Election
Brian Abasciano: A Shameless Plug for My Book on Romans 9:10-18
Written by Brian Abasciano A complaint I sometimes hear about my books on Romans 9 is that they are too expensive. That is quite unfortunate. (The price of those books is determined by my publisher…
The Problem with Deterministic Arguments
Some time ago, I had a conversation with a brother named Stephen over at SBC Tomorrow, in which we discussed philosophical determinism and the role it plays in discussions of divine election. I had been…
One Arminian’s Perspective on Election, God’s Foreknowledge, and Free Will
Most Christians who have not been taught specifically Reformed doctrine have little or no comprehension of divine election. The message of the Gospel goes out to all, and people who hear it freely believe or…
Great Comments on Corporate Election, Apostasy, and Rom 8:28-39
Here are some great comments from B.J. Oropeza, who holds to corporate election, tying in corporate election with the doctrine of perseverance and Rom 8:28-39: Our perspective of 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 9-11 calls…
A Concise Summary of the Corporate View of Election and Predestination
Here is an excellent concise summary of the doctrines of conditional election and predestination from the corporate election perpective, which differs from the traditional Arminian view of individual election based on foreseen faith. Both the…
Daniel L. Migliore on Election as Corporate
The following quotes are from Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, states that by God’s secret decrees…
William Lane Craig on Romans 9
Here are some excellent comments on Romans 9 from Dr. William Lane Craig. (This is an excerpt from Dr. Craig’s answer to a question from an atheist, taken from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675.)
[L]et’s talk about Paul’s doctrine of election in Romans. I want to share with you a perspective on Paul’s teaching that I think you’ll find very illuminating and encouraging. Typically, as a result of Reformed theology, we have a tendency to read Paul as narrowing down the scope of God’s election to the very select few, and those not so chosen can’t complain if God in His sovereignty overlooks them. I think this is a fundamental misreading of the chapter which makes very little sense in the context of Paul’s letter.
A New Perspective on Ephesians 1 and 2
This post was originally published as the third installment of a series, the first two numbers being “The New Perspective on Paul” and “The New Perspective and the Development of Reformed Doctrine.” The background for…
Corporate Election Quotes
The following is a series of important excerpts from some of the best scholarly works espousing the corporate view of election. Taken together, these quoted sections give a very detailed description of the fundamental elements…
Arminius on Our Election Being in Christ
Arminius on Our Election Being in Christ This post is provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle Arminius wrote the following in a debate over the subject of predestination. He clearly shows that he taught that…
Calvinism, Arminianism and Omnibenevolence
Calvinism, Arminianism and Omnibenevolence
This post was written by Randal Rauser, PhD
[Please note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and that SEA does not necessarily endorse all of his theological positions. We include this post on our site because we think it helpful in some respects.]
Arminians like to point out that according to Calvinism God elects some people to damnation. Of course some Calvinists try to soften this teaching by claiming that the election to damnation is a passive divine act according to which God simply “passes over” and thereby opts not to redeem these people.
Unfortunately this shift in nomenclature doesn’t really make the divine act of election to damnation passive in an ethically significant way. Indeed, it calls to mind James Rachels’ famous thought experiment on passive euthanasia so I’m going to borrow from that thought experiment to make my point.
Dr. Brian Abasciano on the Conditionality Implied in Romans 9:16 and its Connection to John 1:12-13
By Ben Henshaw. From http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/, the original post, where comments can be made. “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Romans 9:16 (ESV) “But to all…
Arminius On the Predestination of Believers
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.
Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views”
Please click on the attachment to view Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views,” Testamentum Imperium Volume 2 (2009) Mallinson and Keith. Divine Election. A Representation of Different Views Some…
Brian Abasciano, “Corporate Election Misrepresented in the Pillar Commentary on Romans by Colin G. Kruse”
By Brian Abasciano, PhD I was disappointed in the treatment of corporate vs. individual election in the new Romans commentary by Colin G. Kruse (Paul’s Letter to the Romans [PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012],…
Robert Picirilli, “Short Outline of Romans 9-11”
Robert Picirilli’s Short Outline of Romans 9-11 written by SEA member, Roy Ingle One of my favorite Arminian theologians is Dr. Robert Picirilli. His book, Grace, Faith, Free Will is a solid Arminian book that…
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life”
THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE: WHO’S IN AND WHO’S OUT? BY RONNIE ROGERS Part 1 Posted on July 18, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/18/8942/ **The title below dons chapter 16 in…
Ronnie Rogers Responds to Selected Comments from His Recent Posts
Taken from SBC Today, where it was posted on July 28, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today:
http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/28/ronnie-rogers-responds-to-selected-comments-from-his-recent-posts/
As I have read the comments regarding my interview and a portion of my book, a few things deserve a response from me. First, I am greatly heartened by those comments, agreeing or not, that sought to interact with my actual words in a gracious manner. Being human, I know how hard that is, and hence my magnified gratitude and admiration for your valiant reliance on the Holy Spirit. Thank you!
Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian
Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
