An alternative Arminian Illustration of the New Birth

[Guest]

An alternative Arminian Illustration of the New Birth

Calvinists appeal to Lazarus as an illustration of the unregenerate man's encounter with the new birth:

James White, explains: “On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of ‘self-resurrection.’ It would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask Lazarus for ‘permission’ to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversations. No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ’s command to come forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus’ condition first: Lazarus’ heart was made new; his mind revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can heart the voice of his beloved Lord, ‘Come forth!’ The term ‘irresistible’ then must be understood as speaking to the inability of dead sinners to resist resurrection to new life.” (The Potter’s Freedom, pp.284-285)

Rather than show why I disagree with this being a valid description of the unregenerate man's experience with the new birth, I will instead offer and explain an alternative illustration for the Arminian view of regeneration.

Mark 3:1,3,5 (ESV, emphasis mine)
1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand...3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, Come here. ..5 (then Jesus) said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

How is this an alternative view?

First, the man with the withered hand had no ability to "heal himself." This parallels the Arminian's view of depravity. Arminians rightly proclaim man could not save himself in the same way this man could not heal himself. Apart from the wooing, influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit (which is what Arminians understand as God's drawing), man could not be made alive. The Arminian understands this to take place before the unregenerate man believes, which to them, takes place before being made alive. However, to be more precise, the arminian understands regeneration to occur as one believes.

Second, Arminians rightly believe that without prevenient grace, yes, the wooing/drawing influence/direction of the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate man would not repent of sin and come to Christ believing in Him in the same way that the man with the withered hand would not have been healed had Christ not came to him and said "stretch out your hand."

Third, Arminians do not believe that a choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to the influence of God can be accredited as merit on mans part, nor could it be considered a work. Arminians believe man would never come to believe without grace in the same way the man with the withered hand would not have chosen to stretch out his hand apart from the grace of Jesus. So, the choice to believe the gospel with with the will from the heart could no more be considered a work or merit on his part any more than the same could be said of the man with the withered hand. Clearly the man chose to stretch out his hand after and in response to Jesus and in doing so, his hand was restored. Can this be considered merit on his part or a work that he done? Certainly not. Neither then could it be considered a merit or a work that on mans behalf if the choice to believe takes place before being made alive.

Fourth, Arminians do not believe that choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to this prior grace gives one room to boast. In the same way, this can be compared to the man with the withered hand's response to Jesus. Does his response which got him healed give room for him to boast? After all, he did choose to do what Jesus told him to (i.e. stretch out the hand). He was healed as he stretched out his hand after Jesus said to do so. If the Calvinist wants to claim that the idea that faith precedes regeneration gives room for boasting, they must also say the same thing with the man with the withered hand, that Jesus gave this man room for boasting. This is something Calvinists wont do/say, and rightfully so. It logically follows then that their claims against the Arminian is unwarranted and erroneous. Therefore, the Calvinist needs to refrain from making such claims.