Recent Posts

Sovereignty, not Determinism

, , No Comment

Arminians have a high view of God’s sovereignty, contrary to the caricatures and lies spread of us to the contrary. As a matter of fact, we think Arminians hold to a higher view of God’s sovereignty than do Calvinists, as I was reminded recently from my Arminian brother Johnathan Pritchett. The reason our view is considered “higher” is due to the following. For an omnipotent God, strictly controlling all people is easy and effortless. Like moving chess pieces on a chessboard, the movements are swift and carefree. The pieces move wherever the overseer places them without the slightest challenge whatsoever.

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic Abstractions

, , No Comment

Or “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*

What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions

To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our five senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc. As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life, since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.

Read Post →

My Cat Illustrates the Difference Between Arminianism and Calvinism

, , No Comment

[Humor]

A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. Instead of writing a 2,000 word post on the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, I have posted two pictures of my cat.

The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is this: Arminians believe that grace is resistible. Calvinists believe that grace is irresistible.

First, let’s look at the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. Those to whom God gives grace will certainly receive it. God’s grace is provided in a way that it is not coercive, because God works in the hearts and minds of the elect in such a way that they freely want to receive what He provides. Below my cat illustrates what this looks like:


Read Post →

Imago Dei

, , No Comment

The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it. But, ironically, when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in one passage of all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 (though referenced elsewhere). However, this is a rather important verse. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.

Read Post →

J.I. Packer and Arminianism

, , Comment Closed

by Roger Olson

Today I received an e-mail from a reader who asked why I didn’t mention J. I. Packer in either Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities or Against Calvinism. That’s a good question. I didn’t, so now I will.

To the best of my knowledge, the only lengthy, detailed treatment of Arminianism in print by Packer was his Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ in A Quest for Godliness. It may be found at this web address. There Packer, a Calvinist, completely misrepresents Arminianism. It’s truly shocking how distorted his understanding of Arminianism was then. I don’t know if it’s improved since then or not.

For example, there he wrote that:

Read Post →

SEA Member Nelson Banuchi Responds To Michael C. Patton On Dr. Olson

, , Comment Closed

Calvinist Michael Patton recently wrote an article in reaction to some of Roger Olson’s rhetoric against Calvinism. Olson has stated: “The God of Calvinism scares me; I’m not sure how to distinguish him from the devil.” Despite the fact the Olson specifically states else where that he believes that Calvinism is Christian, and despite the subjective caveats that Olson places even within that sentence, Patton and others have reacted very strongly what they believe is an Arminian claiming that Calvinists worship another god. Instead of submitting to my impulse to say, “welcome to our world”, I instead wish to highlight a comment that one of our members, Nelson Banuchi, posted on Patton’s blog:

“I can understand Patton’s concern, however, I think he is blowing it up a bit.

Read Post →

The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

The Synod of Dort vs. Arminius and the Remonstrants

, , 1 Comment

Nearly a decade after the death of Arminius, the States General hold a synod (council or assembly), wherein religious and state officials from various regions accuse the Arminians of heresy and expel them from both pulpit ministry and teaching theology in Holland (read “Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom: Synod of Dort“). The result of the Synod of Dort comes to us in the Canons of Dort. (“Canons” refer to a Rule of Decrees or Judgments.) Therein are statements of affirmation and denial of various subjects, both theological and soteriological (i.e., doctrine of salvation).

Read Post →

A. W. Tozer, “The Sovereignty of God”

, , Comment Closed

Chapter 22 of A. W. Tozer, Knowledge Of The Holy (taken from http://www.heavendwellers.com/hdt_chapter_22_koh.htm).

The Sovereignty of God

Who wouldst not fear Thee, O Lord God of Hosts, most high and most terrible? For Thou art Lord alone. Thou has made heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth and all things that are therein, and in Thy hand is the soul of every living thing, Thou sittest king upon the flood; yea, Thou sittest king forever. Thou art a great king over all the earth. Thou art clothed with strength; honor and majesty are before Thee. Amen.

God’s sovereignty is the attribute by which He rules His entire creation, and to be sovereign God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free. The reasons are these:

Read Post →

SEA Vice President James Leonard Gets his Ph.D.!

, , Comment Closed

A brief press release from the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog about one of SEA’s vice presidents, James Leonard, and his recent successful defense of his doctoral dissertation. Congratulations, Jim!

Bonus: We’ve pulled a comment from Jim on the announcement/blog post, which is humorously related to the Arminian/Calvinist debate, and included it after the announcement.

Here is the announcement, originally posted on 10/13/11 by Jim’s doctoral supervisor, Peter. J. Williams, who is the warden of Tyndale House in Cambridge, England, one of the foremost libraries of biblical studies in the world:

Read Post →

Do Calvinists Seek the Specific Will of God?

, , Comment Closed

This was a comment made by Rebekah Reinagel in regards to the nature of prayer within the Calvinist system. She gave us permission to publish it here.

Calvinists pray, even though they “know” that God has everything decreed in advance. But here’s what I was wondering about: Do Calvinists seek the specific will of God?

And what I mean by that is that Arminians, in addition to following God’s moral law (i.e. Do not murder), also seek God’s will in specific situations in which it isn’t clear which way to go. For example, praying about whether to take a job or not. This presumes that God knows which is the better option, and it is an attempt to seek His will in the matter.

Read Post →

No Interpretation Needed: Deliverance from a Naive Approach to Biblical Interpretation

, , No Comment

We have all, most likely, encountered believers who insist that they neither adhere to this or that theological position: they are, simply, “biblicists” (i.e., what opponents of this theory call naïve realism1). Such believers “don’t follow a man’s teaching,” they “just read their Bible.” On one level, there is an admirable simplicity in such a confession. On another level, however, such an approach to biblical interpretation is not only naïve but is fallacious and self-deceptive because it neglects the fact that we all read Scripture from cultural and personal presuppositions already in place.

Read Post →