Do Arminians pray like Calvinists?

One popular argument against Arminianism is that Arminians supposedly pray like Calvinists. As Phil Johnson, the possible originator of this argument, puts it: "I often ask Arminians, 'Why do you even pray for the lost? Your theology tells you God has already done everything He could possibly do to save them and now it's all up to them. So why do you pray for your lost relatives? Something in you knows that God is sovereign over their hearts."

Before I continue, I wish to state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I currently foresee becoming an Arminian. However, I do believe in fairly representing those with whom I disagree. And sadly, I don't believe Phil Johnson, or Calvinists who use the same reasoning, have fairly represented Arminianism in this case.

See, an Arminian does not believe, and indeed would explicitly deny, that God has done everything He could possibly do to save a person. In fact, while Calvinists tend to act like they have a monopoly on Monergism, an Arminian will fully affirm God's sovereignty. To assert otherwise is the equivalent of telling a Calvinist they believe we're all puppets. Neither of these claims are a fair summary of the highly complex system of beliefs the other side holds. A stronger form of Johnson's argument would be "what exactly are you praying for Him to do, if you don't believe He will override their will?"

What's ironic here, however, is that Calvinists face an equal and opposite problem. While an Arminian doesn't believe God will override a man's will, Calvinists don't believe He will override His own will. Before the foundation of the world, they believe God had already decided who He would save, and who He would pass over. Thus, for a Calvinist to pray for a lost relative to be saved is as problematic in their worldview as if that lost relative had already left this mortal plane. To modify Johnson's original statement, "we can ask Calvinists, 'Why do you even pray for the lost? Your theology tells you God has already decided whether or not to save them, and that will come to pass. So why do you pray for your lost relatives? Something in you knows salvation is available now."

We see, then, that both sides at least appear to acknowledge a premise more suited to the other. But one common problem in this debate is the way in which both sides tend to treat each other as the only alternatives. If you disagree with Calvinism, Calvinists often say you're an Arminian. If you disagree with Arminianism, Arminians often lump you in with the Calvinists. But this is narrow-minded, and overlooks various other views that have their distinctives. I, myself, tend strongly towards Molinism, which solves this dilemma quite nicely.

Molinism retains a Sovereign God who knows and predetermines the future from before the foundation of the world. But it rejects Determinism, allowing for a high degree of free will. This includes the ability to resist, or even reject, the gift of grace God freely and truly offers even to those whom He knows will never accept it. Furthermore, it gives a logical answer for why a free and rational being can pray to our Holy Sovereign for the salvation of another free being.

To illustrate this, consider Matthew 11:21-24 (cf. Luke 10:13-16). Here, we read "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”"

What we see here is Jesus describing an alternative timeline that could have occurred. But the distinction between the potentially penitent and the actively impenitent is not predestination. Jesus simply says they would have repented, not "I would have predestined them to repent".

A Calvinist (such as my pastor) might argue that predestination is in the background, but this actually makes the whole "if" statement redundant, because God is the same in all circumstances. If God had determined to save Sodom, Sodom would have been saved. If God had determined to save Chorazin, Chorazin would have been saved. Because God didn't determine to save any of these cities, none of them were saved. The mighty works are actually irrelevant here. They have no effect.

But the text makes it very clear that they do. If Jesus had done His mighty works in Tyre, they would have survived. Because He did those works in Bethsaida and they did not repent, Bethsaida will suffer a worse judgement. The distinction only makes sense if we assume different circumstances, not merely different determinations, would change the outcome.

For that reason, a Molinist can assume there may well be things - things of which God is well aware - that still could persuade a lost relative to come to faith if, and only if, they are provided. Many Christian testimonies have such elements. A famous example is Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim turned Christian apologist, whose conversion involved dreaming himself into Biblical parables he'd never actually read. Perhaps, if Nabeel had already read the parables, he would have interpreted those dreams differently. How easy would it be to dismiss those dreams as a natural occurrence, had he already been familiar with the parables? Or what if he never read the parables, but also never had the dreams? Maybe he would have died a Muslim.

So, what if, just as with Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, there are whole cities, maybe even whole nations, who could repent if God would act? If there is, does God not know it? And if He has not acted, does this mean He could not? See, then, how it is illogical to say "Your theology tells you God has already done everything He could possibly do to save them and now it's all up to them". God knows the ultimate outcome of every breeze He sends across the face of the sea. Why, then, would we assume He doesn't have ways to convert our lost relatives that He simply hasn't done yet? And why wouldn't we pray for Him to perform those great deeds?

You see, then, that instead of Arminians praying like Calvinists because "Something in you knows that God is sovereign over their hearts", or Calvinists praying like Arminians because something in them knows there is potential for God to act to save someone He otherwise wouldn't have saved, both sides pray like Molinists. We recognise the sovereignty of God, and we recognise the freedom of man. God knew, and planned, everything that would ever happen ahead of time, up to and including who would be saved, when, and how. But we still believe the response is free. He knew ahead of time who would pray for what, and how He would respond. And if we don't pray? He knew ahead of time that we wouldn't pray, and how He will respond.

This is why prayer is effective. It's not as though we're changing what God has predetermined. Rather, He has predetermined what we can change. He is more complex than our tiny minds can get around, and that's ultimately why I believe all soteriological views end up in the same place. Functionally, there is little difference between most of the main Soteriological views. There are some exceptions. Open Theism, for example, is a heretical abomination unworthy of consideration. But if you're a Christian, you will pray like a Christian. Calvinists will pray like Christians. Arminians will pray like Christians. Molinists will pray like Christians. Why? Because we are all Christians. Therefore, the use of prayer to prove someone of a different soteriology must necessarily hold to ours is actually rather silly.

AI usage

1. The header image was generated by ChatGPT.