According to Arminians, why do they find Calvinism distasteful or inaccurate?

A danger with this important question is that the issue of 'free will' might be raised, like a red flag to a bull, and arguments start. Although that is certainly involved in disagreements between Arminians and Calvinists, there's more to it than that. Indeed, without a grasp of the historical issues raised around 1610, the question can hardly be answered.

Here is an explanatory quotation which I am confident Arminians will agree is fair comment on how what came to be an irreconcilable rift began.

"We must take our starting point in Holland in the year 1610. James Arminius, a Dutch professor, had just died and his teaching had been formulated into five main points of doctrine by his followers - known as Arminians. Up to this point, the churches of Holland, in common with the other major Protestant churches of Europe, had subscribed to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith, which were both set squarely on Reformation teachings. The Arminians wanted to change this position, however, and they presented their five points in the form of a Remonstrance - or protest - to the Dutch Parliament.

1. Free will, or human ability. This taught that man, although affected by the Fall, was not totally incapable of choosing spiritual good, and was able to exercise faith in God in order to receive the gospel and thus bring himself into possession of salvation.

2. Conditional election. This taught that God laid His hands upon those individuals who, He knew - or foresaw - would respond to the gospel. God elected those that He saw would want to be saved of their own free will and in their natural fallen state - which was, of course, according to the first point of Arminianism, not completely fallen anyway.

3. Universal redemption, or general atonement. This taught that Christ died to save all men; but only in a potential fashion. Christ's death enabled God to pardon sinners, but only on condition that they believed.

4. The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration limited by the human will. This taught that the Holy Spirit, as He began to work to bring a person to Christ, could be effectually resisted and His purposes frustrated. He could not impart life unless the sinner was willing to have this life imparted.

5. Falling from grace. This taught that a saved man could fall finally from salvation. It is, of course, the logical and natural outcome of the system. If man must take the initiative in his salvation, he must retain responsibility for the final outcome. (The Five Points of Calvinism p7, W.J. Seaton, The Banner of Truth Trust)

In 1618 a National Synod of the church met in Dort to examine those teachings in light of scripture. It sat for 154 sessions over seven months. The outcome was inability to reconcile the Arminian viewpoint with what they saw in the scriptures. This led to a reaffirmation of the Protestant view on those matters. Although John Calvin had been dead for 50 years, his theology was used to form what has come to be known as 'TULIP' - an acrostic standing for:

T - Total depravity (= total inability)

U - Unconditional Election

L - Limited Atonement (= particular redemption)

I - Irresistible Calling

P - Perseverance of the Saints

Without going into arguments about how TULIP is incompatible with those 5 Arminian points, I will simply say that it is perfectly obvious that both theologies cannot be correct. If one system is correct, the other is wrong - totally wrong. The various points stand or fall together. This is one of those matters where there can be no mixing or matching to come up with a patchwork quilt incorporating both sets of views, or some from one stitched to some from the other.

Arminianism clashes head on with the Calvinistic stance. That might be why Jimmy Swaggart is reported as saying the Reformed view is "a demonic heresy". Both stances cannot be correct. Arminians have taken a firm stand which opposes the Reformed (Calvinistic) stand. This was established after 154 sessions over seven months in 1618. Nothing has changed since then, except, perhaps, some taking more entrenched stances so that they publicly attack Calvinism in a vitriolic manner.

As someone who sees spiritual dangers with the Arminian view, I would simply say that it has corrupted the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ, which is why I am not an Arminian. For the same reason, that is why I am not a supporter of other denominations that have also not stuck faithfully to the biblical gospel. I had to leave one denomination after discovering it was not preaching the Christ, nor the gospel, of scripture. That was when I became a Christian - when I woke up to just who the Christ, and the gospel, of scripture is. But I'm not here to argue about that. I'm just here to answer your question by pointing to what particular beliefs Arminianism was founded on, and that Calvinism examined them in light of scripture and could not agree with them.

Calvinism is not a demonic lie, but...

I was really hoping this question would disappear because it is not edifying or helpful to dwell on particular pieces of hurtful rhetoric which have been volleyed back and forth between Calvinists and Arminians. Since it instead seems to be picking up steam, and instead engendering foundationless caricatures of Arminianism, I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability.

1. Calvinism is not a demonic lie

Just as the oft-repeated claim of Calvinists that Arminianism is really just the heresy of Pelagianism repackaged, Jimmy Swaggart is wrong if he claims that Calvinism and especially Calvinists are servants of the devil. This is both because (a) most of the positive reasons for believing Calvinism are grounded in scripture and orthodox Christian history, and (b) many Calvinists do not consciously hold to the dangerous implications of their theology which might cause an outsider to label it demonic. Both these principles are made clear by thoughtful theologians on both sides of this debate.

2. But...

For those incapable of passing off certain horrifying logical implications of predestination, determinism, and limited atonement as unknowable mysteries, and for those unwilling to ignore clear biblical warrants against things like limited atonement (which is why many Calvinists are 4-pointers), to believe in Calvinism would make God into some form of unrecognizable monster. See what Roger Olsen writes in the conclusion of his book Against Calvinism:

But the greatest conundrum of them all has to do with God’s character. Nearly all Calvinists confess that God is the standard of moral goodness, the source of all values, the perfectly loving source of love. Then they also confess that God ordains, designs, controls, and renders certain the most egregious evil acts such as the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a small child and the genocidal slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. They confess that God “sees to it” that humans sin, as with the fall of Adam and eve. And they confess that all salvation is absolutely God’s doing and not at all dependent on free will decisions of people (monergism), and that God only saves some when he could save all—assuring that some large portion of humanity will spend eternity in hell when he could save them from it...For me, and most non-Calvinists, nothing is more important to preserve, protect, and promote than the good name of God—God’s reputation based on his good character. Insofar as Calvinism undermines that, I cannot live with its conundrums because they all ultimately injure God’s reputation—making it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil.

He goes on to point out a distinction between persons and beliefs which is why neither he, nor I believe Calvinists are devil worshippers, but hopefully this makes the connection between our moral revulsion towards Calvinism's implications clearer.

Some readers may question the sincerity of my pledge or the success of my effort to write about Calvinism with an irenic Spirit. I ask, however, that you keep clearly in mind the difference between persons and beliefs.