The Prayer of the Arminian – The Baptist preacher C.H Spurgeon

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

A man centered gospel will have the consequence of producing a man who views himself bigger than the God he claims to serve, and a better man because of his own willingness.

The Prayer of the Synergist by C. H. Spurgeon

An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank Thee I am not like those poor Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody has done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Spirit given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them'. That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! When they are preaching and talking slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it." (Freewill-- A Slave)

 

[Jonaitis]

*crickets*

 

[Pethesedzao]

Good Day,

A man centered gospel will have the consequence of producing a man who views himself bigger than the God he claims to serve, and a better man because of his own willingness.

The Prayer of the Synergist by C. H. Spurgeon




View attachment 251830

In his heart a Calvinist, on his knees an Arminian?

 

[bling]

Good Day,

A man centered gospel will have the consequence of producing a man who views himself bigger than the God he claims to serve, and a better man because of his own willingness.

The Prayer of the Synergist by C. H. Spurgeon




View attachment 251830

That is a fabricated straw man erected from a total misunderstanding.

The nonbelieving sinner is not using any of his own power, knowledge, Love and intelligence to save himself. He is doing nothing: honorable, worthy of any praise, deserving of anything, righteous nor of value to others.

The nonbelieving sinner for purely selfish reasons is willing to humbly accept God’s charity (believing perhaps the Creator of the Universe might help him even though he does not deserve any help).

The nonbelieving sinner is wimping out, giving up on “self”, and is surrendering to his enemy (God) even though God is still his enemy when he surrenders (like most soldiers who surrender on the battle field).

The lowliest person on earth can be humbly willing to accept charity, so accepting God’s pure sacrificial charity is a humbling experience.

The “change” for this sinner comes after just mentally willing to humbly accept God’s charity, since God showers the person with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

The Calvinistic teaching seems to be: Sinful man can never reach the point of being humbly willing to personally accept pure charity for any reason, but God charitably intervenes with some unwilling humans showering them with an unbelievable huge gift of “Love”, so they never had to humbly accept this gift, but just got it. Man has a hard time humbly accepting pure charity, so the Calvinism doctrine seems allow converts to avoid having to do this?

 

[Uber Genius]

Read your post and the attached and didn't recognize it as Arminian or synergistic. This belongs in the "Straw Man" Forum.

Arminius didn't claim that the HS was not involved in drawing people, and convicting them.

All you have done is alert those who are familiar with Jakob Hermanszoon (A.K.A Jacob Arminius) of how badly he was misrepresented by Spurgeon and how given to rhetorical flourish and logical fallacy Spurgeon was. Did you hope we would miss Spurgeon's attacking his own mischaracterization of Arminius in order to poison the wells to serious contemplation of same? Let's get rid of the epithets and ad hominems of suggesting arminians must be arrogant.

He fakes a prayer Hermanszoon would have never wrote then calls it "That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that."

Spurgeon's argument was intellectually and emotionally childish.

If you want to argue for Calvinism then by all means let's look at the data from scripture and determine if:
Calvinism
Arminianism
Open Theology
Molinism
best explain those data!

Let's avoid childish appeals to straw men and other rhetorical tricks.

 

[BBAS 64]

Read your post and the attached and didn't recognize it as Arminian or synergistic. This belongs in the "Straw Man" Forum.

Arminius didn't claim that the HS was not involved in drawing people, and convicting them.

All you have done is alert those who are familiar with Jakob Hermanszoon (A.K.A Jacob Arminius) of how badly he was misrepresented by Spurgeon and how given to rhetorical flourish and logical fallacy Spurgeon was. Did you hope we would miss Spurgeon's attacking his own mischaracterization of Arminius in order to poison the wells to serious contemplation of same? Let's get rid of the epithets and ad hominems of suggesting arminians must be arrogant.

He fakes a prayer Hermanszoon would have never wrote then calls it "That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that."

Spurgeon's argument was intellectually and emotionally childish.

If you want to argue for Calvinism then by all means let's look at the data from scripture and determine if:
Calvinism
Arminianism
Open Theology
Molinism
best explain those data!


