Question About Arminianism

[YorbaYeoman]

My wife and I recently had one of her college friends for dinner, and this friend mentioned off-hand that she attends a Reformed church but "disagrees with Calvinism on predestination." I was caught a bit off guard, but told her we would disagree. I am honestly a bit disappointed in my response, as I think I could have explained more!

I think there will be a follow-up conversation when we see her again at Thanksgiving, and I have been reading up on Arminianism to try and do a better job then. I'm realizing that I have very little understanding of the Arminian view on predestination. I'm only familiar with the boilerplate statement that God elects those He knows will freely respond to the offer of grace.

My question is how Arminians square that with God's sovereignty over history in general. So for example, I'm currently doing the Bible Study Fellowship program on "Exile and Return", and we just finished Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar is the lens I'm thinking about this through.

I think most would agree that Nebuchadnezzar was saved. Would the Arminian agree that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's heart to burn against Israel at first and exile them to Babylon? And that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's choice of Daniel as his adviser, as well as Nebuchadnezzar's madness etc.? If that's true, is the idea then that God chose not to be sovereign over Nebuchadnezzar's heart/spirit right at the moment he received saving grace, but was sovereign over it up until that point? And even then, can you really call Nebuchadnezzar's choice at that point "free" in any real sense, since God had directed all of the circumstances leading up to and informing it? It all just seems odd.

I want to try and understand the position if I'm going to try and argue against it, and I worry that I'm building up a strawman in the above. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[No Other Name]

In your WCF, chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with all the proof texts are pretty tight.

When talking with an Arminian, focus on what they mean by "free will". It is usually some kind of ultra-ability to choose what you want and/or what you do not want. This is nonsense, and there is no point in talking any more from there. In my experience, tipping your hat right there saves a lot of unnecessary frustration in miscommunication and misunderstanding on both our ends.

 

[TheInquirer]

It was helpful for me to read The Five Articles of Remonstrance and then work from there to better understand their views. Like all views, there is diversity among scholars on that side.

Philip Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

However, what your friend believes and what they believe might be two different things. Additionally, many people misunderstand Reformed theology so that might be a factor as well.

 

[B.L.]

The Arminian spectrum is pretty wide with there being a pretty big difference between Classical Arminians (think Free Will Baptists) and the modern Wesleyan (think Methodism/Holiness) variety. Among those that would call themselves Classical Arminians I would read up on J. Matthew Pinson, Robert Picirilli, and those in the Welch College & Randall House Publishers orbit. I'm less well-versed with the Wesleyan-Arminian crowd.

I've had similar interactions with friends who take issue with the Reformed view of predestination and one thing I've discovered is just because one says they don't believe in the Reformed view doesn't mean they are well read on the topic and understand the Arminian view. While I enjoyed it thoroughly, I spent a lot of time doing my homework a few years back on Arminianism thinking it would equip me for a friendly debate on the topic and I was a bit disappointed.

Personally, and this goes without saying...I would study the scriptural passages first and then go down the various exegetical rabbit holes if time permits. If you could/would read only one book I would read "40 Questions on Arminianism" written by J. Matthew Pinson. While acknowledging the areas where I would heartily disagree I found this to be a very enjoyable/informative read.

 

[Pictet]

My wife and I recently had one of her college friends for dinner, and this friend mentioned off-hand that she attends a Reformed church but "disagrees with Calvinism on predestination." I was caught a bit off guard, but told her we would disagree. I am honestly a bit disappointed in my response, as I think I could have explained more!

I want to try and understand the position if I'm going to try and argue against it, and I worry that I'm building up a strawman in the above. Any help would be appreciated.

One question to think about is whether she is an Arminian, in the strict sense, especially if she goes to a reformed church. A lot of people just have a negative reaction to predestination, often not understanding what it is/means, rather than actually having a thought-through Arminian theology. And often it's actually a reaction to a crude caricature of predestination.

It might be more fruitful to think carefully through obvious predestination passages (Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc.) and ask her gently how she approaches those, and to be prepared to talk about some of the more obvious emotional issues and logical questions people tend to have around predestination. Think about double predestination, compatibilism, free will, etc....

