Please click on the attachment to view Joshua Ratliff, “Ephesians 1:3-4: An Explanation of the Corporate and Christocentric Nature of Election” Ratliff. Ephesians 1.3-4. An Explanation of the Corporate and Christcentric Nature of Election
Foreknowledge
Robert E. Picirilli, An Arminian Response to Open Theism
Please click on the attachment to view Robert E. Picirilli’s response to open theism in his article entitled, “AN ARMINIAN RESPONSE TO JOHN SANDERS’S THE GOD WHO RISKS: A THEOLOGY OF PROVIDENCE“, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44/3 (September 2001) 467–91.
Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “THE COMPASSIONATE GOD OF TRADITIONAL JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS”
Click on the attachment at the bottom to view Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “THE COMPASSIONATE GOD OF TRADITIONAL JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS,” Tyndale Bulletin 58.2 (2007) 183-207. The author’s summary of the article follows. Interestingly, the article…
Jack Cottrell – Understanding God: God and Time
An article by Arminian Theologian Jack Cottrell. Cottrell speculates about God’s relation to time, and the nature and extent of God’s foreknowledge. Is God timeless (outside of time)? Or does God experience time in some…
Richard Watson, On Omniscience
Please click on the attachment to view Richard Watson, On Omniscience, which is an excerpt from his Theological Institutes. This treatment of God’s omniscience contains an important discussion of the concepts of necessity, contingency, and…
Edgar, Thomas R. “THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”)”
Please click on the attachment to view Edgar, Thomas R. “THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”)” (published in Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9 [Spring 2003] 43-80). Edgar. Foreknowledge
Ransom Dunn, “A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL”
Taken from http://library.freebaptist.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=25 A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL By RANSOM DUNN The following discourse was prepared by the request of the Boston Quarterly Meeting, and but for a request for its publication…
Magic Hand-waving in the Calvinist Cause
I. Introduction This post responds to Calvinist scholar and assistant professor at Reformed Theological Seminary James Anderson’s latest rejoinder (“The Arminian Cause”) to me (specifically, to my last post: “Exposing Calvinist ‘Forgery’ in the Alleged…
Exposing Calvinist Forgery in the Paper Trail of Prophesied Prayers
Introduction: I commented (under the screen name “Arminian”) at Justin Taylor’s blog, taking issue with a cited article by John Piper that presents prayer as a cause of God’s answers to prayer in Calvinism/determinism. I…
Calvinism and the God-as-Author Analogy
Calvinism and the God-as-author analogy written by Roger E Olson, PhD One of my faithful visitors here pointed me to the following recent essay posted to the Desiring God blog by one Joe Rigney (professor…
Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future”
Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43/2 (June 2000) 259–271.
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…
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…
The Calvinist View of Foreknowledge Makes God the Cause and Author of All Sin and Evil
One of our members commented concisely and incisively in our private discussion group (slightly revised here): In Calvinism God cannot see into the future. He only knows what will happen because He will make it…
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.
Arminius on the Will of God
Arminius on the will of God
provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle
DISPUTATION XVIII
ON THE WILL OF GOD
I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.
II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.
Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation
Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation
written by SEA member Roy Ingle
There are certain events in the ministry of the Lord Jesus that demonstrated that He foreknew them and this shows He was God. For instance, we read that Jesus knew that He would die on the cross (John 12:32) and details about His crucifixion (Mark 10:33-34). Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:18-27) and that Peter would deny Him (Mark 14:29-31). He was able to read the thoughts of the Jews in Mark 2:8. Clearly, Jesus was God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6).
Arminius on the Nature of God
Arminius on the Nature of God
provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle
I. The very nature of things and the Scriptures of God, as well as the general consent of all wise men and nations, testify that a nature is correctly ascribed to God. (Gal. iv, 8; 2 Pet. i, 4; Aristot. De Repub. 1. 7, c. 1; Cicero De Nat. Deor.)
II. This nature cannot be known a priori: for it is the first of all things, and was alone, for infinite ages, before all things. It is adequately known only by God, and God by it; because God is the same as it is. It is in some slight measure known by us, but in a degree infinitely below what it is [in] itself; because we are from it by an external emanation. (Isa. xliv, 6; Rev. i, 8; 1 Cor. ii, 11; 1 Tim. vi, 16; 1 Cor. xiii, 9.)
An Explanation of Simple Foreknowledge
In the book Against Calvinism, Roger Olson asserts that Calvinism damages God’s reputation, and that it (unintentionally) turns God into a moral monster who is hardly distinguishable from the devil. Olson doesn’t argue that Calvinists affirm that God is like the devil. Rather, in his view it is the logical implication of Calvinism. It’s a strong assertion, but I agree. John Wesley did also.