"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

Brody,

Yes, you would be the one actually shooting the gun in that case. In no way would I be the one pulling the trigger if your hand squeezed mine and thus the trigger.

However, that is not what Calvinism teaches, anymore than Arminianism is an attempt on your part to make sinful men look good. There is a way that God predestines things to happen but that does not remove men's culpability, which is why Acts can say that "Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27,28 ). God did not leave it up to these wicked men to decide what they would do with Jesus, and then He took lemons and made lemonade out of it. God determined what would happen, including what these men would decide to do, and yet these men still chose to do their wicked deeds.

God's sovereignty does not undermine the reality of the created order and what takes place there. The world and the things in it are not simply a figment in God's mind. They actually exist separate from God. The things which we observe taking place around us are genuine events -- and the causal relations we discover in our experience (like between bumping our shins and bruises) are precisely the created realm's expression of the means-to-end choices made for this world by God the Creator.

Ironically, if we deny the sovereign foreordination of God, it is then that we would have difficulty accounting for the true reality and purposefulness of the world. In a "chance" or random world which is not governed by a sovereign, personal God, the events around us would have no relationship to each other -- much less a causal relationship. Any "order" which we think that the world has would be an order imposed by our own minds upon the chaos of things and events. Thus it would be imaginary. Indeed, the workings of our own minds could not count as orderly, but just another random series of events, thus making it arbitrary for us to distinguish between reality and illusion. What we take to be the "world" and our personal experiences in it would truly be without importance or meaning, if everything happens arbitrarily and "by chance." So then, it turns out that the concerns of those who question God's sovereignty can be intellectually guarded and guaranteed only by affirming that very sovereignty.

[Guest]

Ironically, if we deny the sovereign foreordination of God, it is then that we would have difficulty accounting for the true reality and purposefulness of the world. In a "chance" or random world which is not governed by a sovereign, personal God, the events around us would have no relationship to each other -- much less a causal relationship. Any "order" which we think that the world



David, God can be sovereign without micromanaging the small stuff. He steers the ship toward the island of redemption but He need not decree who wins the shuffleboard games.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

It is not a matter of what could do, but a matter of what the Scriptures say He did do. God could be God and be any number of things - hateful, uninterested in our plight, unloving.

And what I wrote is still applicable, because if some events happen that God did not ordain, I would have no way of finding any meaning in them. I would not know if God did this, or if this was simply a random event on the deck of the boat. Perhaps my daughter did not die from cancer because of God's will, but rather He simply had a "hands-off" approach at that time and allowed "nature" to take its course. I do not see how I can praise God in all things if I am not sure that God brought about all of those things. That would be giving credit (or as some Arminians put it, giving blame) to God where He had nothing to do with it.

[Guest]

And what I wrote is still applicable, because if some events happen that God did not ordain, I would have no way of finding any meaning in them. I would not know if God did this, or if this was simply a random event on the deck of the boat. Perhaps my daughter did not die from cancer because of God's will, but rather He simply had a "hands-off" approach at that time and allowed "nature" to take its course. I do not see how I can praise God in all things if I am not sure that God brought about all of those things. That would be giving credit (or as some Arminians put it, giving blame) to God where He had nothing to do with it.



David, IMO you find meaning in the promise that "we know in all things God works together for good to those who love Him" Rom 8.28
Therefore i needn't believe that my mother in law's cancer was caused by God but i can believe He cured her.
As i see it you can summarize this Calvinist/freewill debate to it's essence which is that i can give you hundreds of verses that at face value are conditional , identified by words like "if" and similar words and you can give me a dozen or two verses indicating God's intervention.
If we take ALL the verses simply at face value we would have to conclude that usually God allows free will but sometimes God intervenes.
We can list the verses in column A and column B and that's how it would appear to a layman who is untouched by prior indoctrination.
If i would say that man has complete free will you would object and point to the verses where God intervenes, correct?
If that's true then why are you justified in taking a position in the other extreme which is that God ALWAYS intervenes?

