I. Introduction This post responds to Calvinist scholar and assistant professor at Reformed Theological Seminary James Anderson’s latest rejoinder (“The Arminian Cause”) to me (specifically, to my last post: “Exposing Calvinist ‘Forgery’ in the Alleged…
Introduction: I commented (under the screen name “Arminian”) at Justin Taylor’s blog, taking issue with a cited article by John Piper that presents prayer as a cause of God’s answers to prayer in Calvinism/determinism. I…
Note: Although the author of this article is an open theist, a position that SEA rejects as unbiblical, his comments on Exodus 4:11 are helpful. Please click on the link to view Gregory Boyd, “How…
Written by Brian Abasciano A complaint I sometimes hear about my books on Romans 9 is that they are too expensive. That is quite unfortunate. (The price of those books is determined by my publisher…
Click on the attachment: Golden Chain or Iron Padlock (Reasoner)
Here are some great comments from B.J. Oropeza, who holds to corporate election, tying in corporate election with the doctrine of perseverance and Rom 8:28-39: Our perspective of 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 9-11 calls…
Here is an excellent concise summary of the doctrines of conditional election and predestination from the corporate election perpective, which differs from the traditional Arminian view of individual election based on foreseen faith. Both the…
One of our members commented concisely and incisively in our private discussion group (slightly revised here): In Calvinism God cannot see into the future. He only knows what will happen because He will make it…
The following quotes are from Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, states that by God’s secret decrees…
Here are some excellent comments on Romans 9 from Dr. William Lane Craig. (This is an excerpt from Dr. Craig’s answer to a question from an atheist, taken from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675.)
[L]et’s talk about Paul’s doctrine of election in Romans. I want to share with you a perspective on Paul’s teaching that I think you’ll find very illuminating and encouraging. Typically, as a result of Reformed theology, we have a tendency to read Paul as narrowing down the scope of God’s election to the very select few, and those not so chosen can’t complain if God in His sovereignty overlooks them. I think this is a fundamental misreading of the chapter which makes very little sense in the context of Paul’s letter.
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…
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.
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.
Robert Picirilli’s Short Outline of Romans 9-11 written by SEA member, Roy Ingle One of my favorite Arminian theologians is Dr. Robert Picirilli. His book, Grace, Faith, Free Will is a solid Arminian book that…
WHY IS JONATHAN EDWARDS CONSIDERED SO GREAT? by Roger E Olson, PhD I know. I’m almost committing blasphemy by questioning Jonathan Edwards’ greatness. I wouldn’t be doing it except there seems to be a kind…
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.”
“God doesn’t need me to round up the Elect. But He gives me the unspeakable privilege of participating in this work of redemption.” R. C. Sproul, Amazing Grace (DVD) Arminians must be asleep at the…
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…
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
