Recent Posts

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 →

Seek Me and Live!

, , Comment Closed

This is what the LORD says to the house of Israel: “Seek Me and live” Amos 5:4 This passage comes at the end of an indignant tirade on behalf of God. Amos, up to this…

Read Post →

Arminius on the Understanding of God

, , Comment Closed

written by SEA member Roy Ingle Arminius has often been used by open theists to try to teach that he held to a form of open theism. When we read his Works we realize that…

Read Post →

Evangelical Calvinism?

, , Comment Closed

This post is written by Roger E. Olson, PhD I have been reading a new book about Calvinism entitled Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church edited by Myk Habets and Bobby…

Read Post →

Sermons of Arminian Doug Newton Online

, , Comment Closed

The sermons of Arminian Doug Newton, pastor of a Free Methodist church in Greenville, IL, and recommended highly by one of our members, may be found online here: http://greenvillefmc.org/#/home

Read Post →

Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life”

, , Comment Closed

THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE: WHO’S IN AND WHO’S OUT? BY RONNIE ROGERS Part 1 Posted on July 18, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/18/8942/   **The title below dons chapter 16 in…

Read Post →

Refutation of Jonathan Edwards

, , Comment Closed

Following up on Roger Olson’s post about Jonathan Edwards, I would like to draw attention to some resources we have that refute Edwards’ influential Calvinistic views on free will. First, we have a list of…

Read Post →

Gregory Koukl, “A Good Reason for Evil”

, , Comment Closed

Taken from: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5093

A Good Reason for Evil

What is evil? Could it have a purpose? Here is a view of evil from an adult rather than a childish perspective.

By: Gregory Koukl

The first step in answering the problem of evil is this: We’ve got to get clear on what this thing “evil” actually is. It does seem to follow that if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil. This is a valid syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion would be true as well.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the second premise is not true. Evil is not a thing. The person who probably explained it best was St. Augustine, and then Thomas Aquinas picked up on his solution. Others since them have argued that evil has no ontological status in itself.

Read Post →

Ronnie Rogers Responds to Selected Comments from His Recent Posts

, , Comment Closed

Taken from SBC Today, where it was posted on July 28, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today:
http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/28/ronnie-rogers-responds-to-selected-comments-from-his-recent-posts/

As I have read the comments regarding my interview and a portion of my book, a few things deserve a response from me. First, I am greatly heartened by those comments, agreeing or not, that sought to interact with my actual words in a gracious manner. Being human, I know how hard that is, and hence my magnified gratitude and admiration for your valiant reliance on the Holy Spirit. Thank you!

Read Post →

Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian

, , No Comment

Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”

Read Post →

Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life” Part III

, , Comment Closed

Taken from: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/20/the-lamb%E2%80%99s-book-of-life-who%E2%80%99s-in-and-who%E2%80%99s-out-by-ronnie-rogers-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4-2/

[For part 1, see http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/?q=sea.Ronnie-Rogers.The-Lambs-Book-of-Life-Whos-In-and-Whos-Out.Part-1; for part 2, see http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/?q=sea.Ronnie-Rogers.The-Lambs-Book-of-Life-Whos-In-and-Whos-Out.Part-2 ]

Why the double-talk? As mentioned on several occasions throughout the book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call double-talk. By the use of this term, I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time of being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do so out of ill motive, intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the Scripture—nor do I so impugn my Calvinist brothers and sisters.

Read Post →