Arminian Minute: John Piper squares off against Irenaeus

[theearstohear]

Piper's Calvinism is fraught with insurmountable difficulties. While I don't agree with the Arminian lines of argument that I have read here (admittedly not all), I would say that Piper, along with most Calvinists, unnecessarily conjoin SOVEREIGNTY with PREDESTINATION. S is dominion; P is an act. S is authority, P is acting with authority. God did not absolutely predestinate all things, but he is sovereign over all things. Sin is man's fault (Rom 5:12,19), not God's.

[jsagers2008]

I liked the the Irenaeus quote at the end. I had a fling with Calvinism until I read what the early church believed on free will and predestination. If the early church believed in free will it should be a red flag to anyone considering Calvinism.

[rkg62976]

Basic mistake in synergistic (Arminian) thought:

1) They don't have a proper definition of "responsibility" ("accountability");

2) They believe that "free will" is a prerequisite of responsibility. It most assuredly is NOT!; and,

3) They constantly, but consistently, confuse imperative statements with indicative ones (of course, Martin Luther corrected this major blunder on Erasmus' part long ago in "The Bondage of the Will"). In other words: 'ought' does NOT imply 'ability'.

[Strefanasha]

calvinists do not understand the ABSOLUE SOVEREIGNTY of God. they make him a heavy handed control freak after the order of the kings of europe in the 16 and 17 century. they do not understand the depth of His mastery which can maintain utter sovereignty while endowing his creatures (us) with free will.

why the rigid thinking of calvinsts etc who refuse to accept that this one resolves to a paradox, like the rest

I am glad Irenaeus followed scripture here. he did nothing more than his duty

[Wunji1]

In other words, God is powerful enough to create autonomy outside of Himself. If God is not able to create autonomy, then He is not God. This is not akin to the age old question of God being able to "create a rock so big that He cannot move it". Further, He certainly goes overboard to communicate this truth not only in His word, but in life as well. When a natural father (even in animals) has a son, he is created autonomous of the father. Yet, from the Calvinist, it all gets obfuscated...

[Wunji1]

In the end, the "sovereignty of God" that Calvinists appear to be defending is actually turned on its head. God is not sovereign enough to create free will because that would somehow mean that it would be out of His control, and thus He could not be sovereign. The truth is, that God is so powerful that our free will is not an affront to His sovereignty, but rather a manifestation of it. It proves His power more to be able to create beings that are not under His direct control.

[Wunji1]

Calvinism is nigh unto another gospel - period. What is inherent in the gospel is the freedom to choose it, otherwise it is not "good news to all men" at all, but merely a vitiated offering for the sins of a few. The problem with Calvinism is that at every turn it violates reason - i.e. "all" ceases to be "all"; "world" ceases to mean the whole "world"; "free will" does not exist; "God" is arbitrary in his choices; and the list goes on and on...

[DougCameraMan]

What Arminians have a problem with is allowing God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Ultimately, you think that God is being unfair if HE is the one that chooses only some to be saved, rather than the sinners choosing themselves to be saved. You want God to be as you think he should be, not as the scriptures say. You would take away his sovereignty and place it in the creatures; man's free will as being the deciding factor in salvation as opposed to God's free will.

[outofthebox7]

Type this on G bar: i p e r t i s a l i t h i a s . g r / p a g e 5 . (without spaces in between)and click on the 1st one on top, then read: How not to fall into Calvinism's deception.

It will be a real eye opener....

You can also read there: A refutation of Phil Johnson's "Clarifying Calvinism

[MR1EAR]

For those whose mention Adam and Eve Yes I believe they were created VERY GOOD.And with that Only one commandment DO NOT touch/eat FOR in that day you will die.NOW that was given to give them a CHOICE.They failed.Did GOD predestined their failure?OR DID God want us to have free will?THERE are so many ?'s one can ask with Regard to GOD and His sovereignty. WHY even have the tree there in the 1st place? WHY allow a fallen creature to entice? WE as believers can go on and on.IT comes down to FAITH

[glendale92]

Thank you so much. Well done

[icepac15]

What's the name of the song at the end?

[ThePristineFaith]

@icepac15 It's NBC's Wimbledon (tennis) music.

[jrocc77]

I think this is all very bad. Arminians bagging Calvinists and Calvinists doing the same. No one in any of these forums know all there is about both points of view, including Piper, some may be wrong, others may be right, but there is no reason to use an attitude that puts other people down.

Please, everyone remember to keep an open mind when studying these issues, and please remember that we are all believers and followers of Christ, so let us try build each other up in faith. Thank you.

[ThePristineFaith]

@jrocc77 No one is being put down. To defend the character of God as revealed in Scripture is a quite honorable endeavor.

[NB3K]

@ThePristineFaith God does not need defending. The problem is we cannot comprehend God's ways.

[NB3K]

@ThePristineFaith God does not need defending. The problem is we cannot comprehend God's ways.

Also what do you think that God owes to men? All mankind are condmened in Adam before His throne of justice. If God will have mercy on man than in order for that mercy to be mercy or grace to be grace, than it needs to be free and gratuitous and not from any thing owed or otherwise Grace would no longer be grace but debt.

[RPenta]

@jrocc77 The horns of the Protestant dilemma; because unlike Catholics and E.O. you do not believe in a visible, hierarchical Church with the commission from Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an authoritative teacher, you have these 500 year old debates about these fundamental points: the nature of God, his disposition to save, the true meaning of the Gospel. May I make a suggestion from my side of the Tiber? Stop reading the whole of the NT through a few verses in St. Paul.

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 It's okay to say, "I don't know thw answer to your question." I can respect that...

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 Then the question that comes up is, how are the damned deserving of hell if (1) God decided to damn them before they had done anything good or bad and (2) God determined that they would certainly rebel? (I hope the answer is neither "It's a mystery" or "Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God"; for if it's a mystery, then all relgions can make the same claim regarding their doctrines and, if the latter, I'm not asking God).

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Paul's point in saying that Jacob and Esau's election wasn't based on anything done good or bad was to show that God wasn't choosing based on one being better than the other. Mankind is already damned It is a work of grace that any are saved. Furthermore, "the reprobate bring upon themselves the destruction to which they are destined", as Calvin said, and this is supported by the Greek text of Romans 9, specifically with reference to the preparation of the vessels.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Your questions seem to show that you're casting out Compatabilism. While it is true that God predestines, man at the same time makes real choices. Example: the Jews who did whatever "God's hand and purpose predetermined to occur" were nonetheless doing according to what they willed. They weren't being dragged kicking and screaming to fulfill what God predestined;they made a conscious choice to kill Jesus. And before you object that such a choice is not a free choice...

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 If your are referring to my question directed to Hello1689, you may have  misunderstood the point of my question; I sought to deny determinism (as taught in Calvinism) and affirm compatibilism (that is, the ability for humans to make free decisions; libertarian free will). However, I do not think that the Calvinistic notion of determinism (as I understand their teaching of God's sovereignty) is logically consistent with free will.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Hold on, skippy. Compatabilism is not libertarianism. Stick to the correct meaning of the terms and don't go Geisler's route, taking Calvinist terms and making them into Arminian terms. Compatabilism is the Calvinistic teaching on free will which states that man's will is compatible with God's decrees, as with the example of the Jews crucifying Jesus.

-

"I do not think that the Calvinistic notion...is logically consistent"

-

Then you would have to argue that God's will is not free.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 (1) Hey, Flippy,I stand corrected on my use of the term compatibilism. (2) Nevertheless, I still think that libertarian free will does not stand in opposition to the divine will/sovereignty/providence. (3) I maintain that to form a strict comparison between divine and human possession of free will does not hold, because God and man are not made of the same "stuff". (4) If by "decree" you mean to include the Calvinsitic notion of "election", then I think you are mistaken.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

For number 2, please explain then how God's hand predetermined the Crucifixion and yet the Jews and Gentiles were still morally responsible for committing the act.

