Famous Arminian Quotes

[Gamecock]

The following quotations and Scripture comparisons were taken from John Owen's A Display of Arminianism and modified into the present format. The quotations are all from prominent Arminian theologians living in the 16th and 17th centuries and represent the ideas upon which Arminian theology was developed.

Interesting how our Arminian friends seem to rely on emotion rather than the sum of scripture. Arminians, after you read through this, tell me why this is a false statement.

Scripture

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” Ephesians 1:4.
“He hath called us according to his own purpose and grace, before the world began,” 2 Timothy 1:9


Response

“It is false to say that election is confirmed from everlasting,” Rem. Apol.
------------------------
Scripture

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” Acts 15:18.
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10.


Response

“It is certain that God determineth divers things which he would not, did not some act of man’s will go before,” Armin.
“Some decrees of God precede all acts of the will of the creature, and some follow,” Corv.
-----------------------------
Scripture

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,” as Romans 9:11.
“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Timothy 2:19

Response

“Men may make their election void and frustrate,” Rem. Apol.


“It is no wonder if men do sometimes of elect become reprobate, and of reprobate, elect,” Welsin. “Election is uncertain and revocable, and whoever denies it overthrows the gospel,” Grevinch.

------------------------------
Scripture


“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Psalm 115:3.


“I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10. “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:35.

“I have purposed, I will also o it,” Isaiah 46:11. “As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” Isaiah 14:24.

Response

“We nothing doubt but many things which God willeth, or that it pleaseth him to have done, do yet never come to pass,” Corvinus. “We grant that some of God’s desires are never fulfilled,” Idem.


“It is in the power of man to hinder the execution of God’s will,” Idem.

“It is ridiculous to imagine that God doth not seriously will any thing but what taketh effect,” Episcopius. “It may be objected that God faileth of his end: this we readily grant,” Rem. Synod

 

[nobdysfool]

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20) KJV

For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. (Mat 12:37) KJV

 

[Received]

I will be the first to point out to you that the arminian responses were...quite silly. It is a fallacy to assert that this is what we believe (though I am no arminian), just as it is a fallacy to hear a Mahayana Buddhist declare that there are a plethora of nice gods, and another Mahayana declare that there are a plethora of evil gods, and therefore declare that all Mahayana Buddhists hold a plethora of evil gods.

Nevertheless, this non-calvinist will answer with his own voice, and with the excellent arguments of Norman Geisler:

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” Ephesians 1:4.
“He hath called us according to his own purpose and grace, before the world began,” 2 Timothy 1:9

In reference to the former scripture, notice 1 Peter 1:1,2:



"To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." (NASB)



As I have argued before, this makes it clear that predestination is not an immediate reference to our lack of choice in the matter of election. The greek here is prognosis.



In reference to the latter scripture, notice the statement of Peter:

"Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure." -- 2 Peter 2:10

Notice that he dichotomizes calling and election; they are not one and the same. Therefore, I find no reason to believe that 2 Timothy 1:9 speaks of limited desire for salvation.



At the very least, the elect are those who will believe.



"An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies (whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion. There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to choose any one o fth three options (or any other one).... Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he proposes to Joan she will say yet and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to proppose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually -- freely -- accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But is was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what the moderate Calvinist [my position; he calls it such because modern Calvinists believe more than Calvin] believe about God's unconditional election." (Geisler)



This sums it up perfectly; however, he goes on to state what the Calvinist would hold:



"In contrast, let's hold the same illustration up against extreme Calvinists' belief. They would say that if Jim foreknew that both women would refuse his proposal for marriage unless coerced against their will to do so,* he would not have to show his love to either of them. Instead he could, for instance, decide to force Betty to marry him against her will. Would we not say that "forced love" is a contradiction in terms? And since Jim represents God in the illustration, would not this make God into someone who forces Himself on otheres in violation of their integrity? It seems to me that this is precisely what the extreme Calvinists are affirming."



*In an educational footnote, Geisler states thus: "Extreme Calvinists insist they hold to the truth that man is free and uncoerced. They claim "Man is free -- one hundred percent free -- to do exactly what he wants. God does not coerce a single one against his will." Yet Palmer adds shortly thereafter, "Incidentally, the Christian has no free will either.... Christ will not let him reject Him". Language is emptied of meaning when we speak of such things as being coerced to act freely."



