Does this Question Invalidate Arminianism/Wesleyanism?

[lori milne]

Just checking that we are using "word" and "Word" the same way. The Bible says that, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." That "Word" is Jesus. Jesus is the divine Word. The Bible are words from God but is not God. There is a tendency of some Christians towards worshipping the Bible rather than the Jesus of the Bible. So I have some concern when people claim to be a "Bible Christian" when the point of being a Christian is Jesus rather than the book about Jesus. So I only refer to Jesus as the Word of God rather than the Bible since Jesus is the divine Son of God and the Bible isn't.

My self as well jesus is my HERO lol
I ve been asked who or what i want to be like and the answer is always jesus

 

[ParentofChildren]

The bible shows clearly
1.!We have free will to chose to " eat the apple or not" genesis 3 , have free will to willfully sin Hebrews 10:26
2. We having warnings and heedings to not sin or
Obey and keep my commandments or we shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven acts 5:29 Deuteronomy 13:4
3. God wants all of us to go to heaven
2 Peter 2:3 He Predestined that all go to heaven BUT not Everyman will choose wisely and they mite loose their crown Rev 3:11 Eph 1:4-5

In short, is their a contradiction in the word about predestined?
The word balanced this out for all to know who reads and understands

Very well said... I agree, and like your verses. God wants us to go to him willingly.

 

[circuitrider]

I'm assuming by "the word" you mean the Bible but the Word is Jesus. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

 

[JCFantasy23]

I see your point, but it's not really addressing my question. Even if everyone has free will, God still, at the very least, saw before creating this universe who would say yes and who wouldn't. Thus, God CHOSE this universe and not any other potential universes where more or less people could have had faith for any number of reasons.

Interesting thread - when people pose things like this, or I think of them myself, I realize there is never a clear cut answer because - and not trying for a cop-out here on purpose - time for God is so different than us. We are limited with how we perceive and can't imagine otherwise. You're saying God sees all future already so already knows, but the free will argument is the here and now, and of course consequences of past actions influence us as we speak, both ours and others. When I was a little kid I asked my mother if God saw everything all the time, and she answered that she believed He chose not to. I'm sure this isn't true, by the way, my mom isn't a theologian at all but always close to God, but is a simple way she chose to view it. I'm sure however any of us choose to view it, we'll never be 100% correct. And I agree with ServantJohns comment that your argument, to me, seems to raise up the invalidation of Calvinism over Armenianism with the argument you're presenting.

 

[JCFantasy23]

IMO the whole question of possible alternate universes is moot. God created this one. We have no information that He considered alternatives.

Actually that's another thing I forgot to mention - I kept pausing with some of the phrasing on universes. You said God 'chose this universe over others', what does that mean? He created this universe with the intent of doing what he has done. He did not choose this one to carry out an act instead of choosing 'another.' This must be a theory I'm unfamiliar with.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Does God knowing how things are going to work out mean that God foreordains them just because he could change the working out of history but does not? I don't think so. Imagine this, tomorrow the final game of the NCAA tournament is to be played for the year. Now, God who knows all things is already aware of how that game will be played out even though it is a day off. According to your theory, if God could choose between two options and chooses only one of them (thus rejecting the other) this means that God must have an actual preference for the one that occurs. Since only one of the two teams can win, and since God is aware of it and is not choosing the history in which the other team wins, then it must mean that God has a preference for the winning team. Not only a preference for them, but that in every sporting event that has ever taken place, God has an interest and a preference and has chosen that particular winner. It also means that God has chosen all of the accidents that have ever taken place. All of the injustices that have ever taken place. Indeed, that there is no event in history, including the sins individuals have committed that God not only didn't choose, but actually forordained. In other words God was the cause behind every action, every reaction, every choice, every thought, every good deed, every bad deed, every sin, including those of Stalin, Hitler, and Judas. For, in the world you have proposed, people have as much freedom to resist sin if God so wills it (and we would only sin if God wills it) as a stone does to resist the law of gravity and float in the air of its own free will. It has none and so it follows the law of gravity, and every falling stone is evidence of that law. And by the same token, every sin would be evidence of God's willing of a person to sin if there is no such a thing as free will.

Great example, works well with the discussion and what I was thinking - you state it better, of course. And brings the point that in the bible there is scripture where God foreknew a lot of occurrences, actions of the heart and head of biblical characters, and how it will all play out, but the bible also offers scripture where God shows himself to sway with prayer and change a course of action, use disasters and sins we shouldn't have committed to make the best of us and turn it around for the good. I think the argument is oversimplying God and forseeing all at once - if that were the case free will wouldn't matter as much as it does, and it's made a be a huge deal in our relationship with the saviour.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have thought about this and I suggest it may not be possible to create a universe where everyone comes to faith, and yet still permit human freedom. God can do everything that is possible, but not the impossible. That's just my supposition, I am not pretending it is without error, but I can understand it is complex.

You might want to look at Molinism some time- Roman Catholics have thought about this in greater detail. William Lane Craig is a Reformed Baptist (I believe?) who is also a Molinist, not Calvinist or Arminian on the question of human freedom and divine sovereignty. Actally, molinism may be closer to what I described in the previous paragraph. I have read about it some but not gone into the most detail.

I just tend to assume that the promises made in the Gospel are sincerely made by God and "whosoever will, may come". Arminianism is not a theology without its mysteries.

Arminian theology does not actually involve humans having absolute autonomy, that's a myth. See Roger Olson's excellent book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

My issue with Calvinism is not so much down to philosophical questions of free will, as it is what Scripture presents, what is important (Love vs. Power/Control), and just common sense beliefs in human freedom as basic (Calvinism can often be counter-intuitive).

 

[circuitrider]

Just a few thoughts here. Roger Olson I believe is a Baptist who is Arminian which gives his work a different spin than Wesleyan arminianism.

I'm not a universalist for mostly the same reason I'm not a Calvinist. I do believe God provides us, through prevenient grace, a measure of free will that both Calvinism and Universalism don't allow.

In the case of Calvinism you are of the elect or you are not. Your choices don't come into it at all which, IMHO, makes the God of Calvinism unjust.

In Universalism everyone is someone how redeem even if they never wanted it. So free will is again denied on some level.

Now I know that some universalists will argue that a loving God will just find some way to convince everyone. But ultimately is their really free will if everyone will ultimately agree? That doesn't seem logical to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are right, he's a Baptist but he's not out to defend Baptist beliefs. It seems like he's trying to be faithful to Arminius' Reformed beliefs and not interject his own Baptist anti-sacramentology. He discusses the history of Arminianism, starting with Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrance controversy, and how it relates to the Bible and to the early Church Fathers.

He's a good theologian, very charitable with those with whom he disagrees.

If you could recommend a book on specific Wesleyan Arminianism and Methodist doctrines of justification, I would be willing to read those as well.

 

[circuitrider]

I agree FireDragon. I'm just saying that straight Arminianism, Free Baptist arminianism, and Wesleyan Arminianism aren't exactly the same thing. There are nuanced differences. And the original thread topic is "Does this Question Invalidate Arminianism/Wesleyanism?"

Weslyan Arminianism is strongly tied to John Wesley's concepts of grace.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hi Everyone,

I'm not trying to start any Calvinist/Arminian battles here, but there is one issue I have with Arminianism that I just cannot get past and was wondering if anyone here who is an Arminian/Wesleyan can provide a different perspective.

Question: Even if we imagine that all human beings have absolute free will (and I'm not saying Arminians believe this), and thus every single human chooses to accept or reject Christianity freely, because God is absolutely all-knowing and all-powerful, chose THIS universe with all of the events that would ever occur throughout history when God could have chosen among an infinite other possible universes. In other words, even if free will is absolute and salvation is conditional, God knew when he created the universe how the universe would turn out and still CHOSE this universe instead of another. God could have created the universe in any other way, but this is the universe God allowed to exist, even if everything that happens is the result of "free" choices.

Doesn't this basically invalidate all of Arminianism?

Thanks and God bless.

-Justin

Is God “absolutely all-knowing?” Does not God change his mind when things do not turn out in the manner that He had expected them to?

Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Exodus 32:14. And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

1 Samuel 15:11. “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35. Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 18:7. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8. but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
9. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10. but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

Jeremiah 26:3. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
13. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
19. Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"

Jeremiah 42:10. If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Jonah 3:10. When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

In all of these verses from the NRSV, the Hebrew word נָחַם is used and its translation is shown using bold type.

(I am a Wesleyan Baptist and a member of a Church of the Nazarene)

 

[FireDragon76]

Classical theists understand passages of Scriptures that suggest God changes his mind, as anthropomorphisms (understanding something non-human, in human terms). They do not understand those passages literally. This is true in the Jewish tradition as well.

 

[circuitrider]

Classical theists understand passages of Scriptures that suggest God changes his mind, as anthropomorphisms (understanding something non-human, in human terms). They do not understand those passages literally. This is true in the Jewish tradition as well.

It may be anthropomorphic but it is Biblical.

My of my concerns with Christian theology is how we often explain away the plain sense of scripture to fit our own theories. I'm not a Calvinist so I don't have to believe that God can't change God's mind.

 

[FireDragon76]

James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change"

God is trustworthy and what he does, he does for a reason. If he seems to change his mind, it is often to teach us something. It doesn't have anything to do with being indecisive or depending on us.

I would emphasize the Bible was not written at one time by the same types of people. At one time people thought of God in very concrete, human-like terms, then as the Bible progresses, people start thinking of God in much more abstract terms (by the time of the New Testamen for instance).

This is why Jesus teaches us the essence of prayer is in our sincerity. Pagans believed, on the contrary, that it was possible to make deals with their gods, to manipulate their them through eloquent flattery or other human sentiments. On the other hand, Jesus stresses God's power and knowledge of our needs, even before we pray.

 

[circuitrider]

FireDragon, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The idea that God is immutable makes prayer a farce among other theological issues.

You may or may not be a Calvinist. But the tendency to place God's unchanging nature over and against God's ability to act and God's loving kindness is one of the Calvinist issues that has tainted a lot of Christian theology.

I'm well aware of the composition of the canon, authorship issues, language issues, etc. And I agree that people thought of God in much more concrete terms than we do now. But our modern problem is the tendency to create theological theories about God and the Bible and then use those theories as a lens for Biblical interpretation often even obscuring passages that are rather clear so that it is forced to fit our theories.

The idea that God never changes his mind isn't Biblical.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, actually I am not a Calvinist. I admit I am influenced by Orthodox theology, perhaps, which might seem Calvinist at first because it stresses God's incomprehensibility.

I spent a lot of time in the Orthodox church. Eastern Orthodox do not deny human cooperation in God's activity in the world. Rather, human cooperation with the divine will is not incompatible with divine sovereignty, though explaining it is rationalistic terms may not be possible. But, Eastern Orthodox theology is in agreement with western classical theism that God, in his essential nature, does not change.

 

[circuitrider]

I think it is a theological confusion to say that God's essential nature doesn't change and that means he doesn't change his mind. It seems to imply that God does not engage with creation. It seems to me to better fit a deist view of God. If God's very nature is to do the loving thing and the redeeming thing than God's very own nature can be at the heart of why God changes God's mind.

God not being able to change God's own mind IMHO makes God less than sovereign rather than more sovereign. It puts God in a human made theological box.

 

[circuitrider]

Also, as someone who is expected to uphold United Methodist doctrine, let me point out that I don't think you will find a requirement in any of the UMC doctrinal standards to believe that God does not change God's mind. It is not a part of our doctrinal framework.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, it's definitely not deist. Orthodox believe God is very much active in the world, through his operations, which are equally divine as his own essence. In fact his operations are identical to his grace. Orthodox understand grace as mostly a metaphysical reality. That's why they stress their sacraments and a sacramental worldview so much.

 

[circuitrider]

United Methodists certainly believe in the power of God's grace. This is evident in our belief in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.