Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Saved By God or Saved By Me?

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

mmmonroe
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 8

Posted 5/20/2004 12:20 PM (GMT -6)

I recently read an article on the site www.monergism.com that I would like to get others' thoughts on. It was entitled A Prayer That a Synergist Won't Pray. The author laid out, in summary fashion, his view of monergism (i.e., Calvinism) and synergism (i.e., a non-Calvinist viewpoint) and then offered the following prayer that no synergist would pray "if he were consistent in his theology":

"God, I give you glory for everything else, but not my faith ... This is the one thing that is my very own that I produced of my natural capacities. For this little bit the glory is mine. I made better use of Your offer of salvation than others did. While You deserve glory for all I have Lord, my faith was the one part that I contributed to the price of my redemption, apart from and independent of the action of Your Holy Spirit."

He then asked why one unregenerate person believes the Gospel and not another?

My initial reaction was and is that this is a bit of a straw man, but I have not yet thought through it completely enough to articulate a concise rebuttal.

I would be interested in others' thoughts (on either side of the debate). I know this is a classic debate that has likely arisen on this board before my time so feel free to refer me to a previous thread.

Also, does any one know of a website featuring articles from an Armenian point of view that is anywhere near as exhaustive as www.monergism.com?

M. Monroe

M. Monroe

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/20/2004 1:40 PM (GMT -6)

This is nothing more than a straw man caricaturization of Arminian theology. No Arminian denies that it is God who alone is able to save us. Arminians (and Open Theists) emphatically believe in what is called prevenient (prerequisite) grace, without which no one is able to come to Christ. "No man comes to me unless the Father which sent me draw him." Therefore, the Calvinist/monergist's allegation that Arminianism/synergism entails self-salvation is patently false.

Besides the FAQ section of this board, http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/faq.asp

I find the following websites are helpful and accurately portray Arminianism and/or free will theism:

http://twtministries.com/articles/1_cal_arm/index.html

http://www.opentheism.info

http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.htm

http://www.cresourcei.org/

http://www.crisispub.com/

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/index.html

http://eternalsecurity.us/links.htm

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

User2004
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 2

Posted 5/20/2004 10:46 PM (GMT -6)

Arminians (and Open Theists) emphatically believe in what is called prevenient (prerequisite) grace

How about CONvenient grace? That's what *I* call it.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/20/2004 11:36 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by User2004

Arminians (and Open Theists) emphatically believe in what is called prevenient (prerequisite) grace

How about CONvenient grace? That's what *I* call it.

And what a terrible thing for grace to be convenient to all.

Tom

PhilTheThrill
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95

Posted 5/21/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

Why is it bad for us to contribute to God's plans? Why is it so unthinkable that God includes us in decision-making and that we can mess up or help out his plans? Where do we get the idea that for God to be God, he has to do every little thing ever up to and including making us love him?

From the Greeks, that's where. Wink

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/21/2004 6:22 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by PhilTheThrill

Why is it bad for us to contribute to God's plans? Why is it so unthinkable that God includes us in decision-making and that we can mess up or help out his plans? Where do we get the idea that for God to be God, he has to do every little thing ever up to and including making us love him?

From the Greeks, that's where.

When you present a gift to your children, as soon as they take the gift into their hands, it's obvious they are claiming total credit for getting the gift. Eyebrow

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

mmmonroe
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 8

Posted 5/21/2004 11:41 AM (GMT -6)

I am familiar with the concept of prevenient grace (and I especially like the term "convenient" grace). I am also familiar with the giving and receiving a gift analogy. Thus, aren't Armenians really saying that God is not only the giver of the gift (grace) but also the means by which we can access/accept the gift (i.e., the prevenient grace that allows one to appropriate the gift by faith).

But that still leaves me lacking a cogent and concise rebuttal to the question: why do some people accept the gift and others don't? In other words, I clearly understand the how but what is the response to the "why" question? I suppose that Phil would argue that the "why" question is itself a faulty one based upon the faulty philosophical notions of the Greeks. Phil, is that correct?

M. Monroe

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/21/2004 12:33 PM (GMT -6)

At this risk of sounding silly (for if you think about it this is a very silly question), some accept because they accept, while others reject because they reject.

