# Arminius believed in total depravity? What am I missing?



## 5solasmom (Apr 28, 2006)

In discussing calvinism and arminianism today on a message board I am an admin on, I linked to this : http://www.solochristo.com/theology/Salvation/comparison.htm. I have read the book Calvinism, Documented, Defined and Defended. The response I got was that it misrepresented arminianism. 

I asked how.

Here was the reply:




> Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature.
> 
> 
> But Arminius himself said: But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any 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. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace. (emphasis his)
> ...



What am I missing here? Arminius does not believe in total depravity. Can anyone direct me to original documents from Arminius on this subject and/or enlighten me? LOL 

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by 5solasmom]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 28, 2006)

Arminianism's "Total Depravity" and Calvinism's Total Depravity are not the same. It has to do with Monergism vs. Synergism. Does man cooperate with grace in justification or is it grace alone which drives saving faith?


----------



## DTK (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> In discussing calvinism and arminianism today on a message board I am an admin on, I linked to this : http://www.solochristo.com/theology/Salvation/comparison.htm. I have read the book Calvinism, Documented, Defined and Defended. The response I got was that it misrepresented arminianism.
> 
> I asked how.
> ...



I think, historically, you have to draw a distinction between Jacobus Arminius and those who are said to be his followers. Arminius himself did profess what we would call total depravity; but his followers, to varying degrees, either deny it or affirm it inconsistently. In fact, Arminus once stated that his favorite commentator on Holy Scripture was none other than John Calvin himself.

But I think that Dr. R. Scott Clark can probably respond to this question better than myself from a historical perspective, and correct me where it's needed.

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 28, 2006)

For reference: 

The Works of Jacob Arminius

The Remonstrant Articles (note in particular articles 3 and 4)

The Remonstrant Opinions (note section C)

The Canons of Dordt (note in particular canons 3 and 4)

Bottom line: Arminius, the Remonstrants, Wesley, et al. affirmed the doctrine of total depravity while in effect denying its full implications by allowing man a cooperative or synergistic role in salvation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, though man by nature is enslaved to sin, God has his prevenient grace given to all men, this allows them to come to God on their own free will, because of the grace of God.
> 
> So, all men can't come to God on their own, but because of prevenient grace all men can come to God.





This was the original Arminian (and perhaps Roman) idea. Yes men are totally depraved but God in his common grace enables men to at least choose Him and thus gain more grace. Later Arminians used the "sick" rather than "dead" view of total depravity. Man is depraved but not completely dead, his will is just really sick and has enough strength to grasp Jesus.


----------



## tellville (Apr 30, 2006)

I know back when I was an Arminian I believed in Total Depravity. All people are completely dead in sin and without the grace of God it is impossible for anyone to come to Christ. 

But like Paul said, Arminians believe in a thing called "prevenient grace" which they believe has been given to all. 

What bugs me about a lot of Reformed folk is they call people who are semi-Pelagian's, Arminians. Just as Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Pelegian Christians are constantly misrepresenting the views of Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists and merging them together into one camp many Reformed folk do the same thing to Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Pelegian camp. This is unbecoming of us. 

For example, Andrew said: Arminius, the Remonstrants, Wesley, et al. affirmed the doctrine of total depravity *while in effect denying its full implications* by allowing man a cooperative or synergistic role in salvation.

Which is just blatantly false. Arminians do not deny the full implications of Total Depravity, but rather they believe that grace is *necessary*, just like we do. HOWEVER, they believe this grace has been given to everybody, though it's not irresistible grace. This is where the synergy comes in: do we resist or accept the grace of Christ? 

The real difference between Arminians and Calvinists is not our doctrines of Total Depravity but rather our doctrines of Grace. 

What most Reformed people label as Arminianism is really just rank semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism.

*semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism _would_ disagree with our doctrine of Total Depravity, and this is unfortunately the state that much of the Church is in today.

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by tellville]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 30, 2006)

> Differences between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminian Beliefs
> and why both still appeal to natural human ability, apart from grace.
> 
> [Semi-Pelagianism]
> ...



Source



> Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be reconciled because of the following irreconcilable differences between them:
> 1. Depravity is either total, leaving man's will in bondage to sin and therefore unable to believe on Christ (Calvinism) or partial, leaving man's will free to accept or reject Christ with the help of grace (Arminianism).
> ...
> 4. Saving grace is either resistible, because of man's free will (Arminianism) or irresistible, because God makes His people willing in the day of His power (Calvinism).



