| << Romans 9 | Series Index | General Atonement >> |
Since Grace is probably as much of an important topic as Election -- if not more -- I'm going to deal with it next. Here we find agreement among to two popular Protestant traditions, as well as disagreement. First off, the notion of prevenient grace comes to mind.
While it is true that Prevenient Grace is an Arminian doctrine, yet isn't exclusively Arminian. In fact many theologies, including Calvinism, hold to a form of prevenient grace, since the phrase literally means "grace that goes before." That is, grace is necessary for one to come to faith, and even for someone to want to be saved. So, to the exclusion of Pelagians and Semipelagians (the latter of which, historically, held that man could take the first steps in salvation), Arminians and Calvinists actually agree on the necessity and sufficiency of grace, and that grace must come before faith.
So to start, what is grace? To start, it is a gift by which we are saved (Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 3:24), one doesn't receive it by works (Rom. 4:4, 11:6), but by faith (Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 5:2), it is granted at God's sole discretion (Rom. 9:16, though this might be a stretch because "mercy" carries a slightly different idea than "grace"), and one must be drawn by grace before one could even come (John 6:44). There is quite a bit more that can be written about God's grace, but that covers the basic points for this inquiry.
J.P. Holding, who isn't decisively Arminian, presents some useful material on Grace which is relevant to our inquiry.
Consider these points [deSilva, 104ff]. The word grace was used "to refer to the willingness of a patron to grant some benefit to another person or group." Aristotle defined grace as "helpfulness toward someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped." ... "Grace" can also be used "of the response to a benefactor and his or her gifts, namely, 'gratitude'..." And this reveals a key point: one of the chief morals of this day was that "grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude." ...[R]elated to our topic at hand, "there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace. An act of favor and its manifestation (the gift) initiate a circle dance in which the recipients of favor and its manifestations must 'return the favor,' that is, give again to the giver...To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act." [106] Finally: "Neglecting to return a kindness, forgetfulness of kindnesses already received in the past, and, most horrendous of all, repaying favor with insult or injury -- these were courses of action to be avoided by an honorable person at all costs." [111] 1 2The idea here, as Holding goes on to note, is that, "God gives grace; man responds -- if favorably, more grace is bestowed; if unfavorably, less is received."
So, it grace resistable? I believe that, Biblically speaking, it is. Of course, the Calvinist may rebut, "if it is described as being resisted in Scripture, it is not not really the irresistible work of the Holy Spirit inside the individual, but some other type of grace." It's a so-called common grace, as I have heard it called. However, this is such an ad hoc rationalization to protect a theology, that I wonder how such intelligent people could be persuaded by it. Is this not just a No True Scotsman fallacy, that we set up a belief we want to hold to, then when a case comes along that contradicts that belief, we redefine that case so that we don't have to revise our belief? I respect the Calvinist's desire to defend God's sovereignty, but this looks like a dishonest strategy.
But, perhaps it isn't a No True Scotsman, and they have a case. What i want to do in this light is: (1) show that grace that would otherwise be salvific can be resisted, according to Scripture, and (2) show that traditional proof-texts for irresistible Grace aren't sufficient to make the Calvinist's case. On the latter, i must admit that i haven't seen too many arguments for I, so i may miss some passages that Calvinists think are significant. (3) There are also a couple of philosophical issues that will indubitably be raised in my presentation, so i will deal with them at the end of this post.
I'll start by appealing to the invitationary nature of the good news, as presented in the Gospels. While this certainly could be reconciled with Calvinism, in that the contradiction may be superficial, the question must be raised, shall we always be reconciling Scripture to our theologies? (and note that antiTrinitarians also go to great lengths to reconcile "Trinitarian" passages with their view.) Or, should we actually reconcile our theologies to the written Word? Wisdom is proven right by her children.
