I asked this question on a discussion board when a Calvinist rightly pointed out that the LORD gets angry at the sinful actions of fallen men. There is no doubt that sin angers the LORD. The anger of the LORD is expressed in numerous passages yet this truth causes me to ask the Calvinist "why"? How is it that an omniscient God could possibly get angry at what He supposedly (in the Calvinist tradition) causes or ordains? If God issues a commandment that He has purposefully ordained to be broken, is it not an expression of hypocrisy to become angry at what is His very design? I do not think the Calvinist can address this inquiry in an honest manner. In fact I know from my experiences with a few that the response is to engage in an ad hominem fallacy and accuse me of presenting a straw man albeit unidentified. Contrary to the diversions, the question I pose is valid and crucial to understanding the religious philosophy of Calvinism.

What did Paul mean when he made the statements that there is "none who seeks after God," or that man's "throat is an open tomb"? (Rom. 3.10-18) The majority of Calvinists are convinced that Paul was speaking about the spiritual condition of each and every human being ever to be born. One is left with the impression that humans are, at the least, repugnant in the nostrils of God, and at worst, as bad as demons. Is this an accurate portrayal of God's attitude towards His creatures? Was Paul trying to convey how disgusted God is with people at Romans 3.10-18?

At Romans 3.1, Paul asked, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" His letter to the Romans included both Jews and Gentiles. He summed up chapter two by exposing hypocrisy: no one, Jew or Gentile, is going to be excused for his or her sins. And circumcision does not guarantee a right standing with God.

The subject of the Will of God was a topic of interest for James Arminius. Many have wondered if he was a Molinist. Richard Muller acknowledges that Arminius read from Molina,1 but Arminius never claimed to be a Molinist.

However, Arminius left in his writings the notion that perhaps he was at least influenced by Molina's pattern of thought on what God knows and what God has willed according to that knowledge. Muller noted

The divine knowledge of possibility, since it is knowledge of what things can come into existence, is also a knowledge of the way in which all possibles could exist ideally or perfectly, without defect and a knowledge of impossibility as well. Arminius even argues an order in the divine knowledge of possibles. Thus God knows, first, 'what things can exist by his own primary act.'

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Calvinists often appeal to Deut. 29:29 when caught in a theological dilemma. Ask a Calvinist how God can exhaustively determine all things and yet not be the author of sin and you might get an appeal to mystery and a quick reference to Deut. 29:29. Ask a Calvinist how God’s unconditional election doesn’t make His choice of some over others for salvation arbitrary and you will likely get more of the same. Yes, Calvinists love Deut 29:29 as it provides such a convenient theological escape hatch when they are called on to explain aspects of their doctrinal system which appear to be hopelessly contradictory. But have they carefully thought about the teaching of Deut. 29:29 and the problem it poses for their peculiar hermeneutic?

A major gun in the Calvinist arsenal against Arminianism is the issue of assurance of salvation. Calvinists relish pointing out that an Arminian never has assurance of his salvation. In contrast, they say, Calvinists are absolutely assured of their salvation since God has foreordained it from the deep dark, inscrutible counsels of God.

However, in this post, I would like to claim that Calvinists really have no assurance at all of their salvation.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

As I stated in my last post (Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), there is no more important question with regards to the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism than the question of priority with regards to faith and regeneration. R.C. Sproul writes,

A cardinal point or Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe. (Chosen By God, pg. 72)

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

Owen's Argument 13:

P1: Christ death satisfied the debt for all those He died for
P2: God cannot justly require satisfaction of one debt from two parties (i.e. us and Christ)
C1: Therefore, God cannot require satisfaction of the sin debt for anyone Christ died for
P3: God requires satisfaction of the sin debt of some people in Hell
C2: therefore, Christ did not die for everyone

(link)

Scripture Cited by Owen

“he oweth the ten thousand talents” Matthew 18:24
“Forgive us our debts” Matthew 6:12

According to Monergism.com, hyper-Calvinism's errors include the following: "that God is the author of sin and of evil, that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect; that the number of the elect at any time may be known; that it is wrong to evangelize; that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith; that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do; that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others; that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned . . ."

This was originally a blog post, comments may be posted HERE

As an Arminian, one frustration I have is with the dominance of the Calvinist view on the internet. In this post I want to do a little musing on why this is the case. Why is the Calvinist web presence so dominant?

Reasons for the Calvinist dominance on the internet:
1) Calvinists are writers and authors. They love studying doctrine. They are articulate. Arminians are too busy "changing the world" to spend time writing. Unfortunately these differences in approaches have resulted in a disproportionate Calvinist presence on the web.

2) Calvinists have lots of big names: Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, White, etc. These big names have big web sites, with lots of free resources. There are no really big Arminian names out there.

Compatibilism is the desperate attempt of Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too. It is the claim that humans are still responsible for their sins because they wanted to commit them, but that God still predetermined their actions because He shaped the person's will by molding the internal motives of that person. This way, God has determined sin without being responsible for it, and humans are responsible without possessing any level of causation.

But this doesn't really work.

Systematic Theology in a Wesleyan Mode

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
H. Ray Dunning

Predestination As Temporal Only

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider

One of the most interesting theological finds I have made in recent years is that God's predestinating of us does not seem to have to do with eternal destiny.

God does indeed predestinate us in certain ways. Six times the word for "to predestinate" is used in the NT. Besides the instances of cognates of that very word "proorizo," other "pro" words are found in both Testaments which also show that God makes pre-decisions on various matters. And God sometimes makes decrees, even as kings do, according to Scripture. But my recent study suggests that none of these references has to do with our eternal destiny, but only with other matters.

The Nature of Wesleyan Theology

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider

Theology, when it is entered into by us Wesleyans, takes on a certain nature, in relation to other theologies: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist. It is of the very nature of Wesleyan theology that it has (1) an experiential interest, (2) an existential element, (3) a large-scoped biblical character, (4) a dynamic quality, (5) a catholicity, and 6) a homing instinct for the moral.

Its Experiential Interest

Molina, Arminus, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant

Upon first glance the title of this paper contains a strange mix of individuals, one or two of whom are perhaps more obscure than the others. What each has in common with the others is a vested interest in the issue of free-will. What they also have in common is the realization that arising from the doctrine of free-will is the paradox of omniscience.

JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College

I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY