Born Jacobus Harmenszoon (ca. 1559-1609),[1] James Arminius’s name has been associated with Socinianism, Pelagian- and semi-Pelagianism, Unitarianism, Roman Catholicism, and most notably with the doctrine of conditional perseverance. As a matter of fact, for better…
Search Result
Roger Olson Joins Scot McKnight in Taking It to the Neo-Reformed
One of our members, well known Arminian theologian Roger Olson, has weighed in on the controversy stirred up by Scot McKnight’s recent comments about those he has labeled the “Neo-Reformed” (see our recent post about…
Friday Files: Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered
John Wesley had the rare gift of bringing the Calvinist/Arminian debate from the head to the heart. In Predestination Calmly Considered, Wesley first examines the idea of upholding unconditional election while rejecting reprobation and then…
Arminius: The Reformer
I have often wondered why so little has been said about Jacobus (or James) Arminius being listed along with other Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Zwingli, Huss, Tyndale, or others. In…
Causeless Cause or Infinite Regression of Causes
Brief Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part II of Freedom of the Will
Edwards attacks LFW in two broad categories: causation and divine foreknowledge. Under causation, Edwards argues that LFW either leads to an infinite regression of causes or is an action without a cause. Edwards then argues that actions without causes are absurd because: 1) they would violate the common sense idea that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause, 2) then we wouldn’t be able to reason from cause to effect, 3) all proof of God’s existence is taken away, and 4) actions produced by a causeless cause would be both random and irrational, and therefore not a basis of moral accountability.
Infinite Regression of Causes or Causeless
Edwards on Impeccability and Hardening
In part 3, scections III.I, III.II, and III.III, Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a…
Desire Isn’t Good Enough
Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V Some falsely argue we can’t perform our spiritual duties, but desire these things, so they are excusable. This entails the contradiction that we are inclined and disinclined to…
J. Dale Weaver, “The John 3:16 Conference — Southern Baptists and the Challenge of Calvinism: A Reformation Arminian Review”
The Southern Baptist Convention has been perhaps the greatest means by which the Gospel has been presented to the world, at least during the history of the United States. No other Protestant denomination has achieved…
In Defense of the Invitation / Altar Call
The “invitation” or “altar call” is a common tradition in many “low church” bodies. Invitations to accept Christ are not new, however, the specific form of invitation known as an “altar call” is a relatively new practice. It started with the evangelist Charles Finney, back in the 1830’s. Other evangelists who have popularized the practice include D.L Moody, Billy Sunday, Corrie ten Boom, and Billy Graham.
I John 4:19; A Devotional
I’m sorry that I am late this week. I’m afraid that I had some computer issues.
1 John 4:19; We love, because He first loved us.
This is an important relational aspect between us and the Father. Love does not find its origin in our souls, but in the Divine Being. He is love, and He is the subject and the object of it. I shapes it; designs it; defines it. There is no love without Him.
A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8
A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Jerry McCant
Any assignment whose parameters are set by others can be threatening. After accepting this assignment, I found this one to be so. First, it was to be a Wesleyan interpretation. Given the many “Wesleyanisms”‘ and the problem Isbell2 had in defining a “Wesleyan position” on the “old man,” I was not too hopeful. I was asked to interpret Romans 6-8 from this Wesleyan perspective. For reasons that I shall discuss below, I was not able to be that restrictive, but found myself forced to consider Romans 5-8 as a unit.
Systematic Theology in a Wesleyan Mode
Systematic Theology in a Wesleyan Mode
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
H. Ray Dunning
Predestination As Temporal Only
Predestination As Temporal Only
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider
One of the most interesting theological finds I have made in recent years is that God’s predestinating of us does not seem to have to do with eternal destiny.
God does indeed predestinate us in certain ways. Six times the word for “to predestinate” is used in the NT. Besides the instances of cognates of that very word “proorizo,” other “pro” words are found in both Testaments which also show that God makes pre-decisions on various matters. And God sometimes makes decrees, even as kings do, according to Scripture. But my recent study suggests that none of these references has to do with our eternal destiny, but only with other matters.
The Nature of Wesleyan Theology
The Nature of Wesleyan Theology
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider
Theology, when it is entered into by us Wesleyans, takes on a certain nature, in relation to other theologies: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist. It is of the very nature of Wesleyan theology that it has (1) an experiential interest, (2) an existential element, (3) a large-scoped biblical character, (4) a dynamic quality, (5) a catholicity, and 6) a homing instinct for the moral.
Its Experiential Interest
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith
Introduction
The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley’s observation that to say, “This man is an Arminian,” was, to some, much the same thing as saying, “This man is a mad dog.”1
John Fletcher’s Influence on the Development of Wesleyan Theology in America
JOHN FLETCHER’S INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESLEYAN THEOLOGY IN AMERICA
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
By John A. Knight
Introduction
Not until recent years has the significance of John Fletcher’s theology been assessed by interpreters of the history of Christian doctrine. For almost two hundred years his work was eclipsed by the Wesleys and by some in the Calvinistic wing of the 18th century Evangelical Revival in England, except for occasional references by historians and biographers of his contemporaries.
David C. Shipley’s perceptive study, “Methodist Arminianism in the Theology of John Fletcher,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1942, was a pioneer work in this country. Particularly in the last two decades others have begun to recognize the importance of Fletcher to the development of Wesleyan theology.1
Hermeneutical Model for the Wesleyan Ordo Salutis
A HERMENEUTICAL MODEL FOR THE WESLEYAN ORDO SALUTIS
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Kenneth Collins
I. Introduction
It comes as a surprise to learn that in this age of ecumenism, John Wesley’s theology has rarely been explored beyond Methodist circles. Indeed, while significant dialogue has occurred among Lutheran, Calvinist and Roman Catholic traditions,1 Wesley’s voice has seldom been heard in such settings. Why has this been so?
CHARACTERISTICS OF WESLEY’S ARMINIANISM
CHARACTERISTICS OF WESLEY’S ARMINIANISM
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Luke L. Keefer, Jr.
What Can The Dead in Sin Do?
Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.
Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more “hear” the gospel or “see” our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?
Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?
Before examining some of the other Calvinists “proof texts” for irresistible regeneration, we will take a moment to deal with a common Calvinist objection to the Arminian appeal to Jn. 12:32 as an example of universal “drawing”.
Recent Posts
Mark K. Olson, “John Wesley’s Doctrine of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit: An Exegetical Study – Part One”
Clayton Sidenbender, “How a Small US Evangelical Seminary Is Defying the Odds”
Richard Coords, “Mystery”
Sermon Video: Jack Hibbs, “God’s Good – Good Sovereignty (Romans 9:14-29)”
