The Illogical Arminian

By now, you have probably read several of my essays (although you could be one of the lucky ones who stumble upon this essay first) :-) Most readers are well aware of my Calvinistic thinking--in other words, my correct thinking. ;-) But it is not enough to simply show the Biblical and logical proof that Calvinism is correct. No, our culture is too caught up in the "me-me-me" mainstream that simply showing Calvinism is correct is not enough; I must also show how Arminianism doesn't make any sense.

It is not by accident that the first time my own Arminian ideas were questioned came at the hands of an atheist. (Yes, I was at one point in time an Arminian--as are all immature Christians; but the truth--the meat of the Bible--was presented as I grew.) You see, atheists, for all their incorrect assumptions about God, are not stupid people. They can see a fatal flaw in Christianity if ever there was one.

Well, there isn't one. But I found that as an Arminian, I could not defend Christianity. There is little surprise as to why I could not--I couldn't defend Christianity because I was an Arminian and Arminianism is wrong! Since Arminianism is wrong, then it was impossible to defend it under close scrutiny of an atheist.

It is little wonder that Christians flee debates with atheists. You see, our own thinking shows us the flaws in the Arminian pattern of salvation and the Arminian God, and because we know they are there, we do not feel comfortable talking to atheists. Atheists are quick to jump on Arminians because Arminians are wrong, and since most Christians in America today are Arminians it is no wonder that atheists are gaining the upper hand in much of the scholarly debate.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Atheists can defeat Arminianism. Atheists cannot defeat Calvinism. Why? Because Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong.

Thus said, let me show you the illogical beliefs at work in Arminianism. If you are an Arminian (like B. Yates, who gave a critical review of this work), PLEASE e-mail me your defenses and rebuttals of the following points, because I will not be (rightfully) accused of misportraying modern Arminian thought (as opposed to what Arminius really taught--which is also vastly different than modern Arminianism, more appropriately called Pelagianism.)

These words were told to me one night during a school trip by one of my atheistic friends, Nate. I, like any other practical Arminian Christian, quickly jumped at him with the usual, "Yes there is!" But when asked how, I could only say, "Because there is!"

So Nate offered an example. "Suppose that I have a hamster in my hand. I am completely sovereign because the hamster must do what I demand it to do. If I put it down on a table, it can now make free choices, but I am no longer sovereign, because I cannot determine what the hamster will do."

I was aghast. Could it be that there was no such thing as free will, or was God not sovereign? But didn't all the preachers and writers of the time proclaim that we had free will and God was sovereign? After all, I heard of a sermon in the local community where I lived where the pastor said, "God will never violate your free will" yet he also said God was sovereign. So, how could I defend this position?

The problem arose because I COULDN'T defend it. Here's why. What I thought of as freedom was really autonomy. Such being the case, God had no sovereignty. It is precisely this confusion of terms that led Nate to his attack on Christianity. (Indeed, after I became a Calvinist, he actually realized that my arguments were more logical, and when I debated Arminians, he would side with me.)

Autonomy Autonomy--lit. self-law. Theologically absolute freedom with no restraints from anything (including God).

When most Christians consider the idea that they have free will, they think of God as kind of a nebulous spectator watching the world. Most Christians today feel that God doesn't interfere in our lives (this is more appropriately called "Deism" rather than "theism"); that He has set things in motion, and is now just watching how things will turn out. Yet, those same Christians also believe God is sovereign. If you do not believe that God is sovereign, then you cannot be a Christian, for you do not even believe in a "god" let alone the God of the Bible.

How are these two poles reconciled? Most Christians today believe that God is sovereign over events around them, but not over their individual choices. In other words, if there is a war, God is sovereignly using that--but if you decide to commit adultery, then God has no choice but to let you.

At this point, let me make the distinction between the two classes of Arminians. There are Arminians who believe that God CANNOT interfere with your free will because He is unable (these people would rightly be called Pelagians, and are not even true Christians). The other class (where most people fit into) believe that God can interfere, but that He won't..

The point I wish to make is this: that even though Arminians (not Pelagians!) say that God can interfere with your freedom, in reality, He cannot. Under the Arminian system, you still have autonomy. This is a problem! For the only autonomous being is God Himself.

I was once asked, "Why can't God have made a planet somewhere with even one autonomous human being on it? Aren't you limiting God if you say He can't?" My answer is this: "It is no more limiting to God than to say that God cannot make a round square." It is impossible for God to make an autonomous being, for to be autonomous you must thereby be a law unto yourself so that God cannot do anything to you, nor can He interfere with anything that you do.