*****Edit****
B.L got there just before me, while I was typing this, and he said it better than I did.

 

[No Other Name]

Additionally, many people misunderstand Reformed theology so that might be a factor as well.

Yes to this.

I will bold and italicize what I think are errors of the Calvinist position in this section from my friend's Arminian blog:

"Calvinist [sic] are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more “hear” the gospel or “see” our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

Nowhere in Scripture is such a strict parallel drawn. To be dead in sins means that we are cut off from the relationship with God that is necessary for spiritual life. Our sin separates us from a holy God and causes spiritual death. This is both actual and potential. The sinner is presently “dead” because, in the absence of faith, he is not enjoying life giving union with Christ. The sinner is potentially dead because if he continues in this state he will be forever cut off from the presence of the Lord in Hell (2 Thess. 1:9).

Calvinists will often mock Arminians by saying that it is as useless to expect the dead in sin to respond to the gospel as it is to expect a bunch of corpses in the morgue to respond to the gospel. The only way that corpses could hear such preaching is for them to first be given life. In like manner, we are told, the only way that someone who is “dead” in sin could respond to the gospel would be if they are first raised to spiritual life. This supposedly proves the need for regeneration before faith.

But this leads to absurdities and demonstrates that pressing this parallel between those who are spiritually dead and physically dead is unwise and without Scriptural support. If the analogy is accurate then spiritually dead people should not be able to do anything more than corpses can do, which is plainly absurd. A single example will suffice.

The Bible plainly teaches that those who are dead in sin resist the Holy Spirit. Now have you ever seen a corpse resist something? Of course not. So if we adopt the implications of the Calvinistic definition of “dead in sin” then we must deny that anyone who is dead in sin can resist the Holy Spirit or reject the gospel (Acts 7:51; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 John 4:10; Rom. 10:21). Corpses can’t resist or reject anything any more than they can see or hear anything. This, of course, should tell us something about the Cavinistic understanding of dead in sin. It is not Biblical.

“You’re pushing it too far” says the Calvinist. Really? And how is it that you determine how far the analogy should be pressed? We are either as spiritually useless as a physical corpse or we need to abandon the parallel. You can’t just draw from the illustration what suits your fancy and ignore the rest. That is special pleading.

Now it is important to remember that Arminians do not deny the need for God’s gracious enabling before a sinner can believe and embrace the gospel. Without divine initiative and enabling no one would ever come to God in faith. We are confident, however, that God is powerful enough to overcome our depravity and there is no need for the priority of regeneration since there is no strict parallel between the inability of a physical corpse and the inability of those dead in sin. We can therefore accept the Biblical teaching of depravity and God’s prevenient grace without needing to turn the Bible on its ear in an effort to put spiritual life before faith."

 

[mpinckard]

My wife and I recently had one of her college friends for dinner, and this friend mentioned off-hand that she attends a Reformed church but "disagrees with Calvinism on predestination." I was caught a bit off guard, but told her we would disagree. I am honestly a bit disappointed in my response, as I think I could have explained more!

I think there will be a follow-up conversation when we see her again at Thanksgiving, and I have been reading up on Arminianism to try and do a better job then. I'm realizing that I have very little understanding of the Arminian view on predestination. I'm only familiar with the boilerplate statement that God elects those He knows will freely respond to the offer of grace.

My question is how Arminians square that with God's sovereignty over history in general. So for example, I'm currently doing the Bible Study Fellowship program on "Exile and Return", and we just finished Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar is the lens I'm thinking about this through.

I think most would agree that Nebuchadnezzar was saved. Would the Arminian agree that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's heart to burn against Israel at first and exile them to Babylon? And that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's choice of Daniel as his adviser, as well as Nebuchadnezzar's madness etc.? If that's true, is the idea then that God chose not to be sovereign over Nebuchadnezzar's heart/spirit right at the moment he received saving grace, but was sovereign over it up until that point? And even then, can you really call Nebuchadnezzar's choice at that point "free" in any real sense, since God had directed all of the circumstances leading up to and informing it? It all just seems odd.

