Accord­ing to the Good Pleasure of His Will

Calvinist find a hint of unconditionally in the phrase "accord­ing to the good pleasure of His will". If God is calling the shots, with respect to us it must be random. Arminians need not understand the phrase along those lines. This just means God's plans are wise and good and in accordance with His Holiness, Justice and Goodness.

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
I agree. The context focuses on Christ and our being chosen in Him. Arminius' view of election was the Christ was the center of election and everything revolves around Him being the chosen one.
September 19, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Shfengoli said…
Since the Calvinists are wrong, why must their position be misrepresented by using the word "random"?
September 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Shfengoli,

Context, context context. Sure, Calvinists say God has a reason, but they also say we are not that reason. Thus, I didn't just say random but rather I said "with respect to us it must be random".

Here's a quote from Dort to back it up:

"This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition"

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

God be with you,
Dan
September 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Shfengoli said…
But doesn't that ignore their assertion that God uses intermediate causes in nearly ever working-out of His will? Calvinists don't seem to have a problem saying that people must make choices; that they make their choices for reasons; and that, ultimately, God's will is fulfilled through these means (as in the case of Joseph and his brethren).
September 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Godismyjudge said…
I don't think so, because Calvinists don't see secondary causes or our choices as the reason God elects this person rather than that person.

Ordinarily we choose things based on some quality about what we are choosing. So when Calvinism talks about God's election, they are using election (or choice) in a special sense; because our actions and qualities are not the reason God chooses this person rather than that person. They do say God has a reason, but that reason is not us.

This is one of the reasons why I see understanding the election passages as conditional rather than unconditional. Normally choices are conditional. Normally, we choose things based on some quality in what we are choosing. Calvinists understand election in a strained and unnatural way.

God be with you,
Dan
September 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more