The apostle Paul gently reminded his Corinthian readers—folks who were prone to boast of their understanding (1 Cor. 8:1)—that they only possessed the partial character of present knowledge. He writes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). This was written to stress the importance of emphasizing a dependence upon God’s grace, especially in understanding spiritual matters. Someday, the apostle reveals, we will all share in and experience a far greater and deeper understanding of God. In contending for that limited understanding of God and his revealed Word, I approach the topic of salvation with the viewpoint that the traditional Reformed understanding is the only proper and consistent way to comprehend the issue. I am firmly convinced that any system opposing the classic Protestant view of God, man, sin, and salvation does harm to the consistent testimony of Scripture and will fail at some point.
Arminian theology (a designation used here synonymously with synergism, the view that man and God work cooperatively in the salvation process), nonetheless, remains for many evangelicals an attractive theological system. It claims to offer an exulted view of God and his sovereignty, while simultaneously maintaining the much celebrated idea of libertarian free will—a concept which many assume to be the epitome of human essence. All the while, Arminians suggest their understanding is best suited to explain how sin can co-exist in a world created by and under the dominion of an all-benevolent and all-powerful God. Can Arminianism sufficiently answer life’s most troubling questions? More importantly, though, is Arminianism truly consistent with the totality of Scripture?
I am not persuaded that it can provide the necessary answers or that the theological framework can remain consistent when extending particular positions to their logical conclusions. To explore this in greater detail, let’s look at 10 reasons why I find Arminianism untenable.
1. Arminianism cannot provide a consistent picture of God as one who, as the psalmist declared, “does all that he pleases” (Ps. 115:3); the God of Arminian theology is too impotent. God can do all things, except save sinners without their approbation or cooperation. And this, ironically, is esteemed as the height of sovereignty, accomplishing divine initiatives in spite of creaturely autonomy (This viewpoint, however, overlooks the consequences of the fall, federal representation, and God’s freedom in saving grace.). In reality, though, “sovereignty” is necessarily redefined so as to suggest God’s dominion is only truly displayed in creating autonomous free creatures (like himself) and yet still claiming victory in the end. Yet, we are never told why God is to be praised if he merely creates, passively takes in knowledge of future events, and then declares victory in the end. Why, we can rightly ask, should anyone glorify God for “winning” in the end if he merely created, looked at the outcome, and declared, “Great! I won!” Such absurdity makes God little more than the God of chances. What’s more, we must truly wonder how anyone could say God wins, at least in any meaningful sense of the phrase, if God’s chief aim is to save the maximum number of people possible. If this is how God is operating within his creation, then he has, by any objective standard, failed dreadfully.
2. Arminianism cannot provide a satisfactory answer to sin. When we discuss the reality of sin, we are ultimately left with two competing options: 1) God knew sin would enter into his creation prior to creating—since, after all, he knows all things—but chose to create in the manner he did nonetheless in order to preserve so-called libertarian free will; or, 2) God ordained all events in human history, including the most egregious and nefarious acts imaginable, for a specific purpose that brings him the most glory and honor.
Immediately, someone will object, as many have done before, by demagoguing the issue: “Are you telling me God ordained the rape of little children?” comes the usual question. If we maintain that God did not ordain the aforementioned wicked act by one of his creatures against another (I am not here suggesting God is the cause of sin, but rather that God uses secondary causes), then there is no redemptive purpose for the event. It is a cosmically meaningless, existential event. Stated another way, without a divine decree, it is, just as with every other sinful deed, a purposeless act which has no glorifying or greater purpose. Which one of these choices, humanly speaking, is worse? How is it any more glorifying to God to suggest that God knew a man would grow up only to rape and torture someone else, yet still permitted that rapist to exist? This somehow is supposed to absolve God of any blame? On the contrary. If this were so, one could rightly ask, “How could a good and loving God permit such purposeless evil?” This anemic response to sin is somehow worthy of praise and adulation? In reality, Arminian theology makes God out to be a flippant and reckless creative Being in that he produces (or allows) endless amounts of pain and suffering for no purpose at all.
The last response any Christians wants to hear after an inordinate trial in faith is, “God’s sorry about that; he feels badly about what happened, but, hey, he didn’t want it to happen either. He had no plan or purpose for what you just endured, but he’ll do his best to make things right—if at all possible.”
3. Arminianism cannot provide an answer to the troubling dilemma regarding the biblical presentation of the human condition. Since the fall, humans are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3) and are utterly indisposed and disabled in regard to all that which is good. Paul says only evil inclinations originate from them. The apostle also tells us “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Rom 8:7). Compare these words with those of Jesus who taught, “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).
