Roger Olson doesn't like the idea that God ordained the fall. He claims this makes God the "author of evil." I'll go into further detail on this in my review of his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. For now I'll focus on his answer. One of Olson's rejoinders to Calvinist answers is that our idea of God is one "whose goodness bears no real analogy to the best of human goodness" (111) and his justice "cannot be so foreign to the very best [human] understandings of justice ... that it is emptied of meaning" (120). This is a problem because, apparently, the most moral human would never "ordain," say, the holocaust. Or an axe murder. Or a rape. You get the point.
According to Olsen, God doesn't ordain sins, but "every human act, including sin, is impossible without God's cooperation" (121). God is not a "spectator" (121). "God ... cooperates with the creature in sinning" (122). Of course God can cooperate in a sin "without being tainted" (122). Apparently he can do this but can't ordain sin "without being tainted." More on this in my review. God cooperates but he does so "reluctantly" (123). He even does so "unwillingly" (123). He has the power to stop sin, but permits it anyway. He gives all sinners the power to commit sins that they would be unable to without his giving them the power. He does so because free will is so important to him that it's worth cooperating with the sinner so he can commit the sin (see 121-124).
Okay, let's now hold Olson to the standard he holds the Calvinist to. Would a "highly moral" human "permit," say, the the holocaust, or an axe murder, or a rape - you get the point, if he had the power to stop it? What would a "highly moral" human say about someone who did permit one of those things to happen when he could have stopped it? Would a "highly moral" human cooperate with a criminal to commit a criminal act? Apparently it is justified because libertarian free will is such a high good that the ends justify the means. For me, I don't share this intuition, indeed, it seems downright false. But let's not focus on that. Let's extend our thought experiment.
Say a "highly moral" human, Sally, invents a pill that can make the lame walk. Now, imagine a quadriplegic man. Call him Harry. When Harry meets Sally he lets her know that he would very much like the power to walk. Harry isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and so he lets Sally know that his desire is to kill his neighbor's 10 year old - that snot nosed, annoying punk who always called Harry the most awful names and said, "Nee ner nee ner, you can't get me." He wants to torture him for a while, cut off his legs, taunt him to "come and try and get him," and then pour gasoline on him and burn him alive. Would Sally, our "highly moral" human, give Harry the power to kill the 10 year old so that Harry could exercise his free will to the fullest? How about if there was a good that would come out of it? Say that Harry would come up with the cure for cancer while sitting in jail (purely by accident, of course, since he's not so sharp)?
If the answer is no, then Olson denies the very rules he makes us play by. If the answer is yes, then the "goodness" of a "highly moral" human is stretched such that Olson's argument ceases to be a relevant rebuttal to the Calvinist theodicies. Therefore, either Olson plays with a stacked deck, or his argument has no force against the Calvinist.
None of this is to deny the greater good theodicy. It simply defeats the defeater that the Arminian uses to defeat the Calvinist's answer. It simply shows that we can't claim God is immoral for doing p just because a lot of humans think p is evil.1 The problem here is the different agents. Humans are finite and we can appropriately judge most of their actions and reasons. God is infinite and so his his plan. The rebuttal here is one offered by many Arminian philosophers. It's called the skeptical theist response. The Arminian just isn't going to win the problem of evil argument against the Calvinist. I suggest they give it up. This entails that I am suggesting they give up their number one argument against Calvinism. What's more important? Intellectual integrity or defeating the Calvinists by self-excepting yourself from the very critique you give them? The latter isn't intellectually virtuous. Does Arminianism require its adherents to hold to intellectual vices? Or is this another "myth?" We'll wait and see.
1 To be clear, I deny virtually all of the intuition based Arminian moral arguments, what they lay at God's feet doesn't strike me as immoral, I'm granting some stuff for arguments sake. I'm answering Olson &c. on their own terms.
This to me is an indictment of both Calvinism and Arminianism, not a vindication of Calvinism due to your tu quoque response. I am troubled by the problem of the analogy between divine and human justice which becomes quite acute if God pre-ordains something like the Fall. What's the positive Calvinist response to this? Is there a sense in which human beings can say 'God is just' with some understanding of what that entails from our own experience? Or is it just a leap in the dark?
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteWas not Olson instructing the reader of Arminius's views on the topic? He began on page 120, "Much to the surprise of many Arminians, to say nothing of Calvinists, Arminius affirmed a very strong doctrine of God's providential sovereignty" &c.
But after allegedly quoting Olson from pp. 121-123, you put things in terms as though those statements belonged to Olson. I'm not saying that Olson does not agree with Arminius. I don't know if he does.
The point is that Olson was describing what Arminius believed and taught. I'm not sure you've accurately stated the way things really are; especially by saying, "According to Olson" (etc.), when he was interpreting Arminius (pp. 120-123).
Furthermore, I have a question (and it is an honest question ~ I'm not trying to pick a fight). What, in your opinion, is the importance, if any, between God's determining/causing an action and His permitting an action?
Sincerely,
Billy
Hi JD,
ReplyDeleteAlways nice to hear from you. Manata is free to respond in his own way. For what it's worth, I've often discussed a Reformed theodicy. Here are some examples:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/lazarus-come-forth.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/consolations.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/good-out-of-evil.html
Billy,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the entire section it is clear that Olson is putting this out as the correct position on the matter. Furthermore, Olson makes many comments that are his own and the footnotes indicate all the more that Olson is endorsing everything said. Moreover, Olson calls himself a Classical Arminian and is, apparently, instructing us all on the "realities" of Arminianism as opposed to the "myths." It would be odd if he were perpetrating more myths here without even indicating so.
"What, in your opinion, is the importance, if any, between God's determining/causing an action and His permitting an action?
I'm unclear on what you mean here. As I'll point out in my review, Olson is in the grip of some myths himself - myths about calvinism. The above are not contrary given the way Calvinists have spelled it out. If you mean "permission" in the sense Olson uses it, the problem is that I don't see the Bible putting things that way. But, this may not answer your question since I am unsure what you mean.
JD,
Since I didn't put foreward a positive defense of Calvinism against the charges of Arminianism, you can't go off the post and claim anything is an idictment of Calvinism. I do not think God is unjust for ordaining the fall and I can't find a persuasive argument that he is. Apparently Olson's argument entails that God is unjust even on Olson's view, so this can't be a reason - a good reason, at least - to argue for the unjustice of the Calvinist position.
It's faily obvious to me that any position that holds up this "human justice standard" will crash on the rocks of what we know about God and his actions from Scripture. I am of the opinion that the only way to escape the problem of arguing contrary to infallible revelation is by taking a limited view of inerrancy. That way you can chop off all the "nasty" parts I'll bring foreward as flying in the face of "human justice." Since I, and the Arminians I am responding to, don't feel like giving up traditional inerrancy and infallibility, that move is not an option - and it has its own problems.
The Arminian has huge problems when it comes to the fall, indeed, it looks necessitated. But this will get spelled out more fully in my review. I don't have the time to get into it now and I don't want to post too much since more is on the way.
With Steve, I have also put foreward some theodicies. See many of the posts in our debate with reppert:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
And here
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/partial-response-to-partial-response.html
and here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html
"This to me is an indictment of both Calvinism and Arminianism, not a vindication of Calvinism due to your tu quoque response."
ReplyDeleteBut in the context of dialogue, I did vindicate my position since my interlocutor has to drop his main argument against it. I think your statement here points out that my argument against Olson succeeded.
I guess most of us would perhaps be a little less hard on Olsen, or less inclined to condemn him for "arguing contrary to infallible revelation", since we don't believe that God ordained the fall.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess I don't think God is unjust for ordaining the fall either, particularly because God didn't ordain sin into existence in the first place. And nowhere in Scripture does it say that He did.
I would ask Manata to show us this passage in Scripture that says God ordained the fall that he keeps referring to - and that makes Olsen so unBiblical, but he might just consider that question irrelevant to the purpose of his upcoming review.
I didn't accuse Olson from arguing contrary to infallible revelation. Indeed, I affirmed that he affirmed it! Don't bother commenting in my comboxes if you're too lazy to think.
