Roger Olson is a leading Armenian theologian who teaches at Baylor University. He is articulate, and his blog at patheos helps understand the critical differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. As a Latter-day Saint, I have found quite a bit of benefit in understanding these two historical views on Christianity to understand from whom we claimed our truth (See Brigham Young). In 2011, he and Michael Horton (a devout Calvinist) conversed about their key doctrinal differences. In the short video below, we can hear the differences on their views of sin. In listening to their differences, I hope we can understand our Latter-day Saint views on sin with more clarity.

The dialogue

In part 1 of their discussion, they start with sin. Roger says, ‘If I believe God has a purpose for sin, then I would have to think God is a monster.’ They then chat back and forth, and Roger says, ‘He can even bring sin into line with a purpose and will. That doesn’t mean it has, intrinsically, a purpose.’ Roger’s argument persuades me.

At about 1:20, Micheal Horton does push him pretty hard on a few examples from the bible where God uses other’s sins (the brothers of Joseph) to bring his plan to fruition. Since Arminianism supports a future omniscient God, Roger does have to do a little wordsmithing. Michael asks, ‘If he had a purpose in allowing it, I just don’t understand how that relieves the Arminians, anymore, of God’s involvement.’ I think that Roger doesn’t answer Michael’s question.

Roger then carefully explains God and sin when he says, ‘sin and evil have no purpose. But God, in his good purpose, can work good out of them. and ‘He has a purpose for what he will do with [sin], but [sin] is not part of his plan.’ They then discuss Romans 8:28 and arrive at a general agreement on God’s compassionate work with His children.

At the end of the clip, Roger responds to the hypothetical of a person dying of cancer, ‘Give it up to God; God can bring something good out of it. But, God didn’t plan your cancer.’

Romans 8:28

Romans 8:28 provides the ‘all things’ verse that lets Calvinists and Arminians pick and choose an interpretation. As you saw in the above discussion, the phrase `work together’ also requires some interpretation. I do like the NIV translation, but I can see how this could be open to interpretation. Adam Miller’s translation of Romans uses the word ’transfigure’ in verse 28. Miller’s translation helps us see the Armenian view stand on its own in the interpretation/translation of Paul’s words.

• King James: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
• New International Version: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
• Miller Translation: God can transfigure all things for the good of those who love him. He’s been working on this for a long time. From the beginning, God wanted a big family.

Discerning truths

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. [Brigham Young]

Listening to these discussions can help Latter-day Saints clarify their beliefs on God’s involvement in our lives. We often embrace reasonings on truths from different historical perspectives without realizing the contradictions in those perspectives. Like Arminians, LDS want free will or agency to be what creates sin, not God. However, we often quote the Calvinist line that a sin/mistake was part of God’s plan. For example, when an accidental death occurs, we say that God called His child back for work in Heaven.

Maybe, Latter-day Saints don’t think carefully enough about God’s plan and our lives. Or, we aren’t careful about our wording when we talk. Either way, I hope that we recognize the difference between the two presented views of God and sin. I don’t think both can be possible. I hope that we select the ‘sound doctrine’ that Brigham references above.

Does God have a purpose for sin?

I believe that God’s love and power can transfigure my sins for the good of Zion. He understood and understands the possibility of corruption and has power to help us overcome evil. I don’t believe that God planned our sins (Calvinist) or even knew from all eternity what sins each of us would commit (Arminianism). I believe He created an earth and plan that would result in the committal of sin as we learn to be like Him. He is prepared for our freely chosen failures, and he can transfigure our lives into a life with Him and as He is.

Quote highlights from Roger Olson

• If I believe God has a purpose for sin, then I would have to think that God is a monster.

• He can even bring sin into line with a purpose and will. That doesn’t mean it has, intrinsically, a purpose.

• He has a purpose for what he will do with [sin], but [sin] is not part of his plan

• sin and evil have no purpose. But God, in his good purpose, can work good out of them.

• The mystery of foreknowledge. For Armenians, God created this world and saw what would happen and that he could bring good out of it.

• In Calvinism, it seems to me, nothing can really be evil because everything is foreordained by God for his glory.

• God can work this out for good if you let him.

• Give it up to God; God can bring something good out of it. But, God didn’t plan your cancer.

• principles
• sin