Author/Scholar Index: Arminian

Prevenient Grace and Semi-Pelagianism

, , Comment Closed

This post is a response to Scott Christensen’s article “Prevenient Grace and Semi-Pelagianism”. (link) One of the main aspects of Mr. Christensen’s article is calling Arminians Semi-Pelagian. Pelagius was a heretic condemned by the early…

Read Post →

Discussing Divine Omnibenevolence

, , Comment Closed

DIVINE OMNIBENEVOLENCE: 1. Introduction; 2. Argument for Divine Omnibenevolence; 3. Defence of Premises (I): Divine Omnibenevolence; 4. Potential Challenges and Possible Responses; 5. Argument against Divine Omnibenevolence from Divine Malevolence; 6. Defence of Premises (II):…

Read Post →

The Tweet After the Tweet

, , Comment Closed

By Derek Ouellette in response to John Piper’s Oklahoma debacle   By now you are probably aware of another tweet by John Piper which fired up an otherwise friendly Christian community (<– yes, facetious). For…

Read Post →

Arminius on Romans 7:14

, , Comment Closed

Arminius on Romans 7:14

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

Here are the thoughts of Arminius on Romans 7:14. As I noted before, Adam Clarke felt that the whole of the passage is speaking of an unregenerate man. Arminius agreed. It was here, in his preaching through Romans, that Arminius ignited the controversy with the theologians of his day when he begin to teach that the man of Romans 7 was unregenerate. Calvin had taught that Romans 7 represented the struggle of all Christians including Paul the Apostle.

And now Arminius on Romans 7:14:

Read Post →

Free Will Debate with Turretinfan

, , Comment Closed

Turretinfan and I recently debated if the bible teaches libertarian free will.  I hope that you find it useful. Here was the format we used with links to the transcript:   Introduction: The Bible teach…

Read Post →

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 5: Taking The Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments

, , Comment Closed

Part 5: Taking the Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments

Patton: These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.

This is the same claim Mr. Patton made in his first post called “Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option.” We have already begun to highlight the problems with this claim.

Read Post →

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging

, , No Comment

Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging

Patton: Therefore, [according to Arminianism] God’s predestination of people is “fair” and makes sense. After all, there are too many questions left unanswered when one says that God chooses who will be saved and who will not. Why did he choose some and not others? Did God make people to go to hell? Is God fair? “Why does he still find fault, for who resists his will?”

The Arminian chooses this position because, for them, it is the only way to reconcile human freedom and God’s election.

Here is where Mr. Patton really missteps.

Read Post →

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations

, , No Comment

Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations

Patton: However, I think we need take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism. You see, one of the many reasons I am a Calvinist has to do with the tension that is allowed within the Calvinistic system that is not allowed in other systems.

The central core of Calvinism primarily centers on one doctrine: predestination. While the sovereignty of God has its place, it does not ultimately determine where one lands.

This is highly debatable among Calvinists. This may be Mr. Patton’s opinion, but I think that he is probably in the minority.

Read Post →