Responding to Arminianism - a defence of Calvinism

So what is Arminianism and how does Calvinism respond? How does Arminianism hold up when examined by scripture?


Arminianism is based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as the Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in a theological statement signed by 45 ministers and submitted to the States-General of the Netherlands. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance which were

1. Free will
2. Conditional election
3. Universal Atonement
4. Resistible grace
5. Falling from Grace

 The crux of Remonstrant Arminianism lay in the assertion that human dignity requires an unimpaired freedom of the will. John Wesley and Charles Finney are proponents of this teaching.  The Synod of Dort, after 2 years, unanimously rejected these 5 points as a rejection of the truths of scripture and responded with the 5 points of Calvinism from the biblically consistent reformed teachings of John Calvin, Martin Luther and others of the reformation which refuted these erroneous teachings (TULIP - Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints).

The biblical argument for Arminianism

The argument of Arminians to support their view comes from arguing the following points:

1. Man is not totally depraved
2. God's election is based on His foresight of those who he sees down the corridor of time would choose him
3. That those biblical references for unconditional election are related to national election not individual election
4. God desires all people to be saved
5. It is destructive to faith and godliness
6. It is destructive to evangelism
7. It is destructive to prayer
8. If there is no free will, then man cannot be held responsible for His sin
9. It makes God out to be a monster
10. Scripture says God sometimes relents over a particular course of action

