The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Thank you for the kind words, Bookends. I also dislike the phrase, "when I accepted Christ." To me, that almost sounds as if someone accommodated the Lord. I did not accept him; he accepted me. And, as you suggest, it sounds as though the individual initiated the relationship. Neither of those thoughts would be true, and the language we use does shape the way we think. I think it is more appropriate to refer to the day when the Lord revealed himself to me and I believed in Christ, surrendering my life to him. He took the initiative. He sought me out. He spoke to me. He opened my eyes. He broke my heart by showing me how sinful I was and how he loved me and gave himself up for me anyway. And he filled me with joy when he asked me to be his. All I did was say, "Thank you, thank you, Lord!", as I continue to do every day.

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever! Amen!

That is also my perspective.

I would never say that, although I know many do. The Arminian view of salvation is that God is always the initiator. We never choose him; he chooses us. The picture (in terms of Ancient Near East culture) is one of a king who chooses a maiden to be his bride. She cannot choose him. The choice is his to make. All she can do is rejoice when the king asks her to be his wife and gratefully say "Yes!" Or she could very foolishly say "No." But she could never, ever initiate the marriage (covenant) relationship. If the king does not choose her, she has no hope of ever becoming his bride.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Perhaps you could include a quote or citation of where Calvin taught this? Claiming that "accepting" or "deciding" is "work" may be valid or invalid, but the issue for me is that the choice itself seems to be what merits salvation for many (not all) Arminians. In other words, God cannot save me, no matter how much He tries or wants to, until I have "accepted" Him. It's the old "take hold of the rope" argument that many (including Geisler) uses. A person cannot be saved from drowning unless he grabs a hold of the rope thrown from shore/the boat/the top of the cliff. God is powerless to save you unless you act by "grabbing the rope." I think that is why many criticize the Arminian idea of salvation as a "work". Moreover, consistent Arminians also believe one can "let go of the rope," as it were, by falling from faith. A lot of extreme Arminians also add the requirement that one not sin too much or they will be kicked out of grace. Thus, a person's salvation depends on first acting to accept salvation, then by upholding one's salvation by keeping themselves in faith and not sinning. The Arminian view of universal previenent grace (discussed below) also seems to root salvation not in God's grace, but in man's choice, since every person has an equal chance to either believe or reject the Gospel. Something inherent in the person becomes the deciding factor, rather than God's will. Granted, however, anthropopmorphisms stand for things - things usually designed to help us understand God better. I don't think Arminians have any better explanation than Calvinists here. What aspect of temporality does believing God chooses the elect in eternity past based on knowledge of a person's future actions solve that believing God chooses the elect in eternity based solely on His own will does not? That God decides in eternity is common to both systems. For me this is the place where I agree with Calvinism the closest (having already agreed with Luther on this topic). The Scriptures place every single person in rebellion against God and dead in sin (which is why they can't "grab the rope" - because they're already dead). Hardly anyone disagrees that without God's grace, no person would believe. The argument is over to whom that grace is given, and that grace's effect. Arminians (mostly) basically teach that God gives enough grace to bring the person to the point of belief through the universal removal of Adam's guilt (prevenient grace), and that God's "draw" can be resisted and rejected. Calvinists affirm that only the elect are given regenerating grace, and that this grace is infallibly effectual at drawing the elect to belief. Calvinists do not teach that God actively blocks those wanting to believe from doing so. Rather, they teach that no one desires God, and that everyone who comes to belief was called to do so and was enabled through regeneration. The picture isn't a multitude of people clamoring to be saved and God rejecting all but a few. Rather it is the opposite; a multitude of sinners rebelling against God and God graciously saving those whom He chooses from the mob. The problem is that "faith," "believe," "saved" or any of the other concomitant phrases are entirely absent from the passage. Moreover, if φωτίζω means "saved" then John 1:9 (where the word is also used) teaches universal salvation. The passage literally says, "That was the true light, which enlightens all men..." 1 Cor 4:5 also has the word φωτίζω. Here Paul uses it to describe when the Lord will "bring to light (enlighten) the hidden things of darkness." Paul uses it in a similar way in Eph 1:18, where Paul prays that the Ephesians would be "enlightened" to know the blessings of God, and in 2 Tim 1:10, where the gospel is "revealed" (φωτίσαντος) by the coming of Jesus. John likes to use the term in Revelation (Rev 18:1, Rev 21:23, Rev 22:5) to mean that God's glory will one day light the earth. In none of these passages does φωτίζω speak of salvation. Just some fodder to chew.