Source

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## tellville (Apr 30, 2006)

For starters, I am not defending Arminianism. I think it is false and unbiblical and can lead people down the path of destruction if not abandoned. But on the flip side that doesn't give me permission to falsely represent it.

Andrew, I find it funny that we go to Reform people to define Arminianism  I've done it myself, but I think that this is a horrible double standard that we all need to stop. What would we say if an Arminian quoted an Arminian source defining Calvinism? Well, you get James White laying the smack down!

Anyway, the first source nails it on the head. It says exactly what I was saying. The difference between Arminianism is not the doctrine of Total Depravity but rather it's the doctrine of Grace.

However, your second source is way off:



> "Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be reconciled because of the following irreconcilable differences between them:
> 1. Depravity is either total, leaving man's will in bondage to sin and therefore unable to believe on Christ (Calvinism) or partial, leaving man's will free to accept or reject Christ with the help of grace (Arminianism)."



This person is in actuality critiquing semi-Pelaginism. A true Arminian would agree with "Depravity is either total, leaving man's will in bondage to sin and therefore unable to believe on Christ." In Arminianism man's will only comes into play _after_ God has bestowed grace on the individual. The problem with Arminianism is that it teaches that this grace is given to all (unbiblical) and that one can resist this grace (again, unbiblical).



> "4. Saving grace is either resistible, because of man's free will (Arminianism) or irresistible, because God makes His people willing in the day of His power (Calvinism)."



This statement is correct because it is dealing with the actual difference between Arminianism and Calvinism: the doctrine of Grace.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 30, 2006)

My second source is Joel Beeke, a man who is extremely well qualified to speak about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. 

I made a point of providing links to Arminius own works and the writings of the Remonstrants. I have been very forthright about stating that they affirm the doctrine of total depravity. 

However, I stand by my assertion that their affirmation is undermined practically and effectively by their contention that (due to prevenient grace, a term that developed, I think, a long time after Arminius and the Remonstrants and closer to the time of Wesley) it is within the power of every individual to cooperate with God's grace in salvation or not, which is an effective denial of the doctrine of total depravity, which states that no one is ever disposed to seek God, apart from God's _saving_ grace. 

Is this a semantic difference only? I think not. I think despite the affirmation of the doctrine of total depravity, Arminians deny its full implications, as I said originally. 

Although you may not like to hear what another Reformed theologian says, I will nevertheless cite Robert Dabney on this point who had this to say about the Remonstrant Articles which led to the Canons of Dordt:



> I have always considered this paper handed in by Arminius as of little worth or importance. It is neither honest nor clear. On several points it seeks cunningly to insinuate doubts or to confuse the minds of opponents by using the language of pretended orthodoxy. But as the debate went on, the differences of the Arminians disclosed themselves as being, under a pretended new name nothing in the world but the old semi-pelagianism which had been plaguing the churches for a thousand years, the cousin-german of the Socinian or Unitarian creed. Virtually it denied that the fallen Adam had brought man's heart into an entire and decisive alienation from God. It asserted that his election of grace was not sovereign, but founded in his own foresight of the faith, repentance, and perseverance of such as would choose to embrace the gospel. That grace in effectual calling is not efficacious and invincible, but resistible, so that all actual conversions are the joint result of this grace and the sinner's will working abreast. That Christ died equally for the non-elect and the elect, providing an indefinite, universal atonement for all; and that true converts may, and sometimes do, fall away totally and finally from the state of grace and salvation; their perseverance therein depending not on efficacious grace, but on their own free will to continue in gospel duties.
> 
> Let any plain mind review these five changes and perversions of Bible truth, and he will see two facts: One, that the debate about them all will hinge mainly upon the first question, whether man's original sin is or is not a complete and decisive enmity to godliness; and the other, that this whole plan is a contrivance to gratify human pride and self-righteousness and to escape that great humbling fact everywhere so prominent in the real gospel, that man's ruin of himself by sin is utter, and the whole credit of his redemption from it is God's.



As was noted in an earlier post of mine, Arminians have to answer the question: "Who maketh thee to differ from another?" If everyone has previent grace, but only some choose to believe, what accounts for the difference? The Arminian answer, if it is honest, is that the difference lies in the person not God, which in effect denies the doctrine of *total* depravity and turns it into *partial* depravity.

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## tellville (May 1, 2006)

> My second source is Joel Beeke, a man who is extremely well qualified to speak about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.



He may be very qualified to talk on this issue, but I still think he is in error and is conflating Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. 



> I made a point of providing links to Arminius own works and the writings of the Remonstrants. I have been very forthright about stating that they affirm the doctrine of total depravity.