-

No, I'm not speaking of election when I say decrees are compatible with human will. That's why election is unconditional. You didn't earn it. Election is in a category of its own.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 (1) For #2, simply stated, God's predetermination was to allow men without hindrance to follow through with their own evil intentions. (It should also be noted that what happened in Jesus' case does not necessarily mean it is the rule in the case of all other individuals.) (2) That one does not earn salvation does not necessitate an understanding of the Bible as teaching "unconditional election."

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 As stated before, I do not deny the divine freedom of the will.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

...not a free choice, understand that a choice doesn't necessitate an option from one end of the spectrum to the other in order for it to be a free will. For example, God's will is free, yet He cannot choose to sin. Beyond all argument, no one in their right mind would say that because of this God's will isn't free.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 Yes, God is free and cannot sin yet cannot sin because his divine nature as free prohibits the latter. However, humanity is not made of the same "stuff" as God and, therefore, the two cannot be fairly equated. Human free will does not negate divine influence but it is not that kind of influence which "uphold[s],direct[s], dispose[s], and govern[s] all creatures, actions, and things" in such a way as to necessitate the inevitable occurence or choices made.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Notice that I was speaking of God's will, not God's providence (His upholding, governing, etc). The "stuff" we are made of is irrelevant. The point is that just as man's will, because of his nature, is only free to choose within the framework of that nature, also God's will, because of His nature, is only free to choose within the framework of that nature. We are defining will itself. Logically, it follows from these observations that the libertarian definition of will is wrong.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010, I am not denying the exercise of human free will according to nature. I am denying the Calvinistic idea that God works in men in such a way that they will necessity choose according to God's will. I think the Calvinistic notion of divine will and sovereignty logically contradicts the Biblical view of free will. And again, I affirm that the "stuff" God and humans are made of is relevant if a comparison is sought between the two.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Again, we are not talking about substance, we are talking about will. The "stuff" as you call it does not matter. Even if God were corporeal, His will remains the same: He has a free will yet cannot choose to sin. Therefore, the libertarian definition of will is wrong. Now enough with the red herrings.

-

How does Calvinism contradict the Biblical view of the will?

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 I still maintain that the "stuff" does matter; God is uncreated, we are created. God's morality is self-contained; our morailty is derived; God is incapable of sin, unless one contends that God can choose to do evil, because his nature is incapable of any form of corruption. Humanity, on the other hand, is capable of corruption physically and morally. God can only will the good because His essential nature is morally good and incapable of rising above or below that goodness.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

God is incapable of sin, just as humanity is incapable of holiness. Man can only will the evil because his nature is morally bad and incapable of rising above that badness. If you still don't understand, then you're simply being unreasonable and I have nothing to more to say to you. I recommend learning some of the basics of philosophy so as to not make such foolish errors in the future.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 God is incapable of sin because holiness is inherent in his eternal nature. Man is incapable of holiness not because he was created as such but because in Adam he was made incapable; his sin corrupted all that man is as created. However, Man was first made good, if not in the sense of morality (holiness), at least, in the sense of (a) innocence, and (b) purpose.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Man is incapable of holiness because through Adam condemnation came to all. Read Romans 5. Look at the Genesis account; Adam's seed was begotten after his (Adam's) image, says the Word. The "man is born perfect" doctrine is Pelagian nonsense. How is it that you think that God can justly order the killing of infants in the Old Testament? Were those infants perfect? Than how could God kill them? That makes Him a sinner (far be it from His Holy Name).

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 First of all, I am not affirming that God justly killed infants in the OT. However, since that seems to be your claim, therefore, it is you - not me - who needs to provide a coherent explanation that would justify the ways of God.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

God's ways don't need to be justified as He didn't do anything unjust. Man is born a sinner and is deserving of death. It is something of wonder that God lets any live, not that He commands some to die. I highly recommend you do some serious Bible study concerning man's sinfulness and God's holiness. As I asked, don't reply to me anymore. Take care.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 Then why did you bring it up?  Again, you don't reply to me, I won't reply to you. Fair?

