The subject of God's knowledge has been a seed bed of debate lately. Modern day Molinists believe that their system offers a middle-ground approach to theology, avoiding both Calvinism and Arminianism. One of my professors at SEBTS is somewhat convinced that Arminius was a Molinist.

The Calvinist theologian Richard A. Muller noted that Arminius had studied from the likes of Luis de Molina, as well as others, but Arminius never declared himself to be a follower of Molina's systematic thought concerning God's knowledge. However, there are traces of Molina's thought in the writings of Arminius (see Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius, Baker Books, pp. 159-161).

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Calvinists often appeal to Deut. 29:29 when caught in a theological dilemma. Ask a Calvinist how God can exhaustively determine all things and yet not be the author of sin and you might get an appeal to mystery and a quick reference to Deut. 29:29. Ask a Calvinist how God’s unconditional election doesn’t make His choice of some over others for salvation arbitrary and you will likely get more of the same. Yes, Calvinists love Deut 29:29 as it provides such a convenient theological escape hatch when they are called on to explain aspects of their doctrinal system which appear to be hopelessly contradictory. But have they carefully thought about the teaching of Deut. 29:29 and the problem it poses for their peculiar hermeneutic?

What decree is that? The "dreadful" decree I am referring to today is the decree of Reprobation, its consequence being Unconditional Election (for how could there be one without the other?). Now, calling it "dreadful," while I would agree, actually comes not from me or any other Arminian today, but from John Calvin himself!

Calvin wrote, "The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard, in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2).

Compatibilism is the desperate attempt of Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too. It is the claim that humans are still responsible for their sins because they wanted to commit them, but that God still predetermined their actions because He shaped the person's will by molding the internal motives of that person. This way, God has determined sin without being responsible for it, and humans are responsible without possessing any level of causation.

But this doesn't really work.

Predestination As Temporal Only

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider

One of the most interesting theological finds I have made in recent years is that God's predestinating of us does not seem to have to do with eternal destiny.

God does indeed predestinate us in certain ways. Six times the word for "to predestinate" is used in the NT. Besides the instances of cognates of that very word "proorizo," other "pro" words are found in both Testaments which also show that God makes pre-decisions on various matters. And God sometimes makes decrees, even as kings do, according to Scripture. But my recent study suggests that none of these references has to do with our eternal destiny, but only with other matters.

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith

Introduction

The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley's observation that to say, "This man is an Arminian," was, to some, much the same thing as saying, "This man is a mad dog."1

Introduction

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God 'raised up' for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these 'objects of wrath,' in order to glorify himself before the 'objects of his mercy,' that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument.

Roger Olson lists this as one of many myths leveled against Arminianism. He writes, "Few of Arminianism's theological critics would claim that Arminians do not believe in predestination in any sense; they know that classical Arminianism includes belief in God's decrees respecting salvation and God's foreknowledge of believers in Jesus Christ."1

Arminius himself grounded predestination in the providence of God. Calvinist Richard A. Muller notes, "The relationship established by God with his creatures in the act of creation carries over into the preservation and governance of the created order as described in the doctrine of providence. Arminius' views on providence are set forth in four disputations . . . All in all, this is one of the more broadly documented topics in Arminius' theology -- and the only topic out of the group discussed here [in Muller's book] that was drawn into controversy in Arminius' lifetime."2

What About Pharaoh? God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart

Some consider God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart as clear evidence that God predestinates people to reprobation and ultimately, to condemnation. The Arminian view is that Pharaoh, of his own volition, had long set his heart against Israel and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and for His part, God offered Pharaoh five opportunities to honestly repent and live before finally strengthening Pharaoh's resolve to follow through upon the hardness of heart that Pharaoh harbored against Israel long before God instructed Moses to deliver Israel from the hand of Pharaoh.

Read Exodus 2:22-25. God provides us two reasons for delivering Israel:

1) He heard their groanings.
2) He remembered His covenenant (in other words: the time had come for Him to honor His covenant).

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

A co-worker of mine bought me a Life in The Spirit Study Bible [which used to go by the name Full Life Study Bible]. This Study Bible has several articles and verse by verse notes from a Pentecostal Arminian perspective. The notes are well researched and easy to understand. I do not hold to a pre-trib view, however, so I found the notes and articles on eschatology unsatisfying and unconvincing, though I think they did a fine job describing the pre-trib position. The only other draw back is that this study Bible is, to my knowledge, only available in the KJV and NIV.

Please click on the attachment to view Skinner, Christopher. "Predestined for Hell?", which is basically a brief exegesis of Romans 9.

A sermon by John Wesley taken from http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/

On Predestination
By John Wesley
Sermon 58
(text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)

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

Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son: -- Whom he did predestinate, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29, 30

1. Our beloved brother Paul," says St. Peter, "according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15, 16)

My wife and I have a daily reading of Scripture where we read through large sections of the Bible at once, to get the bigger pictures in Scripture, and cover the full ground of Scripture as often as possible. (This is not our only devotional time). Last week, we read Ephesians in one sitting. During the second chapter, I started to cry. Not balling, more just tearing up. My wife looked up at me and said, "To me, this is neat stuff. But it means so much more to you."

She was right. So many make Ephesians out to be this herald of predestination; a triumph of Calvinism. But such a reading loses the very message that Paul is communicating, the very thing that brought me to tears.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Arminianism; General; Predestination

Please click on the attachment to view Wesley, John. "PREDESTINATION CALMLY CONSIDERED"