This is a sequel to a more detailed post:
1. Jas 1:13 is an Arminian prooftext (I'm using "Arminian" as a synecdoche for freewill theism in general). One problem is that Scripture contains many examples of God "tempting" or "testing" individuals, so there's the question of how to harmonize Jas 1:13 with other passes of Scripture that say the opposite. In this respect, the Arminian appeal to Jas 1:13 is like the Catholic appeal to Jas 2:24 to negate sola fide, as if Jas 2:24 simply overrides the Pauline doctrine of justification, and there's no obligation to harmonize the two.
2. In commentaries, the discussion often centers on the best way to render the Greek or Hebrew word. Is it "test" or "tempt"? However, that's very superficial. The fundamental issue isn't semantic but psychological. It's not about the meaning of the word but the kind of situation God sometimes puts people in. Likewise, how God is said to mess with some people's minds. For instance:
2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Gen 22:2).you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul (Deut 13:3).21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, 22 in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not.” 23 So the Lord left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua (Judges 2:21-23).Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will lay before this people stumbling blocks against which they shall stumble; fathers and sons together, neighbor and friend shall perish’ (Jer 6:21).30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day (Deut 2:30).9 And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel (Ezk 14:9).
3. Certainly these passages are prima facie consistent with Calvinism. Why think James has a different, or indeed, contrary understanding? I sometimes wonder how many Arminians have read the OT.
4. Then there's the question of how freewill theism is consistent with passages like these. An Arminian might say that while there's a sense in which God tempts/tests people, he doesn't do so in the unacceptable Calvinistic sense. He never tempts/tests them in a "causal" or "deterministic" sense. When he tempts/tests them, he leaves their libertarian freedom intact. They retain their ability to resist temptation. There are, however, some basic problems with that explanation:
i) The texts I cited (and that's just a sample) don't have those qualifications. So that's not an exegetical explanation. Rather, that's superimposed on the text.
ii) Not only do they lack those qualifications, but what some of them say is diametrically opposed to that. Take Deut 2:20. In that passage, God does something to the agent to ensure a particular outcome. Sihon is not at liberty to act contrary to how God acted on him. That would defeat the aim of God's action. Same with Pharaoh (Exod 4:21; 7:3).
iii) Likewise, take the hapless false prophet (Ezk 14:9). If God has deceived him, what power can overrule God? Or 1 Kgs 22:19-23. Ahab is doomed.
Thanks for this.
ReplyDelete