Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God

[Deborah13]

I understand that many think God wants us to come to Him of our own volition, but the fact remains there is no other God. There is no other choice.

I think there is another choice. Man makes himself a god to himself.

 

[childeye]

I think there is another choice. Man makes himself a god to himself.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

[Deborah13]

Really? Please elaborate.

There is no elaborating to do. It's a simple self-explanatory statement.

 

[childeye]

Oky doky. I think we disagree with the implication of what Yahweh decides here but I agree it's the vanity that often goes along with high position, rather than the high position itself, that is rejected by Him and these often go hand in hand. It's the combined high position with self righteousness/vanity that is brought low. We can't suggest Yahweh is solely anti all people who are wealthy or strong or wise because there's evidence to the contrary in the Bible.

What implication are you referring to? It is acceptable unto God that we intercede for all men and He desires that all men come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Still there's also evidence that man makes decisions totally separate from Yahweh's prodding or restraining and I think we can see this in both believers and unbelievers. When we talk about our flesh compelling us it's still "us" that controls this as per James

Jas 1:13-14 KJV Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Respectfully, I don't feel this scripture is adequate to establish freewill. The devil is the tempter and he appeals to the pride of the flesh and the desires of the flesh. Of course the Most High is not flesh and cannot be tempted. Nor would He tempt any man and put him to the test. He is the power that restrains the flesh. Love and empathy causes a man to love others as himself. God's Word is the Life of man and the Light of man. However His Son was tempted by Satan according to scripture. Satan also put Job to the test. Jesus however trusted in God even as he countered Satan with the knowledge of God.

We can't suggest that these desires are an entity that somehow removes our free will.

This statement assumes there is a freewill that can't be removed. I think what you mean to say is that the flesh is not an entity that can take over our will. Not exactly true. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God. Paul speaks about this in Romans 7, how the law is spiritual but he is carnal and sold unto sin. Sin by the way is a direction away from and in separation from God Who is our goodness. The farther we are separated from Him the more depraved and vile we become even unto a reprobate mind. Anyway, Paul wants to do good and agrees with the law in his mind yet he cannot find how to accomplish it and he ends up always doing what is wrong. However the fact that he wants to do good but cannot help himself, confirms that it is not he who does the wrong, but rather the law of sin in his members. In other words his separation from God has left him a wretched man who has only a body of death Romans 7:24. Finally in Romans 8, Paul describes how Jesus' through his death paid the price for our separation (sin) by condemning sin in the flesh not condemning the person. His blood buys us back according to the requirements of the law. So we are now no longer under the law anymore but under grace. Now back to Romans 6. It seems Paul should have said this after Romans 8, but this is obviously a difficult revelation to set in order and articulate. In Romans 6 he says that separation (sin) shall not have dominion over us anymore because we are under grace. Now we are free from the law of sin.

This is why there are semantics involved with the term freewill. The term confounds and obscures the Truth about the make-up of the will.

We are certainly compelled by both our flesh and Yahweh at times but we still have the ability to choose what we will do and who we will follow. when we think about Yahweh giving men over to the lusts of the flesh it simply means He leaves them to their own devices imo.

Sin is not an ability. It is a disability. Why do people always try to prove freewill by saying they can be bad? No it is not leaves them to their own devices. The blue letter lexicon says the word 'gave' in the phrase "gave them up" means to give into the hands of another, or give over into one's power or use. We are either servants of sin or servants of God.

Because there's only one God doesn't imply there's no choice to make because we can see in the Bible there's other things that we can choose. Like I showed above we can choose our desires over Yahweh's commands.

If a persons desires are contrary to God, their reasoning (will) is hypocritical and based upon a lie. They have not been set free by the Truth therefore and are slaves of sin. If a person is trying to keep the commandments by a supposed freewill they are still under the law of sin.

So basically we are still fully responsible for our own destiny because we have the ability to follow what we hold most important to us. We are ruled by the spiritual powers of darkness when we choose not to resist them.

