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…
Calvinism
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…
Supralapsarianism and the Sovereignty of God
Supralapsarianism is the teaching that before God decreed to create human beings He first planned to elect and to reprobate. Millard J. Erickson gives the ordered decrees within supralapsarianism as: 1) God decreed to save…
Justice and the Atonement
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
The topic of Justice is central to Owen’s view of the atonement. Book 3, chapters seven, eight and nine primarily deal with justice. The general idea with justice and the atonement is that we broke God’s law and therefore are due punishment.
Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, “Examining Calvinism”
Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, “Examining Calvinism”, Good News Magazine (September/October 2004).
Scholars Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell critique Calvinism and explain why they reject it.
Upcoming Radio Debate on Calvinism between Dr. Michael L. Brown and Dr. James White
Former Calvinist Dr. Michael L. Brown and continuing Calvinist Dr. James White are scheduled to do a radio debate on Calvinism on Jan. 26 and 27 (2009). It will take place on Dr. Brown’s daily…
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…
Calvinists Deny Reality
Please click on the link to view Calvinists Deny Reality.
Matt 1:21: How Calvinists Blind Side a Text
He Will Save His People from Their Sins: How Calvinists Don’t Bother Looking from the Other Side One of the more inane proof-texts for Calvinism is Matthew 1:21: “…for he will save his people from…
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
For the Sins of the Whole World
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
I plan on 1) presenting the passages that teach Christ died for the world, 2) presenting my argument for unlimited atonement, 3) explaining 1 John 2:1-2, 4) going into some detail on the word “world”, and 5) addressing John Owen’s counter definition.
The Text
The New Testament has 10 passages which teach Christ died for the world. 1 John 2:1-2 is one of them.
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
All Means All
This post is an excerpt from the book review of John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. What else would all mean? Just kidding. While Arminians are aware that all can be…
Critique of Edwards
This article is a brief critique of Jonathan Edwards’ views on the will and freedom. I won’t be presenting the alternative view, LFW, nor will I attempt to demonstrate the logical outcomes of Edwards’ view (i.e. God is the author of sin, God’s offer is insincere…). Instead I will just be looking at the internal consistency of Edwards’ view. I really think that the more people understand Edwards, the less they will agree with him.
Brief Outline of Edwards’ view of Freedom
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…
Commands and Invitations for the Impossible
Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part III.IV Commands inconsistent with LFW God commands the acts of the will, not the acts of the body executing the will’s commands. If there’s a sequence of acts of…
Edwards on Habits
Background – LFW and responsibility
Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else – we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness.
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…
Edwards on Action
Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II
- Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
- This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
- Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
- When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
- The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
- Arminians think of action as self-determination, because the motion of our bodies is caused by our wills – so they assume the same applies to the motion of our wills.
Daniel Gracely, “Divine Sovereignty”
This article is taken from a chapter in Hoodwinked and Happy?: Evangelicals, Calvinism , and Why No One’s Answering the Problem of Evil, by Daniel Gracely, published by Grandma’s Attic Press, © 2006.
Please note that the author of this article is not an Arminian, but that we have made the article available because it has some good material related to the Arminian/Calvinist debate. SEA does not necessarily endorse everything in the article
Please click on the attachment to view Daniel Gracely, “Divine Sovereignty”
Recent Posts
Richard Coords, “Remote Tribes”
Steve Lemke on Irresistible Grace and Jesus’ Lament Over Jerusalem
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 7: Salvation by Faith
How Do You Deal with the Limited Atonement Argument that If Jesus Paid the Penalty for All, Then People Sent to Hell Would Be Paying the Penalty a Second Time?
