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…
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…
The Awakening of God to Our Sins written by SEA member, Roy Ingle Salvation is of the Lord. We affirm that but let us consider that truth played out in our lives. When I was…
As I read Mark Talbot’s chapter on God and suffering in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) a thought occurred to me: Since most Calvinists are harshly critical…
Karl Barth the Arminian? this post was written by Roger E Olson, PhD Okay, that would be a stretch! I’m not claiming that Barth was an Arminian in any classical or historical sense of Arminianism.…
A Movie Illustration of What’s Wrong with Calvinism this post is written by Roger E Olson, PhD Spoiler alert! If you intend to watch “Ruby Sparks” (a 2012 movie now on DVD) and you don’t…
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…
Michael Brown, “The Newtown Massacre and the Pain of God” — http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/12/17/the-newtown-massacre-and-the-pain-of-god-n1468169/page/full/
Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43/2 (June 2000) 259–271.
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…
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…
The following comments are quoted from the NET Bible (The Net Bible – Copyright (2004) Biblical Studies Foundation. The home page of the NET Bible is http://www.bible.org/category.php?scid=5&category_id=71&parent_id=0). They are completely consistent with an Arminian understanding of God’s hardening of human hearts.
On Isaiah 6:10
One of our members, named Robert, recently made some comments in our private discussion group about an interview that Justin Taylor did with Calvinist scholar John Feinberg, pointing out how they contradict Calvinist doctrine and draw on Arminian doctrine when they talk about ethics. His comments have been edited a little and pasted in below:
I listened to Justin Taylor’s recently posted interview with John Feinberg and heard some real contradictions between Feinberg’s views in the area of ethics and his views on compatibilism/soft determinism.
To set the stage, John Feinberg is a Calvinist who calls himself a
soft determinist/compatibilist and he presented the Calvinist view in
the famous PREDESTINATION & FREE WILL: FOUR VIEWS OF DIVINE
SOVEREIGNTY & HUMAN FREEDOM (other contributors included Pinnock,
Here is a four part review of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, by Arminian scholar and President of Asbury Theological Seminary, Dr. Timothy C. Tennent Part 1: http://timothytennent.com/2011/03/love-wins-part-one-why-rob-bell-needs-to-return-to-seminary%E2%80%A6-and-bring-along-quite-a-few-contemporary-evangelical-pastors/ Part 2: http://timothytennent.com/2011/03/why-rob-bell-needs-to-return-to-seminary%e2%80%a6-and-bring-along-quite-a-few-contemporary-evangelical-pastors/ Part 3: http://timothytennent.com/2011/03/part-three-why-rob-bell-needs-to-return-to-seminary-and-bring-along-quite-a-few-contemporary-evangelical-pastors-cont/ Part…
One of our memnbers commented that Bob Passantino was a great apologist for the Christian faith, extremely well read and knowledgeable, who died prematurely and that he was also an outspoken critic of Calvinism. Here…
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…
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.
Is Faith a Work?
This post is written by SEA member, Roy Ingle
In Romans 4:4-5 we read the following:
4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Do Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God? If one has only ever read Calvinistic books, the answer would seem to be a no-brainer, for according to most Calvinists, an Arminian is by definition someone who denies God’s sovereignty. For example, notable Calvinist exponent Edwin H. Palmer (1922 – 1980) explicitly declared that “the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God”.1
Funny though it may seem, there are even those who reject the tenets of Calvinism, yet try and take a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism. These so-called ‘non-Calvinists’ are usually known by the maxim, “I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but simply a Bible-believer.” I should know; I used to be one.
Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
provided by SEA member Roy Ingle
DISPUTATION XXXI
ON THE EFFECTS OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS
I. The first and immediate effect of the sin which Adam and Eve committed in eating of the forbidden fruit, was the offending of the Deity, and guilt — Offense, which arose from the prohibition imposed — Guilt, from the sanction added to it, through the denunciation of punishment, if they neglected the prohibition.
II. From the offending of the Deity, arose his wrath on account of the violated commandment. In this violation, occur three causes of just anger:
(1.) The disparagement of his power or right.
(2.) A denial of that towards which God had an inclination.
(3.) A contempt of the divine will intimated by the command.
