# Arminian Theodicy vs Calvinist Theodicy



## Afterthought (Nov 9, 2016)

I've often thought that Arminians really do not have a theodicy. However, I have had difficulty organizing the thoughts together. Do any of you agree that Arminians do not really have a theodicy? Why/why not? If Arminians do not really have a theodicy, how does the Calvinist understanding of theodicy escape the Arminian's dilemma?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2016)

Arminianism: divine election is based on foreknowledge of human choices. Rutherford responds that this denies God as the author of second causes. Arminians deny that grace determines the decision of free agency; claiming that both act together, this makes both “joint causes, the one not depending on the other…because second causes were denied, God was no longer master of events and altogether sufficient” (Coffey, 119-120). Even worse, Arminianism (and I will put all forms of full-syngerism and semi-Pelagianism under this umbrella for the moment) does not escape the problem of theodicy. True, the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120)


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Don't they actually base their entire understanding on this issue of eveil mainly due to God needing to give to us real free will, so He lost control in some sense, and when they take theirlogic to final conclusion, end up with Open theism then?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

They need todefend their concept of real free will so much that its logical end will be Open theism!


----------



## Toasty (Nov 10, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Arminianism: divine election is based on foreknowledge of human choices. Rutherford responds that this denies God as the author of second causes. Arminians deny that grace determines the decision of free agency; claiming that both act together, this makes both “joint causes, the one not depending on the other…because second causes were denied, God was no longer master of events and altogether sufficient” (Coffey, 119-120). Even worse, Arminianism (and I will put all forms of full-syngerism and semi-Pelagianism under this umbrella for the moment) does not escape the problem of theodicy. True, the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120)



Would the Arminian say this?

"Showing the consequences of using one's free will to reject God"


----------



## Toasty (Nov 10, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> I've often thought that Arminians really do not have a theodicy. However, I have had difficulty organizing the thoughts together. Do any of you agree that Arminians do not really have a theodicy? Why/why not? If Arminians do not really have a theodicy, how does the Calvinist understanding of theodicy escape the Arminian's dilemma?



Arminian theodicy:
If God did not allow evil, then people would not have freedom. If people have freedom, then they must have the ability to do evil and God must allow them to do evil or else they would not have freedom. 

An objection to the above theodicy is that Jesus in His humanity was not capable of doing evil, but He still had freedom.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Arminianism: divine election is based on foreknowledge of human choices. Rutherford responds that this denies God as the author of second causes. Arminians deny that grace determines the decision of free agency; claiming that both act together, this makes both “joint causes, the one not depending on the other…because second causes were denied, God was no longer master of events and altogether sufficient” (Coffey, 119-120). Even worse, Arminianism (and I will put all forms of full-syngerism and semi-Pelagianism under this umbrella for the moment) does not escape the problem of theodicy. True, the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120)
> ...



Probably, but doesn't matter. On their gloss they still have God knowing he would create a world where the majority ends up in hell. God _knew_ that would happen.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Exept their theology would support that God provoded to save all sinners, and that He hopes that all will accept that offer, so God would not know who accepts Him until they made their decision...

Leads to Open theism...


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Yes, as to them, absolute free will trumps all else, and so even God limited His own will to allow for us to have ours....


----------



## Taylor (Nov 10, 2016)

Toasty said:


> An objection to the above theodicy is that Jesus in His humanity was not capable of doing evil, but He still had freedom.



They also claim that true love can only be free—namely, that love is not love unless one has the freedom to not love. If this were the case, another objection would be that the new heavens and new earth, a place in which we will never be able to sin, will be the most loveless place in all of God's creation.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Exept their theology would support that God provoded to save all sinners, and that He hopes that all will accept that offer, so God would not know who accepts Him until they made their decision...
> 
> Leads to Open theism...



They believe that God knows with absolute certainty who will believe in Jesus, but that God does not guarantee who will believe in Jesus. They believe that God can know it without making a guarantee that it will happen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Exept their theology would support that God provoded to save all sinners, and that He hopes that all will accept that offer, so God would not know who accepts Him until they made their decision...
> 
> Leads to Open theism...



It only leads to open theism if they deny that God knows the future, or future possibles. They don't hold that. Every Arminian I've met says "God knows who will freely choose him." In order for them to say that, they have to admit that God can at least see into the future.

Strictly speaking, on some glosses, there is no future for God, since God sees past, present, and future in one eternal simultaneity.

