Jesus explicitly addresses this too in Luke 18 in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. How much clearer does the Word need to me?
And your further points are correct as well, if taken to their “logical” conclusion.
“In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.”
Dr.Brown,
I think your comment again highlights a difference of perception. The spot lite is the theology and biblical truth and not personal application of that truth in one’s life. That could be another topic for another debate. Certainly it is not me and I do not think it is fair for you to go toward personal direction again.
Sir, if you will listen to your conversation with Dr.White again you will surely notice that it was YOU who mentioned “prideful Calvinists” FIRST as your personal experience. Dr.White interacted with this observation presented by you. Yet he did not say first anything about “prideful Arminians” first…
I am sad to see that this theme and this sequence shows up here in this interaction. Yes, there are prideful Calvinists and yes there are prideful Arminians but repeating that observation does not help in the diolog nor does it bring anything of value to the discernment of biblical arguments.
I hope you will take it as a objective observation to help this discussion as that is how it is intended.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Ben2,
You wrote, “I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true.” False. The Word of God tells us the opposite, as I have repeated now almost endlessly. You say one thing; the Scriptures say another. According to the Arminian view, based on the explicit teaching of the NT, there is NO grounds for boasting!
As for your view of relationship, I see the testimony of Scripture again going in a different direction than the TULIP system, although, of course, I’m aware of how you see the relational side of things working.
Finally, you state, “I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. ‘But for the grace of God there goes I!'”
So, you confirm what I have been stating. You don’t get the non-Calvinist point of view, plain and simple. I can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement, but you can’t see how I can. That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and until you can see why the other person believes what he or she believes, you can’t have a constructive dialog with them.
Christophe,
No need to belabor the points here. But just FYI, my reason for bringing up the prideful Calvinists issue on the show was because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on. During a break in the broadcast, someone emailed it to me, which reminded me of what I so often run into when interacting with Calvinists, and that’s why I brought it up. It was a present tense happening! Of course, I was blessed by Dr. White’s gracious and thoughtful response.
My comments stand, and I wish you God’s blessings.
Dr. Brown, in context Romans 4 is speaking about boasting before God on the grounds of meriting salvation because of works. Scripture says, and I affirm, that such boasting is indeed excluded by the law of faith. That is not, however, what I was referring to in my comment.
You say that you can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement. Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so. Do Arminians not claim that God’s grace is given equally to everyone? If so, how then can one affirm that in the final instance it is God’s grace that separates the saved from the unsaved? It cannot be God’s grace and therefore I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say “But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!”
God bless!
S.D.G.
Dr Brown,
First of all, thank you for your recent interesting and respectful programs on Calvinism. I’ve not had chance to read all the comments posted here so forgive me if I’m bringing up something that you’ve already addressed, but as far as I can tell no one has discussed what I am about to say.
I think that you may have misrepresented Spurgeon. You do of course quote him correctly (as far as it goes):
“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. […] This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.”
But then you say, “If you say someone has to be regenerated before they believe, I agree with Spurgeon’s take…”
And that, as far as I can tell (I’m happy to be corrected), is a misrepresentation. Spurgeon is not objecting (in that quoted sermon anyway) to the idea that a sinner must be regenerated before he will believe. He’s objecting to this:
“In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ…”
Spurgeon nowhere says that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. He only says that he (Spugeon, the preacher) must preach Christ to unregenerate sinners, and bid sinners (not regenerated men) to believe.
This is logical and sensible and also biblical. But to assume therefore that faith precedes (or is a cause of) regeneration does not follow – not from Spurgeon’s sermon, nor from the Bible. Take the story of Lazarus as a perfect example.
Christ commanded a (thoroughly) dead man to come forth. (The preacher – with the command of God as warrant according to Spurgeon – bids unregenerate sinners believe.)
The command of Christ to Lazarus carried the power that caused the dead man to live. (The preaching of the Gospel is the power of God that brings life to – regenerates – the dead sinner.)
The now living Lazarus hears the voice of Christ and he responds and comes forth. (The now regenerated sinner hears His voice – “My sheep hear My voice” – and responds in faith – cf. John 10:26 – “you do not believe because you are not of My sheep”. )
I know that you may not agree with the “doctrine” here, but it does surely offer a sensible explanation of the point Spurgeon was making; an explanation that would make it somewhat unfair for you to quote him in defence (so to speak) of your own position.
I hope this comment comes across in the respectful way that it is intended. (I’m not always very successful in expressing myself in com-boxes!)
Thanks again, Pagey.
Ben2,
How about this being the last post on this subject for now, OK? You can always call my show to talk about this more.
You write: “Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so.” Wrong. That is simply your lack of understanding things from our POV.
Here is where you have stated things correctly: “I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say ‘But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!'”
Precisely. You cannot see it, and that’s the problem. Perhaps one day you will! 🙂
By all means, feel free to interact with others on this point, as I imagine folks on both sides have more to say on this, but please do count me out, since as long as you try to understand my theology through the lens of yours, we’ll get nowhere.
Grace and favor on you!
I think Calvinists greatly misunderstand Ephesians 2:8-9. It says we are saved by grace “through faith” and not solely by works. “It” is the gift of God and not of ourselves lest anyone boast. So to understand correctly, because of our independent faith, God gives grace to save us. Grace is the gift, but is dependent on “our” faith. It’s always been this way. And to be clear, faith is not faith unless accompanied by actions.
Not that these theologies are by any means the same, but I think it’s interesting to compare Calvinist views of Elect with that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not the same, but somewhat a similar concept how God “pre-chooses” a certain quantity for salvation. We know the Scriptures say God desires for ALL men to be saved. I think one of the reasons Calvinists hold so firm to their views is because it gives them a chance to relax regarding the assurance of their salvation, and not have to dread punishment or feel responsible should they fall into a lifestyle of gross sin. No matter what anyone says, you can only have true assurance of salvation if you are actively walking with the Lord, not just because you had a salvation experience a long time ago and adopted TULIP at that time. If you put your faith in the distinguished concepts of Calvinism rather than the whole Word of God, you are greatly deceiving yourself. I speak as a former Calvinist.
“because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on.”
Dr.Brown,
If you found anything there offensive then I apologize for that even though I was not a part of that conversation and I cannot affirm your point or decline your point. Nevertheless apology given is always a good thing in this fallen world even without prior verification.
