# Arminian Argument



## jciz75 (Nov 7, 2017)

The following site makes some serious arguments against the Doctrines of Grace:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction

I would really like to hear some good counters to what Steve Jones says.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 7, 2017)

One of the things that stuck out for me is the gentleman who wrote this article may have been a Calvinist at one time; however, he never understood covenant nor the visible/invisible distinction of God's people-hence his position.

"Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture."

Hence, no one should ever endeavor to unpack God's word as it is too lofty of a job. 

Painful read...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BG (Nov 7, 2017)

What is it that you see as a serious argument? Not very well thought out.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 7, 2017)

Not at all "serious"

Stopped reading after this:
"The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable."

The doctrines of grace nicely hinge on the dire state of those _in Adam_. This is why most anti-Calvinists focus most of their attention on man's inability in denial of what original sin entails.

Either fallen man is spiritually dead or he is but wounded.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 7, 2017)

Generally speaking, Christians ought not to be trolling the internet in this way. The internet is filled with billions of pages of White Noise. Facebook has become a haven for this sort of thing.
Armchair theologians abound. In the old days, men wouldn't even whisper in that way believing that sacred truth is just that, too sacred to throw around like someone tossing dung out of a stall.
These kinds of fellows do just that to the demise of their own soul, and to the demise of others who "happen" to come across their page; which is unfortunate.
Not only is it a complete waste of time, but it carries with it warnings. "...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).
It would be well worth you time to bookmark four or five biblically solid websites that have a treasury of articles and books, and forget actually taking to read garbage like that. 
We are commanded not to do that. Commanded? Yes. "See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil."(Eph. 5:15-16).
If we are serious about seeing time as precious, we don't have time for refuse of that sort. 

Think about NEVER being able to gain back that time spent on such things, and being judged for it later on. If we are commanded to walk circumspectly, and we are dabbling in reading foolery by fools, its not wise, nor is it a help to our souls. 

Would Edwards take the time? 5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 3


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2017)

It's useful for demonstrating that the suspected links between the Arminian party in Holland and the Socinians were not an invention of overheated Calvinistic imagination, but due to an affinity which remains to the present day. Here's an ex-Calvinist approvingly citing anti-Trinitarians (Channing, Racovian Catechism, Socinus) in a polemic against Calvinism -- is Calvinism the only part of God's revealed truth that he has given up?

Some of the claims are exaggerated and almost comically unself-aware. For instance:


> Man is a sinner. Every person has folly bound up in the heart from earliest days (Prov. 22:15). But was Adam any different? _The burden of proof is on the Calvinists to show that he was._ The Scriptures never say so, and it is not our responsibility to prove a negative (a logical impossibility).



If Adam was not any different, why would we need to be renewed in the image of God (Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10)? When Paul tells us in what the image of God consisted and says we are renewed in that, it's not hard to see that when Adam begat a son in his own image, the image of God in which _Adam_ had been created was not transmitted to Seth in its original glory (Gen. 5:1-3). There's a lot more assertion than demonstration in the article.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG (Nov 7, 2017)

Universalism


----------



## lynnie (Nov 8, 2017)

If you've known Calvary Chapel people who were taught against Calvinism (Dave Hunt Especially- "What Love is This"?) or even just the average Arminian, it is helpful to hear the other side and understand it in order to converse effectively. I don't regret the time I put into learning what Mormons teach. Or what I learned about the UPC ( oneness, Jesus only). Or Messianic double Covenant Judaism. Or Dispensationalism. Or Joyce Meyer.

It isn't like feeding on it for edification, but more like going to med school to study disease and try to help people. I can only stand it any more in limited doses though

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Not at all "serious"
> 
> Stopped reading after this:
> "The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable."
> ...


I am just curious as to what aspect of Man that they do not see as being affected by the Fall of Adam now?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2017)

lynnie said:


> If you've known Calvary Chapel people who were taught against Calvinism (Dave Hunt Especially- "What Love is This"?) or even just the average Arminian, it is helpful to hear the other side and understand it in order to converse effectively. I don't regret the time I put into learning what Mormons teach. Or what I learned about the UPC ( oneness, Jesus only). Or Messianic double Covenant Judaism. Or Dispensationalism. Or Joyce Meyer.
> 
> It isn't like feeding on it for edification, but more like going to med school to study disease and try to help people. I can only stand it any more in limited doses though


In my dealings with non Calvinists, the 2 main objections keep hearing over and over again is that it is not fair that God only selects out some to be saved, and that God honors free will so much due to Him loving us that God determines saving us in our will and not His own.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am just curious as to what aspect of Man that they do not see as being affected by the Fall of Adam now?


