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…
Foreknowledge
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.
Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill
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…
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).
Recent Posts
The Arminian Magazine Volume 10 (Spring 1991)
Do You Believe in Jesus Christ? (Global Methodist Church Catechism)
Regarding Eternal Security, How Do You Briefly Respond to Calvinist Appeal to Romans 5:9-11?
Richard Coords, “Psalm 95:7-11”
