Predestination

Arminius on Our Election Being in Christ

, , Comment Closed

Arminius on Our Election Being in Christ This post is provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle Arminius wrote the following in a debate over the subject of predestination. He clearly shows that he taught that…

Read Post →

Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian

, , No Comment

Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”

Read Post →

Predestination Second

, , Comment Closed

This article is written by Howard A. Snyder. Although not a member of SEA, this entry typifies the Arminian view on predestination. PREDESTINATION SECOND—LOVE FIRST! Have this clearly in mind: Salvation is not based on…

Read Post →

Calvin Taught Unconditional Predestination of Man to Sin and Condemnation

, , 3 Comments

As follow up to Roger Olson’s essay recently posted here (http://evangelicalarminians.org/Roger-Olson-My-Biggest-Problem-with-Calvin-Calvinism), it could be helpful to post some examples from Calvin (as a representative of Calvinism) that invite the sort of remonstration (= objection) made by Olson and other Arminians against Calvinism. Today we post a few examples of highly unbiblical and therefore objectionable doctrine from Calvin. Tomorrow, we plan to post comments from John Wesley in the same vein as Olson’s (but more forceful and fiery).

John Calvin not only taught that God willed the fall of Adam, but that He ordained it as well. Here are some quotes:

Again they object: were they not previously predestined by God’s
ordinance to that corruption which is now claimed as the cause of
condemnation? When, therefore, they perish in their corruption, they
but pay the penalties of that misery in which Adam fell by the

Read Post →

Bavinck on the Unknowability of God’s Decrees

, , No Comment

In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination (link), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined.

Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions – although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided):

Read Post →

Xenos Christian Fellowship – Soteriology: Calvinism & Arminianism; God’s Providence

, , No Comment

It’s refreshing to see an accurate portrayal of the positions of both Calvinism written so fairly and simply. Obviously, Xenos tends toward Arminianism which is another refreshing aspect of this lesson on Soteriology.

The lesson starts thusly: “The central issue we want to study tonight is the interplay between God’s sovereignty and human choice with regard to salvation. Do humans have free will to believe or reject the gospel? How should we understand the New Testament’s statements about election and predestination?”

For the complete lesson, go to:

http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w6.htm

Read Post →

John F. Parkinson on Romans 9

, , No Comment

This interpretation of Romans 9 is taken from (non-Calvinist) John F. Parkinson’s book The Faith of God’s Elect, pages 21 through 28.</p align=”justify”> _____________________________ “The individual Jew had come to believe mistakenly that, since he…

Read Post →