ReplyDelete"So I guess I don't think God is unjust for ordaining the fall either, particularly because God didn't ordain sin into existence in the first place. And nowhere in Scripture does it say that He did."
a) What does this have to do with my post?
b) You're not thinking again. Olson made an argument to the effect that if God ordained the fall, then he would be unjust and not good, because x, y, z. I answered him on his own ground. Playing your game, I guess I don't think God is unjust for being a failure at saving, particularly because God saved all those he intended to save. You wouldn't let that fly, why think you can except yourself?
"I would ask Manata to show us this passage in Scripture that says God ordained the fall that he keeps referring to - and that makes Olsen so unBiblical, but he might just consider that question irrelevant to the purpose of his upcoming review."
These kinds of "challenges" are self-evidentally stupid. Either you're aware of our massive amounts of literature proving this point and so you already don't believe those verses work, or you are totally ignorant of Reformed arguments in this area that you don't get to act so cocky considering the ignorance. Which is it? Are you being a sophist or are you ignorant?
I also never said Olson was "unbiblical" - though i think he is. Just as he thinks I am, and even said it. Sorry you think we can't call people's beliefs unbiblical. Did you even read my post? Don't comment in my combox again just to get off your "talking points" or you'll lose the priviledge of commenting.
You're not getting any where with me. Your "approach" isn't working. So, either change your approach or admit to yourself that I'm not gonna play your game and agree to disagree. Move on to the gullible.
Oh, btw, you might want to make a comment that is actually relevant to the post made for once. Give it a try. This is a commbox, not a soapbox. Got it?
Persiflage,
ReplyDeleteI noticed you let comments like this go on your blog without emoting all over the place:
Bobert said:
"I also could not resist commenting on your recent total depravity thread, I will be interested to see your response there. Keep up the good work of challenging the false system of calvinism by what the bible actually teaches."
This makes you look like a hypocrite. Im pegged you from the start. We've had so many like you stop by over the years, it's easy to sport you. We've even had "Christians" stop by that only defended atheists and their arguments, never defended Christianity, but kept saying "I'm a Christian," though. This is likke you coming in with the smile, saying you're not an "Arminian," and then sticking up for Arminianism on every post against it and on every point.
Just so you know that I know :-D
Paul,
ReplyDeleteLet’s change my approach here and if this doesn’t work, then I’ll quit reading and commenting on your blog if you don’t want me to. I’m not trying to play games. I’m not trying to be smart.
I’m not trying to make any points in order to make you mad at me. You asked if I’m just cocky or ignorant? I’ll confess that I’m ignorant when it comes to a lot of Reformed theology. I’ve read books by Calvinists like John Piper, Jonathan Rainbow, & R.C. Sproul, and a little Jonathan Edwards and Luther’s Bondage of the Will. I’ve read books by nonCalvinists, Norman Geisler, Dave Hunt and Lewis Sperry Chafer. I still feel like I’m just scratching the surface and the reason I haven’t just quit reading you, Steve and Peter about this stuff is because I’m still interested in learning more about it and how fellow Christians think.
I do, by the way, think you can call people’s beliefs unbiblical. And I’m interested in anyone calling my beliefs unbiblical if they are willing to make the effort to show how. Some of my best friends have done this before on different issues, and I’ve changed my mind about things as a result. I’m close to giving up on learning anything from this - but your interest in the topic at the same time that I have an interest in the same topic was why I was asking you questions.
Is it the fact that your website is a public forum? Because I think I’d be willing to actually have a conversation about this privately through email if that would help me understand your point of view better and make it seem less like my comments are trying to be a soapbox. I’m interested in making this discussion edifying.
If you want to call me an Arminian, go ahead. But I have no interest in Arminianism because they argue for doctrines that I’ve become convinced are not true. I’m also becoming more convinced that Calvinism isn’t true either, but I’m still trying to read more about it.
peace,
- Persiflage (J.P.)
"He does so because free will is so important to him that it's worth cooperating with the sinner so he can commit the sin"
ReplyDeleteThis sinner deserves hell.
I never think God's the author of my sin, because of Adam's disobedience and sin. Or that God's the author of Adam and Eve's falling from grace. Knowing the Lord ordained my salvation before He ever created Adam, humbles me. Why? Because I deserve God's holy wrath. Christ didn't deserve to die on a Cross for my sin, I deserved to feel the fullness of God's righteous wrath. Yet, He bestowed mercy on me!
Incredible! Amazing! Unbelievable!
Persiflage,
ReplyDeleteI do not have as much time as I used to. So, I'd rather not have to get involved in side discussions on my posts. Posts off topic but in agreement with my position are fine in the sense that I don't feel like I have to "respond" tom a challenge or argument.
This post had to do with some very specific issues raised by Olson. Specifically, his explicit reasons why he can't except the Calvinist interpretation of things. My intent in this post was to show that his argument, on its own terms, would lead him to reject his own view of God as "immoral." It was not a post intending to prove any positive Reformed doctrine by way of direct argument.
You claim to be "just scratching the surface" yet if one goes to your blog he'll see that you have an ongoing series on "Why I'm Not Reformed." One will see that you take some hardline issues on free will, such that it is just obvious that the Bible teaches libertarian free will by implication just because it uses words like "choice" because "choice" must mean some "libertarianly." So, Calvinists must be dishonest with people - as Bobert says and you do not correct.
At your blog you join Bob in agreeing that Calvinists complain that you can't find the word "freedom" or "libertarian" in Scripture, but the concept is there nonetheless. But then you say things like this here: "I would ask Manata to show us this passage in Scripture that says God ordained the fall that he keeps referring to." But there is no specific verse that says the words "God ordained the fall." Rather, I find the universals from which I deduce that particular ubiquitous in Scripture. I believe God decrees everything that happens in his creation, thus, by subimplication, the fall.
"I have no interest in Arminianism because they argue for doctrines that I’ve become convinced are not true."
Which ones?
Anyway, as I said, time is limited, I am trying to present specific argument and possibly answer (good) specific rebuttals to the specific arguments. I don't intend every post to be used as a springboard to comment on anything slightly related to what was said. I assume this can be seen to be reasonable.
Staying on topic is perfectly reasonable, and it is the topic of your post that I'm interested in.
ReplyDeleteThe topic, as I understand it, is the objection to God ordaining the Fall. Olsen does make some specific arguments about the "human" idea of justice. You're refuting these arguments seemed reasonable enough. But the idea of God ordaining sin still really bothers me. And if this makes any sense, it's not because of what it says about man (although I do believe man has free will), but it's what it says about the character of who God is.
Olsen objects that God would be "unjust" if He ordained the fall. I can't follow the logic of his arguments, but I can agree with the conclusion and I'm wondering why. Would a God who created/ordained/decreed the existence of evil and sin be all-good, all-righteous, all-holy, etc.? That's what bothers me, but I'm cool with saving that for a different discussion sometime if you think it's still not related enough to Olsen's arguments for this post. It's just that this post of yours was making me think of it.
You asked what the doctrines of Arminianism were that I think are not true. Well, as I understand Arminianism, (1) they teach that Christians can lose their salvation. I disagree - all the Scripture I've read affirms eternal security or "assurance of salvation." (2) Arminians teach that salvation is conditional upon "continued" faith. I think the Bible teaches that placing faith in Christ is a permanent decision, and once the process of sanctification has started, there's no stopping it. (3) Arminians teach that God bases His predestination on his foreknowledge of the future acts of man. I think Scripture teaches merely that God's predestination is "in accordance with" his foreknowledge - they go together, but one is not based on the other. (4) I've run across Arminians who basically argued for "universalism" - that everyone is saved. I'm not sure whether Arminius taught this or not, but regardless - universalism isn't Biblical. And (5) I'm a little confused whether there is an official position on total depravity among Arminians. I've heard them range from affirming the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity to denying original sin. I think denying original sin was Pelagius rather than Arminius. And I also can't agree to "total depravity" either. The problem here being is I don't think I've found an Arminian position on man's sin nature explained to me where I could agree with it. I admit I could just be confused as to what their position is.
So basically, I can't agree with Arminius when he seems to violate Scripture any more than I can agree with John Calvin - if that makes sense. And yet I get repeatedly called Arminian because I'll join their critique of ideas like Limited Atonement.
Confusing, but fascinating.
"The topic, as I understand it, is the objection to God ordaining the Fall. Olsen does make some specific arguments about the "human" idea of justice. You're refuting these arguments seemed reasonable enough. But the idea of God ordaining sin still really bothers me. And if this makes any sense, it's not because of what it says about man (although I do believe man has free will), but it's what it says about the character of who God is."
