In combating charges of Pelagianism and heresy, Lutherans and Arminians have both expressed clear sentiments defining the orthodoxy of man’s limited freedom of the will. Philip Melancthon, Martin Luther’s contemporary friend and colleague, systematized Lutheran…
Search Result
David L. Allen, “Recovering the Gospel”
Taken from SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/08/recovering-the-gospel-why-belief-in-an-unlimited-atonement-matters/
Article 3 addresses the Atonement of Christ. It consists of one proposition in affirmation and three in denial.
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life”
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…
Ronnie Rogers Responds to Selected Comments from His Recent Posts
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!
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life” Part III
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.
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life” Part IV
Taken from SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/21/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-3-of-4/
[For part 1, 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; for part 3, see http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/?q=sea.Ronnie-Rogers.The-Lambs-Book-of-Life-Whos-In-and-Whos-Out.Part-3 .]
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life” Part I
From SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/18/8942/
The Lamb’s Book of Life:
Who’s In and Who’s Out?
By Ronnie Rogers – Part 1 of 4
Posted on July 18, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today
**The title below dons chapter 16 in Pastor Ronnie Rogers’ book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.” Obviously, the subject matter is election. The author has permitted SBCToday to post the entirety of the chapter. At apx. 4,000 words, the chapter will appear in four installments. Here is the first.**
The Lamb’s Book of Life: Who’s In and Who’s Out?
I affirm that the “Lamb’s book of life” contains all the names of those who have or ever will be saved. I also affirm that the names have been written in the book since eternity past (Revelation 13:8). I further affirm those in the book are there because of exercising grace-enabled faith unto salvation and could have done otherwise, and those not in the book could have been there by exercising grace-enabled faith.
John Wesley on Assurance: Can You Know You’re Saved
This post is written by Andrew Dragos of Seedbed. Although not a member of SEA, he expresses well Arminian-Wesleyan thought on assurance of one’s faith.
A New Book on Justification and Some Questions about Calvinism and Heavenly Rewards
A New Calvinist Book on Justification Perplexes by Roger E. Olson, Ph.D. I have been asked to review Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed by Reformed theologian Alan J. Spence (T&TClark, 2012). Spence is a…
A Response to an A/C “Primer” from A&O ministries
I was going to write a second post on corporate election, but I am postponing it to look at something which Alan Kurschner has recently put out on Dr. James White’s blog. He calls it…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Consistency
Or “Van Til It Hurts”
What I Mean By Consistency
In the 1920s a Dutch Theologian by the name of Cornelius Van Til (hence the joke in the subtitle) revitalized an apologetic approach known as presuppositional apologetics. In essence, presuppositional apologetics assesses the validity of a philosophical view by its presuppositions (the underlying assumptions upon which the view is based) and whether these presuppositions contradict each other or are consistent with each other.* It is sort of like a monological Socratic argument.
Oh, and Van Til was a Calvinist.
On the Ordo Salutis and Colossians 2:13, As Presented by Brian N. Daniels
The following is taken from a larger essay, exegeting Colossians 2:13, by Brian N. Daniels1, a Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a four-point Calvinist.
“Of the many issues that divide Arminians and Calvinists, one of the more interesting has to be the relationship between regeneration and faith. The question may be put like this: which comes first and grounds the other, new life given by the Spirit or belief in Christ? This question is important because of its connection to many other points of soteriology. One’s answer generally reveals much about what he believes regarding the nature of grace and depravity, as well as the more difficult issue of election and predestination.
Why I Rejected and Continue to Reject Calvinism
Lately, I have been asked why I rejected Calvinism after accepting it in 1998. I realized that I don’t have a single post which addresses the issue, which is odd, given that I post so much and so often on the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I’ll give you a brief history of my accepting Calvinism, state what caused me to question and then abandon the system, and then why I continue to reject some of Calvinism’s core doctrines. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive, historically-contextual, biblical and exegetical critique of Calvinism (I don’t really intend to quote Scripture, though I may). This is simply one person’s brief, historical experience with Calvinism. (I encourage you to read other accounts of former Calvinists who rejected Calvinism at Arminian Perspectives.)
The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity
The acronym TULIP1, in my opinion, works well as a system and should be taken as a whole and not in parts. If one accepts the doctrine of Unconditional Election — which is a product of the Calvinist’s view of Total Depravity and Total Inability — then I see no reason for rejecting either the doctrines Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, or of course Perseverance of the Saints. I think the only consistent form of Calvinism is Supralapsarian TULIP Calvinism, and any deviation from such is inconsistent. For the sake of space, I do not care to explain my reasons why; I just want to make those statements and carry on to the main point of the post.
Calvinists Still Honing Their Skill in Misrepresenting Arminianism
In their book The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn utterly misrepresent Arminianism on the subject of Total Depravity, stating that Arminianism teaches: “Although human…
God’s Proactive, Enabling, Sufficient, Prevenient Grace
Since the Arminian believes, like the Calvinist, in Total Depravity and Total Inability, but disagrees with the Calvinistic implication that this fact necessitates a doctrine of Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace, what, then, in Arminian…
No One Can “See” the Kingdom of God
Jesus met a man named Nicodemus one evening and a dialogue about spiritual issues ensued. Jesus got right to the heart of the matter by stating, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV). Nicodemus had just informed Jesus that he and some others knew with certainty that He was “a teacher who has come from God” (John 3:2 NRSV). They knew such because “no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3:2 NRSV). Instead of taking the opportunity to claim Himself as the LORD’s Christ, Jesus cut to the heart of the issue. He realized that mere acknowledgement of Himself as the Christ (mere mental assent) does not save a sinner. The truth is that sinners must be born again.
Faith Is Not a Work
“Now to the one who works,” writes the apostle Paul, “wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the…
A Brief Overview of Arminian Theology (A Presentation to the SharperIron Community)
The SharperIron website (SI) recently contacted SEA regarding presenting Arminianism to the SI community. The motivation for this request is quite valid and a point not often made – many people oppose Calvinism without providing…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #10: Wait, Now Faith is a “Work?”
Related Fallacies: Equivocation Category Mistake “[Arminianism] denies sola fide (faith alone) by changing the character of faith so that it is basically a work.” (Rev. Richard Phillips [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], Is Arminianism a Biblical…
