The Broken Three-Legged Stool of Arminianism

 

To my mind, if Arminianism were to have any theological credibility, that credibility depends on three legs or strands of thought. These are the following:

• That prevenient grace exists 
• That human beings have libertarian free will
• That part of God's sovereignty involved giving up some sovereignty to give human beings the power to make important decisions according to their libertarian free will.

If any one of these three legs is broken, the Arminian stool is unstable. In my opinion all three legs fail biblically and theologically. 

For any readers unsure of what some of these key terms mean, I have linked to definitions on their first occurence in this piece.

Now, let's look at why each leg of the three-legged stool fails biblically and theologically.

The Myth of Prevenient Grace

The first leg of the stool is that there is such a thing as prevenient grace in the Arminian sense. This is very necessary for Arminians because all evangelical Christians must acknowledge that fallen human beings are unable to come to faith in Christ without divine help. Such are the effects of sin on us. Indeed reputable Arminians, just like Calvinists, acknowledge the truth of total depravity—that every part of us, mind, body, emotions, thoughts and will, are all corrupted by sin.

 Many verses allude to the truth of human inability. Here are a few:

• "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)
• "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)
• "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3)
• "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a)
• "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)
• "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)   
• "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
• "No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3) 

Given this, how do we explain those who do come to saving faith and are seeking God and desiring to do good? The Calvinist has a simple answer—God's irresistible grace operating on the elect. In this sense the idea of prevenient or enabling grace is obviously true and necessary. God's grace must operate on the sinner before he or she can come to saving faith. The Calvinist acknowledges this obviously, but sees this as applying only to the elect, in whom such grace is always and irresistibly saving.

But the Arminian has a problem. How does the Arminian attempt to explain how anyone comes to faith given their view that what God wants and does for believers is the same as what he does for unbelievers? And there is no distinction as far as God's attitudes and actions go between how he acts on the elect and the non-elect (in Arminian terms between how he acts for those who believe and those who don't).

The Arminian answer is the concept of "prevenient grace"—a grace of God that applies to everyone, overcomes man's hostility and deadness in sin, and enables anyone to come to faith in Christ or reject Christ.

The question is where is a concept of a grace of God that overcomes sinfulness and enables everyone to believe or not as they will?

The biblical evidence for such a massively important doctrine for the whole Arminian system is scant at best. Simply put, there are no verses that clearly teach such a doctrine as Arminian prevenient grace. There are no verse that combined clearly teach it either. At best—I repeat, at best—there are a handful of verses that might, if read in a certain way, perhaps point to something like prevenient grace, but in no case do those verse have to be read that way and I would argue are better read in other ways.

Let's look at those verses now.

Some Arminians cite John 6:44, which we've already looked at: ""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a).

This verse cannot mean what Arminian prevenient grace needs it to mean, for the whole verse reads: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

The grace operating here to enable a sinner to come is saving and effectual. All to whom it applies are raised up on the last day (clearly in context raised to salvation) and so this grace does not apply to those who reject it.

Other verses:

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Titus 2:11)

In context this clearly means "all kinds of people" and not everyone without exception who ever lived. If it meant that, the verse teaches universalism in salvation and not just prevenient grace. The whole passage in Titus 2:1-11 talks about various different groups of people and this is a much more natural reading of verse 11.

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." (John 1:9)

Although possibly the strongest support that can be drummed up for prevenient grace, this verse does not mention grace at all. The Arminian interpretation required "which enlightens everyone" to be considerably expanded to mean "a would-be saving grace that undoes total depravity and enables everyone to respond positively to the gospel".

What the verse actually refers to is "enlightening" or bringing light to everyone. This can equally well simply mean bring the light of truth and the light of judgment to humanity's dark deeds of sin. Given the context and the following verses about Christ being rejected as opposed to accepted because of this enlightening, it seems a massive stretch to draw the whole Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace from this verse.

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32).

Another verse Arminians latch onto as supposedly teaching their concept of prevenient grace. I would suggest that "all people" or "all men" here is not referring to everyone without exception, but everyone without distinction as is common in John's writings. Here Jesus is saying that while in his earthly ministry his mission was within the Jewish nation, after his death and resurrection, his mission will expand to include every nation—"all people".

Obviously the Calvinist vs Arminian debate has been raging for nearly 400 years and this post is not going to resolve it. But in my view, the first leg of the Arminian stool rests on very little biblical evidence and I consider it broken because the Bible does not teach prevenient grace in the Arminian sense anywhere.

The Myth of Libertarian Free Will

The second leg that Arminianism depends on is libertarian free will.

As reasonable definiton of libertarian free will is the human being's power to choose between more than one possibility in any situation in which such freedom pertains. It means that where libertarian free will exists, and a choice is before a person, all the antecedent factors are insufficient to determine the choice that will be made. In other words, when a person is faced with the choice to do A or not to do A (A can be any action), everything in that person—his character, his desires, his needs, his history, his genetics, his past and current environments, none of that is sufficient to account for whether the person will choose A or not-A.

This is in contrast with what is called compatibilist free will in Reformed theology. According to compatibilist free will, we are free if our choice is (a) what we want to do, (b) not forced or coerced by anything external to us, and (c) could had been otherwise if we had wanted to do otherwise. However, not that compatibilist free will acknowledges that our will (which Jonathan Edwards defined as "the mind choosing") is according to our strongest desire in any given situation. Most importantly, compatibilist free will recognises that many factors, such as character, needs, history, environment, genetics, and so forth, form a matrix according to which our strongest desire in any situation can be arrived at by a combination of all these factors.

To put it more simply, according to compatibilist free will, our free choices are compatible with God's decree because he is able to control the many factors that lead to what our strongest desire will be in any situation and upon the basis of which we will make our choices. But libertarian free will denies this. 