I want to try and understand the position if I'm going to try and argue against it, and I worry that I'm building up a strawman in the above. Any help would be appreciated.

In my experience (from both talking to Arminians and once having been one myself; note that I'm using "Arminian" in the broadest, common sense, not the technical/classical sense others here have mentioned), rejection of predestination is not often a position that is thoroughly reasoned out. Those who take such a stance may have reasons (or they may just not like the feel of the doctrine), and they may even have developed those reasons pretty carefully, and in that case they probably have answers to at least some major arguments for God's sovereignty in salvation. But I've met maybe two people--both of them college professors, so more given to such intellectual wrangling--who seemed to have attempted to think through the implications of a rejection of predestination.

I don't think that your Nebuchadnezzar example is likely to get you very far, because most Arminians are going to see God as being far less directly involved in Nebuchadnezzar's decision-making. Unless Scripture explicitly says that God caused him to do this or that, they're not likely to accept that he did, and even then they might try to explain those statements away. And they'll try to distinguish between foreknowing/foretelling something, and actually predestining/decreeing it to happen that way, when human choices are involved, even though that creates serious logical problems. So they wouldn't feel themselves forced to say that God was sovereignly directing Nebuchadnezzar up until the moment of his conversion, and then suspended his sovereignty for that one decision (granting that he was genuinely converted for sake of argument, by the way, which I'm less certain about than some).

I agree, in the main, with the approach recommended by others. Election is so strongly and frequently asserted in Scripture--and that, for the most part, without argument, because it didn't cause early Christians nearly so much trouble as it causes modern Westerners--that it's really inescapable without doing tons of hermeneutical gymnastics. But many Arminians are just unaware of that fact.

Paul's discussion of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9 is what originally got me--harder to explain away than some others, in my opinion, because it deals directly with individuals (so they can't legitimately appeal to corporate election, though they still try), and makes clear that it had to do with nothing but God's electing love (so they can't appeal to foreseen faith, though, again, they'll try). God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart also makes many Arminians squirm, though some have answers to that, that are unsatisfying, but they think they're good enough.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Just open your bible Ephesians 1, where it says "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," and ask, "do you agree with the Apostle Paul that God chose and predestined believers?"

If they say "no," they're sub-christian, and you'd be losing your time with them. Why argue with someone who doesn't accept the authority of the bible?

If they say "yes, but I think 'predestine' means..." then that's something you can engage with.

 

[No Other Name]

I was just going to say Ephesians 1 before the post above me. Another tact to engage (with someone genuine) is to focus on God's eternal covenant as the basis for election and effectual calling. Notice the difference in ordo salutis:

"Arminian ordo salutis:

Prevenient grace

Faith

[Union with Christ]

Justification

Regeneration

Sanctification

Glorification

Notes on Arminian ordo:

Again, it is important to note that strictly speaking prevenient grace and faith are not part of salvation but are necessary to salvation. Prevenient grace makes the faith response possible and faith is the God ordained condition that must be met before God will save. Faith is synergistic in that it is a genuine response that is made possible by God’s enabling grace. All that follows (the various aspects of salvation) are a monergistic work of God. While salvation results from faith, faith does not cause salvation. God causes salvation in response to faith according to His promise to save believers.

There are other aspects or expressions of salvation that are not explicitly included in the above ordo. Adoption, for instance, would probably be included under both regeneration and glorification. Regeneration would include the commencement of adoption while glorification would include the culmination of adoption. Election would be tied to union with Christ. We would become the elect of God upon our union with Christ (the elect One) as we would come to share in His election through union and identification with Him. Faith joins us to Christ (Eph. 1:13) and all of the spiritual blessings that reside in Christ become the believer’s upon union with Him (Eph. 1:3-12).