[Guest]

Therefore i needn't believe that my mother in law's cancer was caused by God but i can believe He cured her.

You could also believe that He allows cancer/sickness to come upon someone for His own purposes. Maybe to strengthen/test thier faith, stregnthen/test your faith, test the compassion of your family in caring for thier mother, showing the reality of death to unsaved loved ones, or to simply bring them home to Him. He may also allow someone to get cancer to cure them. And of course, He may actually give someone cancer, as opposed to letting it happen, for any of the above reasons.

I don't think that Arminians need to confine themselves to a veiw of God that is "hands off" where things just "randomly" happen at all.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I would not agree with your approach to this debate. I do not want to paraphrase your post in an unfair or unflattering way, but it appears that you advocate that we should just read a bunch of Scripture and see how it strikes us or grabs us. Or that we should make Columns with ostensibly diametrically opposed verses and whichever column has the most verses wins.

The Bible is a very large book, and it contains some difficult to understand teachings. Even Peter said this of Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:16, where Peter said there are things that Paul wrote that are difficult to understand). From the Bible, many heretical views have sprung. David Koresh convinced a group of people from his "Bible" studies that he was the Messiah. A lot of views that you and I would find heretical have supposedly sprung from the Scriptures.

The idea that the "unadulterated" believer will always be an Arminian unless he is perverted by the wily Calvinist is a theological slur. Can you prove it? What if I were to turn the tables on you, and say that only unlearned and uneducated people with under-developed theologies are Arminians (I do not for a second believe this, but your argument cuts both ways).

As far as face value, when I read Ephesians 1:11 which says that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, even as an Arminian, I did not find the Arminian exposition of the verse very convincing. At face value, it sounds like God works all things, not just some, and He works them, not works with them after man decides his move. Yet, you as an Arminian would not take that face-value explanation. Face-value, it turns out, is not of much value in discovering the truth when we are dealing with topics that go much deeper than skin level.

If God did not ordain that I developed cancer, then how should I look at my cancer? How did this befall me? Did God allow certain autonomous events to happen, and the random or chance outcome was cancer? If God knew I was going to get cancer, and He allowed it, then I wonder if that is much different than saying that He chose that for me? After all, He could have prevented, if He was aware of it.

[Guest]

I would not agree with your approach to this debate. I do not want to paraphrase your post in an unfair or unflattering way, but it appears that you advocate that we should just read a bunch of Scripture and see how it strikes us or grabs us. Or that we should make Columns with ostensibly diametrically opposed verses and whichever column has the most verses wins.


David, Many people might call a bunch of scripture the bible and i didn't say either side wins or loses. At least what i meant to say is that we see instances of intervention and many more instances of conditional paths based on choice.
Therefore i said a layman would conclude that both occur in the bible. I think that's a reasonable conclusion but that is just my opinion.
Whether God allowing cancer or causing it and the difference is a different kettle of fish and if you want to start a thread on that , feel free i know i would view it with interest.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I hope my last post did not upset you, because I did not mean it as a put-down. I simply wanted to point out that the argument that Arminianism is the most natural way to take most of the Bible is a matter of opinion. Most of the people on the forum are Arminian, and they would agree with you. However, if you went over to Mark's forum, I doubt you would find a majority who would second that notion. Therefore, since this is a great generalization, it is useless to either side.

I would disagree with you, respectfully, that we see more of one than the other or both (God's meticulous control vs. autonomous decisions of men, like the shuffleboard game on the boat that God captains). I do not think the Scriptures taken as a whole countenance that view.

I only mentioned the cancer example because in one of my previous posts, I stated that unless God ordains all events, I do not think we could know whether any event is from God or not, and therefore we would not know whether a certain occurrence had any causal relationship or meaning or whether it was just another random shuffleboard game.

[Guest]

I only mentioned the cancer example because in one of my previous posts, I stated that unless God ordains all events, I do not think we could know whether any event is from God or not, and therefore we would not know whether a certain occurrence had any causal relationship or meaning or whether it was just another random shuffleboard game.


David, The only thing that upset me lately is that the NY Rangers were eliminated from the playoffs but i don't think anyone here is interested.
If you don't mind i have two questions for you if it's OK.
The first is one i mentioned previously which is why would Jesus tell us to call God our Father , which he knows would evoke an image of a good human father. A good human father doesn't micromanage his kids but he intervenes on occasion for the benefit of his kids. This would be the type of impression we would get from this description from Jesus.
Secondly , there seem to be many senseless tragedies where no lesson can be learned and which no redeeming features such as kids dying in concentration camps or people like Pol Pot just randomly killing and torturing.
If God allowed the consequences of man's sinful choices things like this have some logic but to say God actually causes things like this to happen is very difficult to swallow.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

Your first question is about what constitutes a good father. We may need more management than you are giving us all credit for, since "all we like sheep have gone astray" Isaiah said. Much of what Jesus said about God being a good Father in Matthew 5 was limited to His benevolence in answering our prayers. Jesus said that if we, being earthly and imperfect, know how to give good gifts to our children, and that we would never intentionally give our children a serpent when they ask for food, then how much more God. It is an a fortiori argument for the goodness of God as our Father. The passage however does not touch on how involved God is in the affairs of men, or how meticulous His control is in His governing of the world.

Ephesians 1:11 refers to "the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will."

Special note should be taken of the expression "all things." Nothing is excluded from this generalization, as I see it. Blessed and providential events are covered -- rainfall, clothing provisions, deliverance from sickness, winning the big game. Difficult and unhappy events are covered -- floods, starvation, cancer, divorce and heartache. "All things" have been worked or caused by God in His sovereign plan for human life and history.

The "all things" includes the decisions made by individuals. This means "all" such decisions. God has predetermined the sensible, loving and righteous choices made by individuals -- to work in a particular field, to give a specific gift for a birthday, to submit in faith to Jesus Christ as one's Savior and Lord. God has likewise predetermined the foolish, abusive and sinful choices made by individuals -- to try drugs, to slander a neighbor, to reject the call of the gospel.

So then, God "works all things" after the counsel of His own will. This predetermination, according to Biblical teaching, applies to the most minute details of life. Jesus said: "not one sparrow shall fall on the ground without your Father; even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matthew 10:29-30). God has planned in advance the number of hairs we will have on our heads from day to day -- how much more the more obviously important aspects of what we do and what happens to us! God's sovereign plan leaves nothing to "chance," not even those details of events which appear insignificant or purposeless to us. "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is from Jehovah" (Proverbs 16:33). God's sovereignty is seen everywhere, from the laws of physics to the toss of the dice in Las Vegas.

Finally, we should note that whatever God foreordains will certainly take place or happen; it cannot fail to come about. "I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.... I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it" (Isaiah 46:9-11). God makes no mistakes, and thus He need not change His mind about whatever He has planned. Moreover, there is no power outside of God which can thwart Him from accomplishing whatever He wishes to do.

You asked about difficult to understand events, especially the unpleasant ones. Interestingly, Job, living a long time ago with much less Scripture (if any) at his disposal, assumed that God had caused his trials. From the beginning Job reasoned that "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, but blessed be the name of the Lord." Job also said "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him". Job's understanding of God's sovereignty was to assume at the outset that what happened to him was from the Almighty. I wonder if that lack of outlook today is why we have so many fairweather believers. Many in our churches could never imagine a God that would do that, yet Job could. Even though he did not endure his trial perfectly, he did better than many of us would, because he understood that God had a purpose for his sufferings, and that God was justified in His dealings with Job. Also interesting is the fact that when Job stated that God had caused these things, the author of Job commented that in all of this "Job did not charge God with wrong-doing". We do not charge God with authorship of sin and evil by understanding the breadth of His control.

You had mentioned that my view is hard to swallow. I have been there. But I would much rather drink the cup my Father gives me, than the cup that another sinner or chance or probability forces on me.