1. What is the top complaint against the Arminian POV??
(OK top 2 or 3 if you will).
1. It inadvertently makes less of God than he is.
For the Arminian POV to be consistent and make sense it has to posit a God who does not know the future precisely as it will actually unfold, who learns as he goes, who is not truly sovereign, who is not all powerful, etc...
Arminianism makes the almighty, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient God of Scripture into a god like Zeus.
2. Arminians dump logic. "God is so sovereign that he is not in control of everything"- a mind numbingly stupid statement and many like it are made by Arminians because they often don't CARE if what they say makes sense.
3. TERRIBLE hermeneutics. Guys like Winman are the worst. They take obscure passages and use them to explain away explicit ones. Their whole doctrine is based on proof texts plucked out of context, usually obscure and misapplied.
2. What is the top complaint against the Calvinist POV??
(2 or 3 if you prefer).
Not looking for a long list in either case - just the big ones - the top few in your POV.
=====================
One of my primary complaints against 4 and 5 pt Calvinism is that it cannot be stated by its own promoters in such a way that does not make God the "cause of His own lament". (I think many here would have guessed that one for my list by now).
So what?
Why is that a problem even if it is so?
As I type this I am so sore I can't hardly stand myself. Working out Friday night and then busting wood with a 30 pound maul all day yesterday has rendered me terribly sore.
I knew this would happen before I did it. I willed the soreness to happen. I caused it to happen. I was, as you say, the cause of my own lament. But I did so as a means to a very good end (to get in shape and keep a family warm who depends on a wood burning heater to get through the winter).
I don't get what your problem is with this.
God is displeased with sin that he willed to exist. But sin and evil serve a glorious purpose. Without sin there is no grace, no lamb dying for sinners and receiving throughout the endless ages of eternity the praises of the redeemed who sing a song that angels cannot sing, etc, etc, etc...
So what is your problem with this issue?
The other complaint I have is that Cavlinism makes it case by constructing an exact negation of the text. So as one simple example where the Bible says "God so Loved the World" Calvinism says "God did NOT so love the WORLD - just the FEW of Matt 7" or something to that effect.
That's silly.
No Calvinist in the history of the world has ever done that, I suppose.
What we do try to do is get oblivious Arminians to learn something about that verse and many others like it. It is this: the word "world" almost NEVER means every single person on earth throughout history. Almost NEVER.
"The world watched as the towers fell in New York that fateful morning."
That's how human beings have most often used the word "world" throughout history.
Only a moron thinks that reporter means that every single person on earth was watching the TV that day. Hundreds of millions of people on earth did not even have ACCESS to TV's that day.
No Calvinist adds the word "not" in that verse. How SILLY!!!
Calvinists simply define the word "world" as every other person with a high school education defines it- as it is in its literary context.
Luke 2:1 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that
all the world should be taxed."
Now, everybody knows that Luke did not even come CLOSE to meaning that every single person over the surface of the entire planet Earth went to be taxed. In fact, it was probably less than 1% of the world population who went to be taxed.
So you can drop that objection.
Any others?
