On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question from a man name Paul followed by Ben’s answer and an additional answer from a commenter with the screen name of “Arminian”:
Question:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Arminians believe that we need to evangelize in order to bring people to God who would not otherwise believe. (I’m not sure if that statement is correct – I don’t fully understand the Arminian position on predestination). In other words, suppose I was sitting in a café and God told me to share my faith with someone seated a few tables away. I would have two choices; obey and win that individual to Christ, or disobey and end up reading that individual’s obituary a few days later, having died without the Lord.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the situation above, that individual could have been saved if I obeyed God, or die without Christ if I chose not to. An individual could have been saved, but was not because of my disobedience. (This problem could be put a number of other ways – perhaps my hypocrisy turns an individual off to Christianity – the overall problem is the same). Other people’s salvation can be affected by my obedience/disobedience, which strikes me as unfair.
This is a more subtle problem than Calvinism faces with God who, for His own reasons, chooses not to elect individuals, but seems an equally troubling one to me.
I’d be very interested in hearing comments on this – perhaps my understanding of the Arminian position is in error. But, if I understand the Arminian reasoning for evangelism, I believe my above reasoning must be correct.
Answer 1 (Ben):
That is quite possible. If God has sovereignly determined to use us to reach others, then there is nothing unfair about that. But that provides a tremendous motivation for witness, knowing that if we do not obey God, people can indeed miss heaven (Romans 10:14-15, cf. Ezek. 33:6). We could also call it unfair that some are raised in godly homes with far more exposure to the gospel than others. But Paul doesn’t think so, since God is close to all of us, and can be found by us, despite our history, birth place, upbringing, etc. (Acts 17:26-27). However, God desires all to be saved in a resistible manner, rather than in an irresistible manner, and that is His sovereign prerogative (since salvation is tied up in a relationship with Christ, and genuine relationship involves genuine choice). I find it unlikely that anyone who perishes did not have an opportunity to respond to God’s grace in such a way that would eventually lead to salvation. Still, it may be that the opportunity afforded by us could have made the difference, though they had other opportunities.
This is a more subtle problem than Calvinism faces with God who, for His own reasons, chooses not to elect individuals, but seems an equally troubling one to me.
It should trouble us all to take witnessing very seriously. I wish God didn’t leave such a thing in our hands, but I will not argue with Him. He has left it to us to a large extent and we need to take that responsibility very seriously. I think the Bible is clear on that.
I’d be very interested in hearing comments on this – perhaps my understanding of the Arminian position is in error. But, if I understand the Arminian reasoning for evangelism, I believe my above reasoning must be correct.
Again, it is just an analogy, and we do not know all the factors when someone dies without Christ. We do not know how often they may have heard before. We do not know if they would have responded, had we witnessed. But there is no Biblical reason to discount the possibility that such a person might miss heaven if we (or anybody else) fails to reach out to them as God has commanded us to do. If that were not the case, then Arminians would have no more motivation than the Calvinist, since they could just comfort themselves with the idea that if God wants them saved, He will make sure they get saved, regardless of our witness. That seems clearly unbiblical to me.
So in Arminianism God desires all to be saved, and He desires to use us to reach the lost, but not in an irresistible manner. To whom much is given, much is required, and God will judge mankind fairly. Just writing this has convicted me concerning my own witnessing efforts and has reminded me just what is at stake. In Calvinism, one can find self-centered reasons for prayer and evangelism (in that God uses it to benefit us personally, as in your analogy), but nothing is ever really at stake. In Arminianism, prayer and evangelism is far more other-centered, and a tremendous amount is at stake.
God has created free moral agents and given us important tasks. He will hold us accountable for our actions because our actions have consequences (Ezek. 33:6). He has every right to do that, and I don’t see that we can say that is unfair. That is just making an excuse for our actions.
Sorry if that is not exactly what you expected to hear.
Answer 2 (“Arminian”):
Let me add something to Ben’s excellent response. You think it unfair that our evangelistic choices would make a difference in whether someone gets saved or not. But this conclusion seems unwarranted to me.
First and foremost, it is not unfair because the lost person himself still has a choice in relation to the gospel on Arminian premises. God reaches out to all. If the person is open to the gospel we can trust God to get it to him even if he has to do it himself (such as through dream or vision). But it remains true that perhaps the person would have found persuasive what the believer who failed to share with him would have shared. Or perhaps hearing it again would have found acceptance. I suspect this is something you would find unfair. That brings us to my second point.
That is, second, we are all subject to impact from other people’s actions. That is how reality is set up in a world of beings with free will. It is not unfair for that to be allowed to happen, particularly when God will hold all accountable for how they used their free will. Otherwise, you would have to think very much of life unfair. Now you might say the person who failed to tell you something helpful treated you unfairly. But if the person ends up with what he needed to make the right choice, then it is not unfair for him to be judged for making the wrong choice, even if he would have responded to further influence with the right choice.
Let me give you an example. A college professor has put the necessary information into his syllabus for students to properly do their assignments. But the school dean knows from experience that many students do not pay proper attention to the syllabus. So he charges all professors to remind their students of their duties in the latter part of the semester. The professor fails to do so. He is responsible for that failure. But the students who did not follow the syllabus but would have if reminded would still in all fairness be responsible for their failure to follow the syllabus even though they would have chosen rightly if reminded.
