Search Result

Church History vs. Calvinism (Part Two)

, , No Comment

Emperor Constantine (AD 272-337), according to Laurence M. Vance,

    became the sole ruler of the Western branch of the Roman empire after defeating Maxentius (c. 283-312) at the famous Battle of the Mulvian Bridge, near Rome, in 312. It was here that Constantine claimed to have seen a vision of a shining cross that led to his victory. . . .

    After supposedly attributing his victory to the “Christian God,” Constantine joined with Licinius (c. 265-325), one of the emperors of the East, in issuing in 313, at Milan, a decree of toleration toward Christianity.1

By this time, the marriage of the Church to the state would be her downfall. Thus, in many cases, the redeemed sat alongside the unredeemed in every church service. Theodosius, Constantine’s successor, by AD 381, proclaimed to all people that they “steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has been faithfully preserved by tradition.”2

Read Post →

Ironside on Calvinism

, , Comment Closed

Taken from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8145 Ironside on Calvinism “Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this word predestinate or predestinated is found. The first is Romans 8:29-30, the other…

Read Post →

Brian Abasciano on Calling

, , Comment Closed

This is an excerpt from Brian Abasciano, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis” (Ph.D. thesis; University of Aberdeen, 2004). This doctoral thesis is available in full here at…

Read Post →

The Difference Maker

, , No Comment

Hodges’ Argument
Hodge argues that unless grace is resistible, the ultimate reason some believe and not others is found in us and not in God. Hodge says this would make believers better, more impressible or less obstinate than others.1

Problem Non-Unique

Personally, I find this one of the most powerful Calvinistic arguments. The idea that I can take credit for my salvation is intolerable, as is the idea that I am better than someone else. But the Calvinistic solution is no solution, and it creates more problems than it resolves.

Let’s take the argument that believers can take credit for their faith. But Calvinists also say that people believe. Therefore Calvinism entails that people can take credit for their faith.

Read Post →

Friday Files: Edgar’s The Meaning of Proginwskw (Foreknowledge)

, , No Comment

Thomas R. Edgar’s THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”) is a word study on ‘foreknow’ and ‘foreknowledge’. Edgar first notes that “In secular Greek, proginwskw meant “to foreknow, to know beforehand.” Scholars do not seriously dispute this definition.” He then contends that “due to strong evidence for the meaning “know beforehand,” those who argue otherwise face the burden of proof for establishing the exegetical necessity for their proposed meaning. The theoretical possibility or the interpreter’s theological propensity is not sufficient. If “to know beforehand” fits the meaning in a New Testament passage, then this must be the preferred interpretation.”

Read Post →

J.C. Thibodaux, “Response to Desiring God on Original Sin”

, , No Comment

The following is an analysis and response to the article, What is the biblical evidence for the imputation of Adam’s Sin?, by Desiring God Ministries, retrieved from,

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1451_What_is_the_biblical_evidence_for_the_imputation_of_Adams_Sin/

I’ve recently been debating the issue of original sin. I do hold very firmly that it is by Adam’s sin that sin entered into the world and has tainted the nature of his descendants, but am much against the idea that all men are guilty of Adam’s sin. I recently debated the subject on Reformed Mafia, and now take on an article written by the staff of John Piper’s ‘Desiring God’ ministries. We go over their primary pieces of evidence with rebuttal. Piper opens his case for the Calvinist view of original sin with:

Read Post →

Daniel Whitby, “Arguments against Irresistible Grace (Part 2)”

, , No Comment

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)

Read Post →

The God Who Blinds?

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →