Common Misrepresentation of Arminianism

[Skandelon]

Hello Brother Skandelon, I hope you are well.

I believe your point was this. If a person does not have the ablity to do as Christ says, it would be unfair of God to command them to do.

Yes...I believe you said it like this..

Deceptive of God if God KNOWS they cannot.

Actually, in the spirit of FULL DISCLOSURE the part you left out in place of the ellipses was the part where I said, "Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers desires and thus ability to willingly receive." That is an important part of the argument.

Brother Skandelon...do you think God knows we will covet?
Do you think it knew we would covet when he commanded us not to covet?

Are you equating his foreknowing of our sin with his predetermination of our sin? Are you willing to distinguish between God foreknowledge of an event and his predetermination of an event?

 

[Skandelon]

I'm sorry brother, I overlooked this. Please allow me.

Brother Skandelon, I do believe both are commandments.

1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.


Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

To me Skandelon, these sure seem like commandments. Do you agree?

Sure, that statement wasn't meant to draw a distinction in the command, it could have rightly been reworded as, "You are attempting to equate God's appeal to obey the full demands of the moral law with God's appeal to be reconciled through faith in Christ, but this is the fallacy of non-sequentior.

Or...You are attempting to equate God's command to obey the full demands of the moral law with God's command to be reconciled through faith in Christ, but this is the fallacy of non-sequentior.

Both the word "command" and "appeal" is used in regard to the gospel of reconciliation, so I see no problem with that change in terminology, but that doesn't affect the content of my argument.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinists often misrepresent Arminians objections to their views. (which I'm sure is common on both sides)

The mistake they make is assuming that Arminians must be objecting to their soteriology for one of these reasons:

1. Arminians don't know their bibles
2. Arminians are not willing to accept what their bible teaches
3. Arminians are too stupid to understand what their bible teaches
4. Armininans think God owes everyone salvation and they think the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell and not others.

These are not true of this "Arminian" (I use that label with some reservation but you know what I mean). Nor were they true of Jacob Arminius, or many non-Calvinistic scholars throughout Christian history.

Arminians don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. We believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granting a few of them the ability to willingly receive it.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers desires and thus ability to willingly receive. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

Your thoughts?

Wait, i have a brother who is an Arminian (I think) pastor... IFB anyway & he knows his bible far better than I. I never once heard him discredit a Calvinist nor have I discredited him for his beliefs. He goes to his Legalistic (LOL) church & I go to mine. He's even pointed the one I go to now out to me. We both respect each others beliefs. We both come from a RC background & so we feel Orthodox Christianity in more important & we also consider correct doctrine important as well as worship & study. There is no fighting back & forth. I also have cousins who have embraced Weslyan....same rules apply.

 

[InTheLight]

So the question and challenge STANDS:

If God foreknows who will and will not accept Jesus, then how can the Gospel be sincerely offered to those God foreknew would reject Him?

Because Christ commanded the apostles to go out and preach the gospel to everyone. Better take it up with Him.

Your question has been asked and answered.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is what I was wondering Scan. You indicated you are a pastor of a church & you also go out on speaking engagements. How do you treat a Calvinist that walks into your church? Do you tell him his theology is false? Do you try to convert him? Do you kick him out if he refuses to conform?

 

[Skandelon]

So, in sum, you can't answer the question.

No. I answered it in such a way that you can't rebut, so now you are resorting to false accusations.

Rather, you have moved into some weird doctrine where God is learning things from man. Just admit it to the board that you have departed from basic orthodoxy.

Calvinistic Orthodoxy? Yes, I have departed from Calvinistic Orthodoxy, is that a surprise to anyone?

I've not departed from the orthodox view of divine foreknowledge, by which God foreknows the evil of man but permits it to continue.

And please don't interpret my metaphors as literal.

So when you call what I do a "jihad," I shouldn't take offense? Ok, I won't, but if I don't take what you say seriously following such asinine and blatantly disrespectful comments, don't take offense, ok?

 

[Skandelon]

Here is what I was wondering Scan. You indicated you are a pastor of a church & you also go out on speaking engagements. How do you treat a Calvinist that walks into your church? Do you tell him his theology is false? Do you try to convert him? Do you kick him out if he refuses to conform?

