Comments on William W. Birch: The Myth of Free Will

Hi William, I'm fine with the venue qua its p...

2012-02-10T10:03:51.186-05:00

Hi William,

I'm fine with the venue qua its publicness, and understand how useful it is to have comments on the blog. It's just that the reply box is quite small and difficult to plan replies in, and the reply length is limited - it's certainly not user friendly if we were going to start discussing those things above.

Perhaps, however, we should leave the discussion there. I feel like my query has been answered, and that I understand the Arminian view to a greater degree than I did, which is great.

Kind regards

Simon

Simon, I'm fine with the discussion being rig...

2012-02-09T22:12:29.248-05:00

Simon,

I'm fine with the discussion being right here. Others tend to enjoy reading these dialogues, and some may have similar questions regarding Arminianism and want to read an answer. So, I'm fine with this venue if you are.

Yet again, I am not denying philosophy, the need for it, that I practice it, even though I think that Scripture should rightly frame or inform one's philosophy. For example, I wouldn't expect someone who holds to a Buddhist presuppositional philosophy to engage Scripture, and that is why I wanted our conversation to include passages of Scripture which corroborate with our views. I mean, if we're discussing libertarian free will where God and man are concerned, one would think that Scripture would have informed our biblical-philosophical worldview and not vice versa, right?

Now, I'm fine not cornering you on what I perceive to be your own inconsistencies. But I was trying to use your views (whatever they may be) as a compare and contrast. Since that will not work, then I will abandon that motif altogether.

Another problem as arisen, however. This conversation has been lingering since January 24, and I do not remember all the particulars en toto, nor do I have the time to go back through the comments and responses to refresh my memory. I'm sure you remember I'm taking a full course load, fifteen hours, this semester in seminary, so my time is limited. Not only that, but this is not the only dialogue with which I am presently engaged, as you might imagine.

So, you will have to ask me, following this response, what you will, and I will respond promptly. I no longer remember what (1) and (2) refer to, so I'll need your direct, succinct questions.

God bless.

Hi William, So I just wrote a big long reply only...

2012-02-09T15:03:50.386-05:00

Hi William,

So I just wrote a big long reply only to find that it won't let me post it due to a word-limit length. Perhaps we could continue the conversation over email?

A highly abridged version is as follows:

It is important we keep two things separate here: my original question about your system, and your subsequent questions about my system.

My original question was about Arminianism judged by its own lights. (Something you wrote in the original blog post intrigued me (I can't remember which portion), but I became aware that there might've been a way to iron out one of the kinks I'd always been aware of within Arminianism - hence the question.)

So far that kink is still there: it is to do with how, on your system, working within your framework, we can say, and more importantly, mean anything important by, the statement described by (1), whilst holding to (2). We've clarified various concepts and your position on various things, and the kink is still there.

Importantly: this issue remains for your system regardless of my views, and regardless of whether my views are more or less plausible than yours. At some point during our exchange you started raising some questions for my views. That is all well and good (and fair, in the spirit of exchange, and I don't mind sharing). But regardless of my answers the original issue is about the internal consistency of your system and its claims, and it remains whatever my views are, and whatever merits they have.

I think it is too confusing and too muddying-of-the-waters to try to assess both of our systems in the same thread, as it were. But here we have another problem, for it is not just that we differ on specific, individual beliefs. Our approaches and methodologies differ too. This is one reason why I objected to proof-texting. And is also a reason why I probably won't be able to give you what you want. It is not that I don't want to take the Bible seriously, its that I don't think taking the Bible seriously means treating it how you treat it.

Here are some initial thoughts concerning our differing methodologies which we could fruitfully discuss (via email might be better, we need to keep separate threads to keep things clear).

"Philosophy" and "Scripture" are not separate sources. Your position, I take it, is that they are separate sources of knowledge, and that Scripture should "rule over" philosophy. But they are not separate sources. Examples: you use "philosophy" even in just the most simple act of reading (you acknowledge the law of non-contradiction, for example, just in being able to distinguish between the letters), you acknowledge the *reasoning* of those scholars who've built the Greek Grammars you trust, and you strive to make good inferences (which is what philosophy is all about) from informal prose like the Pauline letters. (This is to say nothing of hermeneutics which is, of course, is a branch of philosophy).

Another thing we could take forward further would be our starting points, things we tend to hold fixed. You rightly identify a libertarian understanding of free will as something I hold to (if by libertarian you mean that a subject has available to them more than one option to choose from - i.e. it doesn't mean "freeest of free will", whatever that means). But if I understand you correctly you hold to that too? Do I hold it fixed regardless of whatever else I come across? No. Does it influence scriptural exegesis? Yes, in a way. It forms part of my ethical belief system, and that affects how I read scripture. Yours will affect how you read it to, whether or not you admit it.

So we could take either of those issues forward in dialogue over email. Or we could discuss issues of biblical interpretation more generally?

