Recent Posts

Romans 9: The Potter and the Clay

, , Comment Closed

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…

Read Post →

Romans 9: Pharaoh

, , Comment Closed

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)

Read Post →

Romans 9: Isaac and Jacob

, , Comment Closed

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

Read Post →

Romans 9: Introduction

, , 1 Comment

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…

Read Post →

Ron Rhodes, “The Extent of the Atonement” : Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement

, , No Comment

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

Read Post →

Reasons to Remain a Calvinist

, , Comment Closed

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…

Read Post →

Arminianism Today

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →

The New Perspective and Ephesians

, , 1 Comment

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…

Read Post →

Enjoying Consistent Calvinism

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Samuel Telloyan, “Did Christ Die For All?”

, , Comment Closed

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…

Read Post →

Andrew Telford, “Foreknowledge”

, , Comment Closed

Preface It is dangerous for God to give high truth to highly educated people. There is a danger that in the furtherance of that truth it becomes mixed with an alloy of human wisdom. It…

Read Post →

Graceless, Humanist Theology

, , No Comment

The apostle Paul wrote that his prayer was that Christians would know “what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked…

Read Post →