Arminianism

For Whom Did Christ Die? By Ben Witherington

, posted by Kevin Jackson

(From the Euangelion blog. August 16,2009) According to Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary): Christ died for the sins of the world, and to ransom that world. 1 Tim. 2.4-5 puts the matter succinctly. God our…

Read Post →

ARMINIUS 400: The Legacy of Jacob Arminius

, posted by

The apostle Paul instructs us to render to all what is due them: honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 12:7). This day, October 19, 2009, we honor the life of Jacob Arminius, who died four hundred years ago. This third-generation Reformer was a gift to God’s Church ~ respected by many, even by his theological opponents. What follows is a little recorded history of the year prior to Arminius’s death, and testimonies concerning Arminius’s life, legacy and godliness.

First, a little history is in order. It would appear as though God, nine years before Arminius’s death, was preparing his successor, as He had done with Theodore Beza respecting John Calvin. Carl Bangs records:

Read Post →

Arminius on the Gift of Salvation

, posted by Ben Henshaw

In Arminius’ “Apology” he tackles several charges that have been brought against him by his critics and addresses them by both demonstrating the inaccuracy of the chargers and bringing clarity to his own thoughts on…

Read Post →

What Is Classical Arminianism?

, posted by Martin Glynn

I’m frustrated with how so many treat Arminianism today. Many Calvinists have so poisoned the well that most people have no idea what Arminianism is. When they enter the debate, they allow the likes of…

Read Post →

Resistible vs. Irresistible Grace: The Key Issue

, posted by Godismyjudge

The topic of resistible vs. irresistible grace is of vital importance. In my experience, the Calvinist’s biggest objection to Arminianism is that it is a man-centered theology and gives man a reason to boast. In…

Read Post →

Does God Fail if We Resist?

, posted by Godismyjudge

Hodge’s first argument1 against resistible grace is: P1: God, being infinite, cannot fail in any of His “serious intentions” P2: God ordains all things according to His purpose P3: If God wants His grace to…

Read Post →

The Funniest Anti-Arminian Post I Have Ever Seen

, posted by Martin Glynn

OK, this post by Triablogue is so absolutely ridiculous that I find it comical and wanted to share it. Here Steve Hays actually tries to claim that Arminianism is a form of Manichaeism . Wow. Just wow. For those not familiar with what Manichaeism is, let me say that this would be akin to Michael Moore calling Republicans Communist. Seriously.

Read Post →

Dort, Synod of

, posted by Eric Landstrom

Dort, Synod of (SYNODUS DORDRACENA), a national synod of the United Provinces, held at Dort (Dordrecht; Lat. Dordracum) in 1618-19. I. Origin of the Synod. — The opposition of James Arminius to the Augustinian and…

Read Post →

The Apostle John’s World

, posted by A.M. Mallett

Recently, I have found myself focusing on the effects of a word or two, sovereignty and dominion being the last foray. Today the word world comes into play. It is a long disputed term, used…

Read Post →

Interesting Links – 8/30/09

, posted by Kevin Jackson

Did God send a tornado as a warning to the Evangelical Lutheran Church?John Piper says yes. Greg Boyd says no. Blogger Ed Thompkins has a post entitled: What is Arminianism and Why am I an…

Read Post →

Monergism, Synergism, and Arminianism

, posted by bossmanham

It is often charged by Calvinists that Arminians believe that man must work with God to procure their salvation. Man must make a move toward God and then God will make a move toward them….

Read Post →

Arminius (and Arminians) on Monergism vs. Synergism

, posted by

Arminius’s comments are presented here in the first person, as though he were addressing you personally.

On the issue of Free Will, Grace, and Synergism, let me ask, “What liberty does the will have in a sinful state?” I distinguished between five kinds of liberty as applied to the will: freedom from control of one who commands, freedom from the government of a superior, freedom from necessity, freedom from sin and its dominion, and freedom from misery. The first two apply only to God; the last, to man, but only before the fall. As for freedom from necessity, it is the very essence of the will. Without it, the will would not be the will.

Let this be distinguished from Pelagianism. I say that the will which is free from necessity may not be free from sin. That is the point in question. Is there within man a freedom of will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend? Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to understand, to will, and to do that which is good? The question must be further restricted to spiritual good. The question, then, is briefly: What is the power of free will in fallen man to perform spiritual good?

Read Post →

Interesting Links – 8/16/09

, posted by Kevin Jackson

Calvin Leaves a Divided Legacy in South Africa. “Now, as Protestants worldwide mark the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth, South Africans are remembering how the followers of the Protestant reformer were counted among the most…

Read Post →

Interesting Links 8-9-09

, posted by Kevin Jackson

Peter Lumpkins writes about the misuse of the word “monergism” among Calvinistic Southern Baptists. Ben Henshaw asks: Do you really want to claim John Calvin as your homeboy? Check out the reply thread on this…

Read Post →

Friday Files: Edgar’s The Meaning of Proginwskw (Foreknowledge)

, posted by Godismyjudge

Thomas R. Edgar’s THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”) is a word study on ‘foreknow’ and ‘foreknowledge’. Edgar first notes that “In secular Greek, proginwskw meant “to foreknow, to know beforehand.” Scholars do not seriously dispute this definition.” He then contends that “due to strong evidence for the meaning “know beforehand,” those who argue otherwise face the burden of proof for establishing the exegetical necessity for their proposed meaning. The theoretical possibility or the interpreter’s theological propensity is not sufficient. If “to know beforehand” fits the meaning in a New Testament passage, then this must be the preferred interpretation.”

Read Post →

Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Reformation Arminianism (Part Three of Three Parts)

, posted by

R. C. Sproul, in his Willing to Believe, notes:

    Repeatedly the Synod of Dort charges the Remonstrants with teaching the doctrines of Pelagianism. Is not this charge overly severe and unfair? Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism.

    Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism.1

But are the “fathers of Dort” right in their estimation? Is there a link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism? Though we agree with the Dortians that the “link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism . . . renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism,” we will witness a rather glaring, broken link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism below.

Read Post →

Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Modern Reformation Arminianism (Part Two of Three Parts)

, posted by

In the (1973) preface of his book Knowing God, J. I. Packer writes, “For more than three centuries the naturalistic leaven in the Renaissance outlook has been working like a cancer in Western thought. Seventeenth-century Arminians and deists, like sixteenth-century Socinians, came to deny, as against Reformation theology, that God’s control of his world was either direct or complete, and theology, philosophy and science have for the most part combined to maintain that denial ever since.”1

In one fell swoop Packer has lumped Arminians with the heresies of the Deists and Socinians. Is Packer right in doing this? That “seventeenth-century Arminians” denied Reformation theology of God’s sovereignty is only part of the story. They did not deny God’s sovereignty, they denied the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty.

Read Post →