Simon, I look forward to when you can sit down an...

2012-02-03T09:22:52.586-05:00

Simon,

I look forward to when you can sit down and be more specific, interact with and answer the scriptural passages which explicitly teach Total Depravity/Total Inability, and answer what I see as blatant inconsistency on your part regarding what Scripture teaches and what your philosophical wrangling is trying to advance more fully.

I'm not denying that every one of us uses philosophy -- quite the contrary. But what I am suggesting is that one should rule over and inform the other: Scripture should inform our philosophy, not vice versa. IMO, your philosophical hermeneutic informs your theology, whereby, no matter what Scripture teaches, your already informed philosophical hermeneutic guides any passage which contradicts it. That's what I'm detecting in your various reasonings.

I, of course, think that both Calvinists and Arminians are trying to let Scripture dictate what we should believe: both camps take passages which explicitly refer to TD/TI as our hermeneutic and let them inform our view of the will, grace, etc.

You, however, began with a philosophical notion of libertarian free will, and then let that inform how you will interpret explicit scriptural passages which contradict your findings. Do you not find that severely problematic?

Again, I'm not expecting someone who admits his bent toward "liberal" theology to be overly concerned about Scripture, as liberals usually are not, but I'm hoping that when framed in such language, you would think to yourself, Gee, that does seem like a major problem -- the manner in which I am concluding these complex theological issues. Perhaps I should first take a look at what Scripture teaches and then see if I can let them dictate if what I already think is accurate.

For example, if I thought that God, because He is love, would never send anyone to hell, and then forced that unwarranted and preconceived notion upon Scripture, I might be able to wrest certain passages out of their intended and obvious context in order to substantiate my original claim (there are people who do this very thing with this very topic). But then I read the following: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28 NASB).

Ut-oh! Now I have one of at least two choices. I can admit, by this explicit passage which contradicts my original thesis, that I was wrong, and that God actually does send some people to hell, or I can hold to my original presupposition and try to reinterpret the verse entirely. The former conclusion is the right thing to do, while the latter leads to error and eventually to heresy.

I look forward to more dialogue.

Dear William, Sorry for the long delay before rep...

2012-02-03T03:28:55.831-05:00

Dear William,

Sorry for the long delay before replying; I've had to go abroad.

I hope to reply more fully in due course, but here are just a couple of initial thoughts.

You say that you don't appreciate philosophical arguments, and that beliefs should be formed from Scripture. I would reply that you can't have one without the other. To be sure, there are arguments or reasons which are wholly philosophical where you start from first principles and reason upwards, but I use philosophical more widely. As you mentioned, meaning should be determined by context. That's a hermeneutical principle, and that is philosophy through and through.

Why do I believe what I believe? Because consistency is one of our best tests for truth, and at root, by reflecting on Jesus I do believe, as Scripture confirms, that God is essentially love. Consistency just doesn't let me hold theologies like Calvinism, and also, Arminianism, I've never seen one that is compatible with that idea (Yes, I realise that they say they are compatible, but saying and being are two different things).

Perhaps a response which will vindicate your suspicion of me, but I don't yet know how to integrate that into a consistent system - it would, of course, just be one aspect of the outworkings of original sin. But I've not seen a plausible presentation of how we can be responsible for original sin from either side (Calvinism or Arminianism) of the debate. My present thinking is that our libertarian freedom means that each of us will, to all intents and purposes, inevitably sin.

My inclination to liberal theology comes from the fact that it is the only consistent system. Everyone, in doing theology, is doing philosophy. Those who disparage it just don't realise it, and thus risk doing it badly. If you say A, B, C and they are inconsistent, which is what I am claiming of your system, then that is bad philosophy.

Anyway, I'll attempt to reply properly when I'm back in the UK. Needless to say we've gone quite off topic. I'd like to push you on the point I made a few posts ago now that you've said you don't think God would refrain from giving prevenient grace to those who he knows will respond. Each of the topics we're bring up is so big in and of itself that they are hard to deal with over such a medium.

Simon, Pt. Two As for the "all" questio...

2012-01-27T10:07:31.596-05:00

Simon, Pt. Two

As for the "all" question: you listed Colossians 1:20 among the passages, which speaks of Christ reconciling "all" things unto Himself. We have two choices in this passage: Universalism, or all things which pertain to Christ (creation, since He is the Creator, and the redeemed who are "in" Him).

I think the word "all" must be contextualized, and that is why "all" does not always mean "each and every single individual." John 12:32 included Gentiles in a Jewish context, and that is why I think "all" refers to everyone in a general and not specific sense. Context must determine its usage.

Plus, exactly how is Christ drawing those who have never heard of Him unto Himself? And can you reconcile your answer with Paul's admission at Rom. 10:13-17? And by what means? By what revelation? Let's talk epistemology here. How do you know He is drawing those who know nothing of Him? What evidence can you provide? And by what means is He doing so?

