People sometimes instinctively blame God for pain and suffering. Evangelical Christians for the most part grimace at this.
Open Theists counter that God didn’t cause it, and couldn’t prevent it–but He loves you anyway. Arminians respond that God merely allows evil, he is not responsible directly for your pain.
Calvinists, however, claim that God ordains and ultimately causes all things, even pain and suffering. He does so generally as a judgment of the wickedness of evil in this world. All are evil, and the world is cursed from sin. Any joy and blessing is a gift from a loving God, and pain reminds us we are fallen and we need salvation.
Without getting into the specific Biblical proofs claimed for each view, let me share a brilliant argument I found recently against the Arminian viewpoint. To use my title, if as Arminians assert, God is merely allowing suffering, how does he ultimately avoid responsibility?
Imagine the following situation: I’m out for an evening stroll when I smell something burning. I look around and notice flames in one of the second floor windows of a neighbor’s house. In the other window, I can see a little girl pounding on the glass and can hear her cries for help. I do nothing. I don’t even use my cell phone to call 911. I just stand there watching until the entire house is engulfed in flames and the little girls dies. Now, since I was perfectly capable of saving her, but chose not to, how could anyone with a conscience say that I was not responsible for her death?
From a basic human perspective, there wouldn’t be any doubt. By standing there and doing nothing as that little girl burned to death, I would be just as culpable as if I had started the fire in the first place. And that’s really what we humans care about, isn’t it, deciding who’s to blame in tragic situations?
So, here’s the question I have for you Arminians: If a sovereign, loving, all-powerful God neither ordains nor causes bad things to happen, but simply stands by and allows them to happen, then how does he escape responsibility for the pain and suffering of those involved? (Keep in mind that the “bad things” being talked about here can refer to everything from the stubbing of one’s toe to the eternal damnation of one’s soul.)
I submit that you cannot answer that question without betraying your own Arminian worldview. You cannot answer it without resorting to the same theological gymnastics you accuse Calvinists of performing. And you certainly cannot answer it if you have a problem conceiving of a truly sovereign God who works all things for his ultimate glory.
excerpted from “A Burning Question for Arminians” by The Contemporary Calvinist [HT: Worlds Apart]
I’d like to invite people to visit my new site and to post answers to two key theological questions I have asked on my site: http://postdeclarolux.wordpress.com/
Bob,
Good question. I hope that there will be some answer from an Arminian (or, “biblicist” as some would like to believe). My pastor has finished a series from the book of Revelation, and he delved into the subject of pain in this life. Surely God does decree that these things happen, for His glory. Also, consider the book of Job as well: Satan also has caused great pain, but only with the sovereign choice of God to allow things to happen to believers. God desires to bring us to him, sometimes through the preaching of the Gospel (to unbelievers), and even sometimes painful situations (even to believers). I’d say that this illustration you brought is ‘brilliant’!
As I pondered your question a little, it seems that there is a difference in how words are defined or something.
Would you equate the words (not in definition, but in outcome) “desires” and “ordains”? I am wary of the word “ordains”, because some Calvinists take it to mean:
I believe. I am a Christian, rather a wild one, but believe deeply in my heart. I study the Bible. I have observed people over my lifetime arguing about God’s responsibility, specifics of organizations, who’s to blame, what a verse means, etc. etc. etc.
My resolve is that I am finite. As much as I think I like to have answers, and some are firmly implanted in my soul, I have come to the realization that we are definitely NOT infinite.
How can we possibly figure out the answers to all these questions. We can’t. We just have to believe or not and trust as a child.
Did you ever tell a child, “I am doing this for your own good”? He probably didn’t get it. He didn’t see the full picture – how could he? Therein, he
either followed the rules set before him or not.
Why do we spend so much time trying to find out who is to blame, instead of just trying to live our
lives in a loving manner and following what we choose to believe personally….I don’t get it.
