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…
Prevenient Grace
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…
A RESPONSE TO: A BRIEF REJECTION OF ARMINIANISM, or “WHY ARMINIANISM DOES NOT WORK” by C. MICHAEL PATTON
The post written by one of the irenic hosts of Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton, explained why he rejects the tenets of Arminianism, which is primarily due to the Arminians’ view of Prevenient Grace.…
Amazing or Irresistible Grace?
It is often charged that the Arminians’ view of grace is weakened by the notion that God is not sovereign in electing whom He can save. To the Calvinist, God has graciously chosen whom He…
Causeless Cause or Infinite Regression of Causes
Brief Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part II of Freedom of the Will
Edwards attacks LFW in two broad categories: causation and divine foreknowledge. Under causation, Edwards argues that LFW either leads to an infinite regression of causes or is an action without a cause. Edwards then argues that actions without causes are absurd because: 1) they would violate the common sense idea that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause, 2) then we wouldn’t be able to reason from cause to effect, 3) all proof of God’s existence is taken away, and 4) actions produced by a causeless cause would be both random and irrational, and therefore not a basis of moral accountability.
Infinite Regression of Causes or Causeless
Edwards on Impeccability and Hardening
In part 3, scections III.I, III.II, and III.III, Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a…
Desire Isn’t Good Enough
Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V Some falsely argue we can’t perform our spiritual duties, but desire these things, so they are excusable. This entails the contradiction that we are inclined and disinclined to…
The Biblical Doctrines of Grace (Part Two)
For the Calvinist, the “doctrines of grace” is a synonym for TULIP theology. So, do the Biblical Doctrines of Grace of Arminianism also follow a system, such as TULIP? Arminianism proper has not historically employed an acronym as the one used for nearly four centuries by Calvinists.
Let it be stated, however, that if it had not been for the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) presenting their five arguments to the state to be approved as orthodox consent, then the TULIP would have never been constructed. And the original order of the Remonstrants was Conditional Election (to those in Christ), Unlimited Atonement, Total Depravity, Resistible Grace, and Conditional Perseverance.
If the Calvinists had strictly followed the Arminian system, it would have spelled ULTIP, which is a bad acronym, considering Ultip is not a word. Worse off, the Arminian acronym would have been CUTRC. The best sense which we could make out of that construct is TRUCC, also not a word.
Saved By Grace To Faith?
Is the grace of God which leads a sinner to salvation by faith or to faith? In Scripture it is by faith, in Calvinism it is to faith. The Calvinist incorrectly assumes that God’s grace is directly related to regeneration in order for the sinner to then have faith in Christ (which is also a gift, in the absolute sense).
He is left to conclude that grace for salvation is not by faith but to faith, since salvation and election is by the unconditional choice of God. This “faith” seems to be one of proxy, for it is not the sinner’s faith, but a faith given to him by God. This is an alien faith. It did not derive from the sinner but was (somehow) “planted within” him. The Scripture behind this idea (so admits the Calvinist) is Philippians 1:29, which reads, “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (NASB).
Is Prevenient Grace Biblical?
Defending a term such as prevenient grace poses the same problem as defending such terms as trinity, total depravity, supra-, infra-, or sublapsarianism, or even Bible, for such terms do not appear in the Bible.
What, then, does the Arminian mean by the term prevenient grace? The word prevenient means “preceding;” thus the term, in its most simple form, means “grace which goes before,” or, “preceding grace” (or, as in ancient usage, “preventing grace”). So when the Bible claims that people are “saved by grace” (Eph. 2:8), Arminians understand that this grace must precede salvation if a person is to be saved (something which no Calvinist would deny).
Arminianism: A Theology of Grace
Is God’s grace irresistible? The answer to that question will be determined by your theological convictions. If God must first regenerate people (whom He has pre-selected for salvation) in order for them to believe, then…
Arminian Grace: How Sweet the Sound
I found this mockery at a Calvinist’s blog, who will remain nameless:
“Arminian ‘grace!’ How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me. I once was lost, then turned around, Was blind, then chose to see.
“What ‘grace’ is it that calls for choice, Made from some good within? That part that wills to heed God’s voice, Proved stronger than my sin.
“Thru many ardent gospel pleas, I sat with heart of stone. But then some hidden good in me, Propelled me toward my home.
“When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Because of what we’ve done. We’ve no less days to sing our praise, Than when we first begun.”
I’d like to hear Chris Tomlin do something with that one! John Newton would have been proud of our Calvinist “friend.” Actually, I think Newton would have been disgusted. I think every Christian should be disgusted with the heresy mentioned in that re-working of a classic hymn. And if that encapsulated Arminian theology, I would never adhere to such nonsense.
Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will
The content of this post was authored by J.C. Thibodaux and is posted on his behalf.
Many Calvinists point to such concepts as total depravity and bondage of the will to make the case that the will is not free, but don’t realize that they hit cleanly beside the point in that we agree that the human will is by nature enslaved to sin.
One cannot correctly understand the Arminian/Synergist view of libertarian free will without first understanding prevenient grace. Reformed theologians are correct in saying that the human will is in bondage to sin stemming from the sin of Adam,
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)
Thus by nature, human beings are blind and hard-hearted towards the gospel and cannot believe in Christ of their own accord. To overcome the power of the sinful nature, something stronger than sin must enter into the equation, which can only come from God. Jesus said in John 6:44,
Does John 6:44 Teach Irresistible Grace?
The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf. As I stated in my last post (Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), there is no more important question with regards…
John Wesley’s View of Man: A Study in Free Grace Versus Free Will
JOHN WESLEY’S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College
I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY
What Can The Dead in Sin Do?
Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.
Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more “hear” the gospel or “see” our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?
Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?
Before examining some of the other Calvinists “proof texts” for irresistible regeneration, we will take a moment to deal with a common Calvinist objection to the Arminian appeal to Jn. 12:32 as an example of universal “drawing”.
Are Arminians Semi-Pelagian?
Calling Arminians Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian is somewhat of a tradition within Calvinism. The Synod of Dort repeatedly did so, clearing the path for generations to come. I recently completed a study on John Owen’s book…
Eric Landstrom, The False Antithesis Between Monergism and Synergism: A Lesson from Historical Theology
A false division exists within theological discussions that centers on monergism and synergism. Within Reformed circles, on a lay level, monergism is considered to be Reformed orthodoxy and synergism heterodox to Reformed theology. However, this…
Eric Landstrom, What Are Those Arminians Thinking?
How does your perception of what is and is not Arminian theology dovetail into the following true story that relates to mans’ sin nature? The great Wesley scholar, Albert Outler was once giving a lecture…
Recent Posts
Video: Methodist Arminians & Wesley’s Arminianism: “Who Are the Arminians?” Part 4
How Do You Deal with Calvinist Arguments for Limited Atonement Based on Texts Like Colossians 2:14, Double Jeopardy, and a Commercial View of the Atonement?
Roy Ingle, “God and History”
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 8: The Great Privilege of Those Born of God