If you can tell me why Scripture insists that man is both Totally Depraved and Totally Incapable of coming to and believing in Jesus without the aid of prevenient grace, then I'd be happy to read: See "Total Depravity and Total Inability: A Biblical Case Study". There are over 40 biblical references which explicitly refer to both cases (TD/TI). I don't see how we can dismiss them and run off to our philosophical arguments against them, do you?

God bless.

Simon, Pt. One The reason why I asked for scriptu...

2012-01-27T10:07:04.329-05:00

Simon, Pt. One

The reason why I asked for scriptural proof of your position was not to advocate proof-texting, strictly, but because I need to know why you believe what you believe, and I was hoping that your beliefs were being formed from Scripture. I now see that they are not, at all. That's extremely troublesome to me.

Do you have no answer for all of the passages which explicitly teach TD/TI (mentioned below), such as 1 Corinthians 2:14, for only one example? I mean there it is, objectively, in the text: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God [Total Depravity], for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them [Total Inability], because they are spiritually appraised " (NASB).

This is why I stated earlier that I don't appreciate philosophical arguments and debates; and that is all this is on your part -- one logical argument after another, void of scriptural warrant. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

Then again, you already self-confessed your tendency toward liberal theology, so I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on you, lol, since liberals typically don't care too much about Scripture.

My intent with that question was to ask whether you thought God himself ever directly refrained from giving prevenient grace even whilst knowing that someone would respond to it. . . .

No, I didn't understand you clearly. I do not think God would ever directly refrain from granting anyone prevenient grace whilst knowing that someone would respond to it.

However, this is purely hypothetical and highly speculative, meaning, God, having exhaustive knowledge, would already know who the gospel would reach and who would not be exposed to the gospel. We can't just leave a category such as God's exhaustive knowledge out of this equation, since we're also discussing what He would or would not do in a given situation.

So, since He already knows who will not receive the gospel, the notion of Him granting prevenient grace to a people who will not receive it is, as you say, entirely superfluous; actually, it's not even based in reality, only in hypotheticals, since He already knows that said persons will not receive the gospel and hence not receive prevenient grace -- even if they would respond to it -- even if He knows that they would respond to it.

Dear William, You're right that the "in ...

2012-01-27T03:25:41.773-05:00

Dear William,

You're right that the "in and of themselves" is significant for you; that is because you answered 'yes' to the preventient grace question. The comments regarding that kind of statement becoming superfluous were for the person who answers 'no'.

I take the fact that Calvinism teaches that God elects some to eternal life and elects some to eternal punishment (the logic entails double predestination, however much they protest) in a manner which is based on nothing about the person, and totally out of control of the person, a reductio of the Calvinist position.

I thought you'd answer no on the grace question, but you answered yes. However, I'm not sure my question was clear. My intent with that question was to ask whether you thought God himself ever directly refrained from giving prevenient grace even whilst knowing that someone would respond to it; I didn't mean to be referencing situations where 3rd party interference was involved - that's a more complicated situation.

If you answer 'no', God will never refrain from giving prevenient grace when he knows it will be responded to positively, then what I'm saying is such total incapability language is superfluous, and you might as well just admit that we can respond to God, precisely because God has made us - in the first place - able to do so. Do you see my point?

When you say:

(1) man is "completely unable to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things"

what that means is:

(1') man is "completely unable to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things", unless, of course, God enables him to respond, which he has done, happily, for everyone whom he foreknew would respond to such grace.

and this is materially equivalent to:

(1'') man can't earn his salvation, but he is able to respond to God's offer of salvation, because God has made him so

I'm not sure what your position is on this. The introduction of dependency on others for salvation complicates things a bit. However, it sounds like your position is that other people will routinely (given man's utter sinfulness) lose eternal salvation due to the negligence of others, and I think I'd take that as a reductio against your position.

I forgot to answer your semi-Pelagian question. And I think I'd like to refrain from giving my systematic position complete with Biblical citations. Two reasons, one in your own request: proof-texting. I don't see the point, because it amounts to little more than ripping verses out of context and I'm just not sure how useful it is to play that game. For example: I think you said in one of your responses to Fred that "all" doesn't always mean every single individual. You're right. But you're quick to say that Rom 3:11 is a universal, whilst having already dismissed the 'all' in John 12:32 - no doubt do the same for thsoe in Colossians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and so on.

The second reason is simply that I don't have a system yet. I tend towards a liberal theology for many reasons of the above kind. In your last message you state that the "discussion is going slightly awry, however, because we're neglecting some rather significant details about humanity." This is probably the crux of it. For if I accepted those things about humanity that you do much less of this would be problematic. I actually accept that we are wholly incapable of earning salvation; I find it a very plausible empirical truth, if nothing else. What I don't find plausible are any of the stories for how it is wholly our fault, and as such, I'm pushed towards universalism.

Simon

Sorry for the confusion here. William was most kin...

2012-01-26T18:06:48.942-05:00

Sorry for the confusion here. William was most kind to post my comments above. I have discovered that things work better with Internet Explorer than with Firefox. Perhaps, his site is getting a block on Firefox? I'll have to check.

I will make some general comments here to check out my computer settings.

Arminius was a very good thinker. He is, in my opinion, superior to Calvin, especially in the area of soteriology where his argumentation comports better with Scripture and also with experience. Man indeed can and does resist, even in the presence of God's drawing, which I understand as prevenient grace. Like all of us, we need Scripture to help us understand God, as well as the benefit of experience, logic and tradition. Sola scriptura does not mean nuda scriptura, but it does take Scripture as our highest authority.

Fred responded: I do not believe that the divine...

2012-01-26T17:13:14.071-05:00

Fred responded:

I do not believe that the divine image in man is effaced or destroyed, but that is the corollary to one who holds, like Arminius, that the human will has not only been corrupted but also destroyed in relation to turning to God. Now prevenient grace is needed to draw men to God. However, it does not do the willing for man. It only frees man to choose God. The individual can either accept or resist God at the preaching of the Good News. This ability to choose implies that the human will was not destroyed in the fall, merely corrupted to such a degree that it needs the prompting of the Spirit to turn to God.

I again will summarize: Arminius went too far in defining Total Depravity. His position would lead logically to the Calvinist position that one must be regenerated in order to believe.

Fred, I would answer that by the "will"...

2012-01-26T16:26:42.719-05:00

Fred,

I would answer that by the "will" Arminius refers only to that aspect of the will which should but is not able to respond to spiritual matters; hence the need for prevenient grace. If the will is not fallen, and can inherently respond on his own, then there is no need for prevenient grace -- or grace of any kind. In that sense, all he needs is to hear the gospel. I know of a gentleman currently forming his own doctrine, very similar to (if not outright) this formulation.

In essence, then, man retains the image of God even though that aspect of his will that has been debilitated due to sin.

Could you please inform us as to why you think God's image in a person is destroyed if he cannot rightly respond without prevenient grace?

Fred is still having problems responding, so I'...

2012-01-26T16:23:06.538-05:00

Fred is still having problems responding, so I'll leave them here for him:

Yes, I do include all in the word "all."

If the will of man is destroyed in the fall, how is not also the divine image destroyed?

Fred, Arminius's views of the bondage of the ...

2012-01-26T15:49:05.460-05:00

Fred,

Arminius's views of the bondage of the will was with regard to spiritual matters and not everyday matters. We can obviously freely choose what to eat, where to go, what to do, etc. But spiritually speaking, he was merely holding to the Reformed tradition of the bondage of the will, which Scripture so clearly expresses (see "Total Depravity and Total Inability: A Biblical Case").

Total Depravity and Total Inability necessitates Prevenient Grace. Total Depravity and Total Inability (spiritually) does not destroy the image of God in man, as Arminius also affirmed.

The "all" at John 12:32 is merely the inclusion of Gentiles, I believe, since in that very context some Gentiles just sought for Him. The inclusion of Gentiles in God's redemptive plan was bold and not well received by the Jews. But "all" does not always mean "each and every single individual."

Would you consider yourself an Inclusivist, Fred?

God bless.

Fred Karlson wanted to comment with the following ...

2012-01-26T15:42:42.046-05:00

Fred Karlson wanted to comment with the following but was unable to do so through Blogger for some reason:

Arminius went too far when he said our free will is destroyed. "In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; but it is also... imprisoned, destroyed...(Works 2:192-93).

If the will is freed by prevenient grace, it is then drawn by the Holy Spirit to accept the truths about Jesus Christ. But before faith, the will is not yet regenerated. Otherwise, regeneration would come earlier in the order of salvation than faith. This is one of the weak arguments of Calvinism, as it places regeneration not only before faith but also before justification.

Now Richard Muller teaches that faith is not coerced but persuaded by the Holy Spirit. What causes man to respond? Is it only the Holy Spirit, or is there still a remnant though damaged that persists of the divine image in man. It is man who believes and not God who believes for him.

Hoitenga's book "John Calvin and the Will. A Critique and Corrective" is right to point out that Calvin went too far in depicting the unregenerate man's will. He points out that Augustine painted a more positive picture. Interestingly enough, Richard Muller wrote the forward to this book.

Geisler also points out the error of a destroyed divine image of God in man. This would be a corollary to a destroyed human will. The scriptural support for this would look at Adam after the fall, who heard and responded to God. The unregenerate man of Romans 1:18-25 clearly sees the truths of God's nature from creation and conscience, and on that basis is condemned.

I see the Holy Spirit as One constantly drawing sinners to Jesus Christ and in various stages of common and/or saving grace. Common grace switches to special grace when the Good News is preached. It is the resistance of the will that condemns man and shuts God out. The drawing of the Spirit is universal when understood as both common and special. "...when I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). The "all" here cannot be the Calvinist "all types and varieties" as it must correlate with the universality of the atonement. Even Dort allowed for a universal provision, as you know.