In fact we do have a few "Calvinistic" believers in our church. We are good friends. In fact, just two weeks ago we went door to door together inviting people to our church and witnessing.

We have cordial and civil discussions about the topic every so often and go on our way serving and worshipping the Lord together. Of course, I do want them to understand their error, but I don't expect all the parishioners to agree with me on every point of doctrine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In fact we do have a few "Calvinistic" believers in our church. We are good friends. In fact, just two weeks ago we went door to door together inviting people to our church and witnessing.

We have cordial and civil discussions about the topic every so often and go on our way serving and worshipping the Lord together. Of course, I do want them to understand their error, but I don't expect all the parishioners to agree with me on every point of doctrine.

Yea but you dont go that way....ah, theologically (lol) so if say I wanted to feed & nourish my theological belief system you could not & would not teach DoG Doctrines of Election, & why would you! This is why I suggest to all my Calvinist brothers & sisters the importance of guides who are akin to their own beliefs. for example I now go to a Calvinistic Church that from the pulpit teaches me Election every week. I can feed my belief system & make friend with folks with like theology beliefs. I can go to my Arminian Friend down the block....literally walking distance & I know I will never hear DoG & he will subtly try to nudge me to what he believes to be correct. So I make the drive every week to the other side of town to hear Dr Cal. Thats why Ive always said that I go to my church & you go to yours. Simple right.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No. I answered it in such a way that you can't rebut, so now you are resorting to false accusations.

Calvinistic Orthodoxy? Yes, I have departed from Calvinistic Orthodoxy, is that a surprise to anyone?

I've not departed from the orthodox view of divine foreknowledge, by which God foreknows the evil of man but permits it to continue.


So when you call what I do a "jihad," I shouldn't take offense? Ok, I won't, but if I don't take what you say seriously following such asinine and blatantly disrespectful comments, don't take offense, ok?

Skandel,

Then I don't understand the idea you claim to have with regard that man, his actions and or decisions, INFORMS God. This is a departure from the biblical understand that God is omniscient.

I see no reason to offer a rebuttle when the challenge is equally incumbant on the one presenting it. Your answer to this was to suppose God didn't know from all eternity, but is rather informed, gains new information that He did not posses, by the actions or decisions of man.

This denial is certainly unorthodox and is certainly heterodox.

 

[JesusFan]

Yet another old chestnut from the Calvinism 101 library of the absurd, God does not mean what He says.

We are to love our neighbor and not envy or covet what God has bestowed on him or her.
Did God mean that? Surely not because He knew we were unable to love our neighbor as ourselves and rejoice in his blessings from God.

The nut of this absurdity, and nut is an apt word, is God does not mean it when He says what we should strive to do, because He knows we cannot do it perfectly. I kid you not, that is the argument. LOL

Now lets see if we are comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges. God through believers begs the lost, unregenerate folks to be reconciled to God. Now if He knows they cannot put their own faith in Christ such that He could credit that faith as righteousness, then that would be a deceptive offer. And since we all know God is not deceptive, that view is flat wrong. What if there is a range of receptivity in the populous at large, some in fact unable to understand and respond, some able to understand but unwilling to trust completely, from the heart, and others willing to trust but unwilling to turn from the treasures of this world, possessions or relationships. But the choice is theirs, they could and with some cultivating, some planting and some watering, they might come to their senses and seek the righteousness of God through faith in Christ.

So the fields are white with the harvest, but not every plant is ready to be harvested. So we need to go into the fields every day and beg, be reconciled to God, showing the love of Christ to the world.

What if God has already seen that w/o Him electing out a remnant out of a sinful race, that left to their "free will" choice, NONE would come unto Jesus to get saved, as ALL of us would w/o His grace and work on our behalf would chose to "stay in the dark"....

just trying to figure out why it is a bad thing IF God choses to save anyone of us out from a Race that DESERVES hell as our "reward?"

 

[glfredrick]

I see some of the errors in properly presenting Arminianism that Skandelon presents in the OP.

I see similar errors in presenting Calvinism, some made by Skandelon, and very intentionally, as continued debate has proven, but that isn't my main point.

We SHOULD represent our BROTHERS AND SISTERS honestly and accurately based on what they give us to use in so representing them. That can be difficult at times, because there is a lot of "cafeteria line" theology going on around here, with no real clear boundaries nor a whole lot of informed theology either. Inconsistencies are rampant, making it difficult, if not impossible, to actually diagnose a theological stance, which is why we're at odds most of the time.