Open theist says no, since on the o/t gloss the future isn't a knowable entity, so God can't know that. That's not what Arminianism is saying though.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

They would also hold to though God basing salvation upon their decision, as God bases salvation upon His foreknowledge of them accept Him, as he Himself would need to wait to see who would accept?

They emphasise free will so much thta God is limited Himself to really havingthat is basis to save sinners it seems...


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> They would also hold to though God basing salvation upon their decision, as God bases salvation upon His foreknowledge of them accept Him, as he Himself would need to wait to see who would accept?
> 
> They emphasise free will so much thta God is limited Himself to really havingthat is basis to save sinners it seems...



Agreed, but despise all of that they aren't open theists. Open theism holds that not only does God not know the future, the future cannot be known. Arminians have God looking into the future and seeing who will do what. Wrong, to be sure, but not open theist either.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

That would seem to be its logical conclusion though!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

He does base their salvation upon their will though, as sinners co operate with God to get saved!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 10, 2016)

I


Taylor Sexton said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > An objection to the above theodicy is that Jesus in His humanity was not capable of doing evil, but He still had freedom.
> ...



That is an interesting point. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox, who are decidedly non-Calvinist, prefer the term "deification" over "glorification." If we become like God, then perhaps we can explain away this dilemma.


----------



## ThomasT (Nov 13, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> I've often thought that Arminians really do not have a theodicy. However, I have had difficulty organizing the thoughts together. Do any of you agree that Arminians do not really have a theodicy? Why/why not? If Arminians do not really have a theodicy, how does the Calvinist understanding of theodicy escape the Arminian's dilemma?




There is an Arminian view, which I recently became aware of, that occupies a middle position between open theism and eternal foreknowledge. It goes by the name of Simple Foreknowledge (SF). I think it raises more questions than it answers. Here's a quick summary of SF from an Arminian website:

SF adherents hold that at some point God made a decision to create the world. Again, this can be understood as a logical order, not a temporal one. Prior to God’s decision to make the world, there was nothing for him to know about what humanity would or wouldn’t do. He hadn’t decided to create us. We were non-existent. After deciding to create the world, then God knew everything that would happen – sin, some people believing in him, others rejecting him. But at that point our world was actualized, God knew what we would do because we would eventually do it. At that moment God also knew what he would do about sin and how he would redeem humanity – by sending Jesus: God himself in the flesh. After deciding to create humanity in his image, and granting us the ability to make decisions, and granting us a privileged position, _God couldn’t take back his choice to create_. He couldn’t make us cease to exist, without doing violence to his character and to his creation.

https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/an-explanation-of-simple-foreknowledge/


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 13, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> That would seem to be its logical conclusion though!



Yeah pretty much. They, like Molinists, have to deal with the fact that there are things outside of God's control.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 13, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> how does the Calvinist understanding of theodicy escape the Arminian's dilemma?



I think there are a couple of things to observe:

1) People hate this, but its true: We cannot understand the secret things of God. Understanding the intimate knowledge of why God does something and lets something happen will always be a secret. 

2) God has to demonstrate his Love and his Justice. Both of these are characteristics of who God is, and he must demonstrate both. 

3) To say (for the Arminian) that God "allows" evil only puts them at odds with "providence". This would then force them to abandon a type of theodicy. Providence to the Arminian heretic is no providence as all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > That would seem to be its logical conclusion though!
> ...



As horrible as their theology is at this point, if they say that God *knows* these possibles outside his control, then they aren't Open Theists.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 14, 2016)

He might fully know them, but He has decided in their view to have ultimate basis of salvation upon Human free will, not His own Will!


----------



## Toasty (Nov 14, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > That would seem to be its logical conclusion though!
> ...



They believe that evil would have never come into existence unless God allowed it. They believe that God controls all things in the sense that nothing happens without God's permission.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> He might fully know them, but He has decided in their view to have ultimate basis of salvation upon Human free will, not His own Will!



RIght. And an open theist says he can't know them.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 14, 2016)

Their viewpoint to me still seems to have God limited as to what he can fully know, and that there is still uncertainity on Him for who will get saved!


----------



## Toasty (Nov 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Their viewpoint to me still seems to have God limited as to what he can fully know, and that there is still uncertainity on Him for who will get saved!



They believe that God knows everything. 

They believe that God does not guarantee who will believe in Jesus.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Their viewpoint to me still seems to have God limited as to what he can fully know, and that there is still uncertainity on Him for who will get saved!



Every Arminian will say that God knows S1, the set of all possibles. He simply denies that God causes person P (within {S1}) to believe. Most will even say that he knows who will believe. He just can't do anything (or won't) about it.


----------



## KGP (Nov 15, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120)



At which point I wonder how many would think or even say 'Well, God didn't know'. That is where arminian theology gets you if you follow the train of logic I think. James White is right when he says the most consistent arminian is the Open Theist. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 15, 2016)

KGP said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120)
> ...



Don't get me wrong. I think Arminianism is inconsistent. But Arminius himself was quite rigorous on God's simple knowledge and vision.
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Pro...09725&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+muller+arminius


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

So the ultimate basis of salvation to them would be the Free Will of the sinner, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

They would say that God in His love does not "play favorites", so He grants all the chance to believe, and leaves the final decision in their hands?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

As Go Himself decided to allow real free will towards all sinners, and due to His love for all sinners, decided to allow us to choose Him or not, and waits to see how we decide...

Due to His love, this makes Him decide to have real free willand limit Himself...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 15, 2016)

Carl Trueman, in his course on the Reformation, points out that Arminians borrowed a lot from the Jesuits in their arguments - to include the notion of middle knowledge.

Many who argue against Calvinism today are, for all intents and purposes, more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. The "problem of evil" is typically argued as an apologetic idea because many start with the commitment that grace should be seen as inoffensive to man who is the measure of good.

Arminianism begins with a philosophy of the good and then argues into their theology as to how God should seem to be speaking in His Word. Middle knowledge, for instance, supposedly preserves the goodness of God because God's decree is based upon factoring in all possible worlds with autonomous human agents. William Lane Craig goes so far as to say that God has to "...deal with the cards His is dealt..." meaning that He can only control external parameters in possible worlds but the autonomous human mind must choose. He can only save so many people given certain conditions. He even surmises that the reason why there are lots of unbelievers in some countries is because they would not believe under any circumstances.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Carl Trueman, in his course on the Reformation, points out that Arminians borrowed a lot from the Jesuits in their arguments - to include the notion of middle knowledge.
> 
> Many who argue against Calvinism today are, for all intents and purposes, more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. The "problem of evil" is typically argued as an apologetic idea because many start with the commitment that grace should be seen as inoffensive to man who is the measure of good.
> 
> Arminianism begins with a philosophy of the good and then argues into their theology as to how God should seem to be speaking in His Word. Middle knowledge, for instance, supposedly preserves the goodness of God because God's decree is based upon factoring in all possible worlds with autonomous human agents. William Lane Craig goes so far as to say that God has to "...deal with the cards His is dealt..." meaning that He can only control external parameters in possible worlds but the autonomous human mind must choose. He can only save so many people given certain conditions. He even surmises that the reason why there are lots of unbelievers in some countries is because they would not believe under any circumstances.



Ironically, in the Counter-Reformation Jesuits and Dominicans squared off with each other on this point, which is one of the reasons Rome never officialized either view. And the Thomists, who are hard-line predestinarians despite their other faults, are in the right.


----------



## Bruce Atkinson (Nov 15, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> > I've often thought that Arminians really do not have a theodicy. However, I have had difficulty organizing the thoughts together. Do any of you agree that Arminians do not really have a theodicy? Why/why not? If Arminians do not really have a theodicy, how does the Calvinist understanding of theodicy escape the Arminian's dilemma?
> ...




Augustine’s free will defense got God “off the hook” so to speak, so that He is not guilty of creating sin. However, the free will theodicy defense butts heads with Calvin’s essential denial of free will in His apologetic for God’s total sovereignty and grace. 

By utilizing the kenosis principle (God’s choosing to temporarily self-limit Himself for a higher purpose), I think there is valid room between Augustine and Calvin to posit a scriptural compromise, but it may require a full book to do so. Here was a start:
http://www.virtueonline.org/apologetic-theodicy-why-there-so-much-suffering#.Uuf9SBAo7IU


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 16, 2016)

Bruce Atkinson said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Afterthought said:
> ...



We can posit anything when we abandon the Scriptures and start proposing philosophical theories grounded in the notion that man can univocally understand things in the same way God does.

