I'm trying to understand this part of Arminianism

[Neostarwcc]

But Arminians don't (not in the sense that Calvinists use the term). That's the whole point.



Calvinists believe in compatibilist free will, and Arminians believe in libertarian free will.



Arminians deny that God is sovereign over the actions of human beings, or over anything that may have been influenced by the actions of human beings.

Then I'm confused and over half the people in this thread lied to me. We were discussing how Arminians believed in God's sovreignty and they basically said that they do up to the point of his sovreignty in humanity. All Arminians apparently refuse to believe God's in control of humanity.

You're right about the two differences between us though. I like to find unity in the various Christian denominations. I like to focus on how we are one rather than how we are apart.

Okay new question for you then. If God is not sovreign over the world how does it function? How does DNA work if God is not in control of it? Or the ocean? Or molecules? Or anything that runs our world today? See science to me just doesn't make sense if you leave God and his sovreignty out of it. If you add a creator and designer to it than science begins to make sense. You cant just say DNA works because it does or because it's way too complex for man to understand. DNA exists because that's how God designed living things. And it works because God is in control of it. This whole world functions because God controls and functions it. It exists because God wills it to happen. Surely we can agree there at least? You obviously believe in God as a Christian and that he designed the universe right? Where do you think that design goes? He has to make the world go round or it doesnt function. It doesnt run itself.

 

[Radagast]

We were discussing how Arminians believed in God's sovreignty and they basically said that they do up to the point of his sovreignty in humanity.

But that's hardly any sovereignty at all!

On the Arminian view, for example, God is not sovereign over Covid-19, because the spread of the disease is the result of a large number of human decisions -- decisions to hug someone or not to hug someone; decisions to wash hands or not to wash hands; decisions to treat a patient with a certain drug, or not to treat the patient with that drug.

Okay new question for you then.

You do realise I'm a Calvinist, right?

 

[com7fy8]

We were discussing how Arminians believed in God's sovreignty and they basically said that they do up to the point of his sovreignty in humanity. All Arminians apparently refuse to believe God's in control of humanity.

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5). So, how much sovereignty, then, does a proud person have? How much is God honoring his or her free will, if God is personally resisting the person?

And if I am claiming that my own will has power more than God . . . He could be resisting me!! And this could be why I am having problems, so I can not submit to Jesus in His "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:28-30)

If my will is truly free, I can personally submit to how our Heavenly Father rules each of us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This would mean His peace is sovereign in our "hearts". Therefore, while ones may argue between free will and God in control, what matters is if we are obeying Him in His sovereign and almighty peace in our hearts and in our minds > Philippians 4:6-7.

My opinion is, by the way . . . you can not know what will happen tomorrow, unless you are in control of it. God knows, because He is in control. His resisting can manage people of pride, so His outcome works out, all the time.

Notice how He managed people who refused Him, in Romans 1:18-32.

And Romans 9:21 says He is our "potter".

 

[HatGuy]

On the Arminian view, for example, God is not sovereign over Covid-19, because the spread of the disease is the result of a large number of human decisions -- decisions to hug someone or not to hug someone; decisions to wash hands or not to wash hands; decisions to treat a patient with a certain drug, or not to treat the patient with that drug.

Why would God not be sovereign over a disease if its spread comes down to many different human decisions?

Does God himself make every person sick?

 

[Radagast]

Why would God not be sovereign over a disease if its spread comes down to many different human decisions?

The difficulty, I think, is that different people are using the word "sovereign" with completely different meanings.

 

[HatGuy]

The difficulty, I think, is that different people are using the word "sovereign" with completely different meanings.

This is true.

 

[Neostarwcc]

But that's hardly any sovereignty at all!

On the Arminian view, for example, God is not sovereign over Covid-19, because the spread of the disease is the result of a large number of human decisions -- decisions to hug someone or not to hug someone; decisions to wash hands or not to wash hands; decisions to treat a patient with a certain drug, or not to treat the patient with that drug.



You do realise I'm a Calvinist, right?

Oh! No I did not. I'm very sorry I assumed everyone who replied to this thread would be Arminian. Sorry. I've seen you posting here for years and never knew that lol. Okay I'm not going to get information out of you then.

My only comment to that is Dr.Charles Stanley afaik is Arminian but he might not be idk I'll google it. But, I've seen him make arguments for "God caused this to happen because everything that happens happens because God wills it to be so. But don't worry he works all things for good. So "X" disaster in your life will eventually turn to good." He makes that statement about the Corona Virus a lot. He says that while this is an epidemic something good will come out of it. I've no clue what good came out of WWII though so this belief could be tested.

