This is the heart of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore of authentic Christianity: the incarnation of God as “one of us.” Take it away and Christianity is little more…
General
Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?
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.
Why Arminians Find Calvinist Conversions Offensive
written by SEA member Roy Ingle I had a friend of mine who embraced Reformed theology. He had been an Arminian for many years and then he begin to read various Calvinist authors such as…
8 Things Wesleyans Need to Learn from Neo-Calvinism
8 Things Wesleyans Need to Learn from Neo-Calvinism Although not a SEA member, Caleb Friedman makes some great observations for Arminians and Wesleyan-Arminians in particular. I’m a Wesleyan. Always have been, always will be. However,…
What Fell in
What Fell in “the Fall”?
written by SEA member, Roy Ingle
F. Lagard Smith in his book Troubling Questions for Calvinists (and all the rest of us) asks 15 questions about the Fall in Genesis 3:1-7.
I post his questions here without comment.
[Editor’s note: Smith is not an Arminian, but a Semi-Pelagian. Yet these questions can still be helpful in thinking about the issue of human depravity.]
1. What do you think? Were Adam and Eve free moral beings, fully able to decide between obeying and disobeying God without any predetermined secret eternal will of God preempting their freedom to choose right from wrong?
a) If not, is there any way that God Himself is not responsible for their sin and “the Fall”?
b) If so, were they simply exceptions to an otherwise universal rule of predestination and sovereign causation?
2. Were Adam and Eve either totally or partially depraved before “the Fall”?
3. What about immediately after “the Fall”?
Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
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.
Calvinist J. I. Packer with Some Helpful Comments on Divine Impassibility
From Michael Bird (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/10/j-i-packer-on-divine-impassibility/):
According to J.I. Packer, we need to re-think the meaning of divine impassibility (note that this was before the “Open Theism” wars). He writes:
Arminius on What the First Sin Produced
Arminius on What the First Sin Produced written by SEA member, Roy Ingle What were the results of Adam’s transgression against God? Arminius answers thus: The proper and immediate effect of this sin was the…
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.
Arminius On the Predestination of Believers
Arminius On the Predestination of Believers
provided by SEA member Roy Ingle
I. As we have hitherto treated on the object of the Christian religion, that is, on Christ and God, and on the formal reasons why religion may be usefully performed to them, and ought to be, among which reasons, the last is the will of God and his command that prescribes religion by the conditions of a covenant; and as it will be necessary now to subjoin to this a discourse on the vocation of men to a participation in that covenant, it will not be improper for us, in this place, to insert one on the Predestination, by which God determined to treat with men according to that prescript, and by which he decreed to administer that vocation, and the means to it. First, concerning the former of these.
Advice from C.S. Lewis that Can Be Applied to the Upcoming Election
[Taken from http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/political-advice-from-c-s-lewis/, where comments may be made.]
From the Screwtape Letters (where the demon Screwtape explains how to misdirect a Christian with a “cause”).
Election Advice from John Wesley
Election Advice from John Wesley I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them: 1) To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy.…
Should A Pastor Be Fired For Teaching Calvinism?
written by SEA member Roy Ingle I saw a brief post the other day where a Calvinist brother was complaining about a pastor who was fired for teaching, in his words, “the doctrines of grace”…
Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians
I just finished Dr. Olson’s book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God’s character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:
Molinism… is the belief that God possesses “middle knowledge” — knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom — freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does — but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]
How to Foster Charitable, Ecumenical Dialogue in the Global Church
How to Foster Charitable, Ecumenical Dialogue in the Global Church written by Ciprian Gheorghe-Luca PhD (cand) Dialogue means conversation, but a conversation with the purpose of learning the truth. Dialogue involves an exchange between speaking…
John Wesley’s Approach to Spiritual Formation
This post was written by Ben Espinoza on the Seedbed.com website Perhaps my greatest research interest as of late is studying how various theologians and church leaders throughout history sought to form and educate believers…
The Toymaker
Though not a member of SEA, Rev DeCrastos gives an interesting illustration regarding God’s desire to have a relationship with His creation. THE TOYMAKER by Rev. DeCrastos It had been a long day, and the…
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.)
Trevin Wax, “A Word to My Calvinist Friends”
Click on the link to view Trevin Wax, “A Word to My Calvinist Friends,” which expresses his frustration with the type of condescension that he perceives often accompanies Calvinist passion for their position: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/08/28/a-word-to-my-calvinist-friends/.
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
written by Roger E. Olson, PhD
A friend forwarded this to me: http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-on-mans-sin-and-gods-sovereignty-80617/
John Piper has been at it again. But there’s nothing new in the sermon reported on there. He has been saying this and writing it for decades. According to him, God foreordains sin. He “ordains and governs” it. He stops short of saying God causes sin. But the effect is the same: sin is God’s will, even if it grieves him. And he’s talking about about every specific sin, not just “sin in general.”
Recent Posts
Video: Discussion with Dr. Alan Rhoda on Open Theism
Roy Ingle, “Theology Should Ignite Passion (But It Often Doesn’t)”
Ben Henshaw, “Refuting Social Media Calvinism #3: Faith in Christ Means We Depend on Ourselves?”
Mark K. Olson, “John Wesley on Animal Redemption”
