Arminian view on sovereignty

[ian90]

I've spent a long time studying Calvinism and am now in a place where I have to all extents rejected it. However, there is one thing bothering me concerning a Weslyan/Arminian view and I am curious to see if anyone else has thought about this too.

--------------------------------------------

Our repsonse to the gospel is heavily influenced by where we live and grow up. I have been priveliged to grow up in a country where the gospel is accessible to me, but others have not.

The Bible tells us that it is God who decides when and where we are born.

I agree with Arminians that predestination and election do not concern who will or how we become Christians, but it seems that God's sovereign choice in where we live is a determining factor in whether or not we are saved.

I thought there was one way around this - that the people who are born into a country and never hear the gospel wouldn't have believed even if they had been born into a Jesus saturated envirnment. God's foreknowledge of who we are and how we will react to him determines where we are born.

This satisfied me for some time, but the problem I now have with this view now is that in Matthew 11 Jesus says this :

"Woe to you Beth-saida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

There appears to be an explanation for this here (http://www.answers.org/theology/injusticeofgod.html) but hmmmm.... I'm not sure.

In essence, I seem to have wound up with the conclusions of Calvinism - God decides who is saved and who is not - by a completely different route whilst still holding to a more Arminian understanding of scripture!

Your views on reconciling what I've brought up here would be eagerly appreciated. I sense there is something grander but ultimately intangible as the answer to all this, but I can't find the words to express it.

[Qyöt27]

Well, the interpretation you linked to has to do more with cultures rejecting God even in the presence of His revelations, whether by the prophets or by Christ Himself, and that the punishment for rejecting the one prophesied is worse than simply rejecting the prophets.

But as for my take on sovereignty, my view on 'order' influences my opinion quite a bit. I quite simply don't believe the human concept of sovereignty applies at all. I actually don't believe order truly exists at all, and that it's simply a constuct of our minds that we use to make sense of things. The events in Scripture are largely God acting according to the boundaries He set for us, so that we could understand what was happening at the time, but in basic reality, no such bounds or order itself exist. If someone were to objectively view God's actions outside of what He has permitted in this plane of existence, it would essentially look like chaos. I mean, common phrases like "God works in mysterious ways", or the references to our minds not being able to fathom Him seem to indicate something along these lines, that our perceptions of His nature are simply things done for us to be able to easily understand, not necessarily fully comprehend the scope of.

In that way, sovereignty is not really covered, as what humans view as being sovereign may not be the underlying mechanism at all, and like you said, be far grander. I personally hold the view that God has engineered things to work a designated way, and only rarely adjusts it. So while He is ultimately responsible for where a person comes into the world, it still is something governed by the laws which He has created for the universe to run under.

In actuality, I am somewhat confused by what you're trying to ask. It seems to be a couple of different things:

1) People who live in largely Western civilization, where Christianity is a prominent religion, but still reject it.

2) Like 1, except that they've never heard the gospel.

In my mind, it's easily explained, as there are essentially two types of people in the world: those who understand the depth of Christ's mission and sacrifice, and those that don't. Either group could fall into either category. For those that do understand, they have the choice in front of them to either accept or deny God, and obviously the consequences for those that deny are explained in more depth elsewhere. For those that don't understand, though, many people accept that they will be at God's mercy, and that trying to say whether or not they're 'saved' is not concrete, as we humans won't ever know that (or for that matter, whether someone else understands what happened at Calvary or not, although that can probably be said with more assurance if you truly know the person).

There is likely another group - those that would understand if they had the exposure to Christianity or specifically the gospel, but due to circumstances beyond their control they haven't been exposed to it (this being what I think you're addressing). This instance would apply to certain isolated tribal groups, for example. I forget the verse, but it talks of those that know God by the things He has set forth in nature, and live righteously even though they have not heard of Christ.


So to wrap this up, I believe it comes down to one thing in the end - those that understand the Truth and reject it are those that will face punishment, but those that are either unable to comprehend it or those that would understand and live righteously are at the discretion of God (just as everyone else in the world is). In the cases of those cities in the Old Testament, they were faced with a Truth they could understand, and yet still rejected it. This is the gist of what the verse in Matthew is getting at. Those cities were only sent prophets, not the fulfillment of those prophecies. It was trapping those that Jesus was debating with, because they'd either have to accept that 1) those cities didn't deserve God's wrath for rejecting His prophets, which no Jew at that time would ever do considering that those cities would viewed as the epitomes of evil, or 2) that they would receive worse punishment for rejecting Christ, who is the fulfillment of the prophecies those other cities rejected, despite having the Truth showed to them in manners which they very well understood.

[ContraMundum]

Here's an excellent analogous explanation from a pretty good Arminian site:

"Finally, many Calvinists get offended by the notion that man can resist God's grace. This is the result of a desire to defend and honor God's sovereignty in all things, which is a trait i deeply respect among Reformed believers. Nevertheless, in this case the zeal is misplaced.
To reason by analogy, consider two kingdoms, Canukistan and Usalonia. They are about equivalent in land size, coastal area, money in the treasury, number of subjects/citizens, etc. Each is ruled by a king. In each the king may decree any law they see fit.

There was a great war. The King of Canukistan compiled a list of all the men of fighting age. Of that list, he separated it into two lists. Men in the first list were drafted to fight in battle, while the men in the second list were executed. The King of Usalonia decreed that any men of fighting age are to go to battle, and any who resisted were to be executed.

Question: Which king is more sovereign?

Answer: It is a trick question because, assuming the info given is exhaustive, both are equal in sovereignty over their respective lands. It is tricky though, as one chose to be more meticulous in how he acted in his sovereignty. But, notice that the question doesn't as how they act out there sovereignty, but which is more sovereign. "

From this page: http://www.john15.net/arm/pg.php

[herev]

*paging Clement of Rome; paging Clement of Rome"
CoR would be the very best to answer this one, in my book, I'll pm him and see if he has time.

[ClementofRome]

HI. Well, I first have to agree with Qyot27 and say that I am not sure what the question is??? I will be the first to admit that there is a humanly perceived tension between God's sovereignty and human responsibility that will not be addressed this side of eternity. Now that I have that out of the way....can you PLEASE clarify all that you have said above and put it in for form of a question?

I am not avoiding you, seriously, just needing a tad of clarification. Thanks.
Clem

[ian90]

OK, at the core of my last post were three issues:




The unevangelised heathen.
Gods decision in determining when are where these people are born.
The possibility that they could have been saved if they were born somewhere else.
Consider this situation: a person hears the gospel, rejects it and goes to hell. In Wesleyan-Arminianism there is no problem balancing human responsibility with God's soverign plan for salvation - they rejected salvation despite God wanting them to be saved. God sees justice done. They could not say to God "I never had a chance to go anywhere else - why did you create me for this?" God wanted them to be saved but they rejected God's offer.

However, the Wesleyan-Arminian theological model doesn't have a very straight-forward answer when dealing with the unevangelised. I find philosophically, Calvinism is very straightforward when dealing this issue - they are simply vessels of wrath.

Here is the only point that I feel unclear with regards to the Wesleyan-Armininan view of God's sovereignty (not exhaustivly deterministic) and I want to know what others think about this.

We know God chooses people to be born into a Jesus free environment. If either of us were born somewhere else in the world where we never got to hear about Jesus, then we would go to hell when we die. Instead God chose for us to live here and now, knowing we would become Christians.

It seems this choice of where we live is a determining factor on whether or not we are saved, and since it is God who decides this it follows that God has already determined who will and who won't be saved, hence implying Augustine determinism and hence full blown Calvinism.

Can Wesleyan-Arminianism offer a solution for this problem?

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/heathen.htm#Pos5 (http://home.snu.edu/%7Ehculbert/heathen.htm#Pos5)

This covers 6 differerent views on the fate of the unevangelised. I find only option 1 is viable - that all unevangelised go to hell. The witness of creation is only ever referred to as sufficient to condemn, not to save. I don't think any of these views solve the problem anyway.

However, I was thinking about another possibility - that those who never hear about Jesus wouldn't have believed anyway. This has always been buzzing at the back of my mind when I think about fate of the unevangelised. God uses his foreknowledge of knowing whether or not people would believe if confronted with the gospel (middle knowldege since it is a hypothetical situation) to determine where and when they will live. This implies that God doesn't determine who is and isn't saved in a fatalistic sense, hence releasing the tension between Wesleyan-Arminianism's theological model and the unevangelised.

This would solve the problem in other words. I struggled to find scriptural support for this though, but I did find a guy who thought the same way:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle1.html

This sets forth a view that "God in His providence has so arranged the world that as the Christian gospel went out from first century Palestine, all who would respond freely to it if they heard it did hear it, and all who do not hear it are persons who would not have accepted it if they had heard it."

I believe this is the only viable option that is coherent and logical with Wesleyan-Arminians theology with regards to the fate of the unevangelised.

Now Matthew 11:20-24 implies that there have been people who have lived who would have been saved if they had heard the gospel, blowing the above theory out the window.

My questions are: has anyone who holds to Wesleyan-Arminian theology thought about this?

Does Matthew 11:20-24 imply that God could have saved people if he had let them live in a different place and a different time?

Calvinists are OK with this - God doesn't want these people to believe.

This does not square with Wesleyan-Arminianism. If you think it does then I would love to hear from you. I am reluctant to base one saying of Jesus on my views of determinism, and would also love to hear more about your interpretations of Matthew 11 20-24.

Thanks, I hope I made myself clearer this time.

:groupray:

[ContraMundum]

Tough question but the simple answer is that Wesleyan-Arminianism (as opposed to Arminianism per se) simply says that Rom 1-2 means exactly what it says- that God has in His sovereign decree given prevenient grace to all, but not all have heard the Gospel, and those ones are overpowered by their sins and will be judged in and by them.

Because Wesleyan theology says that justification is only one part of the Gospel, that the full Gospel offers power over sin through sanctification, thisbecomes the crucial issue. God judges sin, and the heathen who hasn't heard the Gospel is under the power of his or her sin, and thus not only are they not justified by faith- God imputing righteousness to them, they are not sanctified either- God imparting righteousness to them. Thus, although they will be judged, they will be judged as sinners, being incapable of overcoming them in their unregenerate state.

So, it isn't by a divine decree that God doesn't want them to believe- He does, that's obvious to a Wesleyan-Arminian in their understanding of scripture - it's just that those people haven't responded to the Gospel, and will be judged accoridng to their sinful deeds. God doesn't will them to perish- but they already are perishing, by rejecting His free offer of grace, let alone his narrow path of the Gospel. That is one reason why Methodism in general has always been very evangelical- Christians are on a rescue mission.

So, to the Wesleyan, men are lost, not because God chose them to be lost, and witheld His "irresistable" grace, but because they are already doomed, and even though God gives them the awakening grace to respond (they are incapable to respond without God's initiative and quickening) they have still resisted His offer of pardon and salvation from sin.

Complicated? This topic always is...

Check out these sites for more info:

http://www.john15.net/

http://www.imarc.cc/

[ContraMundum]

Hey dude- you realise of course that the Wesleyan-Arminian "answer" to your question is actually on the first website you linked in your last post? There's a link in the side of the page to the "Nazarene" position, which I would say is thoroughly W-A.