I still maintain that a revelation accepted involuntarily -- no matter what it produces -- is a strict contradiction with free will, for the person in question, prior to his conversion, desires everything against this decision -- man is forced into belief. This is also why I believe that a God who can work things out in accordance with our choices (Prov. 16:9) to be morally superior to one who cannot. Any moralist would agree. God gains more glory by having His creation respond to Him freely than He does by forcing Himself upon them.



Furthermore, if faith is what pleases God (Hebrews 11:6), why does He not force everyone to believe to please greater Himself? The only answer possible is that He desires the death of the wicked; but scripture speaks in direct opposition to this (Ezekiel 33:11). Justice and mercy has nothing to do with this, for mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13). There is no question regarding the fact that God will gain far more glory by saving than He will by condemning...that is, unless you believe in the age old Aquinas muddle (I don't understand how such an excellent theologian would state thus) that the death of the wicked pleases the eternally blessed. But this means that man is superior to God, if indeed this is justice, for while God hates the death of the wicked, man loves it -- and I repel such a notion with superlative repugnance.



Attack it now, Calvinists, for these are some of the greatest reasons I do not believe your doctrine.

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” Acts

15:18.
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10.

Correct. (Silly arminian responses) If God is love (1 John 4:8), and He never changes (Malachi 3:6), we should not even question this scripture but base our response on the faith that God is as scripture declares Him to be. Furthermore, the plans of the heart belong to man, but God establishes the steps (Proverbs 16:9). On the contrary; His pleasure seems to be our blessedness, at least in reference to the soteriological realm, most interestingly in the very verse that you originally quoted:



"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will..." -- Ephesians 1:3-5



His will is our blessedness. And from this, He gains glory. As I have argued time and time again in the past, glory sought in itself is not glory, but tyranny. "In love He predestined us..."



God is love (1 John 4:8), and love does not seek its own (1 Corinthians 13:5). Consequently, God does not seek His own glory, but His glory arises from blessing us. Interesting, eh? This seems to fit the face of Jesus quite well, who loved us for the sake of us, and gains glory for it, as well as any practical application.



God created all for His glory; that is, for His eternal glory -- not that which is freely offered by us; that which we may admire and become edified through. God has created all that they should be blessed by His being, for His glory exists individual to our active wills in expressing it.



Remember also that what God ordains is not tantamount to that which He wills. He uses the wicked for the greater good (Proverbs 16:4), though He Himself does not will evil – He allows the wicked to become who they are and uses them for a teleological purpose in view of the justice that they deserve (Psalm 62:12); indeed, "...He does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone." (Lamentations 3:33, NRSV)

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,” as Romans

9:11.
“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Timothy 2:19

In regards to the former I will quote directly from Geisler’s outstanding work; you will notice that this is not my usual style – nonetheless, I consider it necessary given the situation, and the obvious meticulous analysis that each side is emitting in critique of the opposite’s view:



“Few scriptural texts are more misused by extreme Calvinists than this one. First of all, God is not speaking here about the individualJacob but about the nation of Jacob (Israel). In Genesis when the prediction was made (25:23 NKJV), Rebekah was told, “’Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body…. And the older shall serve the younger.’” So the reference here is not to individual election but to the corporate election of a nation – the chosen nation of Israel.*



Second, regardless of the corporate election of Israel as a nation, each individual had to accept the Messiah in order to be saved. Paul said, “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ, for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race; the people of Israel” (Rom. 9:3-4). He added, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved” (Rom. 10:1) Even though of the end times he says later that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26), he is referring to Israel at that time. And clearly at present there is only “a remnant” (11:5). So even though Israel as a nation was elect, nonetheless, each individual had to accept God’s grace by “faith” in order to be saved (11:20).



Third, God’s “love” for Jacob and “hate” for Esau is not speaking of those men before they were born, but long after they lived. The citation in Romans 9:13 is not from Genesis when they were alive (c. 2000 B.C.) but from Malachi 1:2-3 (c. 400 B.C.), long after they died! The evil deeds done by the Edomites to the Israelites are well documented in the Old Testament (e.g., Num. 20). And it is for these that God is said to have hated them as a country. Here again, this did not mean that no individuals apart from that country would be saved. In fact, there were believers from both Edom (Amos 9:12) and the neighboring country of Moab (Ruth 1), just as there will be people in heaven from every tribe, kindred, nation, and tongue (Rev. 7:9).



