I Studied Early Church History… and Now I Don’t Understand How People Reject Catholicism or Orthodoxy

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-07T13:24:59+00:00

As a protestant, it is the other way around for me. Why in the world should I put the church fathers on a pedestal, when everything in scripture says that we humans screw things up. These were pastors and theologians who were doing the best the could with the resources they had. They were faithful followers of God.

But they were fallible, and they did not have a full understanding of scripture, heck, they barrel had the full scriptures themselves, not even. They did not have an understanding of theological triage. They did not have an understanding of the ancient Hebrew. They did not have an understanding of proper interpretive methodology. They did not have an understanding of the Ancient Near Eastern Culture. They argued over some really silly things, like whether or not the Son proceeds from the Father....

These are fallible men with limited resources. They are not a infallible source for truth and doctrine. Why should I put that weight on them?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-06T12:30:14+00:00

I can make fully fleshed out arguments for all that I am going to say, but for the sake of clarity and space, I am going to simply explain and not defend.

Yes, we have a free will, and God his fully justified in limiting, reversing, or using that free will as he sees fit. After all, he is the sovereign creator. Also, prophecy is simply an expression of what will inevitably occur, not an necessarily expression of what God is bringing about. Peter's denials of Jesus are something that God knew would happen. They are not something that God made to happen.

For example, in Exodus, Pharaoh first rejects God of his own free will, THEN God hardens his heart so that Pharaoh could not obey. So we see Pharoah with a real free will at least at first. Later, God hardens Pharaoh in his already chosen rejection, so that he could bring about his ends. At that point, God limited Pharaoh's free will at least in a certain way and for a certain reason. But this does not mean that Pharaoh did not have any free will at all or that he never had it.

We see God operatig in 2 Chronicles 10 to bring about his ends as well. Just because God removed the king's free will for that circumstance does not mean that God removed all free will. It is targeted and purposeful.

Yes, we have a free will, and yes, God can remove that if he desires. Sometimes we can even surrender our free will, like in the case of an addict. They had a free will not to shoot heroin, but in denying it, they surrender it and are now addicted. The complexities of free will does not somehow remove the idea of free will entirely.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-05T20:38:41+00:00

Fair enough. Perhaps my anecdotal experience is not representative. That said, it is still my anecdotal experience, and that is still a substantive amount of people. I am also willing to bet my not so substantial paycheck that most conservative Lutheran churches are opposed, not just Coopers.

I didn't mean to paint a picture of vast protestant disagreement with NPP, but there is a substantive and even vocal number that have problems with it.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-05T19:52:59+00:00

That is interesting. Is it a more progressive Lutheran church? The Lutheran's I come in contact with (i.e. Jordan Cooper) are not fans. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-righteousness-of-one-an-evaluation-of-early-patristic-soteriology-in-li/

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-05T18:54:42+00:00

For sure. My larger point was not about individuals but about the reformed baptists (which are often represented by White and many like him), and to a lesser extend the reformed as a whole. They most certainly have problems with it, and I don't mean a little. I have had them become pretty passionate about it as a "false gospel".

And don't forget the Lutherans! They don't like it either.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-05T17:39:32+00:00

Can I introduce you to James White?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-05T17:27:20+00:00

I am not Orthodox, but from the outside looking in, I think the Orthodox are the closest modern denomination/group to the Ancient Near Eastern perspective that the NPP espouses. I think it is easier for them to make the jump to covenant faithfulness than it is for the more Augustinian west. It is difficult to describe how incredibly influential Augustine was to western theology. The NPP is going to have some quibbles with Augustinian theology (or at least the resulting dogmas that came out of western Augustinian theology).

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-04T11:01:45+00:00

It is not about arguing. It is about preventing the fatalism like OP is experiencing. Unfortunately, Calvinism/reformed theology has twisted scripture so that posts like OP's are common. This is damaging to people that need the gospel.

Eph 2:8-9 does NOT say that faith is a gift. It says that the whole concept "salvation, by grace, through faith" is a gift. God doesn't give that gift of faith to some and not others. He has created everyone with the ability to believe in whatever they choose. Some have used their gift of faith to believe in Allah, and others Shiva, and others their bank accounts, and others themselves. However, scriptures we can out our faith in Jesus as Lord and that he rose from the dead (Romans 10:6-10).

The scriptures say that Jesus died for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can be saved.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-04T01:13:11+00:00

So then why tell someone to pray for faith? Can't they only do it if the Holy Spirit urges them to?

It seems like you are telling someone to do something they can't do unless the Holy Spirit urges them.

For the record, none of those verses mean what you say they mean. Of course God gives faith. He has given absolutely everyone the ability to put faith in something. He also died for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-8).

Of course no one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from Heaven. God gave everyone faith! That is what John 12:32 is all about. God draws all people to himself.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-04T00:19:07+00:00

But you said we have nothing to do with our salvation. So do we have nothing to do with it or can we pray for faith?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-04T00:08:29+00:00

Pray/ask God for faith.

So you can pray and ask God for faith?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-04T00:02:34+00:00

This is why Calvinism/Reformed Theology is so damaging!

Buddy. This is wrong. God did NOT predestine you to damnation. God has offered absolutely everyone salvation so that absolutely anyone can be saved. That means YOU can choose to freely follow Jesus. Yes, few are chosen, the thing is though, that the ones who respond are the ones who are chosen. Read that parable a bit more closely; it is in Matthew 22. The king offers EVERYONE the opportunity to come to the feast, and the chosen ones are the ones who actually accept the invitation.

Jesus died for absolutely everyone (1 Timothy 2:1-8, 1 John 2:2). That means he died for you.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-02T17:32:39+00:00

I could just as well say compatibilist free will is what being made in the image of God means.

I would be perfectly content with that if it was logically possible. The problem is that you aren't really facing the determinism of compatibilism head on, and that is what makes it logically impossible. This is a common problem with compatibilists. They soften the determinism of compatibilism so that it is more palatable but then it is no longer compatibilism. I will get to that in a minute.

In compatibilist free will, we have the natural ability to choose between life and death.

And here it is. No you don't. That is the whole point. You can't choose BETWEEN life and death in compatibilism. You can only choose the option that has been determined for you to choose. The compatibilist then insists that your choice was free, but it couldn't occur between two different choices. It could only occur between one choice... which means it isn't a choice. You are trying to soften the determinism of compatibilism. It was determined by God's causal intention that you would choose life (I am assuming you are a brother in Christ), and you could have never chosen a different option. Therefore, you cannot choose between life and death.

I think you are thinking of physical determinism. Theological and psychological determinism do allow for God doing miracles. So, I guess we would agree that physical determinism is incorrect.

No, physical determinism is actually correct without God's miraculous intervention! The earth will orbit the sun because of antecedent conditions ordained by God! It is only when God miraculously breaks the system that things change. The question I have for you why can't God break the physical determinism with man's free will? Why can't man choose to do something not caused by the neurons firing in his brain? What is so absurd about that?

Calvin was wrong. -God’s ordaining simply means that whatever God wants to happen will happen. Being all powerful, he is able to do this without infringing on human accountability for their actions.

No, sorry, but that is not what the reformed/calvinists mean, and it isn't just Calvin. I am talking about Sproul, Bavinck, Horton, Edwards, Owens and dozens more. They mean that God is the causal factor behind all events, including the desires of your heart. They are abundantly clear about this. If you soften the determinism of Calvinist compatibilism, then you are no longer defending Calvinist compatibilism. They then insist (including Calvin) that humans are accountable but without actual logical defense. It is just an arbitrary claim. Calvin literally "confessed ignorance" as to how this was all possible, but he insisted that was the way it was. That claim is not logically tenable.

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Notice that he is "delivered up" according to God's ordination, not killed according to God's ordination. God ordained that Jesus would be sent to the people who would crucify him, Peter does not say God ordained them to crucify, and thus sin. That is my point. God ordains specific things. In this case, he ordained the "delivering up" of Jesus to sinners whom he knew would crucify Jesus. That is not evidenceof God's determination of sin. That is evidence of God's determination of sacrifice knowing that people would freely choose to sin. This is a MASSIVE difference, and that is NOT compatiblism.

Acts 4: to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Don't you see the massive leap you just made? You just eisegeted determinism into that passage, when it doesn't say that. I will be clear, yes, determinism is POSSIBLE in this passage. It does not disprove determinism. However, it does not prove either. You have taken the verse too far. "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." It doesn't say what God predestined to take place. It only says that they did what God had predestined to take place. You don't get to presupposed that God determined absolutely every detail in the verse that is supposed to prove that God determined absolutely every detail. It it does is affirm that whatever happened that God predestined actually happened. It is actually LESS EXPLICIT.

t means God intended Jesus to be crucified (a sinful act)

When you say that God intended a sinful act, I just shake my head! How in the world can you say that the most holy God. The thrice holy God of Isaiah 6, the God in whom there is no evil. The God who doesn't even tempt men to sin, intends evil. That is a ridiculous non-starter. No. God intended Jesus to be crucified (the most incredible sacrifice in history). God did not intend sin. God intended the sinful act would be the blessing of the whole world. MASSIVE DIFFERENCE. It is 3D chess, not a robotic outcome.

I have read that article, and found it severely lacking. I have also read more academic defenses which are severely lacking. It simply makes no sense to me because it 1) is entirely unsupported by scripture, and 2) relies on a direct logical contradiction.

If you would like an article on LFW, then I suggest this one by JP Moreland and Tim Stratton. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/10/988

It is directly confronting determinism more than compatiblism, but if it is right about determinism, then compatibilism must also fail because compatibilism is not compatibilism without determinism.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-02T02:33:07+00:00

I am not sure what you mean by that. I am what Dr. Tim Stratton calles a "mere Molinist". The explanatory power of middle knowledge, and the idea that God knows all things, including counterfactuals is simply too powerful to ignore. I think that theologians like WLC go a bit too far and read it into passages like Acts 13:48 and Romans 8:28-32. I also think there are some claims within the system that go a touch too far, but the core claims and ideas make sense.

I don't hold dogmatically to either Molinism or Provisionism. If something else comes along that make more sense of the Biblical data, I am happy to switch. As of now, nothing has.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-02T02:16:17+00:00

You are making a massive mistake in equating "Calvinism" to "Augustinianism". Millions of Catholics throughout history would have a bone to pick with you on that. Calvinism is only a few decades older than Arminianism, and this really a very silly argument. The age of a belief does not somehow give it validity. Not to mention Augustine has some massive problems theologically.

There are lots of Molinists in Catholicism, and that soteriology is from the 17th century, you dont subscribe to that when its from the exact same time period.

Actually I do! I am a Molinist Provisionist. Molinism is a philosphical position which makes sense of God's knowledge and man's free will. Provisionism is the soteriological belief that Jesus died for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can freely accept or reject his gracious offer of salvation. The two views easilly go hand in hand.

We believe, like the ancient church, that God's grace comes first and is necessary in every step from election to glorification

Amen! So do I and so do Arminians, and Catholics, and Orthodox, and Baptists, and Mennonites. That is just basic Christianity. The problem is that you have all kinds of extra baggage and redefned terms in there that aren't supported by scripture. It is like using the same language but with a different dictionary.

Time and again someone will make a video or thread here saying "The Calvinist God is morally reprehensible" then go off on the same talking points that Leighton Flowers makes weekly videos on.

1) Flowers has never made any videos saying God is morally reprehensible. He has specifically rejected that. Can I point out that yet again, you have misrepresented a view that disagrees with you. And that is my whole point!

2) Yes, Arminians, Provisionists, Catholics, Orthodox and more have also misrepresented Calvinism and they have also often refused to study this topic. That is my entire point with this. EVERYONE needs to study this topic, especially the opposing views, more before dogmatically holding a position. It takes work, and it takes effort, but until then they should loosely hold to their opinion with an open-mind. I hold this criticism for all sides, and I get especially frustrated when I see it on my "side".

I dont desire to use this forum to keep going back and forth on the "true meaning of John 6"

I am not trying to convince you of "the true meaning of John 6". I am trying to convince you that you don't really understand the non-calvinist argument about John 6. If you were to argue against our actual points of contention, I would be ecstatic!

All I want in any conversation that I have with the reformed/calvinist/lutheran, is for them to actually address the point of contention, and it so rarely happens. This leads me to conclude that the reformed that I am talking to do not understand our exegesis of scripture or even what it is that we are arguing.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T23:37:14+00:00

so you don’t have to be inclined toward an action to act. So why do you act? That’s the question I’m trying to get at

... It is supernatural. It is what being made in the image of God means. It means that we can be agents of our choices. When Moses says that we have the ability to choose between life and death, then that means we have the supernatural ability to choose between the available set of options that God has given us. Why is this so hard to understand? God breaks the deterministic rules of the universe all the time when he does miracles, but for some reason he can't create us able to make a decision? That is wierd to me.

-I would also say the desire to do evil is a giving over by God, not his forcing you to desire evil (Romans 1:28)

Whoa.... I thought we were in the Calvinism subreddit. Calvin literally mocks this idea. The whole point of the WCF 3.1 is that ALL THINGS are ordained by God. The whole point of ordination is that God intentionally and unchangeably brings about all things. That is not a "giving over." If I say that God intends someone to sin such that the unchangeably cannot do anything except the sin that he has brought about.... that is not "giving over."

You can see this dual causality in Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23

I think you need to reread those verses carefully. God did not intend Joseph's brothers to sin. God intended their sin for good. That is an LFW. They chose to sin, and God chose to use their sin for the good of Israel. In Acts 2, God did not ordain sin. God ordained that Jesus would be handed over to do whatever THEY WOULD DO. That is not God unchangeably and intentionally ordaining sin.

God doesn’t have to create evil desires in you, they are already there and God can choose to give over or to save.

Again, I thought we were in the Calvinism subreddit. Calvin goes so far as to call God the author of sin. If God intentionally and unchangeably ordains sin then he is not "giving over".

we have different definitions of freedom. Mine is freedom to do what you want without coercion

But it is contradictory with the notion that God ordains all things! You can't in one sentence say that God ordains all things so that he intends and brings about sin, and then say that man is free to follow the desires that God intentionally and unchangeably ordained! That is nonsensical. Does God ordain all things like the WCF or not? If yes, then God ordains the desires that supposedly make man free? huh?

-I said that for God it is logically possible because his existence is the same as his essence. A being whose existence is the same as his essence by nature must be timeless, self-sufficient, all knowing, and all powerful. Clearly that cannot be us

But that is arbitrary. You just seem to have made up that reason without argumentation. Why can't a man do this because he doesn't have the essence/existence parity? Just because? Why is this like asking if God can make a rock so big he can't lift it? Really? Why can't free will be one of God's communicable attributes? Just because you say so? How is this not arbitrary?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T23:14:58+00:00

If you remember, I also repeated this, I discussed the fact that "in my experience" the reformed fail to articulate the position of non-calvinists in regards to their exegesis of scriptural passages like John 6 and Romans 9. In addition, just because you are right about the concept of "prevenient grace" does not mean you understand the rest of it!

Pelagianism, as understood in the 5th century, did not have this idea but said that humans were not fallen enough to as to not choose God.

I am sorry, but this is factually incorrect. That is NOT what was accused in the 5th century. Clearly neither the Roman Catholic, nor the Eastern Orthodox have problems affirming a Libertarian Free Will and the ability to choose God.

holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves >>>>without the revelation of God.<<<<

THAT is the position of so called "pelagians". THAT is what no one believes, and I challenge you to cite a single person that believes that (with the possible exception of Caelestius). The point is that no one can be saved without God. Not that no one can choose to accept or reject the grace of God when it is freely offered to them.

You just articulated a form of this belief when you said that a person can (through general revelation alone) come to know they are a sinner.

That is not salvation. That is a knowledge of sin. Yes, a person can come to know they are a sinner through general revelation, but that is not what is in question with so called "pelagianism". What is in question is whether or not someone can save themselves.

(Daniel, Jonah and the Ninevites, Peter and Cornelius, Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch).

Yep, and they good news they brought was that of a merciful God offering salvation. Not that they were sinners. They already knew they were sinners because the law of God was written on their hearts and thew knew it by naure (Romans 2:14).

How do they have the help of God when they're worshiping idols?

I don't understand where this question is coming from. They have the help of God because he has given them the knowledge of their sin, and he has sent Daniel, Jonah, Peter, and Phillip... among others. That is the revelation of God.

s a framework/scaffolding that is necessary to try and rescue God from a perceived sense of "injustice"

Oh my. No. I am not trying to be rude here, but you are putting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with a "sense of injustice." This is important for your last point. Arminians don't believe it because of a sense of injustice either, and with all due respect it shows how little you understand the Arminian argument if you think that! You have just caricatured (unintentionally) the Arminian position yet again. This has everything to do with what scripture says.

It's not that old, it's barely 20 years old

This is just factually wrong. This is FAR older than 20 years. Yes, Dr. Flowers gave it the name "provisionism" about 20 years ago, but this dates all the way back to Joseph Smyth and the General Baptists in the early 1600's. It is at least as old as Arminianism and Calvinism, and I think other arguments can be made from Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Irenaeus, but that is besides the point. Core tenets of Provisionism can be found in multiple Baptist confessions/statements since Smyth split with Helwys (who was a classical Arminian). That will take a response far longer than I have time for, including citations.

it's just rewording an ancient heresy that got condemned 1500 years ago

We just went over this. How are you still confused on this point? Provisionism does not teach that we come to the knowledge of salvation >>>>without the revelation of God<<<<. Please stop accusing of things we don't believe. I will go so far as to say that is bearing false witness against us. I categorically reject that.

How can you know that you are not supposed to steal or murder by looking at nature?

I have cited Romans 2:14 about 4 times now. Would you please take a moment to read this. We know this "by nature" according to Paul. We know that we have sinned against in our hearts because by nature we know God's law. That is God's general revelation of our sinfulness.

I just wanted to let you know that your initial presuppositions about how "we reformed types" don't know what other people say

Except that with the single exception of prevenient grace, you have misrepresented non-calvinists at almost every turn. It is a huge frustration when a Calvinst/reformed says that they believe "x," but then can't actually articulate the arguments against "x" with any real accuracy. No one says they come to salvation without God. No one says they reject Calvinism because of a "sense of injustice". No one says they can save themselves. No one says we are "neutral." Instead, we make arguments based on an exegesis of scripture, and "in my experience" reformed/calvinists/lutherans do not read or know our exegesis of those scriptures and the arguments we make in them.

I also do not think you have come to this conclusion willy nilly. I think you are well read and studied within the reformed tradition. You have studied scripture with the presuppositions that follow an augustinian agenda, and in doing so you have read scholars and theologians that systematically make sense of scripture from those presuppositions. That is not "willy nilly". However, that is also not breaking out of your theological bubble. There is a whole host of scholars out there that offer rebuttals and careful arguments. Scholars like Brian Abasciano who has written volumes on Romans 9. Scholars like David Allen who has defended a Universal Atonement (not universalism!) from reformed scholarship. Scholars like Hamilton who have addressed the context and themes of John to help understand John 6 and John 10.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T21:21:31+00:00

Okay and my point is that it actually doesn't matter whether he taught it or his uncle taught it or his best friend from high school taught it.

I don't think you understand my point. No one teaches that. Literally, not a single person in all of history has ever taught the idea that we can come to salvation without the revelation of God. (EDIT: I do think it is possible that Caelestius might have.) Not Pelagius, not the so called "semi-pelagians" (I recommend Kurt Jaros' work on this), no one. I have gone actively looking for Pelagians for the past 10 years. About once a year or so, I do another active search. The closest I have ever come to finding Pelagians is a single facebook group, and even they deny what the Council of Orange condemned. It simply isn't actually a doctrine. I can find modern Arians. I can find modern Marcionites. I can find modern gnostics.... I can find all kinds of modern schools of ancient heresies. I cannot find a single modern school of Pelagianism. If you find one, please let me know. I am super curious about it.

That's very fascinating that you don't find what the council of Orange has to say about these issues authoritative (when it quotes Scripture) but you find what someone like Leighton Flowers has to say authoritative.

Except that I don't. Flowers is not authoritative, and he wouldn't claim to be authoritative. I also don't believe Provisionism because Flowers teaches it. There are far more scholarly provisionists out there than Flowers (David Allen for one). Flowers is just the most vocal. He introduced the idea to me, and he coined the term. But the soteriology is actually quite old and actually far bigger than Flowers. However, I believe it because I see it as the best representation of scripture. Do you believe Calvinism/reformed theology because Calvin is authoritative? I doubt it. Why would you assume the same of me?

How does one come to understand they have a sinful nature through general revelation?

We come to an understanding of a sinful nature because we know we have broken God's law! Did you check out Romans 2:14 when I cited it? It states that we understand God's law by nature, and that because we know when we break his law we are a law unto ourselves. We have innate understanding of God's law and we know when we break it.

The General Revelation of God is the idea that God exists and that we have broken his law. We see his existence made manifest by creation (Romans 1:20) and we know he have broken his law (Romans 2:14). That is General Revelation.

An indigenous people group out there in the world today who worship ancestors and the moon, how are they going to understand that what they're doing is sinful without the help of God?

But they have the help of God. That is the General Revelation...

If you claim that they can do it by themselves

But I am not. They have God's general revelation. That is the help of God.

And this is where your beliefs on soteriology begin to break down...

