My question is, most of the ladies in the study group believe Jesus died for the "world", that He "wills" all to be saved, He had "foreknowledge" of who would choose Him, etc. (not believing those words are limited to God's elect, but that it actually means everyone who has ever lived) I would like for anyone who is comfortable and familiar with Calvinism to provide the common questions/arguments that Arminians (or those opposing Calvinism) ask/say and how you would answer those questions.
It's short notice.
On Arminian claims appealing to one interpretation of Romans 8 -- I'd invite the person to take a look at the context that follows in Romans 9. It's either gerrymandering Scripture to avoid Romans 9 when Romans 8 is cited -- or the view of Romans 8 has to be consistent with the view of Romans 9.
The normal way Arminianism does that is to claim Romans 9 is about Jews and Gentiles as a group. But it's quite clear Romans 9 is about individuals. Simply looking at Romans 9:19-21 reveals case after case of individual singular pronouns being used. Paul's talking about individuals in Romans 9. It's clear if you're not biasing an argument.
So Romans 8:29 states "
who He foreknew He predestined". But Romans 9:16 demands that whatever else this foreknowledge is, it can't be foreknowledge of the person's desire or action: "
So then it depends not on human will or effort, but on God, who has mercy." Whatever it is God foreknew, it wasn't foreknowledge of desire or work. These verses are less than 25 verses apart, too. It's not as if Paul is rejecting what he said at Romans 8. Romans 9 and 8 must be understood, both to be true.
The idea that God has a desire to save every human being is not unkown in Calvinism; in fact it's quite clearly something Calvin himself believes. But that desire of God is tempered with the fact that no one deserves salvation, plus the fact that God is righteous. Plus, God has simply said He won't save everyone. He will judge the world He wishes to save. And some will be condemned in that judgment. So no matter what else, it's quite true that God's overriding desire is not the salvation of each human being.
We're not that critical to God's plan. We shouldn't think that we are.
Modern evangelicalism (not arminianism per se) actually goes even further afield than classic arminianism, and you're likely to encounter it, too. So you may find yourself explaining that we're worse than just "deciding against" God. We're worse than that. We're enemies of God, citizens of a dead world. Our natural response is wrong, on its own (cf Is 59, Romans 3:9-19). We're natural-born enemies of God. So it's not a poll God's taking, "Do you believe in Me?" It's a pre-invasion action. God is looking for an underground movement, a "behind-the-lines" subversive movement to find and secure His children before the Invasion begins.
Jesus died and was raised to glory as Caesar of the world. That puts every human's life in His hands. Everyone will submit to Jesus' rule (Pp 2, "
every knee shall bow"). In addition, Jesus is the sole One sent to save the world. We cannot expect another. So when we look for a propitiation (as in 1 John 2:2), the world can only look to Jesus as such a propitiation. It doesn't mean Jesus saves everyone (which btw, 1 John 2:2 grammatically means that if it's taken the Arminian way: not that Arminians believe that, but the text would demand to be read that way.).
Finally, the 2 Peter 3:9 verse is really readily answered by just looking to context. Peter points out what group he means by "
all come to repentance": it's not the world. It's "us". Peter is speaking to Christians. It's all of the Christians that Peter is saying draw God's patience.
Timothy 2 is really the sole verse that has any well-reasoned argument from the Arminian viewpoint. On this verse, I have no qualms saying that either view could prevail if 1 Tim 2 were the only Scripture talking. The trouble here is, it's also consistent with both viewpoints to take this verse either way. To Calvin, there is a desire in God that inclines God to save any and every human being. The trouble is, it is not an overriding desire over God's desire for justice. And in point of fact, the Scripture never -- ever -- describes the solution to those opposed desires as "human free will".
There're obvious contextual problems with Arminians forcing the Calvinistic -- exegetical -- definition of "all" out of 1 Timothy 2 as well. "all" is used all over the place in all kinds of sentences in 1 Tim 2. Yet arminians don't expect themselves even to interpret these uses of "all" as comprehensive. 1 Tim 2:1: does God want us to pray for everyone in authority "
first of all" -- above praying say, for that lowly janitor wishing for salvation, or the poor and downtrodden of the world? And how about encouragement -- is this praying "first of all" above worship, prayer, evangelism, communion, baptism? No, indeed! Paul is simply saying this is important above the normal praying we do. It's by no means absolute or comprehensive.
How about praying for "
all in authority"? Is God wanting us to list out every political person -- right down to the sheriff in every local town, or the town clerk? If so, then we're not really even talking about the right thing by arguing over this verse! But no, Paul again is saying there's an importance in singling out
some rulers for Christian peace & godliness.
Finally, how about "
all godliness"? Does this really mean God's intent that we have absolutely every godliness, without exception? Or doesn't it really mean that we may exercise those many godly traits that Christians are given by God -- but not without exceptions?
So it's clear that "all" doesn't mean "each & every". Not to Paul.
I hope that makes sense
