Arminianism

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics

, , No Comment

Related Fallacies:
Oversimplification
Non-Sequitur
Slippery Slope

“The choices are not between Calvinism and Arminianism; it’s between Calvinism and universalism. Arminianism is a self-contradictory mess that can never defend itself.” – James White

This is a favorite rhetorical jab of many Calvinists, but is in fact one of the more obvious fallacies they often employ. The logic behind it is simple and can be summed up with the statement:

“If Christ’s death saves, and Christ died for everyone, then everyone would be saved.”

Seems pretty easy, right?

Problems with this logic

Turns out the simplicity of the argument is its weakness, because it masks a hidden difference in underlying assumptions. The critical distinction lies in the first part of the sentence, “…Christ’s death saves….”

The differences in viewpoint on atonement

Read Post →

Our Common Enemy

, , 1 Comment

I mentioned recently that Arminians and Calvinists are not enemies (even though there are people in both camps who at times disagree — or at least behave as though they disagree — with this statement).…

Read Post →

James Arminius On the One Will of God

, , No Comment

There is a connection between the Understanding of God and His Will that is overlooked or neglected by those who hold to a two wills in God theory. In this post we will discover what Arminius believed about God’s Knowledge or Understanding, and its relation to the one Will of God, with its various distinctives.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

Read Post →

Arminian/Non-Calvinist Daily Devotionals

, , Comment Closed

We received a request for suggestions for daily devotionals that do not come from a Calvinist perspective. Here are some suggestions that our members have come up with: Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest…

Read Post →

Arminius on the Sovereignty and Providence of God concerning the Problem of Evil

, , No Comment

Arminius comments:

    We have already said that in sin the act, or the cessation from action, and ‘the transgression of the law’ come under consideration: But the Efficiency of God about evil concerns both the act itself and its viciousness, and it does this whether we have regard to the beginning of sin, to its progress, or to its end and consummation.1

What Arminius is trying to avoid is the constructing of his exegetical theology which is free from charging or making God the author of sin. What does it mean to make God the author of sin? First, let us define sin. The Larger Catechism states that sin is “any want [lack] of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.”2 This definition works as well as any other.

Read Post →

Marc Monte on Limited Atonement

, , No Comment

From a sermon delivered at his Church (Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Indiana) from 2004, Pastor Monte points out what he feels are inconsistencies in the Calvinist teaching of Limited Atonement: Update (5/9/18): Please note:…

Read Post →

Foreword to *Arminius Speaks*

, , No Comment

Robert E. Picirilli, Professor Emeritus of Greek and New Testament at Free Will Baptist Bible College, provides the foreword in Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, edited by…

Read Post →

The Meaning of “World” in First John

, , No Comment

The letter of First John makes several direct references to the universality of Jesus’ atonement.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 NIV – bold mine)

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. -1 John 4:14

In these passages John states that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, and came to be Savior of the the world. The Greek word for world is kosmos. The English word “cosmos” is derived from this word.

Calvinists sometimes assert that kosmos in the context of John’s letter is limited to “to elect individuals from all nations”. The problem is that this interpretation is not applied consistently. And it does not make sense in context of how John uses the word elsewhere in the letter.

Read Post →