(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

I have given away your books to Christians on several occasions.

From the comments that I receive from people, it seems that they are quite resistant to certain teachings, although they don’t always explain.

Sometimes their objection is based on the fact that various preachers have different opinions, so that they are unsure what they should believe.

In the case of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, one lady who had attended a Pentecostal seminary said that she once read a book that contained fifty points supporting Calvinism and another fifty points supporting Arminianism. So which should she believe?

She just gave up and said, "I will just forget about the whole thing and still keep preaching the gospel" — perhaps implying that she would stick to Arminianism since, in her thinking, Calvinism somehow eradicates evangelism.

I suppose the doctrine of election would not be the only thing that they dislike, since I affirm many things that are against popular opinion, even if they are biblical and rational.

But if they disagree with something, they must have actual arguments against those points that I make, and these arguments must actually refute me.

Unless they have these arguments, then a stubborn disagreement is dishonest and sinful. When appropriate, you must press this point, since it might not be obvious to them. Truth is not subject to their preference. If their disagreement is strong, unfair, and stubborn enough, it might even mean that they are not really Christians, since they are rejecting the clear biblical truth and insist on believing in what is false regardless of what the Bible says.

Of course, this is true not just when people read my books, but it is true when one reads the Bible or any Christian work. That is, if one disagrees, then he must have a good reason, and if he stubbornly disagrees with what is really a biblical teaching, then it is sinful, and in some cases, it might even indicate that he has never been converted.

You have already implied that a person who claims to be unable to decide based on the fact that there are arguments on both sides nevertheless does not (and really cannot) remain neutral.

In this case, this woman cannot just say that she will give up investigating and "just keep preaching the gospel," since, especially in the case of Calvinism and Arminianism, the very nature of the gospel is the issue being debated. So what is the gospel?

It is foolish to refuse to decide just because there are multiple perspectives. There are arguments for and against many religions. If she cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there are arguments on both sides, then neither should she be able to decide for or against Christianity. So how did she decide for Christianity, and how does her decision stick?

Also, she says that there are arguments for both sides, but do both sides have good arguments?

For example, Arminians often argue that Calvinism (especially regarding its doctrine of election) teaches something that is unfair. This may carry strong persuasive power for many irrational and careless people, but this does not mean that it is a good argument. As you now know, there are some simple and conclusive answers to this objection. Those people just don’t know about them, or in some cases, refuse to respond to them out of sinful intellectual dishonesty.

In around one minute, I can make up ten arguments asserting that I am the US President, but they won’t be very good arguments. I can say, "I want to be the US President, therefore I am the US President." This is a real argument, just not a good one. Another one: "My mom says that I am a good boy, therefore I am the US President." This is also a real argument, with one explicit and one assumed premise, leading to the conclusion. But this argument is also fallacious and easily destroyed. It is not much harder to destroy every argument for Arminianism.

In any case, it would be supremely stupid for someone to say that now she is unsure whether I am really the US President, since there are arguments on both sides!

So, one of the things that we should do with people who say that they cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there seems to be arguments on both sides is to sit down with them and actually examine those arguments.

Your task would then be to show that Arminianism doesn’t really have even one good argument in its favor. The truth is specific and exclusive, and there are no good arguments for falsehood. So it is not good enough if Calvinism wins ten points and Arminianism wins two — if you handle things right, Calvinism should have all the points and Arminianism should have zero.

This also applies when it comes to scriptural arguments. If Calvinism is true and Arminianism is false, there should not be even one verse of Scripture that supports Arminianism. We affirm Calvinism not because there are more biblical passages that support it, but because all relevant biblical passages either explicitly teach it, or are at least consistent with it, whereas there are no biblical passages that teach Arminianism.

Nevertheless, in a book in which there are fifty arguments supporting Calvinism and fifty supporting Arminianism, there would be probably quite a few bad arguments for Calvinism among those fifty points, and some of those bad argument will be based upon inconsistent Calvinism. Whatever the reason, all bad arguments for Calvinism should be discarded. But then, if you will examine the fifty arguments for Arminianism, you should be able to easily destroy them all.

It makes no sense that a person should be confused about an issue just because there are multiple perspectives. For every truth, there is logically an infinite number of possible falsehoods or deviations relating to it.

For example, if the truth is 1 + 1 = 2, then, we can deviate from this by saying 1 + 1 = 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and so on to infinity. This is the case regarding any truth. It is a sign of an irrational and unstable mind to be bothered just because people disagree and offer arguments for different views.

On the other hand, even if everyone agrees on something, it doesn’t mean that the position that they agree on is correct. So, whether something is popular or controversial is rationally irrelevant.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Posted in Theology, Apologetics | Permanent Link