ReplyDeleteActually, the topic is about a defeater and a defeater-defeater.
Steve and I just got done debating Victor Reppert. We discussed this very objection in some detail. It may take a while, but you might want to read all the posts.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
Of course most humans are "bothered" by what God does. Atheists reject God for the same main reason Arminians reject the Calvinistic God - the problem of evil. No matter all the free will cards you pull, the Jesus loves you card, the God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, the idea that there is evil at all given an all good, all loving God "bothers" atheists - especially gratuitous evil like Bambi suffering in a forest fire started by lightning. Or, the fact that 100,000 kids had to be molested this year. Why couldn't God have stopped it at 99,999? This "bothers" atheists. At one level, no matter what you say will work on them. Same with my answers to Arminians. Also, I pointed out that you should be "bothered" by God "cooperating" and "giving the power" and "permitting" sins. You wouldn't do that. if it is okay for God to, if he is such a sui generous being that he can do certain things that the guilt doesn't transfer to him as it would to a creature (if you "merely permitted" your neighbor to molest kids when you could have stopped him, for example), then why is it such a stretch to say that no guilt transfers to God if he ordains sin? I'm find the Arminian is guilty of excepting himself from the very critiques he forces on us. Add to that, it doesn't look like a character worth protecting when to "protect" God's character you talk about him "reluctantly" and "unwillingly" letting things happen.
"Olsen objects that God would be "unjust" if He ordained the fall. I can't follow the logic of his arguments, but I can agree with the conclusion and I'm wondering why."
Probably for the same reasons Westphal documents in his intro to philosophy, Philosophical Propositions. You have a picture in your mind of what it means to "ordain sin" and so it is automatically bad. Why don't you try spelling out the problem. Hint: God doesn't force, coerce, make do, treat as robot the sinner, or actually do, the sin.
Further, think about your belief in free will. As you've stated on your blog, man is actually able to choose x and able not to choose x (or y, if there's more than one option) is what it means to be free. (I say "actually" because classical compatibilists read "ability" in counterfactual terms, i.e., S is 'able' to * if S had wanted to do * S could have done *. I am not a classical compatibilist myself, but we should distinguish it).
Okay, so on your view nothing determines what an agent will do. Now, you believe Adam ate from the tree causing his posterity to be subject to the guilt/effects of sin (however you spell out original sin). Adam did this with libertarian freedom.
Okay, now apparently God didn't want Adam to sin. He would rather him not have sinned (I think this is the most unloving option, but that's another post. To be clear, I think Arminianism isn't the most loving option - Calvinism is.) Olson says God's antecedent will is such that there be no sin whatever. His consequent will is that he'll grudgingly allow it to save libertarian freedom (and all the good that supposedly entails) and turn it into good. This view of God can be expressed thus - When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But, to be clear, no one wants the lemons in the first place. And if they could find away to not have lemons, that is what would happen. As Olson says, the antecedent will is that "no one would ever sin" (125), but then there's a "relaxed will" that makes lemonade out of sin. (ibid, funny, Arminians always mock Reformed for positing two wills to God, anywho...)
Now, you believe that Adam was able to sin and able not to. So, we could rewind the tape to the nanosecond before he ate the fruit and, on libertarian terms, he would be able to and able to not eat the fruit, even given the same reasons, temptation, etc. Now, this view has problems I brought out in another post, but that's not what I'm focusing on. If God "doesn't want sin", then apparently he looked at an infinite amount of rewinds for Adam. If Adam ate the fruit every single time how is it not a determined or necessary event? In fact, if God told us that out of an infinite amount of times Adam ate the fruit, and then said he would try it one more time and we had to guess what Adam would do, we would guess that he would eat. His behavior would be predictable. Now, this looks like a necessitated event. If not, it's a distinction without a difference.
But, say that God saw some worlds where Adam did not eat and some where he did. God knew if he rewound the tape enough, eventually he would get to the moment where Adam refused to eat. So, this means God instantiated the world where Adam ate rather than didn't. To the Calvinist, we cry foul when you claim that God is evil for ordaining or necessitating the fall. On your view, God did the same. He did this by virtue of his actual creation. At one time it was just a movie. God "saw" what Adam would do. And in this movie Adam could do other than he did. But, once God actually made Adam, the fall was unavoidable.
