One of the peculiarities of the Arminian/Calvinist debate is that you actually have some Arminian epologists who indignantly deny that God intended the Fall–or its sinful aftermath.
At one level, I appreciate the Arminian dilemma. If, on the one hand, the Arminian admits that God intended the Fall (or other sins), then he also has to admit that God foreintended the Fall.
But once you travel that far down the road, it’s very hard to slam on the brakes before your logical destination. How, on the one hand, can you affirm that God foreintended the fall while, on the other hand, you vehemently deny that God foreordained the Fall? How thin can you split hairs?
The popular appeal of Arminianism lies in its shallow, maudlin charm. Yet it’s quite challenging for the Arminian to brandish his grandiloquent vituperation against a foreordinate fall if his own position commits him to a foreintentional fall.
Moreover, you only have to combine two axiomatic Arminian beliefs to generate this dilemma:
i) God foreknew the fall
ii) God’s creative fiat was a necessary precondition of the fall
If the outcome was both foreseeable and avoidable, then God foreintended the outcome.
The outcome was foreseeable. Yet it was also voluntary inasmuch as God had the option of creating a world with that outcome, creating a world without that outcome, or creating no world at all. I mean, doesn’t God have the freedom to do otherwise?
Bottom line is, the logical end of Arminianism is open theism. There's no getting around it. It doesn't matter how much lipstick they put on that pig, it's still a damnable heresy.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, just letting God be God isn't good enough for them. For my part, once I started doing exactly that, it was very liberating. I find the fullest extent of freedom in recognizing that I, a creature, am not totally free. I have limitations, and I embrace them as a child does when he loves his father. I see my limitations as an act of love.
Then God either:
ReplyDeletea) foreknew and ordained the Fall
or
b) foreknew and permitted the Fall
If the former, He's accused of malice. If the latter, He's accused of indifference. In both cases, the intent is there. Does it really matter, then?
Here's the thing: it's said that God ordained the Fall so that a greater good could be accomplished that would not have otherwise been able to occur (the sacrifice of Christ for the good of the Elect). IOW: He ordained it to show His mercy to the Elect.
However, if God had instead chosen to condemn all of humanity in its entirety (as it is said would have been within His domain), would that same pre-ordained Fall still reflect a benevolent and good God if that greater good was never done?
If not, are we then saying that God's very goodness was thus obligated to offer Christ as a sacrifice if He was to ordain the Fall and still be considered "good"?
This is so frustrating for me.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how an Arminian would argue the system of beliefs they hold too after this sort of visit from God?
Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Luk 1:7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.
Luk 1:8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty,
Luk 1:9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.
Luk 1:10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense.
Luk 1:11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
Luk 1:12 And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him.
Luk 1:13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
Luk 1:14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,
Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God,
Luk 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."
Luk 1:18 And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years."
Luk 1:19 And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.
Luk 1:20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"However, if God had instead chosen to condemn all of humanity in its entirety (as it is said would have been within His domain), would that same pre-ordained Fall still reflect a benevolent and good God if that greater good was never done?"
Yes, although that would be a rather pointless exercise.
"Bottom line is, the logical end of Arminianism is open theism."
ReplyDeleteIt sure seems that way.
"Yes, although that would be a rather pointless exercise."
ReplyDeleteYES! Pointless indeed.
The hallmark of sadism is that it inflicts pain and suffering for no reason at all. It's infliction of pain is pointless. There is no greater good. There is no benefit to be had, no lesson to be learned, no redemption to be found. Suffering is an end unto itself.
Yet, such an action on the part of God, and you'd still find Him "good".
Interesting.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"The hallmark of sadism is that it inflicts pain and suffering for no reason at all. It's infliction of pain is pointless. There is no greater good. There is no benefit to be had, no lesson to be learned, no redemption to be found. Suffering is an end unto itself. Yet, such an action on the part of God, and you'd still find Him 'good'."
Not suffering as an end in itself, but justice as an end in itself. Retributive punishment good because justice is good. Intrinsically good. It doesn't have to serve some higher end to be good. A value in its own right.
However, God is a God of wisdom as well as justice. That's the apparent deficiency in the scenario you present.
A Helmet writes: "Reformed theodicy makes this unwarranted and circular claim, no one else."
ReplyDeleteI know what you're saying, but I'm not sure Arminianism resolves this dilemma.
If God foreknew the choices of the damned and still created them so that one of His attributes might be displayed (i.e., His granting of individual autonomy), how is this better? The option to not create them at all could have been chosen, but wasn't. Why?
- Sorry, I figured I've poked at the Calvinists enough for a while! :-D
Kröger,
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to critique Reformed theodicy is inept:
1.To begin with, you need to master the elementary distinction between a vicious circle and a virtuous circle. For example:
http://tiny.cc/ksbNa
2.You also confuse the question of what makes sinners culpable with different question of why God decreed the occurrence of sin. These are separate questions with separate answers.
What grounds culpability is not the same thing as the rationale for decreeing the fall.
So on both counts your objection is fallacious and simple-minded.
Helmet, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in Christianity, mankind's sinful thoughts and actions are a result of their depraved nature inherited from Adam. The Scriptures do not teach guilt by definition, they teach actual guilt, resulting from Federal headship.
Second, even using your terminology, "guilt by definition" isn't a problem for God. God defines the world according to His nature. So if you're saying that humans are by definition guilty because they act contrary to the defined nature of God, you are correct.
Men are guilty because they are sinful. So that's not guilt "by definition." Rather, it's a cause/effect relation.
ReplyDeleteHelmet
ReplyDeleteyou rather miss the point.
God is Good not evil.
The Devils are evil not good.
The depth of the bottomless pit is deep.
So are the deep things of God.
Neither of them intersect. Both of them actually are.
Those with the "Spirit" of God can search the deep things of God and understand.
I am addressing this that you wrote that others, it seems to me, acknowledge is inept:::>
"........because their relation is like this: According to Calvinism, God decreed the occurence of sin because the greater good of mercy and justice should be realized thereby. But mercy and justice assume culpability....".
No, I would say sin assumes culpability and brings about death nevertheless.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
"...so that every mouth may be stopped,....".
Ok? Go figure that one, then!
I'm not saying that! The question is *WHY* humans act contrary to the defined nature of God.
ReplyDeleteAnd I already answered your question. The answer is original sin. We're guilty before we are even born, due to the sin of Adam. To deny this is to commit the heresy of Pelagianism.
helmet
ReplyDeleteagain,
Explain this then if your position is correct:::>
Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Kröger,
ReplyDeleteYou're simply rehashing objections I already dealt with. That's unacceptable conduct on your part. Consider that a warning.