I find your first 3 points somewhat the strawman argument, as are the responses of people who use them. That is not at all what Arminianism is, nor is it the way to rationally debate the issue. I do think that we can say that some verses in the Bible are given more weight than others -- and that can happen on both sides -- that would be a fair point to make.

1. Arminians don't know their bibles
2. Arminians are not willing to accept what their bible teaches
3. Arminians are too stupid to understand what their bible teaches

I find a bigger issue in #4.

Armininans think God owes everyone salvation and they think the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell and not others.

I don't think that Arminians think that at all, especially the way you have worded the proposition. What I commonly read on the board is more along the lines of:

Christ has died for all people, and they can come to Christ if they believe. God does not make the decision unless or until the person comes in faith (whether that decision is foreknowledge or at that moment).

It is that, that is largely argued against on the board by Calvinists.

These are not true of this "Arminian" (I use that label with some reservation but you know what I mean). Nor were they true of Jacob Arminius, or many non-Calvinistic scholars throughout Christian history.

I agree that the points above are not true of you, nor of Arminius, for they are indeed strawman arguments. On to your next point, I know there are a "few" non-Calvinistic scholars our there, but who exactly did you have in mind when you wrote the statement above? I've found that there is a wide discrepancy between Wesley's form of Arminianism and Arminius' form of Arminianism (and more yet between the 5 points presented to the Synod of Dort). At least give us a clue about whom it is that you are citing so accurate rebuttals can happen (if that is really your desire).

Arminians don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. We believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granting a few of them the ability to willingly receive it.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers desires and thus ability to willingly receive. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

What is very interesting about the statement(s) above is that they are not the teaching of Arminius either. So, in effect, you have tossed us yet another strawman!

Arminius' main point of contention was that God not hold men accountable for that which they cannot remedy. Implied was that God's choice of whom He would save is not the same choice that men may wish to make, and that men are, in a fashion (with some careful wording about the preeminence of the Holy Spirit, and how men can do nothing apart from God) taking matters into their own hands.

Calvinism, of course, is consistent in that it never suggests that God offers gifts that no one can receive. You should know that -- it is perhaps the center tenet underlying the entire doctrine of Calvinism, i.e., that what God purposes WILL be fulfilled by God's power in God's timing, with God's means, for God's glory -- that those whom God gifts WILL receive those gifts, and not of any work of themselves. Christ died for the elect, of whom we dare not number. The elect are then "whosoever will" which fits well with Calvinist theology, but not with Arminian, which does have to dance around the issue of gifts offered but never received. Seems (as says Owen in DDDC) that this would make Christ's sacrifice of no or limited effect, i.e., that God was too weak or inefficient to actually perform that which He decreed that He would perform.

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan,

What if God has already seen that w/o Him electing out a remnant out of a sinful race, that left to their "free will" choice, NONE would come unto Jesus to get saved, as ALL of us would w/o His grace and work on our behalf would chose to "stay in the dark"....

just trying to figure out why it is a bad thing IF God chose to save anyone of us out from a Race that DESERVES hell as our "reward?"

This premise is not in the cards. Matthew 23:13 says unregenerate lost folks were entering heaven and were prevented from entering false teaching. Had they needed Irresistible Grace to respond to the gospel the would not have been entering, or they would have entered. So since they did not enter they were not under the compulsion of irresistible grace, demonstrating that doctrine is false, and since they were entering without irresistible grace, they could respond to the milk of the gospel. But what about Prevenient Grace you might ask. If this is seen as altering folks with total spiritual inability so they have enough ability and it applies to everyone, one must ask why accept something not taught in scripture and then nullify it with something else not taught in scripture. Why muddy the waters. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 teaches that men of the flesh can understand and receive the milk of the gospel.

The idea that many if not most people are able to trust in Christ, 3 of the four soils, that faith comes not from enabling grace, but from the grace of hearing the gospel, and all those verses that say whoever believes in Him shall not perish presents an overwhelming case for limited spiritual ability that can be lost by the practice of sin.

