Related Fallacies: Equivocation Category Mistake “[Arminianism] denies sola fide (faith alone) by changing the character of faith so that it is basically a work.” (Rev. Richard Phillips [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], Is Arminianism a Biblical…
Arminianism
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #9: Faith is Some Reason to Boast?
Original post Related fallacies: Pettifoggery Category Mistake A charge typically leveled by Calvinists is that Christians who don’t believe in irresistible grace would have some reason to boast in their faith. John Hendryx concisely expresses…
Dr. Phil Fernandes Debate with Calvinist Chris Comis about the 5 Points of Calvinism
4 point Arminian and SEA member Dr. Phil Fernandes debated Calvinist Chris Comis on the topic of whether 5 point Calvinism is biblical on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011, at Grace Community Church in Auburn, WA.…
Arminius and Questions of Church and State
In the West we take for granted our freedom of religion. In a context where the State has a measure of government into the affairs of the Church, an individual is not permitted to spout…
Arminius’s Doctrine of Grace
Often erroneously accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, Arminius and his followers have historically suffered — and continue to suffer — one misrepresentation after another by their theological opponents. Usually, the caricature of Arminian theology comes…
Fred Sanders, “Calvinists Who Love Wesley”
Click on the link to view Fred Sanders, “Calvinists Who Love Wesley”.
A Slightly Less Quick Response
Alan Kurschner recently made a response to my reply to his “question” last week. I first I hesitated on whether or not to reply, since I found his response to be, well, silly. However, there…
Continuing Frustration with Calvinists Misrepresenting Arminianism
by Roger Olson It happens all the time. I move around in evangelical circles quite a bit and overhear conversations and receive comments about Arminianism. And I invite Calvinists to my classes. I am certainly…
A Quick Response To A Bad Question
Normally, we do not like to respond to poorly-articulated Anti-Arminian arguments when they come up, even when presented by respected scholars or writers, because a) there are sadly too many of them; and b) we…
Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity Gets it Wrong: Examining the So Called “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism”
About a year ago I engaged in a conversation with someone who kept misrepresenting Arminian and Wesleyan teaching while insisting that his claims were “historical facts”. This person kept making reference to the “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” to back up his claims. I had no idea what this could be a reference to since I was not familiar with any document written by Arminius or the Remonstrants that went by such a name. As it turns out, the so called “15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” is a sub-title given under the heading “Arminianism” in Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity. Below is a critique proving that these 15 tenets are far from representative of Arminian theology.
The 15 Major Tenets of Arminianism are:
1. Human beings are free agents and human events are mediated by the foreknowledge of God.
Is There a Middle Ground Between Calvinism and Arminianism?
by Roger Olson
I’ve blogged about this before, but just yesterday Southern Baptist philosopher/theologian/seminary dean Steve Lemke, one of the editors of the excellent book Whosoever Will (which I highly recommended here) posted a message to the SBCToday blog accusing me of committing the fallacy of excluded middle for arguing that Southern Baptists like he are either Calvinists or Arminians and should admit it and (in his case) embrace the label Arminian — something he and the other authors of Whosoever Will reject.
Lemke’s post is here.
Demarcating Wesleyan-Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism
I have received several e-mails over the last year asking what are the differences between Wesleyan-Arminianism, stemming from both John (1703-1791) and Charles (1707-1788) Wesley, and Classical Arminianism, the theology of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609) and his…
Arminianism, Calvinism, Open Theism & Universalism
Here are some thoughts of SEA members on the relationship between Arminianism, Calvinism, Open Theism, and Universalism. Sometimes Calvinists accuse Arminianism of being the stepping stone to Open Theism or Universalism, but is this accusation…
John Piper: Are There Two Wills in God? A Response
John Piper’s chapter, “Are There Two Wills in God?”, found on his website Desiring God, and in the book Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), seeks to…
Arminius on Grounding Election in Jesus Christ
That the Doctrine of Election is taught in Scripture is uncontested: “just as He chose [elected] us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him” (Eph.…
Book Review: Man’s Faith and Freedom
Man’s Faith and Freedom is a collection of 5 essays and a sermon presented at the 1960 Arminius Symposium in Holland in 1960. Instead of giving the overall volume mixed reviews, I will review each…
Ben Henshaw, Review of F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation
Classical Arminianism is one of the best resources available for those who are interested in Arminian theology. F. Leroy Forlines is a senior theologian from the Free Will Baptist camp and this volume represents Arminian…
“The Prodigal Son” and Arminian Theology
One of Jesus’ best known parables is the story of “The Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children.…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
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
Our Common Enemy
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).…
Recent Posts
Brian Abasciano, “A Brief explanation of the Arminian View of Calling”
Does 1 John 3:7-10 Show That a Believer Cannot Abandon the Faith?
William Burt Pope, “The Motive and the End of the Creation”
The Arminian Magazine Volume 14 Issue 2 (Fall 1996)
