Alex O'Connor's Contradiction (On Suffering)

Introduction

Are you one of those crazy people who just love sitting down and watching a 3 hour debate on some theological discussion, or in the case of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (with his word salads) - a full 8 hours? Well, I am. From the philosophical debates about the existence of God and the problem of evil, I see that there has been a change of the guard since I was a teen and the level of public discussion has definitely increased in complexity and also sincerity. There have been many great debates - Sam Harris v Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig v Sam Harris, Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor etc. Trent Horn is definitely a significant force on the theist side and Alex O'Connor on the atheist side. Both are improving on or at least articulating old arguments in new ways that I find intriguing. For example, Trent is improving on the Kalam Cosmological argument (an infinite materialistic past is impossible), and Alex is giving credit where due - that human suffering isn't so much of an issue due to its allowance of higher order values, but he instead focuses on animal suffering (more on this later). I am not so convinced Alex is the "non-resistant, non-believer" he claims to be. 

Alex

Alex has a fantastic accent, sharp wit, and depending on the interview, he has a charming and genuine feel about his discussions. He purports to be a "non-resistant, non-believer" which gives the impression he is very open to believing in God. He even stated in one interview that the main idea that is keeping him from believing in God is the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. While holding this in mind, I do find it suspicious that he finds himself debating frequently against the resurrection of Jesus, the divine command for the Canaanite "genocide", and whether Jesus even claimed to be God. For someone who is non-resistant and has only one mentioned reason for not believing in God, he certainly is very actively opposing Him. There might be more to his story than he lets on. Alex seems to rely on a rather literalistic approach to what I call "lemon picking" which throws a lot of Christians off in debate. Lemon picking is a way of deliberately missing a point and looking at the negative. For example, many Christians use Galatians 3:28 to end slavery - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Alex doesn't believe we can use this passage because it would mean denying the literal existence of male and female. Alex clearly misunderstands the significance of this passage - that slaves and non slaves are equal in the eyes of God. Many of the reasons for slavery throughout history is that slaves are seen as worth less than free people. Galatians alternatively claims otherwise.  

This leads me to the main topic of this blog post... Alex's contradiction. 

Unnecessary Animal Suffering

Alex's main gripe is that he can't understand how a good God could allow unnecessary animal suffering. This is a fair point and shows that Alex has some keen sense of morals. It is a significant Biblical idea that we as imago dei are meant to have dominion and tend God's creations from early times. This means caring for animals is a deep God-given moral compass He has given us. I am glad Alex is using it. Alex likes to weaponize it in his debates. The Knechtles unfortunately appeared to have a rough time chatting with Alex in this short half-hour discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtajMlNcnw&t=7s. In it at 1:25 Alex says to Cliff that if Alex pushed a button turning Cliff into a random wild animal, Cliff would kill himself immediately because of how miserable his life would be. Essentially, Alex is claiming that there is no value in living the life of an animal. 

Colonising Planets

Is Alex consistent with this proposition? Let's find out. In a debate with a rather worthy opponent - Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Horn pressed Alex on his rhetoric around this issue. He posited to Alex to imagine that all humanity left earth to colonise another planet. Alex has the opportunity to wipe out all nature on earth after we leave with the pressing of a button. Alex essentially gets his wish. He can end all unnecessary suffering. Alex responded basically that he didn't think he would push the button but would rather choose a button that reduced suffering. He provided no metric for deciding at what point is too much suffering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1JgXOKDQ. Trent clearly drives this point home and moves onto why Alex cannot find that metric. Alex's utilitarianism gets in the way. 

Although Alex's concerns weren't really sufficient for determining how much suffering is too much, he did raise an interesting analogy about a deer being caught under a log and starving to death, even without knowledge by humans of this ever happening. This situation of suffering seems pointless to us. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there are possible areas that could be explored further regarding where justified suffering could be found within the experience of animals.

Pain Is Good

First, at a silly level, we might consider us living life without pain receptors in order to minimise suffering (much like zombies or lepers). Clearly, this would be an unpleasant experience. The feeling of a hard day's work is a genuinely good feeling even if I had risked injuring myself doing so (or I had to plan my day so that I wasn't carelessly smashing into everything). This seems like a frightful dream to consider the feeling of having no pain receptors. 

Pain Is Necessary

Moving to another level, it is often said that suffering is necessary for higher order goods such as love, kindness, mercy, and compassion. I emphasise the "necessary". Jesus said that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If God wants to express Himself (as Creator) as the greatest expression of good, then this may be why God allowed/caused evil to enter the world in the first place - so that the greatest expressions of love could become a potential reality. God expressed this through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. There is a certain beauty with higher order goods that you do not get without suffering. I am glad that Alex acknowledges this in multiple interviews. However, one could imagine that suffering might be reduced so much that all unnecessary suffering ceases to exist and therefore maximising the good ratio. Though, I am not sure that this is possible.

If we wanted to witness the "greatest love" of someone giving their life for a friend, I suppose we could minimise suffering so that only one person needed to experience this, almost like a single exemplar of suffering for us all to observe and feel pity for. Maybe, there is an exemplar "murder" story we all "know" about. Although this scenario allows us to maybe understand or empathise to a small degree with the exemplar/s of suffering for each scenario, there feels like a certain travesty and arbitrariness about it that is difficult to explain. I would argue that the exemplars alone are not enough to qualify as producing that "higher good" within us. Much like merely seeing someone garden and consequently getting a sore back and limbs is not enough for us to enjoy the relief of putting their feet up and resting after the fact. Having the ability to participate or the potential to participate in a higher good holds its own value. It must follow that if we have this potential to experience a higher good then we must also have the potential to experience suffering.

