In spite of J. I. Packer’s allegation that John Wesley was a Calvinist,1 albeit an inconsistent one, Packer himself dodges inconsistency by appealing to antinomy regarding the relationship between God’s sovereignty and humanity’s free will.…
Recent Posts
Consistent Theology on the Sovereignty of God
Personal belief as to the reasons of the Calvinist resurgence
I want to talk about culture and why I believe Calvinism has been becoming more popular in the past couple of years.This represents the views of this poster, not all of SEA. Ever since the…
I John 3:11; A Devotional
11This is the message you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another. I wanted to highlight this verse alone, because although it concludes the former section and sets up the next, it…
Romans 9: Conclusion
So, to sum up, according to the Augustinian/Calvinist interpretation, which assumes faith in Christ for salvation and arises in opposition to Pelagianism and later the medieval Catholic church: Paul begins by agonizing over the failure…
Romans 9: The Potter and the Clay
Up to this point in this series on Romans 9, I have argued the following points: The passages dealing with election in Romans 9 must be interpreted in the context of Paul’s overall theme in…
Romans 9: Pharaoh
Up to this point, I have argued that the passages dealing with election in Romans 9 must be interpreted in the context of Paul’s overall theme in chapters 9-11 of the implications of the Gospel for ethnic Israelites, and that Paul’s use of the examples of Isaac and Jacob refer not to each as an individual and election to salvation, but rather to the nation of Israel that descended from them and election to membership among the covenant people.
Paul buttresses his contention that his doctrine does not in fact imply injustice with God by citing Exodus 33:19, where in reference to Moses, God states
- I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. (Rom. 9:18)
Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading
Introduction Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather…
Romans 9: Isaac and Jacob
In verse 7 of Romans 9, Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac—in other words, that the covenant people would pass through the line of Isaac rather than that of Ishmael. The original context of this passage, incidentally, makes it clear not only that Isaac is to be chosen, but that Ishmael is to be rejected in favor of Isaac. Yet God makes it clear that Ishmael is to be rejected by Abraham, so that the covenant line is clearly through Isaac; nevertheless, He reassures Abraham in the very next verse
Romans 9: Introduction
Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than…
I John 3:7-10; A Devotional
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil…
Ron Rhodes, “The Extent of the Atonement” : Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement
Taken from http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html
This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a “moderate Calvinist” perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many who consider themselves Calvinists embrace it.
The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement
by Ron Rhodes
Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination?
Roger Olson lists this as one of many myths leveled against Arminianism. He writes, “Few of Arminianism’s theological critics would claim that Arminians do not believe in predestination in any sense; they know that classical…
Reasons to Remain a Calvinist
As much as I disagree with Calvinism as an interpretive scheme for understanding soteriology, there are worse errors to fall into. As an olive branch to my brothers and sisters in Christ, I’d like to…
Arminianism Today
That is a dangerous title. Arminianism Today is not, generally speaking, what Arminius espoused in his day. Yet, there is a growing number of theological Arminians who are trying to correct that problem. That is…
The New Perspective and Ephesians
The New Perspective on Paul is generally associated with a reinterpretation of Romans and Galatians, inasmuch as these two books have been most closely associated with the Old Perspective and the traditional Protestant interpretation of…
Enjoying Consistent Calvinism
The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.
I have recently been accused of being an inconsistent Arminian because I reject Open Theism. I find it interesting that Calvinists are so concerned with consistency seeing as how they both affirm that God causes all things and is yet somehow not the author of sin.
I admit that I love consistency. I reject Calvinism primarily because I find no support for it in the pages of Scripture, and secondarily because it is so internally inconsistent. I admire Calvinists who are not afraid to “take it in the face”, so to speak, and call God the author of sin. “Traditional” Calvinists call these types “hyper” Calvinists, but in the spirit of my recent conversation, I think it is more accurate to just call them “consistent” Calvinists.
Samuel Telloyan, “Did Christ Die For All?”
Taken from https://www.galaxie.com/article/cenq10-4-03 This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a “moderate Calvinist” perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many…
I John 3:5-6; A Devotional
5 And you know this: that appeared so that those sins may be taken away. And in Him there is no sin: 6everyone who dwells in Him never sins; everyone who sins has not seen…
Robert Lightner, “Problems with a Limited View of the Atonement”
Robert Lightner, “Problems with a Limited View of the Atonement.” This article is the book introduction and chapter 5 from the book, The Death Christ Died, A Case for the Unlimited Atonement by Robert Lightner.
D.A. Waite, “Calvin’s Error of Limited Atonement”
Please click on the lin kto view D.A. Waite, “Calvin’s Error of Limited Atonement” This article was written by Rev. D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph. D. of the Bible for Today, Incorporated. Please note that at one…
Recent Posts
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 3: Free Grace
Roy Ingle, “Hermeneutical Factors Involving Theological Positions”
How Can It Be Said That God’s Desires Cannot Be Bought and That He Does Not Compel Us to Join Him When Scripture Says He Bought Us and Draws Us?
Richard Coords, “Prophecy”
