Arminian Today

In Exodus 3:18-22 we read what Yahweh tells Moses concerning Pharaoh and the plunder of the Egyptians.  God tells that Moses that He is going to set His people free from the bondage under the Egyptians (vv. 7-8).  He then tells Moses in verse 18 to go and tell Pharaoh that the Jews were to go into the wilderness to sacrifice to the LORD yet Yahweh tells Moses in verse 19 that He knows that Pharaoh will not let them go unless compelled by a mighty hand and so in verse 20 Yahweh tells Moses that He will strike Egypt with wonders and then Pharaoh will let them go.  God even promises in verses 21-22 that He will give the Jews favor with the Egyptians so that the Jews will plunder them.

Anyone who knows the book of Exodus and the history of the Israelites knows that all this comes to pass.  Moses goes before Pharaoh and sure to God’s word, Pharaoh denies that the Israelites can go free.  God does wonders that amazes both the Egyptians and the Israelites and finally, after the striking down of the first-born in all of Egypt, Pharaoh calls Moses to him and tells him to leave (Exodus 12:31-32).  The Israelites even plunder the Egyptians as God promised (Exodus 12:36).

What amazes me about Exodus 3:18-22 is that Yahweh clearly foresees all the free will decisions that will come to pass.  In His complete omniscience He knows what Pharaoh will do and say and even what the Egyptians will do for the Israelites after God’s judgment upon them.  Romans 9:14-18 gives us insight into God’s choosing of Pharaoh for His own purpose.  Romans 9:14-18 is not salvation in nature.  The point of Romans 9:14-18 is that God is sovereign to choose whomever He desires for His own purpose without saving them in the process.  Pharaoh could have been saved if he had repented of his sins but he continued in his unbelief and hardened his heart toward Yahweh.  The parallel between John 15:16 and Romans 9:17 are similar.  Jesus’ choice of His Apostles in John 15:16 was to service and not entirely to salvation (as the case of Judas shows).  This is true of Pharaoh as well.  He was chosen by God for God’s own purpose: to show His glory and wonders to the Israelites.

What is amazing though is that God knows the free will choices that Pharaoh and the Egyptians would make.  God does not force these decisions but He knows them just as He knows your thoughts before you even utter them (Psalm 139:4).  Jesus knew the thoughts of many in the Gospels.  In Mark 2:8 we read that Jesus perceived the thoughts of the people questioning His words in their hearts.  In John 2:25 we read that Jesus knew what was in man.  In John 6:64 Jesus even knew who did not believe about the disciples spoken of in verse 66 and about Judas (verse 71).  On a side note, Adam Clarke makes the point that could it be that Jesus was reaching out to Judas trying to call him to repent of his wickedness beforehand?  I know this is speculation on Clarke’s part but I do see the love of Jesus even for a Judas.

I write all this because some accuse us Arminians of rejecting the omniscience of God.  They believe that we hold to open theism, that God does not know all future actions of free will creatures.  I certainly reject this notion.  I believe from passages such as Exodus 3:18-22 that God does indeed know all things.  He knows even the free will decision of people.  He foreknows even those who will believe the gospel of Christ (Romans 8:29).  While this knowledge is not unconditional in that salvation is based on conditions that God has set including belief, He does know those who will believe.  This mystery is beyond me.  I cannot fathom knowing all things including decisions others are going to make.  God does.  God knows all things.  He foreknows all events.  He has chosen in His sovereignty to allow for free will from His creatures so that none can accuse Him of evil and say on the day of judgment that they were only doing what God had caused them to do.  Calvinists believe that God renders certain whatsoever comes to pass including sin.  How does this not make God the author of sin?  If God is going to render certain all things that come to pass then this means that He causes them to come to pass.  In essence, this makes God the one who caused the event (even sinful) to be rendered certain.

The Arminian view is that God simply knows.  That is it.  God knew the free will actions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians before it happened because He knows.  God knew when you would believe.  God knew that I would write this post.  That God knows is not the same as God caused.  God foreknows all things including the free will decisions of people.  He controls all things but He does not cause all things.  He knew the free will actions that would be taken toward His Son (Isaiah 53:4-6) but He allowed those free will choices to be made and for Jesus’ death to come to pass (Acts 2:23 notice that Peter says that those Jews were guilty of Jesus’ death through the hands of lawless men).  God allowed people to make free will choices to crucify His Son but He knew those choices would be made even if He didn’t make that choice for them.

There are some who take comfort in a fatalistic view of God’s omniscience.  I have even known some who would abide in sin believing that God knew and rendered certain their sin so why fight it?  I have seen some find comfort in their struggles of life by believing that God caused their troubles to come upon them by His own sovereign choice.  I have seen women mourn over their dead baby only to bless God for killing the child.  They find comfort that God causes all things to come to pass even if they don’t understand God’s ways.  They read the book of Job and see the hand of God crushing Job as proof that we should expect the same in this life.

