Jesus met a man named Nicodemus one evening and a dialogue about spiritual issues ensued. Jesus got right to the heart of the matter by stating, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV). Nicodemus had just informed Jesus that he and some others knew with certainty that He was “a teacher who has come from God” (John 3:2 NRSV). They knew such because “no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3:2 NRSV). Instead of taking the opportunity to claim Himself as the LORD’s Christ, Jesus cut to the heart of the issue. He realized that mere acknowledgement of Himself as the Christ (mere mental assent) does not save a sinner. The truth is that sinners must be born again.
Scripture Index
Arminius’s Analysis of Romans 9
Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian James Arminius wrote a letter to an ex-priest named Gellius Snecanus regarding the latter’s publication of several commentaries on the subject of Unconditional Election and Reprobation from Romans 9. Arminius’s…
Boasting
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)Many…
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
After posting my exegesis of Romans 9, I deemed a follow-up series of posts necessary to show why the observations made therein are relevant to the debate on the conditionality of election. Interestingly, I’ve had…
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Introduction
Romans 9 is one of the most controversial and often-misinterpreted passages of scripture among evangelicals. Controversy, however, should not make us timid when it comes to the things of God. This inspired chapter is valuable for teaching doctrine, and should not be ignored or glossed over. At the same time, it should not be treated as a comprehensive statement of Christian soteriology by itself, for the chapter is not written in isolation, but is strongly rooted in the context of both Testaments, touching on concepts present in the other Pauline epistles and the gospels, and quoting from the Old Testament frequently. The goal of this writing is a sound, objective exegesis of Romans 9 to explain the principles therein, expound upon its themes, and to show where and how its teachings fit into the contexts of the rest of the book of Romans, and scripture as a whole. All quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise specified.
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Continuing with the series on Romans 9, we’ll now address the issue of God’s prerogative in saving who He wishes and how Calvinists often misinterpret its implications. God’s Prerogative Reaffirmed When speaking to zealous Calvinists,…
Cleveland Fans and Corporate Election
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:4 – bold mine) There is much rejoicing in Cleveland today. Cav fans provide…
Q&A on 2 Timothy 2:25, 26
Question: I am wondering if you can provide, or point me to, an Arminian exegesis of 2 Tim. 2.25-6? This scripture is often used by Calvinists as a counter to 1 Tim. 2.3, as well as to advance the idea that God has two wills, one of universal love to mankind, another more narrow in which He controls who will and won’t repent unto salvation (the latter underscored by 2 Tim. 2.25-26). I am looking for a good Arminian analysis here.
Answer: I don’t see anything in these verses that should lead one to the conclusion that the repentance spoken of here is irresistibly “given” or “granted”, nor that this is meant to convey the idea that God arbitrarily decides to cause some to repent while denying repentance to others (which would, as you point out, contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 2:4 that God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth).
A Brief Arminian Response to I John 2:18-19
This is a fairly short and informal paper that was written in response to Calvinists’ claims that I Jn. 2:18-19 proves eternal security. To read the paper please click on the pdf below. I John…
Wesley on Acts 13:48
At first, I wasn’t a big fan of Wesley’s interpretation of Acts 13:48, but lately I have come to admire it’s simplicity. Wesley doesn’t get into technical debates about passive vs. middle voice, disputes about translating tasso as ordain vs. dispose or discussions about reflexive meanings with and without the reflexive pronoun. He is just straight and to the point. Here’s the passage and Wesley’s comments:
Chrysostom on the ‘Drawing’ and ‘Giving’ in John 6
Chrysostom makes a great point. John 6:45 really helps explain John 6:37 and 44. God teaches and we learn, if we choose to, but some choose not to learn. Those that learn from the Father…
Thoughts on John 6
Here are some thoughts that I had when I decided to dig deep into John chapter 6:
“The Prodigal Son” and Arminian Theology
One of Jesus’ best known parables is the story of “The Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children.…
The Meaning of “World” in First John
The letter of First John makes several direct references to the universality of Jesus’ atonement.
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 NIV – bold mine)
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. -1 John 4:14
In these passages John states that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, and came to be Savior of the the world. The Greek word for world is kosmos. The English word “cosmos” is derived from this word.
Calvinists sometimes assert that kosmos in the context of John’s letter is limited to “to elect individuals from all nations”. The problem is that this interpretation is not applied consistently. And it does not make sense in context of how John uses the word elsewhere in the letter.
James White on Romans 9
I recently listened to James White’s explanation of Romans 9. I was surprised by his technique. He did very little explaining of the scripture, or showing the connection between the text and Calvinism. Rather, he…
Robert Hamilton, “Election in Romans Chapter Nine”
Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton’s “Election in Romans Chapter Nine”: Hamilton. Election in Romans Chapter Nine
God’s Sovereignty in the Crucifixion of Jesus
by Roger E. Olson One critic has argued against my maxim that, “God is in charge but not in control” by pointing to Acts 2:23, which says that Jesus was “delivered up according to the…
Messianic Jewish Scholar Michael Brown Affirms Conditonal Security
Please click on PDF link to view article:
Brian P. Irwin, “Yahweh’s Suspension of Free Will in the Old Testament: Divine Immorality or Sign-Act?”
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.
Friday Files: How Calvinists Blind Side A Text
Scripture is a major part of the whole question of Arminianism and Calvinism. Which sides better represents Scripture? I think many of us can agree that that is the major question. That is the actual…
