Arminians and other opponents of Calvinism frequently attack Reformed theism as monstrous, cruel, &c. But let’s take a look at this from the other side, shall we?
According to Arminianism, there are two types of people who go to hell: those who were never saved, and those who were saved, but lost their salvation.
Of course, this raises the question, why does their God save a person to damn him? Why not simply leave him in his unsaved state?
Suppose there’s a new student in high school. His family moved into the area a few weeks ago. Because he’s feeling lonely and out of place, suppose I appear to befriend him by inviting him to take a fishing trip with me and two of my high school buddies. He’s overjoyed to make some new friends.
On the first day out, he falls into the water. Unfortunately, he can’t swim. Fortunately, I jump in to save him.
He hugs me and thanks me profusely for saving his life. He tells us how much he’s looking forward to the life ahead of him. I nod and smile.
The next day he falls into the water again. Only this time I don’t rescue him. I let him drown.
What is more, I had premonition that this would happen before I ever invited him to join us on the fishing trip. I knew that when I saved him the day before, I’d let him die the day after. I knew all along, as he was hugging me and thanking me for saving his life, that I’d let him die the very next day.
Why rescue him in the first place, only to let him drown a day later? Isn’t that cruel? Giving him false hope? Making him happy just to make the letdown that much harder to take? Get his hopes up just to dash them?
I know something he doesn’t. I know that he is doomed. But I allow him to entertain a tremendous sense of relief after his brush with death, even though, unbeknownst to him, that’s a temporary reprieve which is just a set-up for his untimely demise.
How is that so very different than a serial killer who orchestrates the death of his victim by befriending the victim to gain his trust, so that he can toy with the victim before he delivers the coup de grâce?
Well, compelling as it is, I hope to hear the other side's take on it.
ReplyDeleteIt just solidifies my resolve even more.
I would only point to these words of encouragement for those who have been getting weary in well doing:::>
Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
If you remove the word eternal, it would be easier to side with them! But how does one get around the unsearchable riches of Christ and His Eternal Purpose?
You lie.
Tender Mercies
ReplyDeleteHilarious sarcasm. A more accurate title would be "LFW Cruelty."
As an aside, I have just learned that some Lutherans are vehemently anti-Calvinist on the issue of Universal/Unlimited Atonement vs. Limited Atonement. They believe it is a first-order, salvific doctrine, and that if you don't affirm Universal Atonement, then potentially hellish consequences await you.
I was really surprised by it. For those who don't believe me, see the comments starting at around #300 on this Evangel Thread.
Truth
ReplyDeletejust an aside digressive comment, I don't see any hilarity in this.
The point is impossible to refute or remove.
Our enemy is deadly serious against the Truth and there are many who have fallen victim to the lie.
Here is a most sober reminder:
Rom 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Gal 6:3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
There is no compromise here.
Everytime someone comes and attacks:::> "....Arminians and other opponents of Calvinism frequently attack Reformed theism as monstrous, cruel, &c....", what do you know unequivocally?
There is much in this admonition in light of those facts:
2Ti 2:1 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus,
2Ti 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
2Ti 2:3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
Anyway, I hope I wasn't coming across to harsh towards you?
Natamllc,
ReplyDeleteFocus on the noun, not just the adjective.
The noun is "sarcasm". I found Steve's sarcasm in his title "Tender Mercies" hilarious. Sarcasm does frequently invoke laughter.
His choice of a blog post title is what I was laughing at.
Get the distinction?
I said the same thing, more or less, to a RC this week and he refused to answer this question. He called the Calvinist's God a "machine" and got all sorts of worked up when I referred to free will as a scapegoat to the question of Hell and God's omniscience. Then he said if I continued to talk to him about it he might lose "Christian respect" for me.
ReplyDeleteI was tearing up.
TUAD said:
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I have just learned that some Lutherans are vehemently anti-Calvinist on the issue of Universal/Unlimited Atonement vs. Limited Atonement. They believe it is a first-order, salvific doctrine, and that if you don't affirm Universal Atonement, then potentially hellish consequences await you.
BTW, we got into a debate with a Lutheran over some of this a few months ago.
Thanks Patrick for the link.
ReplyDeleteI totally respect Martin Luther for his courage and work that precipitated the Reformation, but I'm not with Martin Luther on everything he believed.
Seems like some Lutherans venerate Martin Luther in the same way that some Catholics venerate Mary.
TUAD
ReplyDeletethank you for your further input to my comments. They simply underscore the gravity of the "tender mercies" sarcasm. I don't find it offensive nor am I offended by Steve's way of bringing across the severity of the point.
Why is Truth always under attack?
Let God sort out Who are His kids and Who are not. This sort of sarcasm just touches some the wrong way and flushes them out, which is what I hope will come about in here.