The problem of evil is this one: how does God justify guilty sinners. The solution is this: the cross of Christ. That's a Christian theodicy.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2016)

That Middle Knowledge is what those such as William Craig lane has used to try to attack calvinism with this, as he posulates that God would use Moliniasm/Middle Knowledge, as he and many others wants to keep the real free will of God in order to their minds make it that God plays no favorites, that he expects and desires all to get saved, all have equal opportunities, so love and free will is most important factor in play here!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2016)

I have met and/or corresponded with few holding to classic armianim theology, as they affirmed that no saved person gets lost, and they would not hold to Man not being still "good" enough to get saved by real free will still?


----------



## Toasty (Nov 16, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I have met and/or corresponded with few holding to classic armianim theology, as they affirmed that no saved person gets lost, and they would not hold to Man not being still "good" enough to get saved by real free will still?



They say that man is not good enough to deserve salvation. They think that fallen man deserves to go to hell and that he deserves nothing good from God. 

They believe the following:
Man's free will determines who is the elect.
Man does not have any righteousness of his own. 
Man's free will does not make him have any righteousness of his own.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2016)

So they would see God as doing a Corporate Election for the Body of Christ, and up to us to accept and place ourselves in that group, while we would emphasise the individual Election of God ?

That Corporate concept was in Elect in the Son, reading in AOG school attended....

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 17, 2016)

One thought about the difference between Arminian and Calvinist theodicies: if it is said that the Calvinist escapes the Arminian's dilemma by positing that the real reason for the existence of evil lies with God's secret will, couldn't the Arminian say that the reason God created men whom He knew would reject Him also lies with God's secret will? Unless I'm missing something, it seems the main reason the Calvinist theodicy holds together where the Arminian's fails is because the Arminian loses the doctrine of providence (or "second causes," as Jacob noted in the first reply to this thread).



Semper Fidelis said:


> We can posit anything when we abandon the Scriptures and start proposing philosophical theories grounded in the notion that man can univocally understand things in the same way God does.
> 
> The problem of evil is this one: how does God justify guilty sinners. The solution is this: the cross of Christ. That's a Christian theodicy.


This is a good point in itself. I've been appreciating this sort of response more and more lately. However, it does seem to lose persuasive force with those who do not believe God is good, which is a required assumption in order to present that argument persuasively. Then again, we are talking about Arminians first and foremost in this thread who would not deny God's goodness.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 18, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> So they would see God as doing a Corporate Election for the Body of Christ, and up to us to accept and place ourselves in that group, while we would emphasise the individual Election of God ?
> 
> That Corporate concept was in Elect in the Son, reading in AOG school attended....



They either believe in 
a corporate election where it is up to us to accept and place ourselves in that group

Or

an individual election where God chooses individual based on their foreseen faith in Christ.

However, they would say that there is nothing good in man. They would say that a person's foreseen faith does not make a person good.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 18, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> This is a good point in itself. I've been appreciating this sort of response more and more lately. However, it does seem to lose persuasive force with those who do not believe God is good, which is a required assumption in order to present that argument persuasively. Then again, we are talking about Arminians first and foremost in this thread who would not deny God's goodness.


The problem that we have is that we often fundamentally believe that if an argument is not persuasive to men then we need to change the foolishness of the message.

What if it's really true that men are dead in sin and trespasses? What kind of argument would dead men find compelling?

The Gospel persuades but it does so by first bringing life to men. My complaint about so much of apologetics today is that it assumes the hearer simply lacks information. It assumes that the hearer is also in a position to judge the actions of God as good or evil. Men like WLC pretty much invite the idea that there is a philosophical idea of what is "good" that is accessible to all mankind (because, again, we can think just like God). We are in a position to then determine whether certain theological ideas are good or bad *before* we go to the Scriptures. We then go to the Scriptures and decide what they say based on what we've already determined is good and bad.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 18, 2016)

The clear disnctions seem to be that they value the love of God above all else, as well as maintaining real free will


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 18, 2016)

How would they account though for the truth that not all are saved, in that God desires and wills all to get saved?

What makes aperson betetr able to freely respond, smarter, better circumstances, or what? That would seem that God really favors just those who make the decision due to better opportunities afforded them?


----------



## KGP (Nov 18, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > a corporate election where it is up to us to accept and place ourselves in that group
> ...


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 19, 2016)

God elected onto Himself His chosen saints, and them together comprise the real Church of Christ, so as you state well, how would theyhold to God electingout the Bofy for Himself but not the individuals to make up that Body then?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 19, 2016)

Could God even baseHis election upon just His foreknowledge, if sinners cannot freelydetermine their own destiny, as real free fall was eliminated after the fall?


----------