I don’t know.  I don’t find much comfort in that thought.  I do believe that God is sovereign.  I do believe that God foreknows all things.  I do believe that God controls all things.  I reject that God causes all things.  Did God cause Adam to sin?  Did God cause Judas to betray Jesus?  Did God cause Hitler to murder over 6 million Jews?  Did God cause the rapist to rape a little girl?  What kind of God is this?  Despite the picture that Scripture presents of Him being loving and good, I would find this fatalistic view of God as appalling.

I am not sure if either Arminianism or Calvinism has the answer to the problem of evil.  The Calvinist views the sovereignty of God as meaning that He must cause all things to come to pass for His glory even the hardening of sinner’s hearts.  The Arminian views the sovereignty of God as God allowing free will decisions to be made that He does know but does not cause.  The open theist view is that God allows the future to partly open so that free will decisions are completely unknown to Him before they take place in time and then God reacts to those free will decisions.  I believe that all three may have problems but I accept the Arminian view as I believe from cases such as Exodus 3:18-22 that God does know all things including the future free will choices that others will make and He is able to make prophetic statements in that regard.

I was spending some time with a good brother last night and we were discussing Arminianism and Calvinism.  He made the point that, if given the options, he would rather drift toward universalism than to drift toward the Calvinist view of omni-causality.  His point was, at least in universalism God is still seen as loving and good whereas to drift toward the Calvinist view of God and His sovereignty leads only to the conclusion that God is not good and loving.

This is the point that Roger Olson makes in his book, Against Calvinism.  His point is not to tear down Calvinism point by point since others have done this already.  Olson’s point is that the God portrayed by Calvinist theologians is not consistent with the biblical view of God.  I believe he does an excellent job presenting his case.  Contrary to some bloggers, the book is not written in a harsh tone.  Olson, in fact, states that he loves Calvinists, points out that he and Michael Horton (who wrote For Calvinism) are good friends, and that his contention is not with Calvinists per se but with Calvinism.  He is clear that this debate is taking place among brothers and sisters and not enemies.  Yet Olson equally takes Calvinist theologians from Jonathan Edwards to John Piper to R.C. Sproul and shows that their view of God is not the biblical view of God.  He is not accusing them of worshiping a false god (as some have poorly stated) but of being wrong on aspects of God’s character and nature.

I concur with Olson.  I have never been a Calvinist and have never come close.  My main reason is that I strongly believe that God is loving and good.  I know that Calvinists would say they agree and preach that.  But I believe, when taken to its logical end, Calvinism doesn’t present God as loving and good but rather it presents Him as this “sovereign” Lord who is meticulous in His planning to the point that He renders certain whatsoever comes to pass (even the murders, rapes, and innocent deaths of millions of people) all for His glory and purpose.  Calvinists often say, “If Arminianism is carried to its logical conclusion then it leads to universalism.”  We Arminians cry back, “If Calvinism is carried to its logical end, it leads only to fatalism.”  And to be honest, I would rather have a view of God as loving and good when I stand before Him and honestly tell Him that I preached His love and grace to all people rather than to have a view God that causes me to believe that He is sends millions to hell because He simply wants to and not because of their free will choice to reject His love and salvation but because He caused them not to believe or rendered certain their eternal destiny.

So to answer a couple of questions.  First of all, I am not a universalist but would rather drift that way than to Calvinism.  I would rather be in error over God’s love and grace and mercy than to teach that He elects some while damns most.  And second, I do recommend Roger Olson’s book.  You’ll find it is well written, thought out, and logical.  I do recommend my Arminian brothers and sisters to read Mike Horton’s book as well.

When it coms to the doctrine of election, many assume that the Calvinist viewpoint of individual election is by far the larger portion of teaching in the Bible.  For Calvinists, the doctrine of election is unconditional and based on the absolute sovereignty of God in predetermining all things and rendering them certain so that the elect will be saved and have been saved through the definite atonement of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:4).  At times it can seem from reading various Calvinist authors such as John Piper that election is nearly always individual.  Calvinists love to quote Romans 9:11-13, 18, 22-23 as proof that election is based on the sovereign choice of God and that it is individual.

I believe that many of the election passages are not speaking in terms of God’s unconditional choice of saving some and damning others.  I believe that many of them are easily explained when viewed through the lenses of corporate election and not individual, unconditional election.  For example, a passage often cited by Calvinists is John 15:16 where Jesus tells His disciples that they did not choose Him but He chose them that they might bear much fruit.  In context, Jesus is not speaking of individual salvation but Jesus’ choosing of His Apostles.  This choice was indeed the sovereign choice of Jesus and was unconditional but was it to salvation or to service?  I believe that this choice in John 15:16 was to service.

