I actually attend a non Reformed church currently (was in the PCA for many years) and feel that the Lord wants me to be there as I have been able to preach the Gospel (I pray clearly) in some Bible studies that I've been leading, and the senior pastor knows that I am Reformed and we have mutual respect for each other, and he has even picked my brain at times for my theological thoughts.
Interestingly when Chuck Smith died, my current pastor mentioned him (and I had very little knowledge of the Calvary Chapel until about 2 weeks ago), and didn't realize how anti-Reformed the CC is, and am glad to have seen a Reformed CC pastor's testimony here on this forum in another post.
So since then, I've been thinking A LOT about what the arguments are in terms of how the Arminian system is inconsistent within itself (and it most definitely is), and wanted your thoughts and not to bash that tradition either. What I have found is:
1. They would say that the "Calvinist God" is responsible for evil if we did not have free will, but the opposite argument if the Arminian God foresaw it from the corridors of time, and did NOTHING to stop it (ie: therefore could have prevented it but did not), then that same argument can be used against them.
2. Why would an Arminian actually pray for God to change someone's heart, since that is in clear violation of that person's will to choose to NOT choose Him? This was Phil Johnson's argument from his blog as to one of the difficult questions that helped him to leave that system, because the answer he got from his teacher was that (if Arminianism is consistent) then it was wrong then to pray for someone's heart to be changed.
3. If an Arminian says that he agrees that it is the Father's will to save a person, and the Son is then sent to save that person, BUT the Holy Spirit cannot save because of the resistance of man, then you have disunity AND disharmony within the Godhead itself, that the Triune God cannot accomplish something that TWO of them want to do, but the OTHER cannot. I wonder if they even ever think about that and what that says about the Almighty and His character?
As we know and sadly, Arminianism in full bloom (and consistent within itself if it has a real systematic theology) would be open theism, and I'm glad that even folks in that tradition, are fighting it out and at least attempting to preserve conservative Evangelicalism from the Greg Boyd/Clark Pinnock disciples.
Would appreciate any further thoughts.
Interestingly when Chuck Smith died, my current pastor mentioned him (and I had very little knowledge of the Calvary Chapel until about 2 weeks ago), and didn't realize how anti-Reformed the CC is, and am glad to have seen a Reformed CC pastor's testimony here on this forum in another post.
So since then, I've been thinking A LOT about what the arguments are in terms of how the Arminian system is inconsistent within itself (and it most definitely is), and wanted your thoughts and not to bash that tradition either. What I have found is:
1. They would say that the "Calvinist God" is responsible for evil if we did not have free will, but the opposite argument if the Arminian God foresaw it from the corridors of time, and did NOTHING to stop it (ie: therefore could have prevented it but did not), then that same argument can be used against them.
2. Why would an Arminian actually pray for God to change someone's heart, since that is in clear violation of that person's will to choose to NOT choose Him? This was Phil Johnson's argument from his blog as to one of the difficult questions that helped him to leave that system, because the answer he got from his teacher was that (if Arminianism is consistent) then it was wrong then to pray for someone's heart to be changed.
3. If an Arminian says that he agrees that it is the Father's will to save a person, and the Son is then sent to save that person, BUT the Holy Spirit cannot save because of the resistance of man, then you have disunity AND disharmony within the Godhead itself, that the Triune God cannot accomplish something that TWO of them want to do, but the OTHER cannot. I wonder if they even ever think about that and what that says about the Almighty and His character?
As we know and sadly, Arminianism in full bloom (and consistent within itself if it has a real systematic theology) would be open theism, and I'm glad that even folks in that tradition, are fighting it out and at least attempting to preserve conservative Evangelicalism from the Greg Boyd/Clark Pinnock disciples.
Would appreciate any further thoughts.