The very existence of suffering just being around the corner (as horrifying as it may be at times) provides within us a feeling of a need to band together and to help each other that in itself is valuable. We don't know when suffering will impact us, but through compassion, mercy, and love, we can experience pleasure of being in unity with others in the face of  real potential of suffering. This is infinitely more valuable than minimising suffering to a mere exemplar and addresses the real difficulty of deciding what unnecessary suffering actually is. Minimising suffering doesn't produce a ratio of more good.

Pain Is "Good/Necessary" For Animals Too

If this idea can work for people, then why could this not work for animals too? Alex frequently uses the deer being eaten by a lion as an example of unnecessary designed suffering in nature. I cannot speak as completely understanding (if at all) what the life of a deer may be. For a start, as many philosophers claim, there is a certain extra level of suffering a human can experience than an animal. An animal might experience suffering, but not the despairing self-awareness kind of suffering that true consciousness brings. They might feel pain, but not necessarily think, "I am in existential pain, and this is unfair". Animals don't have the ability to suffer as much as people, or at least they experience a different kind of pain to us. 

I wonder if a similar concept of the value of life and the real potential of suffering could be applied with deer as with people. Even though being hunted down and eaten by a lion is truly terrifying, could it be valuable for a deer to experience the safety of a herd instinct or comradery, even in the face of real dangers? A lion likewise, experiencing its own unique version of the herd instinct as they hunt together? These positive experiences of animal behaviour may be worth the suffering involved. This is the reason why when we step back, it would be difficult to push the button that exterminates all non-human life on a planet because there is something inherently valuable about nature and its own experiences. Many ultimate Sci fi movie villains attempt minimising suffering through extermination... we all know this is wrong and is actually destroying all that is good with it.

Higher Goods Within People

If animals may garnish some form of good through the real risk of wide spread suffering as people do, people can also experience higher order goods from animal suffering. Many people such as the SPCA here in New Zealand exist so that they can exercise a higher order good of caring for at risk animals. They cannot reach and save every animal from every situation, but the very knowledge that suffering is happening outside of their perceived control motivates them to creatively act to minimise "unnecessary" suffering. In a way that makes the unnecessary suffering a necessary part of motivating the greater good of SPCA's mission. Without the sense of a natural world run by natural laws where real risks and the potential of suffering exists, we can never experience these higher order goods.

This argument can be placed into a polly syllogism:

1. If God embodies the highest form of goodness, then His nature necessitates self-expression through creation.
2. In creating the world, God actualised the potential for widespread animal suffering as a means to manifest essential goods.
3. The existence of widespread animal suffering is necessary for cultivating higher-order virtues in humanity, such as compassion, mercy, and concern.
4. Additionally, this suffering plays a role in fostering lower-order goods in animals, such as the herd instinct, which contributes to survival and social cohesion.
5. Therefore, the actualization of widespread animal suffering within creation is justified as a means of producing both higher and lower-order goods.

Conclusion

In the end, it is difficult to separate the necessity of suffering from higher and lower order goods. In Scripture, God went into a long monologue with Job challenging Job to understand his own limitations of insight. Job was humbled by this monologue. Ultimately, we cannot see all the necessities of any single event, but because God is good, we can trust that He has a greater plan for good that sometimes only He is aware of. This is infinitely more reassuring than the purposelessness of an atheistic view on suffering. We can speculate, but ultimately it is His prerogative to run this universe as He sees fit.   

Christian Ethics in a Secular Environment

Can Christian ethics and a secular environment be reconciled? Here are some thoughts on the meaning of the “law” within Christianity and how it applies to Social Work ethics or even life in general.

Imagine that you see a sheep in a field. You see the sheep and exclaim “ah, there is a sheep in that field”. However, unbeknown to you, the sheep that you thought you saw was actually a rock in the shape of a sheep; and behind the rock in the shape of a sheep, there was actually a sheep.
-      Did you know that there was a sheep in the field?
-      Were you correct that there was a sheep in the field?
The statement was technically correct that there was a sheep in the field, but what you had in mind was incorrect.
Epistemology is the study of “how you know that you know things” and applies to ethics as much as anything else. As the sheep in the field scenario illustrates, knowledge is largely subjective, meaning that it is from our personal perspective.

Ethics and Social Work
Ethics in Social Work likewise are also subject to interpretation. Not every person will see all aspects of a given situation before them.
For example:
What does it mean to act in the client’s best interests? We may have a vague understanding of what it means, but how that is perceived and outworked varies greatly. This is largely due to our own interpretations.

Context plays a huge role in determining which ethical action to take. Depending on the context, what may seem in the client’s best interests may require an action that will vary from case to case. This calls for humility when working in these situations. We will never have all the knowledge in a given context. We may think we do at times, but one must remember that knowledge is largely from our perspective, even if we may think it is “common sense”… Knowledge is heavily influenced by our cultural background and life experiences. You can say that you believe there is a sheep in the field, but in actual fact, because of our fallible natures and limited knowledge, we should be aware that we could be very wrong. 
Depending on how much we can see of a given scenario or even how we see it from our perspective, no universal ethic will necessarily look the same. We may have a general understanding of what to do, just like we have a general understanding that there was a sheep in the field, but we are ultimately limited in our knowledge.


Even worse than working with a lack of knowledge, ethical practice may even directly conflict with itself. What if you thought you were looking at a sheep in the field and your client or colleague saw a rock in the shape of sheep? Both are looking at the same scenario. Who says who is right?

The Duck/Rabbit picture is a great example. Some people see a rabbit and some people see a duck. Both appear equally correct from each perspective. In an ethical dilemma one must be chosen and each choice with its own consequences.     
So how do we decipher what any particular ethic practically looks like when working with clients?  


Human rights v Moral rights.
Marie Connolly shares an understanding of practical Social Work values that I particularly like, which comes from a rights based perspective. She claims that there are two types of rights, human rights and moral rights. Human rights are concerned with the wellbeing of people, whereas moral rights are concerned about smaller issues in the grand scheme of things. From my understanding, moral rights which could come from asking “what is the right thing to do”, can become troublesome in Social Work because they are often from our personal values and don’t necessarily impact wellbeing greatly. On the other hand, human rights tend to be more helpful when making ethical decisions in Social Work. Instead of asking “what is the right thing to do”, a Social Worker coming from a Human Rights base may ask “what would be most helpful thing to do to produce wellbeing?”. Doing this enables us to sieve through the various decisions available.
An example could be a parent’s rights over their children. It is a moral right for parents to provide for their children, but if the children’s wellbeing is compromised, then the child’s human right comes into effect and overrides the moral right of the parent. It wouldn’t be helpful for the Social Worker or the child to value moral rights over human rights in this situation.

Difference in Christian thought.
Marie Connolly comes from a secular perspective, which I generally agree with. But what about Christians? Much of my upbringing consisted of encountering a variety of Christians that come from different schools of thought. Many Christians come from an objective law focus when it comes to moral rights and I did too for much of my life. Think back to the sheep in the field. An objective outlook would claim that there is definitely a sheep in the field, but a subjective outlook would believe there is a sheep in the field and would admit that due to limited knowledge, they could be wrong.

Congruence
An objective outlook is fine - we are all entitled to our opinion - but this type of Christianity may find it difficult to do social work in a secular context, because of the limitations that an objective outlook creates. I wrestled with this earlier on in the degree. How can I work in a manner that honours the “morals” of Christianity at the same time as “supporting” someone else’s opposing morals? Carl Rogers thought that a person’s psychological well-being was connected with how well they were able to live congruent lives. A person who is able to be congruent between their perceived reality and with their actual experiences, results in less anxiety. For me this has been true. The more I can reconcile my conscience with reality, the more at ease I feel with myself. This makes the place of ethics in Social Work and my interpretation of what these ethics mean to me, very important.


Laws made for man
The more I have studied the Bible I have found that I have misunderstood a huge part of the gospel, and much of what Jesus emphasized. Many Christians try to preach the Ten Commandments as a list of written “rules” from God. However, I over looked that Jesus Himself denied that these were “rules” per se. Jesus revolutionised the purpose of a law when he and his disciples picked heads of grain in a field on a Sabbath (which breaks the Sabbath law of doing no work). Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Likewise I believe that laws are made for the benefit of people (therefore making them more like principles), rather than people being made for laws.


Fulfilled in love
To me, what the law produces is a motive of self-concern. E.g. if I follow this law then God will value me. However, more recently I see that Christianity teaches a rather different way of understanding morality and ethics.
The apostle Paul talked about how Jesus fulfilled the law, and summed up the law in what he called one word: “ For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Galations 5:13-14),
Living with the principles of dying to our selfish selves helps me to naturally look outward towards the needs of others, rather than following a law “just because”. This outlook ties in well with Human Rights ethics. Jesus was concerned about people’s wellbeing rather than a set of arbitrary rules. The “rules” or principles Jesus and the writers of the New Testament expected us to live by were for our wellbeing!

I have at times wrestled with Corrie Ten Boom type scenarios regarding lying versus telling the truth. For those who don't know the story, Corrie lied to the Nazis in order to protect Jews in her care. At times like these, I believe it is helpful to look at ethical dilemmas within their context and looking at things from a wellbeing perspective. Sure, it may not be right or helpful generally speaking to ourselves and society to be a false witness, but when it comes down to the wellbeing of another (like hiding Jews from the Nazis) wouldn’t it be more Christ-like to break a law for the wellbeing of another? I ask this remembering of course Jesus’ attitude to towards the law of the Sabbath. 


So how does this outlook relate to Social Work ethics? Just like with Social Work and ethical dilemmas, as a Christian, I will inevitably encounter ethical dilemmas. However, the difference is that I can work with more flexibility regarding what might be considered “Right” or “Wrong” in a given situation. I can live with greater congruence between my personal and professional values.

Following are some of the verses I found helpful to consider when thinking about ethics:

Matthew 5:43-44
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” 

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

Ephesians 4:29
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Romans 14:4-6, 14-15
4 ”Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…
 “14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love…” 

Mark 12:31
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”



I would also like to conclude with some words of wisdom from Captain Barbossa:

"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 1 - INTRODUCTION)

Those who read my articles / comments will probably recognize that I am slightly divided in my approach to any controversial topic- I try and uphold both modernistic cognitive knowledge AND post-modern soul-oriented subjectivity. I can get agitated whenever I see either component emphasized in isolation :)

In a similar way, I have slowly become more and more concerned with the way we Christians tend to approach Scripture. I feel like we forget to approach it in a way which is faithful to an honest view of God, and His intentions for Scripture. Sometimes we forget that God's primary aims (relationship, holiness, joy) are not particularly related to Scripture as an end to itself (i.e. Modernism). And other times we forget that Scripture and theological debate are nevertheless essential tools to do those more fundamentally important extra-scriptural (Postmodern) things.

I'm going to write a series of posts on what (I think) it means to faithfully approach Scripture. I'm know I'm likely to upset some tightly-held beliefs about Scripture - but my aim is not to question things for the sake of it. I just want us all to approach Scripture honestly, and with a willingness to change our beliefs about it, if that's what 'being faithful' to it requires.

Background

To me, any faithful and honest approach to Scripture will do three things - be true to what Scripture says about itself, be applied consistently to make sense of every aspect of the text (as a whole, and as individual texts), and gel with the picture of God presented itself (when approached this way). It is not a simple task to stay true to all three principles, although I think it must be possible (even if we never know whether we are doing it 'right') if the Scriptures are inspired by God, or are simply intended by God slightly useful in any way.

However, we make this task impossible by adding subconscious extra-biblical requirements to this list. Humans do this to every interpretive action we undertake - from appreciating the beauty of the sunset or a massage, to studying physics and mathematics and music, to reading letters or the American Constitution. So there's no surprise we do this to the Bible.

Our worldview is the sum total of not only our perceptions (both cognitive and non-cognitive e.g. emotions, about the world and ourselves i.e. our identity and purpose), but also meta-data about those perceptions (such as how they relate to each other, how important or useful or integral each perception is, and how we decide these things). Obviously a lot of this is not consciously performed, but it definitely happens, and becomes more obvious when we deliberately explore it, IF we allow ourselves to admit it. Our worldview does the same with Scripture - it tells us how to give it value, emphasis, and purpose, etc. And by doing this it adds requirements to our approach to Scripture.

For example, modernism is a common component of many people's worldview in the Western world. Modernism has many aspects (including e.g. a focus on the human ability to forge its own destiny, via Free Will / Science / Humanism / etc), but a the big factor I'll talk about today is how it assigns purpose, value, identity, and relationships on the basis of detailed cognitive information. The more detailed cognitive information is available, the better modernism can supply purpose, value, identity, and relationships. Modernism thus provides a subconscious drive to seek clear and detailed cognitive knowledge. If a pure modernist wants to value and relate to God, their worldview adds the requirement that He readily provides clear and detailed cognitive information (for which Scripture is seen as the ideal conduit), and will be unable to grasp any purpose/value/identity/relationships that God and/or Scripture INTENDS to provide in the absence of such information.

Mixing Worldview and Scripture

When we struggle to bring all these requirements together with our worldview, we tend to fudge something to make it work. Unfortunately, my observation has been that we tend to accidentally stay faithful to our worldview, and to the obvious statements Scripture makes about itself - thus leaving the second principle (and the third, as a consequence of it) to be fudged. We end up 'simplifying' Scripture in our minds to a form which we CAN apply all the remaining principles to (including our worldview). We minimize the uncomfortable complexities and maximize the comfortable aspects with are coherent with our preconceptions.

The reason we are so faithful to our worldview, is that it has been instrumental in integrating everything we have ever experienced or known - our identity, our understanding, values, purpose, etc. To question our worldview literally raises the possibility (unlikely as it may be) that all these things have no basis. Our world would fall down around us. In addition to this, for religious people our worldview is integrated into our very concept of God and 'faithfulness' - to question it (even indirectly by questioning our consequent understanding of Scripture) is not only potentiating the collapse of our world, but the collapse of (what we consider to be) 'faithfulness' to God. 

There are several examples of scriptural characteristics that conflict frequently with our worldviews, and are thus 'simplified' to a form which allows us to continue with our worldview. The difficult 'doctrinal' passages are often split into those which align with our view, and those which need explaining away - and this is then done, often successfully, but not without minimizing the contribution these passages bring to the Scripture, while maximizing the contribution others bring. Some will say that this 'difficulty' results from addressing issues God doesn't want addressed, but this itself is minimizing the contribution these verses bring to Scripture. Others label it an attribute of our fallible interpretation, rather than Scripture per-se. Fair enough, but I don't think you can separate it from the fabric of Scripture itself so easily - there are other characteristics that suggest God was TRYING to avoid perfectly clear communication. Many of these 'opposing' views of God seem to be very clearly expressed and deliberately NOT fully integrated into a systematic theology, and the emphasis certainly isn't on reconciliation.

And even when we manage to simplify our view of God to be conveniently consistent in terms of doctrine (through our bias in emphasizing a subset of Scriptures), its hard to escape the changing morals He expects from His people - not just between Testaments, but within the same Old Testament Law! And then there are the blaring contradictions in terms of historical 'facts' and conversation, something the authors and readers didn't seem concerned about. And some very strange ways that Paul and Jesus mis-quote and re-interpret Scripture, suggesting they didn't view it quite like we do today. Then there is the fact that both Judeism AND Christianity existed and flourished before the 'Scriptures' per-se existed, and the Scriptures are never presented as the basis for a relationship with God.

Summary

If we believe God truly inspired Scripture, it means every characteristic is deliberate and aids His purposes, even if some of those characteristics make it difficult for us to know how to approach it, and challenge our fundamental understanding and approach to the world, ourselves, knowledge, life, etc. These difficult characteristics need to be considered just as 'Scriptural' as the more comfortable aspects, and made sense of and embraced just like the others we find convenient.

In this series I want to explore where the second principle of Scriptural faithfulness (being true to the text's characteristics, including its uncomfortable complexities) actually leads us, and which of our extra-biblical worldview 'requirements' can and can't stand alongside it. My aim is not that we will be free from personal bias or worldviews (I don't think this is possible), but that we will be free to consider Scripture as it really is BECAUSE we are not afraid to see and challenge (and attempt to change) our worldview IF God exposes some weaknesses.

Lets get the comments rolling :) How does this discussion make people feel?  What goes through your head when you consider 'challenging' your view of Scripture? Are there other ways we wrongly 'simplify' Scripture?

Next Time...

• When the dust settles (LOL), my next post will explore one simple observations about Scripture, that many  feel the need to minimise (rather than accept at face value). It'll be a kind of extended introduction, just to help contextualise some of what I've been saying, and to get us more familiar with the kind of questions we'll be considering. 
• After that I'll start on a more logical progression from the basics (God's fundamental aim in everything), to His specific purposes for Scripture, to the Jewish and Christian misuse of Scripture, and finally some implications for Christian unity and missions.

The series so far:

1. Introduction (this post)
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems – Part 3

In Search of a Coherent Narrative 

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems 

Part 4: Calvinism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems 

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Introduction

Previously I discussed how the concept of man’s Freewill does not hold a monopoly on scripture. I also discussed how foreknowledge seems to fail to explain how God’s predestination is a response to man’s Freewill choice of Him. This additional discussion looks more closely at the very concept of Freewill, not so much from a scriptural perspective but from philosophical perspective. This post asks how Freewill is actually meant to work, and explores some potentially negative consequences that is associated with Freewill thought. I realise books could be written on these subjects, but here, I aim to at least provide an exploration of some ideas in order to provoke thought around these subjects.

Cause and Effect

Arminian thought regarding Freewill cannot be explained. I believe it cannot be explained because it does not provide an answer to the important concepts of cause and effect. Cause and effect is the direct relation between a cause and the effect that it brings. Let me explain using the scenario of salvation. If we choose God over absence from Him, cause and effect would ask “what caused us to choose or not to choose God?”. Freewill thought would state that WE chose to or not to. However, in reality I do not think that it is that simple. Observing nature provides us with an understanding of cause and effect within creation. Quite simply, we are to a great extent products of our environment. I was raised in a New Zealand European family who are strong Christians. Guess what happened to me? Yes, I took on largely their language, culture, values and even their faith. My upbringing dictated to a great degree who I would become. Others absorb their surroundings also, such as a person in an Arab state may likely grow up to be a Muslim. Proverbs strongly hints towards a similar conclusion where the impact that our surroundings can have on us, actually determines the path we walk. It states that when you “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” When observing reality, it seems to suggest that our context that we live in drastically dictates where we will grow up, how we will act, and what we will believe. Thus, I believe we can fairly ask, “What causes me or anyone else to accept God or not to accept Him?”

A Dichotomy

When observing the concept of cause and effect and its relation to Freewill, it leads to a dichotomy about the nature of our Freewill. Either our decisions have direct causes, or they have ‘random’ causes. In Arminianist thought, people must have ultimately (in the end) an EQUAL choice between salvation or absence from God. If it is not equal then it implies that our circumstances, our experiences, and our nature would be the deciding influences to tip the balance on what we ultimately decide. Some Arminianists say that our surroundings do have an influence, but that we still have a choice to override that influence. However, if something does influence me then it must definitely have an effect on me. Can I really be held responsible for responding to an influence that had an effect on me, especially if that effect had no opposing influence to pull me in the other direction? If it were really true that we had a free choice to choose against influences, then reality would reflect that. As demonstrated earlier and clearly seen in reality, influences heavily determine the outcome of individuals in society - the way we think, the god (or lack of) we believe in, and even the prevalence of generational or societal sin! If we deny that influences determine outcomes then we must look at the alternative, which would mean something even more drastically unsettling. If we have a perfectly equal choice with no influencing factors, then what is it within us that makes any particular choice? What would cause me to choose to be saved, but the person across the road to choose not to be? I cannot say that it is because I wanted to be saved more, because that would be a predisposition of mine, or created by an outside influence. The only other disturbing option is that the decision would be completely random. If the decision is completely random, then there is no basis to discuss the importance of making any choices whatsoever. So any particular decision either has a cause (or a largely determining factor) or is completely random.

In my opinion, according to cause and effect, God ultimately created my circumstances, and He created my predisposition. I do not see any way that our Freewill can fit into this picture. I will speak more on the implications of this in my final post.

The same problems with the concept of Freewill can be applied to God. If God had choices before Him and randomly chose one, He would be an inconsistent and untrustworthy God. He definitely would not be the same yesterday, today and forever as it claims in the scriptures (Hebrews 13:8). In scripture, if God does something, it seems to always be for a reason, and that reason does not seem to be random. Either He makes random decisions (Which isn't Biblical or logical) OR He has some predisposition inherent in Him that causes Him to decide one way or the other. God would not be the God of the Bible if something existed outside of Him (Randomness or other) that would largely determine Him to do one action or another. Therefore, He must have a fixed nature that determines His actions.

Dangers of Freewill Thought

The concept of Freewill also creates other concerns when relating to people and creating discourses about society. The concern is that Freewill may cause us to lack compassion for those who reflect their external environment. I realise that we do have individuals natures that can cause each of us to act differently in different situations, however when looking at reality there is a strong correlation between our circumstances and the type of people we become. Freewill thought, on the other hand, limits the degree to which our external environments can be looked at as a potential cause. For example, if a child is born into a low income, abusive family with no work ethics etc, how would he be judged in Freewill thought if that child grew up to become just like his or her parents? The child would be seen as choosing ‘Freely’ his lifestyle, and therefore judged with limited compassion. With a true commitment to Freewill, I believe it is not possible to have full compassion on that grown-child’s disposition while being consistent with Freewill thought. Under Freewill thought, instead of compassion or understanding, the tendency can be to focus on, treat and judge a person on the symptoms of their behaviour, rather than addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour.

Unless we acknowledge the power that external circumstances have over our choices, it not only extremely limits our ability to have compassion on people, but it restricts the belief in the power to assist change. I believe that as one can take on the characteristics of their environment, so we can create new environments where there is hope for change. However, this is not as possible in Freewill thought. We would be merely wishing that people would change their “free” mind from each moment to the next. In fact, what good have we done if we have merely for the moment convinced someone to “freely” choose God? No real change has been done in their life because they then may freely choose to reject Him at any given moment. Believing that influences truly can have an effect provides a more positive outlook to changing the characters of people towards becoming more Christ-like.

Heaven? 

What happens in heaven - do we have Freewill to choose God or not to choose Him? If we do not have Freewill in heaven, then we are back to being mere ‘robots’, which Arminianism appears to characteristically oppose like a vampire to garlic. Some Arminians say that the glory of God will be so great that we will not want anything other than God. However, all that is saying is that we have a predisposition to enjoy the glory of God rather than having a “real” choice – thus taking our Freewill away.

Death of Innocents

One last thought about Freewill, is that of the death of the unborn or young child. If the way to God is only generated by a Freewill cognitive choice on our part, then this makes it nigh impossible for children to cognitively choose salvation. One could say that children either automatically go to heaven or hell, but these conclusions take away the purpose of “choice”/Freewill in the first place. Arminian thought would normally state that it is impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal; therefore, children going to heaven would mean a reneging of this value. Unless of course they believe in another age or realm after death, by which children can have a choice, which most Arminians probably deny. Maybe children just die and no longer exist for eternity? Who knows, but the Arminian narrative does not provide answers consistent with their narrative on this point.

Man’s Freewill does not Absolve God’s Responsibility for the Existence of Sin

On a brief note: Freewill does not get God off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for the existence of evil (as I briefly mentioned in the previous post). Some people in defence of a Freewill state within humankind say that because people can ‘freely’ choose to commit evil, any evil that happens in the world is because of humankind. However, I believe that I can demonstrate that God has at least some responsibility for evil in this world. For example, if I were to throw someone into a pool of sharks and then hope the sharks would overlook that person, and that person then gets eaten, I would consider myself responsible for that outcome. God is involved in equivalent situations that actually happen in reality. He lets children be born into likely to be or currently abusive environments. Thus, the motive to believe in Freewill as a means to absolve God of ‘guilt’ is put into question.

Final Remarks

Many Arminians accept paradox when it comes to our Freewill coinciding with God as our Creator. This is a noble act. Many things cannot yet be explained, but if we want to explain how our relationship with God works, then these topics need to be addressed. Arminians do mean well. I do not think that all Arminians believe in Freewill in order to belittle God’s sovereignty per se, but instead aim to take the responsibility of sin onto our shoulders. Another up for Arminianism is that it clings to much of scripture, by enabling the potential for all people to be saved - something which Calvinism denies, as we shall see in the next post. However, when looked at closely, Arminianism is grossly unexplained, and can have the potential to oppress those who reflect their environments.

Next post we look at Calvinism and the issues that it has as a scriptural narrative.

Calvinism's Scriptural and Philosophical Problems Part 4

Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems - Part 2

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems
Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism

Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Photo by Darren Tunnicliff

Previously I discussed what an Arminian narrative or paradigm generally looked like. Ultimately, it emphasizes the concept of Freewill and denies the hand of God in ultimately choosing whom to save. God’s choice is a response to man’s choice.

Even though I do consider Arminianism still workable and honourable in many aspects, I still find it uncompelling concerning its ability to explain the scriptural revelation given to us by God. It also struggles to explain Biblical concepts in a philosophically coherent manner. In this next section, I will firstly take scripture as an example, and then cover some of the philosophical difficulties that Arminianism has with dealing with these scriptures. Many aspects of scripture come against the Arminian idea of Freewill and suggest that God through our surroundings determines who we are and what choices we make. The Bible contains many, many scriptures pertaining to God predestining and determining people’s lives. Aspects of our lives being determined can be a frightening concept, but is an idea that will be further addressed throughout this series.

For the mean time, here are some examples in the Bible suggesting that at least some parts of our lives are determined:

• Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”
• Proverbs 16:4 “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” 
• Proverbs 16:9 “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.” 
• Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.” 
• Proverbs 20:24 “A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?” 
• Proverbs 21:1-3 “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” 
• Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” 
• John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” 
• Acts 4:28 “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” 
• Acts 13:48 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
• Romans 9:11 “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” 
• Romans 8: 29-30 “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” 
• Romans 9: 14 – 24 “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” 
• Romans 12:3 “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.” 
• Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will… In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” 
• 2 Thessalonians 2:13 “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” 
• Revelation 17:8 “The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.” 

In Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:11 the Greek word for “predestine” is “proorizó”, which according to Strong’s concordance means “I foreordain, predetermine or mark out before-hand”. In verses like these, God gives a strong impression that He decides an outcome beforehand and makes it happen. Could it be that our destiny is decided before we have any say in the matter?

Not only does the Bible talk about predestination, but it also talks about God giving a measure of faith to people (Romans 12:3). However, strangely, in many other places God seems to attribute us the responsibility of generating faith, but as already mentioned, Romans suggests that our faith actually comes from God.

Proverbs is often clear about the outcomes of our plans actually being determined by God, even people’s hearts! Proverbs 22:6 says to “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” It suggests that our surroundings (parents, in this instance) have a heavy influence on who we become. Conclusively, scripture expresses ideas that suggest that our wills are not as free as some would suppose.

Foreknowledge

Faced with these verses that threaten Freewill, Arminians sometimes try to get around the idea of predestination by attributing His choice of individuals to His foreknowledge, as found in the five points of Arminianism mentioned in the last section. Romans 8:29 is a key verse that provides us with a concept of foreknowledge along with predestination. If God merely knew beforehand (rather than predestined) who would choose to be saved and who would choose not to be, then this seems to enable our Freewill. That is, God supposedly predestines people’s salvation after His foreknowledge of their choice of outcome. However, there still seems to be several difficulties with placing foreknowledge before predestination in this manner, which will be my focus in the remainder of this section.

Arminian concept of God’s foreknowledge attempts to provide us with an ability to choose God before He chooses us. Yet, concerning this explanation, it falls apart when looked at more closely. Let me explain. I see that comprehensibly God can know the future by three possible ways:

1. God foreknows the future because He is outside of time as we know it. God could view reality like a video and zip back and forward as He wills. Alternatively, He could see all time periods at once. Either way, from His perspective, the future is as if it has already happened.
2. God set creation in motion like a wound up clock and can predict what will happen by observing everything according to a cause and effect (domino effect) scenario. Thus, God determines man’s “Freewill” through cause and effect.
3. The future is predictable not because of cause and effect but because God creates and plans (in the present) every aspect, and does as He wishes. Thus, man’s will would be determined by God’s active involvement in the present moment.

The last two views violate Arminian Freewill because God would be the one who is micro managing processes and outcomes, even our wills. Arminians could go with the first explanation in order to keep man’s Freewill at the same time as God foreknowing who would be saved. The problem with this view is the emphasis on the future tense of “will be” or “would choose”. Arminianists say that God foreknows who would choose Him or who will choose Him, implying that the future has not happened yet. However, if God already knows the future, then surely it must have already happened, at least from His perspective. Otherwise, how could He know it? If that is true, then all of time must be knowledge to God – not foreknowledge.

In addition, if everything has already happened in the future, how then can God be involved within that future? If He did enter that timeline and intervened somehow, then the future must not yet have happened. However, if we accept that God can know the future without it already having happened, then we immediately enter one of the other two options mentioned earlier, where God creates or handles the very outcome of the future – ideas which go against the very grain of Arminianist thought.

Some people try to get around the idea of God being a deterministic sovereign Being, by saying that He does not know the future - the future is unpredictable. The future therefore is open to “possibilities”. This is called Open Theism. Arminianists could adopt this idea in order to “free up” Freewill as well as keeping God’s “choosing” abilities. However, I do not believe Open Theism is scriptural at all. The Bible is quite clear about God’s ability to know, predict or create the future. God’s predestining according to foreknowledge as expressed in Romans 8 would not be consistent in an Open Theist narrative, because He would have no knowledge of the future. The future is open to “possibilities” and cannot be foreknown.

Lastly, one could say that the people whom God chooses to be saved are not chosen on an individual basis but more on a hypothetical collective level. My question regarding this is where does God’s foreknowledge come into this perspective? If God had foreknowledge of the future people group who would choose Him, then surely He must have had foreknowledge of the individuals who would make up that people group that He predestined. Thus thinking of predestination as a hypothetical group of people does not answer how the people within that group actually become a part of that group, and in my opinion does not provide a leg for Freewill ideas to stand on (Romans 8:29).

Arminianism Freewill not only tries to 'free up' our choices, but ultimately tries to attribute the existence of evil to man. However, if God foreknows the future as well as allows man the freedom to choose good or evil, it still leaves God with the responsibility of allowing evil to happen. James 4:17 states that even the act of choosing not to do good and thus allowing evil to happen, is a form of sin. This implies that if God is able to change the future and does not do so, then He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

This then leads to questions that we can ask of God as to why He actively allowed evil to happen, especially when He had foreknowledge of it. If God knows who will be saved and who will not be, then why bother creating people in the first place who will suffer eternity without Him? Does their existence simply suggest that God values Freewill, by providing an example of evil that the rest are saved from? These questions lead to concepts that some Calvinists have, such as God directly creating people for heaven and for hell. However, Arminianist thought opposes these ideas, because it would mean that God chose to create a situation for evil to exist (even though they still say that He had foreknowledge that evil would definitely exist). Thus, foreknowledge does not truly get God “off the hook” when it comes to creating evil - God actively allows evil to happen, especially because He foresaw it.

In conclusion, the Arminian concept of Freewill does not have a monopoly on scriptural verses that point towards it. Many contradict it, in fact. In addition, the concept of God’s foreknowledge enabling man’s Freewill does not actually work. It fails on multiple levels, such as failing to attribute the author of sin to us, failing to provide a way for God to choose us after we chose Him and therefore failing to provide an answer as to how humankind chooses redemption or not.

NEXT...

Part 3:'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

    

Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative - Part 1

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Photo by Stuart Anthony

Introduction

This series is about a search for a coherent scriptural narrative of our lives in relation to God and the world that we live in. Looking at reality, we all create some sort of narrative or way of understanding the world around us - sometimes realised and sometimes not. Within Christian circles today, two grand narratives go head to head. They are the narratives of Arminianism and Calvinism. These two narratives are not synonymous with each other even though they both fall under Christian belief. At first glance, they seem to be a dichotomy, but I do not see them as necessarily being so. This series will seek to draw a sought after unity between concepts within Arminianism and Calvinism with regards to their inherent difficulties. The first analysis will cover the key concepts of Arminianism - what it is, why it is attractive, and why I believe it does not work. The second analysis will cover Calvinism - what it is, why it is attractive, and why I believe it doesn’t work. The third analysis will provide a potential solution to the inherent difficulties within the Arminian and Calvinistic narratives.

Before I begin, I will share a little of my background surrounding these issues to shed some light on where I am coming from. I grew up in a dedicated Christian family who taught me to search for truth. Ever since I was young, I enjoyed mulling over idealistic views about life. I relished the challenge of explaining reality in a way that others could understand. My journey ventured into trying to provide an answer that tied together the disparities between Arminianism’s “man’s free will” and Calvinism’s “God’s free will”. I originally held to Arminian thought but became more and more unsettled by it. I valued human choice. To me, if we were without choice, then questions like these arise - how can one have love for God? Or – How can one be loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? I understood love to be a choice and therefore not compelled. Not only that, but as I read the Bible it seemed to me that man’s free will was evident, especially considering that God required and expected certain actions and outcomes from people. However, emphasizing man’s responsibility meant that I read over many of the passages that talked about predestination and the role that God played in choosing who would be His chosen people (the elect) and who would not be. I tried many a time to get around these passages. This disparity left me perplexed - how God could expect actions and outcomes from people contrary to what He had already predestined them to do? For a good while, I simply saw this inconsistency as a paradox and trusted in God’s love and grace to bring about the best outcome for individuals and humankind. However, I have since studied these disparities more closely and discovered an idea that I believe provides a possible resolution to these otherwise opposing narratives.

To further explore Arminianism and Calvinism, I will first give an overview of the KEY components of each respectively. At the end of each overview, I will raise in more detail the scriptural, philosophical, and moral struggles of each that I have found inherent in their thought. Now I realise there are multiple variants of Arminianism and Calvinism, such as the difference between Moderate Calvinism and High Calvinism. However, I believe they all fundamentally have the same core issues. It is predominantly these core issues that I will address.

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

The key components of an Arminian worldview are found in the five points of Arminianism, which is given in a little more detail here (http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/). A key concept in the Arminian thought is the very common idea of Freewill. (For the purpose of this series, in order to help distinguish what I mean by Freewill, I will use a capital “F” for Freewill when referring to Arminian Freewill.) Here is my brief summary of the five points of Arminianism:

Freewill or Human Ability. This understanding of man’s relationship to sin and God consists of a Freewill that is not bound. Man can freely choose to have faith in God but can also choose not to. Man’s will is not entirely subject to the sin nature. Once a man freely accepts God and puts faith in Him, then that is when the Spirit provides the needed assistance and intervenes in a person’s life.

Conditional Election. This is a reference to the process of how God choses those whom He will save. “Conditional Election” is where God chooses based on foreknowledge of the future as to who would place their faith in Him and who would not. Therefore, humankind ultimately chooses whom God chooses to be saved. God’s choice for salvation is a reply to man’s faith in Him.

Universal Redemption or Universal Atonement. This covers the scope of atonement provided by Christ on the cross. “Universal Atonement” says that Christ died for everyone’s sins, but that redemption will only come into effect if a person accepts what He has done for them on the cross. If a person rejects Christ, then there remains no atonement for their sins and therefore no forgiveness.

God’s Holy Spirit can be resisted. Similar to the above notions, this concept emphasises man’s Freewill. The Holy Spirit will work in people’s lives by calling them to Himself, but only will have effect for salvation when He is not resisted by them.

Falling from Grace. Some Arminians (not all) consider that those who are truly part of God’s people can still turn away from God. Some others believe that once a person has turned to God they cannot then turn away, thus creating division on this thought.

Taking all these key ideas together, they create a narrative or “worldview”. This narrative goes something like this: In the beginning, God created humankind. He created us like Himself so that we have Freewill to determine our own outcomes. We are ultimately our own sovereign over the outcome of our lives. Some say the reason for this is that God wanted a people who would be able to love Him freely and without compulsion. It would be impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal. God gave Adam and Eve this Freewill, but they used it to turn against God and put all of humanity in a state of separation from God. This grieved God. It grieved Him so much that He wanted to restore mankind to Himself. Yet God must keep justice by punishing evil. If He merely let Adam and Eve do as they wish with no consequences, He would be unjust as the Sovereign Creator. Therefore, He separated mankind from Himself because dark could not dwell with light. His grand plan was to send a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) who was to pay for the evil done by mankind, thus fulfilling the justice due. At the same time as this desire to draw mankind to Himself, He still values man’s Freewill and wants to draw them to Himself according to their choosing. If He forces mankind to choose Him then it would defeat one of the purposes of creating them in the first place – to have a people who would love Him freely and without compulsion. It would violate their Freewill. Thus God is divided – He wants good to reign and yet at the same time have Freewill. God values Freewill over all other desires of His, including the salvation of all people. Being a righteous judge, He must punish those who chose evil while still respecting their Freewill, and thus sends them to an eternal separation from Himself. Evil and light will not forever dwell together. In conclusion, sin is the result of mankind’s choice. However, mankind can seek after salvation and then form a partnership with God that will ultimately restore them into the image of God.

Another scenario that may help to explain the saving relationship between God and people is the drowning man (borrowed from David Pawson, http://davidpawson.org/). To an Arminian, salvation is like a man drowning in a river. God sees the man and throws him a rope to pull him ashore. The man then chooses whether he will grab hold of the rope or not. Many will reject it but some will accept it. As the man is pulled to shore, it would be incorrect to say that he saved himself. Yes, he did choose to grab hold of the rope, but God is the One who ultimately pulls him to shore.

The reasons behind accepting this paradigm are potentially many. The key ones that I see as the most relevant are:

- Arminianism takes the responsibility for sin away from God and places it on the individual. The alternative would state that since God is the Creator of all then that also makes Him the Creator of sin. If we were not responsible for our sins (that is, if God was responsible for sin) then that would seem to make God unfair – it paints Him as having unreasonable expectations of people, especially if He then sentences them to eternal conscious torment for acts of sin that they had no choice in. However, the Bible requires us to love God. Some Arminians believe that if God is the Creator of all and we are to love Him, then he must be lovable. Arminianism gets around the problem of a God who does “evil” (through directly creating sin) by attributing the existence of sin to mankind’s Freewill, thus letting God off the hook.

- Arminianists believe that people ultimately do not have a predisposition to choose God or not. When God judges people, He judges us according to our Freewill deeds. God would be unjust to judge us according to predisposition, because He created our predisposition.

-  If man’s Freewill did not exist, then love or loyalty would not exist because it would not be free. How can one be loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? We would be robots, mere play figures in the Creator’s world of evil and good.

-  Much of scripture supports the Arminian belief. The general message of the Bible is that man is responsible for our sins and that God holds us accountable for our every action and thought.

NEXT...

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems