Arminianism - Tumblr Posts
Divine Providence & Concurrence
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
——-
The Doctrine of Providence
The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.
However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.
According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):
τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11
SBLGNT).
Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!
Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.
In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.
——-
The Doctrine of Concurrence
The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:
it is also evident from Scripture that there is
some kind of divine co-operation in that
which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11
Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The
Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine
anger, the staff in whose hand is mine
indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.
He goes on to say:
The work of God always has the priority, for
man is dependent on God in all that he
does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without
me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field
of endeavor.
However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:
If we begin by defining sovereignty
deterministically, the issue is already
settled; in that case, Arminians do not
believe in divine sovereignty. However, who
is to say that sovereignty necessarily
includes absolute control or meticulous
governance to the exclusion of real
contingency and free will?
In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.
In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:
The understanding here of God's
‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle
and needs to be understood very carefully.
In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are
acting freely even though God is really
behind the scenes making them do what
they do. We experience our actions as free
actions even though God is really directing
them. This is a position that William James
called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.
——-
Conclusion
The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!
——-
A Response to Brendan Stupik’s John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil
By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Mr. Brendan Stupik is a writer, a Reformed Calvinist, and a musician. As far as I can tell, he has no degrees in higher education, not even a bachelors degree, no published books or articles, and no formal Biblical training in an academic or seminary setting. Yet he excoriated me after reading one of my articles “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” in which I conclude that under Calvinism, God creates evil. He publicly criticized and rebuked me sharply and promised to formally refute my views on his blog, apologeticsrepo.wordpress.com, which he did with his article “John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil: A Critique and Review of Eli Kittim’s Answering the Calvinists.” I heartily disagree with Mr. Stupik on many issues relating to Calvinism, but I will nevertheless try to take his views seriously.
Stupik (no pun intended) has written a scathing review of “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” on his Wordpress Blog. In his essay, he’s trying to portray my thesis as “a weak argument” because he claims that “no textual evidence is cited to support” my interpretation. What is more, he accuses me of “attacking a straw man.” That is, he assumes that I create an imaginary Calvinist that is cut out of whole cloth, and then I proceed “to ‘refute’ this imaginary Calvinist.” He, therefore, concludes that mine is not a “sound refutation of Calvinism.” These attacks are sustained throughout his post, and they sometimes become personal. So, to put this matter to rest, I will present a great deal of evidence, especially from Calvin’s own works.
Stupik begins his criticism by taking aim at my credentials, trying to paint a false picture of me as one who lacks writing skills, who mishandles quotations, and whose competence in literary matters must be doubtful. And yet, for those of you who don’t know me, I’m a Bible Scholar and a graduate of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute as well as the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity. I’m a native Greek speaker, fluent in Koine Greek, and I read the New Testament in the original language. I also hold a masters degree in psychology. I’ve been writing and publishing articles for over 40 years. I have published articles in numerous prestigious journals and magazines, such as the "Journal of Higher Criticism," "The American Journal of Psychoanalysis," the "Aegean Review" (which has published work by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), and the "International Poetry Review" (a literary translation journal), among others. I’m also an award-winning book author of “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” Not to mention the hundreds of articles that have been posted on my blog in the past decade: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/
So, this type of ad hominem attack certainly doesn’t help his cause. He writes:
The ever-so frustrating lack of quotation
marks and citations once again blurs the
lines between Mr Kittim and his source
material’s words.
Stupik continues:
Mr. Eli Kittim abruptly begins his critique …
with a quote from prominent reformed
theologian Dr. R.C Sproul. ‘There is no
maverick molecule if God is sovereign’ he
transcribes, and then, interjecting,
elaborates that ‘if God cannot control the
smallest things we know of in the universe,
such as the subatomic particles known as
“quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep
His promises.’ At first glance of the article
itself, one may be justifiably met with
confusion. Are these the words of Dr.
Sproul, or of Mr. Kittim? Granted, Dr. Sproul
has previously expounded upon his
‘maverick molecule’ catchphrase in similar
fashion, but there are no quotations, and
there is no citation!
Apparently, Stupik is not familiar with block quotes, which are offset from the main text, indented, double-spaced, and require no quotation marks. Just to give the reader an idea of Stupik’s misrepresentation, here’s the actual page. Notice how R.C. Sproul’s quote is very clearly distinguished from the main text by being indented and double-spaced: “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists
As you can see, there’s absolutely no question as to which are Dr. Sproul’s words and which are mine. Moreover, famous quotes by famous authors are in the public domain. They require no citation. This smacks of underhand tactics to taint my reputation from the outset——so as to manipulate the readers——and portray my essay as if it involves nothing but literary incompetence.
Furthermore, his refusal to acknowledge the obvious meaning of Dr. Sproul’s statement shows a lack of familiarity with the theological literature. He writes:
Kittim, continues, ‘Just because God sets
the universe in motion doesn’t mean that
every detail therein is held ipso facto to be
caused by him.’ … Kittim however, …
provides no biblical evidence to the contrary
of omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism.
Additionally, in the aforementioned quote,
Dr. Sproul makes no such claim of
omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism;
he’s simply making a point of God’s
sovereignty– that is to say, his
omniordinance.
All these points are disingenuous and misrepresent both Dr. Sproul and Calvinism. As I will show, there is overwhelming evidence of omnicausality and theological determinism in Calvinism. And anyone familiar with Dr. Sproul——who has read and heard his lectures on this topic—-knows quite well that this is exactly what he means when he says “There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” Stupik also criticizes me for introducing the doctrine of foreknowledge without sufficiently explaining it. But anyone undertaking a critical review of my work on this topic should be thoroughly steeped in this concept and should not require preliminary definitions, especially when Calvin himself rejected it as a theological alternative to his doctrine of sovereignty. Moreover, he quotes me as saying “God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will.” To which he adds: “Again, this is also agreeable in a general sense. … John Calvin held virtually the same position – albeit in a more nuanced way.” No, he didn’t! This is a complete fabrication and an utter misunderstanding of Calvin’s thought, as I will show in due time.
Actually, Stupik himself does the very thing he accuses me of doing when he’s sometimes mingling his quotes with mine, adding irrelevant citations, coupled with a few punctuation errors and typos where we don’t even know exactly which New Testament letter he’s referring to. He mentions Cor 2:7, but is it 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians? It’s anyone’s guess. Just like his essay, his citations are sometimes vague and ambiguous, off-topic, and in short supply.
Then he says something that conveys his lack of theological understanding: “The reason why God predestined some for salvation does not matter, and so Kittim’s apparent reason (that God foreknew them) is not a sound refutation of Calvinism.” Of course it matters! If God is held accountable for orchestrating everything according to his sovereign will, then neither the devil nor human beings can be held morally responsible for all their crimes against humanity. Besides, there can be no free will. How can he possibly say that the criteria upon which God predestined a limited few to salvation——and a great deal more to damnation——“does not matter”?
He asks:
If God predestined his elect because He
foreknew them, why must he predestine
them to do anything at all? In other words, if
God foreknew that someone would ‘freely
choose’ him, of what use is predestination?
This is mentioned in the Bible in order to reject the theological notion that God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense. It lets us know that God can indeed foresee the future as well as those who will accept or reject his invitation to salvation (cf. Isaiah 46.10). The ability to see events in the future not only certifies and authenticates the message and character of God, for the purpose of putting your trust in the Lord, but it also reveals his omniscience through the inscripturated words: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 45.5; 46.9 NIV; cf. Deut. 18.20-22). Thus, through the doctrine of foreknowledge or predestination, the Lord informs us that he is truly God and that he’s able to foresee those who will inherit eternal life and be glorified! It’s Stupek’s view that is actually incomprehensible. Why would scripture tell us that some have been predestined to hell and some to heaven before their birth? How does that justify a just and righteous God?
