Christian / Mormon Debate, White vs. Potter III

The Practical Difference Between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism

OK, so a follow-up question on the first question, then. Let me paint two pictures and tell me which or what the practical difference would be between these. On the one hand, the Calvinist says that we are elect, if, well, if we're Christians.

I'm not, obviously, but. Oh, don't second guess. Yeah, maybe later, right? You're young, sir. God has a lot of time.

Some people are elect. And those people who are elect will do the right thing. And the Arminian position that says, well, or let's even make it more extreme, because people were questioning my ability as a Mormon to defend an Arminian position, saying that's a not orthodox LDS theology.

It's funny how every people who are non-LDS are always telling me what is orthodox LDS theology. But I'll go with the semi-Pelagian position. This is a position that says that those who are in the end saved are ones that do good works.

And on the one hand, the Calvinist says, well, those works have nothing to do with whether you make it. And on the other hand, the semi-Pelagian says those works have something to do with whether you make it or not.

Now, what is the practical or actual difference in our lives between those two positions?

Grace Alone, Good Works, and the Ground of Boasting

An incredible difference, because fundamentally, it speaks to the very purposes whereby we do anything. You see, in the first one, and I would want to correct a little bit of the painting of the picture here, you said the elect will do the right thing.

If what you mean by that is that they will believe, that would be one thing. But if you mean they will do the right thing in the doing of good works, which I assumed you meant, is that what you mean by doing good works?

Yes. They will only do so having been regenerated by the sovereign act of God. And hence, all grounds of boasting will be cut out from underneath them. As it says in 1 Corinthians 1, verse 30, it is by his doing that you are in Christ Jesus.

The second view sounds like it is by his doing and your doing that you are in Christ Jesus. And hence, the very foundation of why we do what we do becomes different. In the first position, we do good works out of thankfulness to God, not to gain something from him, not to have merit in his sight.

In the second position, that becomes the very ground of our salvation. And secondly, the result is completely different. One is to the glory of God and to him alone. The other divides that glory between God and the redeemed.

And so you have, I think, a tremendous difference between those two perspectives. And you might say, well, is that a practical difference? As one who has worked in the church for a number of years in a pastoral element, yeah, it's a very practical difference, a very practical difference.

Why Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism Leave Room for Boasting

But the point is that even the Arminian or the semi-Pelagian believes that God tells you not to say that you are responsible or that you merit or deserve these things, because after all, you can't do it on your own.

You're doing it with the work of someone else as well. And so you're never in a position to boast. And so the true Arminian or the true semi-Pelagian is not going to boast either. And so the true Arminian, the true semi-Pelagian is going to look just like the Calvinist.

No, I would never attempt to defend the consistency of either Arminianism nor semi-Pelagianism. That's why I'm not either one of them. Yes, you're right. The statement is made that no one can boast. The problem is, and I think you can appreciate this, when you apply the same strict standards of thought that you seek to apply, when it gets down to the final analysis of why in eternity there are those who stand before the throne of God, enthralled in worship of him, and their hearts truly love him, and there are those who stand upon the parapets of hell, screaming out their hatred at God, in these two perspectives, there's a very different reason as to why those two groups are what they are.

You see, from the Reformed perspective, the only thing that separates those two groups is the five-letter word called grace, and in the Arminian or semi-Pelagian, no matter how you boil it down, they may say you cannot boast, but the fact is, if the difference between those groups is that you were, what, more spiritually sensitive?

If you have two people right here in America, equal access to the proclamation of the gospel, one gets saved and the other one does not, and it's something in them, well, what was it? Were they more spiritually sensitive?

Were they smarter? Were they more insightful? Were they able to follow philosophical argumentation better? Something in them is what explains why they're over there and not over there, and it's not the grace of God.

The grace of God seemingly equally tried to save both, and it succeeded with one and failed with the other, and the only difference is that that person was, in some sense, better, and so I would suggest to you, it's been one of my consistent criticisms of Arminianism and Semipalagianism, which on this issue basically walk hand in hand, is that there is a ground of boasting that is provided that does denigrate the ultimate glorification of God's grace.

That's been an argument that is very deep in Reformed writing, has been for a long, long time, and in fact, even before the Reformation. You will find individuals who raise that very same issue.

The Firefighter Analogy and the Sufficiency of Grace

Let me ask you this question then. Suppose there were some people who were in a house that was burning down, and these people were incapacitated, for the most part, to get themselves out of the house, and a fireman comes in, fire person, I guess, firefighter, firefighter.

The firefighter comes in and goes to help these people out. Now, it might very well turn out that if these people resist that in any way, that he won't be able to help them out, right? Those who don't resist it, I have no idea why someone might resist it, but it's conceivable that a suicidal person could be in a fire, right?

But the point is that it would seem to me that in that case, it would not actually be justifiable for the person who was rescued by the fireman, even though she had to contribute some to the rescue, it would not be justifiable for her to boast.

And so it doesn't follow from the fact that we do something that we are in any way justified in our boasting. So what do you say to that?

I'm sorry, I know my comments are to questions, and then what do you say? Yeah, that's fine. Well, again, there would be two issues. First of all, I couldn't accept the thesis simply in light of the fact that, well, a number of issues, spiritual deadness, the fact that we're rebels against God, that we would be resisting.

In fact, that's an analogy I have used many times, that what God does is we're not just simply innocent people who need help. We are rebels inside of the king's castle. We have attacked his family. We're burning down his castle, and he sends his son to bring his people out, and knowing that that's gonna cause the death of his son in doing it.

That, I think, is a much more applicable analogy to the all of salvation. But I think you're applying it specifically to, well, there still wouldn't be grounds of boasting if that person had to have some help.

I would, again, disagree, because, again, taking it to the final situation of standing before God, if the only difference between those who end up outside the house and saved and those who die in the fire is that the firemen gave the exact same help to both, but the firemen failed with them because they didn't get enough help and succeed with them because they did get enough help, I, again, would say that the glory due to God, to bring it back to salvation, would be divided because the fundamental question of whether they were saved or not is left in their hands, and their work becomes simply something that is necessary but not sufficient.

Grace, the Book of Mormon, and the Sufficiency of Salvation

This was the issue of the Reformation. The issue of the Reformation has never been whether grace is necessary. I mean, even 2 Nephi 25 .23 says, if by grace we're saved, after all we can do. Moroni 10 .32, you must free yourself all in Godliness, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, then is the grace of Christ sufficient for you.

The Book of Mormon speaks of grace. The issue is not the necessity of grace. The Council of Trent condemned anyone who said you could be saved apart from grace. That was never the issue. The issue was then, and I think continues to this day, even with some who would call themselves Protestants, the sufficiency of grace.

Whether grace alone, sola gratia, and I don't believe sola gratia, grace alone can be applied to the illustration that you just used because it is dependent upon a human component for its ultimate fruition, and that's where I would say that that is not a biblical teaching, and I do not find it philosophically satisfying either to use that terminology.