Rain was not superficial, but absolutely necessary for farming and sustenance. So if God would be so moved by their earthly needs, why would He be less interested in their eternal needs?
Calvinist, James White, writes: “Surely it is part of modern evangelical tradition to say, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ but providing a meaningful biblical basis for this assertion is significantly more difficult.” (Debating Calvinism, p.265, emphasis mine)
White adds: “Everyone knows John 3:16, and that’s the problem. So many are familiar with the verse that very few stop to consider the traditions that have been packed very carefully into its constant and often acontextual citation.” (Debating Calvinism, p.376, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Jay Adams, cautions: “As a Reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died. But the counselor’s task is to explain the gospel and to say very plainly that God commands all men to repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ.” (Competent to Counsel, p.70, emphasis mine)
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians explains: “I agree with this idea that you are proposing of focusing on the doctrines of the goodness of God. One of the key things that I have constantly pushed in my discussions with Calvinists is that Arminians center their theological distinctives on the righteousness of God, whereas Calvinists center their distinctives on God’s sovereignty. It is not that one precludes the other, but that the center of discussion will ultimately be revealed as one or the other. I believe this is one of the reasons why Calvinists ultimately gravitate to Romans 9:20 when challenged about how their doctrine depicts God’s righteousness. Their interpretation of that verse has provided an escape for them by their implicit suggestion that we are not allowed to examine the righteousness of God in salvation. We must just accept it. Arminians (and other non-Calvinists) begin at the goodness/righteousness of God and move outward from there.” (SEA, emphasis mine) I believe that an emphasis on the goodness of God, will have a net effect upon Calvinists as charging back with Universalism, even though neither party advocates it, as both parties fully agree that God is too good not to punish wickedness. So any such response would be more of a knee-jerk reaction. Again, as emphasized by Michael Brown, Arminians are not suggesting that Calvinists reject the goodness of God, but rather that their theology of Preterition invariably degrades it, especially when you view it in light of the casual indifference of the pass-by theology of the priest and the Levite of Luke 10:30-31.
Arminian, Roger Olson, writes: “True glory, the best glory, the right glory, worthy of worship and honor and devotion, necessarily includes goodness. Power without goodness is not truly glorious, even if it is called that. What makes someone or something worthy of veneration is not sheer might, but goodness. Who is more worthy of imitation and even veneration: Mother Teresa or Adolph Hitler? The latter conquered most of Europe. The former had little power outside of her example, and yet most people would say that Mother Teresa was more glorious than Adolph Hitler. God is glorious because He is both great and good, and His goodness, like His greatness, must have some resonance with our best and highest notions of goodness, or else it is meaningless. All that is to say that Arminianism’s critics are the proverbial people casting stones while living in glass houses. They talk endlessly about God’s glory, and about God-centeredness, while sucking the goodness out of God, and thus divesting Him of real glory. Their theology may be God-centered, but the God at its center is unworthy of being at the center. Better a man-centered theology, than one that revolves around a Being hardly distinguishable from the devil. In spite of objections to the contrary, I will argue that classical Arminian theology is just as God-centered as Calvinism, if not more so, that God at its center, whose glory, to the contrary of critic’s claims, is the chief end or purpose of everything, is not morally ambiguous, which is the main point of Arminianism.” (Roger Olson: What is God Centered Theology?, 8:06-10:05)
Roger Olson adds: “According to Arminius, Calvinism implies that God really sins, because according to that doctrine, He moves to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to His own purpose and primary intention, without having received any previous inducement to such an act from any preceding sin or demerit in man. Also, from the same position, we might also infer that God is the only sinner, Arminius said. For man, who is impelled by an irresistible force to commit sin, that is, to perpetrate some deed that is prohibited, cannot be said to sin himself. Finally, Arminius said, as a legitimate consequence, it also follows that sin is not sin, since whatever that be, which God does, it neither can be sin, nor ought any of His acts to receive that appellation.” (Roger Olson: What is God Centered Theology?, 11:15-12:05)