Calvinist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), no doubt taking his cue from Arminius’s fierce supralapsarian opponent, Franciscus Gomarus1, writes: “The view of Socinus, and of Arminius who followed him closely, is totally different. It is a well-known fact that the Socinians denied the Godhead of Christ, who, as they taught, was born a mere man. But . . . they acknowledged that He had become God. Hence after His Resurrection He could be worshiped as God.”2
With regard to the broad discussion of God, and time, and the theological issues the subject broaches upon, such as how is it that God foreknows, a common Calvinist objection claims that stating God foreknows…
Why do disasters happen? What should Christians do when disasters happen? The recent earthquake in Haiti was catastrophic. Perhaps it has caused you to wonder if it was caused by God. I don’t think that…
Very often Calvinists will cite Proverbs 21:1 as a proof text for God’s exhaustive control over the will and decisions of men. Their use of the passage is not intended to demonstrate that God may…
Calvinist C. Michael Patton recently did a post entitled Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. In the post Patton argues for the Infralapsarian view of Calvinism. The infralapsarian view is a less…
SEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election which argues forcefully and compellingly for the corporate view of election. The…
We are excited to have added two articles by Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which critique John Piper’s theology of God’s sovereignty.
Ah John Piper: Wonderful pastor; fairly ignorant on historical expressions of Christianity. We’ve posted often on his misconceptions of what Arminianism is, but here is a wonderful post directly going over some things that he…
Here is an exchange that took place in our private discussion group (edited a bit): One SEA member said: I read the following during my daily reading time today. FIRST: David was being pursued by…
We have recently added a few book length resources that advance the Arminian view of free will and take on Calvinist arguments against genuine free will, especially the view that has become the dominant view…
We have added several new scholarly resources on the topics of faith and perseverance. These have been written and / or compiled by Arminian Steve Witzki. Be sure to check them out! Arminianism–The Conditional Preservation…
Open Theists deny God’s foreknowledge because they believe that if the future is known it is determined. Calvinists and Open Theists agree on a principle of foreknowledge. If the future is certain, it is necessary.…
Proof-texting Presuppositions with John 6:44, 65 John 6:44 and 6:65 are commonly used as proof-texts that more often than not reveal the exegete’s presuppositions that are imposed upon the Gospel According to John than I…
What happens when a dogmatic Calvinist attempts “Reformation” within an on-campus, Christian organization of college students, who are relatively inexperienced in the Free Will vs. Predestination controversy? What happens when the dogmatic Calvinist becomes even more vigilant, when pressured by his aggressive Calvinist Pastor, using the threat of withholding his recommendation for admission to the Calvinistic, Westminster Theological Seminary? What happens when the inexperienced, non-Calvinist students take up the noble challenge of believing in God for an answer to the age old mystery on Predestination? What happens when the pressures of college life gets in the way of their research? What if that college is the University of California at Berkeley, or more affectionately known as “Beserkeley”? Find out, in the new book, “John Calvin Goes To Berkeley”?
Please click on the link to view David P. Hunt, “Contra Hasker: Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useful”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sept 2009) 545-550. This article responds to William Hasker’s critique (“Why Simple…
Arminian Responses to Key Scriptures Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints – click on PDF: Arminian Responses to Passages for Perseverance of the Saints (compiled by Steve Witzki)
The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618) – Click on PDF
[The following post was authored by Ben Henshaw, and has undergone some revision with the author’s permission for inclusion here.]
Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all are saved. I find it strange that Calvinists, who are so quick to criticize Arminians for holding to a man centered religion, argue that unless man responds to God’s love in saving faith, then His love for them has somehow failed. How is it that they feel comfortable equating the success or failure of God’s love with man’s response to that love? Is the nature or validity of God’s love dependant on man’s response? Doesn’t that seem a little man centered?
Saving Faith (Act of a Moment or Attitude of a Life) – click on PDF
Fundamentally, salvation is very simple. In 1 John 4:14-15 we read:
14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.[NIV]
This central claim of Christianity is the most controversial: that a man who looked like everyone else and had a body just like everyone else’s that died like everyone else’s, was God. To deny that claim it is to depart from Orthodoxy Christianity as seen by both Calvinists and Arminians. However, its implications call into question some of the core assumptions of Calvinism, for what definition of God permits Jesus to be God?