Hey Gideon, I like your maiden/king analogy, but in the ANE, the bride-to-be had no say in the matter. Whether she was willing or not, if the king chose her, she was married to the king.

Of course she had a choice. Not a desirable choice, perhaps, depending upon her station in life, but a choice nonetheless.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

i agree

my pt was often times folks get hung up on what these 2 cats said or didn't say -- we need to research what God Said 1st & foremost -- but, of course, we have a great wealth of opinions with which to peruse, study, & test against Scripture

God Saved me for whatever reason -- my salvation is secure in Him & i played, play, & will play no role in it -- what i must & will continue to do is heed His Word & follow the Spirit & ask forgiveness

Now Gideon, don't let our modern sensibilities and liberties color your view of history. Read Esther. To quote Ken Campbell, in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, during ANE marriage arrangements, "There is no indication that the bride was in any way involved in the negotiations, nor that she was required to make a formal declaration consenting to the marriage"*. Even in Roman society, a bride's consent was "assumed unless she made it clear she did not agree, and it was only proper for her to disagree if her paterfamilias [the patriarch of the family] had chosen a man of bad character."** That began to change in the later Graeco-Roman era, when the consent of both families, as well as the bride and groom was usually required.

*Ken M. Campbell, Marriage and Family in the Biblical World 10.
** Ken M. Campbell, Marriage 151.

Amen!

Robert, my point was that any volitional act involves a choice. Even if one is not culturally or legally afforded a say, a person always has choices when it comes to what he or she will do in a given situation. The only question is whether one is willing to make certain choices and to bear the consequences. To illustrate, Christians in Muslim nations are not presently free to proselytize among Muslims. And Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity. But those cultural and legal straits do not negate the reality that both Christians and Muslims living in those environs can make choices contrary to what is "allowed."

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Man, Gideon! You need to stop taking words from my mouth (lol)! I was getting ready to say basically the same thing. We ALL have a choice. Look at Esther. Wasn't it against the law (or culture) to go into the king's chambers? But yet she did it. Let me go back and read the book of Esther so I don't get my lines crossed. Want to make sure I'm not sticking my foot in my mouth.

Edit: Yes, it is in Esther 4 .

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

I agree that volitional acts involve a choice. The problem is that we are assigning volition to all kinds of situations where there is none. I just cited an academic work arguing that in the ANE and early Roman world womens' "volition" (i.e., her will or desire) were not considered during marriage arrangements, and you still claim "a person always has a choice." Well, I suppose she could run away or kill herself, but for practical purposes, she was married off whether she was willing or not. Within the realm of marriage, if her family chose to marry her to a certain man, she could not refuse to marry him or marry someone else.

The issue, relating it back to the current discussion, is that our modern sensibilities like to give the power of unhindered volition to all activities, when very clearly, there are times when we have almost no volition - or none at all. For our purposes, that is one of the main differences between synergism and monergism* today. (Classic**) Arminians hold that all people have the volitional ability to freely choose belief (through the enabling of universal prevenient grace). Calvinists believe only the elect's wills are enabled (through regeneration) to choose. So, if Arminianism (synergism) is true, and all people have volitional ability, then it is each person's volition that is the determining factor in salvation. If Calvinism (monergism) is true, it is God's volition that is the determining factor in salvation. What we must do is decide which is biblically correct.

*While I have great affinity for Calvin, I would describe myself as a monergist, not a Calvinist, since I have some disagreements with Calvinism in general.
**Some claiming to be Arminians (and are not) hold the Pelagian view that Adam's sin did not result in total depravity and that all people naturally have the volitional ability to choose belief.

With tax season now (almost) over I thought I would crawl out from under my rock to recommend two books on this topic. "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" and "Why I Am Not an Arminian" (sorry, but i do not remember the authors' names, but both books are on Amazon) will give good arguments for each side. I found the logical arguments stronger in favor of the case made for Arminianism but the scriptural arguments stronger in favor of the case made for Calvinism.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

I have also heard that Why I'm Not A Calvinist is very philosophical.

You summed it up quite well, psychobobicus. A similar division on this issue exists within the Roman Catholic Church with the Augustinian-Thomists on one hand and the Molinists on the other, although both parties would describe themselves as synergistic.



Could you kindly point out to me the areas in which you disagree with Calvinist doctrine?

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)

I am not a supporter of infant baptism or Covenant Theology, for two examples. By the way, I like your avatar. That's Edwards isn't it?

Yes, it's Jonathan Edwards indeed.

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)