I'm not ashamed to be called a Predestinarian. Paul clearly taught that in Romans 9. But I think there's something that's vital in the belief, whether it strikes the target in the center or not, because various groups associated with this belief tended to remain more faithful to Christian orthodoxy than others, in my view.
Of course, Wesleyan Arminianism has been extraordinarily successful, with all of its associated revival movements. It's concept of freedom of choice for all made Christianity more available for all, without discrimination. The could only result in a greater outreach, even if doctrine was not always appreciated. In place of attention to doctrine there may have been a greater attention to things like holiness.
So what is it about Augustinian election, Lutheran "bondage of the will," and Calvinism that made that approach successful? I think it is the notion that the Christian "born again" experience, or "regeneration," requires that something happen beyond free human choice.
In recognizing that truth begins with divine revelation, and not from us, we have to acknowledge that the exercise of our free will alone to do good does not guarantee the "born again" experience. Anybody can respond to divine revelation and do good. But not everybody responds to the "born again" revelation, the revelation that we must put on a whole New Nature.
So what God has always been after is not just merely our choice to do good, but much more, our choice to respond to God's revelation by accepting the need to be "born again," and live by an entirely New Nature. This alone leads to Salvation. All else leads to Salvation by Works.
What is it about Arminian Evangelicalism that has made it eminently successful, despite perhaps a laxity towards doctrine and religious formality? I think Wesley made Sanctification the litmus test for the Born Again experience, as opposed to Predestinarianism. If Predestinarianism caused Christians to prove they were the elect by looking elitist in their spiritual experience, the Holiness advocates made showing their distinction just as important by demonstrating holiness in their lives as an added Work of Grace.
As such, there were elements in both Predestinarianism and in Arminianism that caused Christians to want to display they moved beyond mere Human Works to a special spiritual experience. And this was to display the basis of Christian Salvation which is that we adopt Christ as the means of an entirely New Nature.
Though I am Predestinarian I do accept that all men have a free will. But God has to reach out to the men He has predestinated, and is bound to limit His outreach to those who are produced by the works of men alone. He can provide Salvation for them, but He cannot produce a revelation that they are inclined to accept, their being born with a propensity to follow after the works of men alone. Just my view.
I believe it requires a special work of God to enable men to rise above their own propensity to follow after their own independence, as opposed to dependence upon God. To choose to sacrifice one's own independence to opt for a completely New Nature requires a special revelation and a special work of grace.
This is what sets apart those God originally planned for election, the exact number of which was set by God's plan from the beginning. All those added later by the works of independent men will accept revelation of what Christ did for them, and will accept the revelation of their need to do good. And they will do some good. But they will never accept it as desirable to sacrifice their own independent nature to adopt a whole New Nature from God.
As such, God knows who will be saved and who will be lost. But all men can still choose the measure of their good, even if some choose to reject having an entirely New Nature. And though all are free to choose for Salvation, we know not all will opt for that. This is my attempt at explaining this through Predestination.
Of course, Wesleyan Arminianism has been extraordinarily successful, with all of its associated revival movements. It's concept of freedom of choice for all made Christianity more available for all, without discrimination. The could only result in a greater outreach, even if doctrine was not always appreciated. In place of attention to doctrine there may have been a greater attention to things like holiness.
So what is it about Augustinian election, Lutheran "bondage of the will," and Calvinism that made that approach successful? I think it is the notion that the Christian "born again" experience, or "regeneration," requires that something happen beyond free human choice.
In recognizing that truth begins with divine revelation, and not from us, we have to acknowledge that the exercise of our free will alone to do good does not guarantee the "born again" experience. Anybody can respond to divine revelation and do good. But not everybody responds to the "born again" revelation, the revelation that we must put on a whole New Nature.
So what God has always been after is not just merely our choice to do good, but much more, our choice to respond to God's revelation by accepting the need to be "born again," and live by an entirely New Nature. This alone leads to Salvation. All else leads to Salvation by Works.
What is it about Arminian Evangelicalism that has made it eminently successful, despite perhaps a laxity towards doctrine and religious formality? I think Wesley made Sanctification the litmus test for the Born Again experience, as opposed to Predestinarianism. If Predestinarianism caused Christians to prove they were the elect by looking elitist in their spiritual experience, the Holiness advocates made showing their distinction just as important by demonstrating holiness in their lives as an added Work of Grace.
As such, there were elements in both Predestinarianism and in Arminianism that caused Christians to want to display they moved beyond mere Human Works to a special spiritual experience. And this was to display the basis of Christian Salvation which is that we adopt Christ as the means of an entirely New Nature.
Though I am Predestinarian I do accept that all men have a free will. But God has to reach out to the men He has predestinated, and is bound to limit His outreach to those who are produced by the works of men alone. He can provide Salvation for them, but He cannot produce a revelation that they are inclined to accept, their being born with a propensity to follow after the works of men alone. Just my view.
I believe it requires a special work of God to enable men to rise above their own propensity to follow after their own independence, as opposed to dependence upon God. To choose to sacrifice one's own independence to opt for a completely New Nature requires a special revelation and a special work of grace.
This is what sets apart those God originally planned for election, the exact number of which was set by God's plan from the beginning. All those added later by the works of independent men will accept revelation of what Christ did for them, and will accept the revelation of their need to do good. And they will do some good. But they will never accept it as desirable to sacrifice their own independent nature to adopt a whole New Nature from God.
As such, God knows who will be saved and who will be lost. But all men can still choose the measure of their good, even if some choose to reject having an entirely New Nature. And though all are free to choose for Salvation, we know not all will opt for that. This is my attempt at explaining this through Predestination.
Last edited:
