It was suggested to me by a seminary professor (not my own, but a friend’s dad) that in order to grasp a clearer understanding of Arminianism and its defense (against my Calvinistic beliefs), I ought to check out the book Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell (two professors at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky).  I finally got around to doing that, buying both the book and its companion Why I Am Not an Arminian, and have made it through the first two chapters thus far.  I figured I would write some commentary as I go through.  I’m trying to avoid critiquing any ideas before I’ve read enough to fully grasp them, since Joe and Jerry do a great job at explaining their ideas in detail but not necessarily in immediate context.

On the whole, so far, reading this book has been edifying; I am no more convinced of Arminianism (or rather, against Calvinism since the book is really a polemic rather than apologetic) than before, but I have much more appreciation for Arminians.  Somewhat to my shame, I was one of those Calvinists (there are many of us on both sides really) who wrote off Arminianism as simply ignorant of Scripture and wholly concerned with humanism and philosophy.  But of the works I’ve encountered so far, Why I Am Not a Calvinist provides the most exegesis, and thus, is a worthwhile read for understanding the classical (Wesleyan, as well) Arminian position.

My primary concern, which I will reach after a few points, in this post is to address a specific analogy put forth by the authors to illustrate their view of man’s “total” depravity and God’s method of salvation; however, it is worth noting that, as is often the case with Arminianism defenders, the authors establish as their principle argument the idea that Calvinism does harm to the loving character of God.  This rhetoric is getting old–even to a three-year old Calvinist like myself.  It seems that all Arminian apologetics start with God’s universal salvific love as their basic premise, and thus they rule out a priori any idea that God does not love everyone to the extent that He wishes to save him/her (examples contra include Esau, Pharaoh, Judas–the son of perdition…–etc.)  I hope they will deal with texts like Acts 13:48 in which believers are described as being “appointed to eternal life.”  Once again I don’t understand how Arminians don’t give up the doctrine of eternal punishment and become Universalists.  If God has to appoint certain people to eternal life for them to obtain it (in Acts 13, Lydia’s belief is predicated on God’s appointing), and God wants to save everyone, then God surely has appointed everyone, and when God does this, according to Jesus, no one may be snatched from His hand.

I was also reading an article by John Macarthur earlier and ran across an intriguing truth: much of Arminian language (that is, within systematic Arminianism) borrows Calvinistic presuppositions.  Indeed, I ran across several examples while reading Why I Am Not a Calvinist.  The authors actually use the loaded term “atonement” when considering the nature of salvation–a word I thought was anathema to Arminianism.

I think it was R.C. Sproul who wrote that Arminians are barely Christian (still enough to be saved and considered brothers in Christ, mind you) because they do not really hold to the doctrine of Sola fide ([Salvation] by faith alone), which is, as I hope most of you are aware, a Biblical doctrine.  Until reading this book, I never saw how accurately his point is made.  Speaking on “atonement” and the sin of unbelief, the authors write:

But this Calvinist objection misunderstands what Arminians believe about the atonement.  We understand that the death of Jesus makes provision for the forgiveness of all sins, but it doesn’t enact that forgiveness until sinners surrender in faith to God.  This makes it entirely reasonable to state that Christ died for all types of sin, including the sin of unbelief, but that those who persist in unbelief have not received the pardon that is yet possible for them.

So, to the Arminian, faith is what ignites the process of salvation.  The real underlying issue here is the nature of atonement, but a superficial inconsistency one notes is that salvation (enacting the possible forgiveness) takes the action of man.  Thus, salvation is no longer by faith alone and not by works, but rather faith becomes a work.  God commands that everyone cease their unbelief and belief in Jesus (1 John 3:23).  There is nothing wrong with obeying God in this command, but the problem is that faith, and indeed, the entire salvation process, is a gift of God and leaves man no room to boast (Eph. 2:8).  So when Arminians suggest that sinners (can) simply obey God (a work of the Law), they leave little room for themselves to hoist the traditional Protestant banner.

As for the idea of atonement described here, let me first say that it ignores Hebrews 7-10 and the Old Testament context surrounding Christ’s sacrifice.  To put it briefly, for this is a topic to which volumes could be dedicated, the Hebrew concept of atonement was one of full restitution.  An animal was slain on the alter, its blood was spilled on the mercy seat, and God’s wrath was appeased.  Nowhere in the Old Testament (that I’m aware of) does God’s forgiveness of the sins of the Israelites depend on whether they accept some opportunity presented by the blood-offering.  Likewise, nowhere in the New Testament (of which I’m aware) does an author alter the concept of atonement to include this new predicate.  Indeed, there are numerous references to Christ’s “sacrificial lamb” status in which specific comparisons are drawn between His crucifixion and the slaying of the sacrificial animals in the Old Testament.

