Providence

James Arminius On the One Will of God

, , No Comment

There is a connection between the Understanding of God and His Will that is overlooked or neglected by those who hold to a two wills in God theory. In this post we will discover what Arminius believed about God’s Knowledge or Understanding, and its relation to the one Will of God, with its various distinctives.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

Read Post →

Arminius on the Sovereignty and Providence of God concerning the Problem of Evil

, , No Comment

Arminius comments:

    We have already said that in sin the act, or the cessation from action, and ‘the transgression of the law’ come under consideration: But the Efficiency of God about evil concerns both the act itself and its viciousness, and it does this whether we have regard to the beginning of sin, to its progress, or to its end and consummation.1

What Arminius is trying to avoid is the constructing of his exegetical theology which is free from charging or making God the author of sin. What does it mean to make God the author of sin? First, let us define sin. The Larger Catechism states that sin is “any want [lack] of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.”2 This definition works as well as any other.

Read Post →

Paul Copan, “Divine Exasperation”

, , Comment Closed

Please click on the link to view Paul Copan, “Divine Exasperation”, which surveys biblical passages that express God’s exasperation with sinful, human resistance to his grace, revealing “God’s legitimate expectation of spiritual fruitfulness, repentance, or obedience.…

Read Post →

Brian P. Irwin, “Yahweh’s Suspension of Free Will in the Old Testament: Divine Immorality or Sign-Act?”

, , Comment Closed

Please click on the attachment to view Brian P. Irwin, “Yahweh’s Suspension of Free Will in the Old Testament: Divine Immorality or Sign-Act?” Tyndale Bulletin 54.2 (2003) 55-62.

The author’s summary:

Several passages in the Old Testament portray Yahweh as behaving in
ways that seem unfair or immoral. Two such narratives are the
episodes describing the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and the spirit
dispatched to deceive Ahab. In each of these two cases, careful
attention to the literary context and the final form of the MT shows that
Yahweh’s behaviour is best understood as a sign-act directed toward a
specific end.

Read Post →

God and Evil

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson Obviously, one posted message cannot begin to solve the problem(s) of God and evil. All I want to accomplish here is clear up some misconceptions about the Arminian view and ask…

Read Post →

God’s Self-Limitation

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson Several readers seem to me to ignore an important presupposition of classical Arminian theology and of open theism. (I could probably list some other theologies that also affirm God’s self-limitation, but…

Read Post →

John Wesley, A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend

, , No Comment

A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
Out of thine own mouth!

The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Volume 10, 1872, pp. 259-266

TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS

1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true Predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.

2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense, and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.

Read Post →

Is Arminianism a Neo-Manichaeanism?

, , No Comment

[THIS HAS BEEN EDITED. ALL REFERENCES TO THE ORIGINAL CALVINIST AUTHOR BEING RESPONDED TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED.] Bhagwan, Ishvara, Maheshvara, Parameshvara, Paramatman, Para Brahman, Adi Purusha, Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Ek Onkar, Satnam, Nirankar, Shoghi Effendi,…

Read Post →

Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan by Brennon Hartshorn

, , No Comment

Arminians and other Libertarians are concerned with determinism, the proposition that all of our actions are made necessary by God in some way. We are concerned because determinism seems to make God the author of sin.

The compatibilist wants to show that we can still be free and responsible for our own actions and they can be determined. David Hume, a skeptic philosopher, tried to show this is the case on a naturalistic framework. Theist determinists adopt some of Hume’s arguments and augment them in order to argue that it is possible that all our actions have been pre-determined, but we freely do those actions and are therefore responsible for them. There have also been other attempts at trying to show that this is possible.

Read Post →