8 Things Wesleyans Need to Learn from Neo-Calvinism Although not a SEA member, Caleb Friedman makes some great observations for Arminians and Wesleyan-Arminians in particular. I’m a Wesleyan. Always have been, always will be. However,…
Recent Posts
8 Things Wesleyans Need to Learn from Neo-Calvinism
What Fell in
What Fell in “the Fall”?
written by SEA member, Roy Ingle
F. Lagard Smith in his book Troubling Questions for Calvinists (and all the rest of us) asks 15 questions about the Fall in Genesis 3:1-7.
I post his questions here without comment.
[Editor’s note: Smith is not an Arminian, but a Semi-Pelagian. Yet these questions can still be helpful in thinking about the issue of human depravity.]
1. What do you think? Were Adam and Eve free moral beings, fully able to decide between obeying and disobeying God without any predetermined secret eternal will of God preempting their freedom to choose right from wrong?
a) If not, is there any way that God Himself is not responsible for their sin and “the Fall”?
b) If so, were they simply exceptions to an otherwise universal rule of predestination and sovereign causation?
2. Were Adam and Eve either totally or partially depraved before “the Fall”?
3. What about immediately after “the Fall”?
Brian Abasciano Has a New Article Out Refuting the Use of 1 John 5:1 as a Proof Text for the Calvinist Doctrine that Regeneration Precedes Faith
Brian Abasciano has a new article out refuting the use of 1 John 5:1 as a proof text for the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith. Here is the publication information and the author’s abstract…
Adam Heard the Voice of God
Adam Heard the Voice of God written by SEA member, Roy Ingle Some Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul asserts that one must be regenerated before faith because of the nature of total depravity. Since mankind…
Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
Arminius on The Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
provided by SEA member Roy Ingle
DISPUTATION XXXI
ON THE EFFECTS OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS
I. The first and immediate effect of the sin which Adam and Eve committed in eating of the forbidden fruit, was the offending of the Deity, and guilt — Offense, which arose from the prohibition imposed — Guilt, from the sanction added to it, through the denunciation of punishment, if they neglected the prohibition.
II. From the offending of the Deity, arose his wrath on account of the violated commandment. In this violation, occur three causes of just anger:
(1.) The disparagement of his power or right.
(2.) A denial of that towards which God had an inclination.
(3.) A contempt of the divine will intimated by the command.
Calvinist J. I. Packer with Some Helpful Comments on Divine Impassibility
From Michael Bird (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/10/j-i-packer-on-divine-impassibility/):
According to J.I. Packer, we need to re-think the meaning of divine impassibility (note that this was before the “Open Theism” wars). He writes:
Jesus Says the Dead Will Hear Unto Spiritual Life
I want to recommend Chris Chapman’s article available at SEA called, The Extent of Spiritual Death. Chapman’s article does an excellent job of demonstrating from Scripture that the spiritual death described in the Bible does…
Arminius on What the First Sin Produced
Arminius on What the First Sin Produced written by SEA member, Roy Ingle What were the results of Adam’s transgression against God? Arminius answers thus: The proper and immediate effect of this sin was the…
Amyraldism vs. Four-Point Calvinism
I’ve been musing about the idea of Limited Atonement, and there are a few posts that I intend to write about it. In preperation though, I would like to make a point about a distinction…
Dr. Brian Abasciano on the Conditionality Implied in Romans 9:16 and its Connection to John 1:12-13
By Ben Henshaw. From http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/, the original post, where comments can be made. “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Romans 9:16 (ESV) “But to all…
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.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Jargon
Or “The Obscenity of Obdurate Obnubilating Obfuscation” What I mean by Jargon If we equate any philosophical debate to battle I would argue that our basic weapons are our ideas and arguments, and our rhetoric…
Adam Clarke on Romans 7:14
Adam Clarke on Romans 7:14 provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle Romans 7 is a debated passage. It was here, in his teaching through the book of Romans, that Arminius differed with the Calvinists of…
Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation
Jesus’ Foreknowledge and Causation
written by SEA member Roy Ingle
There are certain events in the ministry of the Lord Jesus that demonstrated that He foreknew them and this shows He was God. For instance, we read that Jesus knew that He would die on the cross (John 12:32) and details about His crucifixion (Mark 10:33-34). Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:18-27) and that Peter would deny Him (Mark 14:29-31). He was able to read the thoughts of the Jews in Mark 2:8. Clearly, Jesus was God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6).
Arminius On the Predestination of Believers
Arminius On the Predestination of Believers
provided by SEA member Roy Ingle
I. As we have hitherto treated on the object of the Christian religion, that is, on Christ and God, and on the formal reasons why religion may be usefully performed to them, and ought to be, among which reasons, the last is the will of God and his command that prescribes religion by the conditions of a covenant; and as it will be necessary now to subjoin to this a discourse on the vocation of men to a participation in that covenant, it will not be improper for us, in this place, to insert one on the Predestination, by which God determined to treat with men according to that prescript, and by which he decreed to administer that vocation, and the means to it. First, concerning the former of these.
Advice from C.S. Lewis that Can Be Applied to the Upcoming Election
[Taken from http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/political-advice-from-c-s-lewis/, where comments may be made.]
From the Screwtape Letters (where the demon Screwtape explains how to misdirect a Christian with a “cause”).
Election Advice from John Wesley
Election Advice from John Wesley I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them: 1) To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy.…
Should A Pastor Be Fired For Teaching Calvinism?
written by SEA member Roy Ingle I saw a brief post the other day where a Calvinist brother was complaining about a pastor who was fired for teaching, in his words, “the doctrines of grace”…
Adam Clarke on Regeneration
This post is provided by SEA member Roy Ingle
Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians
I just finished Dr. Olson’s book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God’s character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:
Molinism… is the belief that God possesses “middle knowledge” — knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom — freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does — but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]
Recent Posts
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 3: Free Grace
Roy Ingle, “Hermeneutical Factors Involving Theological Positions”
How Can It Be Said That God’s Desires Cannot Be Bought and That He Does Not Compel Us to Join Him When Scripture Says He Bought Us and Draws Us?
Richard Coords, “Prophecy”
