Arminians and Scripture

The late Clark Pinnock, theology professor at McMaster Divinity, believes that “modern culture” holds as much authority as scripture.[1] Christian philosopher Jerry Walls and professor of Biblical Studies Joseph Dongell maintain that the Jehovah’s Witnesses hold the same inerrant, “strict, high view of scripture” as orthodox Christianity.[2] Honestly, this is unbelievable. Regarding exegesis, Dongell goes so far as to say that those who seek to interpret scripture “can still express individual judgment, boldness and creativity.”[3] Walls and Dongell also believe that “discernment, more than deduction will be the necessary gift of the exegete”[4] and that our interpretation should be “tested against the experiences and interpretations of others.”[5] Using discernment to discern the revelation that gives us discernment seems awfully and circularly subjective, and the problem with using the “discernment” of others is that anyone can easily find another person whose “experiences and interpretations” match our own.

For the Arminian, scripture is not primarily true. He believes in what he perceives and understands above all else. He has a will, he makes choices, and he is responsible for those choices. God loves him. If God commands, man is able to obey. The Arminian easily accepts these as his framework for theology and from there he accepts the declarations of scripture that conform to these perceptions and assumptions. Any assertion of scripture that contradicts this framework, he rejects. God is not completely sovereign over his choices, for that would remove his will and his responsibility. God is not sovereign over election, choosing some and allowing others to perish, for that would contradict his conception of God’s love. Man is not a sinner, but able to believe in Christ, to love him, and to live for him. To believe otherwise would destroy the Arminian’s ability to choose, his sense of self-determination, and any faith he has in himself to comprehend reality.  Nineteenth century “revivalist” Charles Grandison Finney states at the outset of his systematic theology that “All human investigations proceed upon the assumption of the existence and validity of our faculties, and that their unequivocal testimony may be relied upon.”[6] Compare Finney’s belief in the competence of human intuition and sensibility to that of John Calvin, who said,

The purpose of [the knowledge of God] is to show not only that there is one God whom all must worship and honour, but also that he is the fount of all truth, wisdom, goodness, righteousness, judgment, mercy, power, and holiness. We must learn, therefore, to expect and ask these things from him, and with praise and thanksgiving to acknowledge that they come from him. The purpose of [the knowledge of ourselves] is to show us our weakness, misery, vanity and vileness, to fill us with despair, distrust and hatred of ourselves, and then to kindle in us the desire to seek God, for in him is found all that is good and of which we ourselves are empty and deprived.[7]

For the Arminian, belief and adherence to scripture receive only secondary consideration, subject to his comprehension, his perception, and his desires.

Certainly, if we assume man is free, not bound by sin, but able to choose for himself to believe or not, then scripture confirms our assumptions. If we assume a priori that our sin has not left us dead, unable to please God, with hearts of stone instead of flesh, then we find much in scripture to agree with:

Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve.[8]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.[9]

In these and many other verses, we can find the “proof” we desire that demonstrates that we are free, for how can a just God command a disabled man? Norman Geisler believes that “both good moral reason and Scripture inform us that free creatures are held morally responsible for their choices.”[10] For Geisler, human reason bears as much weight as scripture, as “sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond.”[11] Relying more on logic than on scripture, Geisler continues, “Logic seems to insist that moral obligations imply self-determining moral free choice, for ought implies can…Otherwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is prescribing the irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us. Good reason appears to mandate that if God commands it, then we can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom.”[12] Indeed it does, if one assumes beforehand that obligation and freedom require each other. Scripture does not do this.

All throughout scripture, God simultaneously commands our obedience and declares our impotence. Immediately after Joshua tells the Israelites to “choose,” he tells them they will be unable to. He says, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God” (Joshua 24.19). Before Christ tells Nicodemus that everyone who believes will receive eternal life, he says that only those who are born again, an event necessarily beyond their power or control, will see the kingdom of God (John 3.3). In John 6, Christ declares that no one will even come to him unless he gives them life (John 6.33, 35, 44, 45, 63-65). Arminians ignore and rewrite many verses that declare man’s impotent, depraved, dead, obstinate, enslaved heart of stone:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way.

The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick.

I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh.

Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You were dead in your trespasses and sins.[13]

The Arminian must either ignore these plain declarations of our depravity and impotence, or he must add extra-scriptural and anti-scriptural “logic” to support his claim that he is free. He must add doctrines like “prevenient grace” which teaches that God somehow enables every man to believe in him, without completely overcoming his dead, rebellious, enslaved heart. The Arminian must assert that God gives life to believe but doesn’t give life to salvation, as if the “ability” to believe is separate from a new heart, and everything scripture asserts about the completeness of death from sin, and the wickedness that has enslaved every man from the fall of Adam until now, he conveniently and easily disregards so he can desperately hold onto his “good power of free choice.”[14] On occasion, he may ignore biblical teaching on sin altogether.

---

[1] Clark Pinnock, General Editor, The Grace of God and the Will of Man, (Minneapolis, Bethany House: 1989), page 15. For Pinnock, “the trend [away from the sovereignty of God] began because of a fresh and faithful reading of the Bible in dialogue with modern culture.”

[2] Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, Why I am not a Calvinist, (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press: 2004), page 22.

[3] Ibid, 37.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 40.

[6] Charles Finney, Finney’s Systematic Theology, (Minneapolis, Bethany House: 1994), page 5.

[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Carlisle, Banner of Truth Trust: 2014), page 1.

[8] Joshua 24.15, New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update

[9] John 3.16.

[10] Norman Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, (Bloomington, Bethany House: 2010), page 37, emphasis added.

[11] Ibid, page 41.

[12] Ibid, 42.

[13] Genesis 6.5; Psalm 51.5; Psalm 53.2,3; Isaiah 53.6; Jeremiah 17.9; Ezekiel 11.19; John 8.34; Romans 8.7,8; Ephesians 2.1.

[14] Geisler, Chosen but Free, page 36.