This sounds like what Arminians want in free will. But the will cannot be free because to be free, it must be autonomous! Otherwise, it is not free but bound by some other law. Granted, most Arminians will say that human will is contingent on the will of God (in which case, it is no longer "free" will but "contingent" will).

So even Arminians who claim to have free will in reality recognize that they do not. However, what they say is that they do. Indeed, they act as though they do, for they say that God cannot violate your free will.

Why can't God violate your free will? Because He doesn't want to violate your free will. But if you look at this carefully, you'll realize that what it is saying is that God is sovereign, but He doesn't want to be sovereign. Arminians claim that God loves us so much that He gives us free will. What this effectively does is take God out of the picture completely. It says that God sovereignly grants us freedom to act apart from Him. Therefore, God has granted us autonomy, in the Arminian scheme of things.

The Sovereignty of God At the heart of Arminianism is this issue of Free Will. Free will is so important to the Arminian when it comes to salvation that they will sacrifice God's sovereignty in the process. The common Arminian phrase is, "God is sovereign, but also just. We cannot give so much to His sovereignty so that it takes away from His justice."

Forgive me for pointing out such an illogical statement (when the answer should be self-evident to all), but what does Salvation have to do with God's justice at all? The answer is: NOTHING. Salvation depends on God's mercy. (Romans 9:16). So already, we see that the Arminian position on the Sovereignty of God in salvation is flawed, for it is looking upon Salvation as if it were justice.

Let's examine this further. Suppose God were to work out Salvation in matters of Justice. If God was only Justice without Mercy, what do we have?

Already we are stuck with a problem. We all sin, and the wages of sin is death. If God were only Just, then all would deserve death. But what does the end of Romans 6:23 say? "But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Already, you see that salvation is dependent on the gift of God. It must be so, because if God were only Just then all would die and go to hell.

This is not to say that God is unjust! Far be it from being so! But God is non-Just. Non-justice comes in two forms: injustice and mercy. Mercy is not justice, but neither is it injustice; it is simply non-justice. We do not want justice from God; we want non-justice in the form of mercy. Mercy is the good form of non-justice, while injustice is the bad form.

Now look at this part of the equation: Salvation is a gift of God. What does that mean? "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by his works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:1--5).

Our salvation is a result of the gift of God. A gift is not something that we deserve, otherwise it would be a wage (or a payment) not a gift. What do we deserve? We deserve death (for the wages of sin is death).

So what does this have to do with the sovereignty of God? It has everything to do with it, because of the way that Arminians view Salvation. Let's take a look:

In the Arminian scheme of Salvation, we are dead in our sins. (This is a stand from classical Arminianism; Arminius himself taught Original Sin. If you don't believe this, then you are a Pelagian, not an Arminian.) Again, we are dead in our sins, but God makes us alive in the Arminian scheme. Does God make just some alive? No, but rather all are made alive so that they can choose whether or not to follow God. This being made alive is not the same thing as Regeneration (in fact, I don't know what Arminians call it, since so many of them today even deny the evil nature of man to begin with). Rather, God gives each sinner a choice.

Herein lies the problem. In Arminianism, the sinner decides whether or not to believe. As such, God is out of the picture. By definition God is thereby not sovereign over salvation.

Put another way (to show that Arminians really believe in autonomy), Arminians believe that God gives all sinners a choice to believe or not to believe. It is thereby contingent on the individual person as to whether or not they will believe. Further, God does not interfere one way or the other in the decision. In Arminianism, God cannot justly interfere with the sinner's choice; for if God made a sinner believe in Him, then the Arminian claims it is not true love toward God, and if God made a sinner choose hell, then everyone knows that would make God a tyrant (no matter what system of theology you believe). So here is the point where Arminians make freedom into autonomy--if God is completely outside of the picture, then there are no laws contingent on the sinner; the sinner is therefore a perfectly free agent (and has by definition autonomy).

So, as you can see, by definition, God is not sovereign in the Arminian system of salvation. Arminians try to get around this by saying that God knows what the future is, so He is still sovereign because He knows what people will do.

