Recent Articles

Our Common Enemy

, posted by WilliamBirch

I mentioned recently that Arminians and Calvinists are not enemies (even though there are people in both camps who at times disagree — or at least behave as though they disagree — with this statement)….

Read Post →

The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart

, posted by Kevin Jackson

The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. -Exodus 4:21 NIV

A recurring theme in Exodus is the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh repeatedly goes back on his word and refuses to release the Israelites as he promised. At first Pharaoh hardens his own heart. Then God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Each time after God hardens Pharaoh’s heart, Pharaoh changes his mind and refuses to let the Israelites go.

Read Post →

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics

, posted by JC_Thibodaux

Related Fallacies:
Special Pleading (Double Standard)
Equivocation
Straw man

“Of course, this raises the question, why does their God save a person to damn him? Why not simply leave him in his unsaved state?” – Steve Hays, Tender Mercies

To get a better view of this fallacy, let’s examine the author’s argument more fully from the analogy he gives:

Read Post →

Two Important Books Coming Out This Year

, posted by SEA

Here are two books to be on the lookout for this year: Roger Olson, Against Calvinism is scheduled to come out in October of this year (2011). There is no information available yet at the…

Read Post →

James Arminius On the One Will of God

, posted by WilliamBirch

There is a connection between the Understanding of God and His Will that is overlooked or neglected by those who hold to a two wills in God theory. In this post we will discover what Arminius believed about God’s Knowledge or Understanding, and its relation to the one Will of God, with its various distinctives.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

Read Post →

The Theological Fatalist’s Modal Fallacy

, posted by bossmanham

Theological fatalists posit that God’s foreknowledge of future events mean that it is not possible for anything other than what happens to happen. Since God knows every event that will happen, then aren’t those events necessary?

This mode of thinking works out like this:

1) Necessarily, if God foreknows x will happen, then x will happen
2) God foreknows x will happen
3) Therefore, necessarily x will happen

which would take the form:

□ P -> Q
P
___
□ Q

But this is a non sequitur. All that would actually follow from the premises displayed is Q. In terms of God’s foreknowledge, all that would follow is that x will happen, not that necessarily x will happen.

Theological fatalists have tried to remedy this by positing that the second premise is also necessary. So the argument would go:

1) Necessarily, if God foreknows x will happen, then x will happen
2′) Necessarily, God foreknows x will happen
3) Therefore, necessarily x will happen

Read Post →

About Heretics: Should They Be Persecuted?

, posted by Matthew Murphy

“Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.” (Prov. 19:11; ESV)

“This is certain that the better a man knows the truth, the less is he inclined to condemn, as appears in the case of Christ and the apostles. But he who lightly condemns others shows thereby that he knows nothing precisely, because he cannot bear others, for to know is to know how to put into practice. He who does not know how to act mercifully and kindly does not know the nature of mercy and kindness, just as he who cannot blush does not know the nature of shame.” (Sebastian Castellio)

Abstract:

Read Post →

Universalism and Arminianism at Odds

, posted by WilliamBirch

The theology of Moises Amyraut (1596-1664) should not be overlooked, for the simple reason that Amyraldianism (sometimes referred to as four-point Calvinism) was another departure from or reformation of Classical Calvinism.

Amyraut believed that he was the accurate interpreter of Calvin and that the high or strict Calvinists (supralapsarians) were to be blamed for the “Arminian error.” Brian Armstrong shares Amyraut’s thoughts on predestination when he writes:

    The usual approach to Amyraut’s doctrine of predestination has been to summarize his Brief Traitte, singling out the doctrines which are at variance with the teaching of Calvinist orthodoxy.

    Read Post →

Arminius on the Sovereignty and Providence of God concerning the Problem of Evil

, posted by WilliamBirch

Arminius comments:

    We have already said that in sin the act, or the cessation from action, and ‘the transgression of the law’ come under consideration: But the Efficiency of God about evil concerns both the act itself and its viciousness, and it does this whether we have regard to the beginning of sin, to its progress, or to its end and consummation.1

What Arminius is trying to avoid is the constructing of his exegetical theology which is free from charging or making God the author of sin. What does it mean to make God the author of sin? First, let us define sin. The Larger Catechism states that sin is “any want [lack] of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.”2 This definition works as well as any other.

Read Post →

The Arminian’s Doctrine of Divine Concurrence

, posted by WilliamBirch

Concurrence is the cooperation of agents or causes ~ a combined action or effort. When we speak of the doctrine of concurrence, we mean the cooperation of God and a person in a combined effort to produce an action. (Classical, Reformed Arminians believe that the Holy Spirit works monergistically in the act of regeneration, and He does so when a person trusts in Christ Jesus the Lord: faith does not cause regeneration, nor can one effect his or her own regeneration.)

Read Post →

John Goodwin Responds to John Owen and other Calvinist Critics

, posted by SEA

This 1658 work is a lengthy rejoinder to multiple Calvinist rebuttals written against Goodwin’s Arminian magnum opus, Redemption Redeemed (1651). It includes response to John Owen’s critique. The book runs 515 pages. It has a very long title, which is here linked to the book itself online:

Triumviri, or, The genius, spirit, and deportment of the three men, Mr. Richard Resbury, Mr. John Pawson, and Mr. George Kendall in their late writings against the free grace of God in the redemption of the world … : together with some brief touches (in the preface) upon Dr. John Owen, Mr. Thomas Lamb (of the Spittle), Mr. Henry Jeanes, Mr. Obadiah How, and Mr. Marchamond Needham in relation to their late writings against the author

Read Post →

Marc Monte on Limited Atonement

, posted by postpre

From a sermon delivered at his Church (Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Indiana) from 2004, Pastor Monte points out what he feels are inconsistencies in the Calvinist teaching of Limited Atonement:

Read Post →

Did You Catch the Calvinist Contradiction Alert?

, posted by SEA

Recently, we posted an analysis by one of our members (Robert) of a portion of Justin Taylor’s interview of Calvinist scholar, John Feinberg, about his book Ethics for a Brave New World. In that analysis, Robert showed that Feinberg (and seemingly Taylor along with him) actually contradicts his own Calvinistic view of freedom and relies on the Arminian view of freedom to ground moral responsibility. Robert left a comment about the matter at Taylor’s posting of the interview, but there has been no explanation of this contradiction. I just wanted to highlight this development because it seems that there is no real answer that can be given to Robert’s observations.

Read Post →