Some people don't like to debate theology. I think that is unfortunate. If that is you then don't read this post. I think theology is important and should be debated.
So often those who hold to an Armenian understanding of Scripture will point to evangelism and simply say, "why should we evangelise if God predestined?" This is a question of ignorance as the answer is simple and biblical. That said I must propose a similar question to those who hold a classical Armenian perspective. Why pray?
If we are going to claim that man has a libertarian free will then how can we expect God to intervene? If God intervenes and changes a persons mind then that person's free will no longer exists.
This creates further problems. If God "foreknows" everything especially a person's decision regarding salvation and then you pray and God intervenes and the friend changes his mind and accepts the free gift of salvation what did God foreknow? Did God foreknow that you would pray? If He did then did you really have a choice in the matter? If you are just so convincing in your presentation of the gospel that convince that person to accept Christ then how could God have known that that person would accept Christ? If that person has libertarian free will then they could have chosen to reject Christ just as easily. If that is the case then how could God foreknow?
It seems to me the Arminian must make a decision to believe that God did not foreknow, at least in the sense classic Arminianism suggests or they must come to a different understanding of free will and predestination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Couldn't one also argue that prayer faces the same problem in a predestination view? If God predestines "x" to happen, will He not do it whether someone prays about it or not?
For those holding to free will, I think most of them would not so much hold to a "libertarian" concept where God cannot and does not intervene. John 14-16 teaches that the Spirit comes to convict the world (not just Christians) of sin, righteousness and of judgment. If someone holds to free will, they would probably say that they pray that God works in a person's heart and that they do not harden their hearts to the Spirit.
Personally, I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I think the Biblical position rests in the middle of the two views.
One of the important factors influencing whether or not a person becomes a Christian is that the god of this world has blinded their understanding. My prayers include breaking the power of the god of this world and releasing the person's understanding so that they can truly exercise their free choice in responding to God's invitation.
When I intervene in a family situation and change my husband's mind, I have not taken away his free will - we have together danced a dance of communication and love arriving at a conclusion together.
Anonymous,
What would they hold to?
Beth,
That sounds pretty calvinistic. Arminians believe in prevenient grace which removes the blinders, so to speak. This grace is applied to everyone.
I'd like to recommend the book "Arminian Theology" by Roger Olson to "anonymous" and to anyone reading this thread. There's no position in the middle of the two views. There are positions OTHER than the two views, but no hybrid position is possible.
The chief distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism is not whether or not God predestines things to happen - both agree that God is sovereign. It's not whether or not humans have free will - both positions agree that we do. The central question is whether God's grace can or cannot be resisted. Olson makes the distinction very clear, and in a very readable style.
Why do Arminians pray? Because we believe that God is sovereign, and can sovereignly decree that things happen. What makes Arminians Arminians is that we believe that at the point of grace, when God in His sole initiative sovereignly enables a person to choose or reject Christ, God sovereignly allows that decision to be a free one. That at that moment, each person can either choose to resist God's grace, or to surrender to it.
Denes,
Thanks for the comment, I believe it is helpful. I am not so sure most Arminians would agree with your assesment of what God can and cannot do. If God intervenes doesn't that negate the free will of man as understood by Arminians?
As for your assesment of what Arminians and Calvinist agree on, you are right on. The only thing is they have different definitions and a different understanding of how those things work. I might pick up that book though.
John, no - Arminians don't believe that ALL Divine intervention undermines God's goodness as expressed in free relationship with humanity, but only that Divine compulsion in relationship violates God's goodness.
The important point, as Olson makes clear, is not human free will for its own sake, but for the sake of God's goodness. Is God sovereign, or is He good? Both Calvinists and Arminians would say that He is both, but Calvinists start their thinking with God's sovereignty, and Arminians start their thinking with God's goodness as revealed in free relationship.
God intervenes in human existence - no Arminian I've ever talked to or read would ever deny this. But God does not irresistibly compel humans to accept Him. That's the key.
I don't know about "most Arminians," but I do know a bit about Arminian theology.
I heartily recommend Olson's book.
Denes,
You are probably right that most Arminians do not believe that God does not intervene. My point is that, that kind of thinking is untenable. It is more than where they start.
Calvin himself did not believe that God compells anyone to salvation. I agree with him. That is a common misunderstanding. Instead it is that God's Grace once revealed is irresistable. Not because God copells, but because man truly has the ability to choose freely when that grace is revealed.
If God does intervene, according to Arminian Theology, on what basis does He do so? Is it on the basis of His foreknowledge? If so then the person He intervenes with was not truly free to choose (According to Arminian theology not Calvinistic or reformed).
John, God intervenes in the world on the basis of His love and sovereign authority. I guess I don't understand your question.
If you're asking about predestination, yes, God does predestine people based on His foreknowledge of their response to His Grace.
Arminianism teaches that God sovereignly elects to save all those who through His Grace believe in Jesus and persevere in faith and obedience. He elects them as a category not as individuals - before time began, He determined to save those who would respond to His Grace. In His omniscience, He foreknows all who will accept His offer, and predestines those to be saved.
I don't understand how you are using the word "intervenes." Salvation is the gift of God from first to last, and no one can come to Christ unless the Father calls him. If that's what you mean by "intervenes," then Arminians believe that God "intervenes" a little bit in EVERYONE's life, giving each person enough Grace to make a free choice to accept Christ or reject Him.
If by "intervenes" you mean that God's call is irresistible, then Arminians would disagree. God's call and God's grace are resistible. God desires that all should be saved, but not all are. God offers Christ to every sinner, but not all accept.
It's true that Calvin was not a 5-point Calvinist, but the 5 points are logical inferences from Calvin's principles. Arminians believe in Total depravity, reject Unconditional election, Limited atonement and Irresistible grace, and are divided on the Perseverance of the saints.
Denes,
For me it is the whole system. I don't see how anyone can claim one specific part of Arminian or Calvinistic theology without holding to most of the claims made by that system. It is not just God's soveriegnty or predestination or God's goodness, it is how wll of it works together.
If God intervenes in the area of salvation or any other choice it can not be based on foreknowledge because that intervention would mean that either the person did not really have free choice (God's intervention took that away)or God did not really base His choice to intervene on His foreknowledge. If it is as simple as foreknowledge, then intervention is not necessary.
I am not sure if I am being clear. I think Brude Ware does some good explaining regarding this issue. You can listen to him on http://theresurgence.com/podcast.
This will be my last post to this blog, but if you would like to continue the conversation I would be more then happy to do so. You can e-mail me with a response if you like.
Post a Comment