Let's avoid childish appeals to straw men and other rhetorical tricks.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Uber Genius]

Here is a dispassionate discussion examining four views.

https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Divine-Providence-Counterpoints/dp/0310325129

It may turn out that Calvinism best supports the data.

Informal fallacies and rhetorical flourish are not the tools God gave us to understand the truth. Name-calling was a feature of the religious leaders of Jesus' day, God calls us to struggle with the texts and prayerfully consider the arguments.

 

[Jonaitis]

Now they respond...

 

[BCsenior]

20+ NT verses teach us that man is NOT FREE
to choose Jesus and His gospel on his own!
He is bound, deceived, blinded, etc. by Satan.
His fallen nature is at enmity with God.
Etc. etc.

IMO ...
God has to give him a seed of faith for him to believe.

But, after being born-again, he is FREE to exercise
his free will ... as God desires to test him, etc.

The most deadly example for us coming up
is our choice regarding what to do when:
-- we are persecuted for our faith
---(don't fall away from the faith)
-- we are pressured to take the mark of the beast
---(don't take it, or it's the Lake of Fire for you:
----Revelation 13 and Revelation 14)

 

[Kersh]

It would be great to discuss Calvinism and Arminianism with Calvinists who honestly and sincerely try to understand what Arminians actually believe and vice versa. Unfortunately, a fair number on each side would rather tear down straw men. Christians, who are filled with the Spirit of God, should be better than that. Sad that many of us are not.

 

[His student]

It has always struck me as a little odd that so many state quite forcefully that it would be extremely unfair of God to draw some to Christ in a way He did not draw others - and yet they will pray to God that He do exactly that when it comes to praying for the salvation of their loved ones.

It is obvious from the scriptures that He visits some with more grace than He does others.

It is also obvious to all those who believe that all men are guilty before God in their pre-salvation state that God is not unjust for passing some of these sinners by even while extending special grace to others.

 

[Kersh]

It has always struck me as a little odd that so many state quite forcefully that it would be extremely unfair of God to draw some to Christ in a way He did not draw others - and yet they will pray to God that He do exactly that when it comes to praying for the salvation of their loved ones.

It is obvious from the scriptures that He visits some with more grace than He does others.

It is also obvious to all those who believe that all men are guilty before God in their pre-salvation state that God is not unjust for passing some of these sinners by even while extending special grace to others.

Most, if not all, of what you've said here is completely consistent with Arminianism. I don't know if you were aware of that. Unfortunately, we are often mischaracterized by Calvinists and many people who claim to be Arminian don't understand much about Arminian soteriology.

 

[His student]

Most, if not all, of what you've said here is completely consistent with Arminianism. I don't know if you were aware of that. Unfortunately, we are often mischaracterized by Calvinists and many people who claim to be Arminian don't understand much about Arminian soteriology.

I assume that you mean the fact that God responds to prayer.

But what I am talking about is those Arminians (or most particularly "anti-Calvinists") who make a big deal about special grace being somehow unfair of God. At the same time they pray that God will extend exactly that (special grace) to their loved ones.

One thing I would note is that Calvinists believe the same thing about God. I.e. that He responds to prayer. But Calvinists are characterized as believing that God's predestination of an event, such as a person accepting Christ, somehow negates that God reacts to prayer on the behalf of the elect and that election itself is God's method of bringing to pass what He has predestined to occur in the life of the elect.

Of course when it is topped off with straw men such "robotics and puppetry" being synonymous with Reformed thought- it makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

Would that both "sides" allow the other to tell us what they do and do not believe rather than mis-characterizing them.

 

[Kersh]

I assume that you mean the fact that God responds to prayer.

But what I am talking about is those Arminians (or most particularly "anti-Calvinists") who make a big deal about special grace being somehow unfair of God. At the same time they pray that God will extend exactly that (special grace) to their loved ones.

One thing I would note is that Calvinists believe the same thing about God. I.e. that He responds to prayer. But Calvinists are characterized as believing that God's predestination of an event, such as a person accepting Christ, somehow negates that God reacts to prayer on the behalf of the elect and that election itself is God's method of bringing to pass what He has predestined to occur in the life of the elect.

