# Arminianism refutation



## monoergon (Oct 27, 2012)

Greetings. I am new to reformed theology and I am currently writing a refutation to a series of arminian arguments. 
I came about this one argument and need some assistance in writing a refutation to it. It is originally from a brazilian arminian author. 
This is the argument (http://www.jesusvoltara.com.br/ados/pag11.htm) :

"1 Cor. 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
My brethren, the doctrine of predestination means that no one needs to repent because everyone's case[or lives] is already pre-established. Then why did Paul, full of the Holy Spirit, proclaim that all shall[or must] repent? Also, do you think that it is an unnecessary worry of Paul to tell them to `take heed` so they would not fall in their spiritual lives if the destiny of all is already traced[or established]?" 

Any help will be appreciated.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 27, 2012)

Hi Nathan!  What a great project - refuting Arminianism. I would love to see your arguments when you're done. What an edifying and worthwhile work!

Oh no! That link was... Spanish? Portugese? Couldn't read it... 

But my take: The doctrine of predestination does not mean that no one needs to repent. That's like claiming that since we are predestined, Christ didn't need to come die on a cross for us. Not at all. God chooses a means with which He carries out his foreordained purposes.

The doctrine of predestination means that the things necessary to bring one to salvation will happen because they are ordained. It means those who are elect WILL repent. So all will and must repent. But NOT IN ORDER TO EARN salvation. Or repentance would be a conditional work. So it's not an "IF you repent, God will forgive you." It's a "because God HAS ALREADY forgiven you, you will repent and still be forgiven (because it's unconditional) and will be forgiven (after we die and take hold of the fullness of our salvation). Reformed theology teaches an "Already and not yet" explaination that means "we were forgiven when Christ died on the cross, we are forgiven NOW, and we will be forgiven in the next life". Just as we were saved on the cross, are saved now, and will receive the fullness of our salvation later. Just as our sanctification was purchased for us on the cross, so we are sanctified now (though not fully, thus the "already and not yet fully" view), and we will be fully sanctified in the future (glorified). In all these cases, it was done (past tense) on the cross, is given to us now in a sense but not fully (present tense), and will later be given to us in its fullness (future tense). This "Already and not yet" view applies all over the bible - in salvation, sanctification, the kingdom of God, etc.

Paul's encouragement to "take heed" spurs the believer to continue the race. Just like when you hear of brothers or sisters in Christ "falling away from the faith" and this proves they were never saved. This serves as a warning for us to continue in the faith. God ordains these warnings to keep us persevering in the faith to the end. It's like He's giving you road signs to keep you on the straight and narrow path and even these road signs are ordained.

But the part that Arminians seem to miss is that there is NO EARNING anything. Just like it says “Blessed are those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy”. It does NOT mean, "IF you show mercy to others, that you will EARN mercy for yourself and therefore earn your own salvation." It means, "Blessed are those who God made into merciful people (the elect), for they "are already and yet not yet shown the fullness of that mercy" and so they SHALL receive more mercy in passing to the next life. (You can listen to John Piper's sermon on the Beatitudes for a deeper understanding).


----------



## monoergon (Oct 27, 2012)

Hey Jackie, I have some more questions concerning salvation. If you are able to help me, I'll appreciate it. 

How should I explain and refute the argument that God predestines and elects because he foresees (arminian foreknowledge argument)? 

Furthermore, on John 6:44 my cousin keeps on saying it does not apply to gentiles, but to the jewish people because according to the context, Jesus was saying that to jews.


----------



## Theogenes (Oct 27, 2012)

Nathan,
The Canons of Dort are an excellent refutation of Arminianism...


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 27, 2012)

For John 6:44, this old thread may be a good start.

For Arminian foreknowledge, I like to meet it on all the various grounds that it covers, but it all depends on what you are interested in doing. Philosophically, such foreknowledge accomplishes nothing, since humans are then left to chance or determinism and in both cases meaninglessness when (at the very least) evil things occur (but this answer will vary depending on how the foreknowledge argument is put). Scripturally, I like to point out that saying that "God elects because He forsees" is reading into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself (e.g., Romans 8 or Ephesians 1) or proves too much (e.g., Romans 8), and indeed, the text gives a reason why God elects and it is not foreknowledge (but rather the good pleasure of His will, Ephesians 1, because He will have mercy on whom He will, Romans 9). Theologically, such foreknowledge makes God's decisions dependent on the creature's decisions; such foreknowledge is "postdestination"; and such human decisions are impossible anyway given total depravity (that is, such decisions will never be made by humans in their natural state, as various Scripture passages supporting total deprativty show); and such decisions could give humans something to boast about in their salvation, since something had to cause them and not their neighbour to make such a decision.

Perhaps someone else can help you in more detail and/or give you a better way to present, refute, or explain the arguments. I also suggest looking through past PB threads (if you have the time), since I'm sure a bunch of these things have been talked about before. And Calvin's Institutes are very useful.


----------



## monoergon (Oct 27, 2012)

Thanks everyone for the help! God bless you all


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 27, 2012)

For a thoroughgoing study, the video series, still available free on-line is RC Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?
What Is Reformed Theology? Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul from Ligonier Ministries

The book is a helpful companion.
http://www.ligonier.org/store/what-is-reformed-theology-paperback/

About 1/2 of the 12 lesson series deals directly with the "five points," within the context of the Sovereignty of God and within the context of the whole of Scripture and of each other. This is much of what "Reformed Theology" is about.

