Another great article from the Seedbed ministry at Asbury Seminary. This article is written by Dr Howard Snyder In the thick of theological controversies and church conflicts I often think: It’s all about hermeneutics! Battles…
Recent Posts
Misplacing Romans: John Wesley and Hermeneutics
Discussing Divine Omnibenevolence
DIVINE OMNIBENEVOLENCE: 1. Introduction; 2. Argument for Divine Omnibenevolence; 3. Defence of Premises (I): Divine Omnibenevolence; 4. Potential Challenges and Possible Responses; 5. Argument against Divine Omnibenevolence from Divine Malevolence; 6. Defence of Premises (II):…
John Wesley’s Thoughts On Natural Disasters
Sermon 129 (text from the 1872 edition) [First published in the year 1750.] “O come hither, and behold the works of the Lord; what destruction he hath brought upon the earth!” Psalm 46:8 Of all the…
The Tweet After the Tweet
By Derek Ouellette in response to John Piper’s Oklahoma debacle By now you are probably aware of another tweet by John Piper which fired up an otherwise friendly Christian community (<– yes, facetious). For…
Report From The SBC’s Calvinism Advisory Committee
We have long been aware of the dramatic tensions regarding the recent Calvinism resurgance as it relates specificly to the Southern Baptist Convention (or the SBC). Last year, the SBC’s annual meeting organized the Calvinism…
Arminius on Romans 7:14
Arminius on Romans 7:14
provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle
Here are the thoughts of Arminius on Romans 7:14. As I noted before, Adam Clarke felt that the whole of the passage is speaking of an unregenerate man. Arminius agreed. It was here, in his preaching through Romans, that Arminius ignited the controversy with the theologians of his day when he begin to teach that the man of Romans 7 was unregenerate. Calvin had taught that Romans 7 represented the struggle of all Christians including Paul the Apostle.
And now Arminius on Romans 7:14:
John Wesley: Neither Pelagian nor Augustinian
written by by Henry Knight III A common criticism of Wesley’s theology, especially from those of a more Calvinist inclination, is that it grounds salvation not on grace but human decision. This is, to put…
Evil: Sometimes the Human Explanation is Better than the Divine Explanation
Evil: Sometimes the Human Explanation is Better than the Divine Explanation written by Ryan Ragozine “Everything happens for a reason.” How many times have you heard this short, pithy saying echoed in response to tragedy?…
Quick Overview of Lapsarianism
Quick Overview of Lapsarianism
written by SEA member Roy Ingle
In Calvinism, there are three major views regarding the divine viewpoint of the atonement of Christ and the purpose of the atonement. They describe this viewpoint by ordering a series of decrees that God supposedly made at the beginning of creation. I will present all three views below.
Seedbed’s Theological Perspective and Worldview
This is a reprint of a post written by Seedbed.com’s staff. Seedbed is a website of Asbury Seminary whose mission is similar to our own: providing on-line theological resources for the growing of the church. Finding this post encouaraging, we wished to share it with you in support of Seedbed’s mission:
God desires everyone to live forever in his Kingdom. The possibility is open to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Dr. Michael Brown vs. Pastor Bruce Bennett on Who Makes The Final Choice in Salvation…God or Man?
Here is the debate between Arminian and SEA member Dr. Michael L. Brown with Calvinist Pastor Bruce Bennett at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Merrick, Long Island, on May 11, 2013. Note: The video contains the whole debate,…
Sermons by Arminian Pastor Myron Crockett Online
Audio files of expository sermons by Arminian pastor Myron Crockett of New Hope Community Church (Burlington, IA) are now being put online. Normally, we have a new sermon up every week. A list of links…
Did Arminius Affirm Salvation by Grace or Works?
Did Arminius Affirm Salvation by Grace or Works? written by SEA member, Roy Ingle I read a Calvinist piece in which the author showed his utter misunderstanding of Arminianism. He never cites Arminius, never cites…
Monergism: A Doctrine of Demons?
Probably not, but this is SO MUCH FUN to say with a straight face. Let’s run with it a while and see how much mileage we get from it.
First, Calvinists claim that monergism is the only view of salvation that really glorifies God. Any non-Calvinist Christian knows this a lie, and since Satan is the Father of Lies …
Second, Calvinists claim that anyone who rejects monergism is a Pelagian at worst or a semi-Pelagian at best. Arminians know this is a false accusation, and since Satan is the Accuser of the Brethren …
Third, “Calvinism makes it difficult to recognize the difference between God and the devil except that the devil wants everyone to go to hell and God wants many to go to Hell.” (Roger Olson) Calvinists might whine they’re being misrepresented here, but Calvin himself said that election necessarily entails reprobation.
“But God isn’t sending people to Hell by withholding grace; he’s merely allowing them to go,” Calvinists might reply.
From Where Did the First Evil Inclination Come? A Dialogue with a Calvinist
From Where Did the First Evil Inclination Come? A Dialogue with a Calvinist
written by Roger E. Olson, PhD
G.K. Chesterton on Calvinism
“The Calvinists took the Catholic idea of the absolute knowledge and power of God; and treated it as a rocky irreducible truism so solid that anything could be built on it, however crushing or cruel.…
Free Will Debate with Turretinfan
Turretinfan and I recently debated if the bible teaches libertarian free will. I hope that you find it useful. Here was the format we used with links to the transcript: Introduction: The Bible teach…
An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 5: Taking The Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments
Part 5: Taking the Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments
Patton: These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.
This is the same claim Mr. Patton made in his first post called “Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option.” We have already begun to highlight the problems with this claim.
An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 4: Returning the Favor (Reversing the Argument)
Part 4: Returning the Favor (Reversing the Argument) Patton: To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. I agree that…
An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging
Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging
Patton: Therefore, [according to Arminianism] God’s predestination of people is “fair” and makes sense. After all, there are too many questions left unanswered when one says that God chooses who will be saved and who will not. Why did he choose some and not others? Did God make people to go to hell? Is God fair? “Why does he still find fault, for who resists his will?”
The Arminian chooses this position because, for them, it is the only way to reconcile human freedom and God’s election.
Here is where Mr. Patton really missteps.
