Calvinism? Arminianism?

[Garrett V. F.]

I'm loosely acquainted with the beliefs of Calvinists and Arminians. At the moment, I side with the Calvinists, who believe in predestination. I will explain why:

1. Bob has two choices: Choice A and Choice Z. Bob chooses Choice Z.
2. God is omniscient. This means that He is "all-knowing". Knowledge of all would include knowledge of the future.
3. If God knows the future, then He knows that Bob will choose Choice Z even before Bob chooses it.
4. If God knew what Bob would choose before Bob chose it, then how could Bob have chosen anything else?

This does not exclude free will. Here's how free will could continue to exist:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. Because God is omnipotent, He would have no trouble creating Bob in extremely minute detail
3. God is omniscient.
4. Because God is omniscient, and because God created Bob and knows how He created him, God can accurately predict what Bob will do before it actually happens.
5. Bob, in his freedom, chooses Choice Z. God did not force Bob to choose Choice Z, but, because He knows Bob so darn well, and because He knows the social circumstances that He placed Bob in, and because He knows the people that Bob would come into contact with, God can accurately predict what Bob would do without actually forcing Bob to do it.

To summarize that last little bit, I'm postulating that God pretty much destines Bob to whatever choices Bob makes by making Bob in such minute detail. But Bob still makes the choices on his own, so free will survives. Saying otherwise seems to be a claim that God can be surprised by someone, which doesn't mesh with the whole omniscience thing.

To me, the logic there seems to work pretty well. The only way that I can see to get around it is to claim that God is either not omnipotent or not omniscient. I haven't looked deeply into the scriptures that either side uses to defend their points. I simply took the claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as a starting point for my line of thought.

If I'm wrong here, please explain why. If the opposing arguments hold up, I will be persuaded. However, be prepared to handle questions from me.

Commence discussion.

 

[mark46]

So, your position is that God in his infinite wisdom creates Bob, in such detail that the result of his so-called choice is inevitable. In any case, God knows what will be chosen. If Bob is elected for heaven, then Bob is wired in such detail so that he will choose God and go to heaven. If Bob is not elect, then Bob is hard-wired so that he will choose to reject God. If God is omnicient, all-powerfull, and all-merciful, He certainly could choose either not to create the Bob that will go to hell, or he could change his makeup so that he will choose God.
=====================
In the end, there is no real choice for Bob, just the elect and non-elect. The elect are here to give glory to God as they learn and act in this world. The choices (already determined really) will help them develop spiritually.
=====================
I stand with Wesley.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace
==========================================

I'm loosely acquainted with the beliefs of Calvinists and Arminians. At the moment, I side with the Calvinists, who believe in predestination. I will explain why:

1. Bob has two choices: Choice A and Choice Z. Bob chooses Choice Z.
2. God is omniscient. This means that He is "all-knowing". Knowledge of all would include knowledge of the future.
3. If God knows the future, then He knows that Bob will choose Choice Z even before Bob chooses it.
4. If God knew what Bob would choose before Bob chose it, then how could Bob have chosen anything else?

This does not exclude free will. Here's how free will could continue to exist:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. Because God is omnipotent, He would have no trouble creating Bob in extremely minute detail
3. God is omniscient.
4. Because God is omniscient, and because God created Bob and knows how He created him, God can accurately predict what Bob will do before it actually happens.
5. Bob, in his freedom, chooses Choice Z. God did not force Bob to choose Choice Z, but, because He knows Bob so darn well, and because He knows the social circumstances that He placed Bob in, and because He knows the people that Bob would come into contact with, God can accurately predict what Bob would do without actually forcing Bob to do it.

To summarize that last little bit, I'm postulating that God pretty much destines Bob to whatever choices Bob makes by making Bob in such minute detail. But Bob still makes the choices on his own, so free will survives. Saying otherwise seems to be a claim that God can be surprised by someone, which doesn't mesh with the whole omniscience thing.

To me, the logic there seems to work pretty well. The only way that I can see to get around it is to claim that God is either not omnipotent or not omniscient. I haven't looked deeply into the scriptures that either side uses to defend their points. I simply took the claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as a starting point for my line of thought.

If I'm wrong here, please explain why. If the opposing arguments hold up, I will be persuaded. However, be prepared to handle questions from me.

Commence discussion.

 

[Jpark]

So, your position is that God in his infinite wisdom creates Bob, in such detail that the result of his so-called choice is inevitable. In any case, God knows what will be chosen. If Bob is elected for heaven, then Bob is wired is such detail so that he will choose God and go to heaven. If Bob is not elect, then Bob is hard-wired so that he will choose to reject God. If God is omnicient, all-powerfull, and all-merciful, he certainly could choose either not to created the Bob that will go to hell, or he could change his makeup so that he will choose God.
=====================
In the end, there is no real choice, just the elect and non-elect. The lect are here to give glory to God as they learn and act in this world. The choices (already determined really) will help them develop spiritually.
=====================
I stand with Wesley.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace
==========================================

My father told me that John Wesley taught that we have to be relative with God.

 

[1777Candidus]

We must ask, is Biblical truth and doctrine the result of a syllogism, or from a direct statement from Scripture?