Saying that I do not think that it is productive to extend that dynamic into this interaction…
So let us stay on the discussion and not on discussants. As to the Calvinism let me quote for you a man of God who personally preached the Gospel to over 20 million people whom you have quoted on this forum as to support your Arminian position. Let us hear from Charles Spurgeon speaking about Calvinism and Arminism:
“”Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor…”
Charles Spurgeon from his sermon: “A defense of Calvinism”
” All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESV
SDG
Christophe
Christophe, Sam, and Ben2
You say Arminian’s are inconsistent based on the following premise
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting? I wonder if Calvinists really have natural tendency toward boasting as they seem to always try and remind themselves everything is God-centered. The whole idea of scripture testifying that many wonders were done at the hands of the apostles must really rile the Calvinist bones. “What’s that, man is boasting it should read God did many miracles and should have done it independent of the apostles themselves so that there would be even less chance for boasting.” Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom? Does it mess with God doing everything? Is it tatamount to Humanism and the exalting of man? Would you accuse someone of boasting if they were willing to walk in humility but believed they choose the Lord even as your Calvinist ears hear nails on a chalkboard. Will strain a gnat for your Calvinist doctrine and swallow a camel, by missing a true working of the Spirit in a person’s life. Or is it not people that you are concerned with, but a dangerous theological system that threatens the glory of God in all His Sovereignty? Speaking of which,
———————– Dr. Brown I would like to ask you a question about Sovereignty.
You said you believe that God’s Sovereignty is diminshed by the Calvinist interpretation of Sovereignty. How can that be? I mean that make such a big deal about God being glorified that He does everything, even causing people to sin so that He can be glorified in their judgment. So how can you say it diminishes God’s Sovereignty? What do you mean by Sovereignty then? And how does that make God less free to do what He wants when He wants it?
Brad
By the way, I was just looking at William Klein’s commentary on Ephesians in the new EBC (the series in which my Jeremiah commentary is written), and I find his comments to be some of the clearest and best exegesis of key passages in Ephesians from a non-Calvinistic viewpoint (and, therefore, in my view, rightly exegeting the text). He hits the nail on the head!
Sam, Ben2, Christophe,
I know your argument well. Piper claimed that no Arminian prays like an Arminian, we all pray like Calvinists. As if to be consistent with what Arminian’s believe they had to pray, “Lord save this person but don’t injure their free-will.” People don’t have to pray like that because Arminians already acknowledge that God doesn’t have to violate their boundaries, which is tatamount to spiritually rape anyone into submitting to His life in them.
To be truthful Calvinist could be more consistent in prayer if they prayed. “You’ve taken away this person’s will, now violate them with your life and do what you want with them, they don’t have any choice in the matter. I don’t want to be inflamatory so I digress. So you can see your insistence of not having choice is as grotesque to us Arminans as our insistence that man has a choice to you Calvinists.
I appreciate how pleasant things have been in this discussion but lets remember we are all fighting on the same team. We are all striving to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. If the truth be told, we are much more alike than different on this issue. May God be glorified!
Brad,
To answer your question about sovereignty, my point was simply this: The Word speaks of God ruling and reigning and working everything according to the counsel of His will. Now, which is a greater act of that sovereignty, decreeing everything in advance so that it would all unfold according to the decree, or creating a world with free-willed creatures and still accomplishing things according to His plan? Or, put another way, Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.
That was my only point, and I meant it in terms of glorifying God all the more. Of course, the exact wording of my statement depends on one’s definition of sovereignty.
As for your closing comments on your second post — Amen!
I seem to be beating a dead horse here, but I think what I’ve been trying to say about grace not being the determinative factor separating the saved and the unsaved according Arminian teaching can easily be expressed as a syllogism.
Arminianism teaches that:
1.) Grace is given equally to everyone; 2.) Not everyone will be saved; 3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
If the aforementioned syllogism is valid and grace is not in the final instance what separates the saved from the unsaved, the consistent Arminian cannot say of those who are unsaved: “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
I freely admit that I’m not an expert in logic and would very much appreciate it if someone could point out if I’m making a mistake somewhere since I honestly would not like to be guilty of misrepresenting the Arminian position.
S.D.G.
Ben2,
Yes, beating a dead horse, but I admire your persistence. 🙂
And, seriously, I do hope some Arminians will help you see: 1) how you’re misunderstanding the Arminian position; and 2) how you’re making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. I think this second point is the biggest one, and grasping that, you’ll understand the first point. (Again, your syllogism assumes what it wants to prove.)
May Jesus alone be exalted to the glory of God the Father!
Brad,
I don’t think the differences between us is that you believe we make choices and Calvinists don’t. I think the difference is in what we think it means to make a choice–libertarian freedom vs. compatibalist freedom. We Calvinists fully acknowledge that we make choices. The difference is that we think our choices are determined by our strongest motivations, whereas libertarians believe that no antecedent causes and/or conditions determine our choices. While motives and desires can influence our choices, they cannot determine them.
Since, in our view, our desires and inclinations are all naturally bent away from God, we are unable to repent unless God changes our hearts. And when God changes our hearts, we then have the proper inclination to place our faith in Christ. We choose in the sense that we act on our motives, desires, and inclinations. A person acts with the most freedom when they do exactly what they want to do.
A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to have a difficult time understanding how acting on an inclination that we could not help but act on can be called a choice at all, so they deny that we believe in choices. But I have a difficult time understanding how acting independently of all motives, desires, and inclinations can really be called a choice at all. That is something I think is worth debating about.
Now, you seem to be having the same misunderstanding that Dr. Brown has. You quoted me as saying:
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
Then you said:
“This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
It is not my position that choosing God or saying yes to his salvation is grounds for boasting. It is not my position that the Bible teaches anything of the sort. In fact, my position is just the opposite. What I am arguing is that if the libertarian view of freedom is true and applies to our choice to embrace the gospel, THEN we would have grounds for boasting. I am not in any sense arguing that we have grounds for boasting because we have faith in Christ. Rather, I am arguing against the libertarian notion of free will with regards to our choice to accept or reject the gospel. Look at the conclusion of my argument.
If I am still not being clear, then we’re at an impasse. You said,
“Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.”
We have made no such accusation. Please re-read what we have actually said, and do so more carefully.
Thanks Dr. Brown. I still don’t get it, but perhaps someday… 😉
God bless!
S.D.G.
Sam,
I suggest you don’t use the word “libertarian” to describe an Arminian’s view of the will, since that can be offensive, not to mention lead to misunderstanding. (In fact, as a philologian and exegete first, then a theologian second, I often find that the use of certain terms obscures the argument rather than helps, but again, that’s my perspective.)
