Monthly Archives For October 2012

Amyraldism vs. Four-Point Calvinism

, posted by Martin Glynn

I’ve been musing about the idea of Limited Atonement, and there are a few posts that I intend to write about it. In preperation though, I would like to make a point about a distinction which I see between what is known as four-point Calvinism and the classic view called Amyraldism.

Both of these views are a form of Calvinism which rejects the Dortian view that the atonement is limited. Indeed, if one merely considers them by what they affirm and don’t affirm from TULIP, then they would be considered the same thing, or at least one as a type of the other. However, I think that there is a difference between Amyraldism and what is currently referred to as four-point Calvinism.

Read Post →

Arminius on the Will of God

, posted by drwayman

Arminius on the will of God

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XVIII

ON THE WILL OF GOD

I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.

II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Jargon

, posted by Martin Glynn

Or “The Obscenity of Obdurate Obnubilating Obfuscation”

What I mean by Jargon

If we equate any philosophical debate to battle I would argue that our basic weapons are our ideas and arguments, and our rhetoric is our technique in wielding those weapons. But the battlefield, the terrain of the battle is the vocabulary we use. Therefore, he who controls the vocabulary of the debate holds the high ground.

It is little wonder then that so much of Calvinist rhetoric revolves around controlling the vocabulary of the discussion. It is incredibly common for them to create terms, adjust terms, or redefine terms for the purposes of making their point. To be honest, we should do more of this. Part of being clear is being conscience of the words that you are using, and why you are using them.

Read Post →

Adam Clarke on Romans 7:14

, posted by drwayman

Adam Clarke on Romans 7:14

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

Romans 7 is a debated passage. It was here, in his teaching through the book of Romans, that Arminius differed with the Calvinists of his day by asserting that the man described in Romans 7 was not regenerated. This led to the controversy he would have with the theologians of his day over Romans 7 and then other aspects of Calvinism. Arminians, to this day, are not congruent on the issue. Some hold that Romans 7 is describing our common struggle as Christians with the flesh. No doubt we all can read Romans 7 and see glimpses of our own experiences in there (1 John 1:8-10). Some hold that Paul is describing his own life under the Law before his salvation. Others hold that Paul is speaking here of the natural man in his state of sin (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Read Post →

Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation

, posted by drwayman

Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation

written by SEA member Roy Ingle

There are certain events in the ministry of the Lord Jesus that demonstrated that He foreknew them and this shows He was God. For instance, we read that Jesus knew that He would die on the cross (John 12:32) and details about His crucifixion (Mark 10:33-34). Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:18-27) and that Peter would deny Him (Mark 14:29-31). He was able to read the thoughts of the Jews in Mark 2:8. Clearly, Jesus was God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6).

Read Post →

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

, posted by drwayman

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

provided by SEA member Roy Ingle

I. As we have hitherto treated on the object of the Christian religion, that is, on Christ and God, and on the formal reasons why religion may be usefully performed to them, and ought to be, among which reasons, the last is the will of God and his command that prescribes religion by the conditions of a covenant; and as it will be necessary now to subjoin to this a discourse on the vocation of men to a participation in that covenant, it will not be improper for us, in this place, to insert one on the Predestination, by which God determined to treat with men according to that prescript, and by which he decreed to administer that vocation, and the means to it. First, concerning the former of these.

Read Post →

Election Advice from John Wesley

, posted by drwayman

Election Advice from John Wesley

I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them:

1) To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy.

2) To speak no evil of the person they voted against.

3) To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

Here is Wesley’s Journal: http://books.google.com/books?id=eQgr0V_DZdAC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=I+met+those+of+our+society+who+had+votes+in+the+ensuing+election,+and+advised+them&source=bl&ots=Vw7CXbBxBe&sig=o-C7ZZZ-Li9a5COqsUqZELiRP9w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1zx-UJ_aIcPmygGpwoHQDw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=I%20met%20those%20of%20our%20society%20who%20had%20votes%20in%20the%20ensuing%20election%2C%20and%20advised%20them&f=false

Read Post →

Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians

, posted by Martin Glynn

I just finished Dr. Olson’s book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God’s character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:

Molinism… is the belief that God possesses “middle knowledge” — knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom — freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does — but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]

Read Post →

Arminian Thoughts on 1 John 2:2

, posted by drwayman

Arminian Thoughts on 1 John 2:2

written by SEA member Roy Ingle

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2

Read Post →