General

Verses All Arminians Should Know

, , No Comment

This list was compiled about a year ago by many members of The Society of Evangelical Arminians. I was asked to put it into blog form, and have finally sat down and gotten it done.

I hope for this to be a useful resource for any Arminian needing good scriptural texts that display his or her view. It should be cautioned that proof texting is far too easy for anyone to do, and with any of these verses the context should be considered. Far too often, context is ignored and erroneous interpretations are formed. So, use these verses, but corroborate their contexts. We strove to carefully consider the contexts and, in our minds, these verses and explanations faithfully represent the author’s intent, showing Arminianism to have strong Biblical support.

Also, if you see any verses that you think should be added, comment on the post and let me know.

Verses that show election is conditional:

Steve Gregg on Calvinism

, , No Comment

The full title of the attached file, compiled and arranged by Steve Gregg, is “God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation: Calvinism: Comparative Charts for Evaluating the Biblical Basis for Calvinist and Non-Calvinist Theological Constructs”. Please click…

Read Post →

John Wesley, A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend

, , No Comment

A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
Out of thine own mouth!

The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Volume 10, 1872, pp. 259-266

TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS

1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true Predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.

2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense, and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.

Read Post →

A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends (Satire)

, , No Comment

A little quiz for your Calvinist Friends. Inspired by the ever resourceful JC Thibodaux and by a Calvinist dude named Jay Banks. Enjoy.

Genesis 25:23 The LORD said to [Rebekah], “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Q: What was in Rebekah’s womb?

A. Two nations and two peoples.
B. One elect person and one reprobate person.
C. Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic.

Read Post →

Calvinism is the Gospel vs. Jesus is the Gospel

, , No Comment

Heresies are born out of the mindset that one’s theology and only one’s theology can possibly be the sole orthodox position viable for Christians. When an individual cannot at least acknowledge that he or she could be wrong on some theological points, the cult-mindset has set in. But know this, friends, only God’s Word is completely accurate. Our understanding of his Word can be inaccurate. Russell Henry Stafford writes:

    I was brought up in the Arminian tradition, and those early influences confirmed the natural abhorrence which I take it that all who know the living Christ in the living pages of the Gospels must feel for the distinctive dogmas of Calvinism.

    Read Post →

Don’t Be a Jerk

, , Comment Closed

We would do well to apply the message of the cartoon in the attachment to the Arminian/Calvinist debate (see the attachment). The debate is very important, ultimately having to do with the character of God.…

Read Post →

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The FACTS vs. TULIP Acronyms

, , No Comment

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Arminian and Calvinist debate is the amount of misunderstanding that goes on about the two positions. We have found that caricatures of both sides seem to be more common than honest descriptions. This site has been devoted to bringing clarity as to what defines the Arminian position, and promoting the position while being fair to Calvinism.

We have just set up a new primary link that gives a detailed comparison between the Arminian and Calvinist sides. You will find it under An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism

Read Post →

Mission Possible: A Response to Shai Linne

, , No Comment

The following is an edited response to Shai Linne’s Limited Atonement rap song, “Mission Accomplished.” The original version was posted by “Murray” in the comments at the Gadgetry, Thoughts, Unleashed! blog. What is in brackets…

Read Post →

Friday Files

, , No Comment

Shortly after the death of James Arminius in 1609, his followers summarized his views into the five points of the remonstrants. At Dort, the Calvinists requested a clarification of the remonstrants views. Lead by Episcopius,…

Read Post →

Church History vs. Calvinism (Part One)

, , No Comment

To say that any semblance of a Calvinistic framework is entirely absent from the teachings of the early Church fathers, as will become evident shortly, is an understatement. Ironically enough, however, John Calvin was not…

Read Post →

The Calvinist Dictionary (Satire)

, , No Comment

A dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.
(Don’t take this too seriously, this is meant in good fun)

All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you’re elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general): God’s justification to condemn the reprobate.

Read Post →

Enjoying The Good News Of Christ

, , Comment Closed

[The following post was authored by Ben Henshaw, and has undergone some revision with the author’s permission for inclusion here.]

Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all are saved. I find it strange that Calvinists, who are so quick to criticize Arminians for holding to a man centered religion, argue that unless man responds to God’s love in saving faith, then His love for them has somehow failed. How is it that they feel comfortable equating the success or failure of God’s love with man’s response to that love? Is the nature or validity of God’s love dependant on man’s response? Doesn’t that seem a little man centered?

Read Post →