Then Stupik challenges my interpretation of the parable of the vineyard workers found in Matthew 20:1-16. I write:
The point of the parable is that God is fair.
No one gets cheated. However, in
Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he
pleases. He creates evil and chooses who
will be saved and who will be lost. … That’s
why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement.
Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone,
but only for a select few.
To which Stupik responds:
As for Kittim’s first point, that God is ‘unfair’
in Calvinism, no explanation is given as to
why this Calvinist God is ‘unfair.’ Is God
unfair because he does what he pleases?
No, because he cannot desire sin. Is God
unfair because he doesn’t save all? No,
because we are not deserving of God’s
mercy and grace, and so his necessary
judgement is merely a form of God’s perfect
righteousness.
Just as he rarely uses citations to support his views, he similarly offers no proof, here, not even a passing reference to show how God’s arbitrary judgments to save some, but not others, can be reconciled with “God’s perfect righteousness.” He further compounds his mistakes by neither acknowledging nor addressing the well-known fact that Calvinist predestination is based on God’s will, not man’s. He brushes that aside by trying to excuse the unjust decrees of the Calvinist god——when he randomly predestines people to hell——as something we actually deserve, even if those decrees were formulated before we were born. How ironic is that?
In fact, he goes so far as to say:
As John Calvin himself wrote, ‘Though their
perdition depends on the predestination of
God, the cause and matter of it is in
themselves.’ Of course, God does not have
to create evil in order for the reprobate to
exist. In our fallen state, we are incapable of
salvation. Although He ordains all that
comes to pass, God has never been the
direct and efficient cause of evil; he is
inversely incapable of doing so.
This is actually a misleading description of Calvinist theology. It will become apparent shortly that it is completely bogus and misinformed! Initially, I wrote that “Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b.” Yet, Stupik asked for proof whether this is, in fact, the case. This is a rather silly point which reveals a certain degree of incompetence and immaturity on his part, and it’s also a dead giveaway that Stupik is not quite so literate as he would have us believe. To ask for proof that Calvinists use Exodus 33.19 to support that God is partial is like asking for proof that the pope is Catholic.
Then he tries to shift the focus and explain away Calvin’s view of divine bias through a sort of glorification of favoritism. In other words, he suggests that god’s discrimination isn’t so much about the inequality of injustice and partiality as it is about the glory of election. Yet, the idea that the Calvinist god predestinates the doom of the reprobate is conveniently neither discussed nor even acknowledged by Stupik.
Stupik’s language is often vague, ambiguous, and difficult to understand, forcing us to guess what he means. He first defends god’s bias and partiality, even though it is not a flattering attribute of the Calvinist god who randomly and arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will be lost, but later he will contradict himself by defending the Calvinist god as just, ethical, and righteous. In attempting to exegete Romans 8.28-29, he says:
the very semantics of the verse create a
much better case for partiality. If the verse
is a proof of impartiality, why is the verse
about ‘οτι ους (those whom) God foreknew’,
and not simply ‘all’? As it deals with a
specific group – ‘οτι ους,’ there is inherent
partiality present in Rom 8:28-29.
Additionally, … there are plenty of verses
which create a strong case for partiality –
chiefly in the very existence of the
reprobate. Presented in short-form for
brevity, see Matt. 13:49-50, 1 Thess. 1:9,
Matt. 5:22, and 2 Thess. 1:7b-8 for
yourselves. Clearly, if the Calvinist
soteriology is correct, the New Testament
more definitively describes a God of even
bare-minimum partiality – insofar as not all
will be saved..
Incidentally, in Romans 8.29, the reason God speaks about those whom he foreknew (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω) is because he’s only speaking about the elect: those who will inherit eternal salvation. He’s obviously not talking about the unsaved: those who will NOT inherit eternal salvation. So why would we expect him to speak about “all” people in the context of salvation? Romans 8.29 is not talking about God’s partiality in choosing some over against others but rather about the salvation of the elect: “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” It would be an eisegesis to interpret this verse as evidence of partiality. That’s not what it’s talking about. And that’s precisely why the context doesn’t warrant a reference to “all” people. Besides, to say that God foresaw the elect beforehand is not the same as saying that God caused some to be the elect and others to be reprobates. Here Stupik is positing his own private interpretation, which is based on poor research methods.
But notice the 180 degree turn in the opposite direction where Stupik now claims to agree with me and argues that “God ‘does not cause everything to happen as it does,’ because … he is never the efficient cause of evil”:
As clarified earlier, God is not the direct, or
in Aristotelian terms, the efficient cause of
evil. In other words, God is not creating evil.
Kittim asks ‘What ever happened to the
attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine
that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1;
135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls
him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while
Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” ‘
The answer is simple, Calvinism shares that
very doctrine (Institutes 3:23:2-5).
Stupik continues:
A most common misunderstanding of
Calvinism is that Calvin did not believe in
any form of free will. As stated earlier,
Calvin did in fact believe in a form of human
agency, as he details in Institutes Book 1
Chapter 15 Section 8.
I will prove that this is actually not true. In fact, you cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes…
So, there seems to be a theological confusion in Calvinism about what God does and doesn’t do. In my view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, not on the impulsive whims of a capricious deity. To “cause” is one thing; to “foreknow” is quite another.
Predestination
Predestination is, by definition, the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.
The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?
But if we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice. For example, John MacArthur argues that “the offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”
Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:
I will destine [or predestine] you to the
sword, and all of you shall bow down to the
slaughter, because, when I called, you did
not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes and
chose what I did not delight in.
It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).
The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:
For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in
him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):
Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe stands
condemned already because they have not
believed in the name of God’s one and only
Son.
Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the
world, but people loved darkness instead of
light because their deeds were evil.
Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless called: “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Why would God call them if he already knew that they wouldn’t be chosen? Would he be calling them out of spite? What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his soteriological invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV): “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” First John 2.2 reads:
And He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only but also for the
whole world.
In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says: “Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely [δωρεάν].” That doesn’t sound to me like a predestined election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all: “[he’s] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that god is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.
If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of
God our Savior, who desires everyone to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. For there is one God; there is also one
mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave
himself a ransom for all [ὑπὲρ πάντων].
So Christ “gave himself a ransom for all [not for some].” Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:
But there were also false prophets among
the people, even as there will be false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring
in destructive heresies, even denying the
Lord who bought them, and bring on
themselves swift destruction.
Prescience (Foreknowledge)
The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:
and was declared to be the Son of God in
power according to the Spirit of holiness by
his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ
our Lord.
But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate translation than “predestined”!
Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God already predestined some, but not others, before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.
Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This Arminian notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles’ heel of Calvinism!
The fact that God created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth, justice, and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man’s free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!
Quotations From Calvin’s Works
Excerpted from John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian religion,” Book 3, ch 23.
Calvin’s chief argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:
Accordingly, when we are accosted in such
terms as these, Why did God from the first
predestine some to death, when, as they
were not yet in existence, they could not
have merited sentence of death? let us by
way of reply ask in our turn, What do you
imagine that God owes to man, if he is
pleased to estimate him by his own nature?
As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but
be hateful to God, and that not from
tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.
But if all whom the Lord predestines to
death are naturally liable to sentence of
death, of what injustice, pray, do they
complain?
He continues his accusatory thought that even though god condemned people to hellfire long before they were born or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin callously says:
Should all the sons of Adam come to
dispute and contend with their Creator,
because by his eternal providence they
were before their birth doomed to perpetual
destruction, when God comes to reckon
with them, what will they be able to mutter
against this defense? If all are taken from a
corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are
subject to condemnation. Let them not,
therefore, charge God with injustice, if by
his eternal judgment they are doomed to a
death to which they themselves feel that
whether they will or not they are drawn
spontaneously by their own nature.
But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,
admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons
of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness
in which they are now involved; and this is
just what I said at the first, that we must
always return to the mere pleasure of the
divine will, the cause of which is hidden in
himself.
So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin insensitively asserts:
They again object, Were not men
predestinated by the ordination of God to
that corruption which is now held forth as
the cause of condemnation? If so, when
they perish in their corruptions they do
nothing else than suffer punishment for that
calamity, into which, by the predestination
of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his
posterity headlong with him. Is not he,
therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his
creatures? … For what more seems to be
said here than just that the power of God is
such as cannot be hindered, so that he can
do whatsoever he pleases?
Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.
God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so. So, is the god of Calvinism just?
Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Tim. 2.4; 2 Pet. 3.9; Ezek. 18.23; Mt. 23.37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.
However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:
If God merely foresaw human events, and
did not also arrange and dispose of them at
his pleasure, there might be room for
agitating the question, how far his
foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but
since he foresees the things which are to
happen, simply because he has decreed
that they are so to happen, it is vain to
debate about prescience, while it is clear
that all events take place by his sovereign
appointment.
So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion. And many Calvinists admit that God creates evil. Jim Brown of Truth & Grace Ministries is one of them.
Calvin Says that god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure
In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting? Calvin writes:
They deny that it is ever said in distinct
terms, God decreed that Adam should
perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who
is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he
pleases, could have made the noblest of his
creatures without any special purpose.
They say that, in accordance with free-will,
he was to be the architect of his own
fortune, that God had decreed nothing but
to treat him according to his desert. If this
frigid fiction is received, where will be the
omnipotence of God, by which, according to
his secret counsel on which every thing
depends, he rules over all?
Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard-determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:
it is impossible to deny that God foreknew
what the end of man was to be before he
made him, and foreknew, because he had
so ordained by his decree.
If this isn’t an evil doctrine, I don’t know what is. I’m not sure how much more blasphemous or heretical it can get. This is a far more dangerous doctrine than, say, that of the Snake handling Christian cults. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He further expounds his abominable view by writing:
God not only foresaw the fall of the
first man, and in him the ruin of his
posterity; but also at his own
pleasure arranged it.
Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil and the author of sin, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin continues:
Here they recur to the distinction between
will and permission, the object being to
prove that the wicked perish only by the
permission, but not by the will of God. But
why do we say that he permits, but just
because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any
probability in the thing itself–viz. that man
brought death upon himself merely by the
permission, and not by the ordination of
God; as if God had not determined what he
wished the condition of the chief of his
creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,
simply to confess with Augustine that the
will of God is necessity, and that every thing
is necessary which he has willed.
Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases. He goes on to say:
There is nothing inconsistent with this when
we say, that God, according to the good
pleasure of his will, without any regard to
merit, elects those whom he chooses for
sons, while he rejects and reprobates
others.
Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and severe criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:
Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to
charge God with dispensing justice
unequally, because in this predestination he
does not observe the same course towards
all. … he is free from every accusation; just
as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the
debt to one, and exact it of another.
Conclusion
Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).
The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.
Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!
This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!
Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid and robust criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!
Jonathan Edwards (who was of the Reformed tradition), in his treatise on The Freedom of the Will, wrote:
I do not deny that God is the Author
of Sin.
Therefore, in Calvinism, God has become Satan!
——-
A Response to Bill Mounce’s God's Gracious Gift of Suffering (Phil 1:29)
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Bill Mounce is a well-known scholar of New Testament Greek. He serves on the Committee for the NIV translation of the Bible, and has written a classic biblical Greek textbook, “Basics of Biblical Greek,” among other things. He blogs regularly on New Testament Greek at BillMounce.com.
Does God Give us the Grace to Suffer? Or the Grace to Endure Suffering?