Who is "they" in your question?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> In my dealings with non Calvinists, the 2 main objections keep hearing over and over again is that it is not fair that God only selects out some to be saved, and that God honors free will so much due to Him loving us that God determines saving us in our will and not His own.


The decree of God establishes the _free will_ of the moral creature: _the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose_. This is the _liberty of spontaneity_, not the _libertarian free will_ claimed by the anti-Calvinist. In fact, had God not established free will in His decree there would be no free will at all.

Unfortunately, most complaints about _free will_ are actually attempts to determine _how_ God pulls off being wholly sovereign and holding man responsible. Scripture provides no special revelation about the _how_, only what _is_. When God shuts His mouth, so should we.

Some argue that God should be _fair_ and _impartial_ in the distribution of His grace. But what do the Scriptures say, “_Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... [Rebekah, their mother] was told, 'The older will serve the younger'_” (Romans 9:11-12).

Those that would argue for "fairness" ignore the fact that throughout the scriptures we find God choosing over those that should, if things were “_fair_”, “_impartial_”—according to our feeble mortal reasoning—be chosen: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and Judah over Joseph. _In virtually every example of God's sovereignty in the scriptures we see Him choosing the unmerited over whom we would assume the merited_. Yet, why then would some appeal to God that He should be "fair" in His dealings and "_give_" everyone something? The very breaths we draw are more than fallen man deserves from our Maker, yet we continue to demand He give us more, for after all, we are made in His image.

Persons have frequently used the _image _of God within us, the ability to know some things about God, to reason away God's kingship, preferring to cast Him as a “_fair_” God, where the standards of fairness are defined not by God, but by His creatures. Yet, as God has continually shown throughout the history of His recorded revelation, God's ways are not our ways, and He will do as He judges rightly, not making Himself subject to our own notions of _how_ or _why_ He should act in relationship to us.

Persons on the one hand, while claiming that “_God is love_”, forget that He is also a consuming fire. Any belief system which omits or under-emphasizes either of these or other truths will be a mutilated system, no matter how plausible it may sound to men. To formulate the doctrine by giving preeminence to, say, 1 John 4:8, is a classic unwarranted example of using a _locus classicus_ to interpret the rest of Scripture.

Now some will no doubt claim that while God did not base His choice on anything that they had already done, that perhaps God based His choice on _foreseen _faith or works. Such foolish reasoning was anticipated by God, for Paul clearly writes that God announced His decision before the twins were born “_in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls_” (Romans:11-12). By denying that election was based on something that the twins had already done, Paul does not leave open any possibility that election was based on something that the twins would do. Instead, Paul explicitly denies that election was based on anything in them, but that it was based upon "_him who calls_" and "_God's purpose._"

Moreover, in Ephesians Paul relies on the same argument. God chose certain individuals not because of any foreseen faith or works in them, and not because of their decisions or merits, but election to salvation is based solely on his will (Ephesians 1:5), his pleasure (Ephesians 1:5), his grace (Ephesians 1:6-7), his purpose (Ephesians 1:11), and his plan (Ephesians 1:11). Again, the emphasis is that God's choice of individuals was done completely apart from anything foreseen in the individuals themselves. It was God “_who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,_” (2 Timothy 1:9).

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:27-30, “_But God chose ... so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption._” Paul speaks directly against any foolish reasoning that implies that only Christ is the object of election, and that whoever comes into Christ becomes God's elect. Read the passage again, "_It is because of him_"—i.e., because of God—that we are in Christ Jesus. God decides, not us, who becomes "_in Christ,_" and God is the one who then puts us in Christ by His will and power.

Finally, from Ephesians 1 no matter how hard one may try, one cannot interpret “_in him_” (vs. 7, 11, 13) to mean that somehow we are able to place ourselves “_in him_” (Christ) anymore than one can claim they chose to be “_in Adam_”, the federal head of mankind, through whom all entered into sin (1 Cor. 15:22).

