There is some interesting interaction going on at Roger Olson’s blog between Olson and Michael Horton concerning how Arminianism’s view of salvation should be defined.
Olson begins by taking Horton to task. Although Olson considers Horton to be one of the more gracious Calvinistic voices out there, he take issue with something he said in his book Christless Christianity.
Olson says,
“On page 44 he writes that “Arminianism still holds that salvation is a cooperative effort of God and human beings.” . . . To Mike I say: Please! When you are saying what Arminianism holds, say what Arminians really say and don’t put words in our mouths. Sure, you can say “This is what I think Arminianism SHOULD say even if it doesn’t.” True, classical, historical Arminianism does NOT hold that salvation involves any “effort” of human beings–certainly not on the same level as God’s.
[…}
It’s just as ludicrous to describe the Arminian belief about the roles of God and a repentant sinner in salvation as a “cooperative effort.”
Horton’s description of Arminianism is more generous than many Calvinists’, but it still falls short of complete honesty and violates one of my basic rules of engagement between Calvinists and Arminians: Always express the other view the way people who hold it express it and only then say what’s wrong with that. Again, Arminians do not say that salvation is a “cooperative effort.” What we say is that God won’t save anyone without their free consent. But we adamantly deny that conversion involves “effort” as if the person being saved must do some (good) work to be saved.
[…]
What if I published something saying that “Calvinism holds that God is the author of sin and evil?” Calvinists would rightly howl in protest. Then I could say, “Well, that’s how I see it.” Then, they would quite rightly protest that how I see it is not how they say it. They’re right. What I say is that Calvinism’s doctrines of providence and predestination lead to the good and necessary consequence that God is the author of sin and evil even though they (almost) all deny it.
What Horton should have said is that “Arminians deny that salvation involves human effort, but I think their theology implies that.” Okay. I disagree, but I can respect that. I would have no right to protest that even though I would argue against him.
When, oh, when are evangelicals going to stop this uncharitable and even unChristian habit of setting up straw men out of others’ theologies and then chopping them or burning them down as if they had really scored a point or two?
Horton’s error doesn’t quite rise to the level of demagoguery, but there’s plenty of that going on and this is too much like it for Mike’s comfort. He should correct what he said publicly.”
Horton does respond on Olson’s blog.
“Dear Roger,
On that same page I carefully distinguish Arminianism from the Pelagianism that we both agree pervades much of American Protestantism today. As you note, I refer to your Arminian Theology on that count and express appreciation for Tom Oden’s defense of the gospel.
Nevertheless, I add, “Arminianism still holds that salvation is a cooperative effort of God and human beings.” The first post responding to your critique, by an ardent Arminian, seems to justify my statement. Synergism, which you acknowledge as an Arminian tenet, means working together. If one does not cooperate with grace, one will not be regenerated and persevere. If one does cooperate with grace, one will be regenerated and persevere. Am I correct in describing the Arminian position like this? If so, then it is a cooperative effort of God and human beings. I’m not sure how saying that constitutes demogoguery, if synergism is in fact the Arminian view and a fellow Arminian could see no reason for objecting to that description.
Thanks, Roger, for your otherwise encouraging remarks!”
What do you think? Who is right? Is it legitimate for Arminians or Calvinists to say that Arminianism is cooperative?
131 replies to "Is Arminianism Cooperative Justification?"
Ryan,
I really don’t understand why God has to justify Himself to us creatures for anything He does. If He has to explain to me the reason for what He does, then He is not the God of the Scriptures (see Job 38ff).
I think one of the problems again is the twisting of the plain meaning of words. Words such as redemption, ransom, purchased, chose, seek and save, etc. The one being redeemed, ransomed, purchased, chosen, sought, saved is a passive player in the transaction. In Eph 2:4 it is written that God made us alive with Christ and in v 8 Scripture states plainly that grace has saved us through faith and it is not of our own doing but God did it. We are His workmanship. Matthew 15:13 -“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted uwill be rooted up.” Acts 13:48 -as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Lastly, when Peter rightly said that Jesus was the Messiah, Christ told him that it was God that revealed that to him, not flesh and blood.
“The teaching they heard from the Father was not effectual because they did not learn from it.”