There is nothing back of anyone's will coercing them to accept or reject. As one of the early church fathers said, "There is no coercion with God."

How it is meritorious for one to simply do what one ought is truly beyond me. Repentance and faith (the conditions of receiving the gift of salvation) earn no merit at all; they are simply doing one's duty.

The Bible says God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)

Jesus said:

Luke 17:10 - So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

The Calvinist contention that the Arminian system requires "merit" of some kind assumes that man's moral obligation is NOT to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength and one's neighbor as oneself. If we obey God's command in this way, we have simply and only done that which was our duty (obligation) to do.

One has to seriously wonder how the Calvinist can truly expect people to be convicted of sin, if righteous, benevolent living does not encompass every aspect of our moral obligation to God and fellow man. How can a person be guilty of not doing that which they have no ability to do? And yet the Calvinist would apparently have us believe that God condemns man for precisely that. (This confusion all stems, no doubt, from their view of Original Sin).

And so the Calvinistic idea that anything we may do of our own free will to receive the gift of salvation by definition would imply merit earned by the believer simply does not follow.

rsirkel
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183

Posted 6/7/2004 3:14 AM (GMT -6)

MMonroe

quote:
I am familiar with the concept of prevenient grace (and I especially like the term "convenient" grace). I am also familiar with the giving and receiving a gift analogy. Thus, aren't Armenians really saying that God is not only the giver of the gift (grace) but also the means by which we can access/accept the gift (i.e., the prevenient grace that allows one to appropriate the gift by faith).

But that still leaves me lacking a cogent and concise rebuttal to the question: why do some people accept the gift and others don't? In other words, I clearly understand the how but what is the response to the "why" question? I suppose that Phil would argue that the "why" question is itself a faulty one based upon the faulty philosophical notions of the Greeks. Phil, is that correct?

Ron
The problem here is you are interpreting grace and faith as something imparted separate from God that man can use at will. The gift (dorea) of grace (charis). Gift (dorea) is like a present given, righteousness, or right status in the covenant. Grace (charis) is God's saving action, not separated from the living God.

Faith should be understood mainly, but it has several nuances, the faithful acts of God and Jesus. The response of having this faithfulness of God revealed to man in the gospel preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven is alliegence to the faithfulness of Jesus to save. John and Laika are saying the same thing but you (and I saw grace and faith the way you do for 30 years)are still trying to understand with a common contemporary paradigm leavened into culture from dualism. (Thats a mouthful, God help me if I have to explain it)

MMonroe

quote:
But that still leaves me lacking a cogent and concise rebuttal to the question: why do some people accept the gift and others don't? In other words, I clearly understand the how but what is the response to the "why" question? I suppose that Phil would argue that the "why" question is itself a faulty one based upon the faulty philosophical notions of the Greeks. Phil, is that correct?[/

Ron
Maybe this is where free will is self evident.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 6/7/2004 3:59 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by rsirkel
Ron
Maybe this is where free will is self evident.

Ever wondered why scripture doesn't spend much capital explaining free will?
Or where babies come from?
Or why we eat food?
Or how to walk? Big Smile

I always boil it down to two options:

Either the mystery is with God's will or our wills. Either

1. we don't understand why some people choose to continue their rebellion against God

or

2. we don't understand why God hates some and loves others

Personally, I'd rather have the mystery with man's will and not God's. Option two presents an arbitrary god whom I could never trust.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

PhilTheThrill
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95

Posted 6/7/2004 6:07 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by mmmonroe

But that still leaves me lacking a cogent and concise rebuttal to the question: why do some people accept the gift and others don't? In other words, I clearly understand the how but what is the response to the "why" question? I suppose that Phil would argue that the "why" question is itself a faulty one based upon the faulty philosophical notions of the Greeks. Phil, is that correct?

I'll put it like this: It doesn't "bother" me that some people accept God and some don't. To me, the Bible is all about making choices. The Bible revolves around the consequences of people's choices and around exhorting us to make the right choices. So, to be in the midst of a world where some people choose God and some people don't, this makes total sense to me.

I just think alot of these "why" questions, and lots of our notions for what a God "ought to be like" come from Greek influence. This isn't always bad, it's just something to think about when we wrestle with issues. This is something I picked up from John Sanders' excellent book, "The God Who Risks".

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual