A Critical Review of The Realm of God’s Providence from the Arminian and Calvinist Perspectives

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Realm of God’s Providence: A Critical Analysis
The Variables and Nuanced Positions in the Realm of God’s Providence
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

All religions in the world respect the existence of a divine nature or order of things in the universe. In such an arrangement, humans interact with the Supreme Being that is God.¹ In this regard, providence is taken as the manner in which God intervenes in the world. There are certain events and occurrences in the world that suggest the intervention of a Supreme Being.

Such events include the existence of the universe itself, the interaction between the world and the rest of the entire solar system, and the existence of life on earth. As a theological concept, providence is divided into two categories. The two categories are special and general providence.

In both cases, the link between God and man is explained. However, like all philosophical issues, debate on the realm of God’s providence has always been looked at differently by various players in theological circles.

In the current paper, the author acknowledges the fact that there are multiple variables that bring about debate in the providence of God’s realm. Towards this end, the author looks at two particular variables in the providence debate.

According to Boyd and Eddy, the two main perspectives of God’s providence are the Calvinist and Arminian views.² In this paper, the author examines each of the two perspectives at length. In this regard, the paper examines their respective merits and demerits.

The objective of this paper is to determine whether or not there are alternative opinions that respect the two perspectives, based on their merits. To this end, the author restricts their arguments to God’s control over occurrences in the world.

Lutzer affirms that the world acts as the habitat for humans. The various choices made by humans are based on, among others, the various occurrences in the world.³ In this paper, the author associates God’s interventions in the world to the choices that man makes on a daily basis.

The Realm of God’s Providence: A Critical Analysis

Wilson observes that providence is an avenue through which God provides divine guidance to mankind.⁴ The doctrine is one among the many associated with Christianity. Most of these doctrines are not explained in scriptures, but are alluded to in the various passages that make up the Bible.

Wilson adds that the Word, when observed from a grammatical perspective, allows one to comprehend the omniscient nature of God. In this regard, there is the introduction of the concept of a ‘hidden hand’ that is responsible for providing help to mankind.⁵ The hidden hand is divine in nature, and it is seen as informing the decisions made by mankind in the world.

The providence of God is controversial in contemporary society. Different religious scholars have adopted different views with regards to this concept. Such diverging viewpoints are informed by the individual scholars’ personal, religious, and professional orientations. Boice argues that there are numerous aspects of the secular world that are not in agreement with the belief in an all powerful God.

According to religious adherents, such secular views allow calamity to befall man.⁶ In this regard, Boice makes a secular observation that there is evil in the world despite the world being under the rule of a good and all knowing God.⁷

There are several calamities in the world that afflict mankind. Some of the calamities are natural. They include drought, floods, and earthquakes. However, some of them are manmade. They include wars, crime and such others. Boice makes reference to past encounters with such calamities and how they are referred to as acts of God.⁸

However, it is important to note at this juncture that some people refer to these calamities as the work of God, while others try to explain them from a scientific point of view. The great debate about providence revolves around the control that God has over man and other creations that exist in the universe.

Is God to blame for the calamities that befall man, or has He allowed the events in the world to happen without His interference? That is the big question. Thus, it is important to understand the various variables and nuanced positions around this subject matter.

The Variables and Nuanced Positions in the Realm of God’s Providence

Overview

According to Boice, providence implies that the universe and all that is in it was created by God.⁹ In this regard, Boice introduces a school of thought that presupposes creation. According to this school of thought, God has not abandoned His creation. Such a presupposition is opposed to the secular insinuation that God has no control over the afflictions that befall man.

To counter this secularist position, providence implies that God is still in charge and relies on His own counsel to govern the affairs of man. Consequently, there are several variables around this topic which help shed some light on this debate.

Does the Universe exist on its own Elements?

The debate on providence is usually triggered by sentiments that allude to God being an absentee administrator of the earth. However, Boice observes that even though nature is in a constant state of change, there seems to be an ordered pattern to these events.¹⁰

In essence, there seems to be some uniformity in nature. That notwithstanding, there is no scientific explanation as to the source of the uniformity. In a nutshell, the developments are baffling to man.

In their argument, Boice makes reference to the Bible. Boice quotes Hebrews Chapter 1 verse 13. The verse is used to suggest that the uniformity in nature comes from God.¹¹

The perspective brought into light is that providence cannot be explained by the physical characteristics of the world. In this light, the omniscient and omnipotent ability of God is used to prove that He still runs the world, albeit beyond human understanding.

The Rules of God

In the opinion of Emerson, God has ascribed several rules through which man’s actions are governed.¹² To this end, God’s providence is observed in the consequences associated with the act of going against the rules He has put in place.

The implication, in this regard, is that God is a sovereign Being and His providence extends beyond one’s obedience to His rules. Emerson makes reference to a passage in the Bible, where Jonah disobeyed a direct instruction from God. That notwithstanding, God was able to intervene and ensure His instructions were met.

The Conflicting Perspectives in the Providence Debate

In the opinion of Boyd and Eddy, the raging debate on God’s providence revolves around two major topics.¹³ As aforementioned, the two conflicting perspectives are the Calvinist and Arminian views on providence. In this section, the paper examines each of the perspectives in terms of their characteristics and merits.

However, Boyd and Eddy affirm that both perspectives agree on the fact that the world is governed by God.¹⁴ Lutzer points out that the divergence in the two perspectives is in the ‘how’ God’s authority is felt in the world.¹⁵

The Calvinist View and the Providence Debate

Boyd and Eddy point out that the Calvinist perspective on providence in God’s realm is unique in itself. According to this view, God has ultimate control over the affairs of man, including his actions and their outcomes.¹⁶

The Calvinist view was advanced by John Calvin at the time when Christians were breaking ranks with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The principles underlying this theological perspective are summarized under the acronym TULIP. The principles make up the merits of this perspective.

Lutzer outlines each of the letters in the acronym TULIP as follows:

Total Depravity

Lutzer uses the outcomes of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God to explain this point. According to Lutzer, the outcomes of this act were passed on to subsequent generations.

Consequently, the ability to commit sin was passed on to all humanity. As a result, man is rendered helpless with regards to comprehending the teachings of God, hence the need for salvation.¹⁷ In this regard, God’s providence is seen in the way He eventually sends the Holy Spirit to act as a helper in understanding the scriptures and in growing in salvation.

Unconditional Election

Pink associates this principle to the concept of predestination. The implication here is that there is a group of people whom God has already elected.¹⁸ Their election qualifies them to understand the teachings of God. On the other hand, there is a group of people who are destined to spend their eternity in hell with the torture therein.

Similar to the natural occurrence of things in nature, unconditional election assumes that God made the aforementioned selection before creation.¹⁹ In this regard, the wayward nature of sinners is considered part of the grand scheme of God’s plans. God knew that they will turn out the way they did.

Limited Atonement

Calvin argues that the death of Christ was meant to save the whole of mankind.²⁰ The theologian’s implication is that the death of Christ acted as a sacrifice for sins of persons believed to have been saved.

Irresistible Grace

Calvin points out that the individuals that God has elected for salvation are under a calling.²¹ Calvin adds that the elected cannot escape the knowledge of God.

Perseverance of the Saints

Calvin advances this principle to imply that salvation is a one- off occurrence in the life of an individual.²² To this end, salvation continues as a result of God’s intervention to make an individual perfect to occupy space in heaven.

Arminian Views and the Providence Debate

Prussic points out that these perceptions were advanced by a Dutch theologian named Jarcobus Armenius.²³ Prussic points out that the Arminian perspective of God’s authority over the world makes reference to choices. To this end, choices are inevitable actions to mankind. Consequently, God is the one who dictates for the existence of that choice.²⁴

The significant merit in this perspective is that humans have a free will to make decisions on various actions. In this regard, God is not viewed as the cause of sin since He has no control over the choices made by an individual.

However, the Arminian perspective on God’s providence elicits debate due to a number of factors. That choices are judged by God imputes that His authority is secondary to man’s.²⁵ The argument, in this case, questions why a Super Being like God would judge the actions of His creation.

In addition, whereas the Arminian perspective on God’s authority over the world respects Him as being in charge, it belittles His ability of being an all knowing figure. Prussic argues that this perspective implies that God relies on man as the source of His knowledge.

Other merits of this perspective include the fact that depravity does not, in any way, inhibit mankind from making choices based on their free will.²⁶ Further, the Arminian view suggests that people are not pre-elected into salvation like argued in the case of the Calvinist view.

Rather, this perspective introduces faith as the requirement for election into eternal salvation.²⁷ The Arminian view also suggests that everyone is eligible to be called the child of God, only if they accept to be saved.

Arminian view of God’s reign over the world suggests that since people have free will to exercise their choices, it follows then that they can resist the help of the Holy Spirit.²⁸

To this end, man is capable of resisting conversion that results from salvation. Finally, the Arminian perspective relies on man’s free will to guarantee him salvation. In this regard, man is allowed the freedom to believe in the promises of God in order to be saved from eternal damnation.

Notwithstanding the free will that is characteristic of the Arminian view, Prussic cautions that this perspective appears to be an avenue for reducing the power of God.²⁹ The scholar argues that,

God works ALL things after the counsel of His will. See, the Bible exalts God’s will over man’s. Arminianism turns this on its head, exalting the will of man over God’s. Indeed, Arminianism SUBJECTS the will of God to man’s will. It makes God’s knowledge dependent upon men. Does this Arminianism sound like the religion of the Bible? Not for a second. It smacks of humanism. (Prussic 2010, par. 7).

The aspect of free will in this perspective lowers the place of God in the hierarchy. It subordinates God to man. Consequently, His intervention in the affairs of man is not given much attention owing to the perceived inability on His part to dictate what man should and should not do.

Conclusion

In this paper, the author examined the two main perspectives that elicit debate on God’s providence. The author affirms that there are alternative views to both perspectives. For example, the doctrine of humanism is brought into light by the mere fact that man has the freedom to do as he pleases. It is expected that man will make choices that guarantee his salvation from damnation.

Humanism also incorporates some elements of Calvinism in that man is qualified to become a child of God. Consequently, the perspective implies that man can choose to become a child of God by accepting Jesus as the Savior. Thus, providence of God’s realm is all about the opinions that people formulate around His position as a ruler of the world.

Bibliography

Blanton, Gregg. “Integrating Postmodern and Christian Contemplative Thought: Building a Theoretical Framework.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 27, no. 1 (2008): 73.

Boice, James. “God’s Providence.” The Highway. 2013. Web.

Boyd, Gregory, and Paul Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian Religion. Philadelphia: McNeill, 1960.

Emerson, Tyler. “The Role of the Providence Debate in the Theory and Practice of Counseling.” Yahoo Voices. 2008. Web.

Eric, Johnson. “Describing the Self within Redemptive History.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 19, no. 1 (2002): 5-24.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate Christians. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Pink, Arthur. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000.

Prussic, Tim. “An Arminian View of God.” Word Press. 2010. Web.

Wilson, Kevin. “The Providence Debate – Calvinism Vs Arminians.” Scribd. 2013. Web.

Footnotes

Gregg Blanton, “Integrating Postmodern and Christian Contemplative Thought: Building a Theoretical Framework,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 27, no. 1 (2008): 73.
Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 67.
Johnson Eric, “Describing the Self within Redemptive History,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 19, no. 1 (2002): 5.
Kevin Wilson, “The Providence Debate – Calvinism Vs Arminians,” 2013.
Wilson, “The Providence Debate.”
James Boice, “God’s Providence,” The Highway.
Boice, “God’s Providence.”
Boice, “God’s Providence.”
Boice, “God’s Providence.”
Boice, “God’s Providence.”
Boice, “God’s Providence.”
Tyler Emerson, “The Role of the Providence Debate in the Theory and Practice of Counseling,” Yahoo Voices, 2008. Web.
Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 67-89.
Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 67-89.
Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate Christians (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998), 64-76.
Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide, 65.
Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide, 66.
Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide, 67.
Arthur Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 91-120.
John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion (Philadelphia: McNeill, 1960), 73-75.
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 74.
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 75.
Tim Prussic, “An Arminian View of God,” Word Press.
Prussic, “An Arminian View of God.”
Prussic, “An Arminian View of God.”
Eric, “Describing the Self,” 18.
Eric, “Describing the Self,” 24.
Prussic, “An Arminian View of God.”
Prussic, “An Arminian View of God.”

Click Here To Order Now!