Some arguments against Arminianism

[Winman]

Where did this faith capacity come from? Do all sinners have this ability inherit within them?

Sure, all men have the ability to believe.

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

These persons believed in God, but they did not believe in Jesus, because Jesus told them to believe in him. They could believe, but they weren't saved.

Were Adam and Eve born changed into sinners by the fall, and did cain get that sin nature from them, as he murdered abel?

If a sin nature in necessary to sin, how did Adam and Eve sin?

Where did THAT desire to kill come from? not from God!

Where did the desire to eat the forbidden fruit come from?

And the lord already has written down ALL of those names of the redeemed from eternity past, so why does he need to "see their faith?"

Everyone's name is written in the book of life. It is when you sin that God blots out your name.

Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

 

[Rippon]

Go jump in a lake. :smilewinkgrin:

When you say absurd things you will be taken to task. Stop drinking so much EW&F.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Cited From NIV

Everyone's name is written in the book of life.

Absolutely false winman. Read and study God's Word

Rev. 13:8b :all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life...
Rev. 17:8b : The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life...
Rev. 20:15a : Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life...
Rev. 21:27 : but only those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life...

It is when you sin that God blots out your name.

All have sinned. That's elementary theology winman. The Scriptures I have cited prove how wrong you are.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Back to the purpose of my OP - providing arguments against Arminianism, not simply arguing with Winman.

I've seen this credited to the Puritan John Owen. I assume that is indeed the case.

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html



A more modern version courtesy of John Piper: (I am again struck by the trend that some of the most famous John's are Calvinists: John Macarthur, John Piper, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, St. John :smilewinkgrin

Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

This guy crushes Owen's (rather ill-conceived, and IMO rather elementary) argument here:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpre...t-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/

I can do no better than the author of this article.....He even discusses in part two that Owen's argument presents the Calvinist with a rather worse dilema in that if every sin is already paid for and the efficacy already assured, than it cannot rightly be said in any meaningful sense that any as of yet unsaved person was EVER under the wrath of God, since all the elect's sins are already atoned for:

Furthermore, Owen’s Calvinism falls to the same objection. If unbelief is atoned for unconditionally for the elect as Owen suggests, then the elect would be born saved. They would be saved even in their unbelief since their unbelief was atoned for at the cross (according to Owen). This leads to theological absurdities and is plainly contradicted by passages like Ephesians 2:1-3 which make it clear that we are all under God’s wrath (and therefore not saved) prior to being justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

The provisional idea is weak as well as false, as The Covenant was and is exact to the elect,

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

 

[Inspector Javert]

The provisional idea is weak as well as false, as The Covenant was and is exact to the elect,

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

You haven't bothered to read the articles in question I think:

You, dismissing out of hand, anything not slavishly worshipful of Calvinist dogma is not particularly surprising or meaningful.

 

[Iconoclast]

You haven't bothered to read the articles in question I think:

You, dismissing out of hand, anything not slavishly worshipful of Calvinist dogma is not particularly surprising or meaningful.

IJ

do I need to go past here?

I think I will choose a third option. An option that I believe best comports with the Biblical data. I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures. Below are a few of them (emphasis mine):

It is a completely false foundation as if the Father did not give a multitude to the Son....

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 

[Inspector Javert]

IJ
do I need to go past here?

Yes.

Owens is making a deductive argument ( a reductio ad absurdum of sorts) which purportedly is designed to show that the opposing view is not merely false...but, in fact logically absurd.

It's a difficult burden to shoulder, because all one has to do to defeat the argument is to show that another option is even logically possible. Even if not exactly true, as long as other options are even available, than the argument Owens makes fails to deliver. He is taking on more than he can prove. Reductio arguments are VERY difficult to pull off (and rarely work).

Maybe Provisional atonement as he expresses it is not accurate, but that is an argument of an altogether different sort.
If it were so easy as a simple reductio designed to show the logical absurdity of the opposing view-point, than this debate would have been won hands-down by one side or the other 400 years ago.

 

[Iconoclast]

Owen is based on scripture......this other philosophical speculation and philosophy.
I do not go there.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Owen is based on scripture......this other philosophical speculation and philosophy.
I do not go there.

