Recent Posts

Arminius On the Predestination of Believers

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians

, , No Comment

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]

Read Post →

Arminius on Repentance

, , Comment Closed

This was published by SEA member Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XLIII

ON THE REPENTANCE BY WHICH MEN ANSWER TO THE DIVINE VOCATION

I. As, in the matter of salvation, it has pleased God to treat with man by the method of a covenant, that is, by a stipulation, or a demand and a promise, and as even vocation has regard to a participation in the covenant; it is instituted on both sides and separately, that man may perform the requisition or command of God, by which he may obtain [the fulfillment of] his promise. But this is the mutual relation between these two — the promise is tantamount to an argument, which God employs, that he may obtain from man that which he demands; and the compliance with the demand, on the other hand, is the condition, without which man cannot obtain what has been promised by God, and through [the performance of] which he most assuredly obtains the promise.

Read Post →

John Wesley’s Approach to Spiritual Formation

, , Comment Closed

This post was written by Ben Espinoza on the Seedbed.com website Perhaps my greatest research interest as of late is studying how various theologians and church leaders throughout history sought to form and educate believers…

Read Post →

Wesley as a Happy Puritan

, , Comment Closed

Wesley as a Happy Puritan written by Dr. Fred Sanders Although not a member of SEA, Dr. Fred Sanders draws some interesting parallels between Wesley and Jonathan Edwards and John Owen as well as J.I.…

Read Post →

The Toymaker

, , Comment Closed

Though not a member of SEA, Rev DeCrastos gives an interesting illustration regarding God’s desire to have a relationship with His creation. THE TOYMAKER by Rev. DeCrastos It had been a long day, and the…

Read Post →

Theological Spectrum Chart

, , No Comment

Here’s a chart that shows some of the differences and commonalities of various theological viewpoints as they relate to Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s not perfect, and is only intended to give a general idea of what the theologies emphasize as important. If the image is difficult to read, you can click on it to enlarge. Original post can be found HERE.

Theological Spectrum Chart

Read Post →

Arminius on the Nature of God

, , No Comment

Arminius on the Nature of God

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

I. The very nature of things and the Scriptures of God, as well as the general consent of all wise men and nations, testify that a nature is correctly ascribed to God. (Gal. iv, 8; 2 Pet. i, 4; Aristot. De Repub. 1. 7, c. 1; Cicero De Nat. Deor.)

II. This nature cannot be known a priori: for it is the first of all things, and was alone, for infinite ages, before all things. It is adequately known only by God, and God by it; because God is the same as it is. It is in some slight measure known by us, but in a degree infinitely below what it is [in] itself; because we are from it by an external emanation. (Isa. xliv, 6; Rev. i, 8; 1 Cor. ii, 11; 1 Tim. vi, 16; 1 Cor. xiii, 9.)

Read Post →

Trevin Wax, “A Word to My Calvinist Friends”

, , Comment Closed

Click on the link to view Trevin Wax, “A Word to My Calvinist Friends,” which expresses his frustration with the type of condescension that he perceives often accompanies Calvinist passion for their position: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/08/28/a-word-to-my-calvinist-friends/.

Read Post →

John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin

, , Comment Closed

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.”

Read Post →