Why Grace and Faith Can't Exist in Arminianism

Far too often in today's Christianity fundamental doctrines of the faith are being abandoned and subjected to the specific perspective of the individual. What has resulted is that truth is subordinate to personal interpretation and dependent on it in order to survive or even exist. Orthodoxy is lost as a result and rampant spiritual relativism ensues. People walk around saying that all perspectives are true and right and completely able to coexist even where they are diametrically opposed.

This is true in Reformed circles when dealing with the doctrine of predestination versus the Arminian doctrine of Free Will. Sure, we will readily say that they are wrong and then in the next breath defend them to their core as orthodox Christians that are every bit as saved as we are. Certainly I don't doubt that where the word of God is preached, however sporadically or inadequately so, that the Spirit can and does apply the effectual call to the elect; even if they refuse to acknowledge that is what has taken place. But it doesn't change the fact that the very foundation of their faith is skewed and that a vast majority of them, through this false conception of Christianity, actually should question their faith and stop feeling so comfortable. Reformed Christians should excite and encourage that doubt, for it is real. When we tell them that though the foundation of our faith is very different we believe them to be every bit as welcomed and prepared to enter into heaven as we are we err. Such a school of thought is, quite frankly, on par with their view that other religions will be in heaven next to them and that their gods are just carrying different names for  the God. In other words, it is false.

One of the reasons I believe this line of reasoning with them is false, dangerous to their souls, and detrimental to the Reformed churches is it specifically allows their heresy to be embraced. How can we tell our churches not to believe this and then turn around and tell the Arminian there is no consequence for their own gross error in the matter? We make them feel comfortable and thus we wade into the waters of sin and take our churches along with us as well. Since when is the fundamental doctrine of salvation no longer considered an essential in the life of a Christian?

One of the fundamental issues existing in their doctrine is that it lacks two essential understandings requisite of being a Christian. They lack faith and they lack grace.

Faith:
Sure, they will readily say they have faith but they lack a fundamental part of faith that makes it apparent that whatever else they may have, they do not have a biblical faith. Herman Bavinck says, "[...] faith is knowing as well as trusting, that it is at the same time a matter of the head and of the heart." Here they fall flat on their face. Perhaps it would be better, certainly more accurate, for the Arminian to say that he has belief. It is sure that there is a base recognition that God exists and that in general He is who He claims to be; they have a base knowledge... they have the head. But where in their theology does God become trusted? Where is He relied upon to secure their salvation? Where is God anything more than a subservient weakling subject to the wills and whims of men? He becomes a sort of cosmic ATM machine for them to cash in on when it suits them or times are hard. But at the core of their doctrine God is not trusted, man is trusted, and they believe with their head but He is absent in their heart. In the end they are logically, without faith.

Grace:
Once again, the Arminian will tell you that he believes in grace. He will tell you that they preach the Gospel. Yet at the core of their thought they deny the very essence of the Gospel, they rob it of its heart. At their very core they deny the efficacy of grace, they rob it of its nature. Grace is a free gift given from God to man, it is entirely unmerited and dependent on God (Eph. 2:8-9); in that it contains its beauty. Yet, by holding to the doctrine of Free Will the Arminian denies the gift of God and rather turns salvation into a debt God must pay. He owes us salvation because we have chosen Him and thus He now must bestow on us what we have decided should be our relationship with Him. Furthermore, the work of Christ that is the heart of the Gospel message is torn to shreds and made of no avail. The sacrifice of Christ is rendered impotent, whether in His ability to save us, or in the sufficiency of His blood to sustain us. For the Arminian, the death of Christ merely opened a door. But whether or not they walk through the door has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Then when they have entered in they have to earn their right to remain guests in His home, it all depends on them. I admit, at least their is a logical consistency in their belief, for if coming to salvation depends on them then maintaining it must also depend on them.

Yet all of this is so different from the doctrines presented in the word of God. The real picture is that Christ built the door and had it secured since before the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1:4); He then brings us into His home and rather than existing as guests He makes us true sons that live there as members of His family (Rom. 8:14-17); then He secures our spot in that family for all of eternity by making our place dependent on Him, not us (2 Tim. 1:12). What I fail to understand is why one would want to exist in a morbid, autonomous, perverted system of doctrine such as Arminianism. It holds with it no beauty at all, it is unsure and skeptical at every step of the way, and it leads to arrogance rather than humility.

A Christianity that does not understand or acknowledge grace and has a fundamental misunderstanding of faith is no Christianity at all. It does not help our fellowman if in order to avoid confrontation or in order to spare their fragile feelings we let them think it is ok they believe what they do. We irreparably harm them and indeed ourselves by taking the relativistic stance we do. It should be no shock to the church that godly leaders and pious congregants are becoming a scarce reality. For in the end, being faithful to the word of God and the orthodoxy presented therein is left to man to either embrace or deny, all the while being told that heaven still awaits them. The debate often necessarily centers around soteriological considerations; but make no mistake about it, corrupt doctrine corrupts the whole, and where the feet of Christianity have been severed from the body we lose our ability to stand.

I leave you with a quote from J. Gresham Machen where he sums up the difference between the two very well. Machen wasn't afraid to say that Liberalism in all its forms is not Christianity. The men before him were not afraid to say it either. It is an indictment of the age that we are so accepting of the heretical positions that are spreading like a wild fire in the church today. Heresy in many forms has always existed and always will, the question is whether or not we are willing to denounce, oppose, and resist it to the utmost of our ability and in reliance on God to achieve the assured victory we have in Him. Machen says,

"Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak at all of "salvation") in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help: his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are not saved by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words... unlike the  apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: "Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again." ("Christianity and Liberalism", pp. 117, 156)

Do we continue to allow the larger Evangelical church to exist by sharing our doctrines without ever trying to free them of their error? Or do we set ourselves apart and insist that the word of God as it is presented is the standard by which they must exist if they are to call themselves Christians? Take heed men of God, our inaction will not be ignored for ever and the Lord expects us to be good stewards of the talents He has left us.

All of that said, this doesn't mean we in Crusader like fashion demand that they submit or be crushed. It also doesn't mean that we aren't gracious and patient in sharing with them these fundamental and important doctrines (1 Pet. 3:15). When I was preparing a study for my other blog I came across this advice on the matter from Francis Turretin’s “Institutes of Elenctic Theology” (vol. 1, pp 329-331). He says, and rightly so,

[…] we think this doctrine should be neither wholly suppressed from a preposterous modesty nor curiously pried into by a rash presumption. Rather it should be taught soberly and prudently from the word of God so that two dangerous rocks may be avoided: on the one hand, that of “affected ignorance” which wishes to see nothing and blinds itself purposely in things revealed; on the other, that of “unwarrantable curiosity” which busies itself to see and understand everything even in mysteries. They strike upon the first who (sinning in defect) think that we should abstain from the proposition of this doctrine; and upon the latter who (sinning in excess) wish to make everything in this mystery scrupulously accurate… and hold that nothing should be left undiscovered… in it. Against both, we maintain (with the orthodox) that predestination can be taught with profit, provided this is done soberly from the word of God. If, on account of the abuse of some persons, we should abstain from the proposition of this mystery, we must equally abstain from most of the mysteries of the Christian religion which the wicked abuse or laugh at and satirize (such as the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation, the resurrection and the like). Our only object should be to increase our faith, not to feed curiosity; to labor for edification, not to strive for our glory.

With unwaivering certainty let us insist upon and defend these biblical truths, but let us do so with the same aim that Turretin expresses above. All that we do is for the glory of God, and sharing this truth should be no different.