I don’t find the authors’ dealing with the following charge persuasive either.  As they say, Calvinists often charge Arminianism with inconsistency on the topic of the sin of unbelief.  We believe that if God has atoned for all the sins of all people, including the sin of unbelief, then God has no reason to damn anyone.  You read the conclusion of their defense above: the atonement was not definite but rather represented a possibility.  James R. White offers a fantastic rebuttal of the Arminian view of atonement in The Potter’s Freedom; I only bring up the point because it leads into the next idea in Why I Am Not a Calvinist.  The authors assert that God has made it possible for everyone to be saved, even those that have not specifically heard the Gospel or the name of Jesus.  I find this belief lacking in Biblical basis.  In Romans 10, Paul says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  But he devotes the next several lines to defining the ability to call: first, that people cannot call on someone in whom they do not believe; second, that they will not believe in Him whom they have not heard; and in conclusion, that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.  Scripture makes it clear that faith is the one and only necessary condition for salvation, but we have Arminians suggesting that God has made salvation possible for everyone, including people who have not heard the Gospel, and Paul suggesting that only those who have heard can believe and, therefore, can call upon God and be saved.

Of course, someone might argue that the very next verse (10:18) says that everyone has indeed heard.  But I don’t think this is a valid interpretation.  Notice that Paul asks if “they” have heard–who is they?  The Jews.  Not “everyone everywhere.”

Before I get to the promised critique of their analogy, I want to address a few more issues I see in the thinking of the authors.  There are several presuppositions exhibited in this book which require consideration.  For instance, the authors write, “God’s love for everyone guarantees that the Holy Spirit pursues everyone in every age…”  I’m not sure exactly why they take for granted the idea that God loves everyone (perhaps the oft-quoted verse, “God is love”?), but I question its validity given the numerous instances of God not loving everyone.  I’m sure they will address Romans 9 at some point, but it alone has two clear instances, in my mind, of God not loving everyone.  In fact, Scripture says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”–apparently God hated Esau…–and gives us many examples of God purposely not saving someone or at the very least not showing love toward him or her.  Pharaoh, for instance, was hardened; Judas was predestined as the son of perdition (where is the love in that?).  Indeed, Jesus spoke in parables so that some people would not understand…

Does God only love people up until they die?  And then He sends them to hell because He loves them?  Or does He just stop loving them at death?

One of their prooftexts for the idea that God loves everyone is John 3:16, but a careful look at the verse in Greek (or even just in English) leaves one wondering why they appeal to this verse. Please allow me to quote a recent post for some insight:

Here is the Greek (transliterated) of John 3:16:

houtos gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon, hoste ton huion ton monogene edoken, hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all exe zoen aionion.

It is interesting to note in passing that the first phrase of this verse–”For God so loved the world”–is actually “For thus God loved the world,” or in other words, “In this way God loved the world.”  Many Christians who have not dealt with the Greek text confuse the meaning of so (thus) with so (quantification).  John 3:16 does not say, explicitly, how much God loved the world but rather in what way His love manifested itself.

I found an article online which sums up the explicit meaning of John 3:16 succinctly.  (I transliterated the Greek references to match the Greek above.)

John 3:16, of course, is widely used by Arminians to prove that God does not elect people to salvation and that we all can choose to believe in Christ!

James White made a statement concerning Chuck Smith’s favourite words, “whosoever believeth.” It all has to do with the Greek in this case.

The phrase, “that whoever believes” is [hina pas ho pisteuon].

“[pisteuon]” is a present active first person masculine singular participle.

In this case the translation of hina pas ho pisteuon is as follows: in order that each believing one. Hence, the translation is as follows:

It is clear from looking at the Greek here, that the intention of John 3:16 is not some kind of universalism in which anyone that simply wants to, could walk into the Kingdom of God by choice. There simply is no universalism here. Instead, this verse rather makes it clear that only the believing ones will have eternal life!

On the one hand, it says that God so loved the world [this misconception is corrected above], but on the other hand a clear delimitation is positioned by this verse based on the believing ones. So, this verse precludes any universal ability in man and simply concentrates on those that do believe. It simply does not say how they came to their believing state!

The problem with the word whoever that appears in many translations here, is that it creates a false sense in the reader that it means to communicate to us a meaning of “all without distinction in a particular group.” People like Chuck Smith and Dave Hunt use this meaning of whoever when reading the term world in this verse. The fact is that the construct of the Greek simply does not allow that. It clearly makes a separation between world and the believing ones.

So, as we can see, John 3:16 cannot be used in any Universalistic sense, but rather in a particular sense. It is not the whoever that will be saved, but rather each believing one will be saved. Instead of a sense of the whoever that will be saved, it should rather be the only that will be saved. It is not a case of whoever that will be saved, but rather, only the believing ones will be saved. As a result, it is not whoever in the world that will be saved, but rather, only the believing ones in the world will be saved.

So does God love every single person and pursue every single person with salvific intent?  Perhaps, but John 3:16 does not lend itself to this idea.