A biblical response to the Arminianist argument

1. Arminianism along with Roman Catholicism teach that though the fall has affected all mankind, there remains an island of righteousness where man still has the ability, in and of himself, to turn, to change, to incline, to dispose, to embrace the offer of grace. Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him. The psalmist, however, writes in Psalm 14:2-3 that "The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." "The whole human race," in the words of Dr. Charles Hodge, "by their apostacy from God are totally depraved. By total depravity is not meant that all men are equally wicked, nor that any man is as thoroughly corrupt as it is possible for a man to be -- but there is common to all men a total alienation of the soul from God so that no unrenewed man either understands or seeks after God: no such man ever makes God his portion, or God's glory the chief end of his being. The apostacy from God is total or complete. All men worship and serve the creature rather than, and more than, the Creator. They are all therefore, declared in Scripture to be spiritually dead. They are destitute of any principle of spiritual life." That is man's condition as he is before God. "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8: 7, 8). Jesus says in John 8:34 "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin." The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly. "Man by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation-, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." (Westminster 'Confession of Faith,' Ch. 9, Sec. 3).
2. The text quoted by Arminians in support of their doctrine of conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, is 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestined' (Romans 8: 29). Such a view is superficial and untenable. "The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage, as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour. 'Not foreknowledge as bare prescience (foresight),' says Calvin, 'but the adoption by which God had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.' The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective of personal merit. 'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 11-13). The sovereignty of God's choice comes out clearly in the Pauline statement that Christ died for His people while they were yet sinners (Romans 5: 8). It has been well said that Arminians take the choice out of the hands of God and place it in the hands of men" ('The Reformed Faith' by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 24) 'But of Him and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be glory for ever. Amen' (Romans 11: 36). Rather those who believe were ordained to believe- "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (Acts 13: 48). Those who were ordained to believe, were ordained were chosen according to (meaning because of this reason) of God's purpose in Christ, which was to bring glory to Himself.  Calvin explains that this is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree(Inst. III, 22, 2). This is evident in Ephesians 1:4-14: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world....in love he predestined us...according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace...according to the riches of his grace...according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ...having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory....to the praise of his glory." Were it for another reason Paul would have stated it... but he does not, but rather affirms unconditional election according to His will repeatedly. Calvin believes that if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, "you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found"(Inst. III, 23, 2).
3. Another argument resorted to by the Arminians in order to explain away the particular election of individuals, is to say that the text 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 13) means a national election, not particular persons, but Jacob's children and Esau's children -- the children of Israel and the children of Edom. "Now, we ask them by everything reasonable," comments C. H. Spurgeon, "is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation, but the election of so many units, of so many people? -- and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if -- which we do not for a moment believe -- there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in choosing one nation and not another. No! The difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God's Word. Besides here is the proof that it is not correct: read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations; it says, 'For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger referring to the children, not to the nation. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But the text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. 'Jacob' -- that is the man whose name was Jacob -- 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' Take care, my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God's Word. I have heard of folk altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God's grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God. If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understanding; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our preception of divine things and in this way only may we hope to obtain the blessing." (From sermon on 'Jacob and Esau' by C. H. Spurgeon).
4. Arminians argue that passages such as 1 Timothy 2:4, that God "wants all men to be saved" and 2 Peter 3:9 that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" show it does not rest on God but man to ultimately choose Christ. Calvin argues, "God has not closed the way to salvation to any order of men"(Inst. III, 24, 16). Though the Scripture says that God "wants all men to be saved"(1Tim.2:4), the context reveals that Paul was making it clear that it was no longer true that only Jewish people could appeal to God for salvation but gentiles also. This is clear that in verse 7 Paul says “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” To say otherwise, that God has purposed the salvation of all mankind when it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow men are dying in sin is to say that God is disappointed and defeated. Or, if meant in a decretive sense of the efficacious will of God then "this means that every person will be redeemed. No person will ever perish. This interpretation proves more than the Arminian or semi pelatian wants. it establishes universalism, which puts this text on a collision course with everything the Bible teaches about particularism."(R.C.Sproul, What is reformed theology, 1997, p 168)  "Mercy is extended to all", and salvation is announced "to all men indiscriminately"(Inst. III, 24, 17) says Calvin, however, since "no one seeks God" Calvin asserts that "only those whom He has illumed do this"(Inst. III, 24, 17), and that God "does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others"(Inst. III, 21, 1). The bible presents 3 elements to God's will. 1. His decretive will. This is the sovereign efficacious will of God which cannot be resisted. 