God has to enable us to repent or believe, but we can refuse His gracious gift. We remain utterly dependent on Him — which is hardly libertarian! — but, as He ordained things, He calls us to accept His gift of life or reject it. And so, if we boast, we boast only in the Lord. And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, which again, underscores the points I’ve been making about the false system being erected on Scripture, then the judgments that are made based on that system.
” …Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom?…”
Brad,
I think you should really get of the horse of rhetoric. It does not do anything good for the factual conversation.
“Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
Brad,
You are asking a wrong question and you set up your own straw man to support your position. You are trying to make an argument by asking us to show you the opposite.
The Scripture is repleted with strong attestations that it is GOD choosing men and not the other way around. We do not have to show you the “other way” all we have to do is to show you the biblical way for which there is a massive evidence all over the Bible:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44 ESV
“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65 ESV
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESv
“And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. ”
Matthew 4:19-20
“”For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV
And on and on it goes…
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown you said that I’m making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. Granted that I’m not aware of any verse in the Bible that explicitly mentions the kind of boasting I was describing, but boasting in that way would still be wrong, right?
S.D.G.
Ben2 said:
“1.) Grace is given equally to everyone; 2.) Not everyone will be saved; 3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.”
If the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, I’m afraid I don’t see it. #1 is what I take the Arminian position to be. #2 is something I think both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on. #3 seem to follow inescapably from #1 and #2.
A. If grace is the determining factor in salvation, then whether a person is saved or not would depend on whether they are given grace or not.
B. If whether a person is saved or not depends on whether they are given grace or not, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if the are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
C. Therefore, if grace is the determining factor in salvation, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if they are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
From C, you can derive an inconsistency in the Arminiam position, which can be demonstrated in one of two ways:
1. In the Arminian view (as well as the Calvinist view), not everybody is saved. It follows inescapably from C and 1 that not everybody is given grace. But Arminians believe everybody is given grace equally, so there is a contradiction.
2. In the Arminian view, everybody is given grace equally. It follows from C and 2 above that everybody will be saved. But Arminians believe that not everybody will be saved, so there is a contradiction.
“Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.”
If the final outcome is as desired by God which you have confirmed by the statement above: “…within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired,…” how is that a “free choice” and “free will” Dr.Brown?
It certainly is not unless one wants to believe in illusions. If God get His way in the end as He certainly does how meaningful really is your “free choice” “within certain parameters”?
I am afraid Dr.Brown that you have just exemplified another inconsistency of the Arminian theology.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown, I apologize if I offended you by my use of the word “libertarian,” but that is a technical term in philosophy to describe a particular point of view regarding free will. It is used by those who advocate the view–people like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Since Craig, Moreland, and others who embrace that view use the term “libertarian” to refer to it, I had no idea anybody would find the term offensive. What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?
Christophe,
What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.
Ben2 & Dr Brown,
Ben2:
I see no problem at all with your syllogism; though I am no expert in logic either.
Dr Brown:
Where exactly does Ben2’s syllogism “assume what it wants to prove”? Being no expert in logic I can only assume I’ve missed something.
This is what it “proves”: 3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
I can’t see which premise it is that assumes this conclusion.
Premise 1? 1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
Or premise 2? 2.) Not everyone will be saved;
Which of 1, 2 or 3 do you not agree with? And if you do agree with 1 & 2, how is it that 3 does not follow?
Sorry, but the horse didn’t appear to me to be quite dead yet! ;o)
“What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?”
Sam,
If “libertarian” is offensive then a perfect description is synergism and I hope that is will not be perceived as “offensive” as it is used by scholars and theologians all over the theological map.
SDG
Christophe
“And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, ”
Of course you do, Dr. Brown. That’s because you have the same misunderstanding that Brad does. I have explicitly denied what you and Brad have accused me of saying, yet you keep insisting that I said something I didn’t say. And you insist that I prove something I never asserted. It’s weird. I can’t help but say “Wow!” After all my efforts at being as clear as I can possibly be, you persist in this misunderstanding.
Hello
I am way behind with all this, and of course there is a time difference to contend with, but I couldn’t let this comment go by w/o adding my two pennyworth. “If Arminianism is correct one cannot escape the conclusion that the saved person must have been just a little less hardened (or a little more intelligent) than the unsaved person since he was willing to accept God’s offer of salvation while the other refused. ”
Wait a minute — Jack Graham was 6 when he got saved, James Dobson was 5 — were they smarter than the people who got saved at 20, 60 or 80? Eh? How smart do you have to be to see your own sin? My kiddies (see Jan 29 5.38 pm) know they can’t stop being naughty and they know no Hebrew at all!
Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…
“What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.”
Ben KC,
I actually do mind you asking because this is another example of going after the person participating in the discussion and not after the arguments presented in the discussion. This seems to be a rather common occurrence on this forum.
Please forgive me if you find my educational status too lowly and too mismatched to yours.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Anthy, and yet some people don’t see it. Why?
S.D.G.
:Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…”
Anthy,
You are attacking your opponent and not your opponent’s arguments. This is commonly known as “ad hominem” and it is a well know and not really respected evasion tactic.
Christophe
Can I ask all the Calvinists here, what is the disadvantage you see for someone believing as an Arminian, and advantage to believing as you do? Can you answer this bottomline in maybe a few short sentences?
Christophe,
I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.
Anthy, could it be that we are all born blind, unable and unwilling to see our desperate condition, but that God, in his mercy, has chosen to reveal the truth to some and not to all?
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (Matt. 11:25-26)
S.D.G.
“I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.”
Ben KC
I wish I could say the same about your question and where it comes from.
Regards,
Christophe
Michael, I believe the Calvinist view because I think it’s true, not because I see some advantage in believing it.
But with that being said, I think there is great advantage in having an accurate view of how God saves people. The more accurately we understand God, the more appropriate our praises can be. If we knew nothing at all about God, then we would have nothing to praise him for. If our understanding of God was inaccurate, then we might very well praise him for things that don’t actually apply to him.
For example, I thank God for changing my heart and causing me to be willing to put my faith in Christ. I thank him for granting me repentance. I feel like I have more to thank God for than Arminians do. Whereas an Arminian might say God threw us a rope, but it’s up to us to hold on to it, I think I was in a much more hopeless situation than that. I could not even hold on to the rope. God saved me completely. I did not muster the strength on my own to repent. God caused me to repent by changing my heart. That informs my worship.
And as a previous poster said, there are also psychological advantages to Calvinism. It is comforting to know that everything is in the hands of a wholly good God. Even the awful things that happen will somehow, in the end, result in the praise of his glory. They are not just pointless tragedies.
No, Christophe, I was not attacking anyone. I was examining the assertion that a person who believes in Jesus of their own free will could be said to be more intelligent than a person who does not believe. Since small children can be saved it is not a sign of intelligence that a person has faith. If a person sees their sin at the age of 5, I pointed out that an awareness of sin is not a sign of erudition. Trust me, yer average 5 yr-old hasn’t heard of Chekov, or the meaning of ad hominem (I have, BTW).
I did not come to earth in a manger, I did not tramp around Israel preaching, and I wasn’t the one on the Cross — so what is there to boast about in admitting that I’m a sinner who needs a Saviour? As Dr Brown says, you never hear anyone actually boasting about being saved.
I do not know why some people choose not to accept Christ. (It’s like Stilton — how could you not like it?) It’s a mystery, when the Good News is so good. But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.
Ben KC,
Thank you for sharing that even though I did not ask for it. I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education. I have seen too many PhDs in theology singing accolades to works like “Velvet Elvis” etc. I also met too many simple, uneducated people who knew their Bibles in an astonishing depth.
Since you insist, I studied on two universities while doing three majors: Law,Journalism and Business. In addition to that I had a rather brief encounter with a seminary and I am glad it was brief as the seminary was Arminian in its approach.
Regards,
C.
ONE WORD TO EVERYONE (and where the shoe fits, where it):
If you can be on the forum here and not take things personally, wonderful. If you start to take them personally and then respond accordingly, you’ll have to stop posting.
I am requesting that no one reply to this email or send out apologies, just in case it applies to you; instead, I’m asking everyone to respond to issues and not to people so we can continue this important discussion.
So, rather than ask: “Dr. Brown, are you talking to me?”, instead just determine to interact at the highest levels, as the vast majority of you are in the vast majority of posts.
Christophe,
I know you didnt ask but I just wanted to share just in case you were curious of my background and to let you know I dont have anything to hide.
“I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education.”
I agree. My purpose of wanting to know someone’s educational background is to understand where they are coming from. Thank you for sharing. BTW, what seminary did you attend.
Anthy,
You echoed something I was considering posting with the hope that it might help some of our Calvinist friends understand our POV.
Simply stated, I have no idea why I believed and someone else didn’t, and I see no merit in myself for believing. And I have friends of mine who came to faith before I did, walked with me for a number of years, and then fell away. Why they did and I didn’t, I can’t say, but I do know that my only boast is in God’s goodness and grace.
If a Calvinist would say, “That’s our whole point. You’re thinking like a Calvinist now” (in terms of the salvation issue, not the apostasy issue, of course), my response is: To the contrary, you’re just now understanding how an Arminian thinks!
Hello Dr Brown
I was wondering if you take suggestions for topics for future shows. I was so impressed by Go for Souls. After my encounters with the JWs, I realised that I needed to be ready for that knock on the door with a testimony or a short outline of the Gospel. I know people shut the door when they “don’t have time to talk”, and I realised that if I needed a Two-Minute Testimony.
How about discussing the various good ways of explaining the Gospel? If you have 3 mins, 10 minutes, half and hour? We are told to “share the gospel”, but a lot of people don’t know what to say. That’s why we just invite them to church or say nothing.
“But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Dear Anthy,
The point of Reformed Faith is that no matter if we perceive that what it takes to say “yes please” to the “gift of GOD” as much or very little we DO NOT HAVE IT at all. We don’t because we are spiritually bankrupt and our nature is not able to “bail us out” speaking in today’s economic lingo. We are dead and stinking in our sin as Lazarus was and beyond a doubt of being dead on his fourth day in the tomb.
That’s why we cannot say “yes” on our own just like Lazarus could not move his toe or even twitch his eye. The life had come to him from above, from the commanding mouth of the Lord: “Lazarus, come out” and so it was with me and so it was with you and so it was with Dr.Brown.
Please read here:
“Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”
“And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Anthy,
I had my share of encounters with JWs. I had discussions with them and frankly as a testimony to Reformed Faith ( not me ) I have seen all three of them (they come usually in 3s) sitting in my living room with a puzzled look on their faces and not able to respond to presented arguments and asking me five times what kind of faith is this Reformed Faith.
I salute you for witnessing to these lost souls.
SDG
Christophe
Throw away the TULIP and embrace the Rose of Sharon.
Neither of my comments have even been moderated yet, so no use waiting up for a reply or posting any further. It’s been interesting listening in though…
Christophe,
First, I make this point in certain contexts, which you can review for yourself. I constantly address scriptural issues and when there are related points to make, I do so.
Second, I hear constant slurs against Arminian beliefs, Arminian fealty to the Word, the Arminian view of God, the dangers of Arminians, the sloppiness of Arminians — the list goes on and on. And we are allegedly the ones who give ourselves grounds for boasting in our salvation — which would be the very root and heart of pride!
In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.
Faith is not a work which somehow negates the free grace of Christ. How ridiculous. In fact, faith (believing) is the one work that Jesus commanded that we do.
In John 6:28-29 the people asked Him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent.”
Believing in Jesus is the only prerequisite for receiving God’s free grace. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, “Nothing. My Father must regenerate you.”
Even if you believe that personal faith in Christ is a work which would invalidate God’s grace, there are still problems with your conclusions. It seems to me for your beliefs to be true then God would have to take TOTAL possession of your mind and/or mouth. Otherwise, it could still be said that, although God enabled you to believe, you still either mentally or vocally, made the ultimate decision to trust in Christ for salvation; thereby, according to your own theories, performing a grace voiding work.
Sam,
My last post on this (hopefully).
You wrote, “Nobody is claiming that non-Calvinists boast about their choice to repent or receive God’s gift, or that they see any reason to. What we arguing is that if your position is true, then you would have grounds for boasting. Having grounds for boasting follows from your point of view. We don’t claim that non-Calvinists are consistent, after all. This is the argument in a nutshell.”
That’s the whole point. You’re making a claim that God’s Word doesn’t make. Don’t you see it? It’s your logic rather than the truth of God’s Word. If we believe God and receive His gift, there is no grounds for boasting. Period. You claim the contrary, but the Word does not. So I don’t think the issue is misunderstanding each other; I think the issue is you’re failing to see how you’re erecting a system of thought about boasting that is contrary to what the Word says.
You claim I’m being logically inconsistent, but you are the one who is making “logical” deductions contrary to what the Word says. Can you not see this point , or, at least, see it through my eyes?
This is why I often say that Calvinists come with certain theological assumptions (the “grid” of their system) and then try to make the Word fit that system.
Again, we’ll leave things here, but I believe this interchange has only served to prove the point I have been wanting to make re: faith being perceived as a work or as a grounds for boasting.
May the Lord continue to lead all us into His grace and truth, for surely that is all that we desire.
Be blessed!
Dr. Brown, I’m sorry if I have misrepresented your view. I truly did not mean to suggest that you (or any Arminian for that matter) are actually boasting in anything other than the Lord.
You’re right. It’s ridiculous to say that Abram or the prodigal son boasted because of the free gift they received. That was not my point however. What if Abram’s gift was not offered to him alone. What if God appeared to everyone alike and offered them the same gift but only Abram accepted it. Though the gift was not merited and he could never boast before God, wouldn’t he be justified in boasting before all men that, in the very least, he new a good thing when he saw it? I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true. I truly do not see how this is a circle argument.
You say that “God is relational, and He wants us to choose life and salvation and HIM volitionally.” Of course Calvinists also believe this (God’s will of disposition), only that unless God gave us new hearts no-one would be willing to choose Him at all.
I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
S.D.G.
Greg,
Exactly. Here is the scene, in reality: We are confronted by a holy God against whom we have sinned our entire lives, knowingly or unknowingly. We see the incredible magnitude of our guilt and the rightful punishment of our sins. And we see the mercy of our Savior being offered — further intensifying our conviction of sin when we realize that it was our sins that nailed him to the cross. And we cry out, “God have mercy on me a sinner!”
Where is room for boasting in this? Really, the charge boggles my mind. Again, Jesus explicitly addresses this too in Luke 18 in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. How much clearer does the Word need to me?
And your further points are correct as well, if taken to their “logical” conclusion.
“In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.”
Dr.Brown,
I think your comment again highlights a difference of perception. The spot lite is the theology and biblical truth and not personal application of that truth in one’s life. That could be another topic for another debate. Certainly it is not me and I do not think it is fair for you to go toward personal direction again.
Sir, if you will listen to your conversation with Dr.White again you will surely notice that it was YOU who mentioned “prideful Calvinists” FIRST as your personal experience. Dr.White interacted with this observation presented by you. Yet he did not say first anything about “prideful Arminians” first…
I am sad to see that this theme and this sequence shows up here in this interaction. Yes, there are prideful Calvinists and yes there are prideful Arminians but repeating that observation does not help in the diolog nor does it bring anything of value to the discernment of biblical arguments.
I hope you will take it as a objective observation to help this discussion as that is how it is intended.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Ben2,
You wrote, “I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true.” False. The Word of God tells us the opposite, as I have repeated now almost endlessly. You say one thing; the Scriptures say another. According to the Arminian view, based on the explicit teaching of the NT, there is NO grounds for boasting!
As for your view of relationship, I see the testimony of Scripture again going in a different direction than the TULIP system, although, of course, I’m aware of how you see the relational side of things working.
Finally, you state, “I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. ‘But for the grace of God there goes I!'”
So, you confirm what I have been stating. You don’t get the non-Calvinist point of view, plain and simple. I can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement, but you can’t see how I can. That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and until you can see why the other person believes what he or she believes, you can’t have a constructive dialog with them.
Christophe,
No need to belabor the points here. But just FYI, my reason for bringing up the prideful Calvinists issue on the show was because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on. During a break in the broadcast, someone emailed it to me, which reminded me of what I so often run into when interacting with Calvinists, and that’s why I brought it up. It was a present tense happening! Of course, I was blessed by Dr. White’s gracious and thoughtful response.
My comments stand, and I wish you God’s blessings.
Dr. Brown, in context Romans 4 is speaking about boasting before God on the grounds of meriting salvation because of works. Scripture says, and I affirm, that such boasting is indeed excluded by the law of faith. That is not, however, what I was referring to in my comment.
You say that you can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement. Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so. Do Arminians not claim that God’s grace is given equally to everyone? If so, how then can one affirm that in the final instance it is God’s grace that separates the saved from the unsaved? It cannot be God’s grace and therefore I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say “But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!”
God bless!
S.D.G.
Dr Brown,
First of all, thank you for your recent interesting and respectful programs on Calvinism. I’ve not had chance to read all the comments posted here so forgive me if I’m bringing up something that you’ve already addressed, but as far as I can tell no one has discussed what I am about to say.
I think that you may have misrepresented Spurgeon. You do of course quote him correctly (as far as it goes):
“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. […] This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.”
But then you say, “If you say someone has to be regenerated before they believe, I agree with Spurgeon’s take…”
And that, as far as I can tell (I’m happy to be corrected), is a misrepresentation. Spurgeon is not objecting (in that quoted sermon anyway) to the idea that a sinner must be regenerated before he will believe. He’s objecting to this:
“In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ…”
Spurgeon nowhere says that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. He only says that he (Spugeon, the preacher) must preach Christ to unregenerate sinners, and bid sinners (not regenerated men) to believe.
This is logical and sensible and also biblical. But to assume therefore that faith precedes (or is a cause of) regeneration does not follow – not from Spurgeon’s sermon, nor from the Bible. Take the story of Lazarus as a perfect example.
Christ commanded a (thoroughly) dead man to come forth. (The preacher – with the command of God as warrant according to Spurgeon – bids unregenerate sinners believe.)
The command of Christ to Lazarus carried the power that caused the dead man to live. (The preaching of the Gospel is the power of God that brings life to – regenerates – the dead sinner.)
The now living Lazarus hears the voice of Christ and he responds and comes forth. (The now regenerated sinner hears His voice – “My sheep hear My voice” – and responds in faith – cf. John 10:26 – “you do not believe because you are not of My sheep”. )
I know that you may not agree with the “doctrine” here, but it does surely offer a sensible explanation of the point Spurgeon was making; an explanation that would make it somewhat unfair for you to quote him in defence (so to speak) of your own position.
I hope this comment comes across in the respectful way that it is intended. (I’m not always very successful in expressing myself in com-boxes!)
Thanks again,
Pagey.
Ben2,
How about this being the last post on this subject for now, OK? You can always call my show to talk about this more.
You write: “Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so.” Wrong. That is simply your lack of understanding things from our POV.
Here is where you have stated things correctly: “I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say ‘But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!'”