Is a logical conclusion superior to the Bible when it comes to truth about God? Is man's logic more perfect than God's Word?

The facts: Predestination in the Scriptures only occures 5 times. It does not refer to the predestination to salvation of a single individual in any instance.

So, why invent a doctrine based upon logic, which is so prominent that it controlls how we interpret nearly every verse we see, when Scripture never makes any such application? Can we really start with man's presuppositions and dictate what is God's truth? Is it God or man that places predestination of individuals to heaven or hell to be the launchingboard of theology?

1). The Bible says that God is all powerful
2). God cannot make a rock that is so big and heavy that He cannot lift it
3). God is therefore not all powerful

Let's build a "theology" now!

 

[Garrett V. F.]

We must ask, is Biblical truth and doctrine the result of a syllogism, or from a direct statement from Scripture?

Is a logical conclusion superior to the Bible when it comes to truth about God? Is man's logic more perfect than God's Word?

The facts: Predestination in the Scriptures only occures 5 times. It does not refer to the predestination to salvation of a single individual in any instance.

So, why invent a doctrine based upon logic, which is so prominent that it controlls how we interpret nearly every verse we see, when Scripture never makes any such application? Can we really start with man's presuppositions and dictate what is God's truth? Is it God or man that places predestination of individuals to heaven or hell to be the launchingboard of theology?

Rhetorically well stated, but I think you're wrong. I don't recall the book of 1st Samuel ever specifically stating that Saul was breaking God's commandments when he repeatedly tried to kill David, either, but he was. Know how we know he was? By using logic. We see that, elsewhere in Scripture, it says "Do not murder." We see Saul breaking that command.

As another example, in 1 John 2, we see it saying that, if we are in Jesus, we will obey his commands. We know from 1 John 1 that this cannot mean that we don't sin at all, because he tells us that "If we claim to be without sin, then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." We used logic to figure that out. You must constantly use logic just to understand what the Bible is saying. If you don't, it would be nothing but letters on a page. You're using your mind.

1). The Bible says that God is all powerful
2). God cannot make a rock that is so big and heavy that He cannot lift it
3). God is therefore not all powerful

Let's build a "theology" now!

My favorite answer to this question is: "Yes, he could make the rock, and then he'd lift it anyway." But the bottom line is that this is a logical impossibility. This is like trying to make a square circle or asking what purple smells like. Can God make a square circle? Can he tell us the smell of purple? Maybe. But it doesn't matter because we'd never understand it anyway. Questions like these are just words.

As for "[building] a 'theology' now", what did Jesus do? What did Moses do? What did they give us if not theology? (Other things, too, of course, but theology was certainly one of them.) The early heresies were taken down because they were logically shown to be in conflict with theology. What you have just given us is theology. Your theology is "the Bible alone." Most of us also believe that we should take the Bible by itself, not adding to it, but you have taken this a step further, saying that we should not even use logic.

As I've already pointed out, not using logic at all wouldn't even leave us with a Bible. It would leave us with a few million words printed on a thousand-and-a-half pages. Without using logic, we could read the words and understand them individually, but we could never put them together into an intelligible thought. It would be no better than randomly rearranging them: "Message him is and this have light heard there him in God darkness all at from declare we you no to." Those were most of the words found in 1 John 1:5 (NIV). Imagine trying to read the entire Bible like that. That's what we'd be doing if we didn't use our minds, our logic.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30) There are similar verses, and apologists have already listed them out elsewhere. A short Google search (or an inquiry on this site) will give you all the rest.

Is a logical conclusion superior to the Bible when it comes to truth about God? Is man's logic more perfect than God's Word?

If you ask me, man's logic is about as perfect as it can get. It's the man's mind that is imperfect. We obviously cannot know all variables, and we forget things all the time, so our logic will be limited in that way. But if our minds were capable of knowing all variables, and if they were incapable of forgetting, then I doubt we'd have much trouble with anything, because we already have been given logic. "The keys on my keyboard are working, so I can use them to type." This is logic. "My computer screen is turned off, so I cannot see the display." This is logic. You're saying we shouldn't apply this? That common sense is useless?

Logical conclusions may not be superior to the Bible, but they certainly aren't inferior. They go side by side. God's truth can only be understood if we've made some sort of logical conclusion about them. We can only understand that the window is open, not shut, by making a logical conclusion about it. Abandoning logic is abandoning your ability to think.

Again, you wrote rhetorically well, but I don't agree with you. You can abandon logic if you want, but I'm certainly not going to. The only reason that I'm a Christian today is because I found out that God is logically sound. So abandon logic at will, but don't expect to convert too many rational people without using it.

 

[1777Candidus]

Garrett,

My purpose was not to eliminate logic altogether, but to seek the best place to start for doctrine; Scripture. I do have a low view of logic and its infallibility as a determining factor in developing doctrine. I see it as a tool, as I see Church history and personal experiences. No one is clean slate, and due to either presupposions or ignorance, relying too heavily on anything other than Scripture would be a recipe for deviating from Biblical doctrine.

You are correct in suggesting that we can find indirect statements that assist in developing doctrine (such as the Trinity), but I do not agree with your formula; it assumes too much, begging the question. Much of my rejection of logic would be that it is used all too often as a philosophical approach to Scripture and not a theological one.

Blessings