Phil Johnson’s pithy little post has the FB Arminians buzzing. Since FB is basically worthless medium for exchanging any sort of meaningful thoughts, I thought I would post a thought or two here both to clear my head (Arminianism makes it hard to sleep) and for your edification.
The Arminian thought goes thusly: God knows what humans will choose and, thus, decrees that choice. This construction has a benefit: God can not even be construed to be guilty of causing sin, as he doesn’t cause anything having to do with free human agents. (God is still open to the charge of not preventing what was in his power to prevent.) This Arminian construction has some horrific detriments, too. Let’s look at those.
First, this construct turns the decree of God into an exercise in futility. God decrees what someone else decides is going to happen. It makes his authority quite secondary. Further, it’s like me demanding my son sit down after he just has. That’s a powerful demand, huh?
Second, this Arminian notion makes God dependent upon creation for his knowledge. This aspect is exceptionally pernicious. One of God’s attributes is knowledge. This theory says (explicitly) that God knows because of us. We determine God’s knowledge. Don’t you see the impressive violence that does to the doctrine of God, his self-sufficiency, and possibly his immutability? I figured that when I pressed them to this logical extension, that they would pull back saying that they didn’t mean that. They did not pull back. They are, at this point, consistent, but not at all biblical. See, the Bible teaches that man is dependent upon God, not God upon man. This Arminian absurdity is akin to man creating God. Man, after all, creates God’s knowledge, at least insofar is his knowledge concerns men and their actions. But, wait, how about some of God’s other attributes like love, justice, truth being dependent upon creation? I think an Arminian would scream that such thoughts are blasphemous. Somehow, the attribute of God’s knowledge is a different story. God, on the Arminian view, is not self-sufficient in his knowledge, for he depends to some degree upon his creation for it.
The Bible, on the other hand, says that it is God who moves men, that he directs them according to his will:
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it. Isaiah 46:9-11
Do notice that Isaiah includes not just the “bird of prey,” which is not a moral agent, but also “the man of my counsel,” who is most certainly a moral agent. The man and bird alike are subject to God’s will and plan. This is tantamount to saying that “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov 21:1). That’s right, Yahweh controls the heart of the king just like he puts bends in a stream. Yahweh RULES over the heart of the king. All this fits in with the Bible’s articulation of God’s sovereign providence: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11). God works ALL things after the counsel of his will. See, the Bible exalts God’s will over man’s. Arminianism turns this on its head, exalting the will of man over God’s. Indeed, Arminianism SUBJECTS the will of God to man’s will. It makes God’s knowledge dependent upon men. Does this Arminianism sound like the religion of the Bible? Not for a second. It smacks of humanism.
To borrow the words of John the Baptists, God must increase and Arminianism must decrease.
What I want to know is, if all are elected, then why is the word election even used? When has there ever been an election where all are elected?
Jeff
It’s so amusing, as the Arminian position takes all the content out of those concepts. God’s not really doing anything, but rubber stamp things that others have decided. All this seems, to the Arminian, what the Bible actually says! Another big one is the admissions that God knows because I do. That blows my mind.
Tim,
What’s ironic is that the arminian doesn’t quite get the full significance of admitting that God foresees all things that come to pass. 1) How can there be true libertarian freewill if this is so and 2) how do we account for the existence of all that God forknows if God does not ordain it and will it to be? To admit to a future existence apart from God’s willing and ordination is to by default attribute aseity to the creation.
Terry
Hi Guys,
is either viewpoint in line with the bible 100% of the time? Did Jesus inspire Calvinism and satan Arminianism? Or are they both theologies of man…?
I think that it would be wise not to completely subscribe to any one of the so called doctrines or denominations of man, as within each of them lies the trap that was set for us from the very beginning… the offer of earthly/eternal elevation by counterfeit illumination… Very tricky.
Can anyone deny that Calvinism gives us a perfect understanding of our Lord through the bible? Yes. Can anyone deny the same about Arminianism? yes. Both can be wrong.
Don’t both contain sinners and saints? Yes, both camp have those who are unsaved and those who are saved.
Could it be that some things we will not completely understand while we are still here on earth? Most likely. Does it do anything for us as believers to tell our brothers that they are essentially wrong about everything?
1 Corinthians 3
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. Let no man deceive himself If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.” So then let no one boast in men For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.”
Arguing about things like predestination and free will are just stumbling blocks. It really doesn’t matter, does it?
Even though I err on the side of Calvinism on this and a few other issues, I may be wise just for me to sit back and say “I just don’t know”, because it’s ok to be wrong on somethings… we are, after all, the creation.
I’d say if we should call ourselves anything, we should be followers of Christ… and then strive to be like the Bereans, testing every thing by the Word.
Blessings!
Pooh, your reticence to latch hook, line, and sinker onto any “system of theology” is good. Calvinism IS a man-made system, as is Arminianism. I think that Calvinism as a thorough-going system does summarize the Bible, but our understandings are (of course) limited and sin effects our thought processes. The Reformed faith is the most biblical system of thought put together by men (so far). Arminian theory (as I tried to demonstrate in the blog article) is deficient in numerous ways. I think there is great (GREAT) value in working through these ideas with the brothers. I’ve seen a firm understanding of predestination change people’s lives (as it should). Iron sharpens iron.
is either viewpoint in line with the bible 100% of the time? Did Jesus inspire Calvinism and satan Arminianism? Or are they both theologies of man…?
That’s quite a false dichotomy. Neither is heresy.
I think it’s important to be confident in what one believes. I’m confident that Calvinism is closest to what the Bible teaches. I’m not going to not believe those doctrines just because. For the sake of argument, if those were the only two sets of doctrines or whatever you’d want to call them, What if not believing in either is worse than confidently believing in one?
Jeff
Ok, fine, I tire of the same ol’ swampiness, but after wading through Phil’s “pithy little post” and the ensuing comments, and finding hip waders that reach to the top of my cranium I’ll wade into the shallow end of the morass (which is inarguably where I belong, heyhey):
Tim, my brother, first: As long as you and all the other Calvinists love me as a brother in Christ at the end of the day, then I am a content non-Calvinist.
Second: Do you Calvinists believe that any believer who doesn’t subscribe to Calvinism is thus Arminian? Are there only two camps — the Hatfields and McCoys? I ask because, as a non-Calivinist, I do not recognize much of any of the content generously imputed to the other side (whilst Calvinists defend their own territory).
Third: If Microsoft Paint had a tool called “broad stroke brush with a strong twist of hype, incendiary style, and perverted lines” this would be the GO TO brush of Calvinists. When reading such exchanges, I am always perplexed that brothers/sisters who otherwise hold to orderly trains of thought start burping up stuff that wasn’t any good the first time, let alone the second time.
If, in fact, there are only two sides, and since I’m not Calvinistic, then let me stir up the mud in my little corner of the morass:
Case: @Tim said: “this Arminian notion makes God dependent upon creation for his knowledge… One of God’s attributes is knowledge. This theory says (explicitly) that God knows because of us. We determine God’s knowledge.”
I believe that God “knows” the past, the present, the future – and He has known these things before the creation of the earth. Since He knows the future including my future decisions, how have I made God dependent? I haven’t determined God’s knowledge by Him knowing what I will do. Au contraire, He knew me before the earth was made and before I was born, and knew what I would do, and what I will yet do. His knowing my future decisions does not make Him dependent upon me for the knowledge of them. That any Calvinist says it does is singularly self-serving and without substance. There is no mystery in His knowing (though the presence of heavenly mysteries is self-evident and some of our inquiries simply do not rise to the height of understanding them, no matter how much we strain or try to make them conform to our earthy understanding). God is not waiting to see what I will decide. He already knows. The stubborn hearted will say this cannot be so.
I often quote “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov 21:1), especially when I’m speaking of the Egyptian Pharoah squaring off against Moses. Predictably, we’ll read this story and see things differently, but here goes: before time God knew what this day with Pharoah and Moses would bring. Pharoah was encountering various signs from Heaven, but God intervened and hardened Pharoah’s heart for His purposes at that precise moment, to His glory, in His sovereignty, and for His purpose.
The Calvinist might say, “Aha!” and suggest that Pharoah’s heart was heardened before the earth was formed in some predestinal notion. Not so fast. Such is not remotely what is described in this encounter with Moses. God turned Pharoah’s heart right then – in present tense – there is not even a shred of a hint in the Bible that what God really meant was He turned that Egyptian heart millennia earlier. That God intervened and “turned the king’s heart” is not in dispute – is it? As a non-Calvinist, I believe that for as long as God has been knowing things, He knew about this day, about Pharoah, and that He would harden Pharoah’s heart. But His knowing was not dependent upon whether or not Pharoah would be in character and playing his role that day – there could be no doubt for God already knew.
With grace to you, I have to go, but I’ll be back.
I love you. That takes care of your first point. Also, your response should not be longer than the post!
Second, no.
Third, I try to be more careful than that… see below.
Substance: What is the source of God’s knowledge? That is THE question on the table. I’ve just got done going around and around with an Arminian that asserted that God “knows” the free choices of humans because he can see the future. He boldly affirmed that God knows my decisions *because* I decide them. Now, I think that all non-Calvinists think that… praise the Lord! But please answer this question: does God know because I do, or do I do because God knows? Or, as I argued in the article, is God’s knowledge self-sufficient, or does his knowledge depend on creation? I suspect that we have far more in common here that the quantity of scotch we’ve consumed together!
I’m feeling the love! And, it’s a GOOD thing we have more in common than the quantity of scotch we’ve consumed! heyhey — soon enough!
If you reread my post, you see that your Arminian friend and I (your non-Calvinist friend) are clearly not saying the same thing. God knows — everything (self-evident understatement of the new century). And, He knows what I will do, and my eventual doing of whatever has no bearing on the fact of His knowledge.
So, to your question: does God know because I do? (Certainly not), or do I do because God knows? (I don’t think I know what you mean by this)
God has absolute knowledge of all things. He knows what I will say, do, think — and has known for as far back on the timeline as you wish to inquire — and then some. If, to a Calvinist, this means that I do these things because God’s knowledge of them “forces” these things to happen…that’s strangeness…but not to the point of a heavenly mystery. More like a manmade viewpoint.
Oddly, enough if you’re right than both sides make God dependent on man. In Thomas McCall’s response to John Piper he points out that the logical conclusion to the hard Calvinist position is that God’s existence is dependent on man. The article is here http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/McCall.%20I%20Believe%20in%20Divine%20Sivereignty%20%28Contra%20Piper%29.pdf
The Charger
He takes 22 pages to assert that absurdity?!?
Nice article — thanks.
Interesting thoughts, Tim
I disagree that your typical Arminian thinks the majority of what you said. I think their thoughts line up with Calvinistic thinking more than you realize. I am not Arminian myself, so this will come from the views of my dear Arminian friends. I think the only difference between Reformed and Arminians is the HOW much free will we have. Arminians give free will more credit, Reformed less. I personally try to walk the line between Arminian and Reformed. Calvinists err on the side of apathy and think that since God has predetermined their every decision, they dont need to do anything. Arminians err on the side that they place too much confidence in their ability to make decisions.
Also, Arminians do all of our evangelizing for us. They are constantly working on saving people and are much more vocal about their faith in the workplace and school. True, Arminians do not know what to do AFTER you are saved, but they start the process.
I dont want to ramble, but I feel like if we focus less on having the perfect doctrine, to live a simple faith, and focus on applying the love of Christ. Which is why I simply call myself a Christian, not a “Reformed Christian”.
I disagree that Arminianism should decrease. Its a flawed doctrine, but they remain a fundamental part of evangelism. Also, if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Anon. I think that your handle on this theology is not rock solid. Three points: 1) Arminians and Calvinists have different views of free will. It’s not that one attributes more and the other less to it. They think of it in quite different ways. 2) Their views of human freedom bear fruit in their doctrines of God. (That was the point of the article.) 3) It’s wildly unfair to say that Reformed folk don’t do anything and don’t evangelize. All that is sheer caricature and has no basis in history. Reformed Christianity built America… our Puritan fathers in New England didn’t just sit around waiting for God to do something for them. In fact, Reformed Christianity is largely responsible for what’s called the First World. Also, many of the greatest evangelists in Christian history were fully convinced that God was sovereign over the salvation of people; that WHY they preached!
I don’t want to discourage you at all, though, Anon. Keep on reading and working on these issues (along with other issues, too). I’ll keep on working with you and one day, we’ll look back with joy and laughter at how much we didn’t understand. God bless you.
Calvinists err on the side of apathy and think that since God has predetermined their every decision, they dont need to do anything.
This s where I believe you’re erring on Calvinist theology. Any Calvinist who thinks this is in danger of being a heretic, nevermind Calvinism.
Jeff
Hmm… Some misunderstanding of what Arminianism believes AND what Calvinism believes going on here. Calvinists, if they understand the theoogical system at all, know that God is sovereign over the means as wel as the ends. This gives them great encouragement as they evangelie, because they are resting in the sovereign purpose of God, not their own ability to convince. Most of the evangelists I have met are Calvinists. In fact, just after Tim originally posted this blog I helped out with an evangelism conference where each of the teachers were unapologetic Calvinists actively involved in evangelism ministries. And lets not forget that modern missions was pioneered by Calvinists.
Also, Calvinism does not teach that what God ordains from all eternity, He also effects simultaneously. God ordains what WILL come to pass. Take the birth of Christ, for example. God ordained that Jesus would be born to Mary in eternity past, but did not effect what He had ordained until the fullness of time. Likewise, with Pharaoh’s heart, God ordained that it would be hardened in eternity past, but He effected it at the point in history when Moses was sent to confront him.
Arminianism is exactly as Tim portrays it. I can say this because I used to be one; teaching preveniant grace and all. Arminianism is specifically designed to try and “get God off the hook” in regards to the question of why so many reject the Gospel. In order to defend the justice of God, they maintain that God’s predestination does not actively cause a person to trust in Christ, but is a passive declaration of what God sees will happen based upon His perfect knowledge of all that will ever come to pass.
This would mean that God only knows what will happen because He can see what we will choose. He as no control over that choice, as the Calvinist maintains, except perhaps some influence. But in order to maintain the Arminian concept of fairness, this influence cannot be so persuasive that it is impossible to choose against it.
@Tim,
I agree with some of that reply. While we might disagree with what Arminians think, I am not talking about the past. I recognize that the Reformed Christians WERE fundamental in building Americans. However, you must admit that the majority of evangelizing done NOW is by the Arminians. Most of us became Christians through some sort of “evangelical” church that was probably Arminian. Because they make Christianity AVAILABLE in more ways than your typical Reformed person. Huge churches, youth groups, massive “Christian” music festivals to mention a few. Not that I endorse any of the above ways of evangelizing. The whole “come as you are” mentality, while flawed, break down barriers with people and give them at least a place to start. Again, I understand that many of their tactics are not good. Today, where is the big reformed evangelizing push? I think that as Reformed Christians we tend to be book and theology oriented instead of oriented toward the needs of people. We push love out of the way and replace it with the scramble for Christian development and maturity. “If your not mature enough, you do not belong here at church.” This is only going to turn people off. My point is only although Arminian thinking is flawed, it has been successful in bringing people to Christ.
Anon, I think your last comment here is more agreeable. The contemporary Reformed scene is probably lacking on zeal for evangelism. Part of that is that Arminian (and other) errors are so prolific, that Reformed folk tend to spend more time combating error. In earlier days, Reformed folk were more on the cutting edge of evangelism. So, true enough. Paul plants and Apollos waters… every Christian (and even churches) have their part in God’s plan at any given point. Right now, I think that the American Reformed world is fractured and often too narrow and self-absorbed. We Reformed folk need to repent, love our brothers (starting with other Reformed brothers!), and add our gifts into the body. Thanks for the comments. Please hang around and keep participating, brother.
Here is the biggest problem I have with Calvinism. Their definition of divine election, when carried out to its logical conclusion, says man does not have any say in whether he is going to heaven or hell. (I am just extending the premise, as you do Armenian theology in your post). While I understand this is not exactly what they claim to believe, it is the logical conclusion of the theological system.
Armenianism is not perfect, either. Often, this position gives man more say and power than he possesses.
The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle – probably closer to Calvinism, though, which upholds the sovereignty of God in all things.
If man does not have a realistic level of free will, then passages like John 3:16 lose much of their meaning. I believe whosoever will means WHOsoever wills. But several passages also say you can only be saved when God is calling. Jesus, Himself, said no one comes Him unless the Father draws him.
Truth is, sometimes we get so caught up in doctrine, that we miss what Christianity is really supposed to be about. It is about faith in Christ. Ultimately, whether Calvinists or Armenians are close to the true understanding of soteriology does not matter. What matters is that we trust in Christ for our salvation, for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Christianity has never been about a set of rules or doctrines (though doctrine has its place). Jesus did not say they would know us by our well-defined doctrines. He said they will (or should anyway) know us by our love toward one another and toward God.
thebiblestop, thank you for commenting and welcome to my blog! I suspect that you’d find that your thinking is very close to historic Calvinism or “Reformed” thought. The Reformed have never denied that man has a will or that he chooses salvation (when he does). Opponents of Reformed thought often caricature us as denying “free will,” such is just not the case. You are, however, correct in seeing that Reformed thought exalts the sovereignty and absolute control of God. He is, after all, God! Please hang around and keep participating in the discussions. I hope that, in love, we can edify each other and, in so doing, build up the Kingdom of God. God bless you, brother.
I will. I’ve read a couple more posts, and decided to subscribe.
[…] ultimately come from us. A while back I had a run-in with a Mr. Tim Prussic, who employed an argument I’ve seen before: Calvinists who hold to exhaustive determinism will often argue that God […]
[…] ultimately come from us. A while back I had a run-in with a Mr. Tim Prussic, who employed an argument I’ve seen before: Calvinists who hold to exhaustive determinism will often argue that God […]