Even a cursory study of biblical anthropology reveals that humanity has a bias against God and will always choose freely and willingly that which is evil. Think for a moment what this means. With respect to matters of righteousness, mankind will not, because he cannot, do what God commands. John tells us that the one who commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34). The picture the apostle is painting is that those who sin are taken captive by their master, sin, and are unable to deliver themselves from bondage. It is as if one is a prisoner with an iron band chained around his leg. He cannot break free from that weighty shackle (nor does he desire to do so). On the contrary; every sin committed tightens that band. The more one sins, the greater the enslavement becomes. Yet, as sobering as this statement is it is lucidly attested elsewhere.
Consider, “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:8). The person who is still “in the flesh”—the unbeliever—is unable to submit himself to the law of God. The idea that humans can believe in Christ or be enlightened to the gospel message apart from divine illumination is contrary to the whole of Scripture. Believing is a good act that pleases God, but as the Bible clearly and overwhelmingly indicates, unbelievers “cannot please God”. The sinner is constantly at hostility toward the Creator, and so long as there are unresolved sin issues, how can an unbeliever “choose” to do what is right? Paul makes the answer abundantly clear—the unregenerate sinner cannot. The unregenerate man lacks the will or ability to please God, to repent, to believe in Christ, to turn from his sins, or to embrace the cross. He must first be raised spiritually in order to do these things that are pleasing to God.
4. Arminianism stands at open variance with Christ’s understanding of sin and salvation (John 6:37–44). Listen to the words of Jesus, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). This passage is a clear indictment against the notion of autonomous human volition to freely choose righteousness—No one can come to Me. Jesus’ words indicate a natural inability on the part of human beings apart from a divine work of grace.
5. The Arminian understanding of foreknowledge is not the foreknowledge expressed by the biblical writers. An investigation into the term foreknowledge, as it applies to God in the Bible, will reveal that is it more than a mere passive taking in of knowledge. It is always an action verb in reference to people—and not to mere perception of events that have yet to occur. The Bible is clear in that God foreknows individuals and not simply actions. (Besides, how can God even “know” in any sense of the word an individual and his or her actions unless God has already ordained the existence of that person?)
6. Arminianism champions libertarian free will prior to salvation, but abrogates the concept afterward. Why can’t I lose my salvation? If my free will got me into God’s kingdom, why can’t my free will get me out? It is on this point that some Arminians are flagrantly inconsistent given their starting point. Even though some unwittingly wander into the truth at this juncture, it is in spite of their theological presupposition and not because of it.
7. The Arminian understanding of the atonement does not support a victorious accomplishment at Calvary. Did Christ’s death on the cross make humanity savable, or did Jesus’ work actually atone for the sins of his people? The writer to the Hebrews indicates the latter in Christ’s response to his work. “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). Jesus “sat down” in contrast to the Levitical priests who stood and whose work was never done; Christ actually accomplished for all time what was hitherto impossible. That is, Jesus’ death produced a certainty in the salvation of his people, enough so that he could present to the Father a finished work and then take seat at the right hand, knowing his work was accomplished for his people.
8. Consistent Arminianism necessarily leads to the belief that Jesus propitiated the sins for the denizens in hades (and for those who will someday be cast into gehenna) and is currently interceding for the same. One can only wonder how Jesus is presented as the great high priest, sitting down at the right hand of God—even though he failed miserably in his mission, if, after all, his mission was to save sinners. Every sinner in hell, according to Arminian theology, can rightly point to Jesus and mock his incompetence and scoff at his utter inability to save those denizens of everlasting perdition whose will and might was mightier than that of God the Son.
9. Consistent Arminianism leads to unorthodox conclusions, namely, open theism and universalism. Open theists rightly acknowledge that if God knows with certainty future events before they happen, then creatures do not truly possess libertarian free will (which is why consistent Arminians adopt open theism.) Additionally, a consistent application of unlimited atonement forces the consistent person to a belief that since Jesus died and paid the penalty for all mankind without exception, all mankind without exception will be redeemed at some point.
10. Arminianism cannot present a unified Triune God, working out his plan of redemption for a specific people and the condemnation of others for his expressed glory and purpose. It is truly at this point that we can distill the essence of Arminian theology and point out how it fragments the overarching theme of the Bible, disrupting the perfect unity between the God-head. Arminianism presents for us a picture of a Triune God who is not even operating in harmony within his own Being. The Holy Spirit spreads some sort of “peanut-butter grace” to all humanity (prevenient grace); Jesus dies to save all mankind (which necessarily includes propitiation and intercession); and, the Father either will not or simply cannot save those for whom Jesus has already paid the penalty. The God of Arminianism is hopelessly unsatisfied since each member of the God-head has his own separate agenda and desire. The God presented to us by Arminianism necessarily creates a chasm between the Father and the Son where none exists.
