Issue Three: Faith By Our Effort
Another area where the Modern Arminian begins to move away from its roots is in its understanding of the source of saving faith. Is faith something we produce by ourselves, or is it dependent on God’s grace? Both Classical and Traditional Arminianism see faith as God’s gift. The Traditional Arminian may place more emphasis on the individual’s responsibility to yield to God’s working, but he will still maintain that we in no way contribute to our salvation. We receive salvation.
In contrast, Modern Arminianism looks to man to produce faith and be saved. Predestination is according to faith, and faith is what we bring. According to this approach, we have the capacity within ourselves to desire the good and to choose it when presented with it. While that is compelling, it is certainly not biblical. It turns the entire structure of salvation on its head. Biblically, salvation begins with God, is enabled by God, is applied by God, and is ensured by God. We cooperate, but cooperation is not the same as contribution. The natural man cannot produce faith. The only way faith is possible post-Eden is if God is mercifully involved. We do not produce faith on our own; faith is the “gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
I will not get involved in another long discussion here about what Arminius himself believed. That has been covered previously, and I recommend that you reference my previous articles to understand his perspective. In summary, he believed that faith was only possible by God’s gift. Man—dead in sin as a result of the fall—does not desire God or the gospel by himself. Rather, God moves the will of man so man is able to desire God and accept His call in the gospel. Faith involves our efforts, but it begins with God. When it is said that faith is possible by human effort, unaided by the grace of God, we have departed from the biblical gospel.
Issue Four: Election Ignored
We have already discussed election at length, and I am not going to redouble my efforts here. I realize “election” is an uncomfortable word for some. Its mention is met with strong opposition or with eye-aversion and a quick change in conversation. But the plain fact is that it is a part of the inspired text of the Bible. “Elect” in New Testament translations is simply a transliteration of the Greek work eklektos, which means “picked out” or “chosen.”[1] In its various forms the word is used around 50 times in the New Testament. While not all of those have to do with God’s choosing a people, many of them do.
Since the word is in biblical text, we do not have the choice of whether or not to believe in election. We do have the freedom to define it one of several ways. Some define it as corporate (God has chosen a group of people, all who believe), while others see it as personal (God has chosen specific people for salvation).
Discussions over the meaning are permissible within biblical Christianity. What is impermissible is the complete ignoring of the word. That seems to be the approach of the Modern Arminian. Rather than wrestling with this difficult truth, it is simply set on the back shelf to collect dust. But in so doing we separate one necessary component of God’s revelation. And make no mistake, this is not an isolated concept. God’s choosing a people runs throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. This is no small thing to set aside.
In my opinion, the Modern Arminian does a great disservice to God’s word by refusing to reckon with election as a biblical concept. Beyond a disservice, it is a denial of 2 Timothy 3:16, which says that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Every part is essential for proper beliefs and for a life of faith. To ignore the concept of election is to functionally deny that certain portions of Scripture are God’s word. If we prefer certain texts over others, ignore some while disregarding others, we are dismissing that which God gave us for our learning. We cannot develop a holistic Christian theology without a commitment to the entirety of God’s written word. We dare not call ourselves Biblical Christians while willfully disregarding the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable.
In part, I understand why we avoid talking about election. It’s controversial. It divides people. It is difficult to understand and difficult to accept. And it rubs against the grain of human nature. We don’t like the thought that God may somehow have a sovereign purpose in salvation. May I gently suggest that perhaps that approach is motivated more by pride and humanism than it is by biblicism? Scripture is not bashful in speaking of God’s sovereign hand in salvation. He is intentionally, deliberately, powerfully involved in saving sinners. We are “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). I am not here going to articulate a doctrine of election, and I am willing to allow some latitude in our definitions. But to disregard it is irresponsible.
Having said all that as backdrop, I find that the Modern Arminian is more likely to avoid the concept of election entirely rather than engaging with it and seeking to understand it within a broader framework. Where we dismiss portions of God’s inspired text, we are in dangerous territory.
Final Analysis
I have done my best to be generous in my analysis of Modern Arminianism. Much of what I have described, critiqued, and rejected is the status-quo understanding within Anabaptist churches. I do not intend to scorn, nor belittle, nor divide. I rather intend that the church be edified, that we better understand the historical faith and better understand our Bibles.
I do believe the four issues I’ve outlined are genuine problems in our generation. We have drifted from biblical center, and it is vital that we again find our moorings. Beyond Arminianism, we need to moor ourselves to the Scriptures. In our laxity and our preference for comfortable beliefs over biblical beliefs, we have lost track of some of the essentials of the gospel. These are recovered, not by reading theologians, but by reading Scripture afresh. Perhaps you disagree with my analysis. Let that compel you to study the truth yet again, to be shaped by God’s word. Biblical conformity is my aim, and I pray it can be yours too.
My prayer is that this study has been helpful for you. We can get lost in the details, aggravated by the conceptual tensions and even more aggravated by the clashing views. I encourage you to keep studying and keep reading. Beyond that, though, I encourage you to trust the resolution to God. Even the apostle Paul, who understood the gospel better than any man besides Christ, declared “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). God will do what is loving, kind, just, fair, and right. We can trust Him to work all things together as best suites His eternal purposes and our eternal good. He will do what is right.
[1] Thayer, Joseph H., Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 197.