Freewill theists take the position that God can't make anyone love him or believe in him. They fault Calvinism because they think Reformed soteriology is coercive.
Yet except for universalists (who may or may not be libertarians), freewill theists believe in eschatological judgment. Some freewill theists espouse annihilationism while others espouse everlasting punishment. But in either case, disbelief has punitive consequences.
And, of course, the Bible often uses the threat of eschatological punishment as incentive for sinners to repent and believe. But from a libertarian perspective, that's coercive. The sinner is repenting or believing at gunpoint. Worse than gunpoint.
To submit because you fear the consequences isn't voluntary consent. Technically, you had a choice, but given the dire consequences of one option, you were acting under duress. Left to your own devices, you wouldn't make that choice. If you're punished for making the wrong choice, then it's not a choice for God, but a choice against the painful alternative.
Speaking of annihilationism, here's the video to the recent debate between Chris Date (Calvinistic annihilationist) vs. Phil Fernandes (Arminian-like traditionalist):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rethinkinghell.com/2013/10/chris-date-vs-dr-phil-fernandes-on-hell-debate-video/
The Calvinism Debate: Phil Fernandes vs Chris Comis http://youtu.be/wzS5d00mA2o
Here's a link to my blog Resources Arguing for the Traditionalist Understanding of Hell
DeleteThanks for linking to our debate!
DeleteYou're welcome Chris. Both you and Phil did a great job. That's how respectful theological dialogue and debate should be done. I'm the "BibleLosophR" who's been posting comments at the video in defense of traditionalism. ;-) Though, I'm still thinking through the issue.
DeleteIf anyone's interested, I'm posting the comments I made on the YouTube video at THIS BLOG with additional (ongoing) comments which won't be posted on YouTube.
DeleteSteve, I share your point of view here. I've argued that if salvation is equated with humility (humble thyself at the side of the Lord and he shall lift you up) then it seems dubious to me that free-will endorses that there are some people God simply cannot humble. Scripture seems clear that God humbles whom ever he pleases. I laid out the argument like this: A) Pride never seeks it's own destruction but rather seeks it's own preservation. B) Because of A, God alone breaks the arrogance of man. C) God alone saves.
ReplyDeleteThe usual Arminian response is either that there are some hard hearts that God himself cannot humble. The other response is that humility does not equate to salvation. But of course I argue that it seems doubtful that God will beat down someone who's humble.
Raised in the Free Methodist church, I learned that pride was the heart of every persons sin. But what are we to say, that God had nothing to do with the destruction of our arrogance? That seems totally backwards to me. But that is exactly what they end up arguing.
Scripture seems clear that God humbles whom ever he pleases.
DeleteIt seems to me that an Arminian could rightly distinguish between the two kinds of "humbling" that God effects in a person's life. The first is one where the person willingly accepts and submits to God's humbling them. The second is God's humiliating them.
A) Pride never seeks it's own destruction but rather seeks it's own preservation.
Aren't there even earthly/mundane instances where people would rather be destroyed than be humble or be humiliated (say, by defeat, or error, or inability)? Even Scripture says pride goes before destruction (Prov. 16:18).
But of course I argue that it seems doubtful that God will beat down someone who's humble.
But doesn't God beat down the proud? The Bible says God mocks/resists/opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5).
B) Because of A, God alone breaks the arrogance of man.
and
But what are we to say, that God had nothing to do with the destruction of our arrogance?
But isn't there's a difference between God breaking the arrogance of man, and God breaking a man of arrogance? In other words, the two different senses in which God can "humble" a person. One is for the good of the person, the other is a form of punishment.
Pinnoy, being a Universalist, I myself believe that God is seeking to humble all (bring them to humility). Arminians share that view and therefore the question of God humbling all would be no different than saying God loves all. Yes I understand Calvinists see things differently. But the free-will community usually believes that God wants all to be saved (humble themselves at the side of the Lord). So God humiliating someone wouldn't be someone God wants to humble unless it's for their own good. That works for Calvinists, but not libertarians.
DeleteYes, God beats down the proud, but not the humble. He has no need to. He lifts up the humble and beats down the proud. It would be like saying God punishes the righteouss, but we know he doesn't.
"But isn't there's a difference between God breaking the arrogance of man, and God breaking a man of arrogance? In other words, the two different senses in which God can "humble" a person. One is for the good of the person, the other is a form of punishment."
Without going into Universalism, I think they can be one and the same. But you make a good point. As I said, Arminians believe God is looking to humble (save) all people. If they deny his attempting to humble them, then they deny his desire for them to be saved. They usually resort to the argument that there are some people who just cannot be saved? Of course that sounds an awful lot like Calvinism to me. I realize you're saying an Arminian will object and say - when it comes to kicking ass God can do that to anyone, but when it comes to winning their hearts, well that's beyond him. I doubt that. I hear God saying "I will cause you to walk in my ways and to keep my commandments" as saying - YOU WILL LOVE ME. That is clearly non-libertarian. I understand that in either sense of humbling people, God can bring it about.
Universalists aside, submitting out of a love for God is ideal, but even those who love God fear the alternative precisely because they fear God. There is such a thing as a healthy fear and I doubt many libertarians understand how that mitigates this argument.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
Delete