I do not think anyone has said it is a bad thing (except seeming that way according to John Calvin) that God elects some and does not elect everyone. Everyone does deserve what they get in the afterlife, God's justice is perfect and the agony will be well deserved for the lost. Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank, Christ providing the propitiation for the whole world, and those whose faith God credits as righteousness receive the benefit of that propitiation.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandel,

Then I don't understand the idea you claim to have with regard that man, his actions and or decisions, INFORMS God. This is a departure from the biblical understand that God is omniscient.

What else does foreknowledge mean except to know something before hand? How does God come to know something before it happens? Two options:

1. He makes it happen through his active decree. Example: God knew he would provide redemption for mankind by sending Christ to earth. He actively sent Christ to earth. He foreknows it because HE DOES IT.

2. He foreknows or foresees that it will happen and doesn't hinder it, he permits it through his permissive decree. Example: God knew Israel would rebel against Jesus and crucify him if they didn't see, hear, and understand the gospel truth. God keeps Israel blinded from the gospel temporarily so they remain in rebellion and crucify Jesus. He permissively allows Israel to commit this grievous sin in order to accomplish redemption. He foreknows it because he knew THEY WOULD DO IT but HE PERMITS IT TO HAPPEN.

Thus we have both God's active decree (that which HE himself does by HIS own active agency) and his permissive decree (that which he knows will come to pass and chooses not to hinder).

One uses the concept of God foreknowing and permitting while the other is about what God actively predetermines. See the difference?

 

[Skandelon]

I see similar errors in presenting Calvinism, some made by Skandelon, and very intentionally, as continued debate has proven, but that isn't my main point.

We SHOULD represent our BROTHERS AND SISTERS honestly and accurately based on what they give us to use in so representing them. That can be difficult at times, because there is a lot of "cafeteria line" theology going on around here, with no real clear boundaries nor a whole lot of informed theology either. Inconsistencies are rampant, making it difficult, if not impossible, to actually diagnose a theological stance, which is why we're at odds most of the time.

As pointed out numerous times before it should be noted that there are many various forms and nuances of the Calvinistic dogma, just as there is of what some call "Arminianism," so to presume there is intentional misrepresentation on my part is not a fair assessment. Sometimes I'm responded to guys (like Luke) that even you recognize as not being consistent with many mainstream Calvinistic views. But in general, I agree with you. There are many inconsistencies and "cafeteria line" theologies out there, which does lend to further confusion and disagreement than may otherwise be unnecessary.

I find your first 3 points somewhat the strawman argument, as are the responses of people who use them. That is not at all what Arminianism is, nor is it the way to rationally debate the issue. I do think that we can say that some verses in the Bible are given more weight than others -- and that can happen on both sides -- that would be a fair point to make

We are in agreement here.

I don't think that Arminians think that at all

Good, but this post wasn't just about your views. This was about some of the major objections we have received... (i.e. "God would be just to condemn us all to hell" "If God were being fair we would all go to hell." etc etc All stated as if we don't affirm these things.)

On to your next point, I know there are a "few" non-Calvinistic scholars our there, but who exactly did you have in mind when you wrote the statement above? I've found that there is a wide discrepancy between Wesley's form of Arminianism and Arminius' form of Arminianism (and more yet between the 5 points presented to the Synod of Dort). At least give us a clue about whom it is that you are citing so accurate rebuttals can happen (if that is really your desire).

First, I don't know what you mean by "few" but maybe you mean "few" known to you? I didn't have any specifically in mind when I wrote that, but Adam Clarke is a good one if you need a name?

Calvinism, of course, is consistent in that it never suggests that God offers gifts that no one can receive.

So do you deny the universal appeal of the gospel?

The elect are then "whosoever will" which fits well with Calvinist theology, but not with Arminian, which does have to dance around the issue of gifts offered but never received.

Dance? Why? We believe the gospel appeal is sent to all and those who reject it do so by their own free will and thus will be held responsible for it. No dancing needed. Calvinism has to do the "dance" by saying things like "they are free if they act according to their desire" while behind the curtain they believe God is the one who decrees those very desires thus giving no basis for true human freedom.

Seems (as says Owen in DDDC) that this would make Christ's sacrifice of no or limited effect, i.e., that God was too weak or inefficient to actually perform that which He decreed that He would perform.

That is falsely presuming that we believe God is trying to effectually save people but can't. We believe God is performing exactly what He has willed...which is to create a world with free agents who make free choices. After all that talk about strawmen, it seems you might have picked up on that one.

