Prevenient Grace

Arminius (and Arminians) on Monergism vs. Synergism

, , No Comment

Arminius’s comments are presented here in the first person, as though he were addressing you personally.

On the issue of Free Will, Grace, and Synergism, let me ask, “What liberty does the will have in a sinful state?” I distinguished between five kinds of liberty as applied to the will: freedom from control of one who commands, freedom from the government of a superior, freedom from necessity, freedom from sin and its dominion, and freedom from misery. The first two apply only to God; the last, to man, but only before the fall. As for freedom from necessity, it is the very essence of the will. Without it, the will would not be the will.

Let this be distinguished from Pelagianism. I say that the will which is free from necessity may not be free from sin. That is the point in question. Is there within man a freedom of will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend? Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to understand, to will, and to do that which is good? The question must be further restricted to spiritual good. The question, then, is briefly: What is the power of free will in fallen man to perform spiritual good?

Read Post →

Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Reformation Arminianism (Part Three of Three Parts)

, , No Comment

R. C. Sproul, in his Willing to Believe, notes:

    Repeatedly the Synod of Dort charges the Remonstrants with teaching the doctrines of Pelagianism. Is not this charge overly severe and unfair? Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism.

    Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism.1

But are the “fathers of Dort” right in their estimation? Is there a link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism? Though we agree with the Dortians that the “link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism . . . renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism,” we will witness a rather glaring, broken link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism below.

Read Post →

Daniel Whitby, “Arguments against Irresistible Grace (Part 2)”

, , No Comment

By Daniel Whitby – part of Discourses on the 5 Points
Editor Note: Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences, and links to Scripture references inserted. – Godismyjudge

To proceed now to the arguments which evidently seem to confute this doctrine:

II. ARGUMENT ONE – Sufficient Grace

And (1.) this is evident from those expressions of the holy scripture, which intimate that God had done what was sufficient, and all that reasonably could be expected from Him in order to the reformation of those persons who were not reformed; ‘for what could have been done more, (HEBREW, what was there more to do?) for my vineyard, which I have not done in it? Wherefore then when I looked (or, expected,) that it should have brought forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:4)

Read Post →

Daniel Whitby, “Refuting Arguments for Irresistible Grace (Part 3)”

, , No Comment

By Daniel Whitby – part of Discourses on the 5 Points
Editor Note: Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences and links to scripture references inserted. – Godismyjudge
Answering the arguments produced to prove, First, that man is purely passive in the work of conversion, and that it is done by an irresistible or unfrustrable act of God.

Preliminary Remarks

These arguments, for method-sake, may be reduced to four heads,

First. Arguments taken from the nature of the work itself; as v. g. it being represented by such acts:

Read Post →

The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis: A Brief Comparative Study

, , 1 Comment

The ordo salutis is the “order of salvation.” It focuses on the process of salvation and the logical order of that process. The main difference between the Arminian and Calvinist ordo concerns faith and regeneration. Strictly speaking, faith is not part of salvation in the Arminian ordo since it is the condition that is met prior to God’s act of saving. All that follows faith is salvation in the Arminian ordo while in the Calvinist ordo faith is the result of salvation in some sense. What follows is how I see the Arminian ordo compared to the Calvinist ordo along with why I find the Calvinist ordo theologically problematic.

Arminian ordo salutis:

Prevenient grace

Faith

[Union with Christ]

Justification

Regeneration

Sanctification

Glorification

Notes on Arminian ordo:

Read Post →

The New Covenant

, , No Comment

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen’s Argument 1: P1: The new covenant saves only believers P2: God only intended the elect to…

Read Post →

Amazing or Irresistible Grace?

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →

Causeless Cause or Infinite Regression of Causes

, , No Comment

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

Read Post →