Arminian Self-Destruction

[biblelighthouse]

You don't have to use Calvinism to defeat Arminianism.

You can use Arminianism to defeat Arminianism!

It is incoherent and self-defeating.

Arminians do not believe that God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Rather, they think he just "looks into the future" and merely "foreknows" who will choose to go where. But consider this:


God could have created "World A" a certain way, and strictly according to Arminian "logic", simply "foreknow" that the Adam & Eve in THAT world would choose not to sin. Thus, by their own free will, the fall would never have occurred, and sin would not have entered the human race. All would go to Heaven.

-or-

God could have created "World B" a different way, and strictly according to Arminian "logic", simply "foreknow" that the Adam & Eve in THAT world would choose to sin. Thus, by their own free will, the fall would occur, the entire human race would fall into sin, and billions would justly go to hell.


God had the option to create EITHER world (or any of a million other conceivable worlds).

And WHICH world did GOD CHOOSE to create? Clearly, He CHOSE to create the second world, not the first one. That is the world in which we all live.


Thus, Arminian "logic" is totally self-defeating and inconsistent, because even assuming Arminian free-will and God's mere foreknowledge, it is STILL logically obvious that God Chooses whether people go to heaven or hell.

God didn't have to put Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. He could have put Steve & Sally there. Or He could have put Bob & Jayne there. If you think that someone other than Adam wouldn't have fallen, then you have to admit that God chose for the fall to occur. But if you agree that anyone would have fallen, whether it was Adam, Steve, or Bob, then what has happened to your "free will" now?

Either way, Arminianism destroys itself, even without bringing Calvinism into the argument.



I plan to soon post an article to this effect on www.biblelighthouse.com. --- Does anyone have any good recommendations for more thoughts/materials I could add to this article, regarding how Arminianism refutes itself?

Thank you!

 

[Scott]

They typically say that he chose the best of all possible worlds.

Another good question to ask Arminians is: "Is man free to act in a way that contradicts God's foreknowledge?"

If the answer is no and men must act in accordance with God's foreknowledge, then in effect there is a plan that man cannot vary from. This plan existed before the first man was created.

If the answer is yes, then God's foreknowledge is fallible or incomplete (i.e. open theism).

 

[ReformedWretch]

Being an Arminian for over 20 years I can tell you that what a believer who is as I once was needs to be shown (carefully and slowly with patience) is why a "Loving God" would interfere with their free will. You see, Arminian pastors and authors have them convinced that as an attriubte of His love toward mankind God refuses to ever interfere with their free will. To tell them that He does is to try and teach them that God is not loving.

Tossing around terms such as open theism, etc will accomplish little to nothing. Remember, most Arminians are well educated in what they believe and little else. Fact is, they have been taught anything that goes against what they have been taught is cultish and of Satan.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by houseparent
Being an Arminian for over 20 years I can tell you that what a believer who is as I once was needs to be shown (carefully and slowly with patience) is why a "Loving God" would interfere with their free will.

I agree. That's why it can be so helpful to talk about total depravity. I point out that EVERYONE would freely choose to go to hell, if God didn't "interfere" with their free will.

Thus, God's "interference" is the ONLY thing that gets ANYONE into Heaven. If God waited for people to come to Him of their own free will, then nobody would ever come to Him at all.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

we can officially call our arminian brethren, Arminies.

It didn't take me long to accept Calvinism, but boy was it difficult. it went against my democratic upbringing. But R.C Sproul did an excellent job of explaining it.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Slippery]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Slippery
we can officially call our arminian brethren, Arminies.

eh?

I think that was supposed to be funny, but I missed the punch line somehow.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

"mini" plural, "minies". might be a low blow, but is we can call them Dispensationalists, why not arminies.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Slippery
"mini" plural, "minies". might be a low blow, but is we can call them Dispensationalists, why not arminies.

The blow is low, but not too low. They are definitely in error.

I'm just thankful that you called them "brethren". Obviously, several people on this board won't even call them that.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Gordon Clark wrote on this very subject in his essay, God & Evil, The Problem Solved.

I will try to summarize his argument regarding this particular point.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Slippery
"mini" plural, "minies". might be a low blow, but is we can call them Dispensationalists, why not arminies.

The blow is low, but not too low. They are definitely in error.

I'm just thankful that you called them "brethren". Obviously, several people on this board won't even call them that.

Easy, those same people will admit that they have not met any either according to their definition. If you don't want to go there with this thread, then don't go there.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

From Clark's essay:

Even if men were able to choose good as evil, even if a sinner could choose Christ as easily as he could reject him, it would be totally irrelevant to the fundamental problem. Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do.

Clark then proceeds to explain by use of an analogy:

Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed on a beach. A boy who cannot swim is being sucked out to sea by a strong undertow. Without the lifeguards aid, the boy will drown. But instead of helping the boy, the lifeguard sits on his chair and watches him drown. The lifeguard could shout some words of advice and tell the boy to exercise his freewill especially since it was due to the boy's freewill that he went into the water. The lifeguard permitted the boy to go into the water and to drown. Clark concludes his limited illustration with the question, "Would and Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?"

Unlike the lifeguard in this illustration, Clark clarifies that God not only made the boy and the lifeguard, but the ocean that the boy is drowning in. If the lifeguard would be culpable of permitting the boy to drown even if the boy went into the water of his own free will, then God who is the creator would actually be put in a worse light than the lifeguard. God could have made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or have saved the boy from drowning.

So without even introducing Calvinism, the Arminian has some explaining to do if they expect Free will to relieve God of sin.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
From Clark's essay:

Even if men were able to choose good as evil, even if a sinner could choose Christ as easily as he could reject him, it would be totally irrelevant to the fundamental problem. Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do.

Clark then proceeds to explain by use of an analogy:

Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed on a beach. A boy who cannot swim is being sucked out to sea by a strong undertow. Without the lifeguards aid, the boy will drown. But instead of helping the boy, the lifeguard sits on his chair and watches him drown. The lifeguard could shout some words of advice and tell the boy to exercise his freewill especially since it was due to the boy's freewill that he went into the water. The lifeguard permitted the boy to go into the water and to drown. Clark concludes his limited illustration with the question, "Would and Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?"

Unlike the lifeguard in this illustration, Clark clarifies that God not only made the boy and the lifeguard, but the ocean that the boy is drowning in. If the lifeguard would be culpable of permitting the boy to drown even if the boy went into the water of his own free will, then God who is the creator would actually be put in a worse light than the lifeguard. God could have made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or have saved the boy from drowning.

So without even introducing Calvinism, the Arminian has some explaining to do if they expect Free will to relieve God of sin.

Good illustration . . . thank you!

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
You don't have to use Calvinism to defeat Arminianism.

You can use Arminianism to defeat Arminianism!

It is incoherent and self-defeating.

Arminians do not believe that God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Rather, they think he just "looks into the future" and merely "foreknows" who will choose to go where. But consider this:


God could have created "World A" a certain way, and strictly according to Arminian "logic", simply "foreknow" that the Adam & Eve in THAT world would choose not to sin. Thus, by their own free will, the fall would never have occurred, and sin would not have entered the human race. All would go to Heaven.

-or-

God could have created "World B" a different way, and strictly according to Arminian "logic", simply "foreknow" that the Adam & Eve in THAT world would choose to sin. Thus, by their own free will, the fall would occur, the entire human race would fall into sin, and billions would justly go to hell.


God had the option to create EITHER world (or any of a million other conceivable worlds).

And WHICH world did GOD CHOOSE to create? Clearly, He CHOSE to create the second world, not the first one. That is the world in which we all live.


Thus, Arminian "logic" is totally self-defeating and inconsistent, because even assuming Arminian free-will and God's mere foreknowledge, it is STILL logically obvious that God Chooses whether people go to heaven or hell.

God didn't have to put Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. He could have put Steve & Sally there. Or He could have put Bob & Jayne there. If you think that someone other than Adam wouldn't have fallen, then you have to admit that God chose for the fall to occur. But if you agree that anyone would have fallen, whether it was Adam, Steve, or Bob, then what has happened to your "free will" now?

Either way, Arminianism destroys itself, even without bringing Calvinism into the argument.



I plan to soon post an article to this effect on www.biblelighthouse.com. --- Does anyone have any good recommendations for more thoughts/materials I could add to this article, regarding how Arminianism refutes itself?

Thank you!

I don't really agree. I have read and debated enough from Arminians to realize that their system is completely tenable if you accept their hermeneutic and presuppositions. I believe you are pouring Calvinistic thought into the Arminian system. I strongly recommend that you let a knowledgeable Arminian interact with you on these issues. I know a few if they have time.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by raderag

I don't really agree. I have read and debated enough from Arminians to realize that their system is completely tenable if you accept their hermeneutic and presuppositions. I believe you are pouring Calvinistic thought into the Arminian system. I strongly recommend that you let a knowledgeable Arminian interact with you on these issues. I know a few if they have time.

I was an Arminian for years, raised in a staunch Nazarene John-Wesley-loving home. My dad even used to be a Nazarene pastor.

I am surprised that you said "their system is completely tenable if you accept their hermeneutic and presuppositions". --- You must be joking! I myself was a staunch 5-point Arminian for years, and in retrospect, I don't think the Arminian system is at all tenable or logically consistent.

I'm somewhat surprised to find out that a 5-point Calvinist could truly believe that the Arminians have a logically consistent system. Maybe you're right, but I frankly just don't see it.

However, I do think the adherents to open-theism are relatively internally-consistent. I think open theism is the logical result of Arminianism, consistently thought through. I believe Arminianism is at that inconsistent "halfway point" between orthodox Calvinism and heretical open theism.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by raderag

I don't really agree. I have read and debated enough from Arminians to realize that their system is completely tenable if you accept their hermeneutic and presuppositions. I believe you are pouring Calvinistic thought into the Arminian system. I strongly recommend that you let a knowledgeable Arminian interact with you on these issues. I know a few if they have time.

I was an Arminian for years, raised in a staunch Nazarene John-Wesley-loving home. My dad even used to be a Nazarene pastor.

I am surprised that you said "their system is completely tenable if you accept their hermeneutic and presuppositions". --- You must be joking! I myself was a staunch 5-point Arminian for years, and in retrospect, I don't think the Arminian system is at all tenable or logically consistent.

I'm somewhat surprised to find out that a 5-point Calvinist could truly believe that the Arminians have a logically consistent system. Maybe you're right, but I frankly just don't see it.

However, I do think the adherents to open-theism are relatively internally-consistent. I think open theism is the logical result of Arminianism, consistently thought through. I believe Arminianism is at that inconsistent "halfway point" between orthodox Calvinism and heretical open theism.

Joseph, I believe that the Arminian system is very much in error, and I believe that Arminians often make logical mistakes. However, I believe as a philosophical system, it is largely intact. The problem is that Arminianism interprets scripture through its philosophical presuppositions. I believe that Arminians have pretty good answers to your objections (although I don´t think they can rightly exegete Romans 9 as well as other scriptures). The problem is that I don´t think what you are saying will convince any Arminian that truly knows their system of theology. Anyway, I am serious about what I said. U2 me if you are interested, and I will see if I can set something up. I think you might me on the right road, but I think your ideas need to be refined a bit.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Scott
They typically say that he chose the best of all possible worlds.

Another good question to ask Arminians is: "Is man free to act in a way that contradicts God's foreknowledge?"

If the answer is no and men must act in accordance with God's foreknowledge, then in effect there is a plan that man cannot vary from. This plan existed before the first man was created.

If the answer is yes, then God's foreknowledge is fallible or incomplete (i.e. open theism).

I'm not sure exactly how that contradicts Arminian understanding? Your propopsition is merely a contradiction on its own. By admitting that God has foreknowledge (Arminians do), it is not possible that someone could act apart from that.

 

[Peter]

Only true Grotian Arminians are consistent. Most Arminians, however, believe in the penal satisfaction theory of atonement, believe people go to hell and believe the atonement's unlimited in scope

 

[satz]

Originally posted by houseparent
Being an Arminian for over 20 years I can tell you that what a believer who is as I once was needs to be shown (carefully and slowly with patience) is why a "Loving God" would interfere with their free will. You see, Arminian pastors and authors have them convinced that as an attriubte of His love toward mankind God refuses to ever interfere with their free will. To tell them that He does is to try and teach them that God is not loving.

Tossing around terms such as open theism, etc will accomplish little to nothing. Remember, most Arminians are well educated in what they believe and little else. Fact is, they have been taught anything that goes against what they have been taught is cultish and of Satan.

I am not sure about historic arminians, but i think the base problem for many contemporary arminians is that they have elevated freewill to a level of importance the bible never gives it.

Many arminians make comments like 'God would never violate freewill' or 'the must be something called freewill' and it displays, i think, a subconscious belief that freewill is somehow very important to God. And in the end this is just more elevation of men, as if men chosing him freely was somehow very important to God.

Essentially, for the arminian, man is the main character of the bible. The whole history of redemption is about God fighting to win over man's will. And when trying to explain why God allowed the fall they reduce him to a pathetic being playing 'let the bird out of the cage and if it returns you know its yours' with the souls of mankind.

I heard someone once say that the god of arminianism is more like Zeus or one of the gods of xxx mythology. They may be physically all-powerful and all-wise, but in the end, their happiness and plans are all dependent on the actions of human beings, and their plans are very often foiled by those same humans.

I the end, arminianism makes the bible just like Greek mythology. It pays lip service to the power of 'God' but in the end it is man who is the hero and determiner of the story.


erm... ok i guess that didn't really show any inconsistencies with armianianism, just how man-centred it is, as a system.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by satz]

 

[bevirtuous]

Decided to ask via U2U.

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by bevirtuous]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Scott

If the answer is no and men must act in accordance with God's foreknowledge, then in effect there is a plan that man cannot vary from. This plan existed before the first man was created.

A point Frame makes very well in The Doctrine of God. He demonstrates that history is fatalistic in such a scenario. God can neither act on His creation to change the course of pre-seen events nor can man do anything to change them. It's just what it is when God winds it all up and lets it go.