What do those of the other side think here about the compelling argument presented this way? The argument cannot be refuted or removed because Truth is not something negotiable.
In a similar vein as Steve's argument, I have a problem with Arminians claiming there is no genuine offer of salvation when a Calvinist preaches the Gospel, since we affirm that God has His Elect; yet then the same Arminian claims it *IS* a genuine offer of salvation when the offer is made to those whom God knows full well are damned and will never believe.
ReplyDelete--In a similar vein as Steve's argument, I have a problem with Arminians claiming there is no genuine offer of salvation when a Calvinist preaches the Gospel, since we affirm that God has His Elect; yet then the same Arminian claims it *IS* a genuine offer of salvation when the offer is made to those whom God knows full well are damned and will never believe.--
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. Everytime I listen to James White's first debate with George Bryson, and I hear George Bryson engage in fingerpointing apologetics (as almost all arminians do), he does this exact thing.
He described the calvinist's gospel call as just a major tease. Of course, never let it be said that his own system does the same thing, let's just make the calvinists look bad so people will reject my opponents position without reflecting on their own.
With regards to the "P" of Perseverance of the Saints...
ReplyDeleteDo Calvinists/Reform folks have a good response to those who claim that Calvinists/Reform folks employ the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to support their arguments?
A few thoughts re "Tender Mercies"...
ReplyDeleteBut doesn't the Arminian believe in free will? Ergo, your Arminian in the water WOULDN'T be asking to be saved? Methinks your argument's premises in your analogy fall short in the context of the Arminian view of free will! Doesn't it?
Why WOULD he/arminian ( in context of your illustration) be calling for help in the first place since he/they believe in "willing" NOT to be saved? To follow that view to its logical conclusion I think your analogy falls short, in that, he who is drowning as an Arminian would chose NOT to be saved no matter if God is "reaching" out or not- because it's the Arminian "choosing" at his own time and place of events, God. God is not actually "saving" him per say, but rather he is "believing" in a God of his own choosing wether he understands this or not according to the scriptures.
Therefore, the Arminian is always the one choosing; God has NO part in the choosing or in the un-choosing! In your analogy, the roles should be reversed to a degree.
The Arminian is the one who would be asking to be "saved" vs you choosing( Calvinism's view of election) to jump in the water and saving him by YOUR choice! I think the analogy that you used falls short because it doesn't put the proper sequences in the Arminian view of free will.
The analogy of the fear of dying does NOT work in trying to explain the Arminian view at all because the Arminian doesn't see himself as being in the state of "drowning" that would result in his ultimate death by NOT choosing to be "saved", to use your analogy. But rather, he sees himself as "choosing"
in a god he doesn't know! His choice is in a god he has created in his own image; therefore, being consistent, the Arminian would have to say after his un-choosing this god he thought he "believed" in, that he believed or had "faith' in something that was never there in the first place! No one can have a belief in something as an eternal god and then NOT believe. If their belief in an eternal anything, that "thing" would have to have always existed! So if the Arminian is consistent with his own view, he could NOT not believe in an eternal being after the fact. Therefore, the Arminian is NOT to be trusted in anything, since his "view"of the true God is illogical from the very beginning( Romans 1:19,20)!
May God grant us the grace to share the gospel to all as ones who have come to faith by His adoption into His kingdom; having been given the Truth- Christ himself- being snatched from the very bowels of hell by the mercies of God in Christ!
All corrections are to be expected!
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteThe "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't a fallacy unless it begs the question (which is the real fallacy). When you get into definitions and axioms, you can't help but commit the "fallacy" all the time.
Let me give you an example. "No true square has more than four sides" is not a fallacy--it's a fact of definition. So is "No true bachelor is married."
When it comes to perseverance, the Calvinist doesn't beg the question there. The Bible shows that those who are saved are eternally saved. It also shows that there are false converts who fall away. It furthermore says that those who fall away were never believers in the first place. Therefore, all those things together constitute the argument: "No true Christian will fall away from faith." And because there's an argument, there's no begging the question involved, and there's no fallacy.
Thanks for your reply, Peter.
ReplyDeleteI was concerned about the NTS fallacy being applied to "P" because of this link.
Excerpt: "This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it."
The claim itself isn't free from falsification because it relies on the Scriptures being true. Someone can always feel free to try to falsify that. It would be like me trying to falsify the dictionary in order to say that "No true bachelor is married" is false, but it's possible in theory nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteAna,
ReplyDeleteAccording to Arminian theology, God gives everyone sufficient grace, Christ dies for everyone, and God regenerates whoever first believes in him. Yet, according to Arminian theology, some born-again Christians will lose their salvation.
So why does God save them in the first place? Why does he redeem them, give them sufficient grace to believe, then regenerate them after they believe, if he knows all along that he will damn them for apostasy? That's the point.