And I applaud you for such. 



> However, I stand by my assertion that their affirmation is undermined practically and effectively by their contention that (due to previent grace, a term that developed, I think, a long time after Arminius and the Remonstrants and closer to the time of Wesley) it is within the power of every individual to cooperate with God's grace in salvation or not, which is an effective denial of the doctrine of total depravity, which states that no one is ever disposed to seek God, apart from God's saving grace.



A true Arminian would agree with your last sentence "that no one is ever disposed to seek God, apart from God's _saving_ grace." It is the semi-pelagian and pelagian who would not. 



> Although you may not like to hear what another Reformed theologian says, I will nevertheless cite Robert Dabney on this point who had this to say about the Remonstrant Articles which led to the Canons of Dordt



I highly value what Reformed theologians have to say and I hope no one here thinks otherwise. I would also critique the article the same way I´ve critiqued your statements, the issue is not with Total Depravity but rather with Grace. 



> Is this a semantic difference only? I think not. I think despite the affirmation of the doctrine of total depravity, Arminians deny its full implications, as I said originally.



Well, it´s good to see you have finally admitted that they affirm Total Depravity  I would not say they deny its full implications but rather deny the Biblical presentation of Grace. 



> As was noted in an earlier post of mine, Arminians have to answer the question: "Who maketh thee to differ from another?" If everyone has previent grace, but only some choose to believe, what accounts for the difference? The Arminian answer, if it is honest, is that the difference lies in the person not God, which in effect denies the doctrine of total depravity and turns it into partial depravity.



Again, the issue is not with the Depravity. The issue is with the Grace. Yes, it is true that the Arminian has to answer that it was his choice to choose Christ. But the Arminian will also further state that he could have never made the choice unless God first granted him the grace to do so. If God did not grant this grace man would forever be in rebellion to God. But now everyone has been given previent grace, which has a very different definition from Biblical grace. I think the problem you have is that you are inputting the definition of Biblical grace into the word "grace" in the statement "previent grace" and thus are thinking the Arminian believes everyone gets the same type of Biblical grace. This is not the case. For an Arminian previent grace is merely turning all of humanity´s Totally Depraved state into a state similar to what semi-pelagians believe has always been our state.

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by tellville]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> He may be very qualified to talk on this issue, but I still think he is in error and is conflating Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism.



Joel Beeke is one of the foremost Calvinist scholars alive today, in my opinion, and I think he understands very well the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, and Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. 



> A true Arminian would agree with your last sentence "that no one is ever disposed to seek God, apart from God's _saving_ grace." It is the semi-pelagian and pelagian who would not.



Prevenient grace is that which _precedes_ saving grace. Thus, Arminians posit, essentially, a state wherein all persons have received prevenient grace, without saving grace, and yet only some proceed on the basis of prevenient grace to obtain true saving faith. At best, this can be said to be inconsistent; at worst, it is a dishonest use of terms.



> I highly value what Reformed theologians have to say and I hope no one here thinks otherwise. I would also critique the article the same way I´ve critiqued your statements, the issue is not with Total Depravity but rather with Grace.



The historic Reformed position is that Dordt opposed all five of the Remonstrant articles, not just four. Arminian 'total depravity' is not the same of Reformed total depravity, because room is still given for man to reach out to God apart from saving grace. I think your argument is with historic Reformed theology.



> Well, it´s good to see you have finally admitted that they affirm Total Depravity  I would not say they deny its full implications but rather deny the Biblical presentation of Grace.



I'm not sure why you said this, but I have stated repeatedly that Arminians _affirm_ total depravity, while backpeddling as to its full implications. Arminians profess total depravity while also affirming that man has a (God-given) ability to come to Christ apart from saving grace.



> Again, the issue is not with the Depravity. The issue is with the Grace. Yes, it is true that the Arminian has to answer that it was his choice to choose Christ. But the Arminian will also further state that he could have never made the choice unless God first granted him the grace to do so. If God did not grant this grace man would forever be in rebellion to God. But now everyone has been given previent grace, which has a very different definition from Biblical grace. I think the problem you have is that you are inputting the definition of Biblical grace into the word "grace" in the statement "previent grace" and thus are thinking the Arminian believes everyone gets the same type of Biblical grace. This is not the case. For an Arminian previent grace is merely turning all of humanity´s Totally Depraved state into a state similar to what semi-pelagians believe has always been our state.
> 
> [Edited on 5-1-2006 by tellville]



'Prevenient grace' is indeed a misuse of the term grace. If this prevenient grace is given to all, and thus levels the playing field enabling all to accept or reject the gospel, then it is only hypothetical for the Arminian to speak of anyone being in a state of total depravity. According to the Arminian, no one is ever actually in that state, because everyone has prevenient grace, and can choose to come to Christ whenever they desire to exercise their free will to do so. Prevenient grace is the theological means by which the Arminian gets around the Biblical doctrine of total inability (ie., corruption or depravity). 

