The exclusivity of Arminianism

[Username1]

The more I think about it the more I find ‘classical’ Arminianism deeply flawed. Objectionable even. Make that absurd and objectionable even.

Arminianism has a shiny surface gloss of cuddly inclusivity - God is love and God loves everybody - but scratch that surface and it reveals its true dark heart of exclusivity.

Yes God loves everybody. But if you don’t want to believe that, or can’t believe that, or (according to some fundamentalists) you haven’t even been given the opportunity to believe that, then you’re in big trouble. And before you know it the much vaunted message of love and inclusion is turned on its head and suddenly it becomes all about exclusion - exclusion from the elite club, the elect club if you like, of believers.

And this is where it gets objectionable. Because however you spin it, what ultimately determines whether you’re in or out is your splendid decision to believe. Sure Christ can drag you kicking and screaming to the brink of the well. But he simply will not force you to drink of the living waters therein - because He loves you too much to do that!

And so, at the end of the Arminian day, you are saved eternally because of something you did, not something God did. Ok, you couldn’t have saved yourself without His help, but let’s not split that hair. Jesus’ supremely heroic sacrifice, his agonising death and glorious resurrection, count for absolutely nothing. Nada. Diddly squat. God has ripped up the rulebook and started the Universe wondrously anew, but you won’t be a part of it because you backed the wrong horse in the belief sweepstake.

So all those unsaved unbelievers, those schmucko supremos, well they’ve only got themselves to blame for their eschatological misery. And very likely they’re irredeemably wicked anyway. God keep them away from us saved and oh so smart believers forever.

Jeez, it’s enough to drive a chap to Calvinism.

Cheers

Johnny

[james.goetz]

Hi Johnny,

What if we remove the judgment deadline for traditional Arminianism? In this context, God never gives up on a single soul and lovingly pursues every soul forever.

[Username1]

Hi James

That, for me, is the paradox of Arminian Universalism - which is the label I suppose (as I am reluctant to put labels on my beliefs) I would put on myself. Yes, I agree that true love requires freedom to choose. And I certainly believe that God never closes the door on a single soul and does pursue us lovingly forever. I also believe it is impossible for a single soul to resist His love forever - hence Universalism!

What I dislike about classical Arminianiam is that it does indeed see God slamming the door on us at the moment of our death and locking and bolting it forever in hell. In an admirable attempt to ‘get God off the hook’ some Arminians turn it around and put the responsibility for our damnation on us - CS Lewis says that the doors of hell are locked on the inside, and for some of us will remain so forever once we become cemented irretrievably in our rebellion.

Now I have a big problem with this. As I said in my OP, it enshrines the human will above God’s, renders salvation contingent on our belief decision - which, as Tom Talbott points out, means that we can quite legitimately boast of that decision. It makes God a respecter of persons (which the Bible says he isn’t), and contradicts some of the key teachings of Christ - that He is the shepherd who searches for His lost sheep until he finds them.

As you know, I have big problems with Calvinism in toto, but in this respect at least - God’s sovereignty in salvation - I think the Calvinist option is superior.

Human freedom is, for me, essential to a meaningful theodicy. But freedom to damn ourselves eternally; or freedom to save ourselves and hence elevate ourselves above the unbelieving masses - no sir!

Cheers

Johnny

[james.goetz]

Now I have a big problem with this. As I said in my OP, it enshrines the human will above God’s, renders salvation contingent on our belief decision - which, as Tom Talbott points out, means that we can quite legitimately boast of that decision. It makes God a respecter of persons (which the Bible says he isn’t), and contradicts some of the key teachings of Christ - that He is the shepherd who searches for His lost sheep until he finds them.

I see it that God gave humans the capacity to accept or reject salvation. This is not enshrining the human will above God’s will but is all part of God’s design.

[JasonPratt]

I’ve said for years that each side has some important things it gets right (and should be respected for that) as well as gets wrong (and should be critiqued for that–which they often are by each other!)

Growing up in the Southern Baptist Convention, which (in principle) respects both Arm and Calv members, I had to take seriously the Calv critiques of Arminianism as well as vice versa. That lack of original persistence from God in Arminianism is just as deadly (although it took me a long time to realize it): one way or another we end up having to earn God’s salvation, and in versions of Arminianism where we don’t have to earn it God is forced against His wishes to give up on sinners!

It shouldn’t be surprising that Arminians have a tendency to gravitate toward ideas which, when pushed a little farther, would become some kind of emergent pantheism or (in a somewhat different direction) a God/Anti-God cosmological dualism.

It’s a mirror image of the tendency of Calvinists to gravitate toward ideas which, which pushed a little farther, would become mere nominal deism or Islamic.

(But to be fair, we have a demonstrable tendency to drift toward a doctrineless religious pluralism where everything is true except for whatever we happen not to like perhaps. There’s room for critical caution on any of the three sides.)

[Username1]

Hi James

I see it that God gave humans the capacity to accept or reject salvation. This is not enshrining the human will above God’s will but is all part of God’s design.

I agree. But if classical ECT Arminianiam is true, then our will as regards our eternal destiny is indeed enshrined above God’s. The Bible is decisive on this - 1 Timothy 2:4 - “[God] will have all men to be saved” (KJV). The Greek word used here is thelo, Strong’s 2309, meaning “to be resolved or determined, to purpose”. Now I would say that’s unequivocal. If God is determined that something should happen, it’s gonna happen!

It annoys me that modern Bible translations water this down to the mealy mouthed “God desires” or “God wants all people to be saved”. A clear case of the translation being forced to serve the translators’ theology.

Of course, this verse is a dagger through the heart of Calvinism also. I knew there was some reason I liked it so .

Cheers

Johnny

[Username1]

I’ve said for years that each side has some important things it gets right (and should be respected for that) as well as gets wrong (and should be critiqued for that–which they often are by each other!)

Growing up in the Southern Baptist Convention, which (in principle) respects both Arm and Calv members, I had to take seriously the Calv critiques of Arminianism as well as vice versa. That lack of original persistence from God in Arminianism is just as deadly (although it took me a long time to realize it): one way or another we end up having to earn God’s salvation, and in versions of Arminianism where we don’t have to earn it God is forced against His wishes to give up on sinners!

It shouldn’t be surprising that Arminians have a tendency to gravitate toward ideas which, when pushed a little farther, would become some kind of emergent pantheism or (in a somewhat different direction) a God/Anti-God cosmological dualism.

It’s a mirror image of the tendency of Calvinists to gravitate toward ideas which, which pushed a little farther, would become mere nominal deism or Islamic.

(But to be fair, we have a demonstrable tendency to drift toward a doctrineless religious pluralism where everything is true except for whatever we happen not to like perhaps. There’s room for critical caution on any of the three sides.)

Agree with all this, Jason. In particular I think you make an excellent point about the EU tendency to “drift toward a doctrineless religious pluralism”. Something like this seems to have happened with John Hick, for example.

It’s a problem for EU. I think many open-minded traditionalists (if that’s not an oxymoron) do see a lot of truth and merit in the EU position, but fear embracing it will lead to them being cast adrift from the faith altogether. Indeed, I have debated with such Christians; initially they are open to EU ideas, but when it comes to the crunch they are afraid of jettisoning the security of long-held orthodox beliefs.

This situation is, in some respects, analogous with a reluctance among traditionalists to embrace a progressive view of Scripture and Biblical errancy, or indeed the scientific worldview – evolution etc. For them, I guess, it is a dangerously ‘slippery slope’.

Cheers

Johnny