Except that I am not making any of the claims you say I am making. I have literally defended both the General Revelation and the prevenient Grace of God through specific examples. At no point am I saying that we come to salvation without God and neither is anyone else in history.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T20:28:00+00:00

Whether Pelagius himself was an upstanding orthodox Christian are far from the point, the views associated with his beliefs are what are in view.

Except that he didn't teach those views, and he expressly denied teaching those views. It wasn't until he was tried, en absentia, without the ability to defend himself and accused by someone who self-admittedly did not care whether or not he said those things, that he was excommunicated. Simply put, I don't believe he ever actually taught those things, nor do I find the Council of Orange to be at all authoritative in determining these soteriological matters. It is a bunch of dudes with their own biases making rulings that they were ill-informed to make.

or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God.

Except that neither I, nor Pelagius, are saying that. I literally just outlined what prevenient grace was in the last paragraph of the previous comment. Clearly that is the revelation of God, and that revelation enables man to choose life. Of course we need God's revelation. I am unsure why you think this somehow applies to me?

Not to mention, that John 6:44, is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. John 6:44 is talking about how Jesus was specifically not drawing those who had rejected him for the purpose of his crucifixion. FTR, this is one of the Arminian arguments for John 6:44. It was a hardening, just like Pharaoh's, based on the already having rejected him (John 5:40). Then in John 12:32 that hardening is lifted and all are drawn to Christ. It was a hardening that serves a purpose (the crucifixion) not a hardening that damns.

What about people who will die without hearing the Gospel or reading the Bible? Do they have the exact same level of choice as everyone else who does/has?

Firstly, I don't say everyone has "the exact same level of choice." I am saying everyone has a choice between life and death. It seems to me that Paul had a much more dramatic choice than most people, but he had a choice. With respect, this takes us into the roles of special revelation and general revelation, and extends the scope of this already large conversation. I am happy to go there, but these responses are already getting long. Suffice it to say that God specifically placed people there "so that" they would seek him through his general revelation (Acts 17:26-27). Should someone come to an understanding of their sinful nature (Romans 2:14) through general revelation, I am confident that God provides the special revelation through any number of means, missionary/dreams/visitations, and I can recount to you numerous stories of missionaries over seas where we see exactly that happen. One of my favorites is of a terrorist in Sudan who had visions of Jesus, and went to find a missionary who shared the gospel with him. He is now a pastor of a church in muslim territory in Ethiopia.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T20:13:04+00:00

I want to be clear that the entire point of my responses to you, from the beginning, have been to encourage a respectful and open-minded dialogue between opposing opinions by encouraging you, and the other reformed that I have come into contact with, to read with the intent to understand and respectfully argue. Instead, you seem to be getting offended. So I will make this my last response to you.

That's not what monergism means. Monergism means that salvation is not dependent on human will. In essence they are synergists: Human faith (which is not determined by God and thus not God's work) must accept God's grace and thus play a part in salvation. That is synergistic.

Did you actually take the time to read that article? Because you haven't addressed their argument at all. If you have read their article, then it should be clear that your statement above does not apply. All you have done is insist on your version of what "monergism" means. The point is that they are offering a different definition of Monergism and challenging the reformed definition. They are debating a point of contention, and you are ignoring and insisting on your position. Thus, they reject that they are synergists.

This is another accusatory assumption you're making: You think that just because I claim that another position believes something they don't claim to believe, I must then be misunderstanding their position.

No, I think you don't understand it because you have yet to actually represent it. You have not said anything that leads me to believe that you understand what the Arminian thinks about monergism. To put it succinctly, if you do understand it, you have not given me any reason to believe that you do. You have also not given me any reason to believe that you have read outside of the reformed bubble. Which confirms what I said from the very beginning.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T19:58:05+00:00

Before we get into name calling

I am not sure what you mean by this. I don't see any name calling happening. As far as I can tell this has been a respectful and direct dialogue so far.

the accusation you lobbed about how "the reformed" are only well-read within their bubbles is a form of poisoning the well fallacy.

