# logical extreme arminian conclusions?



## nonconformist (May 7, 2005)

what are some of the logical extreme conclusions arminian thought will lead to? example 1. denial of scripture 2.loss of salvation 3. i just came across sombody that said after Christ everybody will be saved 4.self righteousness 5.antinomianism (possibly) ANY THOUGHTS?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2005)

In regard to:
1) some way around certain Scripture verses has to be proposed, and one could characterize this evasion as practical denial, although in my opinion it would be next to impossible to elicit a flat denial of Scripture authority (even in an isolated case) from even the most committed Arminian.

2) most self-described Arminians hold, in contrast to true Arminianism (as found in the Remonstrance), to some version of "once-saved-always-saved" theology. But the truth is that the Remonstrants themselves, and thoroughgoing Weslyans for example, do in fact hold to the possibility of losing one's salvation.

3) I don't think one can believe _both_ that one can lose his salvation (#2 above) _and_ universalism at the same time. This is an illogical position for a true Arminian. However, when a person is confronted with the reality that assuming responsibility for his own salvation is more than he (or anyone else can handle), rather than embrace the biblical doctrine of electing grace, he will turn to universalism as an escape from the implications of his theology. I.e., he says "No-one can be saved on the basis of my Arminianism, but some have to be saved (right?), so God must ultimately make everything irrelevant except for Jesus death. Ergo, all are saved." 

Also, some Arminians affirm that those who do not know of Christ by name/person/work, are saved or lost on other moral bases--so for many, they would say, it's better not to ever hear of Christ and so not be guilty of rejecting him. Since (in some versions) only Christ-rejection is damning, and all other sins of the world were paid for at the cross, better for a heathen (with all the rest of his sins washed) not ever know about the cross of Christ, and so escape judgment from rejecting it. These people obviously have little missionary zeal, so it's not just the "cruel calvinist" who has "no heart for missions" (obviously an outrageous slander).

4) any theology that exalts one man's "wise decisions over other's foolish rejection is promoting self-righteousness by definition (although it is seldom seen as such). The pathology is usually not so blatant, but the implications are there, and can be studied.

5) With caveats for inconsistent Arminianism (similar to the lines mentioned before under #3), true Arminianism will tend to lead toward legalism, not antinomianism. One's behavior becomes the basis for staying in a state of grace. John Wesley himself taught Perfectionism. Of course (as above #3) Perfectionism often produces its opposite. "I'm perfect, therefore whatever I do by definition isn't sin," as opposed to falling from perfection.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 7, 2005)

Good response, Bruce.


----------



## Arch2k (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 2) most self-described Arminians hold, in contrast to true Arminianism (as found in the Remonstrance), to some version of "once-saved-always-saved" theology. But the truth is that the Remonstrants themselves, and thoroughgoing Weslyans for example, do in fact hold to the possibility of losing one's salvation.



Actually, the remonstrance brand of Arminianism condemned by the Synod of Dort did not hold _firmly_ to the idea of losing ones salvation. In article 5, they left it open to more study:



> *Article 5*
> That those who are inÂ­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well unÂ­derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ´s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: "œNeither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivÂ­ered them, of losing a good conscience, of beÂ­coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, beÂ­fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.





> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 3) I don't think one can believe both that one can lose his salvation (#2 above) and universalism at the same time. This is an illogical position for a true Arminian.



I agree with you, but aren't Arminians illogical anyway?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 8, 2005)

Jeff,
I did not read the material well enough to remember that, and I did not go back and check my facts. Thanks for the clarification. The Dort declarers evidently wanted to remove all doubt in the direction of Perseverance/ Preservation, and demonstrate that this was not only biblical, but harmonized definitely with the whole Calvinistic system.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that the Remonstrants left open the question of falling from saving grace seems to demonstrate that they saw where their anti-reformed logic was taking them, whether they liked it or not. And evidently, others have completed the journey.


----------



## blhowes (May 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> what are some of the logical extreme conclusions arminian thought will lead to?


To me, it leads to a view of God that's just as 'bad' as the view many arminians have of the "Calvinist's God". God is thought by some to be a tyrant of some kind because he chooses some and not others. The "Arminian god" is said to be more loving because he allows man to exercise his own free will to choose or reject God.

I don't know which Arminians think this way, but some think of God's foreknowledge as God seeing from eternity past that certain people will choose Jesus and some will reject Jesus, based on their own free will. If God saw from eternity past that I would choose Jesus, based on my free will, at the point where I need to make a decision, am I really free to decide? If God saw from eternity past that I'd make the decision, then I'm not free to chose to reject Jesus, but my free will must choose what God saw from eternity past.

How is this view of God more loving and kind? They say that God knew from eternity past which ones wouldn't 'accept Jesus'. For those, their eternal destiny is in hell. Could not their god have done more to help them? Their god decided that their free will was so important that he would do nothing to help them, but left them to decide for themselves? What is so important about this free will that he would choose rather to allow them to spend eternity suffering in hell than override, for their good, this free will? Humanistically speaking, their god doesn't sound any more loving than their false notion about the 'Calvinist's God'.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 8, 2005)

Bob, that reminds me of a question I asked an arminian lady. She told me that God loves everyone. I said, yet he permits them to go to hell. Then I asked her, "so does God love a person even in hell." She said, "yes he does and he fells very, very bad that they went there and he wishes they would have made a different choice." She got me. I didn't expect such utter disregard of logic and scripture and I had no where to go from there.
Arrrrrrrrh!


----------



## blhowes (May 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Bob, that reminds me of a question I asked an arminian lady. She told me that God loves everyone. I said, yet he permits them to go to hell. Then I asked her, "so does God love a person even in hell." She said, "yes he does and he fells very, very bad that they went there and he wishes they would have made a different choice." She got me. I didn't expect such utter disregard of logic and scripture and I had no where to go from there.
> Arrrrrrrrh!


1Co 9:20-22 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 

...and to the unscriptural and illogical, I became... ???

I can see how that would leave you kind of standing there scratching your head.


----------



## nonconformist (May 9, 2005)

excellent answers thanks everyone very helpful.thats why this board is the best i have seen


----------



## RamistThomist (May 9, 2005)

7) Potential and unrestrained political tyranny. If man is sovereign then God is only derivatively sovereign and finds meaning in terms of that sovereignty.


----------



## tdowns (May 9, 2005)

*Messes with God*

My biggest problem, along with above, is that at some point, God had to wait for man to decide before he can react. See molinism and the heretical rants on some Armenian sites. Their discussions are about God being bound by time, time being an essence of God, God creating time and from that point on having to watch and play his hand as mankind unfolds an unknown history, etc. If God's not in control--completely--then he becomes not the God of the bible, he becomes a false god reacting to the decisions of man, and at some point in time, waiting powerlessly to "see" or know what humans would do.

I always ask the "logical" types that hold the Molinism position, "OK, assume your view is correct which it is not--see above--and God sees in his minds eye all the scenarios possible, picks the best one and says go. Well no matter how short the period he has to "see" his options, it puts God in a position of limited power, and what if in every single scenario, every single human rebelled?"

No good answers.

I think their worst conclusions mess with the attributes of God and and make it a heretical system.


----------



## nonconformist (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 7) Potential and unrestrained political tyranny. If man is sovereign then God is only derivatively sovereign and finds meaning in terms of that sovereignty.


 that is a scary thought but unfortunately it makes sence


----------



## nonconformist (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> My biggest problem, along with above, is that at some point, God had to wait for man to decide before he can react. See molinism and the heretical rants on some Armenian sites. Their discussions are about God being bound by time, time being an essence of God, God creating time and from that point on having to watch and play his hand as mankind unfolds an unknown history, etc. If God's not in control--completely--then he becomes not the God of the bible, he becomes a false god reacting to the decisions of man, and at some point in time, waiting powerlessly to "see" or know what humans would do.
> 
> I always ask the "logical" types that hold the Molinism position, "OK, assume your view is correct which it is not--see above--and God sees in his minds eye all the scenarios possible, picks the best one and says go. Well no matter how short the period he has to "see" his options, it puts God in a position of limited power, and what if in every single scenario, every single human rebelled?"
> ...


 that reminds me of my arminian church,now that you bring that up they are always concerned with time,i havent thought about that being connected to arminianism.I am going to add that to my bag of theological tricks and observe the connection more closely.thanks


----------