Precisely. You cannot see it, and that’s the problem. Perhaps one day you will! 🙂
By all means, feel free to interact with others on this point, as I imagine folks on both sides have more to say on this, but please do count me out, since as long as you try to understand my theology through the lens of yours, we’ll get nowhere.
Grace and favor on you!
I think Calvinists greatly misunderstand Ephesians 2:8-9. It says we are saved by grace “through faith” and not solely by works. “It” is the gift of God and not of ourselves lest anyone boast. So to understand correctly, because of our independent faith, God gives grace to save us. Grace is the gift, but is dependent on “our” faith. It’s always been this way. And to be clear, faith is not faith unless accompanied by actions.
Not that these theologies are by any means the same, but I think it’s interesting to compare Calvinist views of Elect with that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not the same, but somewhat a similar concept how God “pre-chooses” a certain quantity for salvation. We know the Scriptures say God desires for ALL men to be saved. I think one of the reasons Calvinists hold so firm to their views is because it gives them a chance to relax regarding the assurance of their salvation, and not have to dread punishment or feel responsible should they fall into a lifestyle of gross sin. No matter what anyone says, you can only have true assurance of salvation if you are actively walking with the Lord, not just because you had a salvation experience a long time ago and adopted TULIP at that time. If you put your faith in the distinguished concepts of Calvinism rather than the whole Word of God, you are greatly deceiving yourself. I speak as a former Calvinist.
“because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on.”
Dr.Brown,
If you found anything there offensive then I apologize for that even though I was not a part of that conversation and I cannot affirm your point or decline your point. Nevertheless apology given is always a good thing in this fallen world even without prior verification.
Saying that I do not think that it is productive to extend that dynamic into this interaction…
So let us stay on the discussion and not on discussants. As to the Calvinism let me quote for you a man of God who personally preached the Gospel to over 20 million people whom you have quoted on this forum as to support your Arminian position. Let us hear from Charles Spurgeon speaking about Calvinism and Arminism:
“”Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor…”
Charles Spurgeon from his sermon:
“A defense of Calvinism”
FULL TEXT: http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
” All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESV
SDG
Christophe
Christophe, Sam, and Ben2
You say Arminian’s are inconsistent based on the following premise
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting? I wonder if Calvinists really have natural tendency toward boasting as they seem to always try and remind themselves everything is God-centered. The whole idea of scripture testifying that many wonders were done at the hands of the apostles must really rile the Calvinist bones. “What’s that, man is boasting it should read God did many miracles and should have done it independent of the apostles themselves so that there would be even less chance for boasting.” Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom? Does it mess with God doing everything? Is it tatamount to Humanism and the exalting of man? Would you accuse someone of boasting if they were willing to walk in humility but believed they choose the Lord even as your Calvinist ears hear nails on a chalkboard. Will strain a gnat for your Calvinist doctrine and swallow a camel, by missing a true working of the Spirit in a person’s life. Or is it not people that you are concerned with, but a dangerous theological system that threatens the glory of God in all His Sovereignty?
Speaking of which,
———————–
Dr. Brown I would like to ask you a question about Sovereignty.
You said you believe that God’s Sovereignty is diminshed by the Calvinist interpretation of Sovereignty. How can that be? I mean that make such a big deal about God being glorified that He does everything, even causing people to sin so that He can be glorified in their judgment. So how can you say it diminishes God’s Sovereignty? What do you mean by Sovereignty then? And how does that make God less free to do what He wants when He wants it?
Brad
By the way, I was just looking at William Klein’s commentary on Ephesians in the new EBC (the series in which my Jeremiah commentary is written), and I find his comments to be some of the clearest and best exegesis of key passages in Ephesians from a non-Calvinistic viewpoint (and, therefore, in my view, rightly exegeting the text). He hits the nail on the head!
Sam, Ben2, Christophe,
I know your argument well. Piper claimed that no Arminian prays like an Arminian, we all pray like Calvinists. As if to be consistent with what Arminian’s believe they had to pray, “Lord save this person but don’t injure their free-will.” People don’t have to pray like that because Arminians already acknowledge that God doesn’t have to violate their boundaries, which is tatamount to spiritually rape anyone into submitting to His life in them.
To be truthful Calvinist could be more consistent in prayer if they prayed. “You’ve taken away this person’s will, now violate them with your life and do what you want with them, they don’t have any choice in the matter. I don’t want to be inflamatory so I digress. So you can see your insistence of not having choice is as grotesque to us Arminans as our insistence that man has a choice to you Calvinists.
I appreciate how pleasant things have been in this discussion but lets remember we are all fighting on the same team. We are all striving to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. If the truth be told, we are much more alike than different on this issue. May God be glorified!
Brad,
To answer your question about sovereignty, my point was simply this: The Word speaks of God ruling and reigning and working everything according to the counsel of His will. Now, which is a greater act of that sovereignty, decreeing everything in advance so that it would all unfold according to the decree, or creating a world with free-willed creatures and still accomplishing things according to His plan? Or, put another way, Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.
That was my only point, and I meant it in terms of glorifying God all the more. Of course, the exact wording of my statement depends on one’s definition of sovereignty.
As for your closing comments on your second post — Amen!
I seem to be beating a dead horse here, but I think what I’ve been trying to say about grace not being the determinative factor separating the saved and the unsaved according Arminian teaching can easily be expressed as a syllogism.
Arminianism teaches that:
1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
If the aforementioned syllogism is valid and grace is not in the final instance what separates the saved from the unsaved, the consistent Arminian cannot say of those who are unsaved: “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
I freely admit that I’m not an expert in logic and would very much appreciate it if someone could point out if I’m making a mistake somewhere since I honestly would not like to be guilty of misrepresenting the Arminian position.
S.D.G.
Ben2,
Yes, beating a dead horse, but I admire your persistence. 🙂
And, seriously, I do hope some Arminians will help you see: 1) how you’re misunderstanding the Arminian position; and 2) how you’re making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. I think this second point is the biggest one, and grasping that, you’ll understand the first point. (Again, your syllogism assumes what it wants to prove.)
May Jesus alone be exalted to the glory of God the Father!
Brad,
I don’t think the differences between us is that you believe we make choices and Calvinists don’t. I think the difference is in what we think it means to make a choice–libertarian freedom vs. compatibalist freedom. We Calvinists fully acknowledge that we make choices. The difference is that we think our choices are determined by our strongest motivations, whereas libertarians believe that no antecedent causes and/or conditions determine our choices. While motives and desires can influence our choices, they cannot determine them.
