How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspective?

Post Reply
jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspective?

Post by jpat1975 » Fri May 01, 2015 11:48 am

Question for Steve (or anyone else who wants to take a crack at it)...

I have listened through the older and newer audios on the narrow path regarding Calvinism vs non-Calvinism. Myself I am a "non-Calvinist" and agree with Steve's points. I liked his reasonable explanations about how certain events in the bible came about involving non-believers like Pharoah, and other folks whose hearts were "hardened". One example I haven't heard specifically was about the king of Assyria in Isaiah 10, and how this example is used by Calvinists, and by non-Calvinists regarding Freewill/Predestination.

One Calvinists explained it this way...

He felt that it was not difficult to reconcile Freewill and Predestination, and cited Isaiah 10:5-11 where God judges Arrogant Assyria

"..Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him,and against the people of my wrath I command him,to take spoil and seize plunder,and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy,and to cut off nations not a few; for he says:“Are not my commanders all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have done to Samaria and her images? When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, hea will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes".

Calvinist said this....:
-----------------------------------------
He said here we had a clear example of God's sovereignty and man's sin. Israel had broken the covenant, and now were experiencing the curses, which God uses Assyria to do. So God says HE is bringing Assyria to punish. BUT in verse 7 it says of this king that "...he does not so intend..." If the non-Calvinist believes in FREEWILL then HOW CAN IT BE? It's not Assyria's intentions to serve God after all! The Assyrian are evil pagans. In fact God has had to restrain their hand. So much for "FREEWILL" on ANY level here. If God is doing this, then there's NO "autonomous freewill" as some suppose. Please note the INTENTIONALITY. It's based on the INTENTIONS of their HEARTS they are judged. They are judged for the attitudes of THEIR hearts. THAT is the important thing to remember. THAT's what's missing in all the criticisms from the non-Calvinist. They refuse to allow the biblical categories to stand - that God judges us based on the intentions of our hearts. God's SOVEREIGN DECREES and JUDGEMENT ON SIN are compatible. These men of Assyria are not innocent moral agents being forced to do something bad. They are doing what they want to do. God has to restrain them... but uses their evil for his purpose. They are judged on the attitude of their heart of the king of Assyria: a refusal to acknowledge what they have come from God's hand. It's sinful not to acknowledge that all you have comes from God - that's what Romans 1 tell us. So there you have a clear biblical example. CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY WHAT I SAY? IS that not a consistent reading of Isaiah 10?

How I might explain it...:
-----------------------------------------
On the surface it would APPEAR that what this Calvinist is saying might be true, and that this supports Calvinism. But it doesn't in my opinion. What if the King of Assyria - like past kings (e.g. Pharaoh) had his own heart hardened? The bible doesn't necessarily give us all the details of all that went down. It certainly wouldn't be something unprecedented; 2) Also it doesn't mention that God "FORCES" the king to attack Israel. PERHAPS God was influencing INDIRECTLY through political events or setting up this same king for earlier victories against other pagan nations. Nothing here gives any consciousness of the king hearing from God;

Not sure what else to say specifically of this example? How do we non-Calvinists explain what might have happened here?

dizerner

Re: How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspectiv

Post by dizerner » Fri May 01, 2015 12:14 pm

Also it doesn't mention that God "FORCES" the king to attack Israel.
This—this is really all you need to dispel a Calvinistic interpretation. They will always sneak in this assumption in their proof texts. So the Calvinist then asks: What if the King of Assyria wanted to do something that didn't agree with the plan of God? Was it lucky he happened to align with God's will? This kind of rebuttal is arguing from what seems improbable, and I don't think that's a very persuasive kind of argument. Maybe God saw free will decisions far in advance, maybe God would use a different means of punishment; we have not a way to determine what is improbable as a way for God to work if his ways are above our thoughts—except to firmly believe that God is not a direct causation of the evil acts of men, for Scripture reveals that to us. Otherwise God is the causation of behavior he hates, and lies about his desire that creatures obey him, since he hides a secret, higher so-called decretive will above his prescriptive will. It's one thing for God to desire to punish the disobedient—it's another thing for God to desire disobedience itself.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspectiv

Post by Paidion » Fri May 01, 2015 12:48 pm

The idea that everything that happens is God's doing implies that everything that happens is God's will. The atrocities which occur every day, would then be God's doing and in accordance with His will. But this concept is contradicted by the Lord's prayer, "You will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
If everything that happens is God's will, then His will is already being done on earth as it is in heaven.

The Calvinist wiggles out of this by proposing two different wills for God: (1) His active will (2) His permissive will. (or other terms might be used for these.)

Thus everything that occurs on earth is in accordance with the latter sense, but not in accordance with the former.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Re: How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspectiv

Post by jpat1975 » Fri May 01, 2015 3:00 pm

I agree. What is a good probable explanation on how those events in Isaiah 10 transpired? What scenarios do you envision here where man's freedom to choose was not violated, and God's purposes were fulfilled? How would a movie plot look like for this scene that preserves that?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspectiv

Post by steve » Fri May 01, 2015 5:33 pm

Hi jpat1975,

I will try to answer the Calvinist's points for you, based upon your representation of them in your original post:

First of all, the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism does not lie in the question of whether God can overrule human free will, but in whether man has any autonomous (independent) exercise of free will at all—as your Calvinist clearly demonstrates in his comment: "...there's NO 'autonomous freewill'."

