Follow the link to view part 9 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 9”.
Grace
Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace”
Follow the link to view distinguished NT scholar Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/18/the-reformed-view-of-regeneration-vs-the-wesleyan-theology-of-prevenient-grace/).
My Cat Illustrates the Difference Between Arminianism and Calvinism
[Humor]
A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. Instead of writing a 2,000 word post on the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, I have posted two pictures of my cat.
The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is this: Arminians believe that grace is resistible. Calvinists believe that grace is irresistible.
First, let’s look at the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. Those to whom God gives grace will certainly receive it. God’s grace is provided in a way that it is not coercive, because God works in the hearts and minds of the elect in such a way that they freely want to receive what He provides. Below my cat illustrates what this looks like:
Quotable Quotes – Tozer on Prevenient Grace
“Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. “Before a sinful man can think a right…
God’s Proactive, Enabling, Sufficient, Prevenient Grace
Since the Arminian believes, like the Calvinist, in Total Depravity and Total Inability, but disagrees with the Calvinistic implication that this fact necessitates a doctrine of Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace, what, then, in Arminian…
No One Can “See” the Kingdom of God
Jesus met a man named Nicodemus one evening and a dialogue about spiritual issues ensued. Jesus got right to the heart of the matter by stating, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV). Nicodemus had just informed Jesus that he and some others knew with certainty that He was “a teacher who has come from God” (John 3:2 NRSV). They knew such because “no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3:2 NRSV). Instead of taking the opportunity to claim Himself as the LORD’s Christ, Jesus cut to the heart of the issue. He realized that mere acknowledgement of Himself as the Christ (mere mental assent) does not save a sinner. The truth is that sinners must be born again.
Randal Rauser, “Tigers, Tabbys, and God’s Special Love for His Elect”
Please click on the link to view Randal Rauser, “Tigers, Tabbys, and God’s Special Love for His Elect”. [Please note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and that SEA does not necessarily…
Randal Rauser, “The Day the Arminian Pride Parade Came to Geneva”
Randal Rauser, “The day the Arminian Pride Parade came to Geneva”
Faith Is Not a Work
“Now to the one who works,” writes the apostle Paul, “wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the…
Boasting
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)Many…
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Introduction
Romans 9 is one of the most controversial and often-misinterpreted passages of scripture among evangelicals. Controversy, however, should not make us timid when it comes to the things of God. This inspired chapter is valuable for teaching doctrine, and should not be ignored or glossed over. At the same time, it should not be treated as a comprehensive statement of Christian soteriology by itself, for the chapter is not written in isolation, but is strongly rooted in the context of both Testaments, touching on concepts present in the other Pauline epistles and the gospels, and quoting from the Old Testament frequently. The goal of this writing is a sound, objective exegesis of Romans 9 to explain the principles therein, expound upon its themes, and to show where and how its teachings fit into the contexts of the rest of the book of Romans, and scripture as a whole. All quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise specified.
A Brief Overview of Arminian Theology (A Presentation to the SharperIron Community)
The SharperIron website (SI) recently contacted SEA regarding presenting Arminianism to the SI community. The motivation for this request is quite valid and a point not often made – many people oppose Calvinism without providing…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #10: Wait, Now Faith is a “Work?”
Related Fallacies: Equivocation Category Mistake “[Arminianism] denies sola fide (faith alone) by changing the character of faith so that it is basically a work.” (Rev. Richard Phillips [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], Is Arminianism a Biblical…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #9: Faith is Some Reason to Boast?
Original post Related fallacies: Pettifoggery Category Mistake A charge typically leveled by Calvinists is that Christians who don’t believe in irresistible grace would have some reason to boast in their faith. John Hendryx concisely expresses…
Arminius’s Doctrine of Grace
Often erroneously accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, Arminius and his followers have historically suffered — and continue to suffer — one misrepresentation after another by their theological opponents. Usually, the caricature of Arminian theology comes…
A Slightly Less Quick Response
Alan Kurschner recently made a response to my reply to his “question” last week. I first I hesitated on whether or not to reply, since I found his response to be, well, silly. However, there…
Q&A on 2 Timothy 2:25, 26
Question: I am wondering if you can provide, or point me to, an Arminian exegesis of 2 Tim. 2.25-6? This scripture is often used by Calvinists as a counter to 1 Tim. 2.3, as well as to advance the idea that God has two wills, one of universal love to mankind, another more narrow in which He controls who will and won’t repent unto salvation (the latter underscored by 2 Tim. 2.25-26). I am looking for a good Arminian analysis here.
Answer: I don’t see anything in these verses that should lead one to the conclusion that the repentance spoken of here is irresistibly “given” or “granted”, nor that this is meant to convey the idea that God arbitrarily decides to cause some to repent while denying repentance to others (which would, as you point out, contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 2:4 that God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth).
Continuing Frustration with Calvinists Misrepresenting Arminianism
by Roger Olson It happens all the time. I move around in evangelical circles quite a bit and overhear conversations and receive comments about Arminianism. And I invite Calvinists to my classes. I am certainly…
Resistible Grace or Sinless Perfection? A Call For Theological Precision in The Calvinist Accounting of Monergistic Conversion
A recent question in the ??Questions?? thread reminded me of an issue I raised long ago [1]. I thought it would be beneficial to raise this question again in more detail and maybe get some…
A Quick Response To A Bad Question
Normally, we do not like to respond to poorly-articulated Anti-Arminian arguments when they come up, even when presented by respected scholars or writers, because a) there are sadly too many of them; and b) we…
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “If Anyone Does Not Abide In Me He Is Thrown Away”
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 10: The Circumcision of the Heart
Richard Coords, “Secret Will”
“Do You Call Salvation a Miracle?”