Again, that is ignoring the fact that Christ parallels the teaching of the Father with the effectual teaching of the Father. Hence, they are not two different teachings, one that is listened to and one that is not, but only one. So either the Father effectually calls everyone, which would negate the point Christ is making in the passage, or He effectually calls no one, which is also contrary to what is being said. Hence, we’re left with one option only: He effectively teaches only those who are given to the Son. You want to place this as a precursor to His drawing, but they are the same event.
“In John 6:29, Jesus says that it was the work of God that they (the whole crowd) believe on the Messiah.”
No, you’re assuming this. Christ is simply answering the question as to what the work of God is. He’s not saying that “this is the work of God on all of your behalf.” That’s an assumption that, again, flows counter the passage.
“No, we are told it is because they rejected the Father’s prior teaching.”
Ryan,
Are you a Pelagian? I think you’re walking on dangerous ground here. Are you really saying that those who are chosen by God deserve it because they accepted the teaching of the Father and the others deserve to be damned because they rejected it? So it’s based on the good work of obeying what the Father commanded (“heard and learned” are expressions of obedience in the Bible, not just an audible reception). So you’re very close to a works salvation here. Please clarify how this is not the case.
HarleyVol wrote:
Why must we put God in a box? He doesn’t HAVE to explain why he takes away someone’s physical life or allows disease or tornadoes and earthquakes. Job was defending himself because we often think of calamity coming as a result of our sin. The kind that befell Job IS very suspicious, but no matter what befell Job, God would have been unjust to send him to Hell because Job trusted in God and God’s promise was for him too.
God’s response to Job was to demonstrate that He is wise and just and fully capable of making the right decision without Job’s advice.
My point was simply that if it was required that God has to first regenerate a person before they can repent, believe and be saved and He chooses to do this for some but not others such that His choice is not conditioned on them in any way, then He would be behaving as a tyrant. Is God as you understand Him a tyrant? If not, in what way might He make a reasonable defense for this sort of behavior?
HarleyVol wrote:
You seem to completely misunderstanding my position (and I suspect that of many other non-Calvinists). I am not saying that salvation is of our own doing. In fact if God did not do the work of salvation in our lives, we could believe and nothing would happen! Believing cannot wash away our sins. Faith is the condition of salvation because of God’s Sovereign choice, but our faith cannot do the work of washing away our sin and making a new person within. That work is solely the work of God. There is no joint work.
Ephesians 2:4 also says that we are dead (to) sins, something that happened at the time when we became joined together with Christ in His baptism of His death and burial and resurrection. This passage is not saying that unbelievers are spiritually dead. It is saying that before we were raised, we submitted ourselves to be dead with Christ. Dead to sins so that they will no longer have power over us. God then raised us up with Christ, while we remain dead to sin to this day.
Hodge wrote:
Hodge, there is no place in the Bible that talks about the idea of “effectual” teaching as coming from God. Again, you are importing this general/specific call division from Calvinist teachers, not from the Biblical text. The effect that is produced in us is always said to be our responsibility. Thus the Biblical concept is rather an “effectual doer.” James 1:22-25 shows that not being forgetful and being a doer and not a hearer only becomes an “effectual doer”:
“But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.” (Jam 1:22-25)
The fact is that Jesus taught the entire crowd. The only ones that did something with the teaching that He gave were the ones who were open to the truth and had learned from the Father. This is what James referred to as being an “effectual doer.” When God’s word goes out it does exactly as God intends – it draws those who are willing to hear and learn and obey, but it hardens or repels those who refuse to learn and refuse to obey.
Hodge, if you disagree, please substantiate where the Scripture refers to teaching as “effectual.”
Hodge wrote:
The fact is that Jesus said that this is the work of God that “you” believe. He did not say that this is the work of God that “some” may believe or that “none of you” believe but some others believe. I am simply taking the Scripture as it is written and not adding to it what Jesus did not say.
Also note that Jesus DID say very emphatically that His Father gives to the ones He was talking to, the true bread out of heaven. Since Jesus said “truly, truly” we must “truly, truly” believe that He was given to this unbelieving crowd.
Let me ask you a question. During the last supper with Jesus and His disciples, was Judas given the bread and the wine?
