Arminian Logic Fallacies
by
Roger Smalling, D.Min
God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
The Law of Moses exposes sin to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Romans Chapter Three declares that man does no righteousness.
Martin Luther said to Erasmus, Ňwhen you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, IŐll write Ro.3:19-20 over the top of it all.Ó [1] Why use commands and exhortations from the Old Testament to prove free will when they were given to show manŐs sinful inability to fulfill them?
GodŐs commands reveal what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands that mankind cannot obey. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove manŐs ability or free will. The Arminian assumption that a command to do a thing proves the ability to do it, is unscriptural.
There may be various reasons for commanding someone to do something. The purpose could be to show someone his inability to perform the command. This would underscore for that person his very need of help. From a mere command, therefore, nothing can be deduced about free will or human ability.
Arminians assume if we are unable to make a choice to the contrary, then our wills are not free. This is irrational because it assumes there is such a thing as moral neutrality.
The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the personŐs nature does not determine the decisions of the will, in what sense do such decisions represent the person himself? How could be a decision be a truly moral one if it is morally neutral? Can morality be morality at all and be neutral?
According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say God is the most enslaved being in the universe because he is the one least neutral on moral issues.
Likewise, if we assume that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for our sins to be as bound by them as much as possible. The drunk bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin more, so they are no longer responsible?
We often hear that God wants us to love him freely, not by compulsion. He is a gentleman and will not impose Himself on anyone. They conclude that fallen man must have the ability to love God. He simply chooses to love other things.
Scripture teaches love for God is a product of His grace. 1Ti.1:14. If grace is necessary to make us love God, it follows we were unable to love him before grace came. It also shows that grace is not given because we chose to love God. Grace takes the initiative. We chose to love God because grace is given, not because of a virtue or ability foreseen in man.
This premise is similar to fallacy one, that God would not command what we cannot perform. Does God give the saints in heaven an opportunity to hate him so to be fair? Did Jesus have some ability to hate the Father? Or was His love for the Father a reflection of what He really is?
Since faith is a gift of grace, should it be strange to think love must be also a gift of grace?
If this is the case, a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature, through the fruit of the Spirit, compels him to do. The nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.
Smalling's books are available for KINDLE
Other essays and studies are available at: