Monthly Archives For June 2011

Arminius’s Doctrine of Grace

, posted by

Often erroneously accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, Arminius and his followers have historically suffered — and continue to suffer — one misrepresentation after another by their theological opponents. Usually, the caricature of Arminian theology comes…

Read Post →

Sovereignty and Freedom

, posted by Martin Glynn

This was originally posted at True Paradigm, the author of which is not a member of SEA but has allowed us to publish this post. Please Enjoy. Arminians are convinced that God can be sovereign…

Read Post →

William Lane Craig on Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism

, posted by Matthew Murphy

What objections can be raised against the Reformed view of Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism? William Lane Craig answers: “At least five come immediately to mind: 1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation…

Read Post →

Cleveland Fans and Corporate Election

, posted by Kevin Jackson

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:4 – bold mine) There is much rejoicing in Cleveland today. Cav fans provide…

Read Post →

A Slightly Less Quick Response

, posted by Martin Glynn

Alan Kurschner recently made a response to my reply to his “question” last week. I first I hesitated on whether or not to reply, since I found his response to be, well, silly. However, there…

Read Post →

Q&A on 2 Timothy 2:25, 26

, posted by Ben Henshaw

Question: I am wondering if you can provide, or point me to, an Arminian exegesis of 2 Tim. 2.25-6? This scripture is often used by Calvinists as a counter to 1 Tim. 2.3, as well as to advance the idea that God has two wills, one of universal love to mankind, another more narrow in which He controls who will and won’t repent unto salvation (the latter underscored by 2 Tim. 2.25-26). I am looking for a good Arminian analysis here.

Answer: I don’t see anything in these verses that should lead one to the conclusion that the repentance spoken of here is irresistibly “given” or “granted”, nor that this is meant to convey the idea that God arbitrarily decides to cause some to repent while denying repentance to others (which would, as you point out, contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 2:4 that God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth).

Read Post →

A Brief Arminian Response to I John 2:18-19

, posted by meek75

This is a fairly short and informal paper that was written in response to Calvinists’ claims that I Jn. 2:18-19 proves eternal security. To read the paper please click on the pdf below. I John…

Read Post →

A Quick Response To A Bad Question

, posted by Martin Glynn

Normally, we do not like to respond to poorly-articulated Anti-Arminian arguments when they come up, even when presented by respected scholars or writers, because a) there are sadly too many of them; and b) we…

Read Post →

Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity Gets it Wrong: Examining the So Called “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism”

, posted by Ben Henshaw

About a year ago I engaged in a conversation with someone who kept misrepresenting Arminian and Wesleyan teaching while insisting that his claims were “historical facts”. This person kept making reference to the “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” to back up his claims. I had no idea what this could be a reference to since I was not familiar with any document written by Arminius or the Remonstrants that went by such a name. As it turns out, the so called “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” is a sub-title given under the heading “Arminianism” in Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity. Below is a critique proving that these 15 tenets are far from representative of Arminian theology.

The 15 Major Tenets of Arminianism are:

1. Human beings are free agents and human events are mediated by the foreknowledge of God.

Read Post →

Eric Holmberg, “Truly Reformed . . . and Truly Wrong”

, posted by SEA

Eric Holmberg is a convinced and serious Calvinist who produced the Calvinist documentary “Amazing Grace.” In this article, he corrects Calvinists who write Arminians “off as necessarily ill-informed, stupid, deceived, heretical – or worse unredeemed.” Readers should be wary of Holmberg’s affirmations of Calvinist theology.

Read Post →

Is There a Middle Ground Between Calvinism and Arminianism?

, posted by SEA

by Roger Olson

I’ve blogged about this before, but just yesterday Southern Baptist philosopher/theologian/seminary dean Steve Lemke, one of the editors of the excellent book Whosoever Will (which I highly recommended here) posted a message to the SBCToday blog accusing me of committing the fallacy of excluded middle for arguing that Southern Baptists like he are either Calvinists or Arminians and should admit it and (in his case) embrace the label Arminian — something he and the other authors of Whosoever Will reject.

Lemke’s post is here.

Read Post →

David Pawson, “Once Saved, Always Saved?”

, posted by SEA

A message by David Pawson on the topic, “Once Saved, Always Saved?”: https://youtu.be/Vy3tSIg7Gi0 It is also available from Pawson’s website, including an audio download: http://davidpawson.org/resources/resource/1160?return_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidpawson.org%2Fresources%2Fcategory%2Fbelief%2Ftheology%2F

Read Post →

Demarcating Wesleyan-Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism

, posted by

I have received several e-mails over the last year asking what are the differences between Wesleyan-Arminianism, stemming from both John (1703-1791) and Charles (1707-1788) Wesley, and Classical Arminianism, the theology of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609) and his…

Read Post →