Some Arminian epologists have been using 1 John 2:16 to argue that in no sense can the origination of a sinful action be determined by God. That is because John says those things don't come "from" the father. Now, apart from the surprising fact---not only to me, but to John as well!--that I never thought John was entering into a discussion on moral responsibility and 21st century discussions about origination, this begs the question because determinists want to say that there is an origination that is morally relevant for ascriptions of blame. So the determinist can read 1 John 2:16 (granting the eisogesis for a moment) and agree that sinful actions don't originate from the father in the morally relevant sense to ascribe moral culpability. Determinists think all people understand that there's a sense that lightning is the cause of a fire, even if the lightning didn't create itself ex nihilo. We ascribe the "blame" to the lightning, even if we recognize that it originated from past causal laws and the actual state of the world. But not only that, commentators recognize that John means that those actions are not characterized by a godly life (e.g., Yarbrough, 1-3 John, BECNT). John's speaking of what characterizes actions, they are either from the father or from the world.
However, lets leave this alone for a moment. Sticking with the Arminian eisogesis, let's see how Arminianism leads to determinism. So, for example, we can read what John says here:
John 15:5
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
And there you have it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate originator of every action. If he were not, we would be "unable" to do anything (and we all know how Arminians read universal language).
i) One of the problems with Arminian prooftexting is how this appeal forces the Arminian to define "kosmos" in very restrictive terms. Doesn't John also tell us that God made the "world" (John 1:3,10)?
ReplyDeleteSo if, according to John, God is the Creator of the world, then the world has its source of origin (ultimate sourcehood) in divine agency.
But if, in order to square that with their appeal to 1 Jn 2:16, they must redefine the "plain meaning" of the word to give it a far more restrictive sense, then the moment they make that move they simultaneously forfeit all their Johannine prooftexts for unlimited atonement.
ii) And, once again, quoting Scripture is just a decoy. The question is whether Arminians can disassociate God from evil given their theological precommitments to divine foreknowledge, creatorship, and providential concurrence.
"The question is whether Arminians can disassociate God from evil given their theological precommitments to divine foreknowledge, creatorship, and providential concurrence."
ReplyDeleteThey insist that they can.
Their rebuttal is tu quoque and say that if we insist on divine sovereignty, there is no human free will in Calvinism. Obviously, Calvinists maintain that there is free will that coheres with God's divine sovereignty. Then they accuse Calvinists of being inchoherent.