Since, in our view, our desires and inclinations are all naturally bent away from God, we are unable to repent unless God changes our hearts. And when God changes our hearts, we then have the proper inclination to place our faith in Christ. We choose in the sense that we act on our motives, desires, and inclinations. A person acts with the most freedom when they do exactly what they want to do.
A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to have a difficult time understanding how acting on an inclination that we could not help but act on can be called a choice at all, so they deny that we believe in choices. But I have a difficult time understanding how acting independently of all motives, desires, and inclinations can really be called a choice at all. That is something I think is worth debating about.
Now, you seem to be having the same misunderstanding that Dr. Brown has. You quoted me as saying:
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
Then you said:
“This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
It is not my position that choosing God or saying yes to his salvation is grounds for boasting. It is not my position that the Bible teaches anything of the sort. In fact, my position is just the opposite. What I am arguing is that if the libertarian view of freedom is true and applies to our choice to embrace the gospel, THEN we would have grounds for boasting. I am not in any sense arguing that we have grounds for boasting because we have faith in Christ. Rather, I am arguing against the libertarian notion of free will with regards to our choice to accept or reject the gospel. Look at the conclusion of my argument.
If I am still not being clear, then we’re at an impasse. You said,
“Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.”
We have made no such accusation. Please re-read what we have actually said, and do so more carefully.
Thanks Dr. Brown. I still don’t get it, but perhaps someday… 😉
God bless!
S.D.G.
Sam,
I suggest you don’t use the word “libertarian” to describe an Arminian’s view of the will, since that can be offensive, not to mention lead to misunderstanding. (In fact, as a philologian and exegete first, then a theologian second, I often find that the use of certain terms obscures the argument rather than helps, but again, that’s my perspective.)
God has to enable us to repent or believe, but we can refuse His gracious gift. We remain utterly dependent on Him — which is hardly libertarian! — but, as He ordained things, He calls us to accept His gift of life or reject it. And so, if we boast, we boast only in the Lord. And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, which again, underscores the points I’ve been making about the false system being erected on Scripture, then the judgments that are made based on that system.
” …Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom?…”
Brad,
I think you should really get of the horse of rhetoric. It does not do anything good for the factual conversation.
“Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
Brad,
You are asking a wrong question and you set up your own straw man to support your position. You are trying to make an argument by asking us to show you the opposite.
The Scripture is repleted with strong attestations that it is GOD choosing men and not the other way around. We do not have to show you the “other way” all we have to do is to show you the biblical way for which there is a massive evidence all over the Bible:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44 ESV
“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65 ESV
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESv
“And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. ”
Matthew 4:19-20
“”For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV
And on and on it goes…
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown you said that I’m making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. Granted that I’m not aware of any verse in the Bible that explicitly mentions the kind of boasting I was describing, but boasting in that way would still be wrong, right?
S.D.G.
Ben2 said:
“1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.”
If the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, I’m afraid I don’t see it. #1 is what I take the Arminian position to be. #2 is something I think both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on. #3 seem to follow inescapably from #1 and #2.
A. If grace is the determining factor in salvation, then whether a person is saved or not would depend on whether they are given grace or not.
B. If whether a person is saved or not depends on whether they are given grace or not, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if the are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
C. Therefore, if grace is the determining factor in salvation, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if they are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
From C, you can derive an inconsistency in the Arminiam position, which can be demonstrated in one of two ways:
1. In the Arminian view (as well as the Calvinist view), not everybody is saved. It follows inescapably from C and 1 that not everybody is given grace. But Arminians believe everybody is given grace equally, so there is a contradiction.
2. In the Arminian view, everybody is given grace equally. It follows from C and 2 above that everybody will be saved. But Arminians believe that not everybody will be saved, so there is a contradiction.
“Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.”
If the final outcome is as desired by God which you have confirmed by the statement above: “…within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired,…” how is that a “free choice” and “free will” Dr.Brown?
It certainly is not unless one wants to believe in illusions. If God get His way in the end as He certainly does how meaningful really is your “free choice” “within certain parameters”?
I am afraid Dr.Brown that you have just exemplified another inconsistency of the Arminian theology.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown, I apologize if I offended you by my use of the word “libertarian,” but that is a technical term in philosophy to describe a particular point of view regarding free will. It is used by those who advocate the view–people like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Since Craig, Moreland, and others who embrace that view use the term “libertarian” to refer to it, I had no idea anybody would find the term offensive. What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?
Christophe,
What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.
Ben2 & Dr Brown,
Ben2:
I see no problem at all with your syllogism; though I am no expert in logic either.
Dr Brown:
Where exactly does Ben2’s syllogism “assume what it wants to prove”? Being no expert in logic I can only assume I’ve missed something.
This is what it “proves”:
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
I can’t see which premise it is that assumes this conclusion.
Premise 1?
1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
Or premise 2?
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
Which of 1, 2 or 3 do you not agree with? And if you do agree with 1 & 2, how is it that 3 does not follow?
Sorry, but the horse didn’t appear to me to be quite dead yet! ;o)
“What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?”
Sam,
If “libertarian” is offensive then a perfect description is synergism and I hope that is will not be perceived as “offensive” as it is used by scholars and theologians all over the theological map.
SDG
Christophe
“And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, ”
Of course you do, Dr. Brown. That’s because you have the same misunderstanding that Brad does. I have explicitly denied what you and Brad have accused me of saying, yet you keep insisting that I said something I didn’t say. And you insist that I prove something I never asserted. It’s weird. I can’t help but say “Wow!” After all my efforts at being as clear as I can possibly be, you persist in this misunderstanding.
Hello
I am way behind with all this, and of course there is a time difference to contend with, but I couldn’t let this comment go by w/o adding my two pennyworth.
“If Arminianism is correct one cannot escape the conclusion that the saved person must have been just a little less hardened (or a little more intelligent) than the unsaved person since he was willing to accept God’s offer of salvation while the other refused. ”
Wait a minute — Jack Graham was 6 when he got saved, James Dobson was 5 — were they smarter than the people who got saved at 20, 60 or 80? Eh? How smart do you have to be to see your own sin? My kiddies (see Jan 29 5.38 pm) know they can’t stop being naughty and they know no Hebrew at all!
Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…
“What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.”
Ben KC,
I actually do mind you asking because this is another example of going after the person participating in the discussion and not after the arguments presented in the discussion. This seems to be a rather common occurrence on this forum.
Please forgive me if you find my educational status too lowly and too mismatched to yours.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Anthy, and yet some people don’t see it. Why?