I won’t comment here for this question as theologically I don’t know enough to answer satisfactorily, but C.S. Lewis wrote a great book called “The Problem of Pain” which might address this topic clearer.
Here’s how I answered it (on Crosswalk.com), in a little piece I wrote called “Evil! Surprise! It’s a Good Thing!”
http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/evil-surprise-it%e2%80%99s-a-good-thing/
If we look in the larger context — i.e. this life and the life hereafter, then the time spent in this life relative to eternity is very brief.
When a doctor gives a patient an innoculation — there is some pain, but it is very brief, and the objective is to protect one for the long term.
In many (but not all ways), the pain in this life, is like the needle — something very fleeting, and necessary — to help prepare for the next life.
God is not to blame! God gave us freewill, freewill to choose to do right or wrong. A better question would be why doesn’t man accept the responsibility for our actions instead of looking to blame God. It is our freewill that is to blame all for pain and suffering. Back in the Garden of Eden both Adam and Eve chose to be like God and the result damning all of mankind. That is until Jesus came to take our sins and nail them to the cross. God had a plan. Even though I was discipled in the 5 pts of Calvinism, I do not accept them. They do not add up Biblically. Good thought though!
\o/ Praizes
Thanks everyone for the comments. I took my family to the zoo today. I had stayed up late last night finishing homework for a class I went to tonight, too.
That’s why I’ve been missing from the discussion. Sorry about that. I’ll respond in a few brief posts here below. Thanks again.
Larry comments here all the time and usually agrees. So thanks for the props. Sphere does us a favor by encouraging to read CS Lewis–I haven’t read that yet, but I’m sure its helpful, even if I might not agree with everything he says.
Marsha, Marsha! You get the prize for wondering why we waste our time on theology. For some its a waste of time, yes. But true theology is about interacting with and coming to grips with God’s revelation. It should be life changing. We’ll all have it figured out in heaven, yes. And we should all be concerned about living with love here now. But love includes protecting people from error which may well cause them to blame God or give them a faulty view of God. Theological error most often has very practical ramifications. Yes we all choose what to believe, but I hope we will believe only what we think God is telling us in the Word.
John Shore, I give you credit for a great answer from the Arminian perspective. But there’s a problem. If God can’t be blamed for evil, because people get all the blame, and God can’t change people to not cause the evil–what then can God do? What’s to say people won’t ruin God’s plans in the end? Why won’t some demon or lately-arrived-to-heaven human not cause evil in heaven and mess it all up?
Beartracks, you are right that people love to shirk the blame. They’ve been doing it since Eden. I also agree God gives us free will, the freedom to make true choices. Yet the bible teaches that we all are born in sin (Ps. 51:5) and that Adam’s sin affected us all (Rom. 5:12). Rom. 8:7-8 teach that the natural person (i.e. unsaved or non-Christian) “cannot” please God or submit to His Law. So our free will comes with an innate desire for sin that we can’t shake. And as Jonathan Edwards argued, we are always going to choose what we most desire. Our desires being evil, we’re in trouble then.
Saeed, there is some truth to what you say, but not everyone will be in heaven according to Scripture. Some will experience suffering in Hell, sadly.
Jon Daley, you hit on some important points. Calvinists in no way should affirm what you say. Scripture doesn’t teach that man has no responsibility for sin or his actions.
Desire and ordain are indeed different. God desires all to be saved, and desires for all to obey His law perfectly. That is His moral will. Yet God also reveals Himself as the prime cause of all and the one who ordains things and works ALL things according to HIS purposes (Eph. 1:11). Which for the elect is to turn all things ultimately to good for them, because of his love for them (Rom. 8:28). An excellent look at this issue (God’s seemingly 2 contradictory “wills”) is this article by John Piper.
My pastor, John Piper has recently been preaching on the problem of sin. Scripture reveals that God ordains to permit sin, yet he does not actively do evil or sin Himself. For those looking into this discussion, let me point you to some articles hosted at my church’s website Desiring God. This will help you understand where I’m coming from.
