The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Is Calvinism the Gospel?"

Are you saying that they believe that man is able to believe upon Christ without grace being given to them at all?

Both systems deny UNconditional Election as a consequence of an eternal PREdestination and in contradistinction, posit "POSTdestination". They both hold that God predestines and elects after the fact of faith having been exercised.”

First of all, it is not the same thing at all to say that God did something [only because He knows something] and to say that God did something [with full knowledge, only because its part of His sovereign and unsearchable will, according to His own good pleasure]. The former posits knowledge as the key, and indeed solitary, motive. The latter frames knowledge only as part of the method used to fulfill God's holy and unquestionable will.

To me, those cannot be possibly seen as “the same thing.” They are miles apart.

Yes, both system deny unconditional election. Arminianism holds to unearned, conditional election (similar to unearned conditional grace, also described by John Piper in his book “Future Grace.”). But I'm afraid the usage of “post” and “pre” in your sentence is confusing. If you use “pre” to mean “before, in regard to time,” then both systems DO hold to predestination. If you use “pre” to mean “logically prior to,” then both systems hold to postdestination.

The Arminian view holds that the Biblical meaning of “pre” in that context is in reference to time. (“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” Ephesians 1:4). They believe that the word refers to temporal rather than than logical order (“before time/before the world” rather than “logically preceding”). The Article that you cite, actually, seems to posit a similar interpretation, that is, of temporary order being implied: “before the foundation of the world...”

Without getting into the topic of whether those who die in infancy go to heaven or are capable of faith, I notice that you miss responding to an important point. You say that semi-Pelagians claims that God can and DOES save people who do not have faith. Thus, you deny that Arminians not only believe that God does save people without faith, but that Arminianism holds that God CANNOT (does not even have the option or power to) save people without faith.

Even if we accept that Arminianism denies that God saves people without faith, can you point me to any part of their doctrine that states that this is due to a lack of power (cannot), rather than an intentional choice?

Ah yes, you are correct about this. Some Arminians believe in the security of salvation (and therefore believe that God saves everyone that He applies redemption to). Other Arminians believe that one can “lose” the promise of salvation, which would mean what you said above. Article 5 accepts both types of Arminians since it denounces neither belief: stating that it may (and by logically implication may not) be possible for believers to lose their salvation.

Yes, and this is key. The Remonstance held that God intentionally chooses to regenerate those who already have faith. But I have never read that they held that this is because of a lack of power of His part. In fact, Arminians seem to hold strongly to the notion that God is all-powerful and His choices in salvation are never due to weakness, inability, or a lack of power, but rather that every point of salvation and the way that God chooses to do things and to deal with people stems from His sovereignty, intentionality, and volition: His pleasure and will.

That is why it was such a poor representation of Arminianism for the article to state that it teaches that God can't do this, or can't do that. Any classical Arminian reading that would surely reject it as a strawmen or else a serious misunderstanding of the foundations of their faith.

While an interesting topic, I do not see how this addresses the validity of the claim. Even if every form of grace Arminians believed was “really” not grace at all, it would be incorrect to sat that Arminianism “views” grace as non-existent. That would not be an Arminian view at all – in this hypothetical – the Arminian view would be that non-grace things are grace.

Similarly, there is no “merely” in the Arminian doctrine. There are many types of forms of grace. Paul even refers to the various spirit gifts as a form of grace. An opponent may say “their view of grace is flawed,” and it would be easier for an Arminian to take that seriously – because at least it would not be a misstatement of the Arminian view itself.

If you reject the possibility of conditional grace, then this is true from an outside perspective (that is, non-Arminians would see that it's no grace at all, yet Arminians would believe that it is grace). Your statement does seem to imply that you reject the existence of conditional grace. John Piper, a Calvinist even, recognizes that grace in the lives of believers is often conditional – yet still completely unearned and unmerited. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Arminians accept this same viewpoint: grace in the lives of believes can be given out conditionally, yet be unmerited. Similarly, saving grace is given out conditionally, and yet is unmerited.

Example of that style of thinking: I reward my little brother every time he turns left, but not any time that he turns right. This does not make turning left any more moral or righteous than turning right – it just means, simply, that turning left is rewarded.

Yes, you yourself seem quite knowledgeable on the topic. But I do think that the author of the article will be unable to persuade true Arminians, since they will read it and think: "But I don't believe any of that stuff he says I do. Of course that stuff is all wrong."

I have read the first article that you linked to in this post, but have not yet gotten around to reading the second or third, both of which appear to be intriguing.