Best of everything,
Fred

Simon, You ask, do you think that there is an...

2012-01-26T09:44:16.042-05:00
Simon,

You ask, do you think that there is anyone who would've responded to prevenient grace, if they'd been given it, but wasn't given it (and thus was/is not saved)?

I answer yes. There are people who were not reached for Christ who would have responded to the gospel by prevenient grace, but we neglected to reach them. That is tragic, but it's not God's fault that lazy Christians did not go.

It matters zilch to me that I'm in Calvinist territory on this matter. I'm in the Calvinist field on the majority of Christian teaching, exempting, of course, determinism, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Think about it: we have much, much more in common with Calvinists than many are willing to admit!

I think this discussion is going slightly awry, however, because we're neglecting some rather significant details about humanity, such as 1) no one seeks for God (Rom. 3:11); 2) no one wants God because of depravity and sin; 3) no one deserves God's salvation and grace; 4) we are in the same place as Adam, who willingly rebelled against God; etc. What I mean is, the overtone I'm detecting inherent in your part of the conversation is that man deserves a chance to be saved, and God is found unjust if people are not reached.

But no one receives injustice; everyone receives justice. Saved individuals receive mercy through Christ, but no one receives injustice. I don't even think that Unconditional Election is unfair, since no one deserves salvation. I think we need to think of the salvation and damnation of souls through this lens and put God in His rightful place.

Now, returning to the issue of inability: the "in and of ourselves" is utterly significant, since it demonstrates our need for God's proactive grace, without which no one could trust in Christ and thus be saved. That is anything but gratuitous -- it's actually the main point!

If you wouldn't mind, why you don't you spell out what you believe, and we'll contrast and compare. Try to incorporate Scripture in this philosophically minded explanation. I've already done my part of proof-texting over 40 scriptural references to TD/TI in the previous post. It's your turn ; )

In Him.

Hi William, Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid...

2012-01-26T03:52:14.148-05:00
Hi William,

Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid I think the problem still remains, just shifted back a level (I think the discussion is good, we're getting to the nuts and bolts of where I think it fails now).

First aside: you're right about the 'no good reason'; I didn't mean, no reason at all, what I meant was that there was no good reason dependent on the subject in question (even that is not precise enough, because someone could argue there is a reason based on person A, but it's a relational reason, and nothing intrinsic to the person. I think we can simplify though, for the time being). Arminianism though wants to distinguish itself from that allegedly arbitrary nature of Calvinism by saying salvation is conditional on faith.

Second aside: I've read one of those articles on corporate elecction, but I'm not up on the finer points, so can't respond to that avenue until I've read them.

Basically, I think that prevenient grace is invoked by Arminians to dispel the charge that man can freely respond. Let me ask you this: do you think that there is anyone who would've responded to prevenient grace, if they'd been given it, but wasn't given it (and thus was/is not saved)? I'm presuming your answer here will be 'no', for you say:

"What they're saying is that TD/TI has rendered man unable in and of himself to come to Christ. However, and this is where you missed it, what they are saying is that God has always foreknown who would accept Christ by God's prevenient grace. Just because man is unable in and of himself to come to Christ in no way whatsoever entails that man is unable to respond to God's prevenient grace, since this proactive grace is granted so that a person can respond freely"

If you did say 'yes', then it seems your in Calvinist territory where the only explanation lies in the secret counsel of God's will.

But saying 'no' leaves you back in the territory of the person who says that God does actually enable everyone to respond. The two are materially equivalent. Why? Because you're saying that God has enabled by prevenient grace all those who he saw would respond if they had it.

So strictly speaking its true to say that man "in and of himself" can't respond. But I still contend that on this position the statement is pointless and misleading, because it never matters. It is as if God says to himself: man in and of himself can't respond; but some will respond if I give them a leg up (as it were); so let's look at which one's would respond with that leg up, and then give it to them; then he gives them the leg up.

So everyone has been measured according to whether they would respond *with the leg up*. As you say, "God has always foreknown who would accept Christ by God's prevenient grace." And on that basis, he's given them the prevenient grace.

So it still seems superfluous to assert something like (1).

This is tentative, but I think it is the point: Nothing concerning our salvation ever depends on us being in that "in and of ourselves" state, so why bother asserting it as if it's important in this sphere? (It's important for other things, no doubt; just judgement of sinners, etc. But statements like (1) are meant to be relevant in the context of salvation.)

That was all written quite quickly off the top of my head, prior to heading to work, but hopefully you can see why I still think there is a problem?

Simon, I won't address the commentary under t...

2012-01-25T18:37:07.869-05:00
Simon,

I won't address the commentary under the "yes" column, since I hold that God does not enable all persons the world over with prevenient grace.

