John Wesley had the rare gift of bringing the Calvinist/Arminian debate from the head to the heart. In Predestination Calmly Considered, Wesley first examines the idea of upholding unconditional election while rejecting reprobation and then…
Arminianism
C.S. Lewis: Calvinist or Classical Arminian?
Please click on the link to view Zach Dawes, “C. S. Lewis: Calvinist or Classical Arminian?” In this essay, Rev. Zach Dawes argues that the theology of C.S. Lewis was essentially Arminian. Dawes also maintains a blog,…
Calminians?
I have heard many attempt to say that they are searching for a middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. The impetus of this is peace. They see the issue as too divisive, and they believe that by finding a middle ground, they can end the need for conflict.
Though I highly respect the sentiment, ultimately such a project will fail. There can be no middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism. Why?
What Does God “Fore-love” According to Calvinism?
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…
A Calvinist Perspective on “Jesus Loves the Little Children”
[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…
Friday Files: Wesley’s What is an Arminian?
John Wesley’s article “The Question, “What Is an Arminian?” Answered by a Lover of Free Grace” is an Arminian classic. True to form, Wesley’s humor is delightful, his theology is educational and his preaching stings the conscience and chides us to improve. Wesley explains what Arminianism is not, gives a brief history of Arminius, explains a bit about Arminian theology and then calls both his Calvinist and Arminian readers to cease and desist with the name calling.
Perseverance of the Saints Part 13: Salvation Assurance
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…
Arminius: The Reformer
I have often wondered why so little has been said about Jacobus (or James) Arminius being listed along with other Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Zwingli, Huss, Tyndale, or others. In…
Friday Files: Olson’s Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian
Roger Olson’s article: Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian explains the importance of Arminians and Calvinists accepting each other and working together despite their theological differences. Olson shares several personal anecdotes while explaining why classic…
Why I Became an Arminian
This is a personal post that deals with my journey as an Arminian. I became a Christian at a young age. I remember going to a church service, being convicted of sin, and going down…
Friday Files: Cameron’s Arminius- Hero or Heretic?
Charles Cameron’s article, “Arminius―Hero or Heretic?” explains that James Arminius comes as a bit of a surprise to both Calvinists and Arminians today, as he is closer to Calvinism than people expect. Cameron starts with some preliminaries about Arminius (his affinity for Calvin’s commentaries, his approach to reconciling differences and his commitment to scripture) and then dives into the 5 points of Calvinism. On Total Depravity, Cameron notes Arminius’ focus on grace, not freewill. On Election, Arminius teaches a Christocentric, evangelical, eternal, decree whereby God chooses to save believers. Cameron questions the “from eternity” and “based on foreknowledge” aspect of Arminius’ explanation of election. On the Atonement, Arminius avoids universalism, but advocates God’s universal love and the availability of forgiveness for all.
Friday Files: Picirilli
In Robert E. Picirilli’s article Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future, he explains that Reformation Arminians hold that God knows what we will freely choose in the future, whereas Neo-Arminians (a.k.a. Open Theists) disagree. With a little help from Arminius and Richard Watson, Pircirilli carefully defends his thesis that “there is nothing about the certainty of the future that is in conflict with the ability of human beings to make free, moral decisions” by defining certainty, necessity and contingency and demonstrating how contingency and certainty don’t conflict. Picirilli explains that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is foreordination, not foreknowledge.
Freedom of the Will (Part Three)
In his book Primitive Theology, John Gerstner, in the chapter entitled “A Primer on Free Will,” writes, “Dear reader, you have in your hands a booklet entitled A Primer on Free Will. I don’t know you, but I know a good deal about you. One thing I know is that you did not pick up this book of your own free will.
“You have picked it up and have started to read it, and now continue to read it, because you must do so. There is absolutely no possibility, you being the kind of person you are, that you would not be reading this book at this time.”1
So, at the outset today, let me also say to you, dear reader, I do not know you, but I do know some things about you. One thing I know is that you did in fact choose to visit this site of your own free will.
Freedom of the Will (Part Two)
In their book Why I am not an Arminian, Peterson and Williams writes, “That God sovereignly superintends and controls all things and that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions is repeatedly taught and demonstrated throughout the biblical record. God is sovereignly active in every moment.
“Yet that sovereign agency does not annul or limit human responsibility. Conversely, human agency is affirmed. We are not automatons. Human actions are not coerced or programmed at every moment by mysterious forces such that we wact contrary to our natures and desires. Yet this human freedom does not negate or limit God’s agency” (emphases mine).1
John MacArthur Libels Arminianism as Semi-Pelagianism
John MacArthur, speaking to hundreds of pastors at the 2008 Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, in his message entitled, “The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing,” said, “The contemporary idea today is that there’s some…
Friday Files: Martin Glynn
In Martin Glynn’s critique of the Articles of the Remonstrants, he provides a brief and helpful historical introduction and then dissects each of the five articles. Glynn notes the two surprises in the pile: article…
Edwards on Impeccability and Hardening
In part 3, scections III.I, III.II, and III.III, Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a…
Friday Files: Leonard’s Review of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
James Leonard provided a nice summary of Roger Olson’s book: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Olson’s book is quickly becoming an Arminian classic. One of Leonard’ key points is “Arminians are not driven to their…
Edwards on Responsibility
Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility…
Friday Files
The John 3:16 Conference — Southern Baptists and the Challenge of Calvinism: A Reformation Arminian Review As many of us who are involved with the Arminianism/Calvinism debate know, Calvinism has recently made major in-roads into…
Recent Posts
William Burt Pope, “Attributes of the Absolute Essence of God Part 5: Observations”
Does Matthew 7:24-27 Support Once Saved Always Saved?
Richard Coords, “1 Kings 21:29”
Roy Ingle, “Acts 14:2 – An Interesting Verse”
