Society of Evangelical Arminians

The following is part of Gerald O. McCulloh's address presented at the Arminius Symposium in Holland, August 1960. He stated that it was his honor to chronicle the influence of the theology of the great Dutch theologian, Jacobus Arminius, noting how the "discussions and disputations which exerted great influence in shaping Protestant Christianity in Holland, England, and America [can] be heard again to warn against doctrinal neglect or errors and to lead to new understandings of Christian truth."¹ McCulloh writes the following.

In the theological education and personal development of a person preparing for the ministry of the church, Arminius' emphases upon God's will in Christ to redeem all men, and that portion of responsibility which rests upon the Christian in the life under grace unto sanctification, are essential in the intellectual and spiritual equipment of the man. . . .

The following is part of James Luther Adams' address presented at the Arminius Symposium in Holland, August 1960: "Arminius and the Structure of Society."

Not as a total stranger does the citizen of Massachusetts visit Amsterdam, a seat of the old Dutch Republic. Not as a stranger does a member of Harvard University join in this celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of Jacobus Arminius. Many are the spiritual children of the Dutch Republic and also of Arminius who have contributed to the heritage of Massachusetts and of America in both politics and religion. . . .

This is the final part of a debate with Paul Manata on on determinism.

James Nichols did a great amout of work getting Arminian books published, but he also wrote a bit himself. Here’s his work Calvinism and Arminianism Compared in Their Principles and Tendency. (link)

Many of us here at SEA have a passion to correct the errors about Arminianism that are being pushed by those that care more about being angry about it than actually knowing what it is. It always surprises me how upset Calvinists are that God made us believe something other than Calvinism.

Anyway, this blog post is a wonderful example of such an issue. A certain Calvinist named Greg Elmquist attempted to disprove Arminianism in one of the silliest displays that we have seen. We are showing you this as the kind of attitude that we come across all the time. If you are an Arminian, and have come across this kind before, understand that you are not alone. If you are a Calvinist, please take this as a lesson that arguing against a caricature of someone's beliefs only makes that person laugh at you. If you are going to disagree with us, please take the time to learn what we say.

Some answers to common Calvinist questions:

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true.
Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology lead to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
A. This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilo. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.

Am I recommending some comments by staunch Calvinist John Piper? Yes indeed. I disagree vehemently with him about Calvinism and Arminianism, but count him as a brother in Christ, an erudite Christian scholar, and a godly man with many good, biblical things to say. Here I want to direct your attention to some wise words of caution he gave for the Young, Restless, & Reformed that can be applied with little alteration to the Young, Alarmed (Why alarmed? Because of the resurgence of the false doctrine of Calvinism), and Arminian. Here is a Link to Piper's Comments, the essence of which is, beware of pride and intellectualism, and ultimately loving one's theology more than God. The link is to the edited transcript of Piper's comments. At the link, one can also find more links to watch or listen to them.

Share with us in a little humor over the importance that Calvinists place on Romans 9, with a revealing comment from John Piper for no extra charge :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21g_zKK_FTk

Philip van Limborch (1633-1712) wrote the first complete Remonstrant Systematic Theology. Though he slighted original sin and had questionable views on total depravity, he still does make some very strong points against Calvinism. Here’s an Engish translation of his work entitled “A Compleat System, or Body of Divinity, both Speculative and Practical”: (link)

A. M. Mallet writes a solid blog entry about how the Arminian interpretation of Mt 16:24 is often misrepresented. Many of us here are here because of how often our view is misunderstood, and equated with positions that we don't hold. This entry is a wonderful example of how we get lumped in with completely disparate views.

Please enjoy Taking Up My Cross.

Arminius died in 1609, which was nine years before the Synod of Dort convened in 1618-1619. Yet it was his original ideas, teachings, and requests that led to the infamous Synod. From the writings of Arminius, it appears that he had hopes that the national synod would be a place for him to 1) defend himself against all charges of heresy, and 2) to defend his views regarding changes he saw needed in the Calvinistic confessions of faith. Arminius felt that the Scriptures were the highest authority to appeal to, and he felt that the Confessions of faith and Catechisms needed to be changed in light of clear teaching in Scripture. The Calvinists of his day disagreed and argued that the Confessions and Catechisms were the judges of what true believers should confess and believe (and it appears to me to be regardless of what Scripture said).

Arminian Confession of 1621 and Apostasy - an article about the Remonstrants' position on the possibility of apostasy.

Click on the pdf to view

Does Calvinism (with its upholding of unconditional election) really have good news for the despairing sinner? At most, a Calvinist can tell a disturbed soul that they could be among God's elect. But, is such a response sufficient enough to engender hope in the heart of the broken? No, it is not. Nothing short of full assurance (no "could be's") that one can turn to God for relief from guilt will do.

The following YouTube video interacts with a 2003 sermon of John Piper's and seriously questions whether the belief in unconditional election is good news for the despairing soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdanH9-uaYA

THE DIVERSITY OF ARMINIAN SOTERIOLOGY:
THOMAS GRANTHAM, JOHN GOODWIN, AND JACOBUS ARMINIUS
By J. Matthew Pinson

(click on the link)

For He is our peace, having made both into one and having broken down1 that wall2 which divides us3, that hostility by His flesh.

Is there a greater verse to demonstrate the notion of how corporate election works? God has created for Himself a people out of the seed of Abraham. It is this people that He has choosen, and it is through this people that He works.

But through the power of the blood of Jesus Christ His Son, that distinction between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the seed of Adam is broken down. Now all who are in Christ are one and are part of the same people: the people of Christ. When we say we are Christians, we are saying that we are part of the soveriegn government of the King of Kings: the Lord Christ who reigns over all the other lords. That is now our nationality; that is our allegiance.

