Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

[Reformed1689]

He might be. However, that does not absolve you.

I don't think I mischaracterized. If we can somehow thwart God's will, that makes us more powerful than God, or, at minimum, God is not powerful enough to accomplish His will.

 

[Reformed1689]

How so?

Because then you have God as a reactionary participant, as if He was caught by surprise. I know that is not what you believe, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't think I mischaracterized. If we can somehow thwart God's will, that makes us more powerful than God, or, at minimum, God is not powerful enough to accomplish His will.

Did he say "we can thwart God's will"?

 

[Reformed1689]

Did he say "we can thwart God's will"?

Actually yes.

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."

 

[Revmitchell]

I welcome it in the form and along the parameters that God presents relating to it - not in the Calvinistic cast which is raises "sovereignty" to levels that God himself did not raise in the scriptures. Calvinism, I keep saying it, is more royal than the King.

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."
Calvinism says: "Oh no your Sovereign Majesty! You are more sovereign than that. I didn't have a free will till you regenerated me"

God says: "Volitional faith is not a work in my estimation"
Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! I'm more humble than that because I esteem even pre-regeneration faith as a work"

God says: "I elect those I foreknew would believe on my elect Son"
Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! You do more than that! You predestinate them to choose him"

It's like Job's friends who flattered God, and of whom Job reproachfully asked: Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God? And God wasn't too impressed with them despite their flattery.

Calvinism has defined humility and human depravity to levels beyond God's own definitions thinking that they thus "accept his person".
Brethren, the Lord is not impressed by a humility which is more humble than the King's own standard.
And then you walk around looking down your noses at your not-as-humble-as-you-are brethren.

Are you really arguing that man can thwart Gods will?

 

[Reynolds]

Because then you have God as a reactionary participant, as if He was caught by surprise. I know that is not what you believe, but you can't have it both ways.

Not at all how I have God.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not at all how I have God.

I understand that, which is why I qualified my statement. But this is how I see the Arminian argument.

 

[atpollard]

If we can somehow thwart God's will, that makes us more powerful than God, or, at minimum, God is not powerful enough to accomplish His will.

No one is more "bullish" (to quote Teddy Roosevelt) on the Sovereignty of God than I am, but their argument IS being mischaracterized. Let me illustrate by changing the focus just a little:

Can God punish all sin immediately by executing a Just sentence (death) at the moment that a person sins? The answer would seem to be YES (part of that whole OMNIPOTENT thing). However, the fact remains that God DOES NOT administer justice at the moment we sin. Using the same logic that you apply to their argument that God does not override man's free will, we must conclude that God is incapable of punishing sin (because he doesn't).

We all know that God is perfectly capable of punishing sin, but has reasons that benefit Him why God chooses not to punish sin immediately. All they are arguing is that God also has reasons why He chooses not to override man's free will (which does not mean that God is incapable of doing so, any more than God is incapable of immediately punishing sin).

I happen to believe that their argument is LOGICAL, it is simply not BIBLICAL. However the onus is on them to prove their argument is correct according to Scripture and the task, for those that care to invest in it, is to prove their argument contrary to scripture. We should not draw conclusions they reject and ascribe those beliefs to them. [As a Calvinist, I have been on the receiving end of far too many false claims of what I believe.]

 

[Reformed1689]

No one is more "bullish" (to quote Teddy Roosevelt) on the Sovereignty of God than I am, but their argument IS being mischaracterized. Let me illustrate by changing the focus just a little:

Can God punish all sin immediately by executing a Just sentence (death) at the moment that a person sins? The answer would seem to be YES (part of that whole OMNIPOTENT thing). However, the fact remains that God DOES NOT administer justice at the moment we sin. Using the same logic that you apply to their argument that God does not override man's free will, we must conclude that God is incapable of punishing sin (because he doesn't).

We all know that God is perfectly capable of punishing sin, but has reasons that benefit Him why God chooses not to punish sin immediately. All they are arguing is that God also has reasons why He chooses not to override man's free will (which does not mean that God is incapable of doing so, any more than God is incapable of immediately punishing sin).

I happen to believe that their argument is LOGICAL, it is simply not BIBLICAL. However the onus is on them to prove their argument is correct according to Scripture and the task, for those that care to invest in it, is to prove their argument contrary to scripture. We should not draw conclusions they reject and ascribe those beliefs to them. [As a Calvinist, I have been on the receiving end of far too many false claims of what I believe.]

But see, your statement here affirms my position that it is not a mischaracterization. We aren't thwarting God's will at all. God's will is to let these things happen, to let evil happen, for a time. Why? He has His purposes. Ultimately to show his attributes. But we are in no way thwarting His will.

 

[Reynolds]

I understand that, which is why I qualified my statement. But this is how I see the Arminian argument.

The Arminian argument.
God has a perfect will and a permissive will. Man, Satan, the angels, etc are free to operate in that area of free will that God gave them between His perfect and His permissive wills. God being omniscient knew what the choices would be. Without allowing for a permissive will of God, you turn man into a mindless puppet and you make God directly responsible for Evil.

God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree. You contend it was Gods perfect will for Adam to eat of the fruit?

 

[Benjamin]

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."

No, you say that, Scripture says no such thing anywhere. You post it like it is mentioned somewhere in scripture, it is not.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Jer 29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Deu 1:43 So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill.

Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

 

[JonC]

I understand what you call it but it is a cop out.

Why would that be a cop out (within a non-Calvinistic framework)?

 

[Reformed1689]

Why would that be a cop out (within a non-Calvinistic framework)?

The framework has nothing to do with it in my opinion.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

What Reynolds said about a permissive and perfect will makes sense. As I showed with the avalanche of bible verses earlier, God wills for Himself to be pleased and whatever pleases Him is His perfect will. God permits Himself to be dis-pleasured by the choices of His children, given the verses Benjamin quoted and many others I can seek.

For God to be dis-pleasured means He made His children in His image with freedom of choice. God foreknows these choices, but in a way that makes His Call to seek Him in nature, Law, or Gospel of Jesus Christ efficacious. A Call needed for slavation since we don't seek God on our own. God allowed the ability for His children to give into temptation for a mysterious reason to be explained when Lawlessness reaches its fruition.

That seems to be the Ockham's razor, simplest and easiest, way of making sense of all the bible verses.

Now of course, God's perfect will may not be perfect to us. It was God's perfect will to crucify His only begotten Son Jesus Christ and it was pleasant to Him in some way (Ephesians 5:2). God is pleased when we sacrifice and die for Him like Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 2:15-17). God must be pleased when we are disciplined in this world (Hebrews 12), despite the fact children hate discipline.

The scriptures I have quoted may allow for a middle will. A kind of sovereign will where God is pleased to bring about ruin against those who hate Him (Hosea 10:10), but displeased at the death of the wicked (The Ezekiel verses previously quoted).

 

[Steven Yeadon]

To reiterate:

The bible says the following please God:

To keep His commandments (1 John 3:22)

To suffer for Him (2 corinthians 2:15-17)

Spreading the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4)

Pleasing God over men (Galatians 1:10)

Earnestly attempting to find Him (Hebrews 11:6)

Believing He exists (Hebrews 11:6)

Singing praise to God (Psalm 135:3 and 147:1)

Not being conformed to the world (Romans 12:1-2)

The words of our mouth and the meditation of our heart should be aimed to please Him (Psalm 19:14)

Those that fear Him (Psalm 147:10-11)

Those that hope in His steadfast love (Psalm 147:10-11)

Children obeying their parents (Colossians 3:20)

Giving thanks in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:18)

Burnt offering (Exodus 29:18)

Sharing of what we have to others (Hebrews 13:16)

Giving the Kingdom to the saints (Luke 12:32)

Revealing Christ to Paul who was set apart and Called to his ministry to the Gentiles from before birth (Galatians 1:15)

When God smelled the burnt offering Noah gave Him (Genesis 8:20-22)

Preaching the folly of the Cross to save those that believe (1 Corinthians 1:21)

To pray that everyone has a peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified life (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

For widows to ask their parents for financial help (1 Timothy 5:4)

Keeping the faith (Hebrews 10:35-39)

Making Israel God’s possession (1 Samuel 12:22)

Israel when it is brought back from exile (Ezekiel 20:41)

The young son of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:12-14)

God’s covenant with David that his kingdom be established forever (1 Chronicles 17:27)

God had pleasure in David before making him king over Israel (1 Chronicles 28:4)

Wisdom (Proverbs 3:17)

To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God is more pleasing than sacrifice and burnt offering (Micah 6:6-8)

Hosea 10:10 shows God executes justice when it pleases Him to.

The temple of God (Haggai 1:8)


Adding to this are the following observations from scripture:

Hezekiah claims righteousness from his actions and is rewarded with longer life in Isaiah 38:1-8

Isaiah 5:7 compares Israel to a pleasant plant planted by God

Romans 8:8 shows in the context of Romans 8:1-11 that God is displeased with those who gratify their flesh instead of living by the Spirit of God in believers.

Hebrews 12:4-13 tells us God scourges and discipline His children, God is certainly pleased by this even if His children view it as painful.

Luke 10:21 and Matthew 11:25 show God is pleased to hide the truths Jesus teaches from the wise and learned to instead give them to humble servants

Mark 12:33 shows God is more pleased by love for God with all our being and love of neighbor than any burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Hosea 6 in context shows God desires mercy and the knowledge of God and He does not desire sacrifices or burnt offerings without such. This becomes more evident given Psalm 40:6. Psalm 50:7-15 shows God wants are vows to His commandments fulfilled and that we call upon Him in our day of trouble. Psalm 51:16-17 adds that God desires a contrite and broken spirit before sacrifice. Isaiah 1:10-20 exhorts us to do right, seek justice, correct the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead the case of the widow before burnt offering and sacrifice. Giving God praise and thanksgiving is better than burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jeremiah 6:19-20 shows God takes no pleasure in sacrifice and burnt offering if there is rejection of His Law and no attention paid to His Words.

When people turn from sin to live Ezekiel 18:23 and Ezekiel 33:11. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked or of anyone (Ezekiel 18:23, 32).

Isaiah 56:4 shows God rewards those that please Him.

Isaiah 42:21 shows God is pleased to have made His Law great and glorious.

1 Samuel 15:22 tells us obedience and attentiveness please God more than burnt offerings and sacrifices, which still please God

Proverbs 21:3 tells us to do the right thing and justice are more pleasing to God than sacrifice

Ephesians 5:2 tells us Jesus Christ was a pleasing offering to God

1 Thessalonians 4:1-5 show believers must learn to control their own actions.

Psalm 147:11 raises a question do we fear God and steadfastly love Him before regeneration?

Psalm 69:30-31 shows that we can praise God with song and thank Him to please Him. Did that act to please God require regeneration?

1 Kings 3:10 shows us Solomon does something of his own volition that pleases God.

Philippians 2:12-16 tells the Colossians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling doing good because it is God in them working in them to will and act for His pleasure. They are immediately told not to complain or argue while doing anything.

Psalm 149:4 tells us God takes pleasure in His people Israel

Hebrews 11:5-6 Enoch is commended for pleasing God, it is why he never saw death

Ephesians 5:8-10 tell us we must discern what is pleasing to God

John 8:29 tells us Jesus always does what pleases God

1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 tells us the apostles teach how to please God, it is to obey God’s commandments in sanctification, in the case of the Thesallonaians especially to abstain from sexual sin.

Colossians 1:9-10 tells us to seek God’s will to please Him with our walk

1 Chronicles 29:17 has a man claiming uprightness of his own heart and that God tests the heart and is pleased with uprightness. This also segues with 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

 

[JonC]

The framework has nothing to do with it in my opinion.

I believe it does, but I also side with you on this issue (with Edwards, anyway...which is close enough).

The reason I included the suggestion that @Reynolds comment not be evaluated within a Calvinistic framework is because you may have a view of Arminianism in contrast to @Reynolds view. As @Reynolds affirms Reformation Arminanism and you and I do not, he has the last say on what his view believes (just as between the two of you, you have the last say on Calvinism).

Why do you believe that, in the Arminianism framework, free-will differs from "possibility"?

 

[Reformed1689]

I believe it does, but I also side with you on this issue (with Edwards, anyway...which is close enough).

The reason I included the suggestion that @Reynolds comment not be evaluated within a Calvinistic framework is because you may have a view of Arminianism in contrast to @Reynolds view. As @Reynolds affirms Reformation Arminanism and you and I do not, he has the last say on what his view believes (just as between the two of you, you have the last say on Calvinism).

Why do you believe that, in the Arminianism framework, free-will differs from "possibility"?

I agree that the person has the last say on what they believe, but that doesn't necessarily include the logical conclusion. I said that I am sure that is not what he believes, but that is how I see that logic.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I agree that the person has the last say on what they believe, but that doesn't necessarily include the logical conclusion. I said that I am sure that is not what he believes, but that is how I see that logic.

David, I would love it if you ripped into my post #94 to test my conclusions.

 

[Reformed1689]

What Reynolds said about a permissive and perfect will makes sense. As I showed with the avalanche of bible verses earlier, God wills for Himself to be pleased and whatever pleases Him is His perfect will. God permits Himself to be dis-pleasured by the choices of His children, given the verses Benjamin quoted and many others I can seek.

What Joseph's brothers meant for evil, God meant for good. The evil that happened to Joseph was obviously within God's perfect plan. It was part of His will. Otherwise, it would not have happened.

For God to be dis-pleasured means He made His children in His image with freedom of choice. God foreknows these choices, but in a way that makes His Call to seek Him in nature, Law, or Gospel of Jesus Christ efficacious. A Call needed for slavation since we don't seek God on our own. God allowed the ability for His children to give into temptation for a mysterious reason to be explained when Lawlessness reaches its fruition.

Again, what do you mean when you say freedom of choice or "free will?" Calvinists affirm free will but recognize that does not mean you can choose anything period as if both choices are equal. You can only choose according to your nature.

The scriptures I have quoted may allow for a middle will. A kind of sovereign will where God is pleased to bring about ruin against those who hate Him (Hosea 10:10), but displeased at the death of the wicked (The Ezekiel verses previously quoted).

I personally do not see the disconnect. I see God as willing to punish the wicked, but not necessarily taking joy in that destruction. At least not in the sense that we use the words joy and pleasure. Again, I can will for justice to be done (aka someone being put to death for a murder) but that doesn't mean I take pleasure in it.

 

[JonC]

I agree that the person has the last say on what they believe, but that doesn't necessarily include the logical conclusion. I said that I am sure that is not what he believes, but that is how I see that logic.

I guess I am just not sure of your question (of how Arminianism's view of free-will does not correspond with the Calvinistic view of potentiality). It is a good topic and I hope to learn from your dialogue with Renolds.