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 Joseph followed by Ben’s answer:
Question:
I believe, as you do, that the Reformed/Arminian debate is an in-house debate. My question is not meant to be the end all be all “spade card” against the Arminian approach to interpretation. It’s just one that to me seems more meaty in a blog setting because it’s a broad stroke approach to many of the questions whose particulars are often already so entrenched on each side of discussion. First a definition of a Biblical miracle: “Something God does completely inexplicable by any natural means.” I’m sure we’d agree that many use the word “miracle” today far too haphazardly. A resurrection is a miracle; the birth of baby is not. A person’s shadow healing a sick person in another city is a miracle; someone receiving a settlement check “just in time” is not, etc. I, of a Reformed persuasion, would Biblically catalog salvation as a bona fide miracle. I want to acknowledge the miracle working of God in all I do. The Arminian approach to regeneration is completely explainable by natural means. God rose again, we believe that fact…done. No miracles needed between God and us! We may call God’s love a miracle, all of the works that made our salvation possible a miracle, or something like that, but there’s nothing miraculous about our salvation if it is in response to anything naturally capable in men from the start.
My Biblical reasoning for calling the born again experience a miracle has many many scriptural points. As this is a broad stroke, I will not list them. I will, however, say that in the Bible the salvation of individuals is likened to three things: 1) a new birth, 2) a new creation, and 3) a resurrection. This is not coincidental; they’re all miracles. A natural birth is not a miracle; a supernatural one is. Creations and resurrections are miracles. Again, this is a broad stroke approach to a fact of regeneration that I find clearly maintained under every bush of the argument in which I find myself. When I focus on the cause rather than the outworking of salvation it becomes a perfect synthesis in Scripture. I used to be an Arminian (even before I knew what one was), but I was changed. My now stacked question is: “Do you call salvation (the new birth, regeneration) a miracle?”
Answer:
I think your argument is flawed and does not properly understand what Arminians believe. Salvation is certainly a miracle and so is regeneration. Arminians do not believe that we regenerate ourselves, so of course it is a miracle that only God can do. However, you beg the question in assuming that this miracle must come before faith or be unconditional in order for it to be a miracle. It is just as much a miracle if it is conditionally applied. Likewise, if I ask God to heal someone and He does, it is certainly a miracle, though it is conditioned on the prayer. I didn’t heal the person, God did. I have no power to heal anyone. But God responded to my prayer with a miracle. But even further, Arminians hold to prevenient grace which makes faith possible in depraved sinners. That is likewise a miracle.
