Please click on the link to view Randal Rauser, “Do Arminians Have the Same Problem as Calvinists?” [Please note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and that SEA does not necessarily endorse…
Election
Randal Rauser, “Calvinism Preaches a God of Love, and yet…”
Please click on the link to view Randal Rauser, “Calvinism Preaches a God of Love, and yet…” [Please note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and that SEA does not necessarily endorse…
Does God Love Those Whom He Has Not Unconditionally Elected to Save?
“In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:9 NKJV). Does God love those…
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
After posting my exegesis of Romans 9, I deemed a follow-up series of posts necessary to show why the observations made therein are relevant to the debate on the conditionality of election. Interestingly, I’ve had…
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Introduction
Romans 9 is one of the most controversial and often-misinterpreted passages of scripture among evangelicals. Controversy, however, should not make us timid when it comes to the things of God. This inspired chapter is valuable for teaching doctrine, and should not be ignored or glossed over. At the same time, it should not be treated as a comprehensive statement of Christian soteriology by itself, for the chapter is not written in isolation, but is strongly rooted in the context of both Testaments, touching on concepts present in the other Pauline epistles and the gospels, and quoting from the Old Testament frequently. The goal of this writing is a sound, objective exegesis of Romans 9 to explain the principles therein, expound upon its themes, and to show where and how its teachings fit into the contexts of the rest of the book of Romans, and scripture as a whole. All quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise specified.
A Brief Overview of Arminian Theology (A Presentation to the SharperIron Community)
The SharperIron website (SI) recently contacted SEA regarding presenting Arminianism to the SI community. The motivation for this request is quite valid and a point not often made – many people oppose Calvinism without providing…
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Continuing with the series on Romans 9, we’ll now address the issue of God’s prerogative in saving who He wishes and how Calvinists often misinterpret its implications. God’s Prerogative Reaffirmed When speaking to zealous Calvinists,…
Cleveland Fans and Corporate Election
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…
Q&A on 2 Timothy 2:25, 26
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).
Paul Washer’s – “Doctrine” of Election: An Arminian Critique
I have been frequently referred to Paul Washer’s video discussion, “Doctrine” of Election. I found the video transcript and decided it would be beneficial to interact with this apparently influential accounting of Calvinist election. The…
John Piper: Are There Two Wills in God? A Response
John Piper’s chapter, “Are There Two Wills in God?”, found on his website Desiring God, and in the book Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), seeks to…
Wesley on Acts 13:48
At first, I wasn’t a big fan of Wesley’s interpretation of Acts 13:48, but lately I have come to admire it’s simplicity. Wesley doesn’t get into technical debates about passive vs. middle voice, disputes about translating tasso as ordain vs. dispose or discussions about reflexive meanings with and without the reflexive pronoun. He is just straight and to the point. Here’s the passage and Wesley’s comments:
What is Reprehensible about Calvinism
According to The Oxford American College Dictionary, the word reprehensible means “deserving censure or condemnation.” While there are aspects regarding Calvinism which are orthodox, overall I find its analysis of God’s character, and at times…
Chrysostom on the ‘Drawing’ and ‘Giving’ in John 6
Chrysostom makes a great point. John 6:45 really helps explain John 6:37 and 44. God teaches and we learn, if we choose to, but some choose not to learn. Those that learn from the Father…
Arminius on Grounding Election in Jesus Christ
That the Doctrine of Election is taught in Scripture is uncontested: “just as He chose [elected] us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him” (Eph.…
Chrysostom and Accounting for Differences
Calvinists sometimes argue that the fact that some people are good and others bad is evidence that God predetermines all things. The Calvinist arguments run down two distinct tracts: 1) a forking maneuver and 2)…
Thoughts on John 6
Here are some thoughts that I had when I decided to dig deep into John chapter 6:
Dr. Brian Abasciano Introduces His New Book on Romans 9:10-18
Dr. Brian Abasciano has done a guest post in the blog of his publisher, T&T Clark/Continuum, introducing his new book on Romans 9:10-18. We have reproduced the post below, which was taken from http://tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2011/04/a-guest-post-from-brian-j-abasciano.html :
<a href="http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=125352&SearchType=Basic
Killing Ants
[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…
Brian Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election”
This article defends the concept of corporate election against the criticisms that have been leveled against it, showing that they arise mostly from misunderstanding of the concept. It argues that corporate election is the biblical…
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Calvinism and the Atonement”
Why Does God Deny the Opportunity of Choice for or Against Him to Young Children Who Die and the Mentally Impaired?
Mark K. Olson, “Wesley’s ‘Warmed Heart’ at Aldersgate – What Really Happened?”
Adam Roe, “The Crucial Thread of Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan Perspective on Divine Drawing”
