Recent Posts

Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism?

, , No Comment

The following is from Dr. Jack Cottrell. While he is neither a member of SEA or a self-declared Arminian, his thoughts on Ephesians 1 are very insightful.

QUESTION: Calvinists say that Ephesians 1:1-11 clearly establishes the absolute and all-inclusive sovereignty of God, including the unconditional predestination of the elect to salvation. How do you interpret this text?

ANSWER: A right understanding of Ephesians 1:1-11 begins with the recognition that God’s purpose for Israel was from the beginning limited to preparing for the coming of the Messiah, namely, for the incarnation of God the Logos as the human person Jesus of Nazareth. Once the Messiah came, it was God’s eternal purpose to merge all believing Israelites and all believing Gentiles into one new body called the church. This is the main point of the book of Ephesians, and it is the key to understanding the often misused passage in Ephesians 1:1-11.

Read Post →

A primer on prevenient grace

, , No Comment

One of John Wesley’s finest contributions to theology was his understanding of prevenient grace. Broadly speaking, this is the grace that “goes before”—that grace which precedes human action and reflects God’s heart to pursue his…

Read Post →

Can We Morally Judge God?

, , No Comment

I have noticed a new tactic from Calvinists—accusing Arminians of “judging God” (cf. Roger Olson’s post about this from January of 2012). But is that a fair accusation? Can we judge God?

First of all, we have to ask what in the world it means to judge God. Let’s first take it in the broadest sense: Do we have the right to make a judgment about whether God is good or bad? Well, clearly we do, since the Bible declares God to be good, and calls us to recognize His goodness. Declaring God to be good is judging Him; judging Him to be good that is. So clearly we are allowed to do this.

Alright, well perhaps our Calvinist friends mean something different when they say judge. So let us consider the most restrictive/literal sense: a judge presiding over a court of law. However, this doesn’t really make sense either since we can’t really pass a verdict on God. At least we can’t enforce one.

Read Post →

An Explanation of Simple Foreknowledge

, , No Comment

In the book Against Calvinism, Roger Olson asserts that Calvinism damages God’s reputation, and that it (unintentionally) turns God into a moral monster who is hardly distinguishable from the devil. Olson doesn’t argue that Calvinists affirm that God is like the devil. Rather, in his view it is the logical implication of Calvinism. It’s a strong assertion, but I agree. John Wesley did also.

Read Post →

Bruce A. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement”

, , Comment Closed

Ware is a 4 point Calvinist who affirms unlimited atonement. This overview of the issue of the extent of the atonement is useful for its arguments against limited atonement (see the attachment). But beware of…

Read Post →

Bavinck on the Unknowability of God’s Decrees

, , No Comment

In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination (link), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined.

Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions – although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided):

Read Post →

Arminius on Regeneration

, , No Comment

The purpose of this paper is to delineate Arminius’ view on regeneration. The Arminian view on regeneration has frequently been mischaracterized, both by Calvinistic opponents, as well as adherents to his views. His view is…

Read Post →