"You asked what the doctrines of Arminianism were that I think are not true. Well, as I understand Arminianism, (1) they teach that Christians can lose their salvation. "
Olson denies that this is a necessary element to Arminianism in the book. But, I think it is logically entailed from other claims, but I'll mention that in my review. So, on this score you can still be an Arminian.
"(2) Arminians teach that salvation is conditional upon "continued" faith."
Again, something Olson would disagree with.
"(3) Arminians teach that God bases His predestination on his foreknowledge of the future acts of man. I think Scripture teaches merely that God's predestination is "in accordance with" his foreknowledge - they go together, but one is not based on the other."
I don't see how this is a reason to deny Arminianism. I don't see how your claim denies theirs. Spell out the logical connections.
"(4) I've run across Arminians who basically argued for "universalism" - "
Though I'd say the universalists beat Arminians with their own "Character of God" card, this, again, isn't necessary to Arminianism.
"And (5) I'm a little confused whether there is an official position on total depravity among Arminians."
Seems to me you agreed with what Robert said in your total depravity post. They believe that original sin affects all of man - thinking, morally, etc., but not that man is as sinful as he could be - that's to equivocate on "total." On this view, man is dead in sin and unable to do or seek the good. Now, God comes along and pours out his prevenient grace on everyone, since it affects everyone, then no one is actually totally depraved. Men are not dead in sin and they are able to do and seek good, seek God. That's their view.
So, basically, I can't see why you don't just call yourself an Arminian.
"Confusing, but fascinating."
:-)
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWow, that Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is pretty large. Don’t know if I’ll have the time to read all of it (I‘ll work at it), but what I will do is try and explain at some point why I would not make certain arguments that Ariminians do make. I’ll look at Reppert’s arguments and explain how I differ from his viewpoint. Of course I will agree with some of his points and how I differ with your guys’ Calvinism seems to be already our current discussion.
Speaking of the problem of evil - have you read “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis? I have, and I’m pretty sure C.S. Lewis was not an Arminian even though he would agree with some of their ideas. I was wondering what you thought of it if you’ve read it.
Here’s one example - it sounds from your summary that Arminians argue that God is “reluctant” and “unwillingly” allows evil. I wouldn’t make that argument because nowhere in Scripture does it say that God is ever reluctant about anything He decides to do. If God created a world without free will, He did it for a reason. If God created a world with free will, He did it for a reason. I’m confident that God does not worry or is not bothered by His plan.
The fact that some atheists are bothered by the problem of evil is a good thing though. That is precisely what has led some atheists to Christianity. They know right and wrong, and are appalled at the idea of an evil God, of a God who is not fully and wholly good. This is something we should use when we talk to them about Christ. C.S. Lewis even says that it was thinking about this problem that eventually helped him decide that Christianity was true, and thus that his only hope would be to put his faith in Christ.
I believe even the Calvinist will say that God is not the author of sin, or not the author of evil. It’s in the Westminster Confession right after it says that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass.” I can’t figure out how to reconcile that contradiction, while you seem to have reconciled it as a paradox rather than a contradiction. To me, to say that God ordained evil to exist means that God is the author (cause) of evil - that God willed evil into existence.
You said - “Hint: God doesn't force, coerce, make do, treat as robot the sinner, or actually do, the sin.”
And yet God ordains sin into existence. Saint and Sinner and I have also been going into what it means for God to ordain or decree something. At first, I thought it just meant that God is the ultimate cause for everything in the sense that evil would never have existed if the universe had never existed. But Saint and Sinner seemed to argue that God takes a much more active role than that. So the best way I can think of trying to deal with this is to consider Adam and Eve, or the fallen angels. Did they have free will? I think you guys say that they did. So they had the ability to choose good or evil. If God did not force, coerce, or exert any outside power to cause them to will one way or the other, then they did indeed have free will. But I’m not sure why you’d believe God just ordained something to happen simply because He knew the future. The Bible says that God predestined the elect according to His foreknowledge. The Bible doesn’t say that predestined the existence of sin according to his foreknowledge.
You said “classical compatibilists read "ability" in counterfactual terms, i.e., S is 'able' to * if S had wanted to do * S could have done *. I am not a classical compatibilist myself, but we should distinguish it).”
Guess I’m out of element with this stuff. I’m still working on understanding what a compatibilist means by free will. If there different sorts of compatibilists, I don’t understand the distinction. Maybe you’d have to explain it to me as if you were explaining it to a elementary school kid. As far as I can think at the moment, either God exerts power on Adam and Eve’s will in order to “cause” them to choose sin over obedience, or God doesn’t. It seems more in line with Scripture to me right now that He doesn’t.
You said - “Okay, now apparently God didn't want Adam to sin.”
Yes, God didn’t want Adam and Eve to disobey Him.
You said - “He would rather him not have sinned (I think this is the most unloving option, but that's another post. To be clear, I think Arminianism isn't the most loving option - Calvinism is.) Olson says God's antecedent will is such that there be no sin whatever. His consequent will is that he'll grudgingly allow it to save libertarian freedom (and all the good that supposedly entails) and turn it into good. This view of God can be expressed thus - When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But, to be clear, no one wants the lemons in the first place. And if they could find away to not have lemons, that is what would happen. As Olson says, the antecedent will is that "no one would ever sin" (125), but then there's a "relaxed will" that makes lemonade out of sin. (ibid, funny, Arminians always mock Reformed for positing two wills to God, anywho...)”
But I think any Christian, Calvinist, Arminian, or whatever (me), would all agree that there are different categories of God’s will. There is when God decrees something and makes sure that it will happen using his power to make it so (even breaking His natural physical laws of the universe when needed). And there is when God tells us what He wants, but allows us to do the opposite if we choose to. Why God allows sin is one thing. But the difference between when God using his power to make something happen and God commanding part of his moral law wanting man to act in a particular way (but allowing him to still disobey) is clear hopefully to everyone. Even Thomas Aquinas made this distinction.
You asked - “If God "doesn't want sin", then apparently he looked at an infinite amount of rewinds for Adam. If Adam ate the fruit every single time how is it not a determined or necessary event?”
I have absolutely no idea if God considers rewinding time, or looks at different alternate realities, when deciding whether or not to allow something or not. I do know God has the power to do whatever He wants. And if He allows something, even if what he allows (evil) is not what He wants, He has a good reason for allowing it I’m sure. Scripture says that God does not desire the death of the ungodly and wants them instead to repent and turn to Him (Ezekiel 33:11). And yet He doesn’t choose to use his power to make the ungodly repent and turn to Him even though He could. Isn’t this different from saying that evil is a “determined or necessary event”? It’s only determined or necessary if God uses his power to make it happen. It’s not determined or necessary if it’s an action by a morally free agent. Honestly we don’t know that if God kept rewinding time, whether Adam and Eve would have done the same thing every time - we do know that (a) Adam and Eve did sin, and (b) that they freely chose to do so.
You said “To the Calvinist, we cry foul when you claim that God is evil for ordaining or necessitating the fall. On your view, God did the same. He did this by virtue of his actual creation. At one time it was just a movie. God "saw" what Adam would do. And in this movie Adam could do other than he did. But, once God actually made Adam, the fall was unavoidable.”
But this is precisely the argument that because God foreknew what would happen then that means that what would happen was predetermined and unavoidable. You’re probably right that this is an issue for a separate post. I bet that most Christians would NOT say that God’s foreknowledge that something would happen = God’s preordaining something to happen.
And oh yeah, as far as the Arminianism bit. Bottom line: Arminius himself taught that Christians can lose their salvation. This was one major reason that Calvin and Luther rejected Arminius’ teachings. Because I believe in eternal security, I don’t call myself an Arminian (even if there are some Arminians who do believe in eternal security). It’s the same reason that I don’t call myself Presbyterian, because I disagree with them on the issue of infant baptism (even if a few Presbyterians believe in adult baptism). If you want to call me an Arminian, that’s fine - it doesn’t offend me. Any more than some Arminians calling me Calvinist because I believe in eternity security. I don’t call myself either. And I think if we continue discussing these things, you’ll find that, while I agree with some of their arguments, I’d refuse to go along with them on others.
Thanks again for continuing to respond to my questions & comments so far. I appreciate it because I know it takes your time.