I asked this question on a discussion board when a Calvinist rightly pointed out that the LORD gets angry at the sinful actions of fallen men. There is no doubt that sin angers the LORD. The anger of the LORD is expressed in numerous passages yet this truth causes me to ask the Calvinist “why”? How is it that an omniscient God could possibly get angry at what He supposedly (in the Calvinist tradition) causes or ordains? If God issues a commandment that He has purposefully ordained to be broken, is it not an expression of hypocrisy to become angry at what is His very design? I do not think the Calvinist can address this inquiry in an honest manner. In fact I know from my experiences with a few that the response is to engage in an ad hominem fallacy and accuse me of presenting a straw man albeit unidentified. Contrary to the diversions, the question I pose is valid and crucial to understanding the religious philosophy of Calvinism.
Free Will
The Sovereignty, Providence, and Will of God
The subject of the Will of God was a topic of interest for James Arminius. Many have wondered if he was a Molinist. Richard Muller acknowledges that Arminius read from Molina,1 but Arminius never claimed to be a Molinist.
However, Arminius left in his writings the notion that perhaps he was at least influenced by Molina’s pattern of thought on what God knows and what God has willed according to that knowledge. Muller noted
- The divine knowledge of possibility, since it is knowledge of what things can come into existence, is also a knowledge of the way in which all possibles could exist ideally or perfectly, without defect and a knowledge of impossibility as well. Arminius even argues an order in the divine knowledge of possibles. Thus God knows, first, ‘what things can exist by his own primary act.’
Middle Knowledge: What Does God Know?
The subject of God’s knowledge has been a seed bed of debate lately. Modern day Molinists believe that their system offers a middle-ground approach to theology, avoiding both Calvinism and Arminianism. One of my professors…
More Thoughts on the Sovereignty of God and Human Freedom
Concerning God’s sovereignty and human freedom, Bowman offers the following, The Reformed tradition’s insistence on God’s absolute sovereignty is related to its concern for radical aseity [that God is self-originated, self-sustained] . . . both…
Calvinism & Hyper-Calvinism
According to Monergism.com, hyper-Calvinism’s errors include the following: “that God is the author of sin and of evil, that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect; that the…
Excellent Article on Free Will and Determinism
Since we have run a few posts on compatibilism in the past couple weeks, I thought I would draw your attention to an excellent full article we recently added on free will and determinism: Robert…
Compatibilism (Part Two)
Monergism.com admitted, “It should be noted that this position [that of Compatibilism] is no less deterministic than hard determinism ~ be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will.” So,…
Robert Hamilton, “Philosophical Reflections on Free Will”
Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton, “Philosophical Reflections on Free Will”: Hamilton. Philosophical Reflections on Free Will
Compatibilism (Part One)
It is no secret that the majority of Arminians hold to what is known as libertarian free will. We believe in such a thing because we see evidence for it throughout the Bible. God gives…
Double Talk of Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the desperate attempt of Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too. It is the claim that humans are still responsible for their sins because they wanted to commit them, but that…
The Sovereignty of God and Humanity’s Free Will
What is it about your theology that you feel you must let go of in order to hang on to something else? Some have claimed that Calvinists must let go of free will in order…
Taking Up My Cross
“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Mt 16:24 AV) On one of the discussion boards I…
A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8
A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Jerry McCant
Any assignment whose parameters are set by others can be threatening. After accepting this assignment, I found this one to be so. First, it was to be a Wesleyan interpretation. Given the many “Wesleyanisms”‘ and the problem Isbell2 had in defining a “Wesleyan position” on the “old man,” I was not too hopeful. I was asked to interpret Romans 6-8 from this Wesleyan perspective. For reasons that I shall discuss below, I was not able to be that restrictive, but found myself forced to consider Romans 5-8 as a unit.
Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge
Molina, Arminus, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant
Upon first glance the title of this paper contains a strange mix of individuals, one or two of whom are perhaps more obscure than the others. What each has in common with the others is a vested interest in the issue of free-will. What they also have in common is the realization that arising from the doctrine of free-will is the paradox of omniscience.
John Wesley’s View of Man: A Study in Free Grace Versus Free Will
JOHN WESLEY’S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College
I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY
John Wesley On the Origins of Evil
John Wesley On the Origins of Evil
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant
One of the more important questions ever confronted by Christian theologians has been how to reconcile the idea that God is loving, good, and just with the presence of evil in the world. The Greek Epicurus summarized the issue well when he asked, “What is the cause of evil?” In answering this question he concluded:
God. . . either wished to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?2
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith
Introduction
The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley’s observation that to say, “This man is an Arminian,” was, to some, much the same thing as saying, “This man is a mad dog.”1
John Fletcher’s Influence on the Development of Wesleyan Theology in America
JOHN FLETCHER’S INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESLEYAN THEOLOGY IN AMERICA
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
By John A. Knight
Introduction
Not until recent years has the significance of John Fletcher’s theology been assessed by interpreters of the history of Christian doctrine. For almost two hundred years his work was eclipsed by the Wesleys and by some in the Calvinistic wing of the 18th century Evangelical Revival in England, except for occasional references by historians and biographers of his contemporaries.
David C. Shipley’s perceptive study, “Methodist Arminianism in the Theology of John Fletcher,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1942, was a pioneer work in this country. Particularly in the last two decades others have begun to recognize the importance of Fletcher to the development of Wesleyan theology.1
Consistent Theology on the Sovereignty of God
In spite of J. I. Packer’s allegation that John Wesley was a Calvinist,1 albeit an inconsistent one, Packer himself dodges inconsistency by appealing to antinomy regarding the relationship between God’s sovereignty and humanity’s free will.…
Eric Landstrom, What About Pharaoh? God Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart
What About Pharaoh? God Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart Some consider God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart as clear evidence that God predestinates people to reprobation and ultimately, to condemnation. The Arminian view is that Pharaoh, of his…