Fourth, the Hebrew word for “hated” really means “loved less.” Indication of this comes from the life of Jacob himself. For the Bible says Jacob “loved also Rachel more than Leah…. The Lord saw that Leah was hated” (Gen. 29:30-31). “The former implies strong positive attachment and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love.



The same is true in the New Testament, as when Jesus said, “’If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother… he cannot be my disciple’” (Luke 14:26). A parallel idea is expressed in Matthew 10:37: “’Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’” So even one of the strongest verses used by extreme Calvnists does not prove that God hates the non-elect or even that He does not love them. It simply means that God’s love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.

 

[Received]

A couple of illustrations make the point. The same loving stroke that makes a kitten purr seems like hatred if she turns the opposite direction and finds her fur being rubbed the wrong way. Likewise, the person standing under the Niagara Falls of God’s love with his cup upside down may complain that his cup is empty. Whereas, another with his cup right side up may appear to be receiving moreloving reatment. In reality, God’s expressed leove is the same for both believers and unbelievers. He is simply patiently waiting for one to repent. The expressed love is the same for both believer and unbeliever. The received love is greater for the believer.”

* “Even Piper, who holds that the Romans 9 passage is speaking of individual election to eternal salvation admits of modern scholars that “the list of those who see no individual predestination to eternal life or death is impressive.” Indeed, “Sanday and Headlam, for example, take the position that ‘the absolute election of Jacob…has reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges, as head of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation. In the oringal to which Ts. Paul is referring, Esau is simply a synonym for Edom.’ Similarly, G. Schrenk says on Romans 9:12, ‘The reference here is not to salvation, bot to position and historical task, cf. the quotation from Gen. 25:23 in v. 12: “The elder shall serve the younger.”’”



I consider Geisler a much smarter non-calvinist than the ones you mentioned.

In reference to the latter scripture (2 Timothy 2:19), I point out to you the simple fact that the context has no reference to election as the Calvinist sees fit, but rather the simple contingency of one’s salvation in reference to the ontological present. That is, the Lord knows who are now His – i.e. who are Christians and who are not. The entire verse reveals this perfectly:



“Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness."”



The former quotation is to be viewed in context of the latter, and vice versa. Those who are the Lord’s are those who name the names of Him; contrariwise, those who name the names of the Lord are His. The elect here refers to those who have attained spiritual salvation, and not those who are yet to attain it.

“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Psalm 115:3.
“I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10. “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:35.
“I have purposed, I will also o it,” Isaiah 46:11. “As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” Isaiah

14:24.

In reference to the former, whatever God does is according to His essence (1 John 4:8); in reference to the middle, His pleasure, as I have argued earlier, is obviously our blessedness – that is, in doing good: which means His glory is revealed only through His love for our intrinsic value; in reference to the latter, I see no problem whatsoever.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20) KJV

I find it interesting that you directly label those who follow not your own doctrine with meticulous detail wizards and mediums, especially considering the fact that I find no reason to believe your doctrine on the basis of the face of Jesus. C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, MacDonald, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Wesley, and even Calvin! – come with me and Jesus to an eternal Hell in hopes of finding our Lord’s true Father.

For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. (Mat

12:37) KJV

The context clearly reveals Jesus’ emphasis on morals rather than doctrine. You are quite zealous to persecute those who differ on your simple theological opinion. Brother, why is this? What have we done to you? Why are you not willing to accept us as we are you? I assure you I have nothing against you.



“…I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous” – Matthew 5:43-45 (NRSV)



“So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.” – Galatians 6:10 (NRSV)



I would also note that if your (Gamecock) intention in quoting Arminian theologians is a derogatory attempt to belittle Arminian theologians now, I would point out only two things to you: a murdering Calvin, and an anti-semitic Luther. Egads, but they believe in unconditional election -- this must also mean that all who believe in such today are murderers and racists. Ah, on the contrary. The past is quite different than the present. We call this an appeal to ridicule, among other things.



“Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; for You render to each one according to his work.” – Psalm 62:12 (NKJV)



His justice is founded only in His love; nay, they are one and the same thing.



A God who woos is by far superior to one who ravishes; therefore, in the hope of admitting the greater glory of God, I find your doctrine at contradiction to His character.

 

[reformedfan]

My favorite howler of an Arminian quote is from the Scofield Study Bible, Matt 24:34 in response to Christ's "Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place," Scofield writes, "The word generation, though commonly used in Scripture of those living at one time, could not here mean those living at the time of Christ" that's just a few verses after Matt 23:36, where they acknowledge this verse does mean the destruction of the temple in AD 70, and that generation of Christ's contemporaries. Intrerp the Scrips as convienient/ as fits the theology, typical Armin/ Premil

 

[michael servetus]

The Trinity is a Three Headed Cerbus ranks right up there as my fav!

 

[Ben johnson]

More than TWO MONTHS, and no Calvinist responses? That is highly significant.,

EXCELLENT post, Received. Very well presented, tons of work!

If I may make a couple of brief comments:

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” Ephesians 1:4.

"God has chosen you from the beginning through sanctification by the Spirit and TROUGH FAITH IN THE TRUTH." 2Thess2:13
"FAITH (to salvation) comes from HEARING; for with the HEART man BELIEVES." Rm10:17,10
"Though you were slvaes of sin, you became obedient FROM THE HEART ...became slaves of righteousness." Rom6:17-18

Saving faith comes not unilaterally from GOD, but from man's own HEART. So the image of the "dead body being rescued and regenerated by God, is FALSE; the man HEARS, he BELIEVES, he RECEIVES THE LIFE PRESERVER!

The DYNAMIC of Eph1:4, is that His CHOOSING us IN HIM, founds on our BELIEF. Reflected in verse 13: "Having BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit..."

“He hath called us according to his own purpose and grace, before the world began,” 2 Timothy 1:9

In 1Tim4:1 does Paul really MEAN that many Christians will NOT fall away from the faith?
In 1Tim4:16 does Paul really MEAN that either "not-paying-attention" is impossible, or if we DON'T we will STILL save ourselves?
In 1Tim1:19 does Paul REALLY mean that they did NOT shipwreck their faith but never had faith in the FIRST place?
In 2Tim1:15 did Paul really MEAN that "all in Asia and Phygelus and Hermogenes did NOT turn away from him"?
In 2Tim2:16-18 does Paul REALLY MEAN that that Hymenaeus and Philetus did NOT go astray from the truth, and you don't REALLY need to be diligent to present youreslves approved to God and you don't REALLY need to avoid worldly chatter lest you wind up LIKE Hymenaeus and Philetus???

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” Acts 15:18.
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10.

Did Jesus not really MEAN "by your endurance save your souls"? Lk21:19
Did Peter not really MEAN "make sure of your calling and election, he who LACKS these qualities ...has forgotten purification from former sins, but as long as you PRACTICE these things you will not PTAIO-BECOME-WRETCHED and in THIS way the EISODOS-GATES of Heaven will be abundantly provided you"?

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,” as Romans 9:11.

Did Paul not really MEAN that Israel CHOSE works INSTEAD of faith (Rom9:31-32)?

“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Timothy 2:19

Did the SECOND HALF OF THAT PHRASE, namely: "let everyone who names the name of the Lord ABSTAIN FROM WICKEDNESS", did Paul not really MEAN that "being wicked was POSSIBLE" (so those who ABSTAIN are THEY WHO GOD KNOWS), or maybe Paul REALLY meant we COULD be wicked-but-saved?

“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Psalm 115:3.


“I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10. “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:35.

“I have purposed, I will also do it,” Isaiah 46:11. “As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” Isaiah 14:24.

Did God ever SAY it was not his PLEASURE (or "thelema-desire") that "EVERYONE who sees Jesus and BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life"? Jn6:40
Did Paul not really MEAN that "EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved"? Rm10:13 Where does it deny that God's PURPOSE, was to provide salvation for ALL WHO BELIEVE and OBEY? Jn3:16, Heb10:9

Although I certainly CANNOT improve upon what Received has written, I think these questions I have asked here cannot be answered in a "predestined-view"...