Interesting experience with Arminian

[MRC]

I am in a regular "guys group" that gets together to talk about Jesus and the bible. Mostly it is like an AA meeting for people that want to know God (Wild at Heart formed theology). Thus far it has been the Lord's will that I have been the teacher of the group, discussing all kinds of issues from a biblical perspective (read: reformed). A few weeks ago one of the guys asked: "if God knows everything before it happens, does that mean he knows who will be saved and who will not be saved? If so, why does he not just save everyone?" So, as any good 5-pointer would do I started to answer the question, keeping in mind that this can be a divisive issue. I was clear that it is my conviction that this is what scripture teaches, but that not everyone agrees. I hardly got my answer out (didn't really have time to do it justice or get into scripture) when one of the other guys very defensively accused me of "double predestination" and how Calvinists (his words, not mine) twist words and meanings in the bible to fit their argument. Then, he kind of realized (I think) that he hit the button too hard, and dwindled down into something unintelligible and stopped talking. The group (mainly new and immature believers) were kind of stunned, which lead me into a discussion of orthodoxy and what is worth breaking fellowship over and what is not.

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

 

[Manuel]

I think that the main reason is that they don't understand what the doctrines mean. When they hear the word predestination they want to re-interpret it because they think that if it's taken literally it would mean that God forces people to do things and it turns people into robots.; when they listen about election they think that it contradicts those passages that say that God is no respecter of persons, etc. In my discussions with arminians I have found out that what many ideas that they reject about the doctrines of grace I also reject them because they are wrong concepts about the doctrine. I usually tell them that they are chasing ghosts by attacking something that is not what I believe.

They think they are defending God by depriving Him of His sovereignty.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

I am in a regular "guys group" that gets together to talk about Jesus and the bible. Mostly it is like an AA meeting for people that want to know God (Wild at Heart formed theology). Thus far it has been the Lord's will that I have been the teacher of the group, discussing all kinds of issues from a biblical perspective (read: reformed). A few weeks ago one of the guys asked: "if God knows everything before it happens, does that mean he knows who will be saved and who will not be saved? If so, why does he not just save everyone?" So, as any good 5-pointer would do I started to answer the question, keeping in mind that this can be a divisive issue. I was clear that it is my conviction that this is what scripture teaches, but that not everyone agrees. I hardly got my answer out (didn't really have time to do it justice or get into scripture) when one of the other guys very defensively accused me of "double predestination" and how Calvinists (his words, not mine) twist words and meanings in the bible to fit their argument. Then, he kind of realized (I think) that he hit the button too hard, and dwindled down into something unintelligible and stopped talking. The group (mainly new and immature believers) were kind of stunned, which lead me into a discussion of orthodoxy and what is worth breaking fellowship over and what is not.

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

Arminans believe that it is unfair of God to predestine any to Eternal life and some to eternal destruction without them choosing for theirselves (not realizing that if God didnt choose any, none would be in heaven). This is because they have a high view of man and too of a low view of God. It challenges their traditions. It brings forth to them a mighty God who does whatever He pleases. This is the reason for their discomfort.

 

[MRC]

Arminans...have a high view of man and too of a low view of God. It challenges their traditions. It brings forth to them a mighty God who does whatever He pleases. This is the reason for their discomfort.

This is very well put. I have never really thought about the Arminian position in terms of a high view of man and low view of God - thanks!!

 

[MLCOPE2]

This may be a topic of discussion for another thread but I wonder if we can really call modern day arminians, arminians. It seems that classical arminianism is cut from a much different cloth than what I would call the libertarianism that exists today. A Pastor friend of mine who serves in the UMC recommended the book "Why I'm not a Calvinist" (Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, and he's a little biased since his brother co-wrote it! ) that defends a classic arminian position that advocates a type of total depravity and monergism among other more reformed beliefs. I learned a lot about the philosophical construct of their theology through this book and frequent conversations I've had with him. I would recommend reading it to help answer some of the questions that you have about their philosophy and theology.

Also, I am not, in any way, advocating the classic arminian position. I do however feel that it is worth understanding the difference between it's theology and modern libertarianism as opposed to an orthodox reformed position.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

Mike, you mind if I quote you as a 'follow-up' to a blogpost that I did on this very subject ?

I just posted on this very subject on my blog:
Calvinists attacked… what else is new ? | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz

Take a read through and tell me what you think.

