100th Post!!!

The Calvinism-Arminianism debate is often framed in terms of man’s autonomy. By autonomy is roughly meant “what natural man can do without God’s extra help.” For example, Calvinists believe that man can make no positive contribution to salvation until after God regenerates him. After that, man has the ability to believe. The Arminian sees a problem here. If regeneration alone results in belief, and only through belief can man be saved, then God is simply choosing to save some and not others. This seems to remove mankind from responsibility before God. But to the Calvinist it seems that if man can generate his own belief that this makes faith a work. Aagghh! There are other issues, but I think that a distinction might be made to alleviate some of the tension concerning belief-as-work.

First, I think we can all admit that regardless of which side we think is correct, the debate would not exist if the Bible did not seem to lay responsibility for man’s salvation on both man and on God. Second, we all agree that without God’s grace man could not be saved, and that works do not save. But if belief is thought of as a work then we must ask how a sinner could ever perform such a thing in the first place (Heb. 11:6) and how it would not nullify grace (Eph. 2:8-10). On the other hand, if belief is the result of God’s efficient causality then the blame for unbelief would seem to fall on God (Mt. 23:37). Scripture on both sides can be batted back and forth for both of these seemingly irreconcilable positions.

But I think there may be a better way to think about it. The Bible clearly presents natural man as God’s active, not passive, enemy (Rom. 5:10; 11:28). We are born battling God due to our selfish and sinful desires and we would not naturally switch to God’s side (Rom. 5:6). But couldn’t we choose to surrender? It is not required for one to positively affirm his enemy to give up the fight. Ceasing to strive against God’s grace is not, itself, striving (viz. law of non-contradiction). In fact, one might say surrender is the cessation of works! But choosing to cease is still an active choice on man’s part (e.g., ceasing to stand results in falling, but falling is not ‘by works’). This interplay of “actively making a passive choice” seems to be illustrated in the life of Jesus who, according to God’s predetermined plan (Acts 2:22), freely chose to lay down His life (Jn. 10:18), which resulted in Him being acted upon by men (Acts 2:23), who were held responsible for their choice (Acts 2:38).

This seems to (1) retain man’s responsibility for sin and unbelief while at the same time (2) affirm God’s efficient and active role in salvation, yet (3) relieve God from blame for leaving some to damnation if He must, and could, regenerate them to make belief possible but simply chooses not to do so in some cases.