# How do you reply to Arminians.....



## rookie (Jun 21, 2011)

I was having a conversation with a dear friend (although he's Arminian), and the topic got on election, and depravity and the rest.

I then mentioned that I was a firm believer in the reformed perspective of the scriptures. 

He then replied, "If Jesus calls someone to repentance, and they don't have the ability, that makes Jesus a hypocrite, because He knows they don't have the ability"

I was so shocked in that response, I was mute. Then other people came in the office and I couldn't respond. 

Anyone have any ideas how to respond to this?


----------



## Poimen (Jun 21, 2011)

Jesus calls us to do what we must; not what we are able. Only if Jesus said that we were able and we couldn't than this could be construed as a fabrication.

The Arminian focuses on the ability; the calvinist focuses on the command. But either cannot be satisfied in their theology by a reference to something that is lying on the surface. We must look to other scriptures to see if our doctrine of man's ability or non-ability is true. When we do, we see that man cannot do what God commands. Indeed, Jesus pointed us to what is necessary; when we realize that what is necessary is also impossible, then we turn to God who can do the impossible (Matthew 19:26). 

As Luther responded to this objection (to Erasmus in "The Bondage of the Will"):



> a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavors, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only





> …human reason, which thinks, that a man is mocked by a command impossible: whereas I say, that the man, by this means, is admonished and roused to see his own impotency


----------



## athanatos (Jun 22, 2011)

rookie said:


> He then replied, "If Jesus calls someone to repentance, and they don't have the ability, that makes Jesus a hypocrite, because He knows they don't have the ability"


I don't get how that would make Jesus a hypocrite. I would echo what the two above me said, but I would like to emphasize that there is no hypocrisy inherent in the statement. Perhaps he doesn't know how to articulate his _real_ beef with the doctrine? (Probably exactly what the above posters are responding to) If he doesn't know how to articulate it, it may be difficult but there needs to be an unpacking of exactly what the hang-up is. Is it that God is unfair? Or is it that a just God would not demand something like this? Or that if we are "incapable", we should be let off the hook? (and, then, what we mean by "incapable" will need to be unpacked too)


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jun 22, 2011)

One of the things I have noted in Scripture is that God often commands us to do things we are not capable of doing since we are sinful. For example, 1 Peter 1:16 says "Be holy, because I am holy". In this passage we note that God demands a standard of holiness that we are not able to keep. We are required to be holy because God's character can demand no less, but we are not able to do so because we are sinful people (that is why we need to be covered with the righteousness and holiness of Christ). In the same way, God commands us to repent because His standard can demand no less, but that doesn't mean we are able to repent, unless God grants us the grace to do so. This doesn't make God inconsistent, it just shows that we are not able to meet God's standards without His grace.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 22, 2011)

Buy Iain Murray's little book: Spurgeon versus Hypercalvinism ,and start reading around page 80, the part on man's responsibility. That section has helped a lot of struggling Arminians.....and it is possible that you might be a bit off yourself in the hyper direction, I don't know. Excellent book.


----------



## rookie (Jun 23, 2011)

I have been listening to Paul Washer, John Piper, MacArthur, Voddie Baucham and as of lately, enjoying Brian Borgman. You might class me as a hyper, however, I see that we are to spread the gospel throughout the world, as this is how God calls His elect to salvation.

And I see the doctrine of grace (all 5 points), but when talking to an Arminian, I was so shocked that he can see Christ being a hypocrite in this manner. BTW, it's not the first time he has been caught saying heresies, even in front of the congregation, and no one has pulled him aside, since he's one of the elder's son in law.

Which is the reason my wife and I left that church.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 23, 2011)

> *rookie*
> You might class me as a hyper, however, I see that we are to spread the gospel throughout the world,



That's not "hyper."

What is often meant by that is that there is no point in preaching the gospel or discipling according to the Word, so what you describe it not that. Since we are commanded to teach and preach, and even the church visible has unbelievers- that is not even biblical, let alone reformed.

Often, that term is used by people who do not understand the "five points" and how they work.


----------



## Redness (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, you will find that most Arminians will find the truth about salvation repugnant. Even though I usually start at the nature of man (totally depravity), they will usually reject it. They won't worship THAT God. He holds no beauty for them. God must be "fair" and man must be "free."

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Btw, Piper shouldn't be considered a "hyper-Calvinist," but more of a moderate "Calvinist." I've read where he both affirms and denies limited atonement, posits a two-fold will of God to save and condemn the reprobate. This means he falls more in-line with the Common Gracers/Amyraldians, who make my head spin when I hear them preach.


----------



## rookie (Jun 27, 2011)

I have noticed as of lately, that his theology is slipping. I pray he doesn't turn into a Billy Graham.....


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 27, 2011)

I would also reply with the flipside to his argument; If the death of Jesus was meant to be an atonment for the sins of all men, then apparently it was not sufficient because not all men will be saved. The only way to get around this is to affirm universalism, and few Christians would do this.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 28, 2011)

A weak illustration, that I like, goes like this. The gospel call proclaimed is like a radio signal. It is only heard by those who have been given a receiver tuned to that frequency. The radio waves pass by and through others unrecognized.


----------