S.D.G.
:Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…”
Anthy,
You are attacking your opponent and not your opponent’s arguments. This is commonly known as “ad hominem” and it is a well know and not really respected evasion tactic.
Christophe
Can I ask all the Calvinists here, what is the disadvantage you see for someone believing as an Arminian, and advantage to believing as you do? Can you answer this bottomline in maybe a few short sentences?
Christophe,
I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.
Anthy, could it be that we are all born blind, unable and unwilling to see our desperate condition, but that God, in his mercy, has chosen to reveal the truth to some and not to all?
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (Matt. 11:25-26)
S.D.G.
“I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.”
Ben KC
I wish I could say the same about your question and where it comes from.
Regards,
Christophe
Michael, I believe the Calvinist view because I think it’s true, not because I see some advantage in believing it.
But with that being said, I think there is great advantage in having an accurate view of how God saves people. The more accurately we understand God, the more appropriate our praises can be. If we knew nothing at all about God, then we would have nothing to praise him for. If our understanding of God was inaccurate, then we might very well praise him for things that don’t actually apply to him.
For example, I thank God for changing my heart and causing me to be willing to put my faith in Christ. I thank him for granting me repentance. I feel like I have more to thank God for than Arminians do. Whereas an Arminian might say God threw us a rope, but it’s up to us to hold on to it, I think I was in a much more hopeless situation than that. I could not even hold on to the rope. God saved me completely. I did not muster the strength on my own to repent. God caused me to repent by changing my heart. That informs my worship.
And as a previous poster said, there are also psychological advantages to Calvinism. It is comforting to know that everything is in the hands of a wholly good God. Even the awful things that happen will somehow, in the end, result in the praise of his glory. They are not just pointless tragedies.
Christophe,
Heres my educational background:
Undergrad degrees:
BRSM 99. Practical Ministry. A.A
Nyack College 02. Youth Ministry. B.A
Ongoing Graduate degree:
Alliance Theological Seminary, M-Div.
No, Christophe, I was not attacking anyone. I was examining the assertion that a person who believes in Jesus of their own free will could be said to be more intelligent than a person who does not believe. Since small children can be saved it is not a sign of intelligence that a person has faith. If a person sees their sin at the age of 5, I pointed out that an awareness of sin is not a sign of erudition. Trust me, yer average 5 yr-old hasn’t heard of Chekov, or the meaning of ad hominem (I have, BTW).
I did not come to earth in a manger, I did not tramp around Israel preaching, and I wasn’t the one on the Cross — so what is there to boast about in admitting that I’m a sinner who needs a Saviour? As Dr Brown says, you never hear anyone actually boasting about being saved.
I do not know why some people choose not to accept Christ. (It’s like Stilton — how could you not like it?) It’s a mystery, when the Good News is so good. But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.
Ben KC,
Thank you for sharing that even though I did not ask for it.
I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education. I have seen too many PhDs in theology singing accolades to works like “Velvet Elvis” etc. I also met too many simple, uneducated people who knew their Bibles in an astonishing depth.
Since you insist, I studied on two universities while doing three majors: Law,Journalism and Business. In addition to that I had a rather brief encounter with a seminary and I am glad it was brief as the seminary was Arminian in its approach.
Regards,
C.
ONE WORD TO EVERYONE (and where the shoe fits, where it):
If you can be on the forum here and not take things personally, wonderful. If you start to take them personally and then respond accordingly, you’ll have to stop posting.
I am requesting that no one reply to this email or send out apologies, just in case it applies to you; instead, I’m asking everyone to respond to issues and not to people so we can continue this important discussion.
So, rather than ask: “Dr. Brown, are you talking to me?”, instead just determine to interact at the highest levels, as the vast majority of you are in the vast majority of posts.
Christophe,
I know you didnt ask but I just wanted to share just in case you were curious of my background and to let you know I dont have anything to hide.
“I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education.”
I agree. My purpose of wanting to know someone’s educational background is to understand where they are coming from. Thank you for sharing. BTW, what seminary did you attend.
Anthy,
You echoed something I was considering posting with the hope that it might help some of our Calvinist friends understand our POV.
Simply stated, I have no idea why I believed and someone else didn’t, and I see no merit in myself for believing. And I have friends of mine who came to faith before I did, walked with me for a number of years, and then fell away. Why they did and I didn’t, I can’t say, but I do know that my only boast is in God’s goodness and grace.
If a Calvinist would say, “That’s our whole point. You’re thinking like a Calvinist now” (in terms of the salvation issue, not the apostasy issue, of course), my response is: To the contrary, you’re just now understanding how an Arminian thinks!
Hello Dr Brown
I was wondering if you take suggestions for topics for future shows. I was so impressed by Go for Souls. After my encounters with the JWs, I realised that I needed to be ready for that knock on the door with a testimony or a short outline of the Gospel. I know people shut the door when they “don’t have time to talk”, and I realised that if I needed a Two-Minute Testimony.
How about discussing the various good ways of explaining the Gospel? If you have 3 mins, 10 minutes, half and hour? We are told to “share the gospel”, but a lot of people don’t know what to say. That’s why we just invite them to church or say nothing.
“But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Dear Anthy,
The point of Reformed Faith is that no matter if we perceive that what it takes to say “yes please” to the “gift of GOD” as much or very little we DO NOT HAVE IT at all. We don’t because we are spiritually bankrupt and our nature is not able to “bail us out” speaking in today’s economic lingo. We are dead and stinking in our sin as Lazarus was and beyond a doubt of being dead on his fourth day in the tomb.
That’s why we cannot say “yes” on our own just like Lazarus could not move his toe or even twitch his eye. The life had come to him from above, from the commanding mouth of the Lord: “Lazarus, come out” and so it was with me and so it was with you and so it was with Dr.Brown.
Please read here:
“Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”
Charles Spurgeon
In defense of Calvinism
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
“And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Anthy,
I had my share of encounters with JWs. I had discussions with them and frankly as a testimony to Reformed Faith ( not me ) I have seen all three of them (they come usually in 3s) sitting in my living room with a puzzled look on their faces and not able to respond to presented arguments and asking me five times what kind of faith is this Reformed Faith.
I salute you for witnessing to these lost souls.
SDG
Christophe
Throw away the TULIP and embrace the Rose of Sharon.
Neither of my comments have even been moderated yet, so no use waiting up for a reply or posting any further. It’s been interesting listening in though…
‘Night folks.
🙂
P.S. It’s okay, I’m not taking it personally! 😉