Bottom line: when it comes to our God’s glorious plan of salvation, we do well to step away from his throne by letting the clear testimony of Scripture speak, permitting him to choose, ordain, predestine, and foreknew whom he wishes from a hopelessly rebellious human race.
Chances are you’ve discussed it lately. Who chose whom? God? Man? Both? Whose will and choice triggers salvation? Man’s? God’s? Both? It’s a common occurrence to spar over Calvinism (the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace) vs. Arminianism.
This post could not possibly address all the issues. Instead, it will take a brief look at some of Arminianism’s consequences. But first, a quick reminder of common Arminian teaching.
Arminianism typically holds that God elects individuals to salvation based on his foreknowledge of their personal worthiness. It’s claimed that God’s election means that he chose those whom he foresaw would trust in Christ for salvation prior to them doing so. God chose those whom he foreknew would choose him. Humanity, therefore, is fallen, but not incapable of seeking God. Though sinful, man is still able to arouse his will so as to choose God savingly. Some reject election, arguing that it is incompatible with human freedom and responsibility, thus rendering things like evangelism, prayer, and discipleship unnecessary. It follows, then, that many argue that one is able to lose their salvation.
Arminianism has had its propagators over the years. Jacob Arminius, of course. Pelagius before him. Later, John Wesley wrote, “I reject the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination…I would sooner be a Turk, a Deist, yea an atheist, than I could believe this” (Cited in Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 102). About 100 years later, Charles Finney held that there are essentially two types of people; the savable and the unsavable. God chose those who inherently possessed the ability by their freedom to choose God and be saved.
Wherever we might find ourselves theologically, there are a number of hazards for
- Harming the plain sense of a large amount of Scripture.
At best, much Arminian teaching must violate the natural reading of many passages. For example, the assertion of free will is biblically untenable. Free will indicates that man is free to do as he pleases.
However, our will has two big constraints, rendering it not free. The first is God’s sovereignty (e.g. Prov. 19:21 “Many plans are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the LORD will stand”). We are only free to do what God has ordained. The second constraint is human depravity. We are unwilling to seek/choose God so as to be saved (Rom. 3:11 “There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God”). We are unable to seek/choose God so as to be saved (Eph. 2:1 “You were dead in your trespasses and sins”). Whatever the word “dead” asserts, it is not man’s ability. The dead are not able to do anything but stay dead. Thus, Arminianism’s assertion that man is able, and even willing, to choose God is untenable.
God is the only Being whose will is free: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Ps. 115:3). No such statements are made of man. And incredibly, God uses his will, in love, to unlock ours from sin. When it comes to salvation, the only one willing and able to do the choosing and seeking is God. For that reason, Scripture speaks of salvation is an act of grace (Eph. 2:8-9).
Regarding God’s sovereign choice of his people, Ephesians 1:4-5 says, “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” From this text, and many like it, we simply cannot responsibly conclude that, “God chose us because he saw that we would choose him.” The word, “chose,” is an aorist middle, indicating an active, willful choice on the part of the subject (God), independent and unconditional of the object of choice (believers). Finally, contrary to much Arminian reasoning, God did not chose because he saw that we would choose, but “according to the purpose of his will.” And the passage continues, emphasizing that God’s work in salvation had nothing to do with man’s foreknown actions, but to the praise of God’s glory.
But what about the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29? When speaking of God, the word can refer to either the simple knowing of something before or foreordaining. In the biblical context of salvation, to “know” or “foreknow” can refer to an intimate love, thus speaking of God’s independent choice to love his chosen. Further, the focus of the text is not on man’s actions; that God foreknew man would choose him, but on God’s actions; that God foreknew because he sovereignly decided to bestow grace on those he chose to love (hence the word, “predestined,” in v. 30).
Romans 9 is another passage which contains several massive problems for Arminianism. Arminian friends often ask, “Why do you guys always go to Romans 9to argue your case?” For the same reason that the Bears always handed off to William “Refrigerator” Perry, when it was 4th and goal at the one yard line.
Some propose that the choosing spoken of in Romans 9 is concerned with nations and groups, not individuals. But that will not do, since Paul mentions individuals (e.g. Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh), as objects of his sovereign choice who serve as illustrations of God’s sovereign dealings with humanity. Then, that truth is crystallized, shown to be the manner of God’s sovereign prerogative, as Creator, with all humanity, his creation, in vv. 20-24. If God did not ordain some for salvation and others, not, Romans 9 is not a good way to say that.
Furthermore, v. 19 and following is Paul’s response to Arminian-like rejection. “How can God find fault? If election is true, who can resist his will?” And, if Paul were not arguing for the case of God’s sovereign election of individuals in salvation, then his anticipation of the rejection as stated in v. 19, followed by his response in vv. 20-26 (e.g. “…Has the potter no right over the lay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable useand another for dishonorable use?…”) makes no sense. If Paul is not saying that God chooses individuals for salvation according to his own will, then why ask, “Then who resists his will?”
Many other passages could be brought into the discussion, such as John 1:12-13, John 3,John 6:39, 44, and 65, to name a few. I would point us to thorough treatments on the issue, such as R.C. Sproul’s, Chosen by God, or Bruce Demarest’s, The Cross and Salvation, to name a few contemporary writers.
- Tending towards salvation by works.
Arminian soteriology asserts that the cause of salvation is both God’s grace and man’s ability. The Holy Spirit saves by cooperating with man’s will. Man and God partner to accomplish salvation. Consequently, salvation is the product, in part, of man’s will or ability. Another way to say that is man’s salvation is partly due to his doing, or, his work.