The article was originally published in Integrity 2 (2003) 121-139, and is posted here with permission by the author. Pinson on Arminius
Monthly Archives For February 2011
Concurrence is the cooperation of agents or causes ~ a combined action or effort. When we speak of the doctrine of concurrence, we mean the cooperation of God and a person in a combined effort to produce an action. (Classical, Reformed Arminians believe that the Holy Spirit works monergistically in the act of regeneration, and He does so when a person trusts in Christ Jesus the Lord: faith does not cause regeneration, nor can one effect his or her own regeneration.)
For some good theological humor: http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/02/guard-your-thoughts-against-calvinism.html.
This 1658 work is a lengthy rejoinder to multiple Calvinist rebuttals written against Goodwin’s Arminian magnum opus, Redemption Redeemed (1651). It includes response to John Owen’s critique. The book runs 515 pages. It has a very long title, which is here linked to the book itself online:
Triumviri, or, The genius, spirit, and deportment of the three men, Mr. Richard Resbury, Mr. John Pawson, and Mr. George Kendall in their late writings against the free grace of God in the redemption of the world … : together with some brief touches (in the preface) upon Dr. John Owen, Mr. Thomas Lamb (of the Spittle), Mr. Henry Jeanes, Mr. Obadiah How, and Mr. Marchamond Needham in relation to their late writings against the author
From a sermon delivered at his Church (Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Indiana) from 2004, Pastor Monte points out what he feels are inconsistencies in the Calvinist teaching of Limited Atonement:
Recently, we posted an analysis by one of our members (Robert) of a portion of Justin Taylor’s interview of Calvinist scholar, John Feinberg, about his book Ethics for a Brave New World. In that analysis, Robert showed that Feinberg (and seemingly Taylor along with him) actually contradicts his own Calvinistic view of freedom and relies on the Arminian view of freedom to ground moral responsibility. Robert left a comment about the matter at Taylor’s posting of the interview, but there has been no explanation of this contradiction. I just wanted to highlight this development because it seems that there is no real answer that can be given to Robert’s observations.
Begging the Question
“While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional….” (Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will, John Hendryx)
[A bit of satire to make a point about the Calvinistic view of election]
When I was a kid I used to get a lot of enjoyment from killing ants. I loved to stir up their hills and stomp on them. Sometimes I would burn the loathsome insects with a magnifying glass. A favorite method of ant termination was to flood their hills with water. It was satisfying to watch them struggle and drown.
After starting a flood I would sometimes stick a twig in the water to let a few special ants out. They weren’t special because of anything they had done, but because I chose to let them live. It was always first necessary to terminate a massive numbers of ants before showing any mercy. I needed to express my attribute of wrath, and the elect ants had to appreciate that they were living because of my good pleasure.
Keep in mind that all of the ants I killed had it coming. Ants bite even when you command them not to.