Questions on Arminianism

In response to my post "Repairing fences" Bnonn asks

1. Historically, Calvinism has upheld the free offer of the gospel. So both Calvinism and Arminianism would have God visiting every house, as it were. But this analogy does reveal a different asymmetry between C and A, which is that God doesn't actually visit every house at all. Plenty of people never hear the gospel. That seems problematic under A, since God wants to save everyone, and certainly could have arranged it so everyone at least got a visit. But under C, there is no need for God to visit those whom he has not elected.

2. One very serious philosophical question Arminians need to give account for is why Christians choose faith while others don't. There seems to be a trilemma here. It can't be (i) because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally. It can't be (ii) that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation (it also seems to collapse into the same problem as [i], since God makes us the way we are). And it can't be (iii) that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

3. On the theological side, I don't see how Arminians can remain Arminians in light of John 6:44-45: "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me."

The logic of the passage reveals 3 propositions:

i. No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father
ii. Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus
iii. Everyone who comes to Jesus is raised up on the last day

Now, (i) and (iii) are consistent with Arminianism, since you can just say that the set of people in (iii) is a subset of the universal set in (i). But (ii) makes it clear the sets are actually identical. So Arminianism in conjunction with (ii) entails universalism. If God draws everyone, then Jesus raises up everyone on the last day. The context of the passage precludes universalism, however, because Jesus is clearly talking about people who come to him in this life...which demonstrably not everyone does. So the only way to read this passage is that the Father draws only those who come to Jesus, and no one else. But... that's Calvinism!

Before addressing these questions I need to point out that my goal in the post was not a defence of Arminianism in general but rather a refutation, by use of analogy, of the false claim that Arminians save themselves. Arminians never claim to save themselves, they say that salvation is a gift, and they differ from Calvinists by saying that man is able to refuse the gift of salvation. This position is logical, that is internally coherent. It also seems to Arminians to be Biblical.

As to my takes on various aspects that relate to Calvinism and Arminianism; these can be found under my labels of determinism and freewill.

Addressing Bnonn's questions.

1. If we extend the analogy and say that God does not visit every household the analogy still works; the point is one can still reject the offer of his gate being fixed.

But I did not equate the visit to every house with the preaching of the gospel but with God's desire to save. Thus the Calvinist position that if God desires someone to be saved he will be amongst the elect (some houses); and the Arminian position that God desires all men to be saved (every house), regardless of whether they hear the gospel.

As to my position on salvation, it is about who we follow. Christianity is a centred set, not a bounded set.

2. As I have said elsewhere I don't think there is an answer to why some people choose faith and others do not, beyond our capacity to make choices. We choose because we have a nature that can choose. Yes other things sway us, but we make decisions based on the fact we are agents that can do such things.

Say I have 2 options, one that brings a degree of pleasure, and I desire it, but it does not please God. The other option would please God but I don't desire it. Do I subvert my desire to my will, or do I suppress my conscience for the sake of pleasure?

Our desires compete between long term pleasure and short term pleasure. Sin and righteousness. Yielding to temptation depends on degree of perceived pleasure, previous yielding, our resistance, our requests to God to help us, tiredness, knowledge of consequences, past experiences. All these feed into our decision to obey God, or not. But because men love wickedness, many choose to reject God.

What is it specifically within our spirit that means 2 men with similar inputs choose opposite paths? I see nothing deeper than our will. Our choice to obey righteousness or wickedness. Nothing compels us. Ultimately one person chooses one way and one person the other because they do. Do they decide to love righteousness more than wickedness?  This ability to choose is part of the imago Dei in us. In the same kind of way that God can make free, non-necessary choices, so can we. God can create, or not create. And he could have created a variety of worlds, all of which are good. This freedom that exists within God he imparts to us.

Bnonn's trilemma does not pose significant difficulties. He says the reason Christians have faith and others do not cannot be (from an Arminian perspective)

1. because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally;
2. that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation; or
3. that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

Interestingly I deny all 3 can be excluded. God can give more grace to some than others, though this does not cause saving faith. The faithful may be better than others because faith choices are right choices, though Christians are still sinners who require Christ's righteousness to be acceptable before God; that all fall short does not imply they fall short by the same amount. And other external forces may contribute to one's decisions as mentioned above.

Though the crux of the issue is 1. The unstated assumption is that God can increase the amount of grace to a level which will ensure salvation for each person. My position is that the amount of grace given by God is qualitatively different to our choice to follow God or resist him. The nature of love (and the grace by which it comes) is such that no amount of it can prevent the possibility of resistance.

3. I am familiar with the Calvinist approach to John 6. One Arminian response is to deny ii.

Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus

I am not certain that John 6 insists on this. John 6 is saying that one cannot come to Jesus of his own accord, that the Father must draw him. But an Arminian would argue that such drawing is still resistible.

Yet there is another possible understanding of John 6. It is not so much saying that the Father will draw specific people to Jesus a la Calvinism, rather that the Father will draw those who are his people to his son Jesus. In my post on John 6 I wrote,

those who recognise who Jesus is do so because they already know the Father. If they do not recognise Jesus, they do not really know the Father. They may know the story about the manna in the desert, but this story points to Jesus; if they really know the Father who sent manna they will see the true manna.

Wanting to defend the YEC position

HS writes that she is concerned about the potential effect evolutionary teaching could have on her grandchildren as they grow up. She is also surprised at the considerable buy-in to evolution by fellow Christians, and is is aware of her own shortcomings about this topic in the scientific arena.

I would like them to be better equipped to deal with it than I was. I am frustrated that I don’t think quickly on my feet, so when challenged in discussion, I am chaotic in marshalling the facts and make a real hash of defending the YEC [Young Earth Creationist/ Creationism] position. One thing I have concluded in my studies so far, is that I actually want to defend the YEC position because of what it says about God.  To me, the theology seems crucial. Yet in my studies, I have to admit there are huge obstacles to overcome.

There are several issues to cover here including

1. Understanding creationism from a biblical perspective
2. Understanding creationism from a scientific perspective
3. Appreciating how one's worldview affects one's interpretive framework
4. Dealing with theistic evolutionists
5. Teaching children and grandchildren in an antagonistic world

Firstly, it is important to understand that while you can always increase knowledge, there will always be someone who understands more in a specific area. When you encounter a person more conversant in a specific domain is it usually inadequate for him to declare victory based on education. In esoteric topics it may be that you really lack the basics to hold a useful conversation; but the skilful person knows how to talk in mutually understood terms, clarify issues, and use appropriate analogies. Remember the knowledgeable person may hold several false assumptions. To win an argument solely on a claim of expanded information storage capacity is a hollow victory.

Next, in discussing creationism with individual theistic evolutionists there needs to be willingness by both parties to acknowledge and defend their assumptions.

Understanding creationism from a biblical perspective

Expanding knowledge here is a useful thing. As a Christian the command to grow in understanding of things spiritual means that reading material on the importance of creationism in the Christian worldview is a worthwhile effort, and for the creationist a mandatory one. If you think that creationism is a true description of reality then reading and viewing material on the biblical perspective of creationism is a sensible use of time.

It is this aspect of creationism that I am increasingly drawn to. Despite the fact I became a creationist based on scientific considerations, I now think that the biblical considerations are of greater importance. The effects of the Fall, the nature of man before the Fall, the appeal to Jesus as the second Adam, the association of sin with death; these all considerably affect how one interprets Scripture. They also argue strongly for the YEC interpretation of Genesis. Hermaneutics that attempt to marry Darwin to Genesis (either while maintaining inerrancy, or denying it) have led to major interpretative errors that are highly detrimental to Christianity. A greater understanding of these issues and how your ideas on Genesis affect exegesis is imperative to the creationist, and indeed all Christians; even if your knowledge of the science is a little lacking.

Understanding creationism from a scientific perspective

While useful, this depends on: the importance of the issue to you; the time you have to study; and, to a degree, your ability with science.

Several broad issues are useful for you to gain a thorough grasp on

• The distinction between operational and historical science
• Distinguishing between data and interpretation
• Awareness of incomplete scientific knowledge
• The importance of differential weighting of facts and beliefs
• Awareness that the same data can be interpreted by different paradigms
• Understanding the nature of information, and how it differs from matter

Having a good understanding of what is meant by all these statements will make an enormous difference to your approach to understanding scientific creationism.

Appreciating how one's worldview affects one's interpretive framework

It is immensely helpful when you can see the how and why people view an issue the way they do. This includes having a clear perspective on your own presuppositions. It allows you to know what is primary. It allows you to see at what points your opponent disagrees with you.

More importantly it shapes how you interpret new data, especially data that is interwoven with theory that you dispute. You can sieve out the observations and interpret them in light or your own framework. Such observations can challenge your framework, but they do so by the nature of what was observed, not because neutral observations were bundled in an anti-biblical package.

Dealing with theistic evolutionists

I think you need to consider what approach should be taken with each person. There is little doubt of my position by many in the church who know me well, even if I have not talked about creationism with them. Though I have had some conversations with a variety of people when it comes up.

Try to establish how important the issue is for them. The person who is uncertain about the topic, who could be described as a theistic evolutionist, may have little interest in the topic.

Those who are evangelistic about theistic evolution may be antagonistic. See if they will engage with creationism. Have they read creationist material directly, or just refutations of it? If you are well read in various creationist materials you may well have an idea what specifically may challenge them and lend them that book. Pray that they will be gracious with others and that God will help them understand the Bible according to God's perspective (not yours, even if you happen to think correctly).

Many may not be strongly committed to a view. Discuss various issues from scientific perspectives and scriptural ones. Show how the views of: all men are descended from Adam, curse on the world after Adam, and no death prior to the Fall; all seriously impinge on the logical conclusions of theistic evolution.

Teaching children and grandchildren in an antagonistic world

One needs to consider how best to teach you children. Parents are responsible to God for what and how they teach. This does not mean that some teaching cannot be delegated, rather that parents remain responsible for how the children are educated. It seems that in same circumstances directly teaching children and opting out of schools may be the best option. Nevertheless, teachers work for the parents whether or not they think they do. It is good for children to know this.

My children are publicly educated. I do not know if this is the best choice. We have had a relatively positive experience thus far, though there are some negative social implications of public education. What I do teach my children, when they get contradicting information from adults in authority, is that many people do not know Jesus and this can affect what they think is true. I do not diss their teachers, but explain why people can think differently. They are to respect their teachers while knowing that their teachers are incorrect in some things they teach. This is not too hard for kids to grasp. Introduce them to the idea that not all people think the same therefore some (all) people have some incorrect beliefs. If 2 teachers teach their classes mutually contradictory things then logically at least one of the teachers must be wrong. If kids realise that their teachers will be mistaken from time to time it is not difficult to challenge kids about what they are taught when the need arises. Encouraging children to pray for their teachers in this context is beneficial.