Some have argued that Arminianism offers little assurance that one will finally be saved due to the notion, which many Arminians hold, that a believer can lose his or her salvation. What may astound you is that Arminianism actually holds to a more firm case for the believer's perseverance than does Calvinism.

Total Depravity teaches that every single human being has been affected by the fall. Every part of a person has been affected; hence, total depravity. This has never meant that people are as bad as they could be. This doctrine insists that no one can do anything meritorious for salvation, nor be good enough for salvation. Not only do people not keep God's law perfectly, but they are also unable to do so (Rom. 8:7).

The doctrine of Total Depravity is also known as Total Inability. The apostle Paul writes: "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:14 NIV). Thus people cannot understand spiritual truths, i.e. the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10) without the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

That the doctrine of election (or, as some would have it, predestination) is taught in Scripture is rarely denied. There are those who teach that election or predestination is only related to salvation via means of Christian service. For example, Jack Cottrell writes:

Among those predestined to fill specific roles in the accomplishment of redemption, the primary character is the Redeemer himself, Jesus of Nazareth. The election of Jesus is the central and primary act of predestination. . . . At times other individuals were chosen for special roles in order to facilitate God's purposes. . . . As instruments for establishing the church another group of individuals were chosen, namely, the apostles. . . . That such election was for service and not salvation is seen from the fact that even Judas is among the chosen twelve (Luke 6:13; John 6:70), though his predetermined role was that of the betrayer of Jesus (John 6:71).¹

Theologians are divided as to whether Calvin held to an Unlimited or Limited view of the Atonement. And while most Christians, whether Arminian, non-Calvinist, Amyraldian, or four-point compatibilist Calvinist, would agree that Christ's atoning sacrifice was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, hard determinist, supralapsarian, five-point Calvinists insist that the intent of the atonement was ever and only for the unconditionally elect.

Irresistible Grace, also known as Effectual Calling, is, according to Calvinist Wayne Grudem, "an act of God the Father, speaking through the human proclamation of the gospel, in which he summons people to himself in such a way that they respond in saving faith."¹

A paper on the topic of eternal Security.

Eternal Security: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal, Dr. Gregory Robertson, Church of God
Anderson, Indiana

(Click on the attachment).

The Awakening of the Freewill Baptists: Benjamin Randall and the Founding of an American Religious Tradition,

by Scott E. Bryant, Ph.D. and William H. Brackney, Ph.D.

(click on the attachment)

It has been noted that historically, future generations of "Arminians" departed from the orthodox view of the Trinity, falling into the Unitarian heresy. The same sad state of affairs happened to many Presbyterian (i.e. Calvinistic) congregations during the eighteenth century. Therefore, it is puzzling how Arminianism is solely charged with inevitably leading one to a Unitarian understanding of God.

Vincent of Lerins (early fifth century Christian writer in southern France) said that orthodoxy is "that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."¹ What has been the orthodox view of the Church on the matter of God's knowledge? Exactly what does God know, and is there any limitation to that knowledge? How does God know what He knows? Can He foreknow future free will decisions? And, what did Arminius believe on the foreknowledge of God?

The following is part of Geoffrey F. Nuttall's address presented at the Arminius Symposium in Holland, August 1960: "The Influence of Arminianism in England."

I am inclined to begin by recounting two recent incidents which together may serve as an interesting pointer. Among the papers required for a higher degree in one of the English universities is an essay with three or four alternative subjects, and one of these subjects a few years ago, I remember, was: "Since Wesley, we are all Arminians."

One of the alternatives that year was an invitation to discuss the dictum, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ~ so we need not assume that the assertion that Arminianism is now universally accepted was regarded as indisputable! It is interesting, nonetheless, that the assertion could be made.

Hello. I know our Friday Files have been lax for a couple of weeks. Because of this, I wanted to take the time to mention what the Friday Files is all about.

Our purpose is to provide resources for better understanding Arminianism. Because our primary objective is resources, and not our own thoughts or opinions, we primarily highlight the individual work of our members, and point to their sites.

The purpose of Friday Files is to highlight articles and blog entries from the archives here that we believe would be beneficial for you guys to look at.

This week, we are looking at Episcopius, who was an essential actor in the initial rise of that particular articulation of the truth: Arminianism. This blog entry gives a good brief run down on who he is. Those who are interested in the history of this debate may want to bookmark this piece:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/24

You may view this article as a web page or as a downloadable .pdf file in it's original formatting. To view it as a .pdf file, please click on the attachment located at the bottom of this page.

Thoughts on Original Sin

Bob Hamilton, Copyright 2000

Introduction.

The traditional view of "original sin" includes two related ideas: 

John Piper was asked by Cathy Grossman, from USA Today, what he would tell the children who lost their parents on 9/11. She understood Piper to be suggesting that a victim should concentrate on the greater opportunities that God had granted to the children now, instead of focusing on their past loss. Piper responded that he did not suggest that scenario. Instead, he offered the following:

The following is taken from a larger essay, exegeting Colossians 2:13, by Brian N. Daniels¹, a M.Div. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a four-point Calvinist.

"Of the many issues that divide Arminians and Calvinists, one of the more interesting has to be the relationship between regeneration and faith. The question may be put like this: which comes first and grounds the other, new life given by the Spirit or belief in Christ? This question is important because of its connection to many other points of soteriology. One’s answer generally reveals much about what he believes regarding the nature of grace and depravity, as well as the more difficult issue of election and predestination.