Concurrence is the cooperation of agents or causes ~ a combined action or effort. When we speak of the doctrine of concurrence, we mean the cooperation of God and a person in a combined effort…
Recent Posts
The Arminian’s Doctrine of Divine Concurrence
Guard Your Thoughts Against Calvinism with CALVINIX!
For some good theological humor: http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/02/guard-your-thoughts-against-calvinism.html.
John Shaw Banks, *A Manual of Christian Doctrine*
Please click on the link to view: John Shaw Banks, A Manual of Christian Doctrine (1902).
John Goodwin Responds to John Owen and Other Calvinist Critics
This 1658 work is a lengthy rejoinder to multiple Calvinist rebuttals written against Goodwin’s Arminian magnum opus, Redemption Redeemed (1651). It includes response to John Owen’s critique. The book runs 515 pages. It has a…
Marc Monte on Limited Atonement
From a sermon delivered at his Church (Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Indiana) from 2004, Pastor Monte points out what he feels are inconsistencies in the Calvinist teaching of Limited Atonement: Update (5/9/18): Please note:…
Did You Catch the Calvinist Contradiction Alert?
Recently, we posted an analysis by one of our members (Robert) of a portion of Justin Taylor’s interview of Calvinist scholar, John Feinberg, about his book Ethics for a Brave New World. In that analysis,…
Roger Olson, Review of Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Strawman
Begging the Question
“While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional….” (Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will, John Hendryx)
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #5: Choices Apart From Intent?
Related Fallacies: Strawman Begging the Question “While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is…
Killing Ants
[A bit of satire to make a point about the Calvinistic view of election] When I was a kid I used to get a lot of enjoyment from killing ants. I loved to stir up…
Brian Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election”
This article defends the concept of corporate election against the criticisms that have been leveled against it, showing that they arise mostly from misunderstanding of the concept. It argues that corporate election is the biblical…
Orthodox Christian Matthew Gallatin on Eastern vs. Western Thinking
In the following YouTube video Matthew Gallatin, of Ancient Faith Radio, highlights the differences between Eastern and Western perceptions about God.
Jack Cottrell: Election, Calvinism, and the Bible
This was a two part essay posted on facebook by theologian Jack Cottrell. The original posts can be found here: part1,part2. Dr. Cottrell has graciously permitted us to post it here at SEA for our…
Foreword to *Arminius Speaks*
Robert E. Picirilli, Professor Emeritus of Greek and New Testament at Free Will Baptist Bible College, provides the foreword in Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, edited by…
Eight [Silly] Reasons Why Calvinists Believe in Evangelism
Please click the attachment to view “Eight [Silly] Reasons Why Calvinists Believe in Evangelism”. Eight Silly Reasons
“When in Rome” and Irresistible Grace
I recently saw the movie When In Rome. What’s fascinating about the movie is that the plot bears a lot of similarity to the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. [Warning, spoilers ahead] In the movie,…
Questions for Calvinists
by Kevin Jackson Here are some questions for Calvinists. Most of these have to do with God’s character. These are genuine questions that I as an Arminian haven’t heard good answers for, and help explain…
The Meaning of “World” in First John
The letter of First John makes several direct references to the universality of Jesus’ atonement.
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 NIV – bold mine)
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. -1 John 4:14
In these passages John states that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, and came to be Savior of the the world. The Greek word for world is kosmos. The English word “cosmos” is derived from this word.
Calvinists sometimes assert that kosmos in the context of John’s letter is limited to “to elect individuals from all nations”. The problem is that this interpretation is not applied consistently. And it does not make sense in context of how John uses the word elsewhere in the letter.
Inclusivism, Arminianism and Liberalism
by Roger Olson When someone drags out the tired, old canard that Arminianism leads to liberalism in theology I know he (or she) knows little about theology. The same is true when someone classifies inclusivism…
New Book Announcement: Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God
We are happy to announce the publication of Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, edited by SEA member John D. Wagner and dedicated to SEA.
Here is a book description and some endorsements (for an attractive flier with a picture of the book on it and information on the publisher, see the attachment to this post; the book can be purchased at a discount through the publisher’s website [less expensive than listed on the flier]):
James Arminius is one of the most maligned and misunderstood theologians in
church history. In an era of major debate over predestination, free will, and
related concepts, Arminius was accused of being Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or a
heretic of all sorts. This is a trend that started in his time and has continued
to this day.
The truth is that he was a brilliant theologian who shook the foundations of
Calvinism to the core. Yet he was quite orthodox in his thinking, as he had