Introduction

Providence is defined as divine guidance or care.1 Providence, just as Trinity, are not

words one find in the Bible. However, the doctrine and theology of both are seen in Scripture.

One could see providence in scriptures such as, “he who gives food to all flesh, for his steadfast

love endures forever.” (Psalm 136:25)2 or “You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow

between the hills.” (Psalm 104:10)3 Providence is a word that brings to mind the phrase

“invisible hand” that Adam Smith coined in his book. “Almost certainly, then, readers

encountered the phrase in Smith, they would have understood it as referring to God’s unseen

agency in political economy.”4 It is the intended purpose to look at how God works in guiding

and caring for his creation through his providence. The debatable sides that will be examined are

the broader views of Calvinism and Arminianism.

It is important to note that not every aspect can or will be covered. The debates between

Calvinism and Arminianism alone can consume most libraries coupled with the providence

debate it could be considered an endless torrent of points and rebuttals. Providence itself is seen

in three aspects. This paper will focus upon aspect one as defined by Parker “The creation is the

stage on which are enacted God’s dealing with humankind.”5 It will be seen that no matter what

1 "Providence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/providence (accessed July 5, 2011).

2All Scripture references will be taken from the ESV. 3 Parker, T. H. L., and Walter A. Elwell. "Providence of God." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 964-

965. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001, 964.4 Harrison, Peter. 2011. "Adam Smith and the History of the Invisible Hand." Journal of the History of

Ideas 72, no. 1: 29-49. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost (accessed July 5, 2011), 31.5 Parker, T. H. L., and Walter A. Elwell. "Providence of God." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 964-

965. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001, 965.

2

view one holds to, it will be known that God has providential influence upon all things because

all things are purposed for his will whether one believes in total predestination or free will.

Calvinism

It would only be fair to start with describing Calvinism briefly. A theological system is

based off Scripture alone, Calvin said to be a strict biblical theologian did not sway from the

Scriptures.6 Calvinism can be summed into five points, which form the acrostic T.U.L.I.P. The

acrostic stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace,

and perseverance of the saints. When one starts to speak on providence, it could be confused

with a Calvinistic predestination approach. Reid states that:

To Calvin and his followers it is also important to realize that the Triune God did not turn away from creation after it was formed, but continues to sustain and maintain its existence and operation. The physical laws that govern the material universe are the result of the continual work and action of the Holy Spirit.7

Calvinism gives the best understanding of providence. It is clearly seen that in the mind

of Calvinist, that God is the force that is cause and effect in the happenings of humankind. It

would be careless as a Christian not to see the hand of God at work in all lives, however,

Calvinist see the hand of God working specifically for the predestined and his will. Calvinism

goes into great depths to get across the understanding that God’s providence is one of the

securing theologies toward the doctrine of eternal security. If salvation was not secure could one

give God the attribute of providence at his station? Being that God is perfect, all knowing, all

loving he is the one that will guide and lead his people into a right relationship. Although,

Calvinist take it a step farther in assigning that God has called specific people to be chosen for

his grace. Calvinist say that every event is predestined according to God’s will, not concerning

6 Reid, W. S. , and Walter A. Elwell. "Calvinism." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 201-203. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic , 2001, 201

7 Ibid, 202.

3

themselves with the idea of free will, even at the expense of turning God into an unloving, selfish

God. Lutzer states, “The reason for the divine choice is inscrutable, but the choice is not

arbitrary. Did God predestinate the Fall? The answer is yes; Calvin called this the dreadful

decree.”8 Calvinists seem to discredit the love that God is supposed to have by applying that

nothing a human does matters. In the eyes of a Calvinist and their acrostic T.U.L.I.P. one could

essentially lie around and do nothing to enter Heaven because if God has chosen a person for

salvation then he or she could not resist his grace. God’s providence, if seen as a Calvinist almost

becomes a true master-slave relationship, which again starts to deny God’s love that Scripture

teaches. As every other event in the history of the world and the events yet to happen, God has

willed it so it will be done.

No Christian could deny that God’s will is what all should strive to achieve, but it should

be done out of a freedom of choice. However, the Calvinist will strongly protest that God’s

providence is what carries his will not the free choices of those who have chosen to follow him.