Temporally, these blessings would become ours simultaneously, but logically it is important to place justification prior to regeneration and all that follows, since one must first receive forgiveness and have sin removed prior to the reception of new life and the attaining of holiness (sanctification). One cannot have life while still under the condemnation of sin and the wrath of God for “the wages of sin is death”. And one cannot be made holy apart from justification. So the moment we are joined to Christ we are cleansed by His blood and new life and holiness immediately result from that cleansing.

Predestination would have reference to the predetermined destiny of believers through union with Christ. Believers have been predestinated to ultimate adoption and conformity to the image of Christ (glorification). Predestination does not have reference to God’s predetermination of certain sinners to become believers and be ultimately saved."

And here is the quite astounding take on our position:

Calvinist ordo salutis:

Election/Predestination (unconditional)

Regeneration

Faith

Justification

Sanctification

Glorification

Notes on Calvinist ordo salutis:

The Calvinist ordo begins with an unconditional divine selection of certain individuals for salvation. This divine selection of those to be saved would fall under election and predestination. God would then regenerate those pre-selected individuals in time (usually upon the hearing of the gospel). Regeneration would cause a faith response. Most Calvinists would say that the faith response would be automatic and immediate. The moment one is regenerated by God that person believes. Calvinists tend to speak of faith as an unconditional and irresistible gift from God rather than the condition for receiving salvation. It is part of the salvation package as it arises from a primary aspect of salvation- regeneration. Calvinists will often say that faith is monergistic, but it is hard to see how faith could be monergistic unless God does the believing for the individual. But most Calvinists deny that God believes for the person while maintaining that faith is an unconditional monergistic work of God along with every other aspect of salvation.

The difficulty with the Calvinist ordo has to do with the priority of regeneration (the new birth). Logically, the new birth (regeneration- the beginning of spiritual life) precedes justification in the Calvinist ordo just as it precedes faith (and the Bible is clear that justification is by faith). So logically speaking we have people receiving new life prior to justification. Since justification includes forgiveness and the removal of God’s wrath, the Calvinist ordo results in the receiving of life logically prior to being forgiven and prior to the wrath of God being removed.

A further difficulty comes from trying to place adoption in the Calvinist ordo. Do we place it at the new birth (regeneration)? If we place it at the new birth then we also have the person becoming a child of God (which I think must be part of regeneration) logically prior to being forgiven and justified.

And still another difficulty comes from trying to place sanctification in the ordo. I think most Calvinists would agree with where I have placed it here. Yet I have heard (and read) many Calvinists claim that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. If that is the case then the Calvinist also needs to explain how one can be sanctified (made holy) prior to being justified.

It is also hard to place union with Christ in the Calvinist ordo. When do we become united with Christ? Do we become united to Christ in regeneration logically prior to a faith response? This would lead to the conclusion that one can be in union with Christ logically prior to believing in Christ. If union with Christ is placed after regeneration and faith in the ordo we run into the difficulty of sinners receiving new spiritual life logically prior to being joined to the source of life- Christ.

The Calvinist ordo has much to account for and seems to be hopelessly problematic. In placing regeneration prior to faith the Calvinist ordo salutis involves itself in numerous theological absurdities while the Arminian ordo avoids them all.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello again, H.W.,

The attached piece below might give you some understanding.

If Nebuchadnezzar was indeed saved, it could well be that in the LORD's timing He moved upon his heart to know and acknowledge Him. God's sovereign dealing with him was always active.

About freedom of the will. I like to put it this way: A man in a prison has the freedom of to do what he will in the confines of the prison and its system; only he cannot — exercising his will — get out of the prison unless he receives a pardon from a governor or president. Likewise, an unbelieving person has the freedom to do many things, but he cannot approach the God to whom he is dead. His freedom of will does not extend to choosing or doing anything pleasing to God.

Ephesians 2:1, "dead in trespasses and sins". Eph 2:4, 5, 6, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us [made us alive] together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

A corpse in the water cannot grab hold of a life preserver thrown to it. Some (such as the Eastern Orthodox) will say we are not completely dead, but only wounded, but they go against the word of God.