I've discussed Matthew 11:28-30 and John 15:1-8 already, but their meaning also applies here. Recall that the Matt. passage is Christ's invitation into rest, and John 15:1-8 is his call to abide in Him. But, why is it that Jesus makes these calls if the elect is irresistibly drawn into salvation? The reasoning here seems to make Jesus' commands superfluous, unnecessary to the gospel-- the same people will be saved and the same will be damned no matter what Jesus says, since the former are irresistibly drawn into salvation and the latter just happen to not fit in God's plan.
John 6 has been ripe ground for theological analysis. So, it is little surprize that we return there once again: After Jesus fed the five thousand, the crowds met up with Him again. We read, Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 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, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." vv. 26-29.
Again, we see an invitation for the people to come to Christ in belief (on the "work of God," Jesus is using the term as a farce, a response to the question, "What work must one do to be saved?" in a way that attempts to show how the question is loaded). We see another in 7:37-38: Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." John 8:12
Now this is all fine and dandy, but as I said, it could be reconciled to Calvinist theology. So, beyond this, are there any passages that give us a stronger case against Irresistible Grace? I think so. You may have noticed my fascination with John 15:1-8. It turns out, actually, the vine allegory is roughly based on a passage in Isaiah:
Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.What is particularly interesting about this passage is the rhetorical question, what more could be He do? I could only imagine how hard this would be for a Calvinist to answer: what more could God do that He didn't do for Israel and Judea? of course, i won't go the route of those on the lunatic fringe: i do believe God could have irresistably drew them so that they would have necessarily produced "good grapes." But He obviously chose not to, and Calvinists are faced with a dilemma: if God was shown so much grace to them as described, even expecting them to,3 why didn't they produce? what more could He do that He didn't?
He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard.
"What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
"So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
"I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it."
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress. Isaiah 5:1-7.
But is there any Biblical justification for Irresistible Grace? I haven't seen very many arguments on the Calvinist view, so there might be some very important passages that I miss. Nevertheless, i know quite a few that are relevant. I've already dealt with John 6:44 and 65,as well as Romans 9:16 (...it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy).
There are also passages where faith itself or repentance are described as gifts from God. (Eph 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29, 1Tim. 2:25). Some Arminians have no problem with this. Eph. 2:8-9 is actually being misused, since it is the grace that is being described as a gift, not the faith (this can be shown from the original Greek; I'll update this page when I track down a presentation of the Greek). I tend to interpret Phil. 1:29 to be saying that belief is granted to us in the sense that apart from God's grace, I would never believe. This would be in contrast to the Israelites who were hardened so they would not believe (see below). I view the 1st Timothy passage along the same lines.
Often, passages like John 12:38-40 that cite Is. 6:9-10 are presented as though anyone who rejects Christ does so because they have been hardened by God Himself. "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn -- and I would heal them." However, when we look at Is. 6 in context, we see that this hardening has been dealt as the result of the Israelites rejecting God's ways. That is, it is a punishment against already unbelieving Isrealites (and every instance in the NT is applied to the Jews, and a couple of variants have the Jews hardening themselves! cf. Acts 28:26-27).
The idiomatic language of death is often used in Scripture to describe our state. It is argued that we are spiritually dead, and cannot simply be given an option to be saved, but must be made alive and regenerated before on is saved. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, ... Ephesians 2:4-6. But this case is way overstated. First, the death language is by its nature is metaphorical, so some moderation should be taken in how literal we make it. Second, even if we are so dead in our sins, is God not sovereign enough to, despite our dead state, draw us to a point where we could come to Him in faith? Ironically the very thing Reformed folks hold so dear (God's sovereignty) seems to unravel their case here. Finally, this passage itself doesn't tell us anything of where faith comes in the logical sequence. Does faith come after being made alive or before? We are left to draw the same conclusion as the Calvinist that it is after.