Before that, though, here is my own post on the problem of sin: “Was Sin a Mistake??“.
What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism
Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism
Various Resources (audio messages, articles, etc.) on Suffering
Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ [current sermon series at my church]
Why Does God Allow Sin? — recent message by John Piper given at Wheaton College
Links to a 4 part series of blog posts on God’s Authority over Sin, from John Frame’s chapter “The Problem of Evil”, from a book called The Doctrine of God.
Blessings to all freely from our Savior Jesus,
Bob Hayton
Hi Bob,
I was raised Catholic. Then spent several years in the Arminian view…then, a couple years in a church that was Calvanists…only to go back to the Arminian view church.
All that being said, I don’t know the answer to your question. And, I don’t ultimately think its important. (I mean this with due respect to you).
The one thing I couldn’t stand in the Calvinist church was all the acadamia and focus on scholarly things that have no impact on the salvation of the lost and eternity. So much focus on such matters, that Christ’s message was lost somehow.
I don’t know the answer to your question. But, I do know (from experience in both views) that my time is much better spent reaching people with the gospel, rather than debating issues like these with those already saved.
I was pondering a similar topic a couple of months ago.
http://www.carmical.net/blog/sinless_impossible.html
I guess you could describe my views as Arminian. I think free will trumps everything for now.
Bob,
Did you notice that Dr. Ben Witherington has now posted about this, severely criticizing Piper? I offered some thoughts in a response post.
Alex
I think you Calvinists are a strange bunch. You seem to think that God is responsible for the little girl’s death because He allowed it and could have stopped it?
I think the fire and her death and such tragedies are just part of a fallen world. Bad things happen. Sometimes God intervenes through people and circumstances to prevent tragedy and to rescue.
I think you think too hard –about things that are supposed to remain in the realm of the mysterious –as we “see through a glass darkly.” And it makes you unsympathetic and lacking in comfort to give at funerals, i dare say.
We know the rain falls on the just and the unjust and so it is that tragedies befall people, believers and unbelievers alike. But I also think God intervenes many times and we don’t know it. I also know that He answers prayer –and responds to faith–the Bible says so.
Your view ultimately make God the author of sin. If I do not have a choice then wouldn’t God be responsible for each of our sin? I do not agree, man must fess up to our part and decide to choose to follow Christ. It is our choice to follow Christ, we must daily decide to pickup our crosses and follow. It is a conscience choice. Adam’s sin has been nailed to the cross. No more are we in bondage for Adam’s sin. I reject the doctrine of election as did Jesus when he said in Jn 12:32 “When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me.” He did not say he would draw only the elected but all. \o/ Praizes
Jesus said that living a sinless life is attainable. Jn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Jesus told the woman caught tin the act of adultery that it is possible not to sin. If it weren’t so Jesus would be a liar. We can choose not to sin. I personally have broken sins stronghold in my life my addiction to swearing…I have no desire
Addiction to pornography…I have no desire
I’m still working on other strongholds with the power of the Holy Spirit working in me. \o/ Praizes
Hey everyone, thanks for all the interaction. This has been a rough week for me physically, I can’t shake a bad cold. That has made me less active on my blog. And I really don’t like controversy, so I really don’t love to wade through contradictory opinions.
But I do love people to share their opinions, so thanks.
It’s great to know that we can be friends and disagree. Kooz and CaseyC are among my most faithful readers, and each has disagreed with me here. I forgive them 😉
Kooz has a good point. Why bother thinking about these things? Isn’t such thinking a waste? Ultimately it can be. It doesn’t have to be, though. God reveals things and expects us to believe what he says. I believe He has revealed that He allows evil for His own good, and that He is completely sovereign as far as election goes (read Rom. 9).
My point was if God isn’t controlling such events for His own purposes, what is He doing? And what can He do? Thinking about the nature of God’s sovereignty and connection to the problem of sin is important. Ultimately, it strengthens our understanding of and trust in God.
God is big enough to make evil turn to good for His purposes. Rom. 8:28–“all things work together for good to them that love God” stands true. All means all. But notice it is only for those who love God, only those who are the called as the verse and passage goes on to assert.
Evil happens because the world has been cursed. God allowed evil to happen, but God is using it to display His goodness. God’s offer of salvation stands for all who are suffering, and God sends rain and common-grace blessings on the just and unjust alike. All the joy life brings us is a blessing from God’s hands, because it is not deserved. Sin is much bigger than we think. God is so gracious not to just condemn all of us for our sin.
Yes humans are very responsible for sin, but God still allowed it to happen. Ultimately, God is the King, and we can’t save ourselves, we are dependent on Him. So man can make free will decisions, but he can’t thwart God’s plan and he is ultimately a creation, not a creator.
This does affect how we counsel and grieve with those who mourn. We can sorrow with them, but not as those who have no hope. Jesus is the reason suffering and pain can be turned to infinite joy. So our grappling with abstract concepts and the infinitively deep questions do help us to interact with real people. God isn’t in a position of saying “I’m so sorry that happened to you”, God knows why it did and what good he is going to bring about through all the difficult things that happen to people. Senseless acts are still senseless, but are redeemed in that a sovereign God is in control and works His good purposes through all things.
Hopefully this response helps people understand where I’m coming from in this. Of course you can read the articles I’ve linked to in this discussion for more help. I don’t expect we’ll all agree, but let’s all make sure we let God be God, and not rob Him of His greatness.
Blessings to fellow fallen sinners from Jesus’ cross,
Bob
Beartracks,
Jesus can help us stop certain sinful habits, but complete sinless perfection is not possible in this life. John teaches that we would be lying if we were to claim we were without sin (1 John. 1:7-10). This does not mean we have license to sin, but perfectionistic views often lead to bad theology and practice. We get our eyes off of our sinless Savior and trust in our own good deeds. That’s perilous ground, sir.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
According to the greek: 1 Jn 1:7
εαν δε εν τω φωτι πεÏιπατωμεν ως αυτος εστιν εν τω φωτι κοινωνιαν εχομεν μετ αλληλων και το αιμα ιησου χÏιστου του υιου αυτου καθαÏιζει ημας απο πασης αμαÏτιας
KJV
But if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another +__ and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin
v8
εαν ειπωμεν οτι αμαÏτιαν ουκ εχομεν εαυτους πλανωμεν και η αληθεια ουκ εστιν εν ημιν
If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us
v9
εαν ομολογωμεν τας αμαÏτιας ημων πιστος εστιν και δικαιος ινα αφη ημιν τας αμαÏτιας και καθαÏιση ημας απο πασης αδικιας
If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
Verses 7 and 9 say that we are cleansed from all sin.
I do not take the fatalist viewpoint. I rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal sin. I like Paul press on toward the goal. Yes I have sin but because what Christ has done I cannot blame Adam for my sin. That’s a defeatist viewpoint.
What then would be the need for preachers or evangelists if God has only called the elect?
God would then be responsible for sin! No way!!
John teaches that we would be lying if we were to claim we were without sin (1 John. 1:7-10).
“Were” is a simple past tense. The simple past is a tense used to describe complete actions or events that took place in some time before now.
Examples:
Maurice and Martha were in Washington last week.
Last Christmas we were in my grandma’s house.
Yesterday they were very busy.
In this passage is speaking of our past not our present.
Bear tracks,
I’m not saying we can never have victory over sin. I am saying that we cannot ever achieve a state of sinless perfection. We continually sin and need to confess and receive forgiveness anew. 1 John 1:8 says we have sin. Even now as Christians. We just are not going to be continuing in sin, as unbelievers do (see 1 John 3:6-10).
