Charge: Arminianism is Man-Centered
Calvinist Complaint: Arminianism is Man-Centered
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians states: “Whenever you demonstrate that Calvinism is irrational, Calvinists immediately caricature the desire for rationale as ‘man-centered’ or ‘humanistic’. So rationale is only valid when one is not employing it to expose Calvinism’s oh-so-soft underbelly. Heads they win, tails you lose. To paraphrase John Piper, God is most glorified when you are most stupefied.” (SEA, emphasis mine)
But what if the plain reading of John 3:16 holds true? In other words, what if God established the provision of salvation viz. Calvary, and then offers it to whosoever will, to receive or to reject? If this is how God wanted to establish the means of salvation, then who is man to disparage it as man-centered? I’m not admitting that it would be man-centered, but merely pointing out the obvious fact that man is in no position to tell God that His chosen method does not center around Him. If God chose the method, then by definition it should be considered “God-centered.” But, some will say, man gets the glory, should he chose God. But if God chose the plan of salvation, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that God gets the glory by His own plan being executed? In other words, if God’s plan is in action, then the results of His plan must ultimately bring glory back upon Himself. This works for the argument of God’s sovereignty as well. If this was God’s plan, then it was His sovereignty that allowed Him to choose it, and thus God remains sovereign, simply because He didn’t have to ask permission from anyone to execute His purposes according to what is generally understood as the plain reading of John 3:16.
Nevertheless, Calvinists seem to attach a certain level of nobility to their beliefs concerning God’s sovereignty, as evidenced by the following:
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians states: “Many Calvinists consider themselves to be noble saints carrying the good news of God’s deterministic sovereignty to a world that wrongly adheres to belief in free will. They attach much self-perceived, counter-cultural virtue to Calvinistic outlooks on God’s sovereignty. Piper exemplifies this. When asked about his feelings concerning God’s sovereignty and his then-unsaved son Abraham, Piper noted his sadness over God’s sovereign choice to damn his son, but then claimed that he would glorify God for it. This is supposed to carry with it an air of nobility: Even in the face of eternal loss of a loved one, Piper (and other Calvinists) simply cling to the sovereignty and glory of God! In equal measure, they attach much vice to belief in free will (like labeling such things ‘man-centered’). In fact, many Calvinists of the Piper/Sproul stripe will interweave Calvinism with the gospel so much that they believe it to be pretty-much essential to any kind of adherence to the gospel. As a result, Calvinists can label non-Calvinists as either theologically/biblically illiterate folks or as worshippers of free will who don’t care about God’s glory.” (SEA, emphasis mine)
In other words, it is an allegiance to the doctrines of Calvinism that results in the Calvinist attributing a lot of negative things to the non-Calvinist, even to the point of zealousness, and zealousness without logic. In other words, the aforementioned statements concerning the logically inescapable God-centeredness of God’s chosen plan of salvation, and His sovereign right to execute it, without having to ask anyone for permission, is simply dismissed by the Calvinist due solely from emotional attachment.
The prevailing Calvinist view is that in order for theology to be considered God-centered, human decision must play no role in salvation, whatsoever.