The last pillar of Irresistable Grace I'd like to tear down is the new birth language used in the New Testament, which is a related argument to that of the death language. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13. Just like how a dead man can't choose to be made alive, Calvinists argue, an infant can't choose to be born. But again, here we see metaphorical language too literalized and stretched beyond its intended meaning. Beyond the same objections as i express above, John 1:13 says something of particular interest. We are given a paraphrased version of v. 13, "we are born not of our fleshly desires of our choice, but we are born of the will of God." The key here is, what does "blood," the "will of flesh," "the will of man," and "of God" represent respectively? Since John is intending to contrast natural birth with spiritual birth (as we see Jesus do later in 3), we are compelled to interpret that the blood represents the idea of a bloodline or family relationship, the will of the flesh is the innate desire to procreate, and the will of man represents the choice of parents to have a child (i read somewhere that the term there for "man" can also mean "husband"-- as far as I can tell it is not the same word that's equivalent to "human" or "mankind" in general). Notice that it doesn't actually say we are born of the will of God, but born of God. The former is an eisegesis that warps the text into a Calvinistic framework, while the latter is a beautiful metaphor for our new relationship with God as believers.
So another Tulip pedal has been plucked, there are some last points to wrap up.
One objection to the Arminian view that from time to time comes up is, if we choose to be saved, then there must have been something inherent of us that made us deserve it. I.e. we are saved because we were smarter or better or more humble than the next guy, who isn't saved.
the problem with this reasoning is, it stems from a strictly deterministic or Compatibilist view of the human will. that is, that we choose to do things because we desired to or because we were caused to... there is a line of causality that isn't broken, so some think. this stands is stark contrast to libertarianism, which most Arminians adhere to. i suppose it is technically possible for an Arminian to be a Compatibilist, but if you see one, by all means employ this objection.
Libertarianism rejects the notion that our choices are caused solely by our preconditions. While i recognize real limitations and real influences on the will, i do not believe that we choose to have faith based on any meritous aspect of self, at all. if we did choose because we were smarter or whatever, then that would mean our choices were caused by something other than will, which libertarians flatly reject.
Finally, many Calvinists get offended by the notion that man can resist God's grace. This is the result of a desire to defend and honor God's sovereignty in all things, which is a trait i deeply respect among Reformed believers. Nevertheless, in this case the zeal is misplaced.
To reason by analogy, consider two kingdoms, Canukistan and Usalonia. They are about equivalent in land size, coastal area, money in the treasury, number of subjects/citizens, etc. Each is ruled by a king. In each the king may decree any law they see fit.
There was a great war. The King of Canukistan compiled a list of all the men of fighting age. Of that list, he separated it into two lists. Men in the first list were drafted to fight in battle, while the men in the second list were executed. The King of Usalonia decreed that any men of fighting age are to go to battle, and any who resisted were to be executed.
Question: Which king is more sovereign?
Answer: It is a trick question because, assuming the info given is exhaustive, both are equal in sovereignty over their respective lands. It is tricky though, as one chose to be more meticulous in how he acted in his sovereignty. But, notice that the question doesn't as how they act out there sovereignty, but which is more sovereign.
One common mistake is the idea that God in Calvinism is more sovereign than in Arminianism. But, is this really the case? Is the extent of God's sovereignty is contingent on how He chooses to express it? Couldn't a all-sovereign God choose to do nothing, if that were His prerogative? Why not? Or, can't an all-sovereign God choose to allow man the freedom to resist Him? Why does God have to be meticulous in order to be sovereign?
In light of all the Scripture references presented here and what they say (and what the don't), as well as other passages that may be relevant when interpreted in context, it is little wonder that i find this view, that man is free to resist grace, compelling. ;)
Published: Array
| << Romans 9 | Series Index | General Atonement >> |
Notes and Citations:
1. Holding, J.P. "Just Say No Ain't Allowed." Tekton. Mar. 19, 2004, <http://www.tektonics.org/ip.html>
1. The cited material in the quote is:
deSilva, David. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity. IVP. 2000.
2. "Expecting" as in, not failing to anticipate their failure, like the OVers would have you believe; but as in moral expectation, that Israel ought to have done something that they didn't.
|
|
|
|