 

[Rippon]

Everyone does deserve what they get in the afterlife, God's justice is perfect and the agony will be well deserved for the lost. Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank,...

Wait a minute. You said everyone gets what they deserve in the after life. The damned certainly do. But the redeemed certainly do not get what they deserve. What they deserve is condemnation. But they go to glory because of God's grace through Jesus.The elect obtain mercy. In no way,shape, or form is it deserved.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wait a minute. You said everyone gets what they deserve in the after life. The damned certainly do. But the redeemed certainly do not get what they deserve. What they deserve is condemnation. But they go to glory because of God's grace through Jesus.The elect obtain mercy. In no way,shape, or form is it deserved.

Amen brother Rippon, Preach the Word!:love2::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Wait a minute. You said everyone gets what they deserve in the after life. The damned certainly do. But the redeemed certainly do not get what they deserve...

Don't you think that is why he qualified his statement by going on to say, "Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank..." Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Rippon]

Don't you think that is why he qualified his statement by going on to say, "Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank..." Seems pretty clear to me.

Van said that everyone deserves what they get in the afterlife. Do you agree with him?

 

[Skandelon]

Van said that everyone deserves what they get in the afterlife. Do you agree with him?

The word "deserves" can have various connotations depending on the context of the discussion, but since he qualified it by stating, "Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank..." I think it is clear as to his intent.

Plus, the reward system of heaven/hell... i.e. "well done thy good and faithful servant"...does connote the concept that we are rewarded for our faith or punished for our unbelief, regardless of whether or not that faith is effectually applied by God or not. Thus, if you continue to make faith out to be a "work" then you too must affirm that we are saved by grace through a work regardless of how that work comes to be (i.e. effectually or freely)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What else does foreknowledge mean except to know something before hand? How does God come to know something before it happens? Two options:

1. He makes it happen through his active decree. Example: God knew he would provide redemption for mankind by sending Christ to earth. He actively sent Christ to earth. He foreknows it because HE DOES IT.

2. He foreknows or foresees that it will happen and doesn't hinder it, he permits it through his permissive decree. Example: God knew Israel would rebel against Jesus and crucify him if they didn't see, hear, and understand the gospel truth. God keeps Israel blinded from the gospel temporarily so they remain in rebellion and crucify Jesus. He permissively allows Israel to commit this grievous sin in order to accomplish redemption. He foreknows it because he knew THEY WOULD DO IT but HE PERMITS IT TO HAPPEN.

Thus we have both God's active decree (that which HE himself does by HIS own active agency) and his permissive decree (that which he knows will come to pass and chooses not to hinder).

One uses the concept of God foreknowing and permitting while the other is about what God actively predetermines. See the difference?

I understand now what you are saying. But it doesn't make sense to me.

If all God's works are known to Him from the beginning of the world, that is, before anything that is created, was created, why are the sinful actions of men left out of His works?

Please explain the following if you wish:
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

In Romans 9:17 God tells me that He raised up Pharoah for His purpose. Certainly this is the work of God, known to Him from the beginning. How is it that it can be said that God merely knew who and what Pharoah would be and do, when God says He raised him up?

Now, I want to contrast your example of what you think is a permissive decree with the text that your example comes from:

Acts 4
27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

My questions:

1. Where in the text is the idea of a permissive decree?
2. Where in the text is the idea that God foreknew what they would do, and then decreed He would permit them to do it?
3. What was done according to "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done"?
4. What is meant both by "thy hand" and "thy counsel" ?
5. What is meant by determined? What was determined according to the text?

I ask the questions because I want to hear how you answer them. I am not seeking information as though I haven't read this text before. The text seems simple and plain to me. So, I will give my answers:

1. There is no mention in the text of a permissive decree.
2. There is no mention in the text of foreknowledge in the sense that God looked into the future, saw what would happen, then decided to let it happen.
3. What was done was the trial and crucifixtion of Jesus.
4. "thy hand" means God was active in the accomplishing of His "counsel" "thy counsel" is God's purpose, or decree, which He purposed in Himself.
5. Determined means that God decided before hand. What God did determine was "whatsoever" they did in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

I, therefore, conclude in agreement with the 1689 LBCF which says concerning God's decree:

Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )
Chapter 3, article 2