In hopes of giving the people what they want, my first post will hopefully meet your demands. Most if not all of you will find many elements of my writing to be “Classic” Nick; such as nickoms (most of you know what I’m talking about here but if you don’t I’ll point them out and define them when they pop up in my writing) thrown all about, and a plethora of references to Seinfeld, the greatest TV show I’ve ever seen, filling the gaps. Most importantly, somewhere among this clutter I hope to communicate truth, which is the name of my blog (the English transliteration of its Greek form if that helps).
Lastly, my desire is promote healthy and productive debate when we might come, or will surely come, to disagreement. In this inevitable occasion, I hope to remain courteous, respectful and tactful in my responses to your views. For certain tones and rhetoric have no place in academic debate as they often belittle and stifle one’s opponent.
Now that the pleasantries are over, let’s move onto my thought and question:
Let me ask you a question that I am most perplexed about. How can Arminians insist that salvation is a gift from God, based on grace alone through faith alone; and man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good; deny irresistible grace; again while claiming that salvation is all of grace and not at all based on any goodness or merit or even autonomous decision or choice of the person being saved; and deny that this system is not guilty of a form of semi-plegianism? This logically makes no sense to me. How can grace be resistible and at the same time deny any human ability or lack of human ability to save themselves, but claim through some will they possess the ability to either accept it or deny this grace freely (and thus imply logically that we are not totally dependent on God to save them)? Lastly, how is this not a form of semi-plegianism? In other words, claiming that man has some say or ability to save or not save themselves.
I know my Arminian brothers would like to claim that it is the very giving of grace upon humans that enable their will to respond positively or negatively, but are they in some way adding to the Evangelical notion that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not according to works or anything that we can do? At this moment I would like to draw your attention to Dr. Roger Olson's blog post http://rogereolson.com/2011/01/24/arminian-theology-is-evangelical-theology-long/. You will find there the Arminian statement above and followed by a theological treatment of how this is logically possible. Olson makes the comment by way of an illustration that our human excepting of salvation is much like a man, having a terminal illness, needs someone to pay for his life saving medical treatment. Someone writes him a check that will cover all expenses and all he must do is cash it (or deposit it and use it to pay for his treatment). As Olson claims the payment or the resource is there, but the individual must except the check, and therefore equates such a illustration and exercise with the gracious gift of God and then the human excepting or rejecting the offer.
Perhaps it is ignorance on my end but I still am not seeing how there is in some way a exercise of a human facility in addition to what God has done for them, or enabled them to do, if this gracious gift can be excepted or rejected. Basically what I’m saying is that it seems to me that one has added something to the notion that one is saved by grace through faith. I most surely agree with my Arminian brothers that our faith comes as a result of God presenting the offer before us, but how can one truly reject such a splendid offer?
This is the very objection I’m taking with Olson’s illustration, which begs the question of why. That is, why would the dead man ever reject such a live giving offer? Would you honestly reject the offer for someone to save your life by paying for any and all medical treatment necessary? I feel that one must answer yes to this question in order to be consistent, but this leads us into some form of despair in the sense that we would honestly say no to this delightful present.
It seems to me that Arminians believe in grace only after one does something to get it. In their efforts to reject monergism they adopt syngergism, and thus believe that the grace of God is only necessary but not sufficient. Humanity is the key in making God's act sufficient. Hence, I find this to be the human addition to the equation of salvation. Also, it seems to me that God and his action is not the one who distinguishes one person from another in salvation according to Arminians, but man and his response of yes or no. Why does one, under the same conditions of grace, respond positively while another responds negatively? Lastly, it seems to me that if this is true one has marginalized God, and made the end result of salvation rest upon human’s will to simply check yes or no.
Well I hope that this has been as excited for you to read as it was for me to think through and write for you. Do any of you have helpful feedback, comments (positive or negative), or suggestions?