Perhaps that is why Dordt chose to address the third and fourth Remonstrant articles together (corruption and grace). The two points are very much wrapped together, and thus a discussion of total depravity must address how men can come to God at all. 

Arminianism says that no one can come to God without God's prevenient grace paying the way and that this prevenient grace is extended unto all. Thus, there is no one in a state where they are unable to come to God. This, I believe, amounts to an effective denial of total inability to come to God, which is the point Dordt made which has come to be known as total depravity.

By the use of the concept of prevenient grace, Arminians avoid the open repudiation of total depravity and thus the semi-pelagian label, but the effect of their circumvention is the same -- synergism. 

Total depravity, in the Reformed sense, removes any ability of man to come to God apart from saving grace; Arminian total depravity retains the ability of man to come to God apart from saving grace by means of prevenient grace, and thus is not total but partial. 

We are unlikely to resolve this debate between Arminianism and Calvinism which has lasted for centuries, but a right understanding of the implications of the Arminian doctrine on this point, notwithstanding their use of orthodox terminology, is vital in order to see the true difference between the two systems of theology. 

From the Wikipedia article on prevenient grace:



> Calvinists refer to the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace as "universal enablement". They characterize the Wesleyan view as teaching that, God has restored to every individual the ability to seek after God and choose salvation. They argue that because this grace is supposedly given to all alike, the determining factor in salvation becomes the will of man. Calvinists believe that Wesleyans teach that God seeks all people equally, and if it weren't for the fact that some were willing to respond to his promptings and persuasions, no one would be saved. Conversely, for Calvinists, it is God's will alone that brings salvation (see irresistible grace).
> 
> Calvinists object to prevenient grace maintaining that when the Bible speaks of humanity's condition of total depravity, of spiritual death, it speaks of it as an actuality, not a hypothetical condition, which they feel the Wesleyan doctrine teaches. Calvinists understand that when the Bible says "no one seeks God, understands God, fears God, etc" (such as in Romans 3:9-20), it is speaking about the real (present) condition of the unregenerate. For example, when the Bible says people are "dead in their transgressions" until God makes them alive (Ephesians 2:1-5), Calvinists see this explaining that people are incapable of believing, because sin has destroyed their moral freedom, until God gives them new life in Christ.
> 
> ...



John Owen, _A Display of Arminianism_:



> SECONDLY, The second end at which the new doctrine of the Arminians aimeth is, to clear human nature from the heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted, wise to do evil but unable to do good; and so to vindicate unto themselves a power and ability of doing all that good which God can justly require to be done by them in the state wherein they are,"”of making themselves differ from others who will not make so good use of the endowments of their natures; that so the first and chiefest part in the work of their salvation may be ascribed unto themselves;"”a proud Luciferian endeavor! To this end,"”
> ...
> Secondly, They deny original sin and its demerit; which being rightly understood, would easily demonstrate that, notwithstanding all the labor of the smith, the carpenter, and the painter, yet their idol is of its own nature but an unprofitable block; it will discover not only the impotency of doing good which is in our nature, but show also whence we have it: see chapter the seventh.



[Edited on 5-1-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Vytautas (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > 'Prevenient grace' is indeed a misuse of the term grace. If this prevenient grace is given to all, and thus levels the playing field enabling all to accept or reject the gospel
> ...



The Arminian would attack the second conditional, which says if the father has drawn all men then Jesus will raise all men to everlasting life, God did choose the sinner by drawing him to himself by use of Prevenient grace. However, the sinner has sovereign free will to reject the Prevenient grace offered to man. So God is too weak to save a sinner. Therefore not everyone will be raised to life because some choose to be damnmed.


----------



## Vytautas (May 1, 2006)

But they are in full agreement with Jesus.


----------



## Vytautas (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> No one can come unless the father draws HIM and I will raise HIM up on the last day.
> 
> If the hims are the same him then all drawn are raised.
> ...



Raise him up on the last day could mean either the resurrection of the just or the unjust. Does the verse say resurrection unto life or death? Perhaps it´s a general resurrection. The Arminian still believes both conjuncts. Any other proof texts?


