This is the second in what will be series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.
Lamentations 3:33
For he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.
The next text occasionally cited is this short fragment of Lamentations chapter 3. The Arminian argument seems to run along the lines that here the Scriptures state God does not willingly afflict or grieve human beings, yet Calvinism teaches the exact opposite since God chooses some for salvation and chooses for others to remain unsaved and to be punished for their sins.
We can deal with this objection quite quickly. The verse has nothing whatever to do with the doctrines of election or reprobation, nor does it contradict the Bible's teaching that God is a righteous judge who administers justice—including punishment for sin—and indeed delights in justice (see Jeremiah 9:24).
In the verse immediately preceding this one, the writer is clear that God does "cause grief" (v.32). For his children, he administers discipline as a good Father. For the wicked, he administers justice. And in both cases he acts according to his desires for discipline and justice. It is just as a human parent takes no enjoyment in punishing their children and does so with a heavy heart, yet it is done for the child's ultimate good and in shaping a good and well-rounded person that punishment is sometimes necessary. It is the improvement of the child's character that the parent delights in, not the discipline or punishment considered in itself, even though it is a necessary step towards the ultimate goal.
This verse simply teaches that God is not cruel or nasty. He is no sadist. Although he does "cause grief" and sends people pain and suffering as discipline or as punishment, he does not do so because he enjoys it, but for higher goals of disciplining the children he loves for their good or for constraining the evil of the wicked and giving them justice. The verse teaches that God does not derivce pleasure or happiness in punishing anyone when considered as a thing in itself. The sentiment here is closely related to the verses found in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11.
Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
This is another verse sometimes cited as implying that it is not the will of God in any sense that anyone perish. As such, the Arminian sees it as being a denial that God has any decree of reprobation and instead God would save everyone if he could, but obviously cannot achieve his aim because human free will is the determining factor in each person's salvation.
A common theme in these verses, as you may have noticed, is that Arminians tend to accept that this kind of verse should encompass everyone without exception. Likewise, you will notice that Calvinists tend to look closer at the context and restrict the application of the verses to those who are saved and not to everyone. This verse is no exception.
The verse takes place at the end of Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep. Matthew 18:12-14 reads like this:
What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
It is obvious that the sheep, as they consistently do in Scripture (see Psalm 23, John 10), represent those who are Christ's people, those who are saved. The 100th lost sheep does not stand for everyone, but for those who will be saved but are not yet saved. They are one of the elect, yet before coming to faith. It is precisely the Father's will that not one of his elect should perish. When properly understood, far from being a problem for Calvinism, this verse supports Calvinism.
Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
Matthew 23:37 is one of the most common verses cited by Arminians against Calvinism.
We should note that once again the Arminian interpretation has little to do with the context of the verse. The passage is not dealing with the atonement, the gospel offer, irresistible or resistible grace, far less election or predestination. The context is judgment and condemnation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Read the context of the passage surrounding this verse to see that is true.
This verse merely teaches that in his revealed will, Christ does desire and seek to save everyone in Jerusalem, as his Saviour's heart goes out to all sinners and bids them come to him in faith to find salvation. It is this will, this desire, this delight in sinners finding salvation, that leads to Christ's anger against those who would seek to block or prevent others coming to faith in the Messiah.
The verse has nothing to do with and does not contradict the fact that in his secret or decretive will, God nevertheless chooses some for salvation and rejects others for salvation.
The verse condemns the Jewish leaders not only for killing the prophets in the past, but also in opposing Christ's mission to save sinners ("you would not"). The verse says that the leaders tried to prevent Christ saving the "children" of Jerusalem, but it does not teach that Christ would fail to save his people in the city. Far from it. Within weeks, on Pentecost, three thousand people were converted and saved, despite the city's leaders being opposed. Little did they know that their opposition and finally their plotting to kill Jesus would be the very means used in the plan of God to bring about the salvation of the elect (see Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28).
Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
This verse is fairly often mentioned by Arminians and other non-Calvinists. The argument is that Calvinism teaches that God's purpose or decree is always carried out and cannot be thwarted by anything. Yet here we find that the Pharisees and lawyers were able to "reject" the purpose of God. Arminians therefore believe that God's will can be thwarted by human free will. He may wish people to be saved, but people are free to reject God's will.
It is important to note that the key word, translated "purpose" in the ESV is the Greek word boulé which could also be translated as the "counsel" of God, "will" of God or even "decree" of God. It usually refers to a "resolved" or "determined" plan. However, it can also refer to "counsel" in the sense of advice or "will" in the sense of God's recommendation. It can refer not to God's decree or purpose in the sense of his detemination of events, which can never be frustrated, but to God's commands or precepts representing God's wise counsel or advice on how to live or what to do. It was this, the call to repent and accept God's mercy, that the Pharisees and Experts in the Law rejected for themselves.
As some Calvinists note, even if this is a reference to the decree of God, which always comes to pass, the verse does not state that God's purpose for them was their salvation. It need only be God's purpose that they be exposed to the good news and to Christ. Even this they rejected. There is nothing in Calvinism to rule out it being God's purpose for them to meet Christ and hear his gospel and God's purpose for them to reject the good news.
Either of these approaches is feasible. Neither requires us to accept that the human will can actually overturns God's sovereign will.
No comments:
Post a Comment