You wrote: Suppose you say no. Then I don't see how Arminianism differs from Calvinism inasmuch as both would seem to make God out to be capricious and arbitrary, saving some for no good reason.

First, Calvinism has God saving unconditionally certain ones from among equally depraved sinners. The charge of capricious and arbitrary has certainly been leveled against them in times past.

Second, the "foreknowledge" view of some Arminians would see God as conditionally electing unto salvation those whom He foreknew would freely receive Christ, due to His proactive grace, but not all would receive Christ because not all would hear about Christ (and of course all infants would be saved by God's grace, having committed no sin, etc.).

However, many Arminians hold to the Corporate Election model (See "Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Response to Thomas Schreiner" and "Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election," both by Brian J. Abasciano). God's method of salvation differs in this model, in that God is not viewed as saving anyone strictly by a (foreknown) decree. It is still restricted, however.

You then state, "saving some for no good reason." This puzzles me quite a bit. Even in Calvinism, God's saving people is always for a good reason: 1) for their salvation from hell (that's good!); and 2) for His own glory and greatness (and goodness!). Whatever we say about that, we cannot say that God saved some "for no good reason."

Third, your response assumes something about Arminianism that it itself denies: a semblance of exhaustive, meticulous determinism. God did not determine for those people to not hear the gospel. He has given us a huge responsibility, and we are to be faithful to carry it out. If God established salvation through the instrumentality of the Gospel, then is He to blame for our negligence? The answer is no. Ezekiel's ministry comes to mind immediately (read Ezekiel 33).

You continued: Note that taking this side of the dilemma, you can't say that God enables those whom he foreknew would accept faith, because the whole point (on this position) is they can't accept faith.

I think you missed the whole enchilada there. What they're saying is that TD/TI has rendered man unable in and of himself to come to Christ. However, and this is where you missed it, what they are saying is that God has always foreknown who would accept Christ by God's prevenient grace. Just because man is unable in and of himself to come to Christ in no way whatsoever entails that man is unable to respond to God's prevenient grace, since this proactive grace is granted so that a person can respond freely.

Do you see that? Does that make sense?

BTW, I'm assuming you're familiar by now with semi-Pelagianism. Are you claiming, at the moment, to be semi-Pelagian in your views on depravity?

That's a good question, and the answer depends...

2012-01-25T18:14:22.238-05:00
That's a good question, and the answer depends on what you say in response to a further question:

Here's the question: do you think everyone is so enabled?

Suppose you say no. Then I don't see how Arminianism differs from Calvinism inasmuch as both would seem to make God out to be capricious and arbitrary, saving some for no good reason. Note that taking this side of the dilemma, you can't say that God enables those whom he foreknew would accept faith, because the whole point (on this position) is they can't accept faith.

Who does God enable?
Those whom he foreknew would accept faith.
But who can accept faith?
No one, unless God enables them.
And who does God enable again?
...
...

It's circular.

Suppose you say yes. We're all fallen, in a terrible state, but God graciously enables each one of us to respond, he repairs us, so to speak, so that we can respond, and then the ball's in our court.

In this case then (1) is basically vacuous. Fleshed out, it means:

(1') man is "completely unable to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things", unless, of course, God enables him to respond, which he has done, happily, for everyone.

Now you can say such things, but the important point about the second horn of this dilemma (you've answered 'yes' to 'does god enable everyone?'), is that this means the "completely unable ..." clause doesn't apply to anyone.

Here is a parallel statement:

man is completely unable to see anything at all, unless, of course, he has eyes, which, happily, God has given him.

What's happening here is that (1) becomes a statement about a situation that will never actually be manifest. The statement only applies to those who God doesn't enable to respond, but he enables everyone. So it applies to no one. (It's more complicated than this: technically, it applies to all those segments of each of our lives prior to God's enabling. But I don't think this affects my point).

So your response is to make (1) and (2) consistent by saying that (1) is not the case anymore, right? God's enabled us, so we can respond, but that means we're no longer unable to do spiritual good things.

In which case its just misleading to affirm so loudly statements such as Total Incapability.

Just the same way as no one goes round saying "man is completely unable to see", so it is pointless to go round saying "man is completely unable to do spiritually good things."

Simon, Well, of course I don't think it's...

2012-01-25T08:17:44.483-05:00
Simon,

Well, of course I don't think it's inconsistent, or I wouldn't hold it. If someone is enabled to do that which he could not have otherwise done in and of himself, then how is (1) inconsistent with (2)? If he is enabled to overcome (1) in order to perform (2), then where is the inconsistency, from your perspective?

Hi William, Yes, your response does help clarify ...

2012-01-25T04:09:20.020-05:00
Hi William,

Yes, your response does help clarify your position, thanks for the reply.

Regarding the first paragraph, I didn't mean to be drawn on any issue concerning God's glory, I certainly wasn't make a point about that. I was using our moral intuitions concerning such a case to backup the idea that those mental events are actions, are things we're responsible for.

What spurred my original question was the thought that the Arminian position, precisely as you've articulated it above, cannot consistently hold that "because man is totally depraved in all aspects of his entire being, this state renders him completely unable, as Arminius and the Remonstrants confess, rightly 'to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things'" (as you quoted it in your other post).

I myself don't have a problem with that - I want a consistent system and I'm happy to adjust aspects of doctrines like Total Depravity to accommodate that, otherwise I'm being contradictory. Equally though, I'm open to a consistent position being presented with that specific doctrine present, hence the question/investigation.

What I'm saying is that it is inconsistent to hold both:
(1) man is "completely unable to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things"
(2) faith is something done by the person, something under their control

One reason (1) is too strong is because faith is a spiritually good thing. The easiest way (I think) for the Arminian would be to adjust (1), making it more precise, by just stipulating that the good the person can't do is the good which earns salvation (earns being the crucial word). That would be a much more consistent position I think. (I don't think you want to start down the path of arguing that faith isn't a spiritual good, that doesn't seem like it would be a good avenue).

Of course, you might worry that this would compromise the claim to continuity with the historical figure of Arminius, I'm not sure. And you'd be open to the charge that there are good things the sinner can do (just none that could ever earn salvation) - no doubt the Calvinists would love levelling that one. (I don't think I find either of these problematic).

What do you think?

Simon, Since there was no hurry, lol, I made beef...

2012-01-24T21:33:39.686-05:00
Simon,

Since there was no hurry, lol, I made beef nachos for one of my dormmates, and we watched the movie he rented from Redbox: "50/50".

I want to begin with your ending: it seems like if that were to happen the person in question would be morally praiseworthy for the said reading. The "praiseworthy" concept folds upon itself when considering the passage from which I quoted above: Matt. 7:24. If Jesus calls the one who "acts on" His message wise, and yet does not consider the individual to be robbing God of His rightful glory, etc., why would we?

After the Holy Spirit has graciously enabled someone to freely trust in Christ, that person then has the ability to trust in Christ, but not irresistibly so. Some respond with faith immediately; others do not; others respond at a later date; others resist to the end of their life, etc. The responses are varied due to a plethora of life circumstances.

When someone responds in faith, the Spirit of God regenerates and indwells the individual; God justifies and sanctifies him -- he is "in Christ" then, and baptized into the body of Christ, etc. If you long to call this mental/heart response an "act," I suppose you could, especially since Jesus said that the one who hears His message and acts on them is wise.

I forgot to answer the question regarding faith, sorry. Is our faith response "under our control"? In answer, I also ask, Is the response of faith ours? Yes. Are we the ones actually believing/faithing? Yes. God does not believe for us; He graces, we believe.

When we hear the gospel preached, are we "responsible" for our response? Yes. Is the Spirit of God graciously enabling us to respond? Yes. Is this a one-time act of the Spirit? That is doubtful. He could convict someone of his sins for years (as He did with me). He may only convict someone for a brief while. I cannot really answer but only speculate the time question, and I'm not sure anyone else can dogmatically answer it either, since we cannot know the mind and will of God in that regard.

Have I answered your questions sufficiently, or have I missed some aspects? I don't mind this dialogue at all.

God bless.

William, You're kind: there really is no pres...

2012-01-24T15:37:28.251-05:00
William,

You're kind: there really is no pressure to respond super quickly :)

You say you want a definition of act from me; I suppose I would say it's whatever you want to include in Total Depravity (whatever you think we're incapable of). (Incidentally, I'm not trying to sway you from any position. I was, briefly, a Calvinist, and left Calvinism for Arminianism only briefly, before concluding there are just as many incoherences in the system it creates. I'm still interested in finding a workable Arminian system, however, hence the question). Also, I fully embrace the need for philosophising - I think all systematic theologians engage in bucket loads of it, despite the typical evangelical's propensity to deny this, but that's another topic.

One of the biggest tensions in Arminianism, I think, is that between total depravity (and its corollary incapability) and the idea that the faith is our own. Perhaps I could ask my question like this. From the above I understand that you think we have the "ability to respond" only after the gracious work of the Spirit and the power of the gospel. So, after those two things have happened, what happens then? What is this response? When you say "respond freely" it sounds very much like the person is doing something, is acting.

(I'd also like to re-ask my other question: is faith is under our control on your understanding of Arminianism? I wasn't clear on that.)

The danger I see with not thinking of thought processes such as willings as acts is that they seem to be something we are responsible for. Imagine having a page of Scripture in front of you: you can choose (a mental act, I'd say) to read it (another mental act), and afterwards (one would hope) one would be more familiar with said Scripture - you're inner being has changed (maybe even your spiritual state has changed), and yet there was little physical movement and no physical action. One good reason to consider such mental processes acts (alongside the fact that they seem to be under our direct control, and that they're active) is that it seems like if that were to happen the person in question would be morally praiseworthy for the said reading.

Simon, I don't think of "thought process...

2012-01-24T15:06:49.451-05:00
Simon,

I don't think of "thought processes" as acts, strictly defined. I need you to define what you mean by "act" in order to rightly respond. I'm not trying to pull semantics here, but this is important if we're to make finer distinctions.

Think also of Jesus words: "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27); "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). We would both agree that Jesus is not advocating works righteousness.

Still, he did tell us that the kind of "work," if you will, that God requires is belief/faith. Belief is not the kind of "work" which indicates doing good deeds in order to earn favor or grace with God (Rom. 4:4-5), nor does it refer to being a good enough person (Rom. 4:16). Rather, belief is the type of response/act which involves both the heart and the mind.

Because Scripture so clearly affirms that we are Totally Depraved and Totally Incapable of coming to and believing in Christ in and of ourselves (and, really, I will not be swayed from this position; I'm convinced this is what Scripture teaches), then the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment (cf. John 16:8-11), coupled with the power of the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16-17), grants one the ability to respond freely to that grace.

I'm thinking, however, that you want finer distinctions explained, but I need more from you if that is to occur.

Moreover, we all need to acknowledge that we are trying to systematize (and a bit of philosophize as well) what we've learned thus far from Scripture, in that, Scripture does not give us an exhaustive and well-articulated outline of these workings.

I'll wait to read your further responses. (I have a 3:30-6:30 Pastoral Ministry class. If he lets us out early, I'll respond ASAP.) God bless.

Yes that's right, Romans 4, forgive the typo. ...

2012-01-24T14:48:31.912-05:00
Yes that's right, Romans 4, forgive the typo.

What prompted the question was that I can't see any way to draw the distinction that is needed, and not being a historian or Arminius scholar I was curious to learn if anything he said shed any light on the matter.

To uphold Total Depravity you need to say that the response of faith is not an *action*, and thus cannot be morally praiseworthy (this enables you to maintain that the unregenerate person is not capable of any good). But at the same time you want the faith-response to be under the control of the person in question. The problem, of course, is that the things which we have immediate control over are our actions (in which I include mental tryings/willings and consciously directed thinking). It is hard to see how we can control anything without acting.

One way to try to solve the problem might be to interpret 'work' quite loosely, so that less things count as 'works'. But this would seem to be out for the upholder of Total Depravity, for such a person (I would imagine) will want to include things like thought processes as works - Jesus condemned those who committed adultery in their hearts, i.e., thought lustful thoughts. If such thoughts (if such mental acts) don't count as works then it is not strictly true for the upholder of Total Depravity to say that we can do no good work.

I presently tend towards solving the problem by not holding to Total Depravity. I'd be interested to hear if you have a way of making the needed distinction.

My question, I suppose, is how do you conceive of _response_? (Do you agree that it needs to be under the persons control? How is this managed without it becoming an action and something for which the person is responsible?

Simon, Faith is a response to the activi...

2012-01-24T11:23:22.480-05:00
Simon,

Faith is a response to the activity of God's Spirit. We know from Scripture that faith is not a work (Rom. 4:4-5: I think you were looking for chapter 4 of Romans, not 2). Therefore we realize that faith is not meritorious, nor is it "doing a good deed," whereby, if a person will "do this" (have faith), then God will "do that" (save you).

Faith certainly is the condition whereby God will save (regenerate) an individual, but it is thought of in terms of a response rather than a good act (work) or a good attribute (merit).

Now, faith being "good" -- even if someone said it was a good act -- is still not problematic, IMO. Jesus said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock" (Matt. 7:24 NASB). Certainly Jesus is not advocating works righteousness, or by this statement indicating that man somehow robs God of His glory by acting upon His words.

Thoughts?

Comments on William W. Birch: The Myth of Free Will

Hi William, I'm fine with the venue qua its p...

Simon, I'm fine with the discussion being rig...

Hi William, So I just wrote a big long reply only...

Simon, I look forward to when you can sit down an...

Dear William, Sorry for the long delay before rep...

Simon, Pt. Two As for the "all" questio...

Simon, Pt. One The reason why I asked for scriptu...

Dear William, You're right that the "in ...

Sorry for the confusion here. William was most kin...

Fred responded: I do not believe that the divine...

Fred, I would answer that by the "will"...

Fred is still having problems responding, so I'...

Fred, Arminius's views of the bondage of the ...

Fred Karlson wanted to comment with the following ...

Simon, You ask, do you think that there is an...

Hi William, Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid...

Simon, I won't address the commentary under t...

That's a good question, and the answer depends...

Simon, Well, of course I don't think it's...

Hi William, Yes, your response does help clarify ...

Simon, Since there was no hurry, lol, I made beef...

William, You're kind: there really is no pres...

Simon, I don't think of "thought process...

Yes that's right, Romans 4, forgive the typo. ...

Simon, Faith is a response to the activi...