But while we take sides and take them boldly with strong belief, we're not always consistent in the way we act - myself included. I often see, hear about, and read about many Arminians acting like Calvinists and many Calvinists acting like Arminians. Here's a few ways this plays out.
Arminians Acting Like Calvinists
Plenty of Arminians frequently use simple sayings like, "Whatever happens happens," or, "it was meant to be." I'm not saying Arminians who say these things don't believe in free-will, but it is interesting to think about why they say them. If so many things were just meant to be then do we really have free will? If whatever happens will happen then what's the point of free will?
What about when Arminians pray? It's not uncommon to hear prayers for God to open up the hearts of unbelievers in Arminian churches or small groups. But what about the free-will choice to believe?
Or consider when Arminians try to ease someone's suffering by saying, "It was God's will." Was that car-accident or that sin that affected others so heavily really God's will? I'm playing both sides here, but feel free to leave your comments one way or the other.
Calvinists Acting Like Arminians
Ever seen a Calvinist share the gospel? They push pretty hard for a choice from the unbeliever. I can just hear those wheels turning... so let it out in the comments section. Let me reiterate that I'm trying to spark thought and discussion here, not claiming I've got the answers.
Ever hear a Calvinist complain that they don't understand why or how an Arminian can believe as they do?? Never mind that according to Calvinism God had already predestined that Arminian to believe that way. Think about it.
Ever hear a Calvinist apologize? Should they really be sorry for God working out his perfect pre-determined plan? I mean it's not like their little mistake slipped through the cracks of God's eternal decree, is it?
My point is this: most of us are not as staunch in our stance as we think. Are some people more consistent than others? Absolutely. I'm just saying these things are pretty common for both camps. I know where I stand on which one I think is biblical. I bet you do to. If you don't I encourage you to search the Scriptures with a humble and submissive heart and mind to find out. Wrestling with Calvinism/Arminianism debate by reading the Word, prayer, and talking with more mature Christians has helped me grow immensely in my faith... and it will for you as well.
Don't shy away from these discussions simply because you feel they're not essential to your faith. Many Christians don't care about these things until one of their close friends disagrees with them. It's important to search the truth of the Bible to know the correct views of God and to be able to refute the false ones. Just remember that while one might be wrong (or both to a degree) neither side is going to hell. Jesus brings us all under one family.
Great points. I think both Arminians and Calvinists should try to be as consistent as possible.
ReplyDeleteSome possible responses that could/would be given to both sides:
Arminians:
1) True, a universal fatalism would be incompatible with free will, but perhaps an Arminian would still be able to say that God does unilaterally bring many things about. Or, one could point out that God can, and does providentially order things in a way that works with and through our free choices.
2) An Arminian could say that in praying for someone's salvation, we are praying that God grant those persons the grace that will *enable* them to respond, rather than *determine them to respond. I think an Arminian could coherently pray in that fashion.
3) As for suffering being God's will...that one is certainly much tricker. In one sense everything that is permitted by God is weakly "willed" by him, but certainly we do not want to say that evil is strongly willed, or brought about, by God. But I'm sure that sometimes, God does unilaterally bring about suffering for some good reason.
Calvinists:
1) No doubt, a Calvinist will respond to this by saying that God predestines means as well as ends, and our witness is the means to God's end of saving people. If some people respond, it's because God unilaterally changes them to be infallibly receptive to the message.
2) Indeed, one of the strange things about Calvinism is that God predestines people to believe what is false, to write books against Calvinism, etc :) The Calvinist would likely respond by saying God does these things, as well as causes other evils, for some greater good.
3) I suppose a Calvinist might just bite the bullet and say free will in the libertarian sense (freedom to do otherwise) is not necessary for moral responsibility, but just the freedom to do what we want (even if what we want is determined by God). That's how he might argue that apologies are still meaningful.
It's no secret where I stand on these issues, but that's how I think both sides would probably respond. ;)
I agree in part with Kyle above concerning prayer. I am a strong classical Arminian yet I pray earnestly and daily for the lost. I too have had Calvinist ask me why I pray this way if I believe in free will? My answer is that Arminians believe in prevenient grace. We believe that people come to faith in Christ because of the drawing of the Father (John 6:44) through the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:17). The difference is that we believe that a person is justified by faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9) and not unto faith.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to understand that calvinists do break the link between ability and responsibility. Human philosophy teaches that if I don't have the ability to fly, then you would be wrong to try to hold me responsible for not flying. If I'm not capable of A, then you can't reasonably ask me to do A.
ReplyDeleteYou surely see this foundational (but unbiblical) principle implied by many noncalvinist teachers who point to God’s commands (e.g. “I set before you life and death…choose life…” or “Repent and believe!”) as evidence that we are “free to choose” and therefore must have the capacity to obey. Wouldn't God be evil according to this human philosophy if He demanded the impossible?
Oddly enough, biblical commands such as “Be perfect” and “Love God with ALL your heart…” are never chosen as examples…because they more clearly demonstrate our inability. If we fail to keep one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking it completely. (Jam2:10) What man born of a human father can claim that he is truly capable of meeting this standard?
(If you are witnessing to a nonbeliever and trying to explain to them that they need Jesus what would you tell them? That they are a sinner because they've broken God's law? Yet they could throw the principle above back at you and argue that a "good" God could never require the impossible and demand perfect obedience in the first place…but I digress.)
Which is all to say that calvinists believe that we remain responsible for our choices even if we could never have chosen otherwise. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him 3 times, Jesus was certain. Peter was not "free" in any real sense to do otherwise. His denials in the future were as certain as anything he'd done in the past. Yet Peter was still responsible and was right to weep bitterly over his sin (Luke22:62) rather than deny responsibility as you seem to suggest would be more appropriate.
You run into the same kind of issue when reading about Pharaoh. The first thing God tells Moses is that Pharaoh will not let the people go until God opens up a can. (exod3:19-20) The story becomes even more problematic because God isn't gentle and loving toward Pharaoh, but rather hardens him in his opposition…and claims to have raised him up in the first place because his opposition would allow God to display His power. Just kinda "lucky" that God was able to establish the passover/Lord's supper through Pharaoh's obstinance? Or if God intended Pharaoh's opposition all along, does that excuse Pharaoh? Of course not.
Rom9:17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?...
God intended that His Son suffer as a result of perjury and be killed unjustly…so does that excuse those who participated in His murder or did they need to repent as many of them did when confronted with peter's preaching?
Or as you put it: "Should they really be sorry for God working out his perfect pre-determined plan?" Your logic seems out of line with scripture here...
Acts2:23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Isa53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...
(continued...)
C.S. Lewis leaned too far on his pagan training and concluded that God understands time less clearly than we do. Lewis taught, “In a sense, God does not know your action till you have done it." OTOH, David was inspired by the Holy Spirit to deny that sort of nonsense:
ReplyDeletePsa139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
David knew God held and ordained his future - all of it, including his sin - and took comfort in that. But it was never an excuse for his sin.
So is that principle of human philosophy at the foundation of your reasoning rather than scripture? Free-willers and hyper-calvinists agree on that point - so free will-types argue that we must have the ability to choose otherwise or else we are just puppets and not responsible – and hyper-calvinists say that since the bible teaches that men don't have the ability to choose otherwise, there's no need to bother with mission work that calls men to repentance and obedience. But it's the same root issue IMO. Something to be wary of...
Much better to preach like Charles Spurgeon:
"I have one more thing to say about this (Calvinist) doctrine. It encourages the sinner. Sinner, sinner! come to Jesus; for "all things are of God." You are naked; the robe in which you shall be dressed is of God. You are filthy; the washing is of God. Come, and be washed. But you are unworthy; your worthiness must be of God. Come as you are, and he will cleanse you. You are guilty; your pardon is of God. Come to him, and his pardon shall be freely given. But you say, you are hard-hearted; a new heart is of God. Come to him; he will give you the heart of flesh, and take away the heart of stone... But you say, my very coming must be of God. Ay, blessed be God for that."
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0318.htm
-Charles