Our presuppositions determine our conclusions
Please note: This is not an "easy read" article. It is approximately nine typed pages in length. This article goes in-depth into the Scriptures, and into logic, so please do not just "skim" this particular article. If you are going to dive in-depth into this subject, then please take the time to really consider all of the arguments presented below, and make sure to carefully pay attention to all the Scriptures that are quoted from the Bible. It does not matter whether you or I like everything the Bible teaches. But it is very important that we agree with what the Bible teaches! If you are prepared for an in-depth look at the Scriptures, and if you are prepared to use some serious logic, then by all means, enjoy the article below. --- Then feel free to email me your thoughts!
A) Our presuppositions determine our conclusions.
Our presuppositions determine our conclusions. It is not even possible to start a logical thought process as a "blank slate", without having basic assumptions that work as a starting point. And those basic assumptions determine what may and may not be discovered via logic. No exercise in logic can successfully contradict the basic assumptions that were used to begin with. For example, to make a logical argument at all requires a basic assumption that logic and rationality exists and is useful. Therefore, no logical argument could ever successfully contradict the existence of logic or rationality. It’s like pulling the rug out from under yourself. If logic is not valid, then the logical argument disproving rationality isn’t valid. And if that argument isn’t valid, then maybe logic is valid after all. A logical argument cannot contradict its original basic assumptions. I believe this fact is what causes the majority of impasses in theological arguments.
Consider the heated debates between Calvinists and Arminians. Many Calvinists read Arminian literature and still do not change their minds. Many Arminians read Calvinist literature and still do not change their minds. Why? I believe they differ in their basic assumptions before the debate even gets started. I believe that many Calvinists and Arminians are both scholarly and logical. I think I was intelligent when I was an Arminian, and I think I am still intelligent now that I am a Calvinist. I don’t think I got smarter or dumber. Instead, I merely believe that my basic assumptions have changed. And those changed assumptions have led my logic into a different direction.
Of course, my basic assumptions necessarily color my thought processes as I write this very article. Similarly, your basic assumptions color your thought processes as you read this article. We have no choice in the matter. The only choice we have is this: to change or not to change our basic assumptions.
We cannot change our basic assumptions until we are aware of them. And we will not change our basic assumptions unless we desire to change them. Up to this point, the purpose of this article is to arouse awareness that we do have basic assumptions that color our thinking. Now, let’s turn specifically to the Calvininst/Arminian question. Both cannot be correct. What basic assumptions bring about this stark disagreement? And much more importantly, which assumptions are correct? And how can we know one way or the other?
Calvinists often use the following type of reasoning: God is Sovereign. He is in control of everything. That’s their starting point, and everything else in their theology flows from there -- Therefore, since the will of man is part of "everything", God is in control of that, too. Therefore, God controls men’s choices. Therefore, love, hate, reward, and punishment must have no necessity of a so-called "free will".
Arminians often use the following type of reasoning: God is fair. And God is love. He knows that love, hate, punishment, and reward cannot exist without men being morally able to choose either good or evil. For the Arminian, that’s the starting point, and everything else in their theology flows from there -- So out of fairness and a desire for love, God chose to relinquish His control over the will of man. So men choose freely, without God causing their choices in any way. That way love really exists, and God is able to both punish and reward with fairness.
Once a person has any one of these sets of basic assumptions firmly in place, the battle is over. No number of Bible verses, arguments, sermons, or thick books will change the person’s mind. Nothing will change until, for some reason, the person chooses to reconsider the basic assumptions themselves.
With Calvinist basic assumptions, any "free-will" verse in the Bible can be "explained away" as being ultimately caused by God. In other words, man’s choices are caused by God’s predestination.
With Arminian basic assumptions, any "predestination" verse in the Bible can be "explained away" as being a result of God’s "foreknowlege" of future "free choices" of men. In other words, God’s predestination is influenced by man’s choices.
But in this article, I do not want to take the standard path of argumentation, because the standard path seldom works.
Calvinists demonstrate predestination in the Bible, and yet Arminians are unimpressed because their basic assumptions suggest that predestination is influenced by foreknowledge of human choices.
Likewise, Arminians demonstrate human choice in the Bible, and yet Calvinists are unimpressed, because their basic assumptions suggest that human choices are caused by predestination. Each side is able to "explain away" the evidence of the other side. So, my plan is this: To begin with, do not look into the Bible either to confirm or refute Calvinism or Arminianism. Instead, let’s see what the Bible has to say about our basic assumptions themselves.
B) Therefore, to avoid error, God & His Word must be the basis of our presuppositions.
God Himself should be the ultimate starting point for our discussion. The universe was conceived of and created by God, not man. And all thinking and logic also had its beginning with Him. So we must start our discussion with Him.
II. A Biblical starting point: God’s Total Inability to Sin
A) God can do anything physically or spiritually, except sin.
According to the Bible, God is capable of doing absolutely anything other than sinning. This fact about God is a convenient starting point for our discussion, because both Calvinists and Arminians agree with this fact. It is possible for God to do absolutely anything. But God cannot sin. Here is some of the most explicit Scriptural support for this fact about God:
Of course, at first glance, #1 in the list above seems to contradict the rest of the list. But even a cursory glance at the context resolves the question. The impossibilities listed in Hebrews 6:18 and James 1:13 are specifically regarding moral actions of a sinful nature. It is impossible for God to commit sin. But Luke 1:37 refers to God’s infinite ability to do anything of a physical nature, even the ability to cause a barren womb to conceive. Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, and Luke 18:27 refer to God’s ability to save people. These verses reveal God’s infinite ability to do anything of a spiritual nature. So, to sum everything up, we can make the following statement from Scripture:
God is able to do absolutely anything of a physical and/or spiritual nature, as long as performing that action would not require God to sin.
I believe the Bible itself teaches the above statement as an absolute, unchanging, universally applicable fact. Luke 1:37 (and many other passages) reveal God’s total Sovereignty over the physical universe. Matthew 19:26 (and multiple other passages) reveal God’s total Sovereignty over the spiritual universe. Hebrews 6:18 and James 1:13 (and many other Scriptures) reveal God’s total inability to sin. The statement above simply summarizes these 3 facts about God. And I am not aware of any passages in the entire Bible that mitigate against any of these three truths. At all times from Genesis to Revelation, we see that God can do anything whatsoever in both the physical and spiritual realm, but in no case can God sin. If you are aware of any exceptions in the entire Bible, please let me know.
Also, please note that at this time, we have made no observations whatsoever about the physical, spiritual, or moral abilities of people. So far, we are only focusing on the Lord God Himself. God is the proper starting point.
By looking at the Bible, we have learned that God has infinite power in the physical realm. Nothing is impossible. And God has infinite power in the spiritual realm. Nothing is impossible. But, in all of this, it is impossible for God to sin.
Do you agree with everything to this point? If not, please stop reading this article for now, and email me. Let’s figure out how we see the Bible differently. But if you do agree 100% to this point, then make a mental note of that fact.
Before you continue reading, keep firmly in mind that you agree with what has been demonstrated from the Scriptures so far.
B) Even though God cannot sin, He is still praised for His truth and righteousness. He is praised even though lying and sinning are literally impossible for Him. God does not have the free will to sin.
Let’s Consider This Question - "Punishment and reward make no sense unless someone is morally able to choose either good or evil." Is this assumption Biblical, or antibiblical?
Hebrews 6:18 does not teach that God is able to lie, and that He simply chooses not to. To the contrary, this verse says that it is actually "impossible" for God to lie. In other words, God is actually incapable of uttering a lie. Lying is literally beyond His ability. (Also see Titus 1:2.)
Likewise, James 1:13 does not teach that God is tempted to sin, and just refrains from succumbing to temptation. Far to the contrary, this verse says that God actually "cannot be tempted with sin". God doesn’t have to "resist" temptation, because it is not able to "tempt" Him in the first place.
Now let’s look at some passages from the Bible in connection with the observations in the two above paragraphs --
God is praised for his truth:
God is praised for being holy, righteous, and separate from sin:
Questions for consideration:
A basic assumption of Arminians is that punishment and reward make no sense unless someone is morally able to choose either good or evil. They suppose that it is unfair to condemn someone if they were unable to do good. And they figure no one deserves to be rewarded if they were unable to fail. However, The Bible’s teachings are in stark contrast to this idea. God is unable to lie, yet He still deserves praise for His truth. God is unable to sin, yet He still deserves to be praised for His holiness and righteousness. Therefore, God deserves praise because of His nature, not because of His ability. God does not have free will to sin.
C) Therefore, free will is not necessary for either praise or condemnation. Praise and/or condemnation are given according to nature, not according to ability.
So, it seems that this basic Arminian assumption is unbiblical, and therefore incorrect. According to the Bible, it is not true that culpability and praiseworthiness are in any way related to the moral ability to choose the opposite. On the contrary, culpability and/or praiseworthiness are based on one’s nature. God has a good nature, so he is praised.
According to Genesis 2, mankind was created in the image of God. And according to Genesis 9, this image of God was retained even after the fall of Adam and Eve. Now, if God is praised based on his nature, and not based on his moral ability or inability, then why would a different standard apply to mankind? If God is praised for His nature, then shouldn’t man also be praised or condemned for his nature? God’s nature is good, so He is totally unable to sin. Man’s nature is evil, so he is totally unable to do good (Romans 3:11-12).
2 Questions:
Free will is not necessary for God to be praiseworthy. Thus, if anyone says that free will is necessary for man to be either praised or condemned, then the burden of proof is on him.
III. A Biblical look at Man himself: Sinful Man’s Total Inability to do Good
A) Multiple Scriptures in the Bible plainly state that it is impossible for a sinner to do any good works at all.
B) Even man’s “relatively good” actions are tainted with sin.
Even in cases when an unbeliever does something relatively good, it is still ultimately a sin because 1 Corinthians 10:31 is broken at all times. In that verse, God commands that everything be done for "the glory of God". Moreover, Mark 12:30 is broken at all times by unbelievers. In that verse, Jesus commands complete and total love for God at all times. Regardless of how “good” an unbeliever is, he never does anything out of love for God, and out of a desire to glorify God. Only Christians love God by seeking His Glory.
C) Thus, just like God is totally unable to be morally evil, man is totally unable to be morally good. God does not have the free will to sin, and man does not have the free will to be righteous.
According to the above verses, fallen man is in the opposite state as God. God is totally unable to sin. Fallen man is totally unable to do good.
Whether God or man, it is impossible to act outside one’s nature. God has a good nature, so He does what is good. Fallen man has an evil nature, so he does what is evil. God is praised for being good, and He is totally incapable of being evil. Man is condemned for being evil, and he is totally incapable of being good.
IV. A Biblical look at God’s Sovereignty: God’s Perfect Control over Man
As we saw earlier, God is in control of everything in the physical world, and God is in control of everything in the spiritual world. God can do absolutely anything except sin. And man is no exception. In fact, God controls all men’s thoughts and actions, whether they are Christians or not –
A) God controls the heart of man:
B) God controls the actions of man:
C) Nobody is able to come to Christ unless granted by the Father:
D) Everybody who God gives to Christ certainly will come to Christ:
E) People cannot repent on their own. They can only repent if God grants them repentance:
F) Under the Covenant based on Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, God promises to cause people to know Him and obey Him.
Earlier, we already established Biblically that man is naturally evil, and that there is no natural good in man. In the Old Testament, God clearly said what He would do to solve this problem:
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. . . . But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:1-13)
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:14-22)
What could possibly turn a fallen man from being evil to being holy? Nothing but a radical change of his nature will do. Superficial evil temptations cannot reach God’s holy heart. Similarly, no mere external call to holiness can reach man’s evil heart. Before a man can respond to the Gospel, his very nature must be radically changed. Responding to the Gospel requires a heart that is soft towards God. And responding to the Gospel is a good thing to do. Therefore, no one with an evil nature can respond to the Gospel. Instead, God first must give a person a good nature. Then, because of his changed heart, he will readily respond to the Gospel. Remember that God said, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
V. A Biblical look at God’s Purpose: Why does God save people?
A) God does not save us for our sakes.
B) God saves us to bring glory to Himself.
God’s primary reason for saving people is for His own sake, and not for our sakes. God’s primary reason for saving people is for the praise of His Glory.
Calvinists & Arminians end up believing what they do because of their basic assumptions they have ahead of time.
A basic assumption of Arminians is that praise and condemnation are sensible and fair only if the recipient was totally capable of doing either good or evil. They believe that inability to do evil negates praiseworthiness, and that inability to do good negates the sensibility of condemnation.
Starting with what the Bible has to say about God Himself, we found that God is totally unable to sin, and yet He is still praiseworthy. Therefore, a basic Arminian presupposition is unbiblical. Nature, not ability, determines praiseworthiness.
Man is totally unable to do any good works whatsoever, including turning to the Gospel. Man has an evil nature and hates the Gospel. In order for a person to love God and accept the Gospel, God must first radically change the person by giving a new nature. Once a person has a new, good nature, then a positive response to the Gospel is not only possible, but inevitable.
God’s purpose in saving people is not primarily for the sake of the people being saved. Rather, God’s primary goal is to glorify Himself, and saving people is one of His ways of accomplishing this goal.
--- article by Joseph M. Gleason - December, 2004
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.