After a careful study of these deeper truths of Christianity, hardly any man-centered view of salvation, or of their place in the Kingdom of God can be left standing in light of what the Scriptures teach.


----------



## Hilasmos (Oct 28, 2012)

brjesusfreak said:


> Furthermore, on John 6:44 my cousin keeps on saying it does not apply to gentiles, but to the jewish people because according to the context, Jesus was saying that to jews.



A large part of this passage is book marked by the statements that Jesus is the bread of life that has come down for the life of the _world_ (v.33 and v.51). What about that context? If we are thinking in terms of Jewish/Gentile distinction, then the world would represent gentiles. 

To reverse the argument, only Gentiles can be saved by the bread that comes down from heaven, since that is said to be for the life of the world (gentiles) and not the Jews. It follows then, that the "one who comes to him" in v. 36 (that will not hunger), must be a gentile, since only gentiles will experience life from the bread. It follows then, as well, that when 6:44 says that no one can come to him (in the context of coming to the bread for life), it must be talking about Gentiles alone.


----------



## Bible Belt Presbyterian (Oct 28, 2012)

Make sure when you are writing this refutation that you are clear from the very beginning on the state of man (being totally depraved). You are trying to refute the general idea that we are on our own, capable of achieving salvation. I commonly hear of the analogy that we are in being tossed about in the ocean drowning and God tosses us a life preserver and says "Just grab it", which is not correct. Paul says we are DEAD in our transgressions. It is more like we are at the bottom of an abyss with not even a breath in us and God reaches down, grabs us, draws us close to him and breathes life into us. I am sure you might have been approached about this or come across this before, but everybody has to have the same understanding of issues like this.

There are a lot of resources out there for you, particularly with the idea that God viewed down the corridors of time and saved us based on a decision that we would make and why we should repent if God already knows our sin or if were saved from all eternity.I would highly recommend reading A. W. Pink's _Sovereignty of God_. You can find an online version of it here. 

The following is a letter from George Whitefield to John Wesley and is a response to a sermon Wesley preached entitled "Free Grace", which be found within the link.

No, dear Sir, you mistake. 

I'm not sure where this guy's argument against predestination is coming from. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if you are of the elect as a reason we shouldn't repent seeing as everybody who has ever lived should repent. We repent because we have sinned and seek forgiveness from God. Our status as elect or not doesn't change the fact that we have transgressed against God and, by his mercy and grace, allows us to come before him to ask for forgiveness.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 28, 2012)

The Biblical truth of original sin is a good starting point.
John Gill wrote The Cause of God and Truth a work that shows most of the verses Arminians trot out to support freewillism teach instead God's sovereignty.
A good Portuguese translation of the Reformed creeds can be found at CPRC Home Page


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 28, 2012)

Why not start with a good refutation of Arminianism:

John L. Girardeau, _Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism_

Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism: John Girardeau: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 26, 2012)

Wow, thank you very much!!! I am almost done with my refutation. It happens to be in portuguese. If it were in english, I would e-mail it to all of you.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 30, 2012)

I translated from portuguese to english Dake's commentary on Ephesians 1:5 from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible and refuted it:

Dake: "Here God predestined all His children to be adopted in His family, but to become a child of God is a personal decision (Jn 3:15-20; Rev 22:17; 1Tm 2:4; 2Peter 3:9)."

My refutation: God previously ordained the adoption of "all His children", but at the same time could human choice annul God's predestination if one rejects Jesus?

Could anyone contribute to refute Dake's comentary?


----------



## Jash Comstock (Nov 30, 2012)

You said you were new to Reformed Theology? Perhaps a more worthwhile pursuit of your current time would be a study of Reformed Theology instead of a refutation of Arminianism.. Be careful not to be so thirsty to refute "those other guys" that you forget the application of the gospel to your own life. All I am saying is that if you are new to these doctrines, a refutation of Arminianism should not be your first concern, a deeper understanding of the doctrines should be your first concern. Once you have become skilfull in the doctrines yourself, then you can turn your concern to argument. Just a reminder, not meant to be offensive or arrogant.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 1, 2012)

Jash Comstock said:


> You said you were new to Reformed Theology? Perhaps a more worthwhile pursuit of your current time would be a study of Reformed Theology instead of a refutation of Arminianism.. Be careful not to be so thirsty to refute "those other guys" that you forget the application of the gospel to your own life. All I am saying is that if you are new to these doctrines, a refutation of Arminianism should not be your first concern, a deeper understanding of the doctrines should be your first concern. Once you have become skilfull in the doctrines yourself, then you can turn your concern to argument. Just a reminder, not meant to be offensive or arrogant.


Amen! Perhaps searching for the term "calvinist cage-stage" will shed light on the underlying issue here. 

AMR


----------



## monoergon (Dec 1, 2012)

You're right Jash. Apologetics is just one aspect. It shouldn't be my #1 concern


----------



## jandrusk (Dec 1, 2012)

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter III: Of God's Eternal Decree

Chapter V: Of Providence

Chapter VI: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

Chapter VII: Of God's Covenant with Man - Stress the point that God always initiates covenant and man is responsible to remain obedient to the terms instituted by God

Also make note of the scripture proof's.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

Jash Comstock said:


> You said you were new to Reformed Theology? Perhaps a more worthwhile pursuit of your current time would be a study of Reformed Theology instead of a refutation of Arminianism



I fully agree. I will gently say that it may be best to wait for maturity in these doctrines until you decide to set forth an argument publicly.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

You may try it on us, though, as much as you want.


----------