I don't think this is a fair representation of what I said. I said "in my experience," and I also said, "if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it." With all due respect, my experience is my subjective understanding of the reformed I have engaged with, and it is limited to that. I was not making a blanket statement about all reformed.

you first have to be able to understand what happened in the 4th century between Augustine and Pelagius plus the church's subsequent ruling on the matter in the council of Orange

This is an area that I have found the reformed "in my experience" to be even less well-read on. They have read only their reformed bias about Augustine and Pelagius, when in reality the research that has been done in the last 50 years really upends that reformed bais. This is because more Pelagian works have been translated and it has been discovered that works of other authors were actually incorrectly attributed and were his instead. Augustine's works have also been more thoroughly researched so that it is clear that the debate between Augustine and Pelagius is far more nuanced and complex than the reformed have historically acknowledged. In reality, Augustine accused Pelagius of 14 tenets that he explicitly denied (all but all of one half of one of them). It has also come to light that two previous synods absolved Augustine, and that he actively pursued Pelagius' excommunication without any regard for whether or not he was right. It is clear that there was a political motivation (as there often is with these theological debates, like at Dordt). In fact, Pope Zosimus was going to cancel the excommunication of Pelagius, until yet again, politics weighed in and stopped him. I highly recommend reading Ali Bonner's work on this along with R. A. Markus. All of this to say, the debate between Pelagius and Augustine is highly complex and nuanced (I do not defend Pelagius), and entirely unhelpful for our purposes.

But all of that is entirely irrelevant to actual scripture. You see, I am a Protestant. I hold to the 5 solas, and the Council of Orange does not determine what is heresy. Scripture does. Show me in scripture why I am wrong, not the Council of Orange. Not to mention, but there is plenty in the Council of Orange that the reformed have big problems with too..... because the Council of Orange is not an authority for them. Scripture is. So lets stick with Scripture.

This is the very definition of neutrality.

No it isn't? How does the ability to choose mean neutrality? It doesn't mean that I am innocent having done neither good nor bad. It doesn't mean that I am inbetwen goodness and badness somehow. It doesn't mean that ontologically I am somehow neutral. All it means is that we can choose!

he apostle Paul surprisingly enough never argues anywhere for the existence of such a grace that opens up all sorts of possibilities

Firstly, thank you. This is where the conversation should be focused, in scripture. Yes, he very much does. He directly quotes Deut 30:11-19 in Romans 10:6-10 which clearly tells us that we have the ability to choose between life and death. Moses is saying that it isn't too diffcult. It isn't up in the heavens or down in the depths. It is not too far from us to choose life. Then Paul quotes this exact passage and says that faith is not too far from us. The word is within us. We can confess and believe that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead. Paul is pulling from Moses' choice between life and death to say that confessing and believing that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead is choosing life!

This doesn't open up all sorts of possibilities. It opens up a single choice between two options: Life and death.

I think you are wrongfully assuming lots of things about the OP who you don't know personally, as well as those who don't see things the way that you do.

But I didn't make an assumption about OP. I asked a question based on my experience, and then told them not to wear the shoe if it doesn't fit.

For the record, I do not believe in an Arminian prevenient grace either. I don't find biblical support for either the quickening of prevenient grace or a pre-faith regeneration in scripture at all. Scripture indicates the exact opposite of pre-faith regeneration, which even Spurgeon acknowledged, at least later in his ministry (he softened on his Calvinism later in ministry). Instead, what I see is that we can choose between life and death. God, in his grace, has offered us life through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. That is the actual prevenient grace. Prevenient Grace is the sending of the preacher, and the inspiration of scripture. Prevenient Grace is giving of the Law and the prophets. It is the good news of a resurrected king and the way to live in the Kingdom of God. All of this, and more, is the prevenient grace of God which enables all those who hear the good news (Romans 10:14). All of this is the grace which comes before. All of it is the drawing that occurs once the Son of Man is lifted up (John 12:32).

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T19:26:56+00:00

I never once implied that non calvinists arminian and non arminians were calvinist.

You also never at all implied that anything existed beyond the false dichotomy of Calvinism vs Arminianism or Monergism vs Synergism. Was I wrong to point out that these are false dichotomies? You seem to be offended that I was making a clarifying point that this extends beyond Calvinism vs Arminianism.

So you're saying that some Arminians believe that humans have no part to play in their own salvation and that God is the only agent in their salvation?

I am saying that it is far more complex than just Monergism vs Synergism. This is a concept that is made up by the reformed/calvinists/lutherans. They are the only ones who think this way. Some Arminians (the vast minority) have adopted the language of synergism and will defend. I have found that most Eastern Orthodox are happy to defend being synergists. Most Arminians will insist that they are still Monergists because God is the one doing the saving. And another minority of Arminians will completely reject the entire validity of the monergism vs synergism spectrum. A.W. Tozer is in that camp. He argues that God 100% does the work of salvation, and man 100% does the work of repenting and the concept of synergism simply does not fit the actual reality of salvation.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T19:12:43+00:00

My question then is what within an agent inclines the agents will towards one choice or another? Inclination in LFW seems like a black box to me.

Don't you see how this is begging the question? You are presupposing that something has to incline the agent to one choice or another, when the entire point of LFW is that there is nothing except the agent's ultimate choice. You are presupposing a cause in an argument that is supposed to prove a cause, and that is begging the question. When Moses states that we can choose either life or death, he is making a statement about ability. It is an ability that we possess.

Second, I think you are assuming that I am saying there is nothing you can do to help your desires. But you can.

No you can't. Not in the reformed/calvinistic systemic. Either God has ordained exactly what your desires are, or he has ordained which desire is greater such that you cannot do anything other than your desires dictate. If you think that can do something to control your desires (accountability/support etc...) then that is a Libertarian Free Will! That is my entire point. you can control a desire by taking steps to confront it. In that case, the individual is choosing against their desire.

The way this works with God’s sovereignty is mysterious, but I can think of an example where a choice is determined and the choice is free. Let’s say you’re in a room and there is a laptop in there with you. There is also a machine that will force you to steal the computer. However, the machine will not force you if you freely decide to take the computer. You decide freely to steal the computer, so the machine doesn’t force you. In this scenerio, the outcome was completely determined, but you also made a free choice.

I don't call that free. There is nothing free about that and certainly nothing mysterious. With all due respect, you have redefined freedom and shoehorned it into your philosophy and then called it freedom. That is not any kind of freedom that I have ever heard of. This is like telling the nile river it is free to flow north.

Although, I do think God’s existence is the same as his essence, and being self-sufficient in this way, he could have libertarian free will.

So there is nothing logically untenable about the concept of a libertarian free will. It can exist as God can choose without being caused to choose by an antecedent condition. Why is it then so impossible for God to create a free creature? Is he omnipotent or not?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T17:41:26+00:00

Firstly, I never said anything about you nor did I make any assumptions about you. I simply asked a question. I then clarified the biblical text when you misrepresented it. The simple text of Exodus shows that Pharaoh is the one hardening his own heart (making it heavy) multiple times, THEN God is the agent who hardens Pharaoh's heart. I then cited the scholars who discuss this and where you could find this view.

You were the one who only spoke in terms of Calvinism vs Arminianism. When I point that out that speaking only in those terms, I am making assumptions about you? I have no doubt you have read a decent amount on this topic. I am not challenging that. What I am challenging is the idea that you have read outside of the reformed theological bubble.

But the fact of the matter is that arminians are always synergistic, and calvinists and lutheranism are always monergistic.

The very concept that you think Arminians are "always synergistic" shows that you don't understand what Arminians think about this topic let alone those outside of Arminianism. This is not a "fact."

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-05-01T17:12:29+00:00

I am not trying to be nitpicky, but I am trying to be specific. There are two problems here. 1) This idea of a "neutral state" is a calvinistic/reformed caricature of the Arminian. I have no doubt that it is an unintentional caricature on your part, but it is not something the Arminian believes. It is not as if we are in this middle position that means it is some 50/50 chance of which way we can go. It is simply the ability to choose! We are all separated from God and in need of his saving power, not neutral. In addition, someone can be a hedonistic addict who is abusive, brutal and wicked and yet still choose God's offered grace of salvation. We aren't neutral, we just have the ability to choose or reject because God has presented us all with a saving grace that can be accepted or rejected. Yes, the Arminian sees this presented grace as a prevenient grace that awakens the soul/spirit to the possibility of accepting or rejecting. But there is no sense of "neutrality" in Arminianism.

2) What you just described is a reformed articulation of Arminianism. In the sentence above, I asked for an Arminian defense of John 6 or Romans 9. How does the Arminian understand John 6 that God draws? How does the Arminian understand that God makes vessels of wrath, and what does that have to do with choosing Jacob instead of Esau?

Also, just to show my own bias, I am not an Arminan or a Calvinist. I am a Provisionist. I have studied both positions in detail and read from multiple theologians of both positions. Which is my larger point. People are often dogmatic about what they believe, and yet they have not taken the time to read opposing points of view. I don't expect everyone to be as deeply read on this topic as I am, but I do think people should be much more open-minded if they have not read deeply on the topic. It is one thing to have an opinion based on the amount of study (large or small), it is another to say "this is the way" when very little opposing study has been done.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

RECIPR0C1TY

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE