Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

Unfortunately threads like this have become the rule. TBN gives almost as much interaction, and they are much more entertaining.

 

The "flaws of Calvinism" aren't what's being exposed. Someone ought to cover the Emperor since he won't cover himself.

 

The answers are available. If anyone thought you would listen then they would probably give them to you. I know I would.

 

Me: I'm not answering because you're not listening.

You: You won't answer because we don't agree with you.

Me: See, I told you.

This would be a lot more fun if you would respond to what people say instead of responding to what you think.

 

Bob,

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Neither do Calvinists.

 

Is this what you are calling "the innevitable Future Calvinist scenario"?

 

Which Calvinist came up with that?

 

That scenario might be future, but it's not inevitable, nor is it Calvinist.

Why do you think God won't save my daughter?

Why do you think it would be unfair if He didn't?

Why does it make you feel better for God to give a child to Christian parents, knowing that the child will never believe, but telling them that it is her own fault? Or better yet, that it is their fault for being such sorry witnesses? After all, God did all He could, right? It had to be someone else's failure that sent the child to Hell.

Why wouldn't it have been better for Him to not even create her to begin with?

Why wouldn't that be the first question those parents would ask God?

How would He answer?

Why do you let your emotions drive what you believe?

 

What is the Arminian future scenario?...Well, given their definition of "Free will," there can't be one at all, since God can't know the future...Oops, but He does, but that contradicts the definition of freedom. Open Theism is simply logically consistent Arminianism. That is the real Arminian future scenario, since, taken to its logical ends, God can be taken by surprise.

Dishonest post...this is not your own look, it is quoting somebody else and applying it to the issue, however rambling and incoherent you have been in this rant of a thread. If you wish to post your OWN look, then post YOUR take on it, not what others have written.

I can't help but notice, Bob, that your appeals here are all appeals to emotion. Not one single exegetical argument have you made. For the record, appeals to emotion are just that. Can you show logically why you are correct?

Where, pray tell, is libertarian free will taught in Scripture? Many an Arminian scholar has been asked and none can provide the answer. Are you more insightful on this than the best minds of your tradition? I mean you're the one here saying,

This sounds good until you understand what is meant by "free will" in the Arminian scheme. Let's be clear here, the definition of free will in your camp is simply "freedom to do otherwise." It is defined as freedom from ALL influences, specifically the freedom to act in a way contrary with your moral character. (Don't believe me? Tell us, how do Walls and Dongell define free will?) That amounts to "just because." So the objective data is not simply the choice or actions of man, because it must also include the reason for the choices those men make , and your view specifically denies compatibalist free will. Your "objective data" is, in reality, "an uncaused choice...the VERY DEFINTION OF ARBITRARY, RANDOM, AND CHANCE! In other words if we attached a number to quantify the "objective" data, it would have to be "0"...not even that really, it would have to be "the empty set: nothing." So, your system has taken you, by its own concept of what constitutes a responsible and free choice or act, to: Random, Arbitray, Chance, Nothing Who here is arbitrary, then? Your side, because of the definition given by it for free will. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that we could have done otherwise. Walls and Dongell, representative theologians from your side of the aisle end their definition of libertarian freedom by asserting that to prove the validity of libertarian free will “…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.”

You may ground the basis of election, but your definition of "free will" cannot ground the reason and cause for the choice itself, and if it is found in the individual then it makes God a respecter of persons and it is the beginning of salvation by merit. Your view has the exact same problem as the one you are attempting, however feebly, to dispute. It is simply on the other side of the equation.

Do the lost die in their sins? Yes or no. Do they deserve to hear the gospel? Yes or No.

It is "sorrowful"...because the lost died in their sins. Reprobation as condemnation is conditional, not unconditional in both systems, Bob. The condemnation of the lost in neither system is unjust. It would be unjust if God elected based on something intrinsic in the person. Oops, that's what Arminians believe! Why should God elect anybody, even in the Arminian scheme? Are you suggesting that people deserve to hear the gospel and believe? This is also a problem for the Arminian, who, if a child is not saved must explain why God created a child, put them in a Christian home, etc. knowing that they would not believe. Arminianism has no explanation as to why God purposefully and deliberately creates those who He knows will be lost and who will spend eternity in hell. You have forgotten that in your view God also foresees who will be lost. Boettner:

How can what is done with a definite purpose be arbitrary?....(Watches Bob Ryan clutch at the straws to build the man). If election is grounded in God and not man, what, pray tell, is less arbitrary than God? To say that unconditional election is arbitrary is just plain dishonest, Bob. Your view is real fatalism, since it has God electing based on foreseen faith. . Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices, and in your scheme, since election is based on foreseen faith, those choices are fixed. The Calvinistic scheme has God decreeing the ends and the means, but it is still personal. Yours is the exact same doctrine of fatalism espoused by pagans. (Incidentally, it is also the same doctrine as Rome).

No Calvinist teaches that election is arbitrary, because it simply isn't arbitray since, by definition, God does not do anything in an arbitrary fashion. It is simply beyond controversy that God does not operate in an arbitrary fashion in anything He does. Thus, this is your straw man, Bob, and that is all it is. Calvinists teach that election is not grounded in the person, because it makes God a respecter of persons if He does that.

How exactly is the Calvinist scheme "arbitrary?" Just stating, "Because the reasons are undisclosed" is not an answer, since there are other things that God has done that you do not call arbitrary even though He has not disclosed the reasons! If you use this answer, you betray a lack of continuity in your thinking. Likewise, "Because it is unfair" is not an answer, since Arminians must also answer the same charge with respect to God knowingly creating people He knows already will not believe and be saved. Saying "Because people don't have a choice" is not an adequate answer, because then you must tell us why people deserve a choice.

It is the definition of favoritism to go with your scheme, Bob. It is your position that turns on favoritism, not ours, since ours removes the basis for election from man and places it in the only righteous judge, God Himself. Additionally, If all our choices are free from our own desire and free from the plan of God, which is exactly how Arminians define freedom of the will, then they are based on chance. This means that God could be taken by surprise. A chance event is defined as one that does not have a sufficient cause that would make it utterly unpredictable, even to God. But we all know that chance is utterly inconsistent with God’s sovereignty, providence and foreknowledge of future events. This creates another fatal flaw in the philosophy of libertarian freedom.

God dispenses spiritual gifts according to His own sovereign will and does not disclose the criterion He uses for it. This is agreed upon by Arminians and Calvinists alike. Are you also arguing that God is "arbitrary" in the distribution of spiritual gifts, in the placement of children into the families about which you write, in the sending of rain, in the founding of churches, etc? I hope not. The date for the end of all things is fixed by God alone:

Calvinists teach the actual criterion for election is not fully disclosed by God, but it is purposeful and not arbitrary, in the same way as the setting of this day. Will you seriously argue that the date for the Final Judgment is also '"arbitrary" since it too is a choice that God alone has made on an undisclosed date and for reasons known only to Him? Of course not, but you are doing exactly that with election. This is grossly inconsistent, and just an irrational appeal to emotion.

To ask God what basis he has for choosing some and not others is to assume that there is some principle or virtue outside and greater than God himself, which is an impossible supposition. There is no higher reality than God Himself. Goodness is not something found outside of God that he appeals to but is intrinsic to His very nature. When you say unconditional election is "arbitrary" you are attacking the character of God Himself. You are also insinuating that He is dependent on man.

When you make this accusation, Bob, you are saying "It would be arbitrary and unfair if you do the choosing and not us because you can’t possibly have reasons good enough since I can’t think of any.” It is to demand that God answer for why he made the sky blue or some people to be born in Africa and some in North America. God’s good pleasure is the crowning reason for all these things and we should rest content in that. Anything less is to doubt the character of God. You are saying saying that you cannot trust God in making this choice and prefer it to be left up to the fallen individual, as if he would make a better choice than God. Additionally, in grounding election in man, you are saying here that faith is the basis of election and not God Himself. Faith is man's savior, not Christ, in such a view. Moreover, if all are drawn and not all are saved, then God is foolish and a failure.

God’s freedom is the real freedom defined by the Scriptures -- a freedom from sin, not a freedom to do otherwise. God is free in the compatibalist sense in that He always acts according to His nature, never against it. God does not have ‘freedom’ to do what is contrary to His nature, which is inclusive of His moral attributes, so He is not free in the libertarian sense (in fact no one is). In a similar way, we all strive toward and look forward to the day when we will no longer be bound by sin and injustice. Christians believe our resurrection bodies will be free from all sin and death, as did the School of Hillel. This means there will be no libertarian freedom on the new earth because we will be compelled to choose good because that is what we will want by nature.

Hendryx:

So, Bob, is God a robot? What about Satan is he a robot too?

Your view denies God freedom as well as responsibility; it gives men more freedom than God, and it ultimately removes the ground for moral responsibility, since men sin because “they are imperfect,” not because “their desires are inherently sinful,” leaving the possibility of uncaused choices or contra-affectional choices real and the forces of chance to work and take God and man both by surprise. There is simply no passage in Scripture where our wills are seen to be independent of God’s plan and our desires (libertarian freedom). The position is genuinely a philosophical construct.

You keep harping on Matt. 7's use of the word "few"...You may as well say, "Since God alone can create stars, Calvinists believe there must be few stars." The doctrine of election says a sum total of zero about the ultimate ratio of the lost and the saved. Try reading what Charles Hodge, WGT Shedd, BB Warfield, Robert L. Dabney, S.G. Craig, and Lorainne Boettner have actually written about the subject. They have actually said, when addressing that very issue

It is a straw man to argue about this the way you do, Bob, and, yes, it is dishonest. This is your consistent pattern. Please deal with what Reformed theologians have actually written. Calvinists here do not respond to threads like this much not because they can't answer you; it is because they come across as shrill and pedantic rants that only address straw men and not what they actually believe, and when they do answer (and utterly refute you in the process) you simply dismiss them and post the same things repetitively as if they've gone unanswered. You misrepresent what they actually teach instead of addressing issues logically, rationally, and above all, exegetically . "It's terrible, its unfair, it's...it's...<insert appeal to emotion here>." Why should they respond when you can't deal with what they actually have to say without appealing to emotion in the process . Christians do not make doctrine based on emotion!