"Speculation" and "Philosophy" is precisely what Owens was engaged in with that argument.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Your view, that "Speculation" and "Philosophy" is some inherently taboo thing which must never be engaged in, is (ironically) a conviction which you essentially arrived upon through "Philosophical" means. Making and/or supporting deductive arguments is in part precisely what "Philosophy" is. Logic is simply a sub-category of Philosophy.

It's just not a good or convincing argument is all. Even if Calvinism is true, it's still not a good argument. I could believe (and in fact do) that there is no such thing as a purple unicorn.......
But it would still be a bad argument to deduce that since no one (that we know of) has yet has credibly professed to have seen one that that proves my case. Presumably, I'm still correct, but I wouldn't have proven my case.

Even if Calvinism is 100% true in all of it's details.....Owens's argument still simply doesn't make the cut. It forces into the opposing viewpoint Calvinist pre-suppositions which renders it a fallacious argument to begin with. That's all I'm commenting on.

The deductions he is making about the Arminian view-point are ones which are wholly based upon pre-suppositions which Arminians categorically reject. That kind of argument never flies.

 

[convicted1]

If the "unlimited atonement" rings true, then there's really no covenant betwixt man and God. It's come if you want to, and if not, sayanara.


If the "limited atonement" rings true, and I believe it does, then you have a covenant bewtixt man and God. God has ALWAYS worked with fallen man through covenants. The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosiac, Davidic, et al...all these were covenants. Just like we have the New Testament...it's a covenant bewtixt His elect and Him.

 

[Inspector Javert]

If the "unlimited atonement" rings true, then there's really no covenant betwixt man and God.

How is that so Willis?

What was the "Abrahamic Covenant"...what did God promise to do?
How is "Unlimited Atonement" inconsistent with it?

 

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert

Owen offered this;

1]all the sins of all men.

2]All the sins of some men, or

3]Some of the sins of all men.

"

Speculation" and "Philosophy" is precisely what Owens was engaged in with that argument.

While I will not drift into a philosophical discussion ....I will biblically defend Owens statement very easily as he has nailed it, not with philosophy at all but with scripture.

If all sins were covered by Jesus death it would make all of the clear distinctions made in scripture unnecessary.

All biblical statements such as I lay down my life for the sheep, or he shed His blood for the church. he died for those given to Him by the Father, The bride, etc......these descriptions would offer nothing distinct if He died for all. These statement would be redundant if all sins of all men were paid for.

God deals by Covenant with those he has placed in the Covenant before the world was. Not everyone was placed in the Covenant made with the Son.

Your view, that "Speculation" and "Philosophy" is some inherently taboo thing which must never be engaged in, is (ironically) a conviction which you essentially arrived upon through "Philosophical" means.

The bible is presuppositional. God declares and reveals Himself to us on His terms. Human reasoning tainted by the fall always falls short, and is suspect.
It can be said on one hand that there is a certain biblical "philosophy" or a worldview formed from a biblical base.....but I avoid most of this discussion also.....you can keep someone like Ravi Zacharias. he is an interesting speaker, but does not have enough bible or Jesus in his presentations and lectures from what I can see. You will not hear him speak error...but it is almost like he is lecturing about his thoughts and philosophy rather than what God has revealed.

Making and/or supporting deductive arguments is in part precisely what "Philosophy" is. Logic is simply a sub-category of Philosophy.

Life is short enough not to spend time searching through verbose argumentations. As much as I have gleaned from the puritans they were a bit over zealous in trying to make things clear. They were smart but sometimes they were perhaps too meticulous .

It's just not a good or convincing argument is all.

Not if you over think it...or divorce it from scripture.

Even if Calvinism is 100% true in all of it's details.....Owens's argument still simply doesn't make the cut.

It has made the cut for all these years and this article does not really address it as it avoids the perfection of the atonement. [not potential for all, but exact for some ]

It forces into the opposing viewpoint Calvinist pre-suppositions which renders it a fallacious argument to begin with. That's all I'm commenting on.

