In the comment section of Ben Henshaw’s article, “Do Arminians Really Pray Like Calvinists?” which argues that intercessory prayer does not cohere well with Calvinism but does with Arminianism, Calvinist theologian Terrance (Terry”) Tiessen challenged Ben’s conception of Arminianism’s coherence with intercessory prayer:
I am a Calvinist and here is what puzzles me about the way you describe Arminian prayer for the unsaved. You speak of asking God to assist the unsaved to come to faith. It seems to me, however, that Arminianism necessarily assumes that God is doing his utmost to save everyone, so that there can be no difference in the extent to which God is trying to bring people to himself. Am I wrong about this? If so, I’d value explanation of how God can do more for one person than for another without making the kind of choice that troubles Arminians about unconditional election. Thanks.
Ben: Mr. Tiessen, Arminianism says that God is doing all that is necessary (or sufficient) to bring people to salvation. That means that everyone has an opportunity to come to faith. However, God works through people and relationships and allows (even requires) us to be a part of the process. That is His sovereign right, of course. That is why God calls on us to pray for the salvation of the lost and to reach out to the lost, preach the gospel to the lost and not be a stumbling block to the lost (or even believers, cf. 1 Cor. 8 where a believer can be “destroyed” by the carelessness of another believer). This fits very well with the overall Biblical portrayal of God’s interactions with His creatures and desire for them to all be saved.
I addressed this at the end of the post:
But if Arminianism is true and God desires all to be saved, why should prayer move God to act anymore than He would already be moved to act? The answer seems to be that as a relational God who so strongly values genuine inter-relational interactions, He wants us to be a part of the process (we are co-laborers with Him, 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1) . He wants us involved. He wants us to demonstrate our own love and concern for others by petitioning Him for others which further glorifies Him in that it is an example of His love expressed freely in us for others. We reflect His love in our efforts to bring people to Christ and in our prayers for the salvation of the lost, efforts and prayers that are themselves empowered by God with a view towards seeing all saved.
Let me add that since relational interactions are based on free will, then no amount of influences will guarantee a certain result, and more opportunities do not necessarily equate to better results. So we have a situation where salvation is based on a relationship with Christ and that relationship is dynamic and brought about through a variety of resistible means. One of those means is prayer, which allows us the opportunity to influence how God might work to lead someone into a relationship with Himself. But again, despite God working in different ways, because of the nature of free will and its import for the relationships that God values (including the most important relationship of all: a saving relationship with God), there is no one specific thing that will necessarily lead someone to believe. So “more” is not always really “more”.
You ask,
If so, I’d value explanation of how God can do more for one person than for another without making the kind of choice that troubles Arminians about unconditional election.
This isn’t a choice that necessarily troubles Arminians. It is not about equality of opportunity, but sufficiency of opportunity. Moreover, “doing more” does not necessarily guarantee a response of faith anyway and is not necessarily better qualitatively (as explained above). And on top of that, it is nothing like unconditional election where God does nothing at all for the (reprobate) lost to bring them to salvation. Indeed, He makes it impossible for them to be saved. Big difference.
In the end, God will hold everyone accountable for whatever their response was to grace given and to the corresponding opportunities that come with that grace (to whom much is given, much is required…), and our prayers can have an impact on those opportunities and how God works through those opportunities. But again, more attempts and more opportunities still will not guarantee a certain result.
God Bless,
Ben
Terry: Thanks, Ben. If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that God makes it possible for everyone to be saved, so that the only impediment to that happening is their own unwillingness to respond positively to God’s gracious overtures. But beyond that sufficiency, God has chosen to give some people more opportunities than others. Nevertheless, he is unable to ensure that any particular individual responds positively, so his choice to work harder on some people than others is an unconditional choice to be more gracious to some than to others, but success in those cases would not amount to an unconditional election to salvation, because those people were always able to resist God’s overtures; his saving grace, prevenient and accompanying, is never efficacious in the way it is for Calvinists.
Thus, some people may be saved who would have not have been saved if God had only given them sufficient grace, but everyone could be saved if they chose, and none are saved by an efficacious grace comparable to that which Calvinists believe is necessary for salvation to occur. (In other words salvation is always incompatibilistic or indeterministic.) Even the most blessed by God with gracious overtures and inner promptings could have chosen not to respond if they wished. Our prayer for particular unsaved people is therefore motivated by the belief that God may graciously respond to our requests for his work in other’s lives and that some of those for whom we pray will be saved who would not have been, if we had not asked God to work harder on them, and if God had not chosen to respond positively to our intercession.
Have I heard you correctly?
Thanks,
Terry
Ben: Terrance, you wrote,
Thanks, Ben. If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that God makes it possible for everyone to be saved, so that the only impediment to that happening is their own unwillingness to respond positively to God’s gracious overtures.
Yes.
But beyond that sufficiency, God has chosen to give some people more opportunities than others. Nevertheless, he is unable to ensure that any particular individual responds positively, so his choice to work harder on some people than others is an unconditional choice to be more gracious to some than to others
First, let me make clear again that because of the nature of our wills, God is unable to ensure that any particular individual freely responds positively. I also made the point that it is misleading to think of God as working “harder” on a person because he makes more overtures to them than someone else. I am not sure we can always quantify God’s respective efforts towards people or workings in their lives.
Furthermore, because of free will, “less” might end up effective for one person and “more” might end up ineffective for someone else. So I find your way of framing the issue illegitimate. So let’s replace “harder” with more. And with that, actually, part of what I was saying was that it is often “conditioned” on our prayers in that prayer has a relational dynamic to it just as other ways God relates to us and wants us to relate to Him and to each other. So in accordance with God’s desire for us to be a part of the process through prayer, such a choice on my view is not “unconditional”, but “conditional”!
but success in those cases would not amount to an unconditional election to salvation, because those people were always able to resist God’s overtures; his saving grace, prevenient and accompanying, is never efficacious in the way it is for Calvinists.
Well, I just pointed out that the choice to work on the person more would not be unconditional. But what you say here is also true of my view. If we are able to resist while also enabled to respond, and salvation is conditional based on that response (the response of faith), then of course it would not amount to an unconditional election.
Thus, some people may be saved who would have not have been saved if God had only given them sufficient grace
I assume you are saying that some people may be saved who would not have been saved if they had sufficient grace to be saved but not more than that. If that is what you are saying, then yes, some people might get saved who would not otherwise have been saved if they did not get additional grace as the result of prayer.
, but everyone could be saved if they chose, and none are saved by an efficacious grace comparable to that which Calvinists believe is necessary for salvation to occur. (In other words salvation is always incompatibilistic or indeterministic.)
Yes, but I would rather say that salvation is always conditional, rather than unconditional.
Even the most blessed by God with gracious overtures and inner promptings could have chosen not to respond if they wished.
Yes.
Our prayer for particular unsaved people is therefore motivated by the belief that God may graciously respond to our requests for his work in other’s lives and that some of those for whom we pray will be saved who would not have been, if we had not asked God to work harder on them, and if God had not chosen to respond positively to our intercession.
Our prayers can make a difference, if that is what you are trying to say, just as our actions can make a difference (which I pointed out in my first response to you). And the fact that our prayers can make a real difference serves as another motivator for prayer. But in Calvinism I don’t see how prayer can possibly make a difference, and that seems at odds with Scripture (and our own experiences) on many levels. Does that likewise “puzzle” you?
God Bless,
Ben