 

[PuritanZealot]

I recently had a similar discussion with a close friend who doesn't hold a Calvinist or Arminian perspective, he argues predestination in some cases and free will in others, which makes it confusing to have biblical discussion with him.
He said when I mentioned my Strict Baptist leaning towards Hardline Calvinism and he said it blasphemes the gospel, that it kills the gospel, that it makes christians inward looking and self obsessed, that it creates churches of people who care more about what people think of them than if they're saved. I said but surely we can only be saved because God chooses us to, and in the predestination vs free will argument you are essentially arguing God's sovereignity versus mans choice and God always wins against men. He answered that if Calvinism were true then people who end up in Hell could argue they didn't have a choice and it's not fair that they're in Hell. I again responded that who are we to question God, who is the clay to question the potter, and again he responded, it wouldn't be fair.
I think the modern view of Calvinism is that we say 'answer the Gospel, because God might have pre-elected you, or don't if you don't feel like it, cos most of you are going to burn in Hell anyway'. Which is true, we can't MAKE people answer the Gospel but we still have a duty to preach it to the right ears, I just think the classic Arminian view (he left a Church in Bristol because he said it had arminian views he didn't like, they kept fearing their salvation would be lost if they were naughty) that most people unknowlingly hold finds it unfair that God can do whatever he wants. Odd really.

 

[nicnap]

Brother, I have been in many debates about Calvinism and T.U.L.I.P. -- some moderated, and some not. I would encourage you to carefully show that he is DEAD in trespasses and sin without Christ...that is the fundamental flaw in any brand of Arminian scheme. Once that is settled, the rest will fall into place. His reaction is because he has made an idol of the will, without understanding that the will (without regeneration) only wills that which is at enmity with God.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

Brother, I have been in many debates about Calvinism and T.U.L.I.P. -- some moderated, and some not. I would encourage you to carefully show that he is DEAD in trespasses and sin without Christ...that is the fundamental flaw in any brand of Arminian scheme. Once that is settled, the rest will fall into place. His reaction is because he has made an idol of the will, without understanding that the will (without regeneration) only wills that which is at enmity with God.

Right.

 

[Marrow Man]

Fair? The last thing we want is for God to be "fair." If God were fair, none of us would be saved.

I thank Him that He is not fair, as He showed mercy to enemies who did not deserve it.

 

[Bern]

In hindsight, when I was in the tough process of moving from modern arminianism to calvinism, the main thing that swayed me was truly understanding total depravity. Once you really do believe in TOTAL depravity, you realise the other 4 points must be true. For example, if total depravity is true, election HAS to be true, or nobody could ever be saved. The sticking point In my humble opinion is that people still think that in some way, they can deserve God's favour, or earn the right to be saved. Once one sees that he is not a sinner because he has sinned, but because all he has ever done is sin, because he cannot do otherwise, calvinism is the logical result.

 

[Der Pilger]

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

Yes to the first question.

To the second question, in a nutshell: They don't like the sovereignty of God.

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

In hindsight, when I was in the tough process of moving from modern arminianism to calvinism, the main thing that swayed me was truly understanding total depravity. Once you really do believe in TOTAL depravity, you realise the other 4 points must be true. For example, if total depravity is true, election HAS to be true, or nobody could ever be saved.

I think it was R.C. Sproul who once said that the last four points of the TULIP are really just footnotes to the first.

 

[JennyG]

Thjis may be slightly off topic, but I have a pet theory that whether or not it "turns people freaky" is a pretty good thermometer of the truth of any teaching. It's an absolutely unmistakeable reaction and I don't know of any better way to describe it.
Just for one example, I noticed several years ago that freakiness was the invariable response of a lot of people to six-day creation. Eventually I learned to look out for it as a quick rule of thumb, especially if I wasn't sure myself about something. Biblical truth turns people freaky.

 

[Scott1]

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

It is offensive to fallen, self centered, self seeking creatures that they:

1) cannot save themselves
2) are totally, 100% dependent on God for everything

Pray that your friend will come to that awesome, sobering realization, and fall down to his knees in repentance and adoration of a Holy God because of it... and that God would be pleased to use you to engage this with this person.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Is that not the typical response to the doctrines of grace? What is it about the reformed understanding of salvation that turns people so freaky?

The problem is non-Biblical, humanist presuppositions on their part. They are coming at Biblical doctrine with non-Biblical ideas regarding 'fairness', worldy desire to earn (or at least co-earn) their salvation, etc. They assume that this is the perspective of the Bible, when it is a perspective which they have brought over with them from their prior, non-Christian life.