Let's examine this argument for a moment. Suppose you see a man on the street. He has a gun, and it's point at the head of a passing motorist. If you know that the murderer will pull the trigger and kill the motorist, does that make you sovereign? OF COURSE NOT! You can know all the future events forever, but that doesn't make you sovereign. Things can still happen that you don't want to happen, and just because you know they will happen doesn't mean you are in control of the situation, any more than the apostle Peter became sovereign when Jesus told him what kind of death he would have. No, you see, foreknowledge does not give you sovereignty.

But let us suppose that God looks through time and sees what's going to happen and decides that He wants it to happen that way without interference from Him. Again, that does not make God sovereign, but merely an oracle and a fortune teller. If God is sovereign then He must be able to interfere in the events that are going to happen. And if God just looks through time as a spectator, then it is nothing less than Him saying, "Hmmmm. I decree that that which shall happen shall happen because that's what I want anyway."

Ah, but there's yet another problem in Arminianism. God doesn't always get what He wants! Now here is the question Arminians must answer: By definition, a sovereign God gets everything He wants, so how can God not get what He wants if God is sovereign?

So the problems mount for the Arminian. How can a sovereign God not get what a sovereign God wants?

Ah, enter in the Arminian's claims: A Sovereign God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all to be saved! Hmm. Interesting here, and we must examine this claim as well.

You see, in Arminianism, Salvation is dependent on your free will. Arminians claim it is not just for God to choose who will be saved, and they are right--because it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with mercy. And because man has to have free will (autonomy!) in the Arminian viewpoint, then God cannot choose who will be saved. That means that though God loves everyone and wants all to be saved (as the Arminians erroneously claim) that same God wants all to have freedom to choose Him. (I've still yet to see a verse that supports this view, but that's what they claim.)

So God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all saved. Ask yourself this question: if you are burning in hell, do you care if your will was not violated? Of course not! You just want out of hell! So here's what the Arminians have done:

God's salvation is reduced below the level of human will. God wants our wills to be so intact that He will allow you to go to hell rather than sacrifice your freedom. Even if He doesn't want you there, He will still rather have you there than to violate your freedom!

But look at the erroneous statements that Arminians make! They presuppose that God loves everyone, and that He wants all to be saved! If this is true, then all are saved! I'm not God, yet I can devise several ideas that would get all men saved if I want them all saved.

2) Have choirs of angels sing out what the stars say so that illiterate people are saved too.

4) If anyone was blind, mute, or deaf--I could cure them, and show them everything else I've done!

5) I could send my Son Jesus to every house to personally perform miracles for all to see.

And you see, none of these ways would even violate free will! And believe me, God's a lot smarter than I am, so why can't He come up with better plans for everyone to be saved?

What? I can hear the people screaming in the aisles now! I'm well aware that people say that I will go to hell for this doctrine, and they have no idea what God is, so I worry more for them anyway. I also know that others who believe what I tell you have been burned at the stake for their beliefs. So be it, I shall also die for my beliefs if necessary, because you cannot kill the truth.

Does God love everyone equally? You be the judge: "Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'' (Romans 9:13). And what did Jacob do to deserve the love of God? "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works, but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" (Romans 9:11-13).

Arminians hate this passage. There's no doubt why--it proves them flat out wrong! God doesn't love everyone the same, and as to what all those passages that they bring up about God loving "all" mean--read the context of the passage and it becomes clear that God only loves those He has elected (and of course He would love all of them!).

Now why would this be wrong for God to do? It is only wrong if those people that God "hates" deserve love instead. But we have already shown that all deserve hell. How, then, is it wrong for God to hate people who have sinned?

I was given this analogy: Suppose a ship sank and you can save all the people by tossing a life preserver into the water. If you do not do so, is that right?

But the analogy has two problems. First of all, sinners do not deserve salvation. It is one thing when people are dying in the water--from the human perspective, they do not deserve that. But if they did deserve death, it would not be just for anyone to save them! Is it just for you to save someone from the electric chair when he justly deserves to die? Likewise, if people deserve hell, and you do not give it to them, then you are not acting in justice, but in mercy.

The second problem is this: in this analogy, if one person dies because you didn't save them, even though you had the power to, then you are not being just. But that already happens all the time in salvation! God already doesn't save everyone even though He could. Even Arminians realize that God could save everyone by forcing them to believe, if He so chose to do so! So every time an Arminian uses this illustration, then he is saying that God is not just!

Again, they claim that God doesn't want to violate our free will (autonomy!). Again, I say that God can and does save us, and can do so without violating our "free will!" God can save all the people without violating their free will! God is all powerful! Suppose He tosses you a life raft and you do not accept it, God can still make it possible for you to breathe underwater. He is sovereign! He can make the ocean dry up! He can do anything He wants, none of which would violate your free will, so that you will be saved. But He doesn't do that! Why would God not do that if He wants all saved?

So you can see that Arminians are illogical, not only because they believe they can be autonomous, but because they believe that God wants all men saved but is too weak to do so. As you can see, the Arminian God is no God at all! You see why it is so easy for atheists to destroy the Arminian position! Arminians claim God is sovereign, yet their definition of God guts all possibility for His sovereignty! Arminians believe a contradiction, and as such they are squashed in debates with atheists who can see those contradictions.

That's why I say the Arminian God is not a Theistic God, but a humanistic God. I implore any Arminian still reading this: Repent of your humanistic thoughts against God, come into communion with the real God--the SOVEREIGN God of the Bible.

I implore any Arminian still reading this: Repent of your humanistic thoughts against God, come into communion with the real God--the SOVEREIGN God of the Bible.

Here's my problem with my Calvinist brothers who argue this way. In saying that Arminians need to come into communion with the real God they are saying Arminians are condemned until they repent of their doctrine because they aren't believing in the right God. So it is still our belief that saves us, and God's sovereignty is still denied.

I still believe I was saved and in communion with the real God before I knew what right doctrine was. I think most Calvinists who came away from Arminianism, if they were honest, would say the same.

Simply put, God saves. You aren't saved because you have correct doctrine. And you don't just get all the right doctrine the moment you are saved.

If Calvinist apologists would drop the seperation thing and treat Arminians as brothers, though mistaken, I think more progress could be made.

Now I know not all Calvinists see Arminians as lost, but it seems to be a major premise in the debates I see on these boards. Sad, really, to misuse grace to put ourselves above those who are where we just came from.

Good point. But what if you were predestined to be an A who repents and becomes a C?

Great answer! I agree that correct doctrine is not absolutely essential for one to be saved, with the possible exception that it must at least present Jesus as Savior, Who died for your sins to purchase forgiveness and cleansing from sin, and Who rose again for your justification. Most Christians start off as Arminians, because that is the prevailing doctrinal stance of most Evangelical Christians. I know I did, and it was only after years of reading scripture, asking questions, and waiting on the Lord to quicken His Word to my heart and mind, that I began to see that what I thought was right didn't answer many questions I found myself asking, and I kept running into the idea that God was Sovereign over all, and that He was not under any obligation to save anyone. Further discussions, debates, and scripture searching led me to embrace the Calvinist position, even though I didn't know that was what it was at the time. I was not introduced to Calvinism by Calvinists, but by God Himself. Calvinism is just a convenient handle to hang on what is, in reality, the Truth of God's Word.

I don't believe that Arminians are lost, unless they willfully refuse to hear the Truth. Even then, I am not willing write them off, but just see them as deceived and in need of God's enlightenment. That's His department, not mine, other than I am posting and participating in discussions to clearly uphold and define the Truth, not to condemn, but to plant seeds, to maybe water those seeds, but it is God Who will give the increase.

I thought most Armenians were Catholic or Russian Othodox...

Slight difference in spelling. Arminians are followers of a theological system set forth by Jacobus Arminius (James Arminius) and codified by the Remonstrants of Holland. Armenia is a region in Eastern Europe in the area around Russia, if I remember correctly. Russian Orthodox are more closely aligned with the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church, and not so closely with Rome. Arminian churches in America are usually of the evangelical persuasion, althougn you will also find many Baptist Churches among them. Methodists are another Arminian denomination, followers of John Wesley. Calvinists are usually found in the Reformed Churches, some Historic Baptists, and some Independent Churches. I know I'm leaving out a lot, but I'm just answering off the top of my head.

I hope that helps!

So you acknowledge that God by his sovereign, active, purposeful will, caused me explicitly to fall into error and false doctrine?

Is there any reason why He shouldn't, if He chooses?

Actually you made that choice. How do you know this isn't God's method of calling you out of it and into the Truth?

The author didn't argue that Arminians were lost, only that Arminians would lose debates with atheists because of their (faulty) doctrines.

I used to be Arminian. (man, I was born and raised catholic; I used to be heathen for crying out loud.) I do try and get Arminians into the Word to try and convince them of their error. (not that I have all the answers, just a lot of answers.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.