Hodge wrote:
Accepting the teaching of God does not make us worthy of having our sins washed away. We all deserve God’s wrath, but He has given it as a gift to those who will receive. If God says that we must receive, then receiving is not a “work” that is worthy, but a response that the Sovereign God has deemed necessary. Salvation is conditioned on faith. Since God created this plan, and since faith is said to be the opposite of works, those who twist things around to say that faith is a work are going against the Scripture.
“Hodge, there is no place in the Bible that talks about the idea of “effectual” teaching as coming from God.”
That’s actually begging the question, as I think it very clearly teaches it here, as it does in the quote from Isa 54. “Taught” here is referring to someone who has been taught, not just the possible act of teaching. Hence, the students have listened and learned, and thus, are taught. This is what Christ explains to the the case by paralleling those who are taught by God with those who have heard and learned from the Father. If you want to argue that the word “effectual” isn’t there, then your objection is only to the absence of the explicit nomenclature. I’m only describing what kind of teaching is indicated by the text.
“The fact is that Jesus taught the entire crowd.”
Yes, what does that have to do with being taught by the Father? You seem to be confusing “teaching” as what is proclaimed as true, and teaching as that which causes its listeners to obey. Christ does the former with the crowd, but His whole point is that only those who are of the latter group listen to Him and believe Him.
“If God says that we must receive, then receiving is not a “work” that is worthy, but a response that the Sovereign God has deemed necessary.”
Now you’re just playing with words. “Receiving” a command to obey is an act of obedience. You are doing what you are told to do. That’s not reception like receiving a gift handed to you or just letting God pull you from the water while drowning. Hence, I think you’re mixing in strongly with some Pelagianism here and have cut a path to a works based salvation, even though you explicitly deny it.
In point of fact, faith is not contrasted to works in the sense that faith is not a work. It is contrasted between the work that God does in us and the work that we do with God. Faith is a work, as we just discussed; but God does it. Hence, we do not do any works for our salvation. We do, however, do works as a result of salvation. You seem to be confusing why the contrast exists. Paul is saying we have nothing to boast about because faith is given by God and is not of our works. He is not saying that faith is not a work at all.
BTW, I did want to say again that you seem to be confusing what it means to be taught here. The word for “hear” often connotes obedience by itself, but the word together with the qualification that these people “learned” from the Father definitely connotes obedience. So your argument would essentially be that those who obey the Father then have faith and that’s why God gives them to the Son to be saved.
“I am simply taking the Scripture as it is written and not adding to it what Jesus did not say.”
No, you’re confusing the command to obey the gospel with the explanation for why one does or not obey it. The command goes to everyone, but only those who are taught of/given by/drawn by the Father obey it.
Ryan,
The Orthodox understand v. 39 as referring to “that” as all of humanity redeemed in Christ. So Christ redeems all and raises them up, even the wicked. the preceeding passages oscilate then between redemption with reference to human nature as a whole and redemption to the full extent, with its personal conditions, such as belief. All are raised up and made immortal, but only those with faith enjoy the fullness of salvation.
The entire point of jn 6 is that Christ, not Moses is the source of life.
“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” . . . “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
Notice that raised up on the last day follows the believing/coming to Christ which follows the giving and drawing. There is no mention of people who do not believe as being raised up on the last day. So the resurrection here is specific to the saved. The general resurrection does not seem to be in view.
Hodge,
Just because you disagree with my assertion doesn’t mean I’m committing a logical fallacy. As I have been demonstrating, this passage does not teach the idea that the Father infuses faith by teaching only certain ones who all respond by coming to Jesus. Since you are unconvinced, perhaps you can show me another instance where this idea is taught in scripture?
Yes, they have been taught, but this is not the same as them having learned. If you have children, you would know immediately what I’m talking about. I teach them, but it often goes in one ear and out the other. But I know when they have learned what I taught them when they put it into practice. Being taught and having learned are not synonymns.
I’m arguing that the concept isn’t present, not the wording. The teaching of the Father is never without its intended effect. But its intended effect is to draw near and comfort those who believe and repel and harden those who refuse to believe. It does not effect regeneration simply by the fact that the Father teaches. The Father isn’t casting a spell on certain individuals simply by speaking to them so that they can do nothing but obey.
“My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16).
