This mostly applies to moral and logical arguments, rather than things like biblical criticism or social influence. The main three I can think of:
1. “If god is omniscient, there is no free will.” The reformed tradition holds this to be true, but the reformed tradition is not the only form of Christianity. Methodism (among many others) embraces Arminian theology, which holds that man does have free will and reconciles this to divine omniscience via middle knowledge.
2. “Why would god create a being he knew would go to hell? Isn’t it unfair to that individual, who never really had a chance?” This is literally just predestination, something that not many other denominations hold. Most would say that going to hell is the result of the individual’s choice, not something set in stone since the moment of their conception.
3. “What about those who never hear the Christian message?” This is the the problem of the unlearned. You will find that a great many denominations, including the entire Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, support inclusivism, or the idea that salvation does not depend on conscious awareness of God or his message. While it isn’t alone in this one (many, many other Protestants fall in this camp, including most baptists), the reformed tradition is exclusivist- it affirms that those who never hear cannot be saved, and so are damned by circumstance.
I am not saying that every argument here is really only attacking Calvinism, nor am I saying that Calvinism itself is a straw man of Christianity as a whole. These are just some common objections to Christianity that I think don’t apply to the religion as a whole- only to the reformed tradition.
These aren’t complaints against Calvinism. These are complaints against mainstream Christianity, and Calvinism is actually an attempt to address them. You’ve got most of this backwards.
>“If god is omniscient, there is no free will.” The reformed tradition holds this to be true, but the reformed tradition is not the only form of Christianity. Methodism (among many others) embraces Arminian theology, which holds that man does have free will and reconciles this to divine omniscience via middle knowledge.
Middle knowledge isn’t the solution, middle knowledge is the problem. There can’t be both free will and omniscience, so advocating middle knowledge is a effectively arguing this god does not exist. Calvanism solves this by basically ditching free will. Like most of Calvanism it’s not a pleasant solution, but it prevents an impossibility.
>“Why would god create a being he knew would go to hell? Isn’t it unfair to that individual, who never really had a chance?” This is literally just predestination, something that not many other denominations hold. Most would say that going to hell is the result of the individual’s choice, not something set in stone since the moment of their conception.
Predestination isn’t the problem, but the solution to the problem. If individuals have power over whether they do or not go to hell, then Yahweh doesn’t have this power. Saying individuals choose hell denies Yahweh’s sovereignty. If individuals have some power, then Yahweh cannot have all the power. Calvanists solve this by denying individuals can alter their fate, thus maintaining Yahweh’s sovereignty. Unpleasant, but prevents an impossibility.
>“What about those who never hear the Christian message?” This is the the problem of the unlearned. You will find that a great many denominations, including the entire Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, support inclusivism, or the idea that salvation does not depend on conscious awareness of God or his message. While it isn’t alone in this one (many, many other Protestants fall in this camp, including most baptists), the reformed tradition is exclusivist- it affirms that those who never hear cannot be saved, and so are damned by circumstance.
Yes, but this causes a much greater problem whereby it’s arguably better to tell no one about Christianity, or at least it doesn’t matter. Giving people the opportunity to consciously reject Christianity can damn them to hell. With predestination this isn’t a problem.
___
Calvanism it’s one of the more sensible approaches to Christianity with it’s focus being on resolving internal contradictions without regard for how humans would regard those resolutions.
I mean, these are complaints against Christianity, you’ve just given proposed answers to those complaints. These ironically aren’t effective complaints against Calvinism because the Calvinist response to alleged moral issues is, unfailingly, “God can do whatever he wants, deal with it sinner”
The first two arguments are not saying that Christianity *claims* that there is no free will and people never had a choice about damnation- we know it doesn’t. They’re saying that based on the Christian conception of God it *follows* that there is no free free and people never had a choice of damnation. Like the argument atheists can’t have morality- it’s not saying that atheists *claim* there are no morals, it’s saying atheists are *committed to* there being no morals.
Meanwhile, the problem of the Unlearned is still discussed as a serious problem in at least the catholic church- after all, even if not essential, belief in god presumably *helps*, so the problem is still there of why large groups of people are given a harder time at salvation. Less strong, perhaps, but its not gone away.
>Methodism (among many others) embraces Arminian theology, which holds that man does have free will and reconciles this to divine omniscience via middle knowledge.
I’m sure it *tries* to reconcile it, but that doesn’t mean that we all recognize its attempt as successful. It’s a problem all denominations of Christianity need to address. (And the conflict with omniscience isn’t even the only issue with free will.)
>“Why would god create a being he knew would go to hell? Isn’t it unfair to that individual, who never really had a chance?” This is literally just predestination, something that not many other denominations hold. Most would say that going to hell is the result of the individual’s choice, not something set in stone since the moment of their conception.
Just saying you don’t believe in predestination doesn’t help anything. That’s like saying, yes, I believe that A = B, and that B = C, but I don’t believe that A = C because that would be “predestination.” The argument is that if God knows exactly which choices you will make, then your choices *are* metaphorically set in stone, and thus they aren’t free. It’s no use to say, “well, my choices are free” without addressing the underlying argument.
>Methodism (among many others) embraces Arminian theology, which holds that man does have free will and reconciles this to divine omniscience via middle knowledge.
Then how do these denominations justify Yahweh overriding free will when it suits her?
If the free will of the humans who built the alleged tower of Babel was to built the structure, then what’s the justification for Yahweh breaking her own free will rule?
If the free will of humans was not to worship Yahweh, then what’s the justification for Yahweh breaking her own free will rule by eradicating all land-dwelling life during the alleged global flood?
What’s the justification for Yahweh breaking her own free will rule by allegedly hardening Pharaoh’s heart?
​
>Most would say that going to hell is the result of the individual’s choice, not something set in stone since the moment of their conception.
That’s still a very poor excuse, because it doesn’t account for a serial killer repenting after his last meal of fried chicken and before the lethal injection getting into paradise, and a Hindu, Buddhist, atheist,… having lived an honest, decent life being condemned to eternal torture. Infinite reward or punishment for finite actions is inherently morally bankrupt.
​
>This is the the problem of the unlearned. You will find that a great many denominations, including the entire Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, support inclusivism, or the idea that salvation does not depend on conscious awareness of God or his message.
Strange, the Vatican justified its forced conviction of Native Americans in an “apology” some 20 years ago by claiming “they were silently awaiting the arrival of the church”. So if inclusivism is actually the Catholic POV, why then all those missionaries?