You said:
I’m not saying we blame Adam. Christ does give us the ability to fight sin, which we did not have before we became united to Christ by faith. Yet still our sin did come from Adam (Rom. 5:12). We have indwelling sin (Rom. 7:14-25) within us. And ultimately that comes from Adam.
God has elected some to salvation, but none of them can be saved without faith in Christ, and they all need to have the gospel preached to them. Why? Because preaching is the God-appointed means to their salvation. No one gets saved without evangelists. And to the evangelists, we don’t know who the elect are. So we spread the seed to all, and those who bear fruit that remains prove to us that they must be the elect. We preach, as Paul taught, and some count our message a stumbling block, others as folly, but then there are some who grasp our message as life and become saved (see 1 Cor. 1). The difference is that while all are called through the gospel, those that respond are called a second time, inwardly. They are drawn of the Father (John 6:37, 44, 63-65).
I encourage you to read John Piper’s 5 points of Calvinism booklet to better understand what I believe on that point. It is easy to misrepresent our position or not quite understand it. I link to it above in my earlier list of links in the comments here.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Beartracks,
Thanks for the link, too, by the way. I look forward to future interactions.
Where did Jesus say that he came to save the elect. I do not believe you will find him saying it. What he does say is in John 12:32 “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” The phrase “All Men” does not mean the elect, Jesus does not say that if he be lifted up he will draw the elect.
Beartracks,
Jn. 10 says Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.
Jn 6:44 says the Father only draws some. What exactly does Jn 12 mean? Have all men been drawn to Christ? Are all saved? Will all be saved?
Jesus at the Lord’s supper said his blood would be shed for many. Not all.
Jn 6 is speaking of draw in a saving sense, Jn 12 obviously is not.
However, let’s not turn this into a debate on Calvinism. Feel free to browse my posts on that topic and debate there.
Gotta’ run.
Blessings,
Bob
Some of the scriptures which refute the doctrine of election.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 – 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Romans 5:18,19 – Justification came unto “all men” by Jesus’ righteous act (His death). This was the same “all men” on whom condemnation came as a result of Adam’s sin. So, however many people are condemned by sin, that is how many can receive the benefit of Jesus’ death.
Acts 17:30-31 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
2 Peter 3:9 – God does not want any to perish but all to repent.
“Some of the scriptures which refute the doctrine of election.”
LOL!!!
Only if someone rips them out of context and performs massive amounts of eisegesis…
That’s what Calvin did!
Don’t follow man made doctrines.
I just stumbled on here, maybe a little late to the discussion, but I’m a little uncomfortable with the argument using the girl-in-fire example.
As someone who’s theology is moving more and more towards a Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty, I’m not sure if the argument is a great one against Arminianism, first because it denies the possibility of an Arminian understanding of “allowance” *as* deemed necessary and willed by God, and second, because the same argument can be used in reverse to attack Calvinism.
First, the argument attempts to cast allowance in strictly human terms, that God’s allowance thus must make Him culpable and argument for allowance is thus self-refuting. This makes some sense at first. Yet, it does not allow “allowance”– one that emphasizes God’s innocence in evil, to be framed from the same high view of God that Calvinists espouse– that God’s ways are higher than ours, regardless of whether He “allows” or “ordains”.
Second, the reverse argument to attack Calvinism would have God placing the girl in the room, closing the window, locking the door, then setting the fire somehow for His glory. I’m not sure that’s a much better portrayal of God. Of course that’s a very incomplete picture of God’s soverignty so much so that it maligns His character, but I think we need be careful about which arguments we embrace, and the limited utility of analogies understood with limited rationality in regards to a God that is beyond our ability to easily categorize and dissect– especially as those with a Reformed bent who affirm that His ways about our ability to figure out completely.
It’s just as difficult to understand how a God that allows is not responsible for evil as it is to understand how a God who does direct evil for His purpose is not its author. Classical Arminianism understands that God allows evil through second causes– and whether or not we agree with how much His intent and directive is there within the misfortune or evil, I don’t think the argument itself is a great one against Arminian allowance, because its a bit too simplified and unnuanced, even as I agree that God ordains, decrees, allows, and ultimately redeems sin for His purpose.
Anyway, Lewis does a great job approaching the problem of evil and pain from different angles and with many insights, but he definitely doesn’t seem to embrace a Reformed theology regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation. He offers arguments highlighting human free will as central to some of his understandings of God’s allowance of pain and suffering and its redemption in creation. His understandings aren’t totally incompatible with a Calvinist understanding of God’s sovereignty, but many of his arguments regarding salvation and how he views that God woos our free will rather than ravishes us with irresistable grace would seem to land him staunchly in the Arminian camp. Yet his own experience of conversion found him the most reluctant convert in England. Funny that.
Please allow me to ask some questions here. honestly, I struggle between my arminian views and also my agreement with calvinist views.
I have held to this but am open to be shown if I’m wrong: Within God’s sovereignty, He has allowed man to ‘draw near’ to Him (then He promises to draw near to us). God gives that mandate. He didn’t say in that verse that He would draw near first, but rather the other way around.
I know all the arguement for calvinism vs. armininianism, but I have yet still to reconcile a lot of verses that leave the five points of TULIP open ended.
This is one verse that I’ve wondered about lately, and would like to hear from a calvinist viewpoint on it: In the book of John : 1:9 – He was the light of life that enlightens every man coming into the world.”
From an arminian view, this scripture seems to indicate that there is an enlightening, some would call consciousness of God of every man coming into the world, right? and also in light of Romans 1 which says we have no excuse because even through creation we should can see that there is God, it seems to indicate that we are in part responsible,if you will, to acknowlege God who has given us a light of life.
I love my calvinist brothers and sisters and appreciate deeply reformed theology. I’m in a quandry, though – when I’m hear arminians give a low view of God, I find myself defending reformed thinking. When I’m around calvinist teaching that seems to ignore all the warnings to (believers) from say, the book of Hebrew, I find my arminian thinking kicking in….:)
thanks for your input
Jean,
Thanks for your honest questions. I apologize for not responding sooner.
Drawing near to God:
First off, this may be directed toward the saved. God certainly has set up prayer as the means of His blessing. We draw near to God and humble ourselves and He gives blessings. Secondly, this is not written to be an absolute statement about salvation. Remember “We love Him, because He first loved us”, God ultimately does draw near to us before we can draw near to Him for salvation. Thirdly, all the Gospel passages require us to act, in a sense. “Come to Me…”, “Repent”, “Believe on the Lord”. And all this must be done. But there are other passages which show us what happens behind the scenes, so to speak. God must first enable us, and free us from bondage to Satan and enslavement to him (see 2 Tim. 2:24-26, 2 Cor. 4:1-7). So in the Gospel, God promises to meet us on gospel terms. If we believe, God will save us. However, the Bible shows that our very belief is a gift of God. See these posts of mine for more on this issue: Regeneration, Reception, and Faith; “Whosoever Will†and Calvinism; Calvinism — Categorized Scripture List.
John 1:9 The Light which lights every man in the world
Here is a quote from a online sermon by my pastor John Piper on John 1:9:
That should help some. Again, the Rom. 1 idea is similar to this. Everyone is guilty. The message has come to all, and 2 Cor. 2 teaches that for some it is a message bringing life, to others a message bringing death. Man is certainly responsible for rejecting the gospel, along with all of his sin. But man’s sin has rendered him inable to actually believe of his own. From God’s perspective, and according to his law, inability does not equal no accountability for sin. If you think about it, no believer is able to perfectly keep the law, and yet we are all judged for when we fail to keep it.
I agree that there are questions re: Calvinism. I look at it as explaining the behind the scenes work that takes place in salvation. It’s not a system man made to hypothesize and logically deduce what happens. No, the system exists because God has given us so many texts which deal with what happens behind the scenes in salvation. To ignore these texts or explain them away, and to focus only on the calls to repent and our responsibility to reach the lost (which true Calvinists embrace), is to be irresponsible with Scripture and not to bear a complete and true witness to what Scripture actually says about our salvation. This post of mine gets into more details on this subject: Calvinism & Evangelism.
Finally, I encourage you to browse my articles on perseverance. Particularly: Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!; and My 219 Epiphany. This should help you understand that many Calvinists do not shy away from the warning passages at all.
I hope this helps you somewhat. I would welcome further questions or exchanges on this topic.
Blessings from the cross,
Bob Hayton
Hi Bob-I’m not sure if this is appropriate considering this is your sweat-n-tears blog, but I read Jean’s post and sensed that maybe some of the questions raised were some that I had too so I wanted to answer. Please feel free to do with this if you find it is unprofitable. Thanks Bob.
Hi Jean-I applaud your desire to have an open discussion and your transparency and honesty in wrestling with these important doctrines. Having these same struggles, I can truly appreciate the tug-of-war in your mind and emotions. I tend to focus on this topic a lot because I believe it is extremely important and central to the very core and function of life as a believer….and unbeliever-yet they don’t realize it.
I have heard heard many of the arguments here and agreed with all of them. I just couldn’t relinquish my affections to either side completely and would constantly jump back and forth over the line drawn in the sand. I kept asking myself-why can’t it be both? Doesn’t the bible speak to both? Why do I need to understand it fully? Aren’t His ways above our ways-so we’ll never fully understand-right? I wanted to resign myself to that it was just a mystery that I would never know about….and that was just the way it was. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit would not allow me to rest until my affections were firmly placed on one side-sovereign grace. As I studied more and more….the verses “multiplied like rabbits” (not my words, but someone else’s, but they fit my experience so I use them quite often.)
I hope my comments here help and do not hinder your study. I will try to be brief as I am not as equipped with the talents of debate as others here.
Also-my own desire for wisdom and discernment in truly having an accurate answer for this doctrine and not engage in debates with those who are not searching for anything but an argument keeps me from leaving a longer post. I will leave those types of posts for someone much better equipped than me.
I come from an arminian background and know many of the verses used to agree and refute this view so I won’t go into them. Seemingly from your post, these are the exact verses you are wrestling with.
The best way in which it was explained to me was I needed to start at the beginning. What was the beginning? It was to ask myself some hard questions about God, the bible, the fall of man, and redemption. I tried, to the best of my ability, to strip every preconceived notion and man-made tradition I had (and there were A LOT considering that I grew up in church and in a professed believers’ home) and truly study the attributes of God, the authority of scripture, the depravity of man and the blessed plan of salvation. I had to stop looking at the bible as divided parts (meaning only taking the bible verses as they came) and look at the bible as a whole. That the bible (OT and NT) pointed to Christ. And why did it? What was the reason? I thought the bible was made up of stories about God’s goodness and mercy. It certainly is God-centered, but Christ is the focus, which points to redemption. But I digress. The points I wanted you to take away from this post is the starting questions I asked myself.
What does the bible say about God? His attributes? His holiness? His abilities? Who is the God of the bible?
What does the bible say about man? His worth without Christ? His depravity?
What does the bible say about the authority of scripture and what place it has in our lives?
The best place for me to start to fully understand election was NOT-
Why does God save some and not others?
BUT
Why does God save anyone at all?
When I started there, I could truly start to understand the depravity-the wickedness-the vile heart which is talked about in Romans 3:10 and Jeremiah 17:9. I’m only briefly touching on my thought process, but this was where I started. Then in researching what scripture says about God-His holiness-His righteousness, I began to realize that there is no possible way at all that I could of ever chosen God. That everything about God, in my unrenerated state, disgusted me and I was in exact opposition to anything godly at all. I was, in fact, running in the opposite direction.