I mean more casualties than any other war or event in history. Jews being detained in internment camps and executed by mass numbers. The invention of the nuclear weapon which wastes hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars a year into technology we're never going to even USE, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just... all bad. WWII was the worst event in all history! To date anyway. Theres obviously worse coming.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Why would God not be sovereign over a disease if its spread comes down to many different human decisions?

Does God himself make every person sick?

No of course not. But it's in his will to happen therefore it's due to him that its happening. Like, the upcoming plagues in Revelation. John saw Angels unleashing the plagues but more than likely the plagues will actually be done by the actions of mankind themselves. But wouldnt you say the upcoming plagues are in God's will? Especially because of what comes AFTER the plagues and God throws Satan and the wicked into the lake if fire once and for all?

I personally believe there is going to be a WWIII someday and that will be one of the deadly plagues. Probably the one that kills most of the world (forget which one that is) the Corona virus could just be the beginning. Or near the end idk. I do believe it's a plague from Revelation though. But any rate anything that happens, good or bad happens because of God's permission. Satan cannot make a single action without the permission of God. And believe it or not, neither can we. All of the actions we make whether good or bad are actually permitted by God. Yet the strange part is we will either be rewarded or punished for those actions. Calvinists take it further and say that all of our actions are not only allowed by God but are predestined by him. Which is quite a mind boggler. We can see how God can reward us based on predestined events but the very act that God punishes us based on predetermined events is "unfair" and is mind boggling to even us.

But yet that's what the bible says God is like. God rewards and punishes us by his will and yet commits no sin. He does whatever he pleases and yet commits no sin. There is not a speck of evil found in God.

No evil yet he uses evil for good. No evil yet he punishes the wicked. No evil yet he chooses David and not Saul. No evil yet he loved Jacob but hated Esau. No evil yet he favored Abel instead of Cain resulting in Cains jealousy and murdering his brother. Had God shown favor on Cain Abel might not have died. God's mind really cannot be understood.

 

[Neostarwcc]

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5). So, how much sovereignty, then, does a proud person have? How much is God honoring his or her free will, if God is personally resisting the person?

And if I am claiming that my own will has power more than God . . . He could be resisting me!! And this could be why I am having problems, so I can not submit to Jesus in His "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:28-30)

If my will is truly free, I can personally submit to how our Heavenly Father rules each of us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This would mean His peace is sovereign in our "hearts". Therefore, while ones may argue between free will and God in control, what matters is if we are obeying Him in His sovereign and almighty peace in our hearts and in our minds > Philippians 4:6-7.

My opinion is, by the way . . . you can not know what will happen tomorrow, unless you are in control of it. God knows, because He is in control. His resisting can manage people of pride, so His outcome works out, all the time.

Notice how He managed people who refused Him, in Romans 1:18-32.

And Romans 9:21 says He is our "potter".

Well said and essentially was what I was saying just explained better.

 

[Radagast]

I'm very sorry I assumed everyone who replied to this thread would be Arminian. Sorry. I've seen you posting here for years and never knew that lol. Okay I'm not going to get information out of you then.

If you want reliable information, I would recommend this book (Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom). It includes two different Arminian views (with Clark Pinnock representing the Open Theist Arminian view):

 

[Andrewn]

All of the actions we make whether good or bad are actually permitted by God. Yet the strange part is we will either be rewarded or punished for those actions. Calvinists take it further and say that all of our actions are not only allowed by God but are predestined by him. Which is quite a mind boggler. We can see how God can reward us based on predestined events but the very act that God punishes us based on predetermined events is "unfair" and is mind boggling to even us. But yet that's what the bible says God is like. God rewards and punishes us by his will and yet commits no sin. He does whatever he pleases and yet commits no sin. There is not a speck of evil found in God. No evil yet he uses evil for good. No evil yet he punishes the wicked.

Your observations are correct. Calvinism is unreasonable, illogical, and incorrect understanding of the Bible based on Augustine's writings. It is a big mistake to attribute evil in the world to God. And to say that God predestines majority of the world population to hell is as abhorrent as it can get. And He will save others even they are unfaithful. He will save people against their will by "irresistible grace." God is Not a rapist that makes you do things against your will. This is pure nonsense.

My only comment to that is Dr.Charles Stanley afaik is Arminian but he might not be idk I'll google it. But, I've seen him make arguments for "God caused this to happen because everything that happens happens because God wills it to be so. But don't worry he works all things for good. So "X" disaster in your life will eventually turn to good." He makes that statement about the Corona Virus a lot. He says that while this is an epidemic something good will come out of it.

Charles Stanley is a Baptist, that is a Calvinist. He wrote:

“[T]he unfaithful believer will not lose his salvation … Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy. Christ will remain faithful … Christ will not deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation … believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful.”

– Charles Stanley (1990: Thomas Nelson), Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?, pp. 92-4

Then I'm confused and over half the people in this thread lied to me. We were discussing how Arminians believed in God's sovreignty and they basically said that they do up to the point of his sovreignty in humanity. All Arminians apparently refuse to believe God's in control of humanity.

The way I see it is that God created laws: laws of physics such as gravity and genetics, and spiritual laws such as the law of sin and death. God abides by his own laws and does not break them. He cannot make a square circle. He cannot make a triangle with angles more or less than 180 degrees. He cannot create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot carry. This is logic. In the beginning was the Word / Logos / logic.

Otherwise, why did God have to take on a human body to save us? He could have just forgiven human beings in His sovereignty? But that would be breaking his own laws!

Is God limited? Yes, He is limited by his own laws. Jesus walked on water, calmed the storm, and raised the dead. Miracles do happen. But only for a specific purpose and are the exception not the rule.

Calvinism is wrong.

 

[Radagast]

Your observations are correct. Calvinism is unreasonable, illogical, and incorrect understanding of the Bible based on Augustine's writings.

Calvinism is a reasonable, logical, and correct understanding of the Bible based on Paul's writings.

 

[Albion]

Calvinism is a reasonable, logical, and correct understanding of the Bible based on Paul's writings.

That's fair to say, even though it probably will come as rather jarring to some readers.

Calvinism does make a more orderly case. Whether or not it is correct is another matter, but it has the more logical of the two opposing arguments.

 

[Radagast]

Calvinism does make a more orderly case. Whether or not it is correct is another matter, but it has the more logical of the two opposing arguments.

To be fair, the Open Theist version of Arminian is also logical. It's just totally unbiblical, in my view.

 

[HatGuy]

Calvinism is a reasonable, logical, and correct understanding of the Bible based on Paul's writings.

Because it is very logical it is suspicious in my view.

I can't say it is necessarily reasonable.

It is certainly based on Paul's writings,i.e. a sincere attempt at making an orderly, systematic theology off Paul's writings. One thing is for sure, it does regard the Bible highly.

That doesn't mean it really gets Paul's writings right - but I don't ever think it's fair to accuse a Calvinist of trying to ignore their Bible.

 

[Andrewn]

Calvinism does make a more orderly case. Whether or not it is correct is another matter, but it has the more logical of the two opposing arguments.

Does it make sense to claim that atheists cannot believe bec God did not predestine them to believe and that bec they do not believe they will be tortured in hell for eternity?

 

[Albion]

Does it make sense to claim that atheists cannot believe bec God did not predestine them to believe and that bec they do not believe they will be tortured in hell for eternity?

It's certainly a clean cut and uncomplicated POV, and is entirely possible. We all would agree, I think, that God can do just about anything if he chooses.

But the question then becomes "Does He choose to do that?"

There is no doubt that a good argument can be made from Scripture that He does not choose to operate that way. However, that's a different discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

It's certainly a clean cut and uncomplicated POV, and is entirely possible. We all would agree, I think, that God can do just about anything if he chooses.

But the question then becomes "Does He choose to do that?"

There is no doubt that a good argument can be made from Scripture that He does not choose to operate that way. .

Which is the point

 

[BobRyan]

Okay so my question is this, you know how many times in our lives we meet the right people that God wants us to meet? We're in the places where God wants us to be and not only many times do we make really good friends but we also succeed in bringing people to Christ? How does an Arminian view this? .

God is very good at planning -- like a general managing a war... but God "sovereignly chooses" not to get into the "robot making" business.

So the Matt 23 "Israel.. How I WANTED -- but you would not!"
John 1:11 "He came to His OWN but His own received Him not"
Isaiah 5:4 "What MORE could I have done than that which I have already done? WHy then did it not turn out?"
2 Cor 5 ends with this "We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God"

Since God is sovereignly "choosing" NOT to force/manipulate the "other side" (Satan and his demons) to obey - and also not to force the lost to accept Him, and also not robotizing the saved... He places limits on himself to accomplish His own goals.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Does it make sense to claim that atheists cannot believe bec God did not predestine them to believe and that bec they do not believe they will be tortured in hell for eternity?

God does choose atheists /wave hi ex atheist here. God chooses from every tribe, people and nation. Spurgeon one of the greatest minds in the history of the reformation actually believed there will be more In heaven than in hell. Given the numerous amount of sheep God has chosen in the Bible, I might tend to think Spurgeons belief while controversial might actually be plausible.