Some Calvinists suggest that God’s foreknowledge is based on His plan and/or knowledge of causal relations rather then based on the future. I thought I would look up what the church fathers had to say…
Foreknowledge
Xenos Christian Fellowship – Soteriology: Calvinism & Arminianism; God’s Providence
It’s refreshing to see an accurate portrayal of the positions of both Calvinism written so fairly and simply. Obviously, Xenos tends toward Arminianism which is another refreshing aspect of this lesson on Soteriology.
The lesson starts thusly: “The central issue we want to study tonight is the interplay between God’s sovereignty and human choice with regard to salvation. Do humans have free will to believe or reject the gospel? How should we understand the New Testament’s statements about election and predestination?”
For the complete lesson, go to:
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w6.htm
Roger Olson, Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton
Posted on February 4, 2012 by rogereolson
Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton
I spoke about why I am “Against Calvinism” for about 15 minutes focusing on the goodness of God and how classical, “high Calvinism” is inconsistent with any meaning of “good” and “love” known to us. Then Mike spoke for about 15 minutes focusing on humanity’s depravity and God’s mercy in electing some to salvation. In other words, he also said that God is good even if not in terms of our “fairness” (because he doesn’t save everyone).
Does God Repent? – The Bible Answer Man Clarifies
The classic King James Version of the Bible says, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6). Elsewhere, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1 Samuel 15:11). If God is perfect, how could he repent?
First, the Bible unequivocally teaches that God is perfectly good and thus incapable of doing evil (Psalm 5:4–5; James 1:13; 3 John 1:11). As such, God’s repentance must not be understood as entailing moral guilt. Indeed, the moral perfection of the Creator sets him apart from his sin–tainted creation (Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15–16).
If Calvinism Were True
I very much appreciate Olson’s book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone who asks me for a brief defense of Classical Arminian theology.1 Neither this book nor his latest is in any way meant to be an exhaustive, exegetically detailed theology textbook in defense of Classical Arminianism. These are popular books meant for the populace, like many of John Piper’s books. In Dr.
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics: The Arminian View of Divine Foreknowledge Attacks God’s Simplicity and Immutability
Original post. Related Fallacies: Conflation Hasty Generalization Oversimplification Tim Prussic attempts to salvage his hopeless case after I pointed out his fallacious reasoning concerning God’s aseity. Tim makes a tenuous appeal to divine simplicity; in…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics: The Arminian View of Divine Foreknowledge Attacks God’s Aseity
Original post. Related fallacies: Non Sequitur Equivocation Special Pleading One apparent ramification of holding to both libertarian free will and God’s omniscience is that God (apparently) derives His knowledge of our choices from us, since…
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…
Book Review: Whedon’s Freedom of the Will
John Wagner recently edited and republished Daniel Whedon’s Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan response to Jonathan Edwards. The book is an outstanding refutation of Edward’s Inquiry into the Will. Whedon seeks and engages top authors and arguments like Hobbs’ argument (later adopted by Locke and Edwards) that free will is incoherent, because it either amounts to a causeless cause or infinite regression of causes. Whedon responds by pointing out 1) the will is the cause of choice (74); 2) defining indeterministic causes (38-39); and 3) explaining that indeterministic causes account for either choice (71-72). In other words, indeterministic causes explain the goal of our choices (or reason for our choices), but the will is the cause we choose this goal, not that goal. This is essentially agent causation.
Josh Thibodaux, “More on the Authorship of Sin (Part 3)”
In parts one and two of the authorship of sin series (as well as the post that kicked it off), we examined some of the Calvinist defenses against the charge of their making God the…
More On the Authorship of Sin (Part 2)
This is the second of a series on the authorship of sin that came about as a result of discussions and observations on this post. Part 1 and the first section of this post address Calvinist claims that Arminians “also make God the author of sin.”
Conflating Origins
When discussing authorship implying the origination of sin, the argument inevitably arises, “but if sin originates in people, people still originate from God, therefore sin originates from God as well!” Not quite. Beings capable of sin originated from within God, it doesn’t follow that their rebellion itself came from within Him.
The Theological Fatalist’s Modal Fallacy
Theological fatalists posit that God’s foreknowledge of future events mean that it is not possible for anything other than what happens to happen. Since God knows every event that will happen, then aren’t those events…
Brian Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election”
This article defends the concept of corporate election against the criticisms that have been leveled against it, showing that they arise mostly from misunderstanding of the concept. It argues that corporate election is the biblical…
Eric Landstrom, God, Evil, and Grace in Calvinist and Arminian Theology
As early as Episcopius Arminians have argued that if acts arise necessarily from decree, then God must have included within his decree for the implementation of how to bring the decree to fruition. Popularly it…
On Omnitemporality
One of the problems with attempting to discuss the issue of Foreknowledge as it relates to Free Will is that the term itself prejudices the discussion, bending it in a certain argumentative direction that the…
Why I am not an Open Theist
by Roger E. Olson Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God.…
Friday Files: Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future by Robert E. Picirilli
One of the basic questions that many Calvinists have for us is “how does God’s omniscience allow for the freedom of the human will?” Picirilli attempts to answer this question in this wonderful article. Robert…
Arminius vs. Calvin on Unconditional Election
That the doctrine of election (or, as some would have it, predestination) is taught in Scripture is rarely denied. There are those who teach that election or predestination is only related to salvation via means…
Jacob Arminius: Disputant to Open Theism
Vincent of Lerins (early fifth century Christian writer in southern France) said that orthodoxy is “that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”1 What has been the orthodox view of the Church on the…
Open Theism: An Arminian Pentecostal Response
The following article by James H. Railey gives a brief critique of Open Theism and supports the traditional Arminian position that God foreknows all future events, including the free choices of His creatures.: Railey. Open…
Recent Posts
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?
Roy Ingle, “Preach Perseverance”
X-Calvinist Corner Files: Testimony # 41
