Good Rebuttal To an Arminian argument

Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by A_Wild_Boar, Jun 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A_Wild_Boar

    A_Wild_Boar Puritan Board Freshman

    Awesome argument agains the Christian Humanist ooops, I mean Arminian teaching on foreknowledge.

    I dont really agree with a bit of other info on this web page, but this article was good.


    http://www.withchrist.org/cuthroat.htm



    [quote:b2cc28312a]CHRISTIAN HUMANISM CUTS ITS OWN THROAT
    ON THE SUBJECT OF ELECTION & FOREKNOWLEDGE
    GOD can foreknow what will be because He has fore-appointed what will be. There must be certainty if there is absolute foreknowledge.

    Christian humanism foreknowledge--that God merely foresaw the future--is not Biblical. However, it is too much for Christian humanism. So we find people today--some of them with letters behind their name--who are not willing to admit even foresight. In this article, we show how the Christian humanist idea usually held as foreknowledge is destructive to itself.

    Christian humanists say that ELECTION is like this: God foreknew who would yield to the Spirit, and therefore elected to salvation all those whom He foresaw would do so. They think absolute free will is necessary to preserve human responsibility, and in turn make man his own savior instead of sovereign grace. However, this concept of foreknowledge actually grinds itself into nothing. There is not a Christian humanist living who can consistently believe this theory of foreknowledge, and still go around teaching his views as to salvation. Why so? Consider the following.

    No Christian humanist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished. I have heard some Christian humanists charge those who believe in sovereign grace that the Gospel preached to the non-elect is mockery since God has not elected them. If there is any validity in that objection, then it equally applies to them as well who preach to those who God knows won't be saved. God commands that the Gospel be preached to all, whether we clearly understand or accept His reasoning in the matter.

    No Christian humanist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be lost and then say it is not God's will that they be lost. If God does not will that they be lost, then why did He create them? Let the Christian humanist answer that question. god could have just as easily refrained from creating those that go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently the will of God that they be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can harp and whine against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which no Christian humanist can face. If he faces it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This makes God subject to Fate.

    No Christian humanist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of saving every single man that ever lived. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as a human being. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice? They say that God punished Christ for the sins of those whom He knew would go to Hell. Their theory of the atonement--although they do not mention this--involves the matter of Christ's suffering exclusively for the purpose of man's salvation--the substitutionary aspect. They fail to have any appreciation for aspect of propitiation.

    No Christian humanist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Christian humanists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Christian humanist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.

    No Christian humanist can consistently say the God foreknew all things yet teach that prayer is of any use. We would ask, "Should we pray for the salvation of those whom God foreknew would be damned?" "Should we pray for those whom God foreknew would be saved?" "If so, why?" Would they not be saved anyway, seeing that God foreknew they would be? Why pray at all, then?

    The only one who can rightly pray is the believer who believes in the sovereignty of God, that man is active not passive in the drama of redemption, and that God has appointed prayer as the means through which God brings about certain ends. For example, God through His prophet caused Hezekiah to go to God in prayer, asking for his life. God answered and said He would add fifteen years to Hezekiah. Now that was God's purpose all along, but you will notice that he caused Hezekiah to pray for that very purpose. All true prayer today is just like that.

    So to the Christian humanist, we ask: "Why pray?" But to the believer in the sovereignty of God, we ask: "Why cease to pray?" Such a believer should be in continual prayer and praise to God, Who is working all things according to the counsel of His own will.[/quote:b2cc28312a]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page