The Achilles heel of Arminianism

By way of background, I did a couple of posts in which I juxtaposed two different statements by Billy Birch:

“First, notice that God is said not to control the actions and passions of his creatures (as is explicitly admitted by Calvinists), but that he governs such. The difference is paramount for a faithful, appropriate, and correct understanding of God as revealed throughout the tenor of Scripture.”

“I was a youth pastor when 9/11 hit. Many of the kids wanted to know how to react to the situation as far as God was concerned. The first thing I let them know was that this did not take God by surprise. He is in control."

I then drew the conclusion that, according to classical Arminianism, God is in the business of controlling fanatical pilots who crash planes into buildings.

This is how Billy responds:

It never ceases to amaze me how some Calvinists can take what one conveys, on one's blog for example, and spin the meaning. For example, I have admitted that God does not “control” the desires and decisions of people, and yet he is “in control” of all things. A Calvinist, who shall remain nameless, decided that what I had written was a contradiction. So, to say that God is “in control” (or sovereign) is, for him, to say that God also “controls” the desires and decisions of people.

I have been arguing all along that the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty is his Achilles' heel. For to admit that God is in control of all things and yet does not control the desires and decisions of all people is to admit contradiction.

But my critic missed the point entirely, did he not? For to admit that God is “in control” of all events is to insist that nothing catches him by surprise. He foreknew every event long before it ever came to pass. But this does not necessitate the notion that he also “controls” the desires and decisions which people make. Neglecting to make this distinction is quite an elementary error in logic. The former judgment does not necessitate the latter.

In the comments section of this blog I related to a friend that during the events of 9/11 I was a youth pastor in my hometown. The kids wanted to know how we should relate the tragedy with God's sovereignty. I informed them that this horrific event did not take God by surprise. After all, God is “in control.” It is not as though God stood by helpless while evil men murdered thousands of people. On the other hand, it should not be thought that God is in the business of throwing planes into buildings. One critic noted, "So, according to classical Arminianism, God is in the business of controlling fanatical pilots who crash planes into buildings."

You read my statement clearly for yourself. Where in that account did I suggest that God is "in the business of controlling fanatical pilots"? "Nowhere," you answer. That is correct. The critic took my words and put his spin on them, stemming from his fatalistic, deterministic presuppositions. And this allegedly exposed my inconsistency? Actually, as any second-grade student could determine from any cursory reading of my comments, I was not at all suggesting that God influences the desires and decisions of people (as Wayne Grudem confesses), but just the exact opposite. Hence God did not influence those evil men to pilot planes to fly into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people. While God remains in control, this fact does not necessitate that he influence evil men to act wickedly (as Calvinism insists). And yes, that makes all the difference.

Is God schizophrenic? Does he both command obedience and influence disobedience? He must if Calvinism is true! Watch how Calvinists will try to wriggle their way out of this truth. Suddenly they will affirm secondary causes, trying desperately not to make God culpable for bringing to pass that which he has forbidden.

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-much-does-god-control.html

Several problems with this response:

i) I didn’t incorporate Reformed presuppositions into my argument. How I happen to define sovereignty was no part of my argument. I didn’t say anything about “sovereignty.” I was simply responding to Birch on his own terms. Literally. I responded in his very own words. His use of the word “control.”

Is Birch so illiterate or obtuse that he can’t recognize when someone is merely responding to him on his own terms? It isn’t difficult to see.

ii) Birch regards the distinction between controlling x and being in control of x as nothing short of “paramount.” However, this distinction is far from self-explanatory. Yet if this distinction is “paramount” to the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, then it needs to be explicated. Otherwise, Arminianism collapses into the dreaded Reformed alternative.

iii) He also says the Reformed definition of sovereignty is the Achilles heel of Calvinism. That being the case, the Arminian presumably has a way to finesse the concept of sovereignty which manages to avoid what he finds so objectionable in Calvinism.

iv) Before we proceed any further, let’s go back to the original statement. On the one hand, Birch said that God doesn’t control the actions or passions of his creatures. On the other hand, Birch said that God was in control of the 9/11 hijackers.

Deliberately ramming a plane into a building is a human action, with a corresponding passion. So, according to Birch, God was in control of the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers.

Therefore, if we limit ourselves to his own terminology, Birch denies that:

a) God controlled the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers.

But Birth affirms that:

b) God was in control of the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers.

Can anyone explain to me how that’s a “paramount” distinction?

Then you have his additional caveat: “in the business of.” So when Birch objects to my characterization of his position, where does the objection lie? Is it Birch’s position that while:

a) God was in control of the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers,

b) God was not in the business of being in control of the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers?

Does Birch mean that:

c) God was out of the business of being in control of the actions and passions of the 9/11 hijackers?

But unless God was in the business of being in control, then how could God be in control?

Remember that, for Birch, these distinctions are “paramount.” They save the Arminian from the Achilles heel of Calvinism.

He also says that “Neglecting to make this distinction is quite an elementary error in logic.”

If that’s the case, then I’d like to see him spell out the elementary logical distinction between controlling x and being in control of x.

v) Birch then defines “in control” as meaning that “nothing catches God by surprise” because God “foreknew every event long before it ever came to pass.”

But how does that definition capture the concept of what it means to be in control? For example, Birch demagogically attributes fatalism to Calvinism. But in the classic definition of fatalism, knowing the future and controlling the future are not only distinct, but they are opposed. The dilemma for the ill-fated individual is that he knows his future, but has no control over his future. So how can Birch characterize Calvinism as fatalistic, then define control in terms of foreknowledge?

In fatalism, the doom of the ill-fated individual doesn’t catch him by surprise. He knows it’s coming, and there’s nothing he can do to escape the dire outcome, right? Isn’t that the classic definition of fatalism?

vi) Apparently, Birch also tries to define controlling x as “influencing the desires and decisions” of x.

Keep in mind that I didn’t use the word “influence” in my original argument. Birch is introducing that word into the discussion, after the fact.

But “influence” is weaker than control. You can influence (or have an influence on) someone without controlling (or being in control) of the their desires, decisions, and actions.

A father may have an influence on his son. That doesn’t mean he controls his son.

Birch is coming up with ad hoc definitions and ad hoc distinctions to salvage his position.

vii) Birch then says that God didn’t “influence” the 9/11 hijackers. And “that makes all the difference.”

So, according to Birch:

a) God didn’t influence the 9/11 hijackers,

But:

b) God was in control of the 9/11 hijackers.

And how does that “make all the difference”?

Control is a stronger concept than influence. A mere influence is resistible in a way that control is not.

viii) As for divine schizophrenia, according to Arminianism, God brings to pass what he has forbidden by creating a world in which rational creatures disobey his commands. So, by Birch’s own logic, God is culpable for that state of affairs. How does that avoid the Achilles heel of Calvinism? (Not that I accept his characterization of Calvinism.)

I get a whole lot of attitude from Arminians. But their reasoning skills leave much to be desired.