I like that Himes articulately maintains the logic of man’s volition while he discusses God training the believer, who still has the attributes of self-discipline and still faces real temptations. A believer being disciplined, as a child of God, is yet resisting temptation after the acquisition of virtues brought forth in belief through the graciousness of God, but in part these temptations are met through one’s self-discipline, thus the human’s volition is not suddenly made void because of godly discipline.
Cowen seems to look at this “enabling” apart from human discipline and volition. Of course, we (non-Calvinists) should note here that godly discipline becomes logically void without human volition being freely effective in part.
Himes rightly refers to the compatibilist view as “odd indeed” if it forgoes the ability to actively resisting temptations and ability to practice self-control as it is made clear from Paul that these human virtues enable the response to godly discipline. If not, as Himes states, how could the believer’s discipline be true??? The Compatibilist’s view always runs into this logical problem of trying to have his determinism both ways, true and not true.
Himes rightfully states, “I am uncomfortable with a theology that would say the apostle Paul was truly a slave to sin even after he was converted.” And of course Cowen, would immediately rely on relating any view of a believer actively responding to godly discipline independently and by his own choices, or having the ability to not respond, to the failure to maintain sanctification and thereby the Calvinist will cite the loss of a position of “eternal security” for the believer and jump to that conclusion while “opportunistically” ignoring the logical conclusions to his own determinist doctrines. (Oops,
I tend to get a bit aggressive while expressing my evaluations of typical Calvinist’ tactics of debate, but I’ve resigned to work on a commitment of toning that down and use better approaches so I’ll stop there…)
Anyway, personally, the point I had wanted to get to is that I don’t, and I don't think Himes does, get hung up on Calvinist’ views on eternal security issues as it relates to a belief that being true in the sense they see it then it necessarily follows that this view would logically hinge to determinism. I see the battle cry of Hyper-Arminianism (that one can lose his salvation) as well as the closely following accusations of Semi-Pelagianism rarely sticking to the actual beliefs of the “non-Calvinist” and further see it as a shame that this fallacious accusation often serves the Calvinist by driving a wedge between the typical correct Arminian view and that of the typical non-Determinist/non-Calvinist. Determinism or even the “illogical” compatibilist view on human volition (as both true/not true
) is obviously not the answer, ability logically can’t be both ways, and biblically it clearly isn’t, so my views of the believer’s security rest with perseverance being God’s gracious gifts of preservation through godly discipline; I think that is what Himes was getting at. The true believer will take to heart that positive action is yet required of him and will respond because of genuine faith as per the purposes of God; while the believer truly possesses libertarian freedoms he genuinely makes the efforts to “work out” his salvation as he matures because of the godly discipline he receives as a faithful believer and child of God. God’s gracious gifts enable him to have godly character and this comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but this guidance does not “determine” the outcome, it can’t and human volition be true, yet the Calvinist typically conveniently sweeps that under the rug with circular arguments and brings up “eternal security” as an all too common effective threat.
Himes draws upon Hebrews 12:5-11 regarding true human ability being still in effect for the believer:
Heb 12:5-11
(5) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
(6) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
(7) If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
(8) But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
(9) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
(10) For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
(11) Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
My answers, as well as the common answers from “any” informed and credible Arminian as to “how” we persevere relates to God’s providentially rather than deterministically controlling the circumstances in which we live by which we will respond positively because of our “genuine-faith”
and this view still maintains our volition within our libertarian freedoms and thereby maintains the big picture that God alone gets all the credit His gracious work in preserving us.
But I ramble on and digress…and I got important Chuck Norris-like work to do.