No, I’m not confusing the two. I am saying that this idea of a ‘teaching…which causes its listeners to obey’ does not exist here or elsewhere. Perhaps it will be more clear if I describe the teaching of the Father and the drawing of the Father as two separate events. The Father teaches and some listen and learn; these the Father draws to Jesus. So you are right that He is not drawing all; He is only drawing those who have listened and learned from Him. We see this in that while Jesus’ teaching is difficult, those who have learned that Jesus has the words of life are drawn to Him despite the fact that they might not comprehend what He is saying in John 6.
The discussion has to do with what precedes salvation – and the Bible says that the precursor to salvation is OUR faith, not God’s faith, and our faith is contrasted to our works: “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).
NOT SO! What is faith? Faith is a proclamation that I cannot not do something and must put my confidence in whom or what I believe can do it. It is a proclamation of weakness. Paul did not say that boasting is excluded, but that boasting in our works is excluded. Paul Himself boasts in his weakness, and that is exactly what Faith proclaims – our weakness and dependency! So you may freely boast in your faith in God; to do so is to proclaim the gospel.
Hodge, well said!
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36).
“And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32).
“This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt” (Acts 7:38-39).
“For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Pet 4:17).
Again, Jesus never said that mere hearing is equal to “giving” nor that being taught is equal to being “given” to Jesus. What Jesus said is that “all” will be taught, but not all are given. The difference is in the importance that Jesus put on the responsibility to learn what is taught. God does not infuse us with the “gift” of having learned what He taught. Scripturally the responsibility is always on the hearer to make the application to learn. And those who hear and learn from the Father are given to Jesus. The Bible never once tells us that those who hate God are given to Jesus. And no unbeliever is ever given to Jesus by the Father. Only those who are believers in the Father are given to Jesus. And because they believe the Father, they will also believe the Son.
Hodge #14 wrote:
You are right in that there is no “mention of people who do not believe” because the Father does not give unbelievers to Jesus. Can you please show me even one verse where it says that God has chosen from a mass of humanity that are enemies of God and He gives God-haters to Jesus? It isn’t God-haters who are given to Jesus. Believers are given to Jesus.
This very fact (and you appear to agree with this) disproves Calvinism. The “giving” to Jesus is always of believers.
Once again Jesus is given to unbelievers because He is given to all but unbelievers are never given to Jesus.
Ryan,
Your theology is so riddled with errors it’s hard to unravel them. Let’s take one thing at a time rather than running off with this or that. To answer your last question first. Romans 3 says that no one is good, no one seeks for God, but all have gone astray and are the equivalent in God’s eyes as murrderers. It is while we were sinners that Christ died for us. It is while we were dead in sin that God made us alive in Christ. The NT indicates this everywhere.
Second to this, the “coming to Christ” follows the giving. It does not precede it, as would be needed in your system. You have people believe, then given by the Father, then raised up on the last day. That’s not the biblical sequence. The sequence is that no one can come to Christ. The Father must give and draw them to the Son; they come to the Son, and then He raises them up on the last day. Giving, drawing via effective teaching (not effective because it’s magical, but effective in its goal, i.e., the Father convinces and gives new eyes to see and a new desire to love Him), the person comes to the Son, the Son raises him up on the last day.
Your sequence is: The Father tries to teach everyone, fails to do so, some, who humble themselves of their own pious and godly accord, obey the Father, the Father in reward of their good obedience to Him, gives them to the Son, the Son raises them up on the last day. I’m not sure when their belief comes in, as you seem to be going back and forth on this. I assume you are saying that belief is a part of the obedience to the Father, but then you seem to say that it comes after, since in the biblical sequence, coming to Christ follows the giving rather than preceding it. Either way, you’re mangling the gospel as a reward for those who are good and obey the Father. This is why Group A deserves the gospel MORE THAN Group B. You can say that no one deserves the gospel, but you are in fact saying that a group can deserve it more than another group.
“Again, Jesus never said that mere hearing is equal to “giving” nor that being taught is equal to being “given” to Jesus. ”
I didn’t say that it was. I said the drawing, not the giving, is equal to the effective teaching. I believe the giving is God’s election and the drawing is His means through which He brings about grace, faith and salvation (the three elements that are the one gift in Eph 2:8-9) in a person’s life.
“Being taught and having learned are not synonymns.”
Actually, in this context, in the way being taught is used, they are. The fact that the teaching here is effective is not just gained from this passage. It’s also gained from the OT passage from which it is taken. The phrase refers only to people in God’s eschatological community, i.e., believers, as those who are “taught.” Again, I think you’re confusing an English concept of teaching as mere instruction that can be rejected. Think of the phrase “I learned him good.” It means that the person has been taught and learned what was taught. They have actually been corrected and living according to the teaching. That is why Christ quotes it and then applies only to believers. Hence, the two statements are in parallel to one another, and the “all” refers to those who have been given, i.e., the elect.
Ryan,
I need to bow out of our discussions now. Feel free to have the last word. I just have a lot I need to get done. Thanks for the good discussion. Take care.
“The Reformed doctrine of regeneration teaches that regeneration is a supernatural work wrought by the Holy Spirit alone. He is the sole worker in this action, and the efficacy of his work depends no more upon the cooperation of the person who is being worked upon than Jesus’ power to raise Lazarus from the dead depended upon the cooperation of Lazarus. Lazarus was utterly passive when God raised him from the dead.
Reformed theology teaches that the initial step of our salvation is the monergistic work of God and that we are completely passive at that point because we, like Lazarus, are dead. The Holy Spirit alone has the power to raise a dead sinner to spiritual life. At the time of our regeneration, we are passive because we are spiritually dead. The semi-Pelagian thinks that the sinner can do something to cooperate with or to resist this work of regeneration. The issue is whether there is something I do to help in the process, or whether it is sola gratia, by grace alone. Reformed theology is totally committed to the concept of monergism at the point of effectual calling and regeneration.
Because Reformed theology puts such great stress upon monergism at that point in the order of salvation, many people have the misunderstanding that Reformed theology teaches that salvation is monergistic from start to finish, which is not the case . . . Reformed theology is monergistic at first and then synergistic after effectual calling and regeneration.”
R. C. Sproul: Truths We Confess, Vol. 2 p. 87-88
An excellent commentary on John 6 can be found here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/johnchapter6.html
and here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/WinSunRep.html
In the OP, first paragraph, C. Michael Patton wrote:
There is some interesting interaction going on at Roger Olson’s blog between Olson and Michael Horton concerning how Arminianism’s view of salvation should be defined.
This “interaction” thus far has been: one post from Michael Horton, Roger Olson’s reply <—and that's it!
I'd like to see more interaction. Olson called for a "summit" of members from both sides.
In the meantime, if this ever happens(?), and my guess is it eventually may; how’s about some more interaction some place? I mean, like maybe with Sam Storms or C. Michael Patton? (while realizing they have their schedules). It’s just that no one is really interacting with Roger Olson, that is, not from the “professional theological community.”
I think Roger Olson will probably keep “pushing” till someone agrees to do it.
In the meantime, he’s got his blog…..
MH:Roger, when push comes to shove on our respective interpretations of God’s saving work, would you say that monergism is the real obstacle between Calvinists and Arminians?
RO: That’s a difficult question to answer…At first blush I guess I would say so, but then as I argue in the book, there is a monergistic impulse in classical Arminianism that’s often missed by readers of Arminius. In other words, one cannot resist the initial coming of grace to a person’s life. It comes. There’s nothing you can do about it. It comes through the hearing of the Word, for example, according to Arminius. And this is another difference among Arminians-just as Calvinist, Reformed people disagree-Arminians disagree about just exactly how prevenient grace comes. I find in Arminius an emphasis on the hearing and the preaching of the Word, so when the Word is proclaimed or read, prevenient grace begins to change a person by liberating them from the bondage of the will and sin and enabling them to make a free choice to accept that grace unto salvation-or to remain in their sins, rejecting it. There’s a monergistic element in that.
MH: However, at the end of the day, why is it that some people are saved and others are not?
RO: That’s an unanswerable question, just like Reformed theology can’t answer why some people are elect and others are not.
MH: We can answer that as Reformed Christians by saying, “Because we have only ourselves to blame if we don’t. We have only God to thank if we do.” It’s not just because I resisted less than this person over here, but because God granted me the life.
RO: Yeah, of course perspectives intrude here. You and other Reformed people are looking at Arminianism through Calvinist eyes; Arminians looking at Calvinism are looking at it through Arminian eyes. To us, the whole idea that God passes over some people when he could save everyone because salvation is always unconditional, makes God look arbitrary and, perhaps, capricious, and perhaps even that he has an evil side. So we know that Calvinists don’t say any of that, but our thought is that if we were to become Calvinists, that’s what we’d have to believe, and we can’t believe that. And then when Calvinists look at us, they say, “Well, if we were going to be Arminians, we’d have to believe that the human person has a meritorious role in salvation.” But we don’t believe that.
Roger, we really appreciate you taking the time to give us a thumbnail sketch of your book, and even though I don’t necessarily agree with all of the characterizations of Calvinist interpretations of Arminianism that you point out, and we have our remaining differences over the material content of God’s work in Jesus Christ, I am very thankful that you took the time to be with us and to help explain Arminianism in the light of some of the misrepresentations.
Yes, well thank you for giving me that opportunity. I appreciate it.
Roger Olson uses feelings and sympathies to argue.
God uses feelings and sympathies to argue, too. God is not a systematic theologian. This is why those of us who have been cut to pieces by theology are so skeptical of it. After all, we aren’t to put the thoughts or traditions of men before the word of God; only the word is light from God, living, inbued with the power of God.
When God tells us to believe, receive, seek, etc, and we hear, drawn to believe Jesus and convicted by the Holy Spirit, we can believe. Our obedience is not “meritorius” in that we have anything to brag about, since He has given us everything we need to choose to believe Him, but it is our choice. And the choice is not a “work;” it isn’t cooperative, we aren’t doing part of the work of our salvation; we are just obediently believing Him, to receive the gift for which He has done 100% of the work. That’s why “syn-erg-ism” is a completely false picture of what we believe. The Bible simply does not have this dissecting of the process of salvation to see what we draw on to be able to believe: what is the mechanism, the impetus, etc. The Holy Spirit gives us the power to believe, if we will receive Him, at that time. The believing response to the promises of the gospel is to believe them, not to say, I can’t because you haven’t given me the power to. Today if you hear his voice, harden not your heart. Hearing His voice is not regeneration, since it is possible to resist and harden, then. But if we believe we will be born again, as the Bible says.
i meant to say that the Bible says nothing about the mechanism or dynamic of choosing. When you try to talk to Calvinists, they continually throw this objection up, that no one can believe, and that no one can choose because he’s too dead in sins and trespasses to choose, since he has only fallenness, so-called total depravity or total inability to draw from. But the Bible does not say anything at all about the mechanism of choosing; it just tells us to believe and be saved. We can’t come to Him unless the Father draws us, but He said, if I be lifted up, I will draw all men. When we are drawn by the Holy Spirit, He supplies all the power we need at that time to overcome our inability, including making our choice, but it is we who make it. It is we who receive the gift by faith, which is why we then receive it in experience.
(The software wouldn’t let me edit the prior comments)
Lazarus wasn’t just brought forth; he was told to come forth.
I read through the comments and nobody mentioned prevenient grace. Arminians do not believe faith can come from an unregenerated human heart. We do believe, as Calvinists that Christ’s work is done, and that God is sovereign. Aminian theology is actually a subset of Calvinist (Calvinian?) theology, so don’t go looking for differences where there are none to be found. Arminian theology was responding to a specific tenet of Calvinism.
Where we differ is that Jesus died for all, rather than just the elect. Because not all are saved, then, what is the mechanism that makes the distinction? It is saved by grace through “faith”. We are saved through grace, not anything else – we can’t add to it. Faith, though, is that mechanism that allows us to make a choice from the position of God working in us. Faith is not cooperating with grace but a response to grace. If synergism means a person believes he/she adds to their salvation by the act/work of faith, then “No,” that is not what I believe as an Arminian (how can I spell this word 8 different ways and never spell it right?).
We are Calvinists with the Arminian Bent, if you will. Because I believe I am in created in the image of God (though now a broken image), and I believe God is self determinate, I believe this understanding of faith is consistent with how humanity was initially created in perfection, and how it plays out in the fallen nature.