Robinson correlates Calvin’s metaphysics of God toward humankind as how the body works

together for one purpose while being composed of different parts. “His view of our physicality in

turn is important because it is consistent with that relational metaphysics of his that sees all being

under the aspect of divine Providence, that is, the constant providential attention of God toward

humankind.”9 If people are to accept that one has no choice in any matter of life, it brings back

the theory of apathy for people. If people are doomed to hell with no choice to believe, what does

that say about this God of love?

Calvinism does point that God is the “Omni” God that Scripture claims him to be,

however, by placing everything that takes place as a predestined event; we allow the heretical 8 Lutzer, Erwin W. The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate

Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998, 178.9 Robinson, Marilynne. 2009. "Calvinism as Metaphysics." Toronto Journal of Theology 25, no. 2: 175-

186. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011), 182.

4

doctrines room to grow. Calvinism takes the loving Father and the sacrificed Son out of the

salvation equation. Yes, they recognized the price was paid by Jesus but if all are chosen and

predestined, the Father could have just place those people on Earth and showed a much greater

love than what Calvinism has portrayed through their five points. It is hard to fight Calvinism

from a perspective and hold God to be almighty. They arguments of Calvinists place a sound

doctrine on giving God all the glory.

Calvinism in the area of God’s providence stands firmly rooted in predestinated things.

When debating providence Calvinist seem to have an upper hand. It is hard to argue providence

absent of some sort of backing from the idea of predestination. Calvinists seem to hold to this

extreme view out of fear of not giving God the proper position and status of power and

knowledge. Calvinism is a far right theology on providence. Arminianism, which would be the

opposition to Calvinism, would be considered far left until the late twentieth century because of

the new position of Open Theism. Now one sees Open Theism to be the far left while

Arminianism takes a middle ground approach.10

Arminianism

As in the preceding section, it will be important to discuss the basics of what

Arminianism consists. Arminianism, as its counterpart Calvinism, rest that Scripture alone is the

source of authority.11 It makes one think how two very different theologies both can say that they

are based off Scripture alone. Though there are similarities between the two, the differences are

what set them miles apart. Just as there are five points to Calvinism so there is in Arminianism as

10 Smith, Jay T. 2008. "The storms of providence: navigating the waters of Calvinism, Arminianism, and open theism." Perspectives in Religious Studies 35, no. 3: 336-338. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011), 336-337.

11 Grider, J. K. , and Walter A. Elwell. "Arminianism." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 97-98. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic , 2001, 97.

5

well. The five points are a little more detailed than Calvinism since there is no simple acrostic to

follow. The five points are:

1. God decreed all to who believe and persevere in the faith; all others are left in sin and damnation.

2. Christ died for all men, “so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.”

3. Man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will “inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, or do anything that is truly good…but that he be born again of God in Christ.”

4. Without the operation of grace, man cannot do anything good, but grace is not irresistible since men have resisted the Holy Spirit.

5. Believers partake of eternal life and have power to strive against Satan. However, whether they can fall away and be lost is a matter “ that must be more particularly determined out of Holy Scripture before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.”12

In understanding the layout of Arminianism, God’s providence is not this overarching

idea of an “invisible hand” that controls all without regard to human free will. In the

Arminianism argument present by Boyd and Eddy, “Finally, we have see that God’s Spirit works

in hearts to bring people to the point of freely entering into a relationship with Christ. We must

also say that God Works in people’s heats to keep them in this relationship with Christ.”13 In

direct opposition to Calvinism, people see God still with all the power and that humans are still

inefficient in providing salvation for themselves. However, this care and guidance in providence

one can see here in Arminianism is God as a guiding counselor to lead all those who will believe

to him. Contrasting itself to Calvinism, the providence of God for the Arminian sect is God

Almighty in a providential guidance.

12 Lutzer, Erwin W. The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998, 178.

13 Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in EvangelicalTheology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009, 156.

6

Arminianism opens the door for humans to be responsible for the sin debt one has

acquired. Calvinism seems to layout that all the sin that a human carries is simply through the

providence of God, namely that God has predestined all things so humans can feel themselves

absolved of any responsibility to that sin, since they have no choice in whether they are saved or

damned. Arminianism applies that humans must recognize their sin and chooses to take

responsibility of that sin. Smith relays, “Contrary to the Calvinist position, Richardson finds that

a ‘tailored Arminian’ position avoids a problematic theological determinism and gives a better

explanation as to why humans are responsible for heir transgressions.”14 This does not diminish

the power of God because it is through his providence that one is led to Christ. At no point does

the Arminian perspective give humans credit for their salvation; however, they do credit people

with their continual salvation. They cross this line where Calvinists do not. Arminians believe

that you can lose your salvation, in which denies God’s providence. This is where such a good

stance against a sketchy theology takes a complete 180-degree turn.

The defeat of any theological system is always the falling too far into one extreme.

Arminianism, as Calvinism, could not truly find the middle ground, even though Open Theism

has placed it solely in the middle. However, Arminianism does not intend to diminish the power

of God, as seen by Picirilli’s response to Open Theism, “To be sure, God has no origin in, and is

not contained by, the time and space continuum. But he created human beings and placed them

in such a framework.”15 God’s providence on his creation is limited by the finite understanding

of man once again which leads to the conclusion that his mystery will always keeps man seeking

answers that he may never find this side of glory.

14 Smith, Jay T. 2008. "The storms of providence: navigating the waters of Calvinism, Arminianism, and open theism." Perspectives in Religious Studies 35, no. 3: 336-338. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011), 337.

15 Picirilli, Robert E. 2001. "An Arminian response to John Sanders's The God who risks: a theology of providence." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 3: 467-491. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011), 469.

7

Conclusion

In retrospect, if one could take the best of both views one might come close to

understanding the true providence of God. Calvinists and Arminians both seem to have the right

mindset that God is the all powerful, all knowing, all loving God. They both are set that Scripture

is the sole authority and that without God there is no salvation. Humans are totally deprived and

in no way can they can build their own path to God. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

Calvinism denies the love that correlates God as a loving Father. Arminians, on the other hand,

take away the continual providence of God by leaving the security of a believer’s salvation up to

one’s self. In everyday life, these two in themselves cannot explain God’s providence without

some major obstacles to overcome like the “problem of evil,” “free will,” “doctrine of eternal

security,” and “doctrine of assurance.” One could not honestly formulate a position on the

providence debate by just examining these two theological concepts. Even if one would add into

the mix Open Theism, one would still be outside the box. A person who could come to Scripture

free of presuppositions could possibly understand this debate without the added confusion of

filtering out the heresies of the world. This is one of the few debates that need to be considered

valid; it affects the lost, the ones who are in the moment of salvation, those who are saved

learning to be a disciple, those who look to God for all their decisions, it literally affects every

single person’s life and philosophy. What one believes of God’s providence will shape his or her

life towards God. To sum up how the author understands this debate is best seen by the words of

Richard Miller;

The only adequate response to this question will be given, as Guardini’s statement implies, when the human person is in the immediate presence of God in the beatific vision. Yet in the vision of God, God cannot be comprehended. Even though the human being in the beatific vision is united to God in immediacy, God remains incomprehensible because the human being continues to be finite. The creature does not become the

8

infinite God. As such the creature in union with God will know God, but will not know as God knows. The creature will not know infinitely.16

16 MILLER, RICHARD W. 2009. "THE MYSTERY OF GOD AND THE SUFFERING OF HUMAN BEINGS." The Heythrop Journal 50, no. 5: 846-863. E-Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011), 846.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in EvangelicalTheology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009.

Harrison, Peter. 2011. "Adam Smith and the History of the Invisible Hand." Journal of theHistory of Ideas 72, no. 1: 29-49. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost (accessed July 5, 2011).

Grider, J. K. , and Walter A. Elwell. "Arminianism." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 9798. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic , 2001.

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

MILLER, RICHARD W. 2009. "THE MYSTERY OF GOD AND THE SUFFERING OFHUMAN BEINGS." The Heythrop Journal 50, no. 5: 846-863. E-Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011).

Parker, T. H. L., and Walter A. Elwell. "Providence of God." In Evangelical Dictionary ofTheology, 964-965. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Picirilli, Robert E. 2001. "An Arminian response to John Sanders's The God who risks: atheology of providence." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 3: 467-491. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011).

"Providence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary andThesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/providence (accessed July 5, 2011).

Reid, W. S. , and Walter A. Elwell. "Calvinism." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 201-203. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic , 2001.

Robinson, Marilynne. 2009. "Calvinism as Metaphysics." Toronto Journal of Theology 25, no. 2:175-186. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011).

Smith, Jay T. 2008. "The storms of providence: navigating the waters of Calvinism,Arminianism, and open theism." Perspectives in Religious Studies 35, no. 3: 336-338. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 6, 2011).