And now for the promised analogy.  In seeking to compare Calvinism and Arminianism, the authors formulate a scenario and then provide the viewpoints of the scenario from both sides.  The sinner is, they hold, like a prisoner in a terrorist camp, completely incapacitated, drugged, and experiencing a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.  According to the Calvinist model, God invades the camp, rescues the prisoner, injects “faith” into his veins, and then the prisoner goes on trusting God.  Against this, the authors provide the Arminian view:

God steals into the prison and makes it to the bedside of the victim.  God injects a serum that begins to clear the prisoner’s mind of delusions and quell her hostile reactions…The prisoner remains mute as the Rescuer’s voice whispers, “Do you know where you are?  Let me tell you!  Do you know who you are?  Let me show you!”  And as the wooing begins, divine truth beings to dawn on the prisoner’s heart and mind; the Savior holds up a small mirror to show the prisoner her sunken eyes and frail body.  “Do you see what they’ve done to you, and do you see how you’re given yourself over to them?”  Even in the dim light, the prisoner’s weakened eyes are beginning to focus.  The Rescuer continues, “Do you know who I am, and that I want you for myself?”  Perhaps the prisoner makes no obvious advance but does not turn away.  The questions keep coming: “Can I show you pictures of who you once were and the wondrous plans I have for you in the years to come?”  The prisoner’s heartbeat quickens as the Savior presses on: “I know that part of you suspects that I have come to harm you.  But let me show you something–my hands, they’re a bit bloody.  I crawled through an awful tangle of barbed wire to get to you.”  Now here in this newly created sacred space, in this moment of new possibility, the Savior whispers, “I want to carry you out of here right now!  Give me your heart!  Trust me!”

This scenario…captures the richness of the Bible’s message: the glory of God’s original creation, the devastation of sin, God’s loving pursuit of helpless sinners and the nature of love as the free assent of persons.

This is, no doubt, quite touching and dramatic.  But it leaves me with a few questions: since when did sinners become victims?  Notice the diction.  As far as I’m aware, the only real “victims” in Scripture are the righteous men and women who suffer under the hand of sinners.  Jesus takes pity on sinners, but I don’t see anything in His words which gives the impression that He saw them as victims:

Mark 7:21“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23“All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

It is man who sins and destroys himself; the sinner is not a victim, or rather, not a victim of external circumstances.  Sinners have only themselves to blame for their predicaments.  So when God holds up a mirror to the sinner, one would expect the sinner to see more than a frail body and sunken eyes.  The sinner should see the horrible, wretched sin of his life.  Indeed, we would expect God to say something like, “Do you see your sin?  Repent and believe,” rather than, “See what they’ve done to you?”

It looks like the authors are borrowing more Calvinistic presuppositions, specifically to describe what Reformed theology refers to as regeneration.  Being born again is an instantaneous event; but here, the authors describe the process in stages and gradual changes (e.g., the prisoner’s eyes begin to focus, the heartbeat quickens, etc.).

We see them describe the interaction as “wooing.”  Until now I had never seen this term used in Arminian writing, though R.C. Sproul often talks about the concept.  The problem is, however, the Bible does not describe the process as wooing or enticement.  On the one hand, God commands sinners to repent and believe; on the other, since they cannot does this on their own, God gives them (as a gift) repentance and faith.  God drags sinners to Christ–God woos no one to Christ.  The only Scripture I need for support is John 6:44.

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

It is interesting to note, as I have many times on this website, that the word “draws” is literally “drags” in Greek.  What’s more, the word (helko) is never used in Scripture, with reference to men or inanimate objects, as enticement.  It is always a force applied to an object which takes no consideration for the objects will, and which the object does not resist of its own will.

“Can I show you pictures of who you once were and the wondrous plans I have for you in the years to come?”  Who the sinner was was a sinner… It is true that God’s original creation (including man) was “good.”  But given Original sin (perhaps the Arminian and Calvinist views of Original sin are too different), man is born given to sin (Cf. Psalm 51:5).  As for the wondrous plans, the two verses most cited for this idea are Jeremiah 29:11 and Romans 8:28.

Romans 8:28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Notice the context: God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose.  This could be everyone, perhaps, but what does Paul say next?  Here we run into the Golden Chain of Redemption once again.  Those whom God foreknew (we’ll get to foreknowledge at a later date), He predestined (again, later) to become conformed to the image of Christ.  Those He predestined He called; those He called He justified; and those justified, He glorified.  Romans 8 (really all of Romans) presents a problem for Arminianism since, if God is calling everyone, everyone must be saved.  Again, why aren’t Arminians just Universalists?  Everyone God calls is justified and glorified.  If we understand the Gospel message to say that everyone is called, then we necessarily conclude that everyone is likewise justified.  But Arminians–classical ones, at least–affirm the doctrine of hell…

And in Jeremiah, God is speaking to the Hebrews in the Babylonian Exile.  I would ask for more exegesis to justify applying a verse from this specific context to such a general “truth” such as “God has good plans for everyone.”  God obviously didn’t have plans to prosper or give a bright future to Esau, Pharaoh, Judas, etc.

“…God’s loving pursuit of helpless sinners and the nature of love as the free assent of persons.”  As we’ve noted from Romans 8 (also see, John 6), if God is really pursuing everyone, then God is calling everyone.  If God is calling everyone, then everyone will be saved.  All those whom God calls will be justified and glorified.  As far as their definition of love, I do not know what more to say other than to point out that it is a philosophical presupposition which, hopefully, they will expand upon later.  At this point they merely assert their conviction and presume that their argument meshes.

So now on to chapter three.  At least they have not said that sinners are seeking God… (Cf. Romans 3)