Some apparently find in their “_freedom_” a warrant to question everything more from the post-modern ethos of relative truth than a desire for Biblical accuracy. But where does it say that God owes anyone the stimulation and satisfaction of their mind? Did Job receive any direct answers? God tells me to love Him (that is, to obey Him) with my mind and at some level that has to mean subjecting my mind to His revealed Truth. No matter how much others mutilate the text, Paul meant what he said when he wrote (Romans 9:20) to the Romans concerning election, “_who are you, O man, who answers back to God?_”

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Who is "they" in your question?


The ones who would see things as the same way Steve Jones does in this area.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The decree of God establishes the _free will_ of the moral creature: _the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose_. This is the _liberty of spontaneity_, not the _libertarian free will_ claimed by the anti-Calvinist. In fact, had God not established free will in His decree there would be no free will at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, most complaints about _free will_ are actually attempts to determine _how_ God pulls off being wholly sovereign and holding man responsible. Scripture provides no special revelation about the _how_, only what _is_. When God shuts His mouth, so should we.
> 
> ...


I have also heard and read it explained that we are indeed free to do what we will, but the sin nature itself is constrained on just it can will to be done.


----------



## jciz75 (Nov 8, 2017)

This discussion is very interesting. I do want to make one thing clear though. It will take a lot more than 1 website to convince me to abandon the Doctrines of Grace. It is impossible to have a coherent Covenant Theology without them. When a person accepts the Arminian point of view (which I absolutely do not), the only logical conclusion is Dispensationalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Nov 8, 2017)

In Soviet Russia, Arminian chooses YOU!

**not to be confused with Armenian.*

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 8, 2017)

jciz75 said:


> This discussion is very interesting. I do want to make one thing clear though. It will take a lot more than 1 website to convince me to abandon the Doctrines of Grace. It is impossible to have a coherent Covenant Theology without them. When a person accepts the Arminian point of view (which I absolutely do not), the only logical conclusion is Dispensationalism.



To continue my previous post...

Instead of reading inconsistent and unlearned armchair theologians, read Arminus and the remonstrants themselves if you are studying about their views. They were at least serious about "doing theology". They would have laughed at that gentleman's paper.

Then read the Canons of Dordt that shredded their view, and ejected them not only from their pulpits, but the country itself.

Then read John Owens _Display of Arminianism_, and _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_. He doth exhaust the subject.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am just curious as to what aspect of Man that they do not see as being affected by the Fall of Adam now?


The usual argument is the core of their belief: that all those in Adam are not born sinners, rather fallen mankind is born morally neutral and become sinners when they sin.

See:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

AMR

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2017)

jciz75 said:


> This discussion is very interesting. I do want to make one thing clear though. It will take a lot more than 1 website to convince me to abandon the Doctrines of Grace. It is impossible to have a coherent Covenant Theology without them. When a person accepts the Arminian point of view (which I absolutely do not), the only logical conclusion is Dispensationalism.


What is interesting is that there are also those holding to Dispensational theology that also agree with the Doctrines of Grace.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The usual argument is the core of their belief: that all those in Adam are not born sinners, rather fallen mankind is born morally neutral and become sinners when they sin.
> 
> See:
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html
> ...


They would see the sinning then also as when we decide to go against God and His ways in a knowing fashion, so not sinners if ignorant of God and His standards. like as children sinning?


----------



## gkterry (Nov 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The decree of God establishes the _free will_ of the moral creature: _the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose_. This is the _liberty of spontaneity_, not the _libertarian free will_ claimed by the anti-Calvinist. In fact, had God not established free will in His decree there would be no free will at all.



Mr. Religion, This is an excellent response! (Meaning the entire post) Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They would see the sinning then also as when we decide to go against God and His ways in a knowing fashion, so not sinners if ignorant of God and His standards. like as children sinning?


I do not know how deep their issues run, David.

Not a few anti-Calvinists will deny anything that resembles the total inability view of the Reformed to the point of demanding that the pagan in the jungle gets a pass for being ignorant of God. Similarly so for children who die in their infancy wherein they become dogmatic that all who so die are elect. And before you ask again about this last topic, recall:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptism-of-mentally-handicapped.91528/#post-1120110


----------

