Calvinism and Arminianism:
Myths & Realities















Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states:Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust.” (Divine Sovereignty, emphasis mine)

God’s sovereignty is that He gets the last word. But even more so, where Calvinists really miss the boat is over the concept of a parent-child relationship, relative to sovereignty.

Calvinist, James White, writes: “All the religions of man require the creaturely will of man to stand sovereign over God, so that no matter how much weight is given to God and His grace, in the final analysis, it is man who is in control of the final decision regarding his salvation.” (Debating Calvinism, p.414, emphasis mine)





















Dave Hunt writes: “The Calvinist erroneously imagines that allowing man the right of choice threatens Gods sovereignty.” (Debating Calvinism, p.341)

Calvinist Charge:  Arminianism denies God His Throne.

Myth or Reality:  Arminians view 1st Corinthians 10:13 as being indicative of God sitting on His throne. What Arminians reject is when Calvinists seek to place Gnosticism on the throne, or at least, the deterministic precepts of Gnosticism, which otherwise historically denied Free Will.
Question:  If a parent sets the rules and enforces the rules, and makes their child’s blessing or punishment something that is conditional upon the rules, does that make the parent any less sovereign over their child?

Answer:  In my opinion, this is why the Calvinist argument is utterly baseless and completely without merit, and anyone that complains about the parent-child illustration, then needs to explain why God calls Himself our father and describes us as His children.