2. The Preceptive will of God. This is the precepts, commands of God which can be resisted. 3. The will of disposition. That which pleases, delights God which can be resisted.  There is an important distinction between His plan (otherwise known as his decretive efficacious sovereign will) and His desire (otherwise known as his will of disposition of that which pleases or delights God). God often forgoes his desire temporarily for the sake of his plan, that through its fulfilment He might ultimately satisfy His desires completely. For in scripture we plainly find that God’s actual plans can differ from His good desires. This is seen in Acts ch 2 which says “According to God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, you, with the help of wicked people, killed Jesus Christ....?”. Here we see plainly that although God would never desire an innocent person to be murdered, he planned it to happen so that he may save people. Likewise we see in Ezekiel 18:33 God say "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone" and yet He says in 1 Samuel 2:6 "The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up". Another option is that since 2 Peter is written by a Christian believer to Christian believers and for Christian believers, it is likely that us refers to Chrstian believers. John Owen writes: "...who are these of whom the apostle speaks, to whom he writes? Such as had received "great and precious promises" (2 Peter 1:4), whome he calls "beloved" (2 Peter 3:1), whom he opposeth to the "scoffers" of the last days' (2 Peter 3:3), to whom the Lord hath respect in the disposal of these days; who are said to be "elect" (Matt. 24:22). Now truly, to argue that because GOd would  have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world ( even those to whome he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly." (Owen, The death of death in the death of Christ, p 161) Owens point is that us refers to GOd's elect, so God is not willing that any of his elect should perish. In this case the text must refer to the will of God in the sense of His decretive efficacious will. God sovereignly decrees that none of his elect shall perish. Who God is and how he operates as He reveals through His word should never be limited or denied based upon the restrictions of our own fallen understanding. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
5. Why strive for godliness, Arminians would say, If our salvation is guaranteed, not upon our performance or godliness but God's will? The response to this then comes, if it were not for God's election of us, we would be lost in our depravity- dead in sin. Calvin argues that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so(Inst. III, 22, 3). The fact that God chose the elect to be holy refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living(Inst. III, 23, 13). Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, "therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing"(Inst. III, 23, 12). If God's grace is the sole ground for our sanctification then we have every reason to take confidence from it that God will complete the good work he began in us, just as Paul said in Philippians 1:6 " being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." As God proclaims in Isaiah 46:-10, "I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand that I will accomplish all my purpose.' Calvin reminds us that predestination is a biblical concept, and that nothing is taught in Scripture "but what is expedient to know"(Inst. III, 21, 3). Calvin warns that to reject the preaching and expounding of predestination on the pretext that it may trouble "weaker souls" is to openly reproach God"as if he had unadvisedly let slip something hurtful to the church"(Inst. III, 21, 4). This doctrine he taught helps the individual to live the Christian life with full assurance and he believed that no Christian could be confident unless he had some sense of his election to salvation. 
6. Arminians say that If God chooses unconditionally then He does not need our evangelism. However, Scripture reveals that All mankind from birth in their natural condition are spiritually dead (Col. 2:13, Ephesians 2:1-5), have a hardened heart of stone (Ezekiel 36:25-27), are enemies of God and hostile towards God (Col. 1:21, Rom. 5:10, 8:7), are spiritually deaf ( John 5:25, 8:47, unable to believe in Christ (John 6:44, 1 cor. 2:14), unable to please God (John 15:5), in complete slavery and obedience to sin (John 8:34) along with being a child of the devil (John 8:34-45), under the influence of the devil (Eph. 2:3, 2 Cor. 4:4, 2 Tim. 2:26). Therefore our most clever persuasive arguments could never save a soul. However, God can give His truth an effectiveness that you and I cannot give. If God is sovereign over the election of people then there is assurance that God will be saving people through his word being preached. For this is what he promised.
7. Arminians will argue that, because God has chosen His elect, and his purpose in election cannot be undone, then prayer is needless as it can not affect the saving purposes of God. In response I would like to say that prayer is a confessing of impotence and need, an acknowledging of helplessness and dependence, and an invoking of the mighty power of God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. It is God’s intention that the knowledge that those who are dead in Sin require the regenerating work of the Spirit to save drives us to prayer that we rely on him alone. It is His way regularly to withhold His blessings until His people start to pray. “You do not have, because you do not ask.” (James 4:2), God will make us pray before He blesses our labours in order that we may constantly learn afresh that we depend on God for everything. The knowledge, then, that God is sovereign in grace, and that we are impotent to win souls, should make us pray, and keep us praying. We see this clearly in the life and ministry of Paul who taught constantly on the ultimate Sovereignty of God and yet always prayed and taught others to pray that God might save those whom reveive the word (2 thess. 3:1, Col. 4:3, Eph. 1:18). Because the salvation of sinners depends wholly upon God, prayer for the fruitlfulness of evangelistic preaching is all the more necessary. It is a commission, not only to preach but also to pray, not only to talk to men about God, but also to talk to God about men. We are to preach because without knowledge of the gospel no man can be saved. We are to pray, because only the sovereign Holy Spirit in us and in men’s hearts can make our preaching effective to men’s salvation, and God will not send His Spirit where there is no prayer. We began by appealing to our practice of prayer as proof of our faith in divine sovereignty. We end by applying our faith in divine sovereignty as a motive to the practice of prayer. (How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, By Don Carson.) We should not consider ourselves the reprobate or any other lost soul for that matter for election is part of the secret will of God (Deut. 29:29), and such knowledge is kept from us, the knowledge we are given is to preach to gospel to all trusting God to call His own to Himself. No man," writes Christopher Ness, "may judge himself a reprobate in this life, and so grow desperate; for final disobedience (the only infallible evidence of reprobation) cannot be discovered till death." ('An Antidote Against Arminianism,' p. 51).
8. Westminster divines in Ch. 3 Sec. 8 of the 'Confession of Faith' state that "the doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care." It is as far removed from the dead and blind doctrine of fatalism as light is from darkness. The book of God's eternal decrees is in the compassionate purposeful hands of the Saviour (Rev. 5). How the Bible explains this is that God is sovereign, in control over all things, so that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of His sovereignty and at the same time we are responsible for our moral decisions, for our evil. God can’t be blamed for evil. A helpful way of thinking about this. Scripture teaches that, as King, God orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with His own eternal purpose. Scripture also teaches that He is Judge, He holds every man responsible for the choices He makes and the courses of action he pursues. We do what we want to do, and we are punished for it. The word that helps us bind both God’s Sovereignty, His control over all things, and our responsibility is Antinomy- 2 things are true but seem to contradict each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both fit together. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it. Nor is there any way to get rid of it. What should one do, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives; think of them in some way that, although you do not grasp how, they are complemantary to each other. They work together. Don’t get rid of either. The doctrine we use of holding the God’s sovereignty and our responsibility for our actions is called compatibalism. To us it sounds absurd and our first reaction is to complain Some people say I could never believe in a God like this and they limit God. · If as our King, God order all our actions, how can it be reasonable or right for Him to act also as our Judge, and condemn our shortcomings? It at first glance sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd. Paul notices this complaint in Romans 9. “One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” If as our Lord, God order all our actions, how can it be reasonable or right for Him to act also as our Judge, and condemn our shortcomings? Observe how Paul replies. He does not attempt to demonstrate the propriety of God’s action; instead, he rebukes the spirit of the question. “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “What the objector has to learn is that he, a creature and a sinner, has no right whatsoever to find fault with the revealed ways of God. Whilst you still might struggle with this I want you to think of this. If God were not in control over evil, How would we ever have confidence that God would win against the devil? If God were not in control over evil, How could we ever be sure that God would be able to hold on to His people, How could He stop them from being dragged away by the devil? If God were not in control over everything including evil then how could we have any confidence that in heaven we will not sin again and become fallen? God is in control over evil and the bible shows us He works through it to save. In Genesis 5:20 we see Joseph responding to His brothers who intended to kill him saying "as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." "Salvation is all of grace, damnation all of sin. Salvation of God from first to last -- the Alpha and the Omega; but damnation of men not of God: and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required" (C. H. Spurgeon).
9. Arminianism often portrays a God that does not give autonomous freedom to His creatures as a monster. They diminish the Sovereignty of God and make God weak and contingent upon the will of Man. Calvinism, rather than diminishing the character of God it holds presents a greater vision of the majesty of God. "Calvinism, the product of an overwhelming vision of God, born from the reflection in the heart of man of the majesty of a God who will not give His glory to another, can not pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation to a complete world-view, in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. Calvinism asks with Lutheranism, indeed, that most poignant of all questions, What shall I do to be saved? and answers it as Lutheranism answers it. But the great question which presses upon it is, How shall God be glorified? It is the contemplation of God and zeal for His honor which in it draws out the emotions and absorbs endeavor; and the end of human as of all other existence, of salvation as of all other attainment, is to it the glory of the Lord of all....It begins, it centres, it ends with the vision of God in His gory: and it sets itself before all things to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity" -B.B. Warfield. Free will is not the necessary requirement of a loving God. Free will, in the sense of God not influencing our decisions, would mean God leaving us to our own will's to do what we want to do, and the only thing we would ever choose is Hell and astrangement from God. "Free will," says Spurgeon, "has carried many souls to hell but never a soul to heaven."  Free will in the true sense of the Word is being free to do what we were created to do which is to obey God as Jesus has done. This makes God look glorious! And this is what God grants to those He saves and gives new birth to!
10. "Consider the thirty five or so passages that speak of God “repenting” of something or other. It can easily be shown that much of this repenting is not quite like human repenting. Human beings repent of moral evil; God never does, since he performs no evil of which to repent. That is why most modern translations use words such as “regret”, “relent”, “grieve over”, “retract”, or the like. God’s “relenting” and not sending a promised judgment must not be looked at in isolation, for as we see in scripture such “relenting” is based on a prior promise that God has declared as a pattern based on character. Namely if a people to whom judgement is promised turn from their sin, the Lord will not carry out the judgement (E.g Ezek 33). Such passages are part of the picture of God as a personal God who interacts with his people. But it is precisely for that reason that one must be very cautious about extrapolating such texts to the point where they are in danger of denying complementary truths about God the transcendent Sovereign. We must not let scripture emphasizing the personal relationship of God with his people as a rule that negates those texts that stress God’s immutability, boundless wisdom, omniscience, and power." (Don Carson, How Long O Lord)