Recent Articles

Connection between Offering and Intercession – Christ’s Death and Intercession (Part 2/5)

, posted by Godismyjudge

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen’s Argument #1

P1: intercession is inseparably connected with oblation
P2: Christ’s intercession is made for the elect alone
C1: Therefore, Christ’s oblation was made for the elect alone

Scripture support for P1:

“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities,” . “He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors; Isaiah 53:11-12

Read Post →

Friday Files: Hamilton on Romans 9

, posted by Godismyjudge

Robert Hamilton’s commentary on Romans 9 generally fits under the category of “election of Nations”, but it contains several unique features worth mentioning. Hamilton considers God’s election of Israel as a form of particular prevenient…

Read Post →

Owen

, posted by Godismyjudge

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Often Calvinists appeal to John Owen’s the Death of Death in the Death of Christ as the definitive work on the atonement. By simply mentioning the name they have thereby proven that Christ did not die for everyone, but rather for the elect alone. I intend to address some of Owen’s arguments.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is a difficult read. It’s massive, complex and quite detailed. Owen’s style is as much rhetorical as it is argumentative, which makes for volume. As such, Owen’s work is not as accessible to today’s reader as perhaps it could have been. So my strategy is to distill his arguments down to simple syllogism and then address them. I will not quote Owen’s text at length. It’s just too bulky and awkward. I will however, provide links back to the section I am addressing.

Read Post →

Dennis McCallum, Exegesis of Romans 9 and Romans 9-11

, posted by bossmanham

A gentleman named Dennis McCallum, who is part of a ministry called Xenos Christian Fellowship, has presented what many consider a fascinating and very well done exegesis of Romans 9.

Material that can be found on his church’s website (the YouTube links don’t appear to work):

“Romans 9: God’s Sovereignty” (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/romans/dennis/rom9-1.htm)

“God’s Sovereignty: Romans 9:1-24″ (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=1421)

“God’s Strategy in Human History: Romans 9-11″ (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=508)

“Romans 9-11: God’s Strategy in Human History” (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/romans/dennis/rom9-2.htm)

“Romans 10: God’s Strategy in Human History” (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/romans/dennis/rom10-1.htm)

Read Post →

John Piper on Irresistible Grace

, posted by Richard Coords

John Piper explains “Irresistible Grace”: “This is what we mean when we use terms like sovereign grace or irresistible grace. We mean that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, and therefore he is omnipotent and sovereign. And therefore, he is irresistible and infallibly effective in his regenerating work. Which doesn’t mean that we don’t resist him. We do. The Bible is plain about that (Acts 7:51). What the sovereignty of grace and the sovereignty of the Spirit mean is that when God chooses, he can overcome the rebellion and resistance of our wills. He can make Christ look so compelling that our resistance is broken and we freely come to him and receive him and believe him.” (The Free Will of the Wind)

No, that’s not at all the Calvinist teaching on Irresistible Grace. Irresistible Grace is not about “popping faith” on a person, as John MacArthur teaches, or about making Christ look “compelling,” as John Piper teaches.

Read Post →

Recap of I John 5:18; A Devotional

, posted by Martin Glynn

Hello. Since we had ceased posting, naturally, the devotional itself was put on hold. So this week I had the difficult task of desiding how I would pick up after so many weeks of being idle. In fact, the last devotional that was done was in January. So, I decided to go back and recap what has already been said in the beginning of this section of the book. However, that would only include 18.

So, I encourage to reread what was written last time, but I include a few words here about the ending section in general.

Read Post →

Friday Files: Arminius on Romans 9

, posted by Godismyjudge

In James Arminius’ commentary on the 9th Chapter of Romans, he argues that the topic at hand is justification by faith. He humbly admits that for some time the chapter was of the “greatest obscurity”, but he now sees it clearly. I can relate. Arminius finds Paul answering an implicit question by saying: though most of the Jews are rejected, yet the word of God does not therefore fail.

Read Post →

Edward Bird on The Horrible Decree of Unconditional Election

, posted by Godismyjudge

Great example of early Engish Arminianism (1726). Byrd explains total depravity, prevenient grace, unlimited atonement, conditional decrees, predestination and perserveriance as he examines some of the problems in Calvinism. He has mild appeals to middle knowledge. (link)

Read Post →

Systematic Theology is Like Connect-the-Dots

, posted by Godismyjudge

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Systematic Theology is like connect-the-dots. One takes biblical data points and draws relationships between them to form a complete picture. This process helps people understand scripture, because they see the big picture.

The more biblical data points one has, the higher degree of certainty they can have regarding the accuracy of their picture. Conversely, the less biblical data points, the less certain they can be regarding their picture.

The challenge for systematic theology is that at times the data points are less than clear and could be seen many different ways. This can lead to drastically different pictures. It’s the role of the exegete (not the systematic theologian) to clarify the data points, and the role of the systematic theologian to draw the lines and clarify the big picture.

Read Post →

A RESPONSE TO: A BRIEF REJECTION OF ARMINIANISM, or “WHY ARMINIANISM DOES NOT WORK” by C. MICHAEL PATTON

, posted by WilliamBirch

The post written by one of the irenic hosts of Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton, explained why he rejects the tenets of Arminianism, which is primarily due to the Arminians’ view of Prevenient Grace. Patton writes,

    In our depraved state, God comes into our lives and opens our eyes to His beauty. This intervention happens by means of saving or “irresistible” grace. In our helpless and angry position, while shaking our fists at God, God sovereignly and autonomously regenerates us. Once regenerated, we trust and love the Lord because our nature has been transformed by Him. Therefore, God is the only one to credit for our salvation, seeing as how we did not play a part in its genesis (this is sometimes referred to as monergism). But, according to Calvinists, God does not give this gift of saving grace to all people, only the elect. Otherwise, all would be saved.

Read Post →

A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF SEMI-PELAGIANISM WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JAMES ARMINIUS

, posted by WilliamBirch

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 or worse, Arminianism has become synonymous with the notion that a person can lose his salvation, even though Arminius never explicitly taught the doctrine; yet he certainly did question its possibility.[2]

Read Post →