conclusions

both arminian and calvinist theology lead to difficult conclusions.  calvinism leads to the troublesome notion of determinism, and we must accept that God desires all the painful, heinous, horrifying tragedies that befall our world. how can we accept that God reigns absolutely in the hearts of men and also in the calamities of the natural world, and believe that he is somehow good, kind, and righteous when he allows and sovereignly desires these terrible things to happen? on the other hand, arminian theology leads to the horrible conclusion that God does not control his world, and that everything that happens is outside his control, and that we live in a universe where men affect our destiny and maybe possibly God will bring good out of it, and even if he does, it is not the perfect good that he originally intends. if God does not absolutely rule in the hearts of men and the events of the universe, how can we trust him to bring his will to pass or to keep his promises to us? if he works his will around the will of men, if he yields his desires to the desires of men, if the holy God of the universe submits to the selfish whims of corrupt men, how can he be God?

besides the anti-biblical notions of arminianism, we must face these questions if we want to believe that men have free will. while calvinism leads to difficult problems with the nature of God--his kindness and goodness--arminianism creates problems of a different nature. arminianism questions God's sovereignty, his power, his ability to guide his people and secure their eternal blessing. we may view the question as a choice between God's sovereignty and man's. who do we trust? who do we believe in? do we believe that men can be trusted with our eternal destiny or do we believe that God causes all things to work together for the good of those he loves because he causes all things? do we trust him despite evidence to the contrary: the exclusion of the reprobate from salvation, the calamity that comes upon both believer and unbeliever alike?