----------



## tellville (May 1, 2006)

> Joel Beeke is one of the foremost Calvinist scholars alive today, in my opinion, and I think he understands very well the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, and Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism.



I never disagreed with any of your claims about Joel Beeke. But I still think he is in error on this one issue. 



> Prevenient grace is that which precedes saving grace. Thus, Arminians posit, essentially, a state wherein all persons have received prevenient grace, without saving grace, and yet only some proceed on the basis of prevenient grace to obtain true saving faith. At best, this can be said to be inconsistent; at worst, it is a dishonest use of terms.



I don´t think it is inconsistent nor dishonest. But I do think it is entirely unbiblical. 



> The historic Reformed position is that Dordt opposed all five of the Remonstrant articles, not just four. Arminian 'total depravity' is not the same of Reformed total depravity, because room is still given for man to reach out to God apart from saving grace. I think your argument is with historic Reformed theology.



I´m not arguing with historic Reformed theology. I affirm historic Reformed theology (though obviously people would say I can in no way be Reformed because I´m not a big fan of padeobaptism, but that´s a completely other issue!). 



> I'm not sure why you said this, but I have stated repeatedly that Arminians affirm total depravity, while backpeddling as to its full implications. Arminians profess total depravity while also affirming that man has a (God-given) ability to come to Christ apart from saving grace.



This is basically the position I´m arguing for. I wouldn´t call it backpeddling but rather inventing unbiblical doctrines (prevenient grace).



> 'Prevenient grace' is indeed a misuse of the term grace. If this prevenient grace is given to all, and thus levels the playing field enabling all to accept or reject the gospel, then it is only hypothetical for the Arminian to speak of anyone being in a state of total depravity. According to the Arminian, no one is ever actually in that state, because everyone has prevenient grace, and can choose to come to Christ whenever they desire to exercise their free will to do so. Prevenient grace is the theological means by which the Arminian gets around the Biblical doctrine of total inability (ie., corruption or depravity).



Again, this is my position and what I have been arguing.



> Perhaps that is why Dordt chose to address the third and fourth Remonstrant articles together (corruption and grace). The two points are very much wrapped together, and thus a discussion of total depravity must address how men can come to God at all.



I would say that this is a very likely hypothesis since there unbiblical view of grace gets them around the doctrine of Total Depravity. But getting around Total Depravity and denying it are two different things. The semi-pelagian denies it openly, the Arminian affirms it while inventing an unbiblical doctrine to get around it. 



> Arminianism says that no one can come to God without God's prevenient grace paying the way and that this prevenient grace is extended unto all. Thus, there is no one in a state where they are unable to come to God. This, I believe, amounts to an effective denial of total inability to come to God, which is the point Dordt made which has come to be known as total depravity.



An effective denial yes, an actual denial, no. Arminians affirm Total Depravity while creating an unbiblical doctrine to get around its implications to Man´s will. 



> By the use of the concept of prevenient grace, Arminians avoid the open repudiation of total depravity and thus the semi-pelagian label, but the effect of their circumvention is the same -- synergism.



This is my position and I never argued otherwise. 



> Total depravity, in the Reformed sense, removes any ability of man to come to God apart from saving grace; Arminian total depravity retains the ability of man to come to God apart from saving grace by means of prevenient grace, and thus is not total but partial.



Not quite. Arminian Total Depravity deprives man of any ability whatsoever of coming to Christ on their own volition/free will/free choice/etc. However, they create the unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace to get around the implications of the very doctrine they affirm. Thus, in effect, they seem very similar to semi-pelagians. 



> We are unlikely to resolve this debate between Arminianism and Calvinism which has lasted for centuries, but a right understanding of the implications of the Arminian doctrine on this point, notwithstanding their use of orthodox terminology, is vital in order to see the true difference between the two systems of theology.



I´m not sure what you mean by this. I´m not arguing for Arminianism. This is not an Arminian/Calvinist debate we are having. What we are having is two Calvinists debating on the correct definition of Arminianism. I also agree there is much difference between the Arminian and Calvinist systems of soteriology, but I believe these differences stem from the creation of the unbiblical notion of previent grace on the Arminian´s part. 



> From the Wikipedia article on prevenient grace



I agree with this article and it is what I have been trying to say all along. I especially agree with the Millard Erickson quote: "It is here that many Arminians, *recognizing human inability as taught in the Scripture*, introduce the concept of prevenient grace, which is believed to have a universal effect nullifying the noetic results of sin, thus making belief possible. The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement." If there was one quote that best sums up my position, it is this Millard Erickson quote. 



> John Owen, A Display of Arminianism



As much as it pains me to say this, I would have to disagree with the Owen quote, in particular where he says Arminians deny Original Sin. They do not, they affirm it. They get around it by creating unbiblical doctrines, and thus as you said earlier _effectively_ seem to be denying it, but they are not in actuality denying it. Also be aware that John Owen is contradicting the Millard Erickson quote above. So either John Owen got it wrong or Millard Erickson got it wrong. (Or maybe we all got it wrong which wouldn't be surprising given we are arguing about a system of beliefs that is wrong  )

Arminains are people who want to be semi-pelagians but know they can´t because they affirm Total Depravity. Thus, to get around this, they invented the unbiblical doctrine of previent grace which allows them to fulfill their desire of putting Man in the semi-pelagian state.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Lastly, my point is that the Arminian believing both conjuncts is _precisely_ the problem. Given their view of prevenient grace, i.e., God drawing all men, then their view leads to universalism.



What would you say to an Arminian who asked why those who Christ will raise up on the last day cannot be referring to the _first_ group referenced in the verse instead of the second - or namely, referring to those who "come to [Him]," rather than to those whom the Father draws?

If it was referring to the latter, it would lead to universalism indeed. But what would you say to the Arminian who says, "No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him - but the converse is not necessarily true, hence God can preveniently draw everyone so that all are then enabled to choose whether or not to come to Christ. And those who "come to [Christ]" - as mentioned in the first part of the verse as a result of the drawing mentioned in the last part - will be raised up on the last day." In other words, they might read the verse as essentially saying, "No one could come to me unless my Father draws them with His prevenient grace. And the man who chooses to come to me after that drawing will be raised up on the last day."

Of course, those objections can easily be answered systematically from elsewhere in Scripture. But in terms of simply using this verse in particular in the way you are above, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate...


----------



## Vytautas (May 1, 2006)

The Father may draw with irresistible grace but the Holy Spirit draws with Prevenient grace. There are many ways that the Godhead deals with sinners. Thus if the Father does one thing and the Holy Ghost another, this does not lead to universalism because Prevenient grace can be resisted and the Father only chooses those who will choose him.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> The Father may draw with irresistible grace but the Holy Spirit draws with Prevenient grace. There are many ways that the Godhead deals with sinners. Thus if the Father does one thing and the Holy Ghost another, this does not lead to universalism because Prevenient grace can be resisted and the Father only chooses those who will choose him.



This is another possible Arminian objection that is interesting. It seems to require going to the various verses showing that the Spirit's regeneration is sovereign, monergistic and irresistible, and, like my hypothetical "objection" above, _might_ render John 6:44 insufficient to refute prevenient grace _without those other verses_.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> I´m not arguing with historic Reformed theology. I affirm historic Reformed theology (though obviously people would say I can in no way be Reformed because I´m not a big fan of padeobaptism, but that´s a completely other issue!).



As I have shown by many citations to historic Reformed theologians and to the Canons of Dordt, your defense of Arminian total depravity stands in opposition to the teachings of historic Reformed theology which condemns Arminian total depravity for its retention of some ability on the part of man to exercise free will in order to obtain salvation. 



> I would say that this is a very likely hypothesis since there unbiblical view of grace gets them around the doctrine of Total Depravity. But getting around Total Depravity and denying it are two different things. The semi-pelagian denies it openly, the Arminian affirms it while inventing an unbiblical doctrine to get around it.



It seems that what you grant with one hand you take away with the other. I have been arguing from the very beginning that Arminians affirm total depravity while effectively denying it by means of prevenient grace. The "getting around it" is how they "deny" it. 



> An effective denial yes, an actual denial, no. Arminians affirm Total Depravity while creating an unbiblical doctrine to get around its implications to Man´s will.



Again, I have said they affirm total depravity while effectively denying it. It seems here that you are agreeing with me. 



> Not quite. Arminian Total Depravity deprives man of any ability whatsoever of coming to Christ on their own volition/free will/free choice/etc. However, they create the unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace to get around the implications of the very doctrine they affirm. Thus, in effect, they seem very similar to semi-pelagians.



Arminian total depravity says that everyone has prevenient grace, yet some choose to come to God and others do not. The sole factor accounting for this difference lies in the heart of man. This constitutes an effective denial of total depravity.