I know there are a thousand different ways and views that I’m sure, will no doubt spring up to people’s minds as to how ridiculous this starting point is, but it is the best way that I can tell you, Jean, on how I started to understand election and predestination. In reading the scriptures, I realized that the verses that seemingly pointed to free will, only pointed to Christ’s love and redemption plan under a sovereign God and the scripture verses that pointed to election multiplied 1,000 fold.
I hope as you study this, the spiritual illumination that Paul wrote about in Ephesians 1:8 will be your steady and faithful guide.
I typed up a document to give out to people on how I came to this view. It’s old (from a few years’ past). I need to revisit it, but it was a document that helped me clearly think about the views, perspectives and most importantly, the scripture that I was using to try and come to some biblical conclusion on this issue. If you want, I can send it to you. Please feel free to E-mail me if you are interested. My address is: skjnoble@comcast.net.
Jean-I believe that the scripture is clear and the verses-as you study the bible with the wholeness perspective-will be clear to you also. I believe that there will always be a tension between man’s responsibility and God’s sovereign will and I will never fully and completely understand all of its intricacies and finite details-sort of like the Trinity. While I love it and believe that there are three perfectly equal yet submissive distinct dieties, but wholely (and also holy) and completely one-I will never fully understand, but I truly believe that the bible speaks to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’s existence-their unity, their relationship, their submissiveness and I love it as much as I can wrap my feeble and pint-sized brain around it.
Blessings, Jean, in your findings, and I hope that the doctrine of election will not frustrate you-but only serve to deepen and widen your belief in a sovereign and trustworthy God.
K. Noble
I like your excellent question. I have another: Is it a problem that God is at least partially responsible for all the suffering in the world (by allowing it)? What I mean is, does allowing suffering prove that God is bad?
You are probably a father and can easily imagine this: One day you arrive at your son’s school to pick him up just in time to see another boy smash his face into the pavement on the playground. Your little boy is humiliated and crying. You are furious and hearbroken for him at the same time. The problem is that the bully who attacked him is your OLDER son, who you also love. You knew this day was coming because all the signs were there of your older son’s jealousy toward his half-brother. You could have prevented it by sending the oldest to live with his mother. But you knew it would be worse for the oldest to be torn from you again as he had been in the past. His mother programed him to think that you loved him less and sending him back would only further instill the programing. The older son’s lack of self-worth is a bigger problem than the younger son’s current persecution and you know it. So at the moment you do nothing. But you have a plan. You want to save both of them. They do not see you. You go into the main office as if you have seen nothing and ask them to call for your youngest so you can take him to his appointment. Both sons meet you acting as if nothing happened (and you know why). You tell the oldest to have a good day and watch him walk to class. You take the youngest to his appointment. But that week you also enroll him in self-defense classes. You will attend every class and continue to shower him with affection. Meanwhile, that same week you ask your oldest son to help you build and addition to the house. The building project as well as the classes take months to complete. Eventually, your oldest son is attending the younger one’s classes as well, cheering him on. This is because your oldest son has learned that you love him and are proud of him too. Yet he was never confronted about his behavior that day on the playground and the youngest was received retribution. Instead the youngest is now a stronger person, able to fend for himself.
This is a nice story, but the first scene looked pretty ugly and to an outsider, the father would appear cold and sadistic. This is how God appears at times too, but it is because we don’t know his plans.
Since we must assume that God’s problems are bigger than ours, it naturally flows that if we are compelled to watch our child cry in shame for a greater good, then He must at times be compelled to watch a person die for a greater good. That doesn’t make it nice by any means. But I don’t think watching your child be insulted on the playground is nice either.
Good thoughts M.E. Thanks for sharing. You are absolutely correct.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob