Does God have contradicting wills? Hamilton presents an Arminian perspective on the “two wills of God”. He argues that this is a question that presents problems for both Calvinism and Arminianism. Click on the link…
Providence
The Fallenness of Man, the Will and the Workings of Grace: An Exposition on Historical Arminian Theological Thought
This exposition discusses the earliest, historical beliefs of the Arminian theological tradition regarding the effects of the fall upon man, the nature of the will of man and the mode of grace in salvation. The…
Thomas McCall, “We Believe in God’s Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper”
This article continues McCall’s critique of a popular Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty as represented by John Piper, which can be applied to the standard view of Calvinism, i.e., exhaustive determinism, which includes God’s unconditional…
Thomas McCall, “I Believe in Divine Sovereignty”
This article critiques a popular Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty as represented by John Piper and can be applied to the standard view of Calvinism, i.e., exhaustive determinism, which includes God’s unconditional decree of all sin and evil.
Please click on the attachment to view Thomas McCall, “I Believe in Divine Sovereignty”, Trinity Journal 29/2 (Fall 2008) 205-226.
Gordon C. I. Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10”
This article is posted with the permission of Trinity Theological Journal and the author. Please click on the attachment to view Gordon C. I. Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10” Trinity Theological Journal 16 (2008) 24-34.
Here is the author’s abstract:
In Isaiah 6:9-10, the prophet appears to be commissioned by God to make the ears of the people dull in order to prevent them from repenting. This article begins by proposing that these verses are better understood as rhetorical irony designed to persuade the people to (and not prevent them from) repentance. An alternative rhetorical interpretation and three literal interpretations are also discussed and rejected in favour of the view that assumes the use of irony.
Daniel Gracely, “Job 1-2”
This article is taken from a chapter in Hoodwinked and Happy?: Evangelicals, Calvinism , and Why No One’s Answering the Problem of Evil, by Daniel Gracely, published by Grandma’s Attic Press, © 2006. Please note…
Daniel Gracely, “Proverbs 21:1”
This article is taken from a chapter in Hoodwinked and Happy?: Evangelicals, Calvinism , and Why No One’s Answering the Problem of Evil, by Daniel Gracely, published by Grandma’s Attic Press, © 2006. Please note…
Ransom Dunn, “A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL”
Taken from http://library.freebaptist.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=25 A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL By RANSOM DUNN The following discourse was prepared by the request of the Boston Quarterly Meeting, and but for a request for its publication…
Calvinism and the Evil of Kim Jong-Il
After the passing of Kim Jong-Il, Calvinist leader Justin Taylor did a brief post highlighting how diabolical he was: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/19/inside-kim-jong-ils-diabolical-world/ It is simply baffling that Calvinists can decry the diabolical, heinous actions of Kim Jong-Il…
A Chilling Quote of John Calvin
Here is an absolutely chilling quote of John Calvin. It is hard to believe any Christian can believe such a thing: John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of…
Exposing Calvinist Forgery in the Paper Trail of Prophesied Prayers
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…
A Challenge from Roger Olson for Calvinists
As I read Mark Talbot’s chapter on God and suffering in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) a thought occurred to me: Since most Calvinists are harshly critical…
Gregory Boyd, “How do you respond to Exodus 4:11?”
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…
A Movie Illustration of What’s Wrong with Calvinism
A Movie Illustration of What’s Wrong with Calvinism this post is written by Roger E Olson, PhD Spoiler alert! If you intend to watch “Ruby Sparks” (a 2012 movie now on DVD) and you don’t…
Michael Brown, “The Newtown Massacre and the Pain of God”
Michael Brown, “The Newtown Massacre and the Pain of God” — http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/12/17/the-newtown-massacre-and-the-pain-of-god-n1468169/page/full/
The Problem with Deterministic Arguments
Some time ago, I had a conversation with a brother named Stephen over at SBC Tomorrow, in which we discussed philosophical determinism and the role it plays in discussions of divine election. I had been…
The Calvinist View of Foreknowledge Makes God the Cause and Author of All Sin and Evil
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…
Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?
Do Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God? If one has only ever read Calvinistic books, the answer would seem to be a no-brainer, for according to most Calvinists, an Arminian is by definition someone who denies God’s sovereignty. For example, notable Calvinist exponent Edwin H. Palmer (1922 – 1980) explicitly declared that “the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God”.1
Funny though it may seem, there are even those who reject the tenets of Calvinism, yet try and take a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism. These so-called ‘non-Calvinists’ are usually known by the maxim, “I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but simply a Bible-believer.” I should know; I used to be one.
Arminius on the Will of God
Arminius on the will of God
provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle
DISPUTATION XVIII
ON THE WILL OF GOD
I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.
II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
written by Roger E. Olson, PhD
A friend forwarded this to me: http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-on-mans-sin-and-gods-sovereignty-80617/
John Piper has been at it again. But there’s nothing new in the sermon reported on there. He has been saying this and writing it for decades. According to him, God foreordains sin. He “ordains and governs” it. He stops short of saying God causes sin. But the effect is the same: sin is God’s will, even if it grieves him. And he’s talking about about every specific sin, not just “sin in general.”
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “What Scripture Says, God Says”
How Do You Interpret Isaiah 45:7?
Video: David Pallmann, “A Critique of Eternal Security Part 1: The Case For Eternal Security Considered”
William Burt Pope, “Divine Attributes Related to the Creature Part 5: The Goodness of God”