 

[YorbaYeoman]

Thank you all for the helpful replies. For clarification, I don't offer the Nebuchadnezzar example as something to actually raise with my wife's friend, it was just on my mind from BSF as I started to mull this over. I also think that this person comes from a conservative Methodist background, if that is any helpful additional context.

Hello again, H.W.,

The attached piece below might give you some understanding.

If Nebuchadnezzar was indeed saved, it could well be that in the LORD's timing He moved upon his heart to know and acknowledge Him. God's sovereign dealing with him was always active.

About freedom of the will. I like to put it this way: A man in a prison has the freedom of to do what he will in the confines of the prison and its system; only he cannot — exercising his will — get out of the prison unless he receives a pardon from a governor or president. Likewise, an unbelieving person has the freedom to do many things, but he cannot approach the God to whom he is dead. His freedom of will does not extend to choosing or doing anything pleasing to God.

Ephesians 2:1, "dead in trespasses and sins". Eph 2:4, 5, 6, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us [made us alive] together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

A corpse in the water cannot grab hold of a life preserver thrown to it. Some (such as the Eastern Orthodox) will say we are not completely dead, but only wounded, but they go against the word of God.

Funnily enough, the first thing I did after our friend left that evening was crack open my paper copy of that Steele, Thomas book! Work has intervened to keep me from finishing it, I will make that a priority this weekend.

 

[EvanF]

Yes to this.

I will bold and italicize what I think are errors of the Calvinist position in this section from my friend's Arminian blog:

"Calvinist [sic] are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more “hear” the gospel or “see” our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

Nowhere in Scripture is such a strict parallel drawn. To be dead in sins means that we are cut off from the relationship with God that is necessary for spiritual life. Our sin separates us from a holy God and causes spiritual death. This is both actual and potential. The sinner is presently “dead” because, in the absence of faith, he is not enjoying life giving union with Christ. The sinner is potentially dead because if he continues in this state he will be forever cut off from the presence of the Lord in Hell (2 Thess. 1:9).

Calvinists will often mock Arminians by saying that it is as useless to expect the dead in sin to respond to the gospel as it is to expect a bunch of corpses in the morgue to respond to the gospel. The only way that corpses could hear such preaching is for them to first be given life. In like manner, we are told, the only way that someone who is “dead” in sin could respond to the gospel would be if they are first raised to spiritual life. This supposedly proves the need for regeneration before faith.

But this leads to absurdities and demonstrates that pressing this parallel between those who are spiritually dead and physically dead is unwise and without Scriptural support. If the analogy is accurate then spiritually dead people should not be able to do anything more than corpses can do, which is plainly absurd. A single example will suffice.

The Bible plainly teaches that those who are dead in sin resist the Holy Spirit. Now have you ever seen a corpse resist something? Of course not. So if we adopt the implications of the Calvinistic definition of “dead in sin” then we must deny that anyone who is dead in sin can resist the Holy Spirit or reject the gospel (Acts 7:51; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 John 4:10; Rom. 10:21). Corpses can’t resist or reject anything any more than they can see or hear anything. This, of course, should tell us something about the Cavinistic understanding of dead in sin. It is not Biblical.

“You’re pushing it too far” says the Calvinist. Really? And how is it that you determine how far the analogy should be pressed? We are either as spiritually useless as a physical corpse or we need to abandon the parallel. You can’t just draw from the illustration what suits your fancy and ignore the rest. That is special pleading.

Now it is important to remember that Arminians do not deny the need for God’s gracious enabling before a sinner can believe and embrace the gospel. Without divine initiative and enabling no one would ever come to God in faith. We are confident, however, that God is powerful enough to overcome our depravity and there is no need for the priority of regeneration since there is no strict parallel between the inability of a physical corpse and the inability of those dead in sin. We can therefore accept the Biblical teaching of depravity and God’s prevenient grace without needing to turn the Bible on its ear in an effort to put spiritual life before faith."

Do you mean that the bolded aren't what we profess, or that the arguments are faulty?

