Tonight I had a long conversation with my daughter about the meaning of 1 Tim. 4:10.
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
As we talked, we explored various interpretations of this passage, looking at its context and several related topics. This, as you might imagine, led to a broader discussion of Arminian teaching and how many (not all) Arminians approach the topic of election and predestination, basing it on a misunderstanding of the nature of God’s foreknowledge (cf. 1 Peter 1:1-2). I thought I’d share a few thoughts from our discussion:
First, a favorite response of Arminians to the doctrine of unconditional election is to suggest that this somehow means that only a “few” are going to be saved. And they, of course, refer to the elect snidely as the “chosen few” or the “select few.” I enjoy reminding them of Rev. 7:9 which speaks of a “great multitude” who will be in glory:
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands
This is typically followed by a snarky comment about how Calvinism “kills evangelism” and finally – the trump card – “why even share the gospel if God has already determined who is going to be saved?” And some, with the slightest glimmer of a tear, will ask about some poor sinner who wanted to be saved, but couldn’t, because God didn’t choose him.
Secondly, the Arminian will direct your attention to 1 Peter 1:1-2 which teaches that election is based upon, rooted in, God’s foreknowledge. Now, what this foreknowledge is and upon what basis God “knows” what he knows is not defined. Most Arminians view God’s foreknowledge as simple prescience – as if God gazes into His cosmic crystal ball to see what’s going to happen. At this point, my daughter (15), was amused, but this topic is completely serious. So, as I explained, Arminians believe that God elects, chooses, predestines based upon what he foreknows. Now follow me here…God “foreknows” (i.e. “foresees”) who is going to believe and therefore he chooses them to be part of his plan. At this point I lower the boom: the next question isn’t typically found in the current edition of the Arminian Field Guide so go with this because all of their well-oiled critiques blow up in their face. The conversation goes something like this:
Calvinist: So, you believe that election is based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will believe and accept Christ (or some other criteria outside of God’s determinate purpose)
Arminian: Yes, God knew before who would believe and therefore chose them.
Calvinist: Does God foreknow every single person who will be believe?
Arminian: Why yes, God’s knowledge is perfect. He knows all things.
Calvinist: In time, will there be any more sinners saved than those whom God already knew would be saved?
Arminian (beginning to see he doesn’t like where this is going): Ah, no…
Calvinist: So let me get this straight, God foreknows every single person who is going to be saved. And not a single person more is going to be saved than those whom he foreknew. Does this mean that the number of those who are saved is already fixed and certain in the mind of God; it cannot be changed – added to or any taken away?
Arminian (stuttering): Well, yes…I guess so.
Calvinist: If you believe that God already knows every single person who is going to be saved, and their salvation is fixed and certain, then why do you evangelize? Why even share the gospel if those whom God foreknew are going to be saved anyway? Doesn’t your belief kill evangelism seeing that not a single person more can or will be saved than those whom God previously foreknew would be?
By this time my daughter saw that these objections are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. From here, we continued to explore the biblical fallacies with this position with our imaginary Arminian asking how this sinner, foreknown by God, came to believe in the first place.
I love agreeing with the Arminian at this point (for sake of discussion) by saying, “Of course God foresaw who was going to believe! He opened their heart, gave them an understanding, enlightened their minds, renewed their natures, and regenerated them – making them willing in the day of his power – so that they might attend to the things spoken to them – granting them faith and repentance that they might believe in Christ freely.” What the Arminian doesn’t realize is that basing election on foreknowledge – even their erroneous understanding of the nature and basis of God’s foreknowledge, does not address the root issues – man’s depravity.
You see, Arminian foreknowledge is simply a smoke screen that does not address the issues of man’s inbred enmity and the necessity of the renewing of the Spirit of God in order that he might respond freely to the gospel. In fact, their view forces them back to the exact spot (after a bit of detour) we wished to begin (cf. the nature of man). When the Arminian says God foresaw who was going to believe, I simply ask, “In light of man’s inbred rebellion and depravity how did they come to believe?” Now we are back on track to see the corruption of man’s mind, heart and understanding and the corresponding work of the Spirit of God in the application of redemption in drawing them to Christ and what-do-you-know, back to the free, sovereign, electing will of God.
So, that was my late night theology lesson with my daughter. We have lots of these. I trust the Lord will use them to sharpen her and help her to think biblically. And I’d love your thoughts and comments as well. ~ Brian
Study of 1 Tim. 4:10
Additional Reading on Calvinism
It’s sad. The writer speaks of ‘snarky’ Armeniast comments and then mocks them with snarky comments of his own.
My problem with BOTH camps is when they draw attention to themselves, to the other, and/or to their differences. That only divides, not unifies. And that is not of God.
I was very disappointed in this article.
@Aaron T. – Division …??? Do you think the apostle Paul was causing division in the church when he specified true doctrine. I think not.
God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, “O Lord, Thou knowest.” Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God’s omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.
I agree with Aaron T. in that snarkiness meets snarkiness. There ARE Arminians like the ones you portray in your entry (Lord knows I’ve met my fair share!) and then there are Remonstrants (Classical Arminians) who level out pretty decently. It’s the same way on the Calvinist side…there are hyper idiots and leveled Calvinists. I’m an eternal securitist Arminian, and even though there is no such thing, I jokingly refer to myself as a 3 point Calvinist.
The biggest problem with this debate is that most Calvinists listen to what James What has to say about Arminians and build their opinion from that. If I’ve taken the time to read Calvin’s Institutes, The Westminster Confession of Faith & the London Confession, then I only ask that the Calvinist has taken time to read James Arminius’ writings and the Remonstrant Confession before they argue with, “Well, you believe this…” because 99% of the time, we don’t believe that.
Erica,
So, you’re unhappy with the “snarky meets snarky” bit, but then you can make bold, and unfounded claims such as “most Calvinists listen to what James What (sic) has to say about Arminians and build their opinion from that.”
Then, just to let you know, there is neither such an animal as an “eternal security Arminian”, nor, as you rightly said, a “3-point Calvinist.” The combinations are impossible.
How about, instead of simply complaining about the “snarkiness” of the article, you address the content thereof? Do you have anything in your position that can dismantle that which was presented by the writer of the article?