Romans 9 is a hotly debated chapter between Arminians and Calvinists.  Calvinists insist that Romans 9 is speaking of unconditional election to salvation.  I believe that a better viewpoint is to view God’s sovereign choice between Israel and the Gentiles to be the heart of the passage.  Romans 9:11-13 for example comes from God’s choosing Jacob over Esau not to salvation but to service in terms of His covenant.  Paul is using the case of Jacob to show that God can choose to save the Gentles (as a group) if He so desires for His own glory.  In fact, notice Romans 9:30-33 and you can see that Paul is not arguing here about individual salvation but the Gentiles and the Jews.  The whole of Romans 9-11 is about God’s corporate choosing to save both Jews and Gentiles through the gospel of His Son (Romans 10:9-17).  Romans 11:32 shows this is the heart of Paul, to see all saved through Jesus.  Calvinist theologians such as Piper have trouble with Romans 9:1-5 as how it links in with individual election (which it doesn’t) but then see election unto salvation all through Romans 9.  Such exegesis is not useful.

Those are a few short thoughts on corporate election from Romans 9-11.  I don’t believe that all passages about election are corporate nor are all of them speaking of election to service but I do believe that we must not overlook the value of corporate election.

The cry of the Reformation has long been sola scriptura or “Scripture alone” as the final authority for the disciple of Jesus.  We don’t believe that Scripture + Tradition = Christianity but rather Scripture + Nothing = Christianity.  This flows from the Roman Catholic idea that the Scriptures, the Church, and the Pope all can speak for God.  We reject the idea that God speaks through any other thing in finality other than the Bible.  The Bible is the final, inerrant, infallible guide for the Church of Jesus Christ.  We don’t need a pope.  We don’t need a prophet.  We have the Bible and we need to read, study, and exegete the Scriptures in light of Scripture.  Scripture must interpret Scripture.

Yet how often do we actually rely on philosophy instead of the Bible to define our beliefs.  A case in point is the Calvinist doctrines of the sovereignty of God and limited atonement.  To me, both doctrines are not based clearly on sound exegesis of Scripture.  Instead, the Calvinist insists that in order for God to be God then He must be in complete control and cause of all things.  As R.C. Sproul is famous for saying, “If there is one rebel molecule then God is not sovereign.”  Sproul insists that unless God determines all things that come to pass (including evil) to the point that He renders them certain whatsoever comes to pass then He is not sovereign and not God.  Sproul argues that only the Calvinist understanding of God’s meticulous control of all things is the only biblical view and any other view leads to atheism.  This leads to the Calvinist view that since God is sovereign and causes all things then He surely predestined all things that come to pass whether good or evil and this includes salvation and damnation.  If God knew all who would believe then it logically follows that He sent His Son not to die for all but only for the elect that He predestined and enables to believe.

Now all that I have said above is not based on Scripture.  Certainly there are some appeals to Scripture but even those Scriptures are interpreted in light of a preconceived philosophical bent.  In this case, passages that speak of God controlling all things are seen as God also causing all things such as in Genesis 50:20 or Ephesians 1:11.  Passages of Scripture that speak of the universal atonement of Jesus Christ such as John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:3-6 or 2 Peter 3:9 are all interpreted in light of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election based on the divine deterministic view of the sovereignty of God.  Surely John 3:16 can’t mean what it says.  It must mean something else since God cannot be God unless He causes all things including the sinner’s own condemnation.

Now please don’t misunderstand me and think that I don’t believe that we Arminians don’t appeal to logic.  We do.  For example, we believe that the Scriptures teach us that God is loving and because He is loving we logically believe that He truly does love all people and desire their salvation so He sent His Son to die for their sins to prove His love (Romans 5:8-9; 1 John 4:14).  We do believe that God was glorified in Jesus Christ and that Jesus came to show us God (John 14:9).  We believe that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:14) and that all that Jesus did was for the glory of the Father and this includes dying for the sins of the world (John 1:29).  We do appeal to both Scripture and logic.

But the difference for us Arminians, I believe, is that we are basing our views on sound exegesis of the key passages.  For instance, we Arminians do not deny the sovereignty of God.  We believe that God was sovereign in creating the world in the way that He did.  We believe God grants free will to His creation so that true love can be manifested and yet we believe that God has sovereignly shaped history to glorify His name.  Certainly God foreknows all things but this doesn’t mean that He is the direct cause of all things and nor must He be to be God.  So when the Arminians reads the Bible and reads passages of Scripture about God’s sovereign rule, we do rejoice in them!  We take joy in knowing that our God reigns.  Yet we don’t see in those passages that God is sinful nor that He must not just permit sin but also lead the sinner to do what is sinful for the glory of God.  We see no Scriptural basis for such a view (James 1:12-15).

For more on the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty as opposed to R.C. Sproul’s view, I recommend the book God’s Strategy in Human History.  

SOVEREIGNTY, NOT DETERMINISM.

Dr. Roger Olson, in his book Against Calvinism, uses a term that is familiar to most Arminians but possibly not as familiar even to some Calvinists and that is the term “Divine Determinism.”  What does this term mean?  The simple definition would be the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty to the most minute things.  In other words, in Calvinism God not only controls all things but He also causes all things.  He is the ultimate cause.  Because God is sovereign, argues the Calvinist, then by definition He must be the cause of all things since He would both know and cause all things for one purpose: His own.  Therefore, all things that take place from the salvation of a soul to the murder of an infant happen because God caused it to happen.  To back up his view, Olson let’s Calvinists speak for themselves.  He quotes from modern Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul Sr. or John Piper to show that they mean that God causes all things.

The Arminian does believe in the sovereignty of God.  We would differ with the view that God causes all things.  We believe that God does control all things and He does know all things but we would stop short of saying that He causes all things.  We believe that through His foreknowledge, God does know all that will happen (Romans 8:29).  God knows the beginning from the end.  But does this mean that God then must cause all things to be sovereign over them?  The Arminian answer is no.  God maintains the right to step into our history for His purposes as the incarnation of God shows us in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:17-18).  God can and does often shape history for His purposes and we may not always understand His ways but in the end we can trust in the goodness of God (Romans 8:28).

Does everything happen for a reason?  Does the loss of a newborn baby through it choking on its umbilical cord bring glory to God?  Does the Holocaust bring honor to the name of Jesus?  Of course not!  Even Calvinists would acknowledge this.  But the difference is that some Calvinists (though not all) have a view of God that He must control and even cause the sinful acts of men.  I remember one guy in college arguing even with fellow Calvinists that God caused Adam and Eve to sin for His glory (Genesis 3:1-8).  He said to deny otherwise would limit God.  Arminians believe that God created the world and He chose sovereignly to create a world with limited free will.  I say “limited” because we can’t do whatever we want to.  God does set the limits even of our sins.  For example, God did allow the people of Germany to bring Hitler to power but He did not cause them to nor did He allow Hitler to destroy the entire world.  He allowed general freedom with boundaries.

Obviously the issue of free will and the sovereignty of God is not an easy to understand teaching.  Charles Spurgeon was correct when asked how do you reconcile the two teachings in Scripture when he answered, “You don’t have to reconcile friends.”  The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.  Both doctrines are true.  Even we Arminians agree that God sovereignly draws the lost to Himself through the gospel.  However, we believe that the grace of God is irresistible otherwise we have no true freedom which in turn would not be true love.  I want my wife to love me because she chooses to love me and not because I make her love me.  The same is true for God (John 3:16).  He gave His Son for the sins of the world (John 1:29) but only those who repent are saved (Acts 2:38-39, 41).

Greg Boyd calls the Calvinist view of the sovereignty of God as “divine blueprint” meaning that God is like a builder who has a blueprint and He sticks by His blueprint and plans the blueprint out to the last inch.  Boyd says that there is no comfort in such a view no matter how you try to teach this belief.  In fact, one writer insists that such a view only leads to a “whatever” view in that even our sins are predetermined by God so if I look at pornography and indulge in sinful acts, so be it since God sovereignly knew I would and He even caused my sin for His glory.  John Piper points to the crucifixion of Jesus as proof positive that God ordains even sinful acts of men (Acts 2:23).  Piper calls the cross evidence of the greatest sin yet planned by God.  And yet Piper believes that the Romans and the Jews will all be held accountable for their sins despite the fact that they were not initially caused by them but by God Himself before the creation of the world.  Arminians would differ with Piper saying that while the cross was no doubt the plan of God, that He foreknew the events does not mean that He caused them.  Acts 2:23 makes it clear that God did foreknow the cross.

I know some of my Calvinist brethren find comfort that God controls every minute detail of life.  I can see some comfort in that at least in a world where we are in chaos from one day to the next.  The belief that God is in control is not limited to Calvinism and we Arminians should rejoice in that.  God does control all things (Psalm 24:1).  The psalmist was correct of course when he wrote, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3).  We can be thankful that God has given us free will but that this free will is limited to the extent that God allows (Acts 4:27-28).  God foreknows all things but this does mean that He causes all things.  He moves for His glory.