To me it seems like he's strangely confounding spiritual capacity with fleshly capacity. We don't usually say that a corpse in a morgue can't respond to the gospel, we say that it can't do fleshly things like get up and walk - it is dead in the flesh. Responding to the gospel (more than just "seeing" or "hearing" - "having eyes they see not and having ears they hear not") is a spiritual thing - they who are dead in the spirit can no more do it than a corpse can respond in the flesh. So I think it's perfectly correct to say that the spiritually dead are quite as helpless spiritually as corpses are helpless in the flesh.

 

[No Other Name]

Do you mean that the bolded aren't what we profess, or that the arguments are faulty?

To me it seems like he's strangely confounding spiritual capacity with fleshly capacity. We don't usually say that a corpse in a morgue can't respond to the gospel, we say that it can't do fleshly things like get up and walk - it is dead in the flesh. Responding to the gospel (more than just "seeing" or "hearing" - "having eyes they see not and having ears they hear not") is a spiritual thing - they who are dead in the spirit can no more do it than a corpse can respond in the flesh. So I think it's perfectly correct to say that the spiritually dead are quite as helpless spiritually as corpses are helpless in the flesh.

Yes, I mean the bolded are his claims about us that we either do not profess or he is misunderstanding by pushing the physical/spiritual analogical connection far further than even Scripture intends revealing his compromised hermeneutics that is tainting his response to Calvinism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

At the most basic level, these kinds of movements tend to think of God's thoughts as a form of the way we would understand some things. Some can't imagine it being "fair" that some are elected to reprobation and likewise deny that man's heart is as sinful as it is. If they do acknowledge that man's heart is sinful, then they imagine that God will give everyone a "choice". Depending on the brand of semi-Pelagianism, there will be a tendency to redefine predestination as God looking forward in time to determine whether a person makes the correct choice.

What I just described opens up so many problems concerning what the Scriptures teach not only about the nature of our Fall but also God's nature itself and whether something other than God is in control of human choice that requires Him to "learn forward" something He is not ultimately in control of. Furthermore, there is a tendency toward a philosophical argument that God cannot both control all things and that man makes his own self-determined choices. In other words, man is not a puppet, but that's how it's expressed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Is election by foresight? No! Consider: John Calvin: “We are all lost in Adam, and therefore, had not God rescued us from perishing, by His own election, there was nothing to be foreseen” (save our eternal misery).

 

[MW]

I think most would agree that Nebuchadnezzar was saved. Would the Arminian agree that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's heart to burn against Israel at first and exile them to Babylon? And that God sovereignly directed Nebuchadnezzar's choice of Daniel as his adviser, as well as Nebuchadnezzar's madness etc.? If that's true, is the idea then that God chose not to be sovereign over Nebuchadnezzar's heart/spirit right at the moment he received saving grace, but was sovereign over it up until that point? And even then, can you really call Nebuchadnezzar's choice at that point "free" in any real sense, since God had directed all of the circumstances leading up to and informing it? It all just seems odd.

If you want to build a strong man argument it will mean taking them seriously when they claim that God sovereignly limits Himself. This allows for Him to be meticulous in His providential governance of history, nations, and the external circumstances of individuals while voluntarily relinquishing His sovereignty over the will, especially in saving faith. At that point there are numerous fronts on which to fight this battle -- the fatalism of it, the irrational nature of positing the indifference of freewill, the asymmetry of sovereignty, the uncertainty of prophecy, to name a few.

 

[ReformedChristian]

I recommend John Owen A Display of Arminianism

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

As with everything, people tend to be inconsistent with the views they hold. Non-Calvinists come in all sorts of flavors, so I believe the way to put your best foot forward is to spend time finding out exactly what this person believes. Ask good questions. Because you can build an incredible defense against a viewpoint and then find out she doesn't even hold it! You have to interact with what she actually believes, now what she is supposed to believe.

