Common Misrepresentation of Arminianism

[Skandelon]

I understand now what you are saying. But it doesn't make sense to me.

Those two statements together pretty much sum up the reality of our discussion.

If all God's works are known to Him from the beginning of the world, that is, before anything that is created, was created, why are the sinful actions of men left out of His works?

Who said they are "left out?" God even uses the evil to accomplish his purpose, but to speculate or presume that God must have determined/cause/created/ordained (or whatever) sin is no biblically supported. Sure, just like Aaron appealed to mystery with regard to the origin of Satan's sin, there is a mystery with regard to how all of it works. We just can't go beyond the words of the scriptures in speculating on what God must have done or not done according to our finite human logic.

Please explain the following if you wish:
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

What is there to explain? He knows all his works from the beginning. We affirm this truth.

In Romans 9:17 God tells me that He raised up Pharoah for His purpose. Certainly this is the work of God, known to Him from the beginning. How is it that it can be said that God merely knew who and what Pharoah would be and do, when God says He raised him up?

God allowed Pharaoh to be in power, but are you suggesting that this passage teaches that God made him sinful and rebellious? He did the same for David, but God didn't cause him to sleep with Bathsheba.

God blinded Pharaoh from the obvious truth of the plagues in order to keep him sealed in his rebellion so that he would continue to do what he already wanted to do. Like when a cop hides his presence so the speeder keeps speeding. That doesn't make the cop culpable for the speeders crime.

Now, I want to contrast your example of what you think is a permissive decree with the text that your example comes from:

Acts 4
27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God does use sin and rebellion to accomplish his purposes, like the example of Pharaoh above. It was an active decree of God to hardened Pharaoh, just as it was an active decree to hardened Israel. But blinding them in their already rebellious condition is different than the concept that EVERYTHING they have EVER done from birth was a result of God active determinative decree. They freely chose to rebel. God didn't MAKE them rebel through causally determining their desires etc. They could have believed, but chose not to and they grew calloused. God simply blinded them temporarily in that already rebellious state in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose through them.

He permitted them to become rebellious, but he actively decreed them to be blinded in that rebellion in order to accomplish redemption through their rebellion. Make sense?

1. Where in the text is the idea of a permissive decree?

Any time it speaks of God "wanting/desiring" something that doesn't come to pass is usually referred to as God's permissive will/decree. For example, does God ever want you to sin? No. Do you sin? Yes. That is His Permissive will.

Even men like Jonathan Edwards and many Calvinistic confessions speak of God's permissive will. You don't affirm that concept?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Skandel,

How is it, that you say you were a Calvinist, yet confound double predestination with predestination?

God does use sin and rebellion to accomplish his purposes, like the example of Pharaoh above. It was an active decree of God to hardened Pharaoh, just as it was an active decree to hardened Israel. But blinding them in their already rebellious condition is different than the concept that EVERYTHING they have EVER done from birth was a result of God active determinative decree. They freely chose to rebel. God didn't MAKE them rebel through causally determining their desires etc. They could have believed, but chose not to and they grew calloused. God simply blinded them temporarily in that already rebellious state in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose through them.

What you are describing here is double-predestination. You should know that this is not historic Calvinism.

Now, explain one more time, what you meant by God being Himself informed by the actions or decisions of men.

Thanks.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandel,

How is it, that you say you were a Calvinist, yet confound double predestination with predestination?

Both Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism fall under the label of Calvinism. If I don't properly represent your brand of Calvinism just say so. No need to question the validity of my testimony.

Now, explain one more time, what you meant by God being Himself informed by the actions or decisions of men.

Thanks.

The term "foreknow" means to know something before hand. The question is how does God come to "KNOW" anything if he has always known everything there is to know. Under this presumption God can't even originate a thought because he would have always foreknown what he would think, so each thought of God has eternally existed. The problem with this view is regarding the origin of evil intent.

Satan desired to be like God which is an evil/sinful intent. Did that originate in Satan or God? If Satan, then God came to know of Satan's sinful intent through foreknowledge, and in this case God was "informed" by Satan. BUT, if God always knew of Satan's evil intent then the evil had to eternally exist and thus originate in the mind of God, which is blatantly unbiblical.

Our view is that God intended to create free mutable agents with free will. He came to know of their choices through foreknowledge of the actual events. The evil intent originated in the mind/heart of the agent, not God. God knows of that intent beforehand, but that evil did not eternally exist in the mind of God where as he would be the originator/author of it. Understand?

 

[glfredrick]

Both Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism fall under the label of Calvinism. If I don't properly represent your brand of Calvinism just say so. No need to question the validity of my testimony.



The term "foreknow" means to know something before hand. The question is how does God come to "KNOW" anything if he has always known everything there is to know. Under this presumption God can't even originate a thought because he would have always foreknown what he would think, so each thought of God has eternally existed. The problem with this view is regarding the origin of evil intent.

Satan desired to be like God which is an evil/sinful intent. Did that originate in Satan or God? If Satan, then God came to know of Satan's sinful intent through foreknowledge, and in this case God was "informed" by Satan. BUT, if God always knew of Satan's evil intent then the evil had to eternally exist and thus originate in the mind of God, which is blatantly unbiblical.

Our view is that God intended to create free mutable agents with free will. He came to know of their choices through foreknowledge of the actual events. The evil intent originated in the mind/heart of the agent, not God. God knows of that intent beforehand, but that evil did not eternally exist in the mind of God where as he would be the originator/author of it. Understand?

And the end of your argument is open theism... Going there?

Why can't God have known all? Is there any reason in particular apart from the fact that some people are uncomfortable with the ramifications of such knowledge?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And the end of your argument is open theism... Going there?

Why can't God have known all? Is there any reason in particular apart from the fact that some people are uncomfortable with the ramifications of such knowledge?

good question! You ever get a solid answer to that, please let me know.

 

[Skandelon]

And the end of your argument is open theism... Going there?

Actually, it's not.

Open Theism, like determinism, attempts to do away with the mystery and tension of the revelation by making a systematized dogma from their finite logical and philosophical speculations about infinite matters. I'm fine with the appeal to mystery.

The overarching thesis of Open Theism is this --
1. God gave human beings a true free will. (I agree on this point)
2. If God knows the future, human beings cannot truly be free. (I think this is speculative)
3. Therefore, God cannot know the future. (I disagree on this point)

Thus, I'm not an Open Theist, but I know it is easier to label and dismiss someone rather than deal with the content of their arguments.

Why can't God have known all?

I think He can. I also think he can choose not to know somethings if He wants. Like the way in which Jesus is not privy to the second coming, for example.

 

[thomas15]

So, in sum, you can't answer the question. Rather, you have moved into some weird doctrine where God is learning things from man. Just admit it to the board that you have departed from basic orthodoxy.

I consider myself calvinistic but some of your doctrines seem weird to me.

 

[Skandelon]

BTW, Fredrick, you accuse my view of ending in open theism, but what about where your view logical leads? Sinful evil eternally existing in the mind of God. God as the author and originator of evil.

So, which is really worse?

1. God not fully foreknowing of every free choice of man

or

2. Every heinous, horrible, evil intent ever committed in this world eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of our holy perfect God.

If I have to pick one, which I don't believe I have to do because it presumes finite logic dictates an infinite God, then I'd still rather pick #1. Biblically #2 is much less defensible. But, why not just appeal to mystery, which you have to do anyway at some point in the discussion? Why not just say, "I don't understand how it all works, His ways are higher than our way?" and leave it at that? Why do you need to speculate and bring into question the holiness of our God?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I consider myself calvinistic but some of your doctrines seem weird to me.

Yea, which ones?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Both Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism fall under the label of Calvinism. If I don't properly represent your brand of Calvinism just say so. No need to question the validity of my testimony.



The term "foreknow" means to know something before hand. The question is how does God come to "KNOW" anything if he has always known everything there is to know. Under this presumption God can't even originate a thought because he would have always foreknown what he would think, so each thought of God has eternally existed. The problem with this view is regarding the origin of evil intent.

Satan desired to be like God which is an evil/sinful intent. Did that originate in Satan or God? If Satan, then God came to know of Satan's sinful intent through foreknowledge, and in this case God was "informed" by Satan. BUT, if God always knew of Satan's evil intent then the evil had to eternally exist and thus originate in the mind of God, which is blatantly unbiblical.

Our view is that God intended to create free mutable agents with free will. He came to know of their choices through foreknowledge of the actual events. The evil intent originated in the mind/heart of the agent, not God. God knows of that intent beforehand, but that evil did not eternally exist in the mind of God where as he would be the originator/author of it. Understand?

When you say "our view" who are you referring to?

Since God is eternal, and matter and all things are not, and all things are come into being by God through Christ, everythign that is, both great and small, good or evil, then it must be that all things are decreed by Him.

What you are describing I found in Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology. Perhaps Hodge or others discuss it as well. But I don't see a name for it.

Another form of Scientia Media is, however held by some. According to this, the future event to which it refers is known to God as an event that will take place, but his knowledge of that fact is attained, not through his decree, but through his foreknowledge that, under certain circumstances, a man will pursue one course of action rather than another.

This kind of Scientia Media teaches:

(1.) The future event as certain.

(2.) That God knows it as such.

(3.) That this knowledge does not arise from his decree.

(4.) But, from his knowledge of the nature of the man, together with that of the circumstances that will surround him, he knows that he will act in a particular way.

The only question here is as to the 3d and 4th, for it agrees with the usual orthodox statement in saying, 1st, that it is certain, and 2d, that God knows it as such.

http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch9.html

I would suggest reading the whole section. Here is my take away.

If the above is true, and it is regarded as universally true, then such teachers are espousing nothing more than Deism. But this would be denied by such as true. It is not being suggest here, from you Skand, that God does not influence or act in any way with the world and people.

As a result, Boyce's analysis is quite correct:

The theory thus presented, as will be seen, admits the continued preservation of all things, with all their powers. This can only result from God's providential action, and involves all that concurrence with events on the part of God through which alone they preserve and exercise effectively the powers he has given them.

This being admitted, then the views held by these parties, stated in any form in which they could hold them, would involve no additional fact beyond the distinction, recognized by all orthodox divines, between the absolute and permissive decrees of God.

And, being the case, I ask you Skand, if inded you are espousing nothing more than the absolute and permissive decrees of God, then what are you fighting against?

What are you disagreeing with here:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

BTW, Fredrick, you accuse my view of ending in open theism, but what about where your view logical leads? Sinful evil eternally existing in the mind of God. God as the author and originator of evil.

So, which is really worse?

1. God not fully foreknowing of every free choice of man

or

2. Every heinous, horrible, evil intent ever committed in this world eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of our holy perfect God.

If I have to pick one, which I don't believe I have to do because it presumes finite logic dictates an infinite God, then I'd still rather pick #1. Biblically #2 is much less defensible. But, why not just appeal to mystery, which you have to do anyway at some point in the discussion? Why not just say, "I don't understand how it all works, His ways are higher than our way?" and leave it at that? Why do you need to speculate and bring into question the holiness of our God?

No one is speculating or bringing into question the holiness of God. But if you suppose so, as you state here, then you have as well. You admit plainly you would choose the first because in your estimation is is the lesser of two evils, which both do harm to the holiness and glory of God.

Rather, I think the Reformed doctine of predestination establishes the glory of God, rather than does it any harm.

But as for an appeal to mystery, men 400 years your senior suggested such:

The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

I agree with Boyce also on the matter who regarded it our duty to:

1. seek to learn all the facts made known by reason and revelation.
2. to accept them.
3. to recognize them as the testimony of God.
4. to admit our knowledge in imperfect.
5. to believe that further information will remove the difficulties.
6. to refuse to use the difficulties to reject what God has actually taught.
7. to believe that the teaching of God, no matter how it seems to our minds, is just, holy, perfect, and right.

The doctrine of predestination is naturally revolting to the minds of men. It dethrones us from being the arbiters of our own destiny and casts us upon the mercy of God to do with us as He wills.

This is why your reply to my statements on Pharoah fall on deaf ears. It's not that I don't understand. But what does the Scripture say?

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

Either I have a bad translation, or else this text means what it says. There is no double meaning, as we know that the text as one meaning.

Pharoah didn't raise himself up. Pharoah didn't decide to that he would exist to fulfill God's purpose. In fact, this text, quoting the Old, it is not even concieveable that Pharoah knew this Scripture. God's purpose was to glorify His name. In the accomplishment of that He raised up Moses as a deliverer to His people, and Pharoah as the object of His wrath.

This is where the objection comes in. This is where the carnal mind cries out. And this is where the Holy Spirit says to all:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, it's not.

Open Theism, like determinism, attempts to do away with the mystery and tension of the revelation by making a systematized dogma from their finite logical and philosophical speculations about infinite matters. I'm fine with the appeal to mystery.

The overarching thesis of Open Theism is this --
1. God gave human beings a true free will. (I agree on this point)
2. If God knows the future, human beings cannot truly be free. (I think this is speculative)
3. Therefore, God cannot know the future. (I disagree on this point)

Thus, I'm not an Open Theist, but I know it is easier to label and dismiss someone rather than deal with the content of their arguments.

I think He can. I also think he can choose not to know somethings if He wants. Like the way in which Jesus is not privy to the second coming, for example.

I'm not labeling... I asked an honest question of you concerning the direction your proposed theology was leading. You admit with the proposition above that a true free will perspective applied to God can and does lead to open theism, so I was not off the mark with my response.

By your response above, you disagree with the proposition, yet you wish to hold the parts of it that work for you. Especially in your dealing with #2, "If God knows the future..."

Are you somehow doubting that God knows the future? What of the myriad of prophecies in Scripture that prove beyond any shadow of doubt that God knows the future? What of the direct Scripture citations that tell us that God knows (and holds, and directs!) the future?

Seems that your opposition to proposition point #2 is where you fall off the wagon on this issue, and that is so that you can arrive at your final destination -- an unknowing God and total human freedom -- while still presuming upon us that you hold some semblance of biblical theology.

 

[glfredrick]

BTW, Fredrick, you accuse my view of ending in open theism, but what about where your view logical leads? Sinful evil eternally existing in the mind of God. God as the author and originator of evil.

So, which is really worse?

1. God not fully foreknowing of every free choice of man

or

2. Every heinous, horrible, evil intent ever committed in this world eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of our holy perfect God.

If I have to pick one, which I don't believe I have to do because it presumes finite logic dictates an infinite God, then I'd still rather pick #1. Biblically #2 is much less defensible. But, why not just appeal to mystery, which you have to do anyway at some point in the discussion? Why not just say, "I don't understand how it all works, His ways are higher than our way?" and leave it at that? Why do you need to speculate and bring into question the holiness of our God?

IF I had to choose between a weak God who did not know everything, and who was not in control of everything or a strong God who was deterministic to a fault, I would choose the deterministic God and give Him ALL the glory. After all, HE is God, not me, and it is not as if I actually have a choice in what it is that He does, thinks, plans, proposes, or enacts, do I?

Of course, you're following a red herring argument with a strawman example, but why not. I'm willing to go there, you, evidently, are not.

 

[Skandelon]

IF I had to choose between a weak God

Weak? That is all in the perspective, I think. I think its weak to presume God needs to play both side of the chess board to guarantee a win. It is much more impressive when someone conquers a real opponent.

and who was not in control of everything

Even the scripture says that God gives over dominion to his creatures. It speaks of rulers and principalities of this dark world...that in itself supports more of the view of a God who limits His "control" by allowing others rule and free choice. That is NOT to say God couldn't take control or overrule any power at His pleasure, but its just to say that just as parents can give some authority to their child, so too God could choose to give over some control to his creatures. Scripture supports this concept in the story of Job, where Satan is given control over Job to a degree.

or a strong God who was deterministic to a fault, I would choose the deterministic God and give Him ALL the glory.

Looking at this objectively, you must realize that with all this so called "glory" also comes all the so call blame and culpability for evil. In my system, there is no reason to lesson the glory due to God. A gift doesn't have to be given irresistibly for it to merit the same amount of credit. I could offer super bowl tickets to 10 friends but only 9 of them receive the gift, so I find another friend to give the last ticket to. Just because the one friend resisted or refused the gift doesn't make the other friend less grateful. I receive no less glory as the giver of that gift simply because it is able to be refused.

Of course, you're following a red herring argument with a strawman example, but why not. I'm willing to go there, you, evidently, are not.

You need to be more specific with this accusation. What is the strawman? What is the red herring? And why?

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not labeling... I asked an honest question of you concerning the direction your proposed theology was leading.

Sorry, I read that intent into your question. But just understand this question is tantamount to my asking you if your proposed theology leads to fatalism or hyperism. Understand?

You admit with the proposition above that a true free will perspective applied to God can and does lead to open theism

No, I didn't. I simply was reporting the proposed tenets of Open Theism. I don't agree with the concept that foreknowledge negates true free will.

Are you somehow doubting that God knows the future?

No. I'm doubting that the infinite God's mere knowledge of the future necessitates His determination of everything within that known future.

The divine attribute of foreknowledge is most certainly an infinite concept, so to apply it to finite logical reasoning doesn't necessarily work. Speaking of "before" and "prior" are linear terms of time and space and don't really work with an infinite being. It's all speculation. We must stick to scripture and as far as I can see the scripture never equates foreknowledge with predetermination. In fact, scripture is quite clear that God hates sin and is holy and doesn't even tempt men to evil...much less predetermine it to occur because it eternally existed within his mind. To suggest that because of this infinite characteristic of foreknowledge (which we can't even begin to fully comprehend) that God MUST have predetermined evil and that all evil intents must have eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of God is absurd.

 

[Skandelon]

No one is speculating or bringing into question the holiness of God. But if you suppose so, as you state here, then you have as well. You admit plainly you would choose the first because in your estimation is is the lesser of two evils, which both do harm to the holiness and glory of God.

I agree, both do harm which is why I don't affirm either. Show me how Calvinism doesn't affirm #2 and remains logically consistent.

But as for an appeal to mystery, men 400 years your senior suggested such:

I agree with Boyce also on the matter who regarded it our duty to:

1. seek to learn all the facts made known by reason and revelation.
2. to accept them.
3. to recognize them as the testimony of God.
4. to admit our knowledge in imperfect.
5. to believe that further information will remove the difficulties.
6. to refuse to use the difficulties to reject what God has actually taught.
7. to believe that the teaching of God, no matter how it seems to our minds, is just, holy, perfect, and right.

On these points we most certainly agree. :thumbsup:

The doctrine of predestination is naturally revolting to the minds of men.

Yes it is, but that is not a badge of honor in light of the fact that scripture itself never warns that these particular doctrines would be revolting to born again believers.

This is why your reply to my statements on Pharoah fall on deaf ears. It's not that I don't understand. But what does the Scripture say?

Back when I was in High School debate class the teach forced us to repeat the argument of our opponent back in our own words to assure understanding. That would be a good rule for this forum I think. Sometimes its hard to know what people are really understanding based upon their response. I know what the scriptures say and I believe i've been true to them. You must show where I have not if you expect the discussion to carry on.

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

Either I have a bad translation, or else this text means what it says. There is no double meaning, as we know that the text as one meaning.

Asked and answered. Read the previous post to see my reply to this point.

Pharoah didn't raise himself up.

Agreed...read and deal with my last post to you...

 

[glfredrick]

Weak? That is all in the perspective, I think. I think its weak to presume God needs to play both side of the chess board to guarantee a win. It is much more impressive when someone conquers a real opponent.

Are you REALLY suggesting that God is at some sort of war with an enemy that just might win? REALLY?

Be gone heretic!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you REALLY suggesting that God is at some sort of war with an enemy that just might win? REALLY?

Be gone heretic!

Huh....He means the devil Im thinking.... but we know from scripture Lucifer cant win....its already planned out. But its not a game.....He isnt a player of pawns.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Huh....He means the devil Im thinking.... but we know from scripture Lucifer cant win....its already planned out. But its not a game.....He isnt a player of pawns.

But God really wanted a cosmic battle!

This old Bible thumper here read that God did all things for His glory, even created skandel for His glory.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you REALLY suggesting that God is at some sort of war with an enemy that just might win? REALLY?

Be gone heretic!

Did I say that? Did I say that the enemy "might win?" Of course I didn't, but since you can't deal with what I actually DID say you create a strawman and attack. Sad and revealing...