Dan Chapa has taken issue with my post, but he seems incapable of formulating a counterargument. So let’s walk him through my argument one more time:
Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God. Let’s define love as acting in the best interests of another. That’s a neutral definition. It doesn’t list towards Calvinism or Arminianism. But if Dan has a better definition, he’s welcome to defend it.
According to Arminian theology, God loves everyone. He wants to save everyone. And he shows his love by redeeming everyone.
Yet there’s a catch: to avoid damnation, there’s a condition you must meet: you must repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ. Those who don’t are damned.
But how is that the most loving thing to do for unbelievers? Even if they remain unbelievers, why punish them in hell? Why make faith an obstacle to forgiveness?
It would be one thing to forgive them without atoning for their sin. That’s arguably unjust.
But since, according to Arminianism, God has redeemed everyone, he can justly forgive everyone. So why make faith a condition of forgiveness? How is that the most loving thing to do?
Arminians like to quote the sermon on the mount about loving our enemies. And they think that command mirrors the heart of God.
But in the nature of the case, loving your enemy is a type of disinterested love. You don’t love your enemy on condition that he loves you back. You don’t do him a good turn on condition that he return the favor. Rather, you act in his best interests in spite of how he treats you or feels about you. No strings attached.
Calvinism doesn’t generate the same internal tension. On the one hand, there’s no pretense that God was ever acting in the best interests of the reprobate. On the other hand, although God demands faith from the elect, God gives what he demands.