No one who reads my blog should have to wonder, "So, do you suppose Stan is an Arminian or a Calvinist?" I have some 80 entries on Reformed theology ("Calvinism") and I think I've made my position quite clear. I haven't made these entries to fight with people. I've made these arguments because I think I have something really, really good and I am hoping that others might see it and get to share in it. I'm not arguing the point to be right. I don't think that "those dirty, rotten Arminians are not saved". (In fact, I'm certain that atheists are not saved, but would never tag on "dirty, rotten" to them, either.) No, I'm fairly confident Arminians are saved, so it isn't their eternal souls I'm concerned about; it's their joy to which I hope to contribute.
Still, at the back of my head, there is a nagging problem. I'm sure that Arminians are saved, but I'm not sure that their position is "okay". That is, back there in the recesses of my unexamined thought processes is a problem more serious than "I think we just disagree on this minor issue." Still, I haven't found out what it is ... until now.
One of the primary arguments between the two sides is over 1 Tim 2:3-4. "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." "There," they tell me, "it is explicit there that God does not choose some to be saved and some not to be saved because He desires all to be saved." So the conversation between a Calvinist (C) and an Arminian (A) might go something like this:
C: God desires all to be saved. We'll agree on that. So ... are all saved?
A: No, we're certain that not all are saved. In order to be saved, you have to place your faith in Christ.
C: So, since we both agree that God desires all to be saved and we both agree that God is sovereign, why is it that not all are saved?
A: Clearly something intervenes. Something trumps God's desire for all to be saved. God values something else higher than His desire for all to be saved.
C: Okay, I'm fine with that. So far we're in perfect agreement. God desires all to be saved. Check. God is sovereign. Check. There is a desire of God's that is countermanded because God wants something else more than He wants that desire. Check. So ... what is it that God values over the salvation of all men?
To me, the Arminian response is chilling. The thing, from their perspective, that God values more than He values His desire that all men be saved is -- human free will. (From an actual Arminian response: "It wouldn't be a free gift if it was a forced act.") I'm sure you've heard this. "God doesn't want puppets." So rather than actually save all, God subordinates His desire to do so to human self-determination.
You see, this really shakes me up. Here we have a God who we both agree is sovereign surrendering His own will to the will of the creature. His will is the salvation of all. The creature isn't willing, so in order not to disturb His creation, He lets them ... go to Hell if they choose. Now, from a parenting perspective, that would be damnable. "My son didn't want to walk across the street safely like I wanted him to, so he got hit by a car. Yes, I could have stopped him, but I value his free will over my desire for his well-being." For God to do it is astounding. Indeed, it is demeaning.
People complain about the "God of Calvinism". He's "not fair" if He actually chooses to save some and makes sure they are saved. That's "mean". That not one of those He would choose would actually be saved if He didn't act is irrelevant. That "all we, like sheep, have gone astray" is beside the point. That we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" is not worth noting. If God doesn't try to save everyone, He's bad. On the other hand, if He tries to save anyone against their will, He's equally bad. So we have a God who has bound His own hands to subordinate His will to the will of His creation. Now that is a frightening thought to me.
It's interesting Paul's use of the phrase, "the knowledge of the truth." He uses the exact same phrase in 2 Tim 2:25 when he says, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." In one case God desires that all get there. In the other it clearly states that God may (and, thus, may not) "grant them repentance", and that repentance leads to "the knowledge of the truth". Now, if God desires that all are saved, but may not grant repentance, what could prevent Him from achieving that desire? While "human self-determination" is a popular answer and even a warm one (we like "human self-determination"), it isn't a biblical one. The concept of human free will, especially as perhaps one of the highest values, isn't found in the Bible. It's imported from human philosophy, not the text of Scripture. This passage says that God grants repentance, not that human self-determination decides it. Indeed, it goes on to say that this repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth will provide an escape from the snare of the devil "after being captured by Him to do His will" (2 Tim 2:26). So what is it that would prevent God from obtaining the salvation of all if it is His desire to do so and it is He who grants repentance (and faith -- Phil 1:29)? If God is to be God, the only thing that could subordinate His desires would be His desires, something within Him that has higher value than the subordinate desire -- something He wants more than the previous. If that something is something outside Himself (like "human self-determination"), then God is subordinate to something outside Himself. If it is something within Himself, then God is subordinate only to Himself.
The Arminian view that God so highly values human Free Will that He sets aside His own desires and simply allows them to damn themselves is a real problem for me. I'm not saying they're not saved. I'm just concerned that placing your faith in a God who subordinates His own will to the will of His creatures is a shaky place to stand, especially when such a claim isn't supported in Scripture.
4 comments:
That is a fantastic observation, Stan. Well written.
Ryan! How've you been? Long time no "see". Hope you're well. (Of course, comments on the topic of "My Arminian Problem" are not likely the best place to say "How've you been?", but, hey, it's my blog. I can do what I want, right?)
So if Arminians ARE saved despite their "faulty" understanding, would it be correct to infer that you don't see the difference in beliefs as critical? I ask for two reasons:
1--Your next post suggests that you do feel it is critical for .
2--I was chastised for at Danny T's blog for suggesting that the difference is not that big of a deal. To be specific would require a trip to that blog, but in a nutshell, I didn't quite use that term when I was so chastised. I was scolded as my opponent reminded me of all the killing done over this issue back in days gone by (medieval times), to which I said that just because it was a big deal to them didn't make it so. The real problem was this buffoon's inability to distinguish between an issue being a big deal and those who would make it so. Another attempt to disparage me personally it seems.
Anyway, I am still at a point, as I study this issue, of not really being persuaded by either side. Neither has, it seems to me yet, to have the definitive argument which is beyond rebuke. I still don't see the abdication of sovereignty by God granting us the free will you don't see existing. It seems not unlike any other covenant He's made with OT characters. "You do this and I'll do that." You also suggest that it shows Him to be bowing to subordinates as if He has no "inside" desire that justifies it. Do you demand that His every move be explained to your satisfaction in order for you to buy in? I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, despite whatever pain I'm providing, just still seeking the closest thing to truth as I can.
Hey, Stan! I am well, thanks for asking. I just find myself very busy with my full-time job, teaching a night class at my alma mater, ministering to our house church and preparing for our first child, so there's not been a ton of time to comment, hence the brevity of the first one here. But no worries...I have your feed on my home page and check it every morning as if it were a part of my morning newspaper. :) Shoot me an e-mail and let me know how you are (unless, of course, you want to comment here...it's your blog!).
Post a Comment