Then, you "sink it in scripture." Thaddeus Williams wrote a book entitled God Reforms Hearts, and he uses imagery of submarines and deep-sea diving. His illustration is that many viewpoints can survive when they "float on the surface" of Scripture. But when you measure the view's "depth capacity", you find out whether it can support the pressure of Scripture. Most non-Calvinistic views do a pretty good job of floating on Scripture, but it doesn't take long before it becomes obvious that they can't bear the full weight of Scripture. Also, the book is directly related to God's Sovereignty and interacting with arguments regarding libertarian free will. Very cool book!

So fill yourself with God's teaching on the subject. Familiarize yourself with Confessional language - someone suggested Dort, which is wise. Also, consider all the chapters from the Westminster Confession on the subject - God's Decree, Providence, and Effectual Calling. Find the corresponding Catechism questions and allow your language to be formed by that language. But make sure you understand the Biblical rationale behind those statements. They provide a great many passages in which you can "sink" her viewpoint. But speak Bible - appealing to Dort or Westminster does close to nothing for people separated from the world of Creeds and Confessions.

Last thought, by way of method - sinking a viewpoint in Scripture takes time. Dumping 40 verses on someone is frustrating. Figure out a way to slowly walk through passages, asking questions as you go. Guide her to the conclusions of Scripture if you can. And if you only interact with one passage deeply in an evening, that's a victory.

 

[johnnycanuck]

Would the analogy of Executive Pardon work?

It allows an individual to be relieved of some or all legal consequences of a criminal conviction. A President or Governor can grant this act of clemency to a prisoner who is guilty of the crime and under justice, serving their sentence. Although a President or Governor can have an ulterior motive for this pardon, oftentimes it is being merciful to the one under justice. The rest of the prison is not freed and absolved of their crimes, just those for whom the President/Governor has granted this clemency. I do realise that there is usually a request made by the Office of the Pardon Attorney so this analogy is not truly unilateral.

 

[En Kristo]

I was raised in an arminian church. I teach a community Bible study attended primarily by formerly Arminians. They have had their understanding strengthened and their position changed by scripture (except that a brand new member just joined and so I will have to repeat a lot to get him up to speed).

From my experience:

1. Most people brought up in arminian churches are not well taught, not just about predestination, but about the Bible as a whole. Arminianism and Dispensationalism go together like dogs and fleas. It is best to try to avoid the discussion of predestination until they get a grasp of the Bible in general. It takes a lot of time to do it, but I show them the covenant structure of the Bible. You can see their eyes light up as they begin to see God’s plan of redemption revealed over time in the Bible from covenant to covenant. Once they understand that, they instinctively grasp that there is an omnipotent God who ordains all things. Of course, you can’t teach this in a 20 minute discussion.

2. The most helpful way to teach predestination is by starting in Genesis. While arminians are predisposed to oppose predestination in the New Testament, they have no problem accepting it in the Old Testament. For example, they readily admit that God chose Abraham, the Jews, David and so forth. If you teach predestination using Joseph as an example (“You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good”), they more easily understand the sovereignty of God. Predestination is all over the Old Testament and arminians seem blind to the fact that the same idea carries over into the New Testament and even into the salvation of individuals. Once they see what is going on in the Old Testament they have far less trouble in the New Testament.

3. Most arminians don’t understand the doctrine of predestination. They equate it with an Islamic style determinism. It is necessary to provide an accurate, easily digestible definition of free will. The definition that I use is this, man is a free morale agent who makes choices and is accountable for those choices. However (this is from Jonathan Edwards), man always decides according to his highest desire. Man is free to choose and always chooses to do what he wants to do - and that is the problem. Man is free to choose as he wants. The problem is that what he wants to do is sin. Man is a slave to sin and it is axiomatic that a slave is not free. Man has a free will, but he does not have a free nature until Christ first sets him free (He whom the Son sets free is free indeed). Can a man come to Christ on his own? Rom. 3:11...no one understands; no one seeks for God.

So, if you only have 5 minutes, take them to Ephesians 1, but don’t expect any immediate results. Get them into a good Bible study that will teach the historical redemptive progress of the plan of salvation, the sovereignty of God and the covenant structure of the Bible beginning in Genesis. Oh, and did I mention to pray for them? Naturally, that is the first step.