Again, If loving others as yourself is not most important to a person, then their reasoning is founded upon a lie and is hypocritical. The deceived can't resist what they don't see. If your light is darkness, how deep is that darkness?

Galatians 5:4
New International Version (NIV)

There is no such thing as a freewill morally speaking, you are either free from sin and a slave of God or free from God and a slave of sin.

1 John 3:7-10
New International Version (NIV)

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
John 8:44
New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:34
New International Version (NIV)

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

2 Timothy 2:25-26
New International Version (NIV)

25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Ephesians 6:12
New International Version (NIV)

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Colossians 2:13-15
New International Version (NIV)

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[

Are you able to resist satan ?

Jesus defeated Satan through the cross. Through Christ I can do all things including putting Satan under my feet. Apart from Christ I can do nothing.

 

[childeye]

There is no elaborating to do. It's a simple self-explanatory statement.

Then I must say, I don't get it.

 

[agua.]

What implication are you referring to? It is acceptable unto God that we intercede for all men and He desires that all men come to the knowledge of the Truth.

All men don't come to knowledge of the truth though right. What does this mean ?

Respectfully, I don't feel this scripture is adequate to establish freewill. The devil is the tempter and he appeals to the pride of the flesh and the desires of the flesh. Of course the Most High is not flesh and cannot be tempted. Nor would He tempt any man and put him to the test. He is the power that restrains the flesh. Love and empathy causes a man to love others as himself. God's Word is the Life of man and the Light of man. However His Son was tempted by Satan according to scripture. Satan also put Job to the test. Jesus however trusted in God even as he countered Satan with the knowledge of God.

James is saying when we are tempted by our own desires that it's us who is responsible not Yahweh. I don't see how you can suggest Yahweh restrains the flesh here because James says man is drawn away by his own lust and enticed to sin.

Jas 1:13-14 KJV Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

This statement assumes there is a freewill that can't be removed. I think what you mean to say is that the flesh is not an entity that can take over our will. Not exactly true. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God. Paul speaks about this in Romans 7, how the law is spiritual but he is carnal and sold unto sin. Sin by the way is a direction away from and in separation from God Who is our goodness. The farther we are separated from Him the more depraved and vile we become even unto a reprobate mind. Anyway, Paul wants to do good and agrees with the law in his mind yet he cannot find how to accomplish it and he ends up always doing what is wrong. However the fact that he wants to do good but cannot help himself, confirms that it is not he who does the wrong, but rather the law of sin in his members. In other words his separation from God has left him a wretched man who has only a body of death Romans 7:24. Finally in Romans 8, Paul describes how Jesus' through his death paid the price for our separation (sin) by condemning sin in the flesh not condemning the person. His blood buys us back according to the requirements of the law. So we are now no longer under the law anymore but under grace. Now back to Romans 6. It seems Paul should have said this after Romans 8, but this is obviously a difficult revelation to set in order and articulate. In Romans 6 he says that separation (sin) shall not have dominion over us anymore because we are under grace. Now we are free from the law of sin.

Paul is simply showing metaphorically that he has the tendency to sin because of the desires of man. His flesh is him so to speak not some other entity that he has no control over. I'm not sure what you mean here. When he became regenerated this was made apparent to him that there is no good thing in his old nature/flesh and that he needs to constantly battle to resist it. It's still him not some other entity.

This is why there are semantics involved with the term freewill. The term confounds and obscures the Truth about the make-up of the will.

Ok let's define free will. My definition in the context of this discussion is that we are able to make autonomous decisions. What's your definition ?

Sin is not an ability. It is a disability. Why do people always try to prove freewill by saying they can be bad? No it is not leaves them to their own devices. The blue letter lexicon says the word 'gave' in the phrase "gave them up" means to give into the hands of another, or give over into one's power or use. We are either servants of sin or servants of God.

Free will enables us to be bad or good. Being left to our own devices means we are servants to sin. ie . we choose to sin.

Joh 8:34 KJV Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

If a persons desires are contrary to God, their reasoning (will) is hypocritical and based upon a lie. They have not been set free by the Truth therefore and are slaves of sin. If a person is trying to keep the commandments by a supposed freewill they are still under the law of sin.

Do you ever sin ?

Again, If loving others as yourself is not most important to a person, then their reasoning is founded upon a lie and is hypocritical. The deceived can't resist what they don't see. If your light is darkness, how deep is that darkness?

Galatians 5:4
New International Version (NIV)

There is no such thing as a freewill morally speaking, you are either free from sin and a slave of God or free from God and a slave of sin.

Do you ever sin ? Sin isn't an entity it's the result of following desires which are against Yahweh's holy standards.

1 John 3:7-10
New International Version (NIV)

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
John 8:44
New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:34
New International Version (NIV)

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

2 Timothy 2:25-26
New International Version (NIV)

25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Ephesians 6:12
New International Version (NIV)

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Colossians 2:13-15
New International Version (NIV)

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[

All the passages above relate to the life of sin or habitual unrepentant sinning so to speak which is the state everyone is in before regeneration. If you sin once does this mean you are a slave to sin ?

Jesus defeated Satan through the cross. Through Christ I can do all things including putting Satan under my feet. Apart from Christ I can do nothing.

Ok sure good. So when you resist sin it isn't you but Jesus that does it ? What happens when you do sin who is responsible; Jesus, satan or you ?

 

[childeye]

All men don't come to knowledge of the truth though right. What does this mean ?

We cannot definitively say all men will come to the knowledge of the Truth, nor can we definitively say they all won't. But it is right and it is Love and humility to hope they all will.

James is saying when we are tempted by our own desires that it's us who is responsible not Yahweh. I don't see how you can suggest Yahweh restrains the flesh here because James says man is drawn away by his own lust and enticed to sin.

Let's be clear, James is not saying we are responsible for our flesh putting forth fleshy desires, since that is what flesh does by its' nature. Nor has James even used the word responsible. He is just saying how it is. But why does he say it at all? He's just saying it isn't right to say it is God putting forth the fleshy desires lest the lesson be turned on it's head. God is only perfect good and without any darkness. As elsewhere Paul says, "I know that there is nothing good in my flesh". So likewise it is not God the perfect good bringing forth wicked desires in the flesh nor even tempting with those desires even as James says.

How then do I say God restrains the flesh? Because God is the power of Love in man that would cause a man to sacrifice his own pleasures of the flesh so as not to inflict pain upon another person or persons. I say again. God is the Love, that is He is the Spiritual power, that fulfills loving others as we would want to be loved. And that is how God restrains the flesh and without His Spirit, there is no restraint. Hence when God gives over a man to the lusts of the flesh, the man becomes filled with vile affections such as raping little children or taking pleasure in torturing others. Yet it is not God tempting a man to do these things but rather God has removed in some degree His restraining Love. The greater the degree, the more depraved the wicked desires become. That is what happens when God gives a man over to the lusts of his flesh as per Romans 1:24-32. But let no man say he is tempted by God as per James 1:13.

Jas 1:13-14 KJV Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Please note the word enticed. The word means being offered something unto one's pleasure or advantage. Hence Satan tempted Jesus to change the stones into bread to end the pain of his hunger. Satan was not the hunger or the desire to eat. But yet he uses the hunger to tempt. In this way he is seen tempting Jesus. I say this to point out that although the flesh is not an entity, the devil is and he can tempt us through the flesh.

Paul is simply showing metaphorically that he has the tendency to sin because of the desires of man. His flesh is him so to speak not some other entity that he has no control over.