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 That God inability to sin is not the same reason why man is incapable of holiness. God is eternal and immutable; man is neither and that is where a comparison respecting their free will fails. Also, if you are going to define free will in relation to the nature of God and the nature of man, then, I would think, the "stuff" both are made of would need to be considered.

By my being unreasonable, you really mean I am such because I don't agree with you, do you not?

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

"That God inability to sin is not the same reason why man is incapable of holiness"

-

You're not paying attention. THAT is not the point. The point is the extent of the will and what constitutes a free will. It is shameful that you require me to explain this half a dozen times now.

-

You're simply repeating yourself with this "stuff" nonsense and are not refuting my argument as it is airtight; THAT is why you're unreasonable. Please, I ask you kindly, don't respond to me anymore.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 You did say, "God is incapable of sin, JUST AS humanity is incapable of holiness." If that was not the point, why did you bring it up in defense of your position? I won't respond if you don't. Agreed?

[fairwhether1]

@AgApE010 Hello :) Just reading through the comments here and a question occurred to me which perhaps you can address: Adam and Eve--were they incapable of holiness as well?

[AgApE010]

@fairwhether1

-

Good question. Adam and Eve weren't corrupted in their natures until after they sinned. You see, they weren't contaminated with original sin right from the start as we who are after them are.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 Re: Calvinism's contradicting the Bible, first, Calvinism's view of free will, as I see it explained, contradicts itself and is unable coherently explain just how the will is truly free leaving it all to "mystery". Second, the Calvinist notion denies man as a sinner the ability to choose for God and thereby renders God's commands to believe and obey as ludicrous.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

"renders God's commands to believe"

-

"Many are called, few are chosen", said Christ. Furthermore, God commanded perfect obedience to His Law. Do you mean to tell me that God actually thought that people would be able to fulfill the Law, thereby making Christ's imputation vain? Of course not. Does that make the command of "Keep My Law" ludicrous? I say no, what say you?

-

I explained how the will is free in Calvinism. You just don't want to admit defeat.

[nbanuchu]

@AgApE010 Just to note, if you claim that free will is exercised in accordance with one's nature, then the "stuff" one is made of - morally or physically - is relevant.

[AgApE010]

@nbanuchu

-

Morally, it is not relevant as we are not discussing the direction of the will (good or evil) but the extent of the will. Physically, it is not relevant for corporeal or incorporeal nature is not a deciding factor as to the extent or direction of the will. Jesus was man and He couldn't choose to sin. What's more, in heaven we will have corporeal bodies and won't be able to choose sin either.

-

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. There is shame in holding on to your folly.

[ChrisGraeme]

Good stuff, well presented

[RoyIngle]

Great video and great response to John Piper.

[drwayman]

@ThePristineFaith - Please don't stop reading God's Word, (the Holy and Inspired Scripture), otherwise, you might fall into heresy or at least heterodoxy.

Why would God force someone to follow Him? The God I serve is a gentleman, He does not force Himself on anyone. Rev 3:20 teaches that Jesus knocks on the door of the heart. One must open the door and invite Jesus in. Notice He doesn't use a battering ram. 2 Peter 3:9 teaches that God wants none to perish but all to come to Him.

[ThePristineFaith]

@Hello1689, Instead of attempting to dismantle a straw man (I never said the church fathers were infallible; they're an early witness to the apostolic faith, that's it) why not try to deal with my arguments as they stand. Namely, does God decide that particular individuals rebel, and then eternally punish them for what he determined they would do?

[S7VIIN]

The Calvinist may say that everyone has a choice, even the reprobate. The reprobate goes to Hell because of his sin, and also, for loving darkness rather than light, for rejecting Christ. For all Calvinists reading this, please note that these people never really had a genuine chance to be saved, outside of God's election, how could they? -7

[drwayman]

Excellent presentation!!

That Piper guy is one scary dude! Apparently, Calvinists have no trouble living with contradiction and saying that God is at odds with Himself.