Of course when it is topped off with straw men such "robotics and puppetry" being synonymous with Reformed thought- it makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

Would that both "sides" allow the other to tell us what they do and do not believe rather than mis-characterizing them.

First, I guess we'd have to define what we mean by "special grace" as that is not a term that is typically used by Calvinists or Arminians. Calvinists would tend to talk about "irresistible grace" and "limited atonement", meaning that Christ died only to atone for the elect to the exclusion of everyone else, that he offers grace to only to the elect (which allows that person to respond in faith), and that that grace is such that it cannot be resisted by anyone to whom it is offered. Arminians speak of "prevenient grace" and "unlimited atonement", meaning that Christ died for all people, and because of Christ's atoning sacrifice, God offers to all people a grace that enables each person to respond in faith, but in doing so does not overcome any person's ability to reject that grace. Thus, for the Calvinist, grace automatically leads to regeneration, but is offered only to a few; for the Arminian, grace only enables regeneration, and not everyone will accept that grace. The end result of both is the same: only the elect are saved, and some would interpret that to suggest that only the elect receive grace.

All true Arminians and Calvinists agree that human beings, in our natural state, are utterly incapable of saving faith. We agree that God's offer of grace is a necessary prerequisite to faithful obedience. And, we agree that not everyone will be saved. Any "Arminian" who does not agree with each of these principles is no more Arminian than a Calvinist who would deny any of the above. However, we disagree as to the reason that some are not saved: for the Calvinist, it is because God did not offer a meaningful opportunity for salvation; for the Arminian, it is because the unsaved rejected God's offer of salvation.

*I have tried to be faithfully honest and accurate about Calvinist beliefs in the above two paragraphs; it you feel that I have not accurately portrayed Calvinism, please correct me.

I admit that I, like most non-Calvinists, have to resist the temptation to caricature or mischaracterize what Calvinists actually believe. I have a hard time understanding how "God responds to prayer" is not inconsistent with "God predestined everything". But, I know that there are many godly Calvinists who boldly proclaim the efficacy of prayer alongside their belief in predestination. I am not one to tell them that they're wrong or that their beliefs are absurd. Jesus told us to be more concerned with the fruit of a person than whether we understand and identify with their doctrine.

More importantly, while there are some nuanced (but fundamental) differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, we are far more similar in our beliefs than we are different. Evangelical Calvinists and Evangelical Arminians actually have far more in common with each other theologically than either does with theological liberals, open theists, Pelagians, and Semi-Pelagians (even though many in these groups have hijacked the terms "Arminian" and/or "Wesleyan" despite having adopted a theological framework that would have been completely foreign to Arminius and Wesley).

Ultimately, my objection to the Calvinist view of salvation and sovereignty is not that it renders God "unfair" for offering salvation to some, but not to others -- though I do tend to think that such a notion of God contradicts the testimony in Scripture about the character of God. My objection to Calvinism is that (a) there are too many passages in Scripture that have to be ignored or "interpreted" away for Calvinism to be viable, and (b) evil, according to Calvinism, is created by God, and every evil circumstance is ordained by God's sovereign will, which, in my opinion does impugn the character of God.

 

[Kersh]

**duplicate post

 

[Kersh]

First, I guess we'd have to define what we mean by "special grace" as that is not a term that is typically used by Calvinists or Arminians. Calvinists would tend to talk about "irresistible grace" and "limited atonement", meaning that Christ died only to atone for the elect to the exclusion of everyone else, that he offers grace to only to the elect (which allows that person to respond in faith), and that that grace is such that it cannot be resisted by anyone to whom it is offered. Arminians speak of "prevenient grace" and "unlimited atonement", meaning that Christ died for all people, and because of Christ's atoning sacrifice, God offers to all people a grace that enables each person to respond in faith, but in doing so does not overcome any person's ability to reject that grace. Thus, for the Calvinist, grace automatically leads to regeneration, but is offered only to a few; for the Arminian, grace only enables regeneration, and not everyone will accept that grace. The end result of both is the same: only the elect are saved, and some would interpret that to suggest that only the elect receive grace.

All true Arminians and Calvinists agree that human beings, in our natural state, are utterly incapable of saving faith. We agree that God's offer of grace is a necessary prerequisite to faithful obedience. And, we agree that not everyone will be saved. Any "Arminian" who does not agree with each of these principles is no more Arminian than a Calvinist who would deny any of the above. However, we disagree as to the reason that some are not saved: for the Calvinist, it is because God did not offer a meaningful opportunity for salvation; for the Arminian, it is because the unsaved rejected God's offer of salvation.

*I have tried to be faithfully honest and accurate about Calvinist beliefs in the above two paragraphs; it you feel that I have not accurately portrayed Calvinism, please correct me.

I admit that I, like most non-Calvinists, have to resist the temptation to caricature or mischaracterize what Calvinists actually believe. I have a hard time understanding how "God responds to prayer" is not inconsistent with "God predestined everything". But, I know that there are many godly Calvinists who boldly proclaim the efficacy of prayer alongside their belief in predestination. I am not one to tell them that they're wrong or that their beliefs are absurd. Jesus told us to be more concerned with the fruit of a person than whether we understand and identify with their doctrine.

More importantly, while there are some nuanced (but fundamental) differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, we are far more similar in our beliefs than we are different. Evangelical Calvinists and Evangelical Arminians actually have far more in common with each other theologically than either does with theological liberals, open theists, Pelagians, and Semi-Pelagians (even though many in these groups have hijacked the terms "Arminian" and/or "Wesleyan" despite having adopted a theological framework that would have been completely foreign to Arminius and Wesley).

Ultimately, my objection to the Calvinist view of salvation and sovereignty is not that it renders God "unfair" for offering salvation to some, but not to others -- though I do tend to think that such a notion of God contradicts the testimony in Scripture about the character of God. My objection to Calvinism is that (a) there are too many passages in Scripture that have to be ignored or "interpreted" away for Calvinism to be viable, and (b) evil, according to Calvinism, is created by God, and every evil circumstance is ordained by God's sovereign will, which, in my opinion does impugn the character of God.

And, in all fairness, many Calvinists would argue that we impugn the character of God's sovereignty when we suggest that some that God wants to save will ultimately reject salvation.

 

[His student]

First, I guess we'd have to define what we mean by "special grace" as that is not a term that is typically used by Calvinists or Arminians.

What I characterize as special grace is exemplified in the likes of Paul's special visitation on the road to Damascus, God opening the heart of Lydia, the traumatic events in the life of the jailor in Philippi, the Father revealing the truth about Jesus to Peter and many others.

For example: God did not, so far as we know, blind Caiaphas and speak to him in person as he did Paul. It was a special grace to open the eyes as it were of one of His elect while He passed Caiaphas by (as the Calvinist would say).

Calvinists would tend to talk about "irresistible grace" and "limited atonement", meaning that Christ died only to atone for the elect to the exclusion of everyone else, that he offers grace to only to the elect (which allows that person to respond in faith), and that that grace is such that it cannot be resisted by anyone to whom it is offered.

I don’t identify with being a “Calvinist” or any other particular group, even though I do hold a generally “Reformed” theology. I do not believe in “limited atonement” and neither did John Calvin.

Jesus said that all those the Father gives to Him will come to Him and that they must be drawn to Him by the Father. It appears that this particular calling (effectual calling as they call it in systematic theology) is “irresistible” at least in the long run.

All those predestined are called. All those called are justified. All those justified will be glorified. That’s an abbreviated “golden chain of salvation” as found in Romans. “Effectual calling” (special grace) over against “general calling” (universal grace) is the inescapable doctrine in that passage.

Arminians speak of "prevenient grace" and "unlimited atonement", meaning that Christ died for all people, and because of Christ's atoning sacrifice, God offers to all people a grace that enables each person to respond in faith, but in doing so does not overcome any person's ability to reject that grace.

Prevenient grace, IMO, is a bit of a cop out. One cannot escape what the scriptures tell us about the inabilities of fallen men. Therefore Arminians have come up with this doctrine to get by it. They do so, IMO, because special grace is so offensive to them.

I definitely am with you on unlimited atonement.

I am also with you on the ability of even the elect to resist the pull of God to a certain extent. Look at Paul kicking against the goads for instance. But the Lord was quite clear that those given to Him and drawn to Him by the Father would eventually indeed come to Him.

Every human being on earth has received enough grace that he or she will be without excuse when they stand before the Lord. But it is als oobvious in the scriptures that no all receive the same amount or even the same kind of grace.

All true Arminians and Calvinists agree that human beings, in our natural state, are utterly incapable of saving faith. We agree that God's offer of grace is a necessary prerequisite to faithful obedience. And, we agree that not everyone will be saved. Any "Arminian" who does not agree with each of these principles is no more Arminian than a Calvinist who would deny any of the above. However, we disagree as to the reason that some are not saved: for the Calvinist, it is because God did not offer a meaningful opportunity for salvation; for the Arminian, it is because the unsaved rejected God's offer of salvation.

Romans tells us that all men receive a meaningful opportunity to do what will gain Heaven and avoid Hell. Calvinists believe that as much as Arminians believe that.

*I have tried to be faithfully honest and accurate about Calvinist beliefs in the above two paragraphs; it you feel that I have not accurately portrayed Calvinism, please correct me.

Reread what I have written to clarify and see for yourself where you may have shaded their beliefs somewhat – if you indeed you did.

I admit that I, like most non-Calvinists, have to resist the temptation to caricature or mischaracterize what Calvinists actually believe. I have a hard time understanding how "God responds to prayer" is not inconsistent with "God predestined everything". But, I know that there are many godly Calvinists who boldly proclaim the efficacy of prayer alongside their belief in predestination. I am not one to tell them that they're wrong or that their beliefs are absurd. Jesus told us to be more concerned with the fruit of a person than whether we understand and identify with their doctrine.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith tells us - God uses means to bring to pass what He had predestined to occur.

More importantly, while there are some nuanced (but fundamental) differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, we are far more similar in our beliefs than we are different. Evangelical Calvinists and Evangelical Arminians actually have far more in common with each other theologically than either does with theological liberals, open theists, Pelagians, and Semi-Pelagians (even though many in these groups have hijacked the terms "Arminian" and/or "Wesleyan" despite having adopted a theological framework that would have been completely foreign to Arminius and Wesley).

I agree.

But then – this is why I hate to use a label for my beliefs. I simply believe the Bible in all that it says. I do not subscribe to the party line of all so called Calvinists – just as you probably don’t to that of all so called Arminians.

Due to lack of time this will be the last lengthy post I will be responding to - short and sweet questions or comments excepted.

 

[BBAS 64]

It would be great to discuss Calvinism and Arminianism with Calvinists who honestly and sincerely try to understand what Arminians actually believe and vice versa. Unfortunately, a fair number on each side would rather tear down straw men. Christians, who are filled with the Spirit of God, should be better than that. Sad that many of us are not.

Something like this...

 

[DM25]

I think Calvinism is a cruel lie from hell. John Calvin himself was an evil man. Humans have free will, we choose whether to come to God or not and he is the one who offers grace to everyone. He does the saving, but it's up to the person to either reject or accept the gospel.

Calvinism isn't even one of those theologies that make me angry. Really it makes me laugh with how ridiculous it is. It is quite twisted and comical there are people out there who believe God predestines people to burn in hell. I really hope Calvinists are just trolling.

 

[sungaunga]

I think Calvinism is a cruel lie from hell. John Calvin himself was an evil man. Humans have free will, we choose whether to come to God or not and he is the one who offers grace to everyone. He does the saving, but it's up to the person to either reject or accept the gospel.

Calvinism isn't even one of those theologies that make me angry. Really it makes me laugh with how ridiculous it is. It is quite twisted and comical there are people out there who believe God predestines people to burn in hell. I really hope Calvinists are just trolling.

You have a huge misconception of Reformed Theology. But i'm not surpised. Opponents of Calvinism, persistently caricature the straw man of hypersupralapsarianism, doing violence to the Reformed faith and assaulting the dignity of God’s sovereignty.

God does not predestine someone to hell the way he predestines the elect to heaven. Only in a positive-positive schema of predestination does double predestination leave us with a capricious deity whose sovereign decrees manifest a divine tyranny.