Arminians are fond of quoting Ezk 18:23 in opposition to
Calvinism. But why do they think that passage is at odds with Calvinism?
In what sense do they think
the Calvinist God takes “pleasure” in the fate of the damned? Predestination
doesn’t mean God enjoys damning people for the sake of damning people. Even if
God takes pleasure in justice, that doesn’t mean he takes pleasure in
punishment for its own sake.
Moreover, predestination is
not a synonym for pleasure. God can predestine something to take place, not
because that “pleases” him, but because that’s a way of achieving his goal.
Why do I put gasoline in my
car? So that I can use my car to go places I need to go or want to go. The fact
that I choose to gas up my car, the fact that I intend that action, doesn’t
mean I have to take “pleasure” in that choice or action. It’s not something
that either has to please me or displease me. It’s just a necessary step to
accomplish something else.
Anymore, gas is so pricey I certainly don't take pleasure in it.
ReplyDeleteI don't take pleasure in taking out the garbage every week. Some of that garbage was even baptized with water.
ReplyDeleteBut the uses I got out of what produced the garbage did serve a purpose.
I am not sure referring to the unbeliever, even indirectly, as garbage is altogether helpful in uniting around the truth. Truth will divide all by itself without our assistance by unkindness.
Delete"In what sense do they think the Calvinist God takes “pleasure” in the fate of the damned?"
DeleteYou're right. "The damned" is a kinder expression.
Perhaps they are referring to this;
ReplyDeleteWestminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
And this shows double election was for God's good pleasure
Canons of Dordt The First Main Point of Doctrine.
Article 10: Election Based on God's Good Pleasure
But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad..., she (Rebecca) was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).
In the WCF, "pleasure" is an old-fashioned synonym for "will."
ReplyDeleteThat is a good response. However, pleased and will both used in the same phrase. That leads me to wonder if they are synonyms.
DeleteWhat is more telling is that today some Calvinist pastors, conservative ones for sure, will still speak of dual election being for the pleasure of God's will. If this is not what is intended one should adjust the speech for modern ears.
The WCF uses a certain amount of redundant language,which is modeled on the redundant style in Ephesians 1, viz. "5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself...11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteHow is this different than the criticism we often here of an eternally frustrated God? God has an unsatisfied desire that the lost turn from their way and live.
God be with you,
Dan
It's unclear how you derive your interpretation from my post.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteI took your post to mean you think Ezekiel 18:23 means God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked – in a similar sense that we don’t want to pay high gas prices but do.
Is that correct? If so, since Ezekiel says: Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? The implication of your interpretation of the first part of the verse, is that the second half of the verse means God does like it when the wicked turn and live. And for the non-elect, God never has this pleasure; He ends up with the death of the wicked, which does not please Him.
God be with you,
Dan
"I took your post to mean you think Ezekiel 18:23 means God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked – in a similar sense that we don’t want to pay high gas prices but do.Is that correct?"
DeleteIncorrect. As I already explained, to say that something doesn't please me is not equivalent to saying it displeases me. I don't go to the gas station because I find filling my gas tank pleasant. Pleasure isn't what motivates me.
But by the same token, that doesn't mean I necessarily find a trip to the gas station unpleasant. It's just something I do because it needs to be done.
Why do I shave every few days? Because shaving is pleasant? No. But that doesn't mean shaving must therefore be unpleasant.
Ok, that's a fair distinction between something that doesn't please and something that displeases. But in that gas or shaving example, what's missing is the idea that you don't want to gas up or shave. You take pleasure in your beard. And that's a pleasure you don't get if you shave. Best case scenario, God's eternal frustration is over an opportunity cost, rather than a loss.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan
i) Well, you're shifting the issue from what God takes no pleasure in to what God (allegedly) doesn't want. Those aren't interchangeable ideas. And you'd need a different ostensible prooftext.
Deleteii) Why suppose I don't want to gas up or shave?
iii) Nothing in my post suggested that God can't get what he wants, or that God is eternally frustrated, much less frustrated over an "opportunity cost" (whatever that means).