Very often Calvinists will cite Proverbs 21:1 as a proof text for God’s exhaustive control over the will and decisions of men. Their use of the passage is not intended to demonstrate that God may…
SEA 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…
“Let us beware lest our words and thoughts go beyond what the Word of God tells us…We must leave to God His own knowledge,…and conceive Him as He makes Himself known to us, without attempting…
Calvinists will often quote Ezekiel 36:26-27 as a proof text for regeneration preceding faith. The Calvinist doctrine insists that one must be given a new heart before that person can believe the gospel. For that…
In Arminius’ “Apology” he tackles several charges that have been brought against him by his critics and addresses them by both demonstrating the inaccuracy of the chargers and bringing clarity to his own thoughts on…
The attached article (below) complements the post by Godismyjudge entitled Prereformation Church History & the Arminian/Calvinist Debate in showing that Arminianism not only has strong historical precedent in Christian history, but actually has far greater…
What is Free Will? It may seem strange to some that there even is a debate as to what constitutes free will. The average person believes that he has free will. Whenever he is confronted…
Many Arminians see God’s election of individuals as based on God’s foreknowledge of faith. They see that primary election passages make reference to foreknowledge and even suggest that election is based on foreknowledge. They also…
[Note: the following is satire and not meant to be taken too seriously] “Jesus loves the little children… All the children of the world… Red and yellow, black and white… They are precious in His…
For the rest of the series, see here. We now come to the important topic of salvation assurance. Calvinists have often claimed that Arminians do not have solid ground for assurance because Arminians do not…
The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf. Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all…
This post attempts to put the Calvinistic “never really saved to begin with” view of apostasy to the test when reading select passages relevant to the topic of apostasy. The results speak for themselves.
“I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. [proving that he was never in Christ to begin with, making it impossible to ‘remain’ in Him or be ‘cut off’ from Him] Jn. 15:3-6
For the rest of the series, see 5/6/2008-5/9/288, 5/12/2008-5/16/2008, 6/16/2008, 7/23/2008 Having examined the primary passages that teach apostasy we now examine the passages that the advocates of unconditional eternal security believe clearly support their…
“Consider the words of Christ to the church at Thyatria [sic.] concerning the prominent woman referred to as ‘Jezebel’ and His servants, who were practicing immorality and pagan customs, doubtless in a religious context after the manner of the cults:
“I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. Behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (Rev. 2:20-22)”
Have you ever….
Been tempted? (Matt. 4:1-11)
Been misunderstood? (Matt. 13:53-57; Jn. 6:52-66; 7:35, 36; Mark 8:31-33; 9:30-32)
Been ridiculed and mocked? (Matt. 27:27-31, 38-44)
Faced a difficult decision? (Matt. 26:36-46)
Been laughed at? (Matt. 9:23, 24)
Been angry? (Jn. 2:13-17)
Been envied? (Jn. 11:45-48; Matt. 27:18, 19)
Been falsely accused? (Matt. 26:59-63)
Been treated unfairly? (Jn. 19:4-16)
Felt alone? (Matt. 27:46; Mark 14:32-42)
Felt afraid? (Luke 22:39-46)
Been abandoned? (Jn. 16:32; Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:50)
Suffered unjustly? (Luke 23:13-25)
Been abused? (Matt. 26:67-68; 27:26-31)
Loved someone without being loved in return? (Luke 13:34; Mark 10:17-22)
Been frustrated? (Matt. 9:1-8; 12:22-29; 15:16; 16:21-23)
Gone hungry? (Matt. 4:2)
Been ignored? (Mark 1:40-45)
Been homeless? (Matt. 8:18-20)
Been unappreciated? (Luke 17:12-19)
Been wounded by a close friend? (Luke 22:54-62; Matt. 26:47-50)
This post completes our series on Ralston’s defense of the Arminian belief in self-determinism. This is the grand finale where Ralston tackles the favorite argument against free-will, the doctrine of motives as presented primarily by…
Thomas Ralston now tackles the necessitarian objection that God’s foreknowledge of our actions renders the power of self-determination impossible. My comments are in bold print.
II. The next grand objection to the doctrine of free agency is, that it is supposed to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine prescience.
Necessitarians argue that free agency, in the proper sense, implies contingency; and that contingency cannot be reconciled with the divine foreknowledge. It is admitted by Arminians, and the advocates of free agency generally, that the foreknowledge of God extends to all things great and small, whether necessary or contingent – that it is perfect and certain.
Thomas Ralston now begins to examine and respond to various objections posed by “necessitarians” against the Arminian view of self-determinism. My comments are in bold print.
WE propose in this chapter, to examine some of the principal objections which have been urged against the view taken in the preceding chapter of the freedom of the will. Those most worthy of notice are the following, viz.:
I. It is said to be absurd in itself.
II. It is said to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine prescience.
III. It is said to conflict with the doctrine of motives.
We propose a respectful attention to each of these grand objections.
I. It is alleged that the view we have taken of the proper freedom of the will is absurd in itself.
Thomas Ralston now concludes his positive arguments in favor of self-determinism. My comments are in bold print.
(4) In conclusion, upon this part of the subject, we think it proper briefly to notice the absurdity of attempting to reconcile the doctrines of necessity with the proper freedom and accountability of man.
Ralston continues with his defense of free moral agency from Scripture. My comments are in bold print.
(2) In the next place, the Scriptures everywhere address man as a being capable of choosing; as possessing a control over his own volitions, and as being held responsible for the proper exercise of that control.
In Deuteronomy 30:19, we read: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” And in Joshua 24:15: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” Now, to choose is to determine or fix the will; but men are here called upon to choose for themselves, which, upon the supposition that their will is, in all cases, fixed necessarily by antecedent causes beyond their control, is nothing better than solemn mockery.