In Keith Schooley’s Article: Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading, he skillfully uses the OT to explain Romans 9. Paul refutes “those Jews who would say that, if Paul’s gospel were correct, then “God’s word…
Predestination
Daniel Whitby, Discourses on the 5 Points
Warning: Whitby slighted the doctrine of original sin. But besides that, he had the loudest voice against Calvinism in his day. His classic work from 1735, which provides detailed scriptural explanations of large numbers of…
Dennis McCallum, Exegesis of Romans 9 and Romans 9-11
Lead pastor of Xenos Fellowship [Update on 2/19/2025: Now Dwell Community Church] Dennis McCallum has presented what many consider a fascinating and very well done exegesis of Romans 9. You can find his material on…
Essays on Predestination by John Plaifere, Christopher Potter, Laurence Womock, Thomas Goad, and Louis Chéron
Plaifere & Goad take a Middle Knowledge approach to predestination. Christopher Potter defends his sermons on prevenient grace and coversion. Laurence Womock (or Womack) defends Daniel Tinelus, a critic of the Synod of Dort and…
Friday Files: Arminius on Romans 9
In James Arminius’ commentary on the 9th Chapter of Romans, he argues that the topic at hand is justification by faith. He humbly admits that for some time the chapter was of the “greatest obscurity”,…
Edward Bird on The Horrible Decree of Unconditional Election
Great example of early Engish Arminianism (1726). Bird explains total depravity, prevenient grace, unlimited atonement, conditional decrees, predestination and perserveriance as he examines some of the problems in Calvinism. He has mild appeals to middle…
Friday Files: Clarke’s commentary on Romans 9
In Adam Clarke’s commentary on Romans 9, he argues for that God choice of Jacob and Esau were primarily national1, rather than the unconditional individual election and reprobation. The idea is that God chose to…
Jabez Burns, “The Universal Love of God and Responsibility of Man”
This is a book written in 1861 by Jabez Burns, an eminent minister of the English General Baptists. Please click on the attachment to view “The Universal Love of God and Responsibility of Man”. Burns_Universal…
What Does God “Fore-love” According to Calvinism?
Many Arminians see God’s election of individuals as based on God’s foreknowledge of faith. They see that primary election passages make reference to foreknowledge and even suggest that election is based on foreknowledge. They also…
Supralapsarianism and the Sovereignty of God
Supralapsarianism is the teaching that before God decreed to create human beings He first planned to elect and to reprobate. Millard J. Erickson gives the ordered decrees within supralapsarianism as: 1) God decreed to save…
J.C. Thibodaux, “Does Granville-Sharp’s Rule Indicate That ‘Foreknowledge’ is Synonymous With ‘Determinate Counsel’?”
A claim made by many Calvinist authors concerns the terms used in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and…
Edwards on Responsibility
Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility…
Robert Shank on Rev. 2:20-22 and Monergism
“Consider the words of Christ to the church at Thyatria [sic.] concerning the prominent woman referred to as ‘Jezebel’ and His servants, who were practicing immorality and pagan customs, doubtless in a religious context after the manner of the cults:
“I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. Behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (Rev. 2:20-22)”
Middle Knowledge: What Does God Know?
The subject of God’s knowledge has been a seed bed of debate lately. Modern day Molinists believe that their system offers a middle-ground approach to theology, avoiding both Calvinism and Arminianism. One of my professors…
Calvinism and Deuteronomy 29:29
“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)…
That “Dreadful” Decree
What decree is that? The “dreadful” decree I am referring to today is the decree of Reprobation, its consequence being Unconditional Election (for how could there be one without the other?). Now, calling it “dreadful,”…
Double Talk of Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the desperate attempt of Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too. It is the claim that humans are still responsible for their sins because they wanted to commit them, but that…
Predestination As Temporal Only
Predestination As Temporal Only
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
J. Kenneth Grider
One of the most interesting theological finds I have made in recent years is that God’s predestinating of us does not seem to have to do with eternal destiny.
God does indeed predestinate us in certain ways. Six times the word for “to predestinate” is used in the NT. Besides the instances of cognates of that very word “proorizo,” other “pro” words are found in both Testaments which also show that God makes pre-decisions on various matters. And God sometimes makes decrees, even as kings do, according to Scripture. But my recent study suggests that none of these references has to do with our eternal destiny, but only with other matters.
Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge
Molina, Arminus, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant
Upon first glance the title of this paper contains a strange mix of individuals, one or two of whom are perhaps more obscure than the others. What each has in common with the others is a vested interest in the issue of free-will. What they also have in common is the realization that arising from the doctrine of free-will is the paradox of omniscience.
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith
Introduction
The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley’s observation that to say, “This man is an Arminian,” was, to some, much the same thing as saying, “This man is a mad dog.”1