Essentially, since no prior factor or combination of factors can lead to a person having a desire that will determine their choice, libertarian free will ends up being unable to explain for why a person chooses option A over option B in any situation. In fact, libertarian free will requires that exactly the same facts and factors that led a person to choose option A could just as easily have preceded the person choosing option B. The choice ultimately ends up being not because of anything, but because the person chose it, with no decisive explanatory reason. Otherwise, according to libertarians, the choice was not free. This in itself is problematic.

More significantly though, from a theological and biblical point of view, if we have libertarian free will, not even God can determine what our choices will be. Once he gives the gift of libertarian freedom, he simply has to accept what we choose. He can warn, threaten, persuade, woo, entice, and forth, but he cannot make us do any he decrees us to do, at least not if the choice is to be regarded as a free choice, or a choice made according to our free will.

The question we must ask is whether this is how the Bible speaks of human choices or not? Certainly, the Bible is full of  people being given choices and making choices. That much can scarcely be disputed:

• Perhaps most significantly for humanity, Adam and Eve in the Garden were given the choice of obedience or disobedience in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2-3) and chose disobedience.
• "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
• "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:14-15)
• " No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

The problem is that whenever the Bible mentions choices or decisions or options, the Arminians sees this as proving libertarian free will, but it does no such thing. All it shows is that people make choices, real choices. In no way do any of these passages mean that the choices cannot be determined by prior factors as in compatibilist free will.

More important for libertarian free will is the fact that on a number of occasions the Bible is clear that people's free choices (free in the compatibilist sense of doing what we want to do) can be determined by God as to how the choices should go. This is perfectly in line with compatibilist free will but devastating to the concept of libertarian free will. 

Consider the following verses, each easily explained on compatibilist free will principles and impossible from a libertarian free will standpoint (except perhaps in Molinism where God uses foreknowledge to control libertarian free choices). The problems with Molinism I have addressed before here and here. Our present discussion concerns Arminianism as a whole.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20)

Here it is clear that though Joseph's brothers had evil intent towards him in selling him into slavery—and that choice was obviously freely made by them—nevertheless, they were carrying out the very purpose and intention of God which would ultimately lead to Joseph coming to power in Egypt and even saving the very brothers who had acted against him.

"And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her neighbour, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewellery, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians." (Exodus 3:21-22)

Another passage that points strongly towards comptaibilist free will. It seems clear enough that the Egyptian women gave gifts to the Israelite woman freely. But it could not have been libertarian free will because God says that he "will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians." He is able to ensure the Egyptians will have a favourable attitude, yet act freely. This is precisely what compatibilist free will allows for, but libertarian free will could not guarantee.

"But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day." (Deuteronomy 2:30)

Here instead of making someone willing to do something, God makes someone's heart obstinate. Yet Sihon was in no sense coerced. He did what he wanted to do, which was at the same time, what God wanted him to do. 

"And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days with joy, for the Lord had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." (Ezra 6:22)

In this verse, not only does it say the Lord made his people joyful, but that he was able to "turn the heart of the king of Assyria". This is not something God is supposed to be able to do according to libertarian free will. 

"A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." (Proverbs 16:9, NKJV).

"The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

These two verses from Proverbs both indicate God ability to direct and turn our plans and decisions to what he wants us to do, even in the case of the king—the most powerful man in a nation in the ancient world.

"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:23) 

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28) 

Finally, we look at these two verses in Acts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. Both verses make the point that the crucifixion took place according to God's plan and purpose, yet those human agents involved in it—the Jewish authorities, the Romans, Pilate and Herod—all acted to do what they wanted and are responsible for their wicked and lawless deeds. 

There point is made. Scripture clearly teaches that human beings act freely when they do what they want to do, and yet God is able to control human desires in order to achieve his own purposes. 

The fact is that God operates at a higher level than anything within the created order. He is able to exercise his sovereignty not just to influence but to determine human choices and actions that, nevertheless, remain free. Given this, the concept of libertarian free will, in which human beings act autonomously, outside of divine control must be adjudged unbiblical. Accordingly, the bedrock doctrine of Arminianism, that human beings have libertarian free will is likewise unbiblical and so two legs of the Arminian stool are either broken or mere human fancies.

The Myth That God's Gives Up Sovereignty to Human Choices

The third leg that Arminianism requires is this idea that though it is acknowledged that God is sovereign, apparently he has sovereignly decided to give up being sovereign over certain things and placed them under the control of human free will.

This is one of the cleverest and most necessary moves that Arminian theologian have to make. The biblical evidence for God's sovereignty and ability to do whatever he desires and pleases to do is overwhelming.

A. W. Tozer famously wrote in The Knowledge of the Holy: 

God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. 

Although this is a clever argument, there is a huge problem with it. Despite how it sounds, this is actually a denial of God's sovereignty as understood by the biblical authors. Can you really imagine Isaiah or Paul accepting that God can somehow give up the very sovereignty that makes him the God of the Bible?

"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose." (Isaiah 46:9-10)

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36) 

No, this is a desperation move by the Arminians and it fails for lack of biblical evidence.  The Bible nowhere states that God uses his sovereignty in this way, to effectively give up his own sovereignty to the creature.

Given what the Bible does clearly state about how human free choices and human responsibility are compatible with God's sovereign control over all things, this last leg of the Arminian stool simply cannot bear the weight that would need to be placed on it. After all, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11), including the free choices of human beings, for which we will ultimately be held responsible.

The Arminian stool is thus left without any legs and I would argue therefore must be rejected by anyone seeking to be guided by Scripture alone and in total (sola scriptura and tota scriptura) and not by human tradition or philosophy.