Does this passage present a dilemma for Arminians?
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11).
If, on the one hand, God “works” and “wills” “all things,” then doesn’t that make God the “author of sin”?
We should sooner expect the leopard to change his spots than invite the Arminian to reason.
ReplyDeleteConsistency in hermeneutics is hardly an Arminian distinctive.
ReplyDeleteRomans 8:28 leaps to mind as well.
In Him,
CD
See: Molinism.
ReplyDeleteWe should probably not be so cavalier when treating of Arminianism. My experience is that, although I don't agree, scholarly Arminians make their case on far less shallow ground.
ReplyDeleteTo the question of “does God create evil”, I refer you to perhaps today's leading Arminian apologist, Dr. Roger Olson:
The only thing the Arminian view of God's sovereignty necessarily excludes is God's authorship of sin and evil. (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Intervarsity Press, 2006), p. 116.
So the fully orbed Arminian would not be caught in what they would perceive this to be - a false dilemna.
Likewise, the Arminian takes a different view of the definition of predestination so that Ephesians 1 is not a problem:
Only the most cynical scholar could claim that Arminius and Arminians deny predestination, and the claim would be refuted immediately – even by other non-Arminian scholars. Nevertheless, some Calvinists dispute the Arminian interpretation of predestination as unbiblical and illogical; Arminians often return the favor. p. 180
To the classical Arminian (as opposed to the Arminian of the heart), Olson maintains that “the Calvinistic understanding of predestination...is insufficiently Christocentric. Jesus Christ seems to arrive as an afterthought to God's primary decree to save some and damn others.” (p. 183). Therefore, it seems that the Arminian understanding of predestination in Ephesians one would emphasize more the “in Him” than the “we have obtained an inheritance.”
My point in all of this is, the debate between Arminians and Calvinists is at base an argument about the meaning of words. Both sides claim adherence to doctrines named “predestination”, “the sovereignty of God”, etc., and both can make a formidable case. So the issue is not “consistency in hermeneutics” or obstinacy, but rather seeking a fuller understanding of each other's meaning.
In other words, we have to do our homework to make the case which I think is ultimately decided in our favor.
Peace.
Just an afterthought; verses that indicate a strong providence of God (which we should all hold to; I'm talking to you open theists) don't necessitate a deterministic interpretation. In fact, the non-deterministic passages in the Bible demand a different harmonization.
ReplyDeleteArminianism is not Molinism:
ReplyDeleteMost classical Arminians are wary of this approach. The claim that Arminius himself assumed God's middle knowledge and its role in providence and predestination is dubious. Olson, ibid., p. 196.
The reason that Arminianism is not Molinism is that Molinism requires a “compatibilist free will” which is rejected by Arminians.
Peace.
Constantine,
ReplyDeleteEh, it's a bit vague really. Olson would agree with you, but others (ie Eef Dekker) have argued that Arminius did use Molina's ideas. Frankly, I think the camps overlap quite a bit.
I could send you his paper on the subject if you want.
Steve has pwned Olson on this very blog so many times that I don't see how anyone could take the guy seriously.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the "leading Arminian apologist" then the trajectory of that theological outlook is grim indeed.
CD
CONSTANTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete“We should probably not be so cavalier when treating of Arminianism. My experience is that, although I don't agree, scholarly Arminians make their case on far less shallow ground. To the question of ‘does God create evil…’”
You recast the question. The dilemma wasn’t framed in terms of what God “created,” but what he “works” and “wills.”
“I refer you to perhaps today's leading Arminian apologist, Dr. Roger Olson: ‘The only thing the Arminian view of God's sovereignty necessarily excludes is God's authorship of sin and evil.’ (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Intervarsity Press, 2006), p. 116.’ So the fully orbed Arminian would not be caught in what they would perceive this to be - a false dilemna.”
i) How does that extricate the “fully-orbed” Arminian from the dilemma? Of course Arminians verbally deny God’s “authorship” of sin and evil. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether their denial is consistent with the universal scope of Eph 1:11 as they themselves construe universal quantifiers (“all”).
ii) Apropos (i), it’s ironic that you’d quote Olson, for Olson recently said:
“I think the main difference lies in different views of God’s intentionality. Arminians say God never intended the fall to happen and does not intend any of its consequences–except to allow them. Calvinists would seem to have to say that even the fall, then all of its consequences, was intended by God. To me, there’s a huge difference there. If God intended for the fall to happen, if it is part of a divine plan, then God’s character is questionable.”
But when we apply his statement to Eph 1:11, that’s what generates the Arminian dilemma. God wills whatever he intends. Indeed, these are synonyms.
If God willed every event, then he willed evils like the fall.
“Likewise, the Arminian takes a different view of the definition of predestination so that Ephesians 1 is not a problem.”
Once again, you’re recasting the issue. The dilemma wasn’t predicated on “predestination,” but the Pauline statement that God “works” and “wills” “all things.”
Cont. “Therefore, it seems that the Arminian understanding of predestination in Ephesians one would emphasize more the ‘in Him’ than the ‘we have obtained an inheritance.’”
ReplyDeletei) That has reference to election, not predestination. Election is narrower than predestination.
ii) And it’s irrelevant to the terms of my dilemma, which are modeled on the wording of Eph 1:11.
iii) Likewise, the dilemma isn’t predicated on my own (Reformed) interpretation of Eph 1:11, but how Arminians typically construe universal quantifiers.
“My point in all of this is, the debate between Arminians and Calvinists is at base an argument about the meaning of words.”
Such as how Arminians typically construe “all.”
“Both sides claim adherence to doctrines named ‘predestination’, ‘the sovereignty of God’, etc., and both can make a formidable case.”
That’s irrelevant to the terms of my dilemma.
“In other words, we have to do our homework…”
You can begin your homework by engaging what I actually wrote, rather than substituting your own lingo.
bossmanham said...
ReplyDelete“Just an afterthought; verses that indicate a strong providence of God (which we should all hold to; I'm talking to you open theists) don't necessitate a deterministic interpretation. In fact, the non-deterministic passages in the Bible demand a different harmonization.”
You’re recasting the issue. I didn’t frame the issue in terms of “determinism.” I didn’t give the passage a “deterministic interpretation.” Rather, I pointed out that Paul applies a universal quantifier (“all”) to the things that God “works” and “wills.”
Arminians typically insist that “all” means “all,” not “some.” They use that to prooftext unlimited atonement.
But if God both “works” and “wills” evil events (since evil events are a subset of all events), then does that make God the “author of sin” or not?
If so, then how does Arminianism exclude itself from the divine authorship of sin?
If not, then how does Arminianism include Calvinism in the divine authorship of sin?
CONSTANTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete“To the classical Arminian (as opposed to the Arminian of the heart), Olson maintains that ‘the Calvinistic understanding of predestination...is insufficiently Christocentric. Jesus Christ seems to arrive as an afterthought to God's primary decree to save some and damn others.’ (p. 183). Therefore, it seems that the Arminian understanding of predestination in Ephesians one would emphasize more the ‘in Him’ than the ‘we have obtained an inheritance.’”
i) Irrelevant, since my dilemma isn’t predicated on the Reformed doctrine of predestination or double predestination. Rather, I’m arguing from Arminian assumptions.
ii) I didn’t cite Eph 1:11 as a prooftext for reprobation. Olson’s statement is a red herring.
iii) You also need to distinguish between Pauline usage and the technical nomenclature of dogmatic/systematic theology. In Eph 1:11, Paul is using “predestinarian” language to denote the concept of election.
And in dogmatic usage, election is a subset of predestination.
iv) Even if the Reformed doctrine of predestination were germane to the dilemma, Reformed predestination is perfectly congruent with election in Christ. Christ redeems the elect (not the reprobate). Election and redemption are internally related in Calvinism. God chose the elect with a view to redemption in Christ. Election and redemption are correlative in Calvinism. Redemption has its corollary in election, and vice versa. Olson is burning a straw man–as usual.
v) Because, according to Eph 1:10-11, God executes “all things” according to his will, Christians can take confidence in his saving purpose for them in particular. An argument from the greater to the lesser.
In Paul’s compact argument, God has both a comprehensive plan for the world as well as the power to realize his plan. Whatever he plans in eternity he executes in time.
(For exegetical details, see Harold Hoehner and Clinton Arnold.)
Again, though, the dilemma doesn’t turn on my exegesis of the text.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteThis is well said on your part:
"iii) You also need to distinguish between Pauline usage and the technical nomenclature of dogmatic/systematic theology. In Eph 1:11, Paul is using “predestinarian” language to denote the concept of election.
And in dogmatic usage, election is a subset of predestination.
iv) Even if the Reformed doctrine of predestination were germane to the dilemma, Reformed predestination is perfectly congruent with election in Christ. Christ redeems the elect (not the reprobate). Election and redemption are internally related in Calvinism. God chose the elect with a view to redemption in Christ. Election and redemption are correlative in Calvinism. Redemption has its corollary in election, and vice versa."
I wish Olson might have provided writers in the Reformed vein to support his charge of their lacking a proper Chistocentric view. Something I have failed to see.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteForgive me for “recasting” your question, although I think that the quote from Olson addressed your question in its original form. As to whether God “works or wills” evil, Olson's answer is that the Arminian believes “God permits and limits them [i.e. sin and evil] without willing or causing them.” (Olson, p. 116). So my point – ineffectually made at the first – is that the Arminian does have an answer to your question, however unsatisfactory it may be to a Calvinist.
Steve further notes,
How does that extricate the “fully-orbed” Arminian from the dilemma? Of course Arminians verbally deny God’s “authorship” of sin and evil. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether their denial is consistent with the universal scope of Eph 1:11 as they themselves construe universal quantifiers (“all”).
It extricates him by allowing him refuge in his own definitions. As you note, to the Arminian, “all” really means “some”. According to their definition, then, God works all “good things” and permits all “bad things”. Because they don't believe that God “works” evil things, they would not see the dilemma upon which you try to hoist them; God works ALL the things He can work.
But when we apply his statement to Eph 1:11, that’s what generates the Arminian dilemma. God wills whatever he intends. Indeed, these are synonyms. If God willed every event, then he willed evils like the fall.
Again, you are operating from your own presuppositions (which I share, BTW). God – to the Arminian – does not will ALL things in that He does not will evil. He wills ALL that He can. So “all” becomes a relative term.
Once again, you’re recasting the issue. The dilemma wasn’t predicated on “predestination,” but the Pauline statement that God “works” and “wills” “all things.”
Mea culpa. Let me be more precise. Likewise, the Arminian takes a different view of the definition of “works and wills” so that Ephesians 1 is not a problem.
So the answer, Steve, to your original question - Does this passage present a dilemma for Arminians? - is no. The question presents a dilemma for a Calvinist evaluating an Arminian on Calvinistic presuppositions. And that is a different thing, all together.
From your fellow Calvinist, I bid you peace.
Constantine,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote,
As to whether God “works or wills” evil, Olson's answer is that the Arminian believes “God permits and limits them [i.e. sin and evil] without willing or causing them.” (Olson, p. 116).
All this means is that Olson is confused, for he sets forth Arminianism a few pages later and says,
"In other words, whatever happens, including sin, is at least allowed by God, but if it is positively evil, and not only evil to a mistaken understanding, it is not authored or authorized by God. God permits [sin and evil] 'designedly and willingly', but not efficaciously" (Olson, AT:M&R 121).
"Rather, God not only allows evil designedly and willingly, ... but [God] also cooperates [with evil and sinful acts] without being stained by the guilt of sin" (ibid 122).
God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (ibid 122).
Here we see God "willing" and "causing" evil. Of course, he makes a distinction between "efficacious" willing and causing, but that distinction isn't in the text, and neither does it help. For if I design and plan a bank robbery, give the plan to bank robbers, I have authored that evil, even if my plan is not efficacious — given that the robbers have LFW.
So the answer to your question is that the Arminian must invoke a distinction not found in the text in order to not have a problem with the text, but which ends up still being a problem text for him. Unfortunate, yes, I know.
CONSTANTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Forgive me for “recasting” your question, although I think that the quote from Olson addressed your question in its original form. As to whether God ‘works or wills’ evil, Olson's answer is that the Arminian believes ‘God permits and limits them [i.e. sin and evil] without willing or causing them.’ (Olson, p. 116). So my point – ineffectually made at the first – is that the Arminian does have an answer to your question, however unsatisfactory it may be to a Calvinist.”
i) You don’t seem to know what a dilemma is. A dilemma is a forced option between two (or more) unacceptable alternatives–unacceptable to the person caught in the dilemma.
Even if Olson’s answer could successfully free himself from one horn of the dilemma, he’d then be stuck on the other horn of the dilemma. The authorship of evil was merely one horn of the dilemma. That doesn’t get him off the hook for the other horn.
ii) And if Eph 1:11 says God works and wills all things, it’s not responsive to the terms of the text for Olson to blithely deny that God works and wills all things. For he most show how his denial can be squared with the terms of the text. And he must do so consistent with Arminian hermeneutics.
iii) Furthermore, as I argued in a previous post, it’s nonsensical for Olson to deny that God intends the foreseeable and avoidable consequences of his own actions. For Olson to merely deny something is not an argument.
“It extricates him by allowing him refuge in his own definitions. As you note, to the Arminian, ‘all’ really means ‘some’. According to their definition, then, God works all ‘good things’ and permits all ‘bad things’. Because they don't believe that God ‘works’ evil things, they would not see the dilemma upon which you try to hoist them; God works ALL the things He can work.”
No, for if he makes that move, that will simply impale him on the other horn of the dilemma. That’s the point of a dilemma. There’s no where to turn. You pay either way.
If he redefines “all” as “some,” then he forfeits those Arminian prooftexts for unlimited atonement. So that will cost him dearly.
“Again, you are operating from your own presuppositions (which I share, BTW). God – to the Arminian – does not will ALL things in that He does not will evil. He wills ALL that He can.”
Wrong. Arminians accuse Calvinists of tampering with the “plain sense” of Arminian prooftexts. Well, what’s the plain sense of Eph 1:11? If God works and wills “all things,” then God works and wills evil events as well as good events. If you apply Arminian hermeneutics to Eph 1:11, that’s what you get from the text.
“So ‘all’ becomes a relative term.”
Which instantly relativizes Arminian prooftexts for unlimited atonement. That’s the dilemma.
“Likewise, the Arminian takes a different view of the definition of ‘works and wills’ so that Ephesians 1 is not a problem.”
Olson has to exegete his definition from the text. Olson’s answer is not an exercise in exegetical theology.