> I´m not sure what you mean by this. I´m not arguing for Arminianism. This is not an Arminian/Calvinist debate we are having. What we are having is two Calvinists debating on the correct definition of Arminianism. I also agree there is much difference between the Arminian and Calvinist systems of soteriology, but I believe these differences stem from the creation of the unbiblical notion of previent grace on the Arminian´s part.



I think your point all along has been that Arminians have a biblical notion of total depravity but an unbiblical notion of grace. My point is that they have an unbiblical notion of total depravity and an unbiblical notion of grace. Hence, we disagree about the Arminian meaning of total depravity. My position is that Reformed doctrine condemns Arminian total depravity, while your position that Reformed total depravity and Arminian total depravity are both biblical. 



> I agree with this article and it is what I have been trying to say all along. I especially agree with the Millard Erickson quote: "It is here that many Arminians, *recognizing human inability as taught in the Scripture*, introduce the concept of prevenient grace, which is believed to have a universal effect nullifying the noetic results of sin, thus making belief possible. The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement." If there was one quote that best sums up my position, it is this Millard Erickson quote.



Erickson says that the noetic results of sin are nullified by Arminian prevenient grace. This is consistent with what I have been saying -- ie., that Arminian total depravity is thereby _effectively cancelled out or denied_. 



> As much as it pains me to say this, I would have to disagree with the Owen quote, in particular where he says Arminians deny Original Sin. They do not, they affirm it. They get around it by creating unbiblical doctrines, and thus as you said earlier _effectively_ seem to be denying it, but they are not in actuality denying it. Also be aware that John Owen is contradicting the Millard Erickson quote above. So either John Owen got it wrong or Millard Erickson got it wrong. (Or maybe we all got it wrong which wouldn't be surprising given we are arguing about a system of beliefs that is wrong  )



I think you misunderstand both Erickson and Owen because they seem to me to be in agreement as to the reality of what Arminians mean by total depravity.



> Arminains are people who want to be semi-pelagians but know they can´t because they affirm Total Depravity. Thus, to get around this, they invented the unbiblical doctrine of previent grace which allows them to fulfill their desire of putting Man in the semi-pelagian state.



This to me shows the inconsistency of Arminian total depravity. Earlier you denied that Arminian total depravity was inconsistent. 

For the record, I am sure you affirm TULIP and don't question that at all. I do think that you are taking the Arminian affirmation of total depravity at face value which I believe to be a mistake. 

Roman Catholics affirm salvation by grace too but effectively deny this when they add works to the equation. It is no coincidence that Romanism is "practically Arminian" (Lorraine Boettner). Both camps have much in common, including a willingness to play fast and loose with semantics to ensure that salvation remains synergistic even while orthodox terms are employed. 

Hence, as Dabney noted, the language of Arminians is neither clear nor honest, but Dordt and Reformed theologians throughout history have seen through the Arminian trappings of orthodoxy with respect total depravity and recognized that their version of the doctrine is not the same as the Reformed teaching of total depravity.


----------



## tellville (May 1, 2006)

> For the record, I am sure you affirm TULIP and don't question that at all.



That's good. I didn't want anybody to get the impression that while I was "defending" Arminianism that I actually consider it to be a legitimate system of thought - I do not. I think it is wrong, unbiblical, and can lead one down the path of destruction if not abandoned. 



> I do think that you are taking the Arminian affirmation of total depravity at face value which I believe to be a mistake.



I think you nailed it right on the head with this statement. There are other things in your post I could comment on, but I believe you nailed exactly right here why we are coming to different conclusions. Good ol' presuppositional apologetics at its finest  

So, to prevent the proverbial  I will rest having felt my point of view has been heard and respectfully disagreed with.


----------



## cih1355 (May 1, 2006)

Arminians believe God takes the initiative with the sinner, but they also believe that God never effectually calls anyone. This is like going up to a dead person and asking him, "Do you want me to raise you up from the dead?". 

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by cih1355]


----------



## Vytautas (May 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



In time, which the verse talks about, the Father draws the man and then the man comes to Christ because no man can come to him unless he is drawn by the Father. But logically God draws the man after the man decides because there needs to be a reason why the Father draws a man.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> I will rest having felt my point of view has been heard and respectfully disagreed with.


----------



## Vytautas (May 2, 2006)

Even though no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, which means if the Father does not draw anyone, then no one can come to Jesus, it could be the case that the Father actually does not draw anybody so that no one can come to Jesus. So that men are saved in another way, namely by asking for the Holy Ghost which the Father gives to those who ask him. No one comes to Jesus because the Father is not obligated to draw anyone.