Well Ij.....for you to attempt to maintain the resistance to these teachings you must resort to unbiblical methodology, because in the realm of scripture the other view gets clobbered.

By the way.....did you take note that the other day Archangel offered you help and correction in what I thought was a very patient manner, and actually tried to encourage you in your language studies??? he did confront what needed to be confronted, and yet he was at the same time offering you what you needed to solve the puzzle:thumbs::thumbs:

The deductions he is making about the Arminian view-point are ones which are wholly based upon pre-suppositions which Arminians categorically reject. That kind of argument never flies.

The Arminian position stands in opposition to the truth precisely because it stands in contrast to the biblical data which form the presuppositions....that is why all of you must go to human philosophy to get some form of relief.

 

[Revmitchell]

"

While I will not drift into a philosophical discussion ....I will biblically defend Owens statement very easily as he has nailed it, not with philosophy at all but with scripture.

If all sins were covered by Jesus death it would make all of the clear distinctions made in scripture unnecessary.

Not only is what you said completely wrong but it is without evidence as you provided none. Jesus died for the world (John 3:16). The Bible says that only the elect are saved,. No where does scripture say Jesus only died for the elect.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not only is what you said completely wrong but it is without evidence as you provided none. Jesus died for the world (John 3:16). The Bible says that only the elect are saved,. No where does scripture say Jesus only died for the elect.

RM,

We can have this discussion if you want to start another thread on it.We do not agree on this at this time. I will offer to present and defend the position and I am sure you will offer your view also.

It can be done without name calling, or mischaracterization also I do not have a problem with this. We agree about 50 % of the time and I have seen you be more objective than many on here.

I have to go pick up my trailer and make one more delivery tonight , but I will be back in awhile.

 

[Yeshua1]

[

Everyone's name is written in the book of life. It is when you sin that God blots out your name.


The OT book was the record of those who were alive physically, and when God ordered them to be put to death physically, their names were written out!

NT book of life is where God writes in ALL of the saved from eternity past, as ONLY those recorded in there will stand the GWT, and nO unsaved name will EVER get written in there, as God does not put you in one day, and blot you out the next!

Do you hold that in the death of Christ, God saved all sinners, and unless we decide to unsave ourselves, we are right with God from birth?

 

[psalms109:31]

[

Everyone's name is written in the book of life. It is when you sin that God blots out your name.


The OT book was the record of those who were alive physically, and when God ordered them to be put to death physically, their names were written out!

NT book of life is where God writes in ALL of the saved from eternity past, as ONLY those recorded in there will stand the GWT, and nO unsaved name will EVER get written in there, as God does not put you in one day, and blot you out the next!

Do you hold that in the death of Christ, God saved all sinners, and unless we decide to unsave ourselves, we are right with God from birth?

Those who are re born in Christ we are not written on tablets of stone but on the heart of Christ.

We are reborn in and through Him being born again by the enduring word of God.

The old man is headed for destruction who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus..

It is a tree of life God has been cutting out grafting in those that hear the Gospel of their salvation having believed and returning those who no longer continue in their unbelief what a Gospel.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

 

[Yeshua1]

RM,

We can have this discussion if you want to start another thread on it.We do not agree on this at this time. I will offer to present and defend the position and I am sure you will offer your view also.

It can be done without name calling, or mischaracterization also I do not have a problem with this. We agree about 50 % of the time and I have seen you be more objective than many on here.

I have to go pick up my trailer and make one more delivery tonight , but I will be back in awhile.

Either it was definite substitution by Jesus for specific sinners, or else he died in order to grant possibility of saving someone who choose to accept Him...

The scripture bears out that God did not leave salvation to chance/foreknowing, but that He started and completed it towards all those He intended to be saved by the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not only is what you said completely wrong but it is without evidence as you provided none. Jesus died for the world (John 3:16). The Bible says that only the elect are saved,. No where does scripture say Jesus only died for the elect.

We can agree to disagree, but let us do it in the love of Jesus!

 

[Revmitchell]

We can agree to disagree, but let us do it in the love of Jesus!

Maybe you should take your own advise. That last post does not meet that standard.