Predestination
A Chilling Quote of John Calvin
Submitted by SEA on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 7:21amHere is an absolutely chilling quotes of John Calvin. It is hard to believe any Christian can believe such a thing:
John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208)
Wow.
[Note: This post was originally entitled, "Some Chilling Quotes of John Calvin", and gave three quotes. However, someone alerted us to the fact that, out of context, one of the quotes gave the wrong impression of Calvin's meaning, and that another quote was actually Calvin quoting an opponent's characterization of Calvin's view for the purpose of denying that to be his view. For more on this, see http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/863 .]
Ironside on Calvinism
Submitted by SEA on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 9:13amTaken from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8145
Ironside on Calvinism
"Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this word predestinate or predestinated is found. The first is Romans 8:29-30, the other chapter is Ephesians 1:5 and 11. You will note that there is no reference in these four verses to either heaven or hell but to Christ-likeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to be lost. Men are to be saved or lost eternally because of their attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Predestination means that someday all the redeemed shall become just like the Lord Jesus"
"D.L. Moody used to put it very simply the elect are the 'whosoever wills' the non-elect 'whosoever wont's'. This is exactly what scripture teaches, the invitation is to all, those who accept it are the elect. Remember, we are never told that Christ died for the elect".
An Apparently Not so Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9
Submitted by Ben Henshaw on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 9:08amBelow is a response to C. Michael Patton from my site. It has been slightly edited for publication here.
I wrote a lengthy response to C. Michael Patton’s post on Rom. 9 entitled "Why Doe He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9. Apparently, it was a little too lengthy for Patton’s taste since he deleted all but the first in a series of posts and then made a general comment about people spamming his site, to which I responded,
Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”
Please click on the attachment to view Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”, Evangelical Quarterly 81.4 (2009), 306–318.
Here is the author's abstract:
Romans 9:6-26 is commonly interpreted to mean that Jewish unbelief and Gentile
responsiveness to the Gospel was something ordained or predestined by
God. This article identifies elements in the whole context of 9 – 11 which call this
approach in question. It then proposes that Paul’s intent is to rebut the claim
that God was under obligation to ensure that Israel recognize the time of fulfillment.
Paul argues that God: 1. is free to define his people on the basis of who
responds to his gracious initiative; 2. is free to respond to Israel’s unbelief with
a judgment of hardening rather than turning up the heat of irresistible grace; 3.
is free to use the occasion of a hardened Israel for a broader proclamation of the
I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End
Submitted by Eric_Landstrom on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 8:53amWith regard to the broad discussion of God and time and the theological issues the subject broaches upon such as how God foreknows, a common Calvinist objection claims that stating God foreknows because he stands over and above time doesn't resolve their criticisms as to how God foreknows. However, in point of fact, the claim that God is over and above time or that God's perspective is timeless is a great way to conceptualize how God's foreknowledge works if we take our time and unpack a thought experiment for our Calvinist and Open Theist friends so they can understand what we mean.
Supralapsarian Calvinists Criticize Infralapsarian Calvinist C. Michael Patton
Submitted by Kevin Jackson on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 1:52pmCalvinist C. Michael Patton recently did a post entitled Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. In the post Patton argues for the Infralapsarian view of Calvinism. The infralapsarian view is a less extreme form of Calvinism. It states that in the logical order of God's decrees, God first decreed the creation of man and then allowed for the fall.
Patton's post has been criticized by Supralapsarian Calvinist "Tur8infan" of Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White's organization). That post can be found here: Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism. The Supralapsairan view is the most extreme form of Calvinism. It states that God decreed the fall of man before the creation of Adam was decreed.
Introducing Dr. Brian Abasciano's "Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election"
Submitted by Ben Henshaw on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 12:01pmSEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election which argues forcefully and compellingly for the corporate view of election. The theological concept of corporate election has been gaining force in modern scholarship for quite some time. It is widely held among scholars that a primarily corporate election is the election described in the OT. It is on this basis that Dr. Abasciano and others argue that this corporate view of election is the view that Paul and the other apostles would naturally carry over into the NT. This is not just speculation but is strongly supported by the language of election used especially by Paul, not least in Romans and Ephesians.
Dr. Thomas McCall Takes On John Piper and the Calvinistic View of God's Sovereignty: 2 New Articles Added to Our Resources
Submitted by SEA on Mon, 01/11/2010 - 8:49amWe are excited to have added two articles by Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which critique John Piper's theology of God's sovereignty.
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 view of election unto salvation, which means that election unto salvation is conditional on faith in Christ. This version of the article has different page numbers and may have some other slight differences from the published version.
Please click on one of the attachments to view Brian J. Abasciano, "Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election", Ashland Theological Journal 41 (2009) 67-102. The first attachment has footnotes with 12 point font and double spaced. The second attachment is simply the same article with footnotes that are 10 point font and single spaced .
Thomas McCall, "We Believe in God's Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper"
This article continues McCall's critique of a popular Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty as represented by John Piper, which can be applied to the standard view of Calvinism, i.e., exhaustive determinism, which includes God's unconditional decree of all sin and evil. John Piper responded (link) to McCall's first article (link), and this article is McCall's reply.
Please click on the attachment to view Thomas McCall, "We Believe in God's Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper", Trinity Journal 29/2 (Fall 2008) 235-246.