Recently, I came across a piece of writing by Greek scholar Bill Mounce. In that paper, Mounce took issue with what “a popular preacher” was saying, namely, that “All suffering … is outside of God’s will.” Mounce shot back at the pastor for making an “absurdly non-biblical statement.” In calling him out, Mounce began to expound Phil 1.27–30. He writes:
Translations generally are not able to bring
out the nuances of this verse, nor the
awkward Greek. Paul begins, ‘for it has
been granted (ἐχαρίσθη) to you on behalf of
Christ.’ χαρίζομαι means ‘to give freely as a
favor, give graciously’ (BDAG). χαρίζομαι is
the cognate verb for the familiar noun,
χάρις, meaning ‘grace.’ The NLT translates,
‘you have been given ... the privilege.’ The
following are gracious gifts to Christians:
to believe in him (τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν),
and
to suffer for him (τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν).
The theology of the “popular pastor” denies
God’s gracious gift of suffering.
In other words, Mounce believes that our suffering——regardless of what form it takes——is actually a gracious gift from God. Thus, one can reasonably argue that if a person has cancer, or if he has lost all his limbs, as well as his eyesight or hearing, then this is a wonderful, gracious gift from God, and, therefore, the person should thank him for it! Not only does this view attribute the cause of all evil to God (cf. 1 John 1.5), but it also calls evil good (cf. Isaiah 5.20). Paradoxically, it is a glorification of suffering and evil. Mounce writes:
I have heard sermons on God’s gracious gift
of faith to his children; I have yet to hear a
sermon on God’s gracious gift of suffering.
That’s unfortunate, to understate it in the
extreme.
But just because we may have faced similar struggles with our fellow Christians, or we may have suffered for righteousness’ sake, doesn’t mean that these evils were deliberately sent our way. And just because suffering can test us, through which we may be purified, doesn’t mean that God himself is behind these temptations, orchestrating them, one by one. It would be far more accurate to call it God's "permissive will” in allowing suffering and evil to exist.
This idea is often misunderstood by other writers as well. For example, if the followers of Christ are said to experience the same sufferings that the Apostles in the New Testament experienced, then it means that they, too, have entered into the kingdom of God, renewed their minds, and shared in God’s consolation. In other words, the afflictions exist to frighten us from walking along the spiritual path (cf. Phil. 2.12). It doesn’t mean that these obstacles, temptations, and afflictions are ipso facto created by God. That’s what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 1.6-7:
If we are being afflicted, it is for your
consolation and salvation; if we are being
consoled, it is for your consolation, which
you experience when you patiently endure
the same sufferings that we are also
suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for
we know that as you share in our sufferings,
so also you share in our consolation.
Mounce then goes on to enumerate the various benefits that suffering brings to the followers of Christ. He says “Suffering binds us together,” “strengthens our faith,” purifies our faith, and so on. And he rightly says that “if we are not suffering, then we need to ask if we are living out our allegiance to Christ.” That is quite true. He correctly points out that suffering is “so essential that without it one’s salvation is in question.” But he confuses the *benefits* of suffering with the *causes* of suffering. He assumes that since suffering brings the Christian so many blessings, then it must be part of God’s plan. God must be behind all this. It must be part of his sovereign will. Mounce writes:
Not only is belief a gracious gift from God,
but so also is entering into suffering on his
behalf. To deny the reality and the gift of
suffering is to rip out half of God’s gracious
gifts to us that Paul is discussing.
Then he admits that he’s reformed in his theology. To show the importance and necessity of suffering, he quotes Paul who says that “we are children of God, … and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8.16-17 NRSV). I concur with Mounce that “Our glorification depends on our suffering,” and that our suffering depends upon our courage to follow Christ no matter what the cost may be. Mounce concludes:
Suffering for Christ as we live out our lives is
a gracious gift from God, confirming and
strengthening his gracious gift of faith to us.
As Fee writes (quoting Lightfoot), “suffering
should not surprise or overwhelm them; it is
rather evidence that ‘God looks upon you
with favor’” (171).
Anyone who teaches otherwise is teaching
false doctrine and is robbing God’s children
of the joyful benefits of suffering.
Conclusion
Bill Mounce is essentially saying that suffering itself “is a gracious gift from God.” It’s a sign of God’s love for you. He’s basically saying that God gives us the grace to suffer. But I think that Bill Mounce is wrong. By contrast, I hold that God gives us the grace to endure suffering. In other words, God doesn’t predestine suffering; he foreknows it, and therefore gives us the grace to overcome it. Otherwise, God would be accused of being the author of evil. Mounce interprets Philippians 1.28-29 as if it is saying that God *causes* us to suffer. However, I think it teaches that God gives us the grace to *endure* suffering.
Philippians 1.28-29 (Stephens 1550 Greek
text):
28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀντικειμένων ἥτις αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστὶν
ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας,
καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ,
29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ
μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ
τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν
My Translation (Philippians 1.28-29):
28 And don’t be terrified by anything with
regard to your adversaries, which to
them, on the one hand, is an indication
of perdition, but to you, on the other, of
salvation, and that of God.
29 Because unto you the grace has been
given concerning Christ, not only to
believe in him, but also to suffer for his
sake.
Biblical Greek Exegesis
The Greek text of Philippians chapter 1 verse 28 says σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ, meaning that salvation is by God alone. That is, it’s granted only by God; it’s a grace. Verse 29 says ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη, meaning, “to you the grace has been granted.” But what type of grace has God given us? The grace to suffer or the grace to endure suffering? The former view implies that God himself gives us the suffering. The latter position implies that God allows suffering, but gives us the ability to endure it. Being of the reform tradition, Mounce implies that God creates evil and thus brings suffering into our lives. However, this is not necessarily the only possible exegesis from the Greek. Verse 29 could also mean that God’s grace has been given to us not only to believe in Christ, but also to *endure* suffering for his sake!
For further details on the theological implications of Bill Mounce’s exegesis, read my paper:
Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists
——-
On the Subject of Susan
I'm going to be a little blunt and my words may seem antagonistic here. But no hate, please. I'm just trying to analyze and provide my analysis based on the very simple facts. Now.
I've never quite understood the anger at C. S. Lewis for how he ended Susan's tale. Mainly, I suppose, because I had the whole story.
Everyone gets angry that Susan is "banned from Narnia" because she likes lipstick and nylon stockings and being a teenage girl in the 1940s, but no one seems to understand that that's not quite how it went, much less that Susan still has a chance.
Let me work backwards a moment and explain the latter. You see, to quote Lewis himself, in a letter to a girl called Marcela in 1955,
"...Haven’t you noticed in the two you have read that she is rather fond of being too grownup? I am sorry to say that side of her got stronger and she forgot about Narnia... ...She is left alive in this world at the end, having been turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman. But there is plenty of time for her to mend, and perhaps she will get to Aslan’s country in the end—in her own way. I think that whatever she had seen in Narnia she could (if she was the sort that wanted to) persuade herself, as she grew up, that it was ‘all nonsense’”
Now, there's a lot to unpack here, but first and foremost, my point is quite simple. "Perhaps she will get to Aslan's country in the end-in her own way." It was always meant to be open ended, for Susan. Narnia is not forever closed to her, unless you and she choose so.
"But Peace!" I can hear you saying, "There's that whole 'too fond of being grownup' phrase!" Why yes, yes there is, how clever of you to notice. The whole point of the latter portion of Susan's arc is that she chose that- lipstick and nylons and "being grownup"- over Narnia. She grew and she chose to forget Narnia.
After all, what sort of modern teenage girl (in England, during WW2) would be so interested in medieval times and what they probably explained to their friends to be a good old game of pretend? No, no, she can't remember Narnia right now - she's going to the cinema with a few girl friends, she's going to a party, she's focusing on everything but there and inevitably, after pushing it away for so long, Narnia let her be.
You see, C. S. Lewis was a very Arminian (and yes, I spelled it correctly) Christian theologian. And while I'm sure most of you here on this hellsite would like to ignore that, it is relevant to how Lewis wrote his fiction. After all, it's at the core of his basic beliefs, despite his being a staunch atheist in college and into his adulthood, and despite what you may like to think, it crept into his writing even when he did not intend it. For example, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is called an allegory for the story of the Resurrection, despite Lewis' arguments to the contrary. He insisted that it be seen as what it is, very heavy symbolism. Very heavily used Christian symbolism, that is all over the Chronicles whether you like it or not.
Let me explain why this is relevant to Susan, what Arminianism even is, and how that term applies here. Susan is, so to speak, a symbol of an atheist left behind, after all of the Christians she called family died. In a situation where you regard Christianity as true, she is left on Earth while they have gone on to heaven. And this doesn't mean that the gates of heaven are closed to her, quite to the contrary! They would be closed on the day she died insisting that Jesus Christ was not Lord, plain and simple. She has a choice to make, so long as she is alive.
Now, to Calvinist theologians and Christians, Susan never had a choice. Either Aslan, the God symbol here, chose to bring her in, or he didn't. Calvinists believe in a thing called predestination, the concept that every believer that would ever be brought to heaven is chosen specifically by God. Arminianism declares the opposite. It's a whole thing in Christian theological circles, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. In any case, the core of Arminianism is that you and I have a choice in whether or not we believe in God, and in whether or not we go to heaven.
To an Arminian theologian, God, or Aslan in this symbolic case, can influence our choice, Susan's choice, up to a point. Once we reach that point, once Susan forgets, God, or Aslan, steps back. He accepts our choice, allows Susan to forget. It's up to us, up to Susan after that.
Lewis was an Arminian theologian. He made the point, repeatedly, in his theological works, about people having a choice.
He repeats that point with Susan.
One last thing, before you go. You see, there was another letter about Susan, after The Last Battle was released. He'd been asked if he ever intended to finish Susan's story.
This was his answer.
“I could not write that story myself. Not that I have no hope of Susan’s ever getting to Aslan’s country; but because I have a feeling that the story of her journey would be longer and more like a grown-up novel than I wanted to write. But I may be mistaken. Why not try it yourself?”
Well, my people? Now that you've heard what I had to say (and say through quite the essay, my apologies), why not? Go, do what you do and tell her story for yourself. The author has encouraged fanfiction, so go on! And don't worry about Christianity and symbolism too much. It may help you understand how and why Lewis wrote what he did, but unless you're determined to have your tale in his style and overlapping seamlessly with canon, it's unnecessary. Unless you choose to make it a part of your life, you don't have to be concerned about it.
Feel free to ask questions, and I'll answer to the best of my ability, with Google by my side!
Also, I nearly forgot. There are absolutely other problems with Susan being the last of her family, left alone in the aftermath of WW2. This is not the place to talk about those, however, merely to help you understand why she "is no longer a friend of Narnia" and to remind you that there's always hope.
Oh, and besides that, don't forget that I'm talking about the books and not the movies thank you very much, while The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was absolutely perfect to canon the other two were not and I'm not going to consider them in this post. I do appreciate them, but when dealing with book canon they're both nos.
I’m imagining a statement or something that deals with the Arminianism/Calvinism struggle over free will and whether that’s possible with the Christian God, THEN connect that to the Web. Perhaps a Calvinist preacher/web avatar manipulating people through the concept of predestination, using the fear of “not being chosen by God” and being helpless in your salvation? Or maybe an Arminianist (not a word i know) theologian so wrapped up with the concept of free will and the terror of not being able to choose anything in your life, that he loses it? Just some ideas :]