Predestination from a quasi-Arminian perspective

[zippy2006]

I hold to the view that predestination means...

What is quasi-Arminian about your view? It seems fully Arminian to me.

 

[food4thought]

What is quasi-Arminian about your view? It seems fully Arminian to me.

Hi zippy.

Well, for one I don't believe in the typical Arminian view of free will... Our will is limited by our sinfulness, our finite power, our finite minds/knowledge, etc.

Also, if you look at the final paragraph of my OP, I acknowledge that everything we do is determined by God before He ever created. This is hardly an Arminian sentiment.

Finally, and by far most importantly, I don't believe we earn our salvation by our works. I simply say that we must receive the grace that God offers. I differ from the Calvinist view of irresistible grace in that we can refuse God's grace, but I also agree that man cannot earn salvation... it is a gift to be received.

 

[zippy2006]

Hi zippy.

Well, for one I don't believe in the typical Arminian view of free will... Our will is limited by our sinfulness, our finite power, our finite minds/knowledge, etc.

Also, if you look at the final paragraph of my OP, I acknowledge that everything we do is determined by God before He ever created. This is hardly an Arminian sentiment.

Finally, and by far most importantly, I don't believe we earn our salvation by our works. I simply say that we must receive the grace that God offers. I differ from the Calvinist view of irresistible grace in that we can refuse God's grace, but I also agree that man cannot earn salvation... it is a gift to be received.

Hi food4thought,

Consider a few points you make:

1. Our will is limited by our sinfulness
2. Our will is limited by our finite power
3. Our will is limited by our finite minds and knowledge
4. Everything we do is determined by God before He ever created
5. Man cannot earn salvation

It seems to me that the only thing an Arminian would disagree with is 4. But the rest of your post makes me thing that you do not hold 4 in a Calvinistic or even Thomistic way, which in turn would make it seem that it is compatible with Arminianism. For example, it is not incompatible with Arminianism to hold that everything happens according to God's eternal decree, where the decree factors in the free choices of individuals.

That's not to say that the points don't present differences at all. Presumably you think that sinfulness limits the will more than the average Arminian does. In the end though, this isn't an essential difference with respect to the Arminian-Calvinist debate. To my mind, that debate can be framed according to the question of whether there is a kind of ontological potency or responsiveness in God, such that He must wait to see how an agent acts and is not Himself the explanatory first cause of an agent's action. On that essential question it would seem that you clearly fall on the Arminian side. Yet it is possible that Catholic positions on predestination are coloring my perspective.

 

[food4thought]

Hi food4thought,

Consider a few points you make:

1. Our will is limited by our sinfulness
2. Our will is limited by our finite power
3. Our will is limited by our finite minds and knowledge
4. Everything we do is determined by God before He ever created
5. Man cannot earn salvation

It seems to me that the only thing an Arminian would disagree with is 4. But the rest of your post makes me thing that you do not hold 4 in a Calvinistic or even Thomistic way, which in turn would make it seem that it is compatible with Arminianism. For example, it is not incompatible with Arminianism to hold that everything happens according to God's eternal decree, where the decree factors in the free choices of individuals.

Our free will is decreed by God, in the sense that what we freely choose within our limitations has been known and decreed by God from all eternity. Is that Thomistic? I am regrettably not familiar with Thomas Aquinas' teachings on the matter.

That's not to say that the points don't present differences at all. Presumably you think that sinfulness limits the will more than the average Arminian does. In the end though, this isn't an essential difference with respect to the Arminian-Calvinist debate. To my mind, that debate can be framed according to the question of whether there is a kind of ontological potency or responsiveness in God, such that He must wait to see how an agent acts and is not Himself the explanatory first cause of an agent's action. On that essential question it would seem that you clearly fall on the Arminian side. Yet it is possible that Catholic positions on predestination are coloring my perspective.

In one sense God is the explanatory first cause of an agents action, because God created him/her and holds them together by His will knowing exactly what they will do; yet I would say that God designed us with the ability to make choices both in line with and contrary to His will, so He is in that sense not the explanatory first cause of an agent's action, since I believe that God has given us the capacity to act of our own volition. Without that distinction, God would be the direct cause of both our good and evil actions. My thoughts along these lines can be summarized by this:

God is completely good with no evil whatsoever,
therefore God cannot be the direct cause of evil.
Man has been designed with the ability to act on his/her own volition, and thus is capable of both good and evil,
This ability is necessary for the capacity to truly love, so this ability is ultimately good.
Yet because man can do both good and evil, God cannot be the direct cause of man's volitional actions.
Therefore, man has free will*.

* Within the constraints of man's nature.

Calvinism seeks to avoid this trap by saying God is only responsible for our capacity to do good, but I consider that argument to be special pleading. I guess my view could be considered fully Arminian by your definition... it's just that Arminianism is often linked with works righteousness and denying God's sovereignty, so I don't like to be labeled fully Arminian.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess my view could be considered fully Arminian by your definition... it's just that Arminianism is often linked with works righteousness and denying God's sovereignty, so I don't like to be labeled fully Arminian.

Yes, I would understand it to be Arminian insofar as "Arminian" signifies a Protestant theological position on freedom and predestination fundamentally opposed to Calvinism and the Synod of Dort. Certainly the word has acquired baggage since then, such as works righteousness and the like (and yet it should be acknowledged that this is always a pitfall with an Arminian view of freedom). In any case, there are many who are comfortable with the label "Arminian" and are on the same page as yourself, so don't write them all off entirely!

 

[food4thought]

Thanks for helping me clarify my position, Zippy... I had to think further on this than I had before because of your imput. I also read The Five Articles of the Remonstrants for the first time (I think), and found nothing within them that struck me as unacceptable/unbiblical, but some Arminians have strayed quite a ways from a few of these 5 articles.

Here is the link: http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html (I can't vouch for the site, as this was my first visit there, so use discernment should you surf any further).

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for helping me clarify my position, Zippy... I had to think further on this than I had before because of your imput. I also read The Five Articles of the Remonstrants for the first time (I think), and found nothing within them that struck me as unacceptable/unbiblical, but some Arminians have strayed quite a ways from a few of these 5 articles.

Here is the link: http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html (I can't vouch for the site, as this was my first visit there, so use discernment should you surf any further).

Yes, I agree. I'm glad that the exchange was helpful to you. Thanks for the link.

God bless,
Zip