We can agree the flesh is not an entity so let's not use that term. I am not saying nor have I ever said the flesh is an entity. However regarding whether his flesh is him there are semantics here in his statements and we must take that into account when trying to understand his sentiments. For when Paul says he knows there is nothing good in the flesh, he starts out by saying there is nothing good in me, when he actually means his flesh. And then he claims it is not him that desires to do bad, but sin in the flesh. The statement above in bold is asserting that Paul is claiming it is him not something else and that Paul can control it. Yet this is what Paul actually says: 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Hence therefore with all respect, contrary to what your statement implies, it is indeed not Paul who does it(evil) and nor is he able to control it. Otherwise, he would have simply said that we all can control our flesh so let's be good. And if that is the case, all of Romans one, where God gave us up to the lusts of the flesh is meaningless since we are able to control all of that too. But that is not what Romans one says for it finishes with this to drive home the point:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. So no, Paul is not claiming we are in control, so be good. He is making the point that there is a thing called the law of sin, as in like a law of physics such as gravity.

I'm not sure what you mean here. When he became regenerated this was made apparent to him that there is no good thing in his old nature/flesh and that he needs to constantly battle to resist it. It's still him not some other entity.

Please note that when Paul says "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me", he is referring to the Old Testament laws. He then proceeds to say how he wills to do good but instead only does evil. Even so that he can come to explain why he has need of salvation. Wherein he cries out, "O wretched man that I am, who can save me from this body of death? Therefore this all takes place before regeneration. Sure this writing is looking back after regeneration and describing prior events, but the message here is not I have to keep battling to be good.

You say you're not sure what I mean here. I mean that God is the power of goodness in us. That we take Gods' attributes for granted when we think we choose to be good or do good or choose to be evil and do evil. I'm saying that because we think we can take God or leave it (Him) with our supposed freewill, we are unthankful for His Spirit and have become vain, and therefore God gave us over to the lusts of our flesh wherein we can only do evil. I'm saying God puts forth the laws (the Old Testament) so that He can prove we cannot do it no matter how hard we try, so as to show us we need Him to be good and do good, that it is not something we choose. I'm saying that the New Testament is all about restoring us back to God through admitting this. That is what it means to repent.

Ok let's define free will. My definition in the context of this discussion is that we are able to make autonomous decisions. What's your definition ?

This may be your definition, but in fact you are simply describing a will. The will is the reasoning of man. To me, the term freewill in the moral/immoral sense implies there are no higher powers that rule in our wills.

Free will enables us to be bad or good. Being left to our own devices means we are servants to sin. ie . we choose to sin.

Here again is this left to our own devices statement. I would point out that a righteous man would not devise unrighteous devices. Hence John says,
1 John 3:7
New International Version (NIV)

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

John 8:34 KJV Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Ironically, you quote a scripture that denies a freewill. For if you serve sin it is not your will that is free since it is in servitude to a master. Hence when Jesus said this it was in response to those who claimed they were free and in bondage to no one.

Do you ever sin ?

Not willingly.

Sin isn't an entity it's the result of following desires which are against Yahweh's holy standards

. Sin is a direction away from and in separation from God. That is why it is seen as both an action and a state of being in scripture.

All the passages above relate to the life of sin or habitual unrepentant sinning so to speak which is the state everyone is in before regeneration. If you sin once does this mean you are a slave to sin ?

In Christ no. But all acts of sin are first preceded by belief in a lie which is undetected, which is why the Truth sets one free.

Ok sure good. So when you resist sin it isn't you but Jesus that does it ? What happens when you do sin who is responsible; Jesus, satan or you ?

It is the Holy Spirit of Truth that does it. If I sin it is because there was a lie I did not perceive in time to alter course. This happens sometimes. Afterwards the Holy Spirit shows me my error and I am humbled and thankful. I am also told by The Spirit and shown by the Spirit where and how I had begun to take pride in my righteousness and that needed a reminder to restore humility.

 

[agua.]

The working week has started again. You've raised some very interesting points childeye and I usually don't have a lot of time for study and in depth replies during the week. I'll respond on the weekend if I can't during the week.

 

[Stan1953]

eng35,

Please understand the difference between Arminians and Armenians. Armenians are from the country of Armenia, which is in eastern Europe, south of Georgia.

Hey Oz...good to see you...

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Oz...good to see you...

Thanks to my Canuck mate. Brisbane's winter min temp hit 6C yesterday. I'm freezing. I'm checking out Arminius' statement on the sovereignty of God from my copy of his Works. I'll get back with a quote.

Enjoy your Canadian summer. After my British Columbia experience in the mid 1970s, there ain't many months/weeks to enjoy it.

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Oz...good to see you...

Ronald W Leigh has compiled a helpful comparison of the views of the sovereignty of God between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius in, ‘Calvin and Arminius’. He wrote:

In this section all quotations from Calvin are from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge) unless otherwise noted. All quotations from Arminius are from The Writings of James Arminius (Baker 1956 reprint, translated by Nichols and Bagnall).

1. What is the nature of God's sovereignty? Is there such a thing as human free will? Does God decide everything directly, or does he permit man to make certain decisions?

Calvin:

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

The arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 6)

Arminius

I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, emphasis in original)

God in the administration of his Providence conducts all things in such a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions. (Vol 1, p 297)

… something is done contingently … in such a manner as makes it possible not to be done. (ibid, emphasis in original)

[Concerning the opposite view] It makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. (Vol 1, p 298)

+++++++++

Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.

Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices – choices which in each case could have been the opposite.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ronald W Leigh has compiled a helpful comparison of the views of the sovereignty of God between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius in, ‘Calvin and Arminius’. He wrote:

In this section all quotations from Calvin are from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge) unless otherwise noted. All quotations from Arminius are from The Writings of James Arminius (Baker 1956 reprint, translated by Nichols and Bagnall).

1. What is the nature of God's sovereignty? Is there such a thing as human free will? Does God decide everything directly, or does he permit man to make certain decisions?

Calvin:

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

The arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 6)

Arminius

I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, emphasis in original)

God in the administration of his Providence conducts all things in such a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions. (Vol 1, p 297)

… something is done contingently … in such a manner as makes it possible not to be done. (ibid, emphasis in original)

[Concerning the opposite view] It makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. (Vol 1, p 298)

+++++++++

Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.

Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices – choices which in each case could have been the opposite.

Good summation!

 

[Deborah13]

Ronald W Leigh has compiled a helpful comparison of the views of the sovereignty of God between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius in, ‘Calvin and Arminius’. He wrote:

In this section all quotations from Calvin are from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge) unless otherwise noted. All quotations from Arminius are from The Writings of James Arminius (Baker 1956 reprint, translated by Nichols and Bagnall).

1. What is the nature of God's sovereignty? Is there such a thing as human free will? Does God decide everything directly, or does he permit man to make certain decisions?

Calvin:

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)

The arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 6)

Arminius

I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, emphasis in original)

God in the administration of his Providence conducts all things in such a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions. (Vol 1, p 297)

… something is done contingently … in such a manner as makes it possible not to be done. (ibid, emphasis in original)

[Concerning the opposite view] It makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. (Vol 1, p 298)

+++++++++

Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.

Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices – choices which in each case could have been the opposite.

Good post.
I've never understood why someone thinks that if God allows man to make decisions it takes away from God's sovereignty.
It's bizarre to me to believe that God created someone to be a child abuser, a drug addict, etc., things that He clearly hates. That is placing all the evil in the world in the very heart of God.
If this is true then surely God did force me to believe the gospel. I would never on my own choose to service such a God. He must have caused me to be blind to this truth about His evil intentions for man. And if that is true, ignorance is bless.

 

[reba]

+++++++++

Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.

Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices – choices which in each case could have been the opposite.

Thank you OZ for the way you have posted this...

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you OZ for the way you have posted this...

reba,

I'm indeed grateful that Dr Google helped me locate this helpful summary of the difference between Calvinism's and Arminianism's view of the sovereignty of God by Ronald W Leigh. To have found this material straight from the writings of Calvin and Arminius would have been a challenge without this Google assistance. I do have Calvin's Institutes and Arminius' Works in hard copy. They are also online, but finding these exact quotes would have taken quite a bit of reading.

 

[Stan1953]

Thanks to my Canuck mate. Brisbane's winter min temp hit 6C yesterday. I'm freezing. I'm checking out Arminius' statement on the sovereignty of God from my copy of his Works. I'll get back with a quote.
Enjoy your Canadian summer. After my British Columbia experience in the mid 1970s, there ain't many months/weeks to enjoy it.

Did you get a cold? I wish I could say we have summer weather, but we haven't really even had spring weather yet. It's 12 here today, raining, and there a flood watch on for most of southern Alberta. :erm My furnace has not been inactive all spring.
Be well mate.

 

[OzSpen]

Good post.
I've never understood why someone thinks that if God allows man to make decisions it takes away from God's sovereignty.
It's bizarre to me to believe that God created someone to be a child abuser, a drug addict, etc., things that He clearly hates. That is placing all the evil in the world in the very heart of God.
If this is true then surely God did force me to believe the gospel. I would never on my own choose to service such a God. He must have caused me to be blind to this truth about His evil intentions for man. And if that is true, ignorance is bless.

Deborah,

I agree. Then add what is happening in Iraq, Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, children sold into prostitution in SE Asia and other parts of the world, children as young as 9 (I have a friend working with these children), Nero, the Plague, world wars, Hitler, Pol Pot, September 11, etc. I find the Arminian explanation much more plausible for the sovereignty of God in regard to all the evil that is happening in our sin-soaked world.

 

[OzSpen]

Did you get a cold? I wish I could say we have summer weather, but we haven't really even had spring weather yet. It's 12 here today, raining, and there a flood watch on for most of southern Alberta. :erm My furnace has not been inactive all spring.
Be well mate.

No, no cold for my medical condition. I shivered for only 1 morning - down to 6C - but it was 13 overnight last night (it's 6.24am as I write). Much of Western Qld is in severe drought. We pray that the Lord of the harvest will send soaking rain to the outback.

What is your view on the Arminian perspective of the sovereignty of God and what is happening in our world that is full of rottenness? Is God the direct cause of this evil or is he, in his sovereignty, allowing human beings to commit these evil actions - but he still is the sovereign Lord God?

 

[Stan1953]

No, no cold for my medical condition. I shivered for only 1 morning - down to 6C - but it was 13 overnight last night (it's 6.24am as I write). Much of Western Qld is in severe drought. We pray that the Lord of the harvest will send soaking rain to the outback.
What is your view on the Arminian perspective of the sovereignty of God and what is happening in our world that is full of rottenness? Is God the direct cause of this evil or is he, in his sovereignty, allowing human beings to commit these evil actions - but he still is the sovereign Lord God?

Good to hear.

Sovereignty does NOT connote micro managing. There are sovereigns in our world today and there are dictators. NOT the same thing, and God is NOT a dictator. The spiritual powers/principalities in this world, are in the control of the devil and his angel. THAT is God's design and clearly shown in His Word. We, being in time, don't see as God does, not being subject to time. His plan is perfect and has already been established. When God is ready, Jesus will return, and not one moment before. 2 Peter 3:9 NIV

 

[OzSpen]

To other Christians I might agree that a distinction is applicable, but that is simply a recognition that there are theological distinctions among us. It says nothing to the effect that I would be a "follower of Arminius," and I would qualify my statement as such.

I preferred the term Reformed Theology, or Doctrine of Grace, until I realized how arrogant those terms were as they painted themselves as the only reformed theology (which isn't true) and the only doctrines that were of grace (which isn't true) and I realized that Scripture actually doesn't teach Calvinism, i.e. the sovereign predestination of individuals to salvation.

Some even contend that Calvin wouldn't have been a 5 point Calvinist, but his statements on Limited Atonement seem almost contradictory in places.

I find the term 'Reformed Theology' to be too misleading because Jacob Arminius to his dying day was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church (see HERE). Therefore, it is just as valid to refer to Arminius' theology as 'Reformed Theology'. There is a book, J Matthew Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four views on eternal security (Zondervan) that has one chapter by Stephen M Ashby on 'A Reformed Arminian view'. Those who are classical Arminians are often called Reformed Arminian as slightly different from Wesleyan Arminians.