By Daniel Whitby – part of Discourses on the 5 Points Editor Note: Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences and links to scripture references inserted. – Godismyjudge SUFFICIENT…
Recent Posts
Daniel Whitby, “Refuting Arguments for Irresistible Grace (Part 1): Grace
Daniel Whitby, “Arguments against Irresistible Grace (Part 2)”
By Daniel Whitby – part of Discourses on the 5 Points
Editor Note: Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences, and links to Scripture references inserted. – Godismyjudge
To proceed now to the arguments which evidently seem to confute this doctrine:
II. ARGUMENT ONE – Sufficient Grace
And (1.) this is evident from those expressions of the holy scripture, which intimate that God had done what was sufficient, and all that reasonably could be expected from Him in order to the reformation of those persons who were not reformed; ‘for what could have been done more, (HEBREW, what was there more to do?) for my vineyard, which I have not done in it? Wherefore then when I looked (or, expected,) that it should have brought forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:4)
Daniel Whitby, “Refuting Arguments for Irresistible Grace (Part 3)”
By Daniel Whitby – part of Discourses on the 5 Points
Editor Note: Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences and links to scripture references inserted. – Godismyjudge
Answering the arguments produced to prove, First, that man is purely passive in the work of conversion, and that it is done by an irresistible or unfrustrable act of God.
Preliminary Remarks
These arguments, for method-sake, may be reduced to four heads,
First. Arguments taken from the nature of the work itself; as v. g. it being represented by such acts:
Calvinism and Consistency
Admittedly, no systematic theology is perfect. That takes a load of pressure off of every sincere Bible student. Not one of us will ever have all of his or her doctrines correct. C. I. Scofield wrote that there will always exist a measure of false teaching in true, orthodox Christianity, due to our fallen nature and our design as finite creatures.
I was once convinced that Calvinism was right because people showed me a lot of proof texts to propagate this theology. I had read Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul and concluded that he, too, was correct. How could I have missed out on this teaching for so long? I will never forget what affect Sproul’s book had on my heart. How could God have chosen me and not others? Moreover, why would God have chosen me and not others?
The God Who Blinds?
The Bible Tools, “Sabbath-keeping, non-Trinitarian” post I was viewing read, “God Himself has kept Israel from seeing and hearing (understanding and applying) His truth, giving Israel a spirit of slumber to make possible the salvation…
Ephesians 1:1-2; A Devotional
Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ through God’s will. To the saints: the residents in Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul uses three terms to denote the recipants of his letter: saints, residents, and faithful. I found it very difficult to determine the exact relationship between these three denotations, and I found that most translations simply skipped the second (residents). But I feel that this misses the relationship between being ‘in Ephesus’ and ‘in Christ Jesus’ which is a bit more obvious in the Greek, and I wanted to tease this out.
Friday Files: Beet’s Commentary on Romans 9
In Joseph Agar Beet’s commentary on Romans 9 (pages 255 -288 in his A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans) he explains that Paul is teaching that God’s plan was to save through the Gospel not the Law. Beet is a good author – he asks good questions and gets right to the point. I love the way he explains why the word ‘faith’ doesn’t appear in the first part of the text. “Paul puts, not faith, but Him that calls, in contrast to works. For God’s purpose is no more a result of faith than of works.” The objection in verse 14 is that “we are working so hard and God is letting in believers who hadn’t been previously working”. Paul responds by explaining God is being merciful, so merit doesn’t come into play. Beet sees hardening as a punishment for prior sins that makes obedience more difficult, but not impossible.
Arminian Perspectives on the Providence of God
Arminius wrote, “Not only does the very nature of God and of things themselves, but likewise the Scriptures and experience do evidently show that Providence belongs to God. But Providence denotes some property of God, not a quality, or . . . a capability, or a habit; but it is an act which is not ad intra nor internal, but which is ad extra and external; and which is about an object . . . different from God, and that is not united to Him from all eternity in His understanding, but as separate and really existing.”1
The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis: A Brief Comparative Study
The ordo salutis is the “order of salvation.” It focuses on the process of salvation and the logical order of that process. The main difference between the Arminian and Calvinist ordo concerns faith and regeneration. Strictly speaking, faith is not part of salvation in the Arminian ordo since it is the condition that is met prior to God’s act of saving. All that follows faith is salvation in the Arminian ordo while in the Calvinist ordo faith is the result of salvation in some sense. What follows is how I see the Arminian ordo compared to the Calvinist ordo along with why I find the Calvinist ordo theologically problematic.
Arminian ordo salutis:
Prevenient grace
Faith
[Union with Christ]
Justification
Regeneration
Sanctification
Glorification
Notes on Arminian ordo:
Calvin and Hobbes on Fatalism
The ever insightful Calvin: :
Ephesians: Devotional Overview and Introduction
Since we are now finished with I John, it is time to start a new book for this devotional series. I gave the matter some thought. Eventually I settled on the book of Ephesians, not…
Friday Files: Godet on Romans 9
In Frederic Louis Godet takes a “National Election” approach in his commentary on Romans 9. He summarizes the flow of Romans 9-11 as follows: “1. That of God’s absolute liberty in regard to every alleged…
Free Will and the Why of Creation
Free Will and the Why of Creation
I am not a big fan of arguing for free will. In general, I think it is a given for the moral character of humanity. Even Calvinists postulate some degree of freedom through the concept of secondary agency to present some kind of intelligible concept of morality. So generally, we are debating what everyone seems to really accept when we look at it rationally. But a conversation prompted me to post the following.
An acquaintance was listening to a Youtube presentation by a popular Calvinist concerning God’s knowledge of the future and its relationship to sin and free will. The Calvinist posed the common question posed by many Calvinists, which I have paraphrased below.
- If, as Arminians believe, God infallibly knew exactly what was going to happen when he created, and knew that sin would occur as a result of his creation, then why did he create in the first place?
Stuff Young Calvinists Like (Satire)
The following is an attempt at satire about stuff young Calvinists like. The idea came from this blog (which is funny but crass). Hopefully you will find this in good taste. 🙂
In most cases there is an obvious Arminian corollary. These are listed in italics.
The House Fire
The House Fire (Arminian version): Once upon a time there was a house on fire. Inside were three children. The dad was outside, and went in to rescue his children. He helped one child get…
Mystery
The biblical concept of mystery is simple. Mystery is an aspect of God’s plan which has not been revealed to humanity. Indeed, the biblical usage of mystery is always in anticipation of the mystery’s revelation.…
God
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
Many Calvinists argue that if God wanted to save people through Christ’s death and they don’t end up saved, God failed. But God can’t fail. So Christ’s death was never intended to save all people.
It’s important to distinguish the objects of God’s will. If He wants Himself to do something, His will is always done, for who can stop Him?
Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
But if He wants us to do something, His will may not be done.
I John 5:21; A Devotional
Little children, guard yourselves from idols. -NAS
I have always thought that this sentence felt out of place in the letter. I mean, Jonah ends on a more satisfying note. It’s seems like the last thing John does is introduce a new topic, and then stop before he develops it at all. It most certainly doesn’t seem like an ending to a letter.
But it is not nearly as out of place as it may seem. I John overall is about Christian living, especially on what marks one as Christian as opposed to one of the world. This final instruction can be seen in that light: obstain from the gods of the world.
It is also important to follow the thoughts starting in verse 18. As a quick review, here again is the flow of John’s final argument:
- We know we are protected
- We know that the world is dominated by evil
- But we also know that Jesus is here now
“Reformed”
Recently, a very close friend of mine became a Calvinist. It was to be expected though, since he immersed himself with MacArthur and Piper and did absolutely no comparative research…none, nada, zilch. I challenged him…
The Unevangelized
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen’s Argument 2: P1: If Christ death is for everyone, and saves those that believe, all should…