----------



## Vytautas (May 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> yeah, but we were sticking with John 6:44 and none of the above conjecture is found in that verse. So, I appreciate the grasping staws tactic. but it looks rather dim for our Arminain friend.
> 
> I mean, what Arminain is going to say that the father doesn't draw anyone?
> ...



So you say that we are sticking with John 6:44, and then you go to other verses to prove your case. And I can not go to another passage? If we are sticking to John 6:44, then show how the Father gives people to Jesus with just this verse. Can not do it? Need to go to another verse? Then as for your other verses: this only applies to the dispensation when Christ was on earth.


----------



## Kaalvenist (May 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> So you say that we are sticking with John 6:44, and then you go to other verses to prove your case. And I can not go to another passage? If we are sticking to John 6:44, then show how the Father gives people to Jesus with just this verse. Can not do it? Need to go to another verse? Then as for your other verses: this only applies to the dispensation when Christ was on earth.


But the issue is not "going to other verses," but going to other verses *outside of the context* (most notably John 12:32). It only helps us get a better grasp of what is being said in a particular verse by examining the surrounding context (for John 6:44, I would say vs. 35-45 is a good starting point). And as for the the dispensational argument, there is nothing in the context to indicate such a limitation... rather the opposite. People still believe or disbelieve, right? Christ is explaining that belief and unbelief.

And greetings to a fellow Covenanter!


----------



## Vytautas (May 2, 2006)

Who is it that the Father gives to Jesus? That question is answered in this passage only three verses later: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Thus, all those who believe on Christ are given by the Father and they are received and are not cast out.


----------



## Vytautas (May 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Anyway, the passage says nothing about the man who chooses Christ. As I pointed out to Chris it only speaks of "those drawn by the father" and those "_able_ to come."
> 
> You'll not get any "choosing" out of the verse.



This is refuted by John 6:40. It is not the case that some who believe on Christ are not given by the Father.


----------



## Vytautas (May 2, 2006)

You think you can use one verse to prove a doctrine? Let´s fight fire with fire. That is, let´s use many verses. I will raise him up at the last day is connected with every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life. Also the Father which has sent me draw him is connected to and I will raise him up at the last day. Therefore, the Father which draws is connected to every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life. That is, if you believe, then you are drawn.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 2, 2006)

Part of the problem here is that you are not being careful with your words, or rather the Apostle John's words.

The Apostle, for example, means something very specific when he uses ability words - "no one can", "has", etc. or action words "believes" "sees" "is drawn" and the like. The Arminians have a tough time with the Bible because they are bad exegetes. If they took time, just a little time, to be fair with the text (for not even Arminius or Lenski does this) they would better understand, for example, the simplicity behind the words the Apostle John uses throughout his Gospel, and letters.

"See", "know", "can", etc., are all very specific words that the Apsotle uses to determine spiritual capabilities.

Maybe it woul dbe more helpful to, as Paul said, go back to the Bible (which, yes, is on his side.)


----------



## BaptistCanuk (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> This is getting old and boring.





[Edited on 5-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Vytautas (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> No, I think I can prove that if one believes that the Father draws everyone then one believes universalism. That's it.
> 
> You have not proven that the believing is the necessary condition to the drawing.
> ...



What you have is a material conditional, meaning it does not show a necessary condition, for example the antecedent can be false, that is the Father draws, and the consequent can be true, that is it is not the case that no one can come to Jesus. The conditional is true in this condition so that the relationship is not of necessity.


----------



## 5solasmom (May 4, 2006)

WOW! Thank you so much! It'll take me a while to read and sift through all the information - if I have more questions, I'll definately be back..LOL!


----------



## Scott Shahan (May 5, 2006)

Your dialog really shined alot of light on this for me.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

I have to agree with whomever it was who commented that Arminius and Arminianism aren't necessarily equal. The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are not really Calvin's points; they're from the Synod of Dordt. And Arminianism is generally accepted as being the five points to which the Synod was responding. I personally believe it's irrelevant whether Arminius himself believed in total depravity; he as in individual is not in question here (since he's dead, it really doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong), the DOCTRINE is in question.

The problem I have seen with Arminianists is inconsistency. Every Christian I know would say that we are totally depraved. HOWEVER, the vast majority of them would also make statements that utterly contradict this. For example, the quote in the original set above which says that "faith is the sinner's gift to God." This, btw, is in absolute opposition to the Scripture, which explicitly states that faith is God's gift to the sinner. ("...and THAT [the faith] not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.")


----------

