Arminianism

Do Arminians Believe in Total Depravity?

, , 1 Comment

Leading Calvinist John MacArthur asserts that,

“The contemporary idea today is that there’s some residual good left in the sinner. As this progression came from Pelagianism to Semi-Pelagianism, and then came down to some contemporary Arminianism, maybe got defined a little more carefully by Wesley, who was a sort of, ah, um, messed up Calvinist, because Wesley wanted to give all the glory to God, but as you well know, but he wanted to find in man some place where man could initiate salvation on his own will… So that the sinner, un-aided by the Holy Spirit, must make the first move. That’s essentially Arminian theology: The sinner, un-aided, must make the first move.”(Bold Emphasis mine)1

Loraine Boettner writes,

Read Post →

Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?

, , No Comment

Do Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God? If one has only ever read Calvinistic books, the answer would seem to be a no-brainer, for according to most Calvinists, an Arminian is by definition someone who denies God’s sovereignty. For example, notable Calvinist exponent Edwin H. Palmer (1922 – 1980) explicitly declared that “the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God”.1

Funny though it may seem, there are even those who reject the tenets of Calvinism, yet try and take a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism. These so-called ‘non-Calvinists’ are usually known by the maxim, “I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but simply a Bible-believer.” I should know; I used to be one.

Read Post →

What Fell in

, , No Comment

What Fell in “the Fall”?

written by SEA member, Roy Ingle

F. Lagard Smith in his book Troubling Questions for Calvinists (and all the rest of us) asks 15 questions about the Fall in Genesis 3:1-7.

I post his questions here without comment.

[Editor’s note: Smith is not an Arminian, but a Semi-Pelagian. Yet these questions can still be helpful in thinking about the issue of human depravity.]

1. What do you think? Were Adam and Eve free moral beings, fully able to decide between obeying and disobeying God without any predetermined secret eternal will of God preempting their freedom to choose right from wrong?

a) If not, is there any way that God Himself is not responsible for their sin and “the Fall”?
b) If so, were they simply exceptions to an otherwise universal rule of predestination and sovereign causation?

2. Were Adam and Eve either totally or partially depraved before “the Fall”?

3. What about immediately after “the Fall”?

Read Post →

Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents

, , No Comment

Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents

provided by SEA member Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XXXI

ON THE EFFECTS OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS

I. The first and immediate effect of the sin which Adam and Eve committed in eating of the forbidden fruit, was the offending of the Deity, and guilt — Offense, which arose from the prohibition imposed — Guilt, from the sanction added to it, through the denunciation of punishment, if they neglected the prohibition.

II. From the offending of the Deity, arose his wrath on account of the violated commandment. In this violation, occur three causes of just anger:

(1.) The disparagement of his power or right.

(2.) A denial of that towards which God had an inclination.

(3.) A contempt of the divine will intimated by the command.

Read Post →

Arminius on the Will of God

, , No Comment

Arminius on the will of God

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XVIII

ON THE WILL OF GOD

I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.

II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.

Read Post →

Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation

, , No Comment

Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation

written by SEA member Roy Ingle

There are certain events in the ministry of the Lord Jesus that demonstrated that He foreknew them and this shows He was God. For instance, we read that Jesus knew that He would die on the cross (John 12:32) and details about His crucifixion (Mark 10:33-34). Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:18-27) and that Peter would deny Him (Mark 14:29-31). He was able to read the thoughts of the Jews in Mark 2:8. Clearly, Jesus was God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6).

Read Post →

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

, , No Comment

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

provided by SEA member Roy Ingle

I. As we have hitherto treated on the object of the Christian religion, that is, on Christ and God, and on the formal reasons why religion may be usefully performed to them, and ought to be, among which reasons, the last is the will of God and his command that prescribes religion by the conditions of a covenant; and as it will be necessary now to subjoin to this a discourse on the vocation of men to a participation in that covenant, it will not be improper for us, in this place, to insert one on the Predestination, by which God determined to treat with men according to that prescript, and by which he decreed to administer that vocation, and the means to it. First, concerning the former of these.

Read Post →

Arminius on Repentance

, , Comment Closed

This was published by SEA member Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XLIII

ON THE REPENTANCE BY WHICH MEN ANSWER TO THE DIVINE VOCATION

I. As, in the matter of salvation, it has pleased God to treat with man by the method of a covenant, that is, by a stipulation, or a demand and a promise, and as even vocation has regard to a participation in the covenant; it is instituted on both sides and separately, that man may perform the requisition or command of God, by which he may obtain [the fulfillment of] his promise. But this is the mutual relation between these two — the promise is tantamount to an argument, which God employs, that he may obtain from man that which he demands; and the compliance with the demand, on the other hand, is the condition, without which man cannot obtain what has been promised by God, and through [the performance of] which he most assuredly obtains the promise.

Read Post →

John Wesley’s Approach to Spiritual Formation

, , Comment Closed

This post was written by Ben Espinoza on the Seedbed.com website Perhaps my greatest research interest as of late is studying how various theologians and church leaders throughout history sought to form and educate believers…

Read Post →

Wesley as a Happy Puritan

, , Comment Closed

Wesley as a Happy Puritan written by Dr. Fred Sanders Although not a member of SEA, Dr. Fred Sanders draws some interesting parallels between Wesley and Jonathan Edwards and John Owen as well as J.I.…

Read Post →

The Toymaker

, , Comment Closed

Though not a member of SEA, Rev DeCrastos gives an interesting illustration regarding God’s desire to have a relationship with His creation. THE TOYMAKER by Rev. DeCrastos It had been a long day, and the…

Read Post →

Theological Spectrum Chart

, , No Comment

Here’s a chart that shows some of the differences and commonalities of various theological viewpoints as they relate to Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s not perfect, and is only intended to give a general idea of what the theologies emphasize as important. If the image is difficult to read, you can click on it to enlarge. Original post can be found HERE.

Theological Spectrum Chart

Read Post →

Arminius on the Nature of God

, , No Comment

Arminius on the Nature of God

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

I. The very nature of things and the Scriptures of God, as well as the general consent of all wise men and nations, testify that a nature is correctly ascribed to God. (Gal. iv, 8; 2 Pet. i, 4; Aristot. De Repub. 1. 7, c. 1; Cicero De Nat. Deor.)

II. This nature cannot be known a priori: for it is the first of all things, and was alone, for infinite ages, before all things. It is adequately known only by God, and God by it; because God is the same as it is. It is in some slight measure known by us, but in a degree infinitely below what it is [in] itself; because we are from it by an external emanation. (Isa. xliv, 6; Rev. i, 8; 1 Cor. ii, 11; 1 Tim. vi, 16; 1 Cor. xiii, 9.)

Read Post →