Arminians say that man has enough autonomous free will to hang himself or to turn to God. Calvinists deny man even this choice. Contrary to the accusations of poorly-informed Calvinists, Arminians do not worship human free will. We recognize limits to man's liberty of choice. For example:

1) Free will is not absolute (men cannot choose, for example, to be invisible or omipresent).

2) Nor is man's will inviolable (Even humans can manipulate the free will of others through hypnosis or date-rape drugs. The will is not invulnerable to manipulation).

3) Nor is man's will sacrosanct (there is no impropriety or injustice in God's occasional manipulation of man's will for His purposes—e.g., Prov.21:1; Rev.17:17). In fact, God often boasts of His ability to do this.

Free will is not an idol to be venerated. It is simply a human capacity which allows people, under normal circumstances, to choose between alternative courses of behavior, thus rendering humans responsible for the courses of their lives, and subject to divine judgment for the same. All people have times when their judgment may be impaired, or their information distorted, or their courage fails, resulting in the making of choices that do not really reflect their highest principles or their dominant desires. Doesn't Paul describe this very phenomenon in Romans 7:15-25 and Galatians 5:17?
He said here we had a clear example of God's sovereignty and man's sin. Israel had broken the covenant, and now were experiencing the curses, which God uses Assyria to do. So God says HE is bringing Assyria to punish. BUT in verse 7 it says of this king that "...he does not so intend..." If the non-Calvinist believes in FREEWILL then HOW CAN IT BE? It's not Assyria's intentions to serve God after all!
God does not necessarily violate Assyria's will in this passage. In fact, He directs Assyria very agreeably with its own agendas. Assyria is determined to gobble up smaller kingdoms. God simply directs them toward Israel as one of the many kingdoms Assyria will conquer. Assyria has no interest in resisting this.

The phrase "he [Assyria] does not so intend" doesn't mean that this campaign is contrary to Assyria's wishes. It means that Assyria is not aware of any divine direction, and is not consciously fulfilling God's mission of judgment against Israel. Rather, Assyria has its own motives, different from God's, for taking this course. When Joseph said to his brothers, "You intended evil against me, but God meant it for good," he was observing a similar phenomenon. The brothers did what they did, not against their own wishes, but consistently with them. The fact that God could make use of their misdeed is given as the reason God did not prevent them from carrying out their intentions. They were fulfilling God's plans, but they were not intentionally (knowingly) doing so.
The Assyrian are evil pagans. In fact God has had to restrain their hand. So much for "FREEWILL" on ANY level here. If God is doing this, then there's NO "autonomous freewill" as some suppose.
This makes no sense, unless the Calvinist meant to say "absolute", rather than "autonomous." There is no absolute free will, it is true, since man's will can sometimes be overruled or manipulated by God—or even by other people. However, man may very well have autonomous free will, generally speaking. Autonomous means "independent" or "self-determining."

The Calvinist's logical error is in concluding, from the exceptional biblical examples of God's providential interventions, that every choice ever made by humans presents a similar case of God's providence. I may give my children autonomous free will in some set of responsibilities (e.g., breeding rabbits), while reserving my own right to occasionally intervene, if necessary. All who delegate responsibilities must recognize this principle. The fact that the authority has the power and right to intervene means, not that the child's will is not autonomous, but that it is not absolute.
THAT's what's missing in all the criticisms from the non-Calvinist. They refuse to allow the biblical categories to stand - that God judges us based on the intentions of our hearts. God's SOVEREIGN DECREES and JUDGEMENT ON SIN are compatible.
This is not what is missing from my critique of Calvinism. What is missing in my critique is any acknowledgement that the choices of all people at all times are directed by sovereign decrees. This, incidentally, is also missing from the Bible.
These men of Assyria are not innocent moral agents being forced to do something bad. They are doing what they want to do. God has to restrain them... but uses their evil for his purpose.


As a non-Calvinist, this is precisely what I would say. This is an Arminian statement.
They are judged on the attitude of their heart of the king of Assyria: a refusal to acknowledge what they have come from God's hand. It's sinful not to acknowledge that all you have comes from God - that's what Romans 1 tell us. So there you have a clear biblical example. CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY WHAT I SAY? IS that not a consistent reading of Isaiah 10?
That is one of the lessons of Isaiah 10, to be sure. However, it is not a distinctly Calvinistic lesson.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: How to explain Isaiah 10 from a non-Calvinist perspectiv

Post by Paidion » Fri May 01, 2015 7:23 pm

Good post, Steve.

The only point you make with which I have a bit of a problem:
1) Free will is not absolute (men cannot choose, for example, to be invisible or omipresent).
I don't think ANYONE believes in "absolute free will" in that sense.

Also, it's not that man cannot choose to be invisible or omnipresent. It's just that he doesn't have the power to bring it about.
This often happens in every-day life. For example, the other day I chose to repair one of my machines, but then found that I didn't have the power to bring this about since I had misplaced a necessary tool.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”