Differnences in Calvinism and Arminianism

See wordpress post here: Differnences in Calvinism and Arminianism

Answers to Common Calvinist Questions

Some answers to common Calvinist questions:

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true.
Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilio. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.

Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
A: This is a non-scriptural definition of death. Death does not mean "unable to respond", rather, it means "separated from God". In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15), the father states "my son was dead, but now is alive. He was lost, and now is found." The son was able make decisions, including the decision to go home. Yet, he was separated from relationship with his father, and dependent on his father for reconciliation. To be dead is to be separated from Christ. To be alive is to be in relationship with Christ. Making choices does not give one the ability to be reconciled to Christ absent his consent.

Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
This is a statement that Arminians fully agree with! Arminians believe in prevenient grace, that God is in the process of drawing non-believers to himself. It is God's drawing that enables the sinner to believe. We differ with Calvinists in that 1)We believe scripture teaches that God gives a measure of genuine grace to everyone (Titus 2:11), and 2)We believe that grace is resistible (John 5:34,39-40).

Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Sovereignty is not synonymous with determinism or meticulous control. Rather, it means that God does what he pleases (Psalms 115:3). It pleases God to endow mankind with a measure of genuine freedom. A.W. Tozer stated it like this: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. "(1)

Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Arminians believe that God can know our choices without causing them. Some Arminians believe that God exists outside of time and sees the future as present (The Eternal Now theory). Others believe that God exists in the present but can see into the future. In this case, man's actions are the cause of God's foreknowledge, not the other way around. All man's actions are certain but not necessary.(2)

Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true!
A: This is a debate tactic. While it may result in a Calvinist winning an argument, it is not a reasonable or contextual approach to reading and understanding the Bible. For a detailed and funny description of this tactic, check out The Machine Gun Hermeneutic, by Martin Glynn.


Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?
Arminian Theology is an entirely grace centered theology. We are saved by the work of Jesus Christ. By grace through faith. In order to be saved one must believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice on his behalf. Since Jesus died for everyone, we have no grounds for boasting. Rather, we are motivated to share the gospel with everyone, so that they can also believe. On the other hand, Calvinism can easily lead to a haughty attitude. Calvinism teaches adherents that there are two classes of people: those who will be saved and those who cannot be saved. John Wesley correctly stated: "As directly does this doctrine [Calvinism] tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast from God."(3)

(1) A.W. Tozer, The Sovereignty of God
(2) See Thomas Ralston, Elements of Divinity
(3) John Wesley, Free Grace, Section II

"The Prodigal Son" and Arminian Theology

One of Jesus' best known parables is the story of "The Prodigal Son" (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children. It illustrates the nature of his love. And it shows how He goes about reconciliation.



The parable presents a picture that is in harmony with the Arminian understanding of God. Restored relationship is what is important to God. It is so important that he will set aside his rights and his honor in order to be reconciled with his children. Let's take a look at the parable:

The Father gives the younger son what he requests.
"The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them." (Luke 15:12) The younger son demanded his inheritance from the father. In effect, the son wishes that his father was dead. The father would have been well within his rights to deny this demand, but instead he gives the son what he asks for.

The Father doesn't worry about his glory.
"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living." (Luke 15:13) In the culture of the time, the father had the ability to prevent the son from leaving. The son's freedom was more important to the father than the fact that the son's actions would shame the father. The father permitted the son's behavior out of love.

The Father did not force the son home, the son chooses to go home.
I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father. (Luke 15:18-20). The father did not effectually cause the son to go back home, rather the son made the decision to return on his own. The son's ability to make this decision did not make him proud. The son was instead humbled because he knew he had wronged his father. Even though the son made the decision to return, he was still at the complete mercy of the father. The son could not restore the relationship, only the father could.

The Father RUNS to the son.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him." (Luke 15:20) In the culture of the time it was unthinkable for a father to run to a son, particularly in a situation where he had been wronged. It was undignified. The father would stand and wait, and the son would walk to him and beg. But we see in this parable the father runs to his son. Reconciliation was more important to the father than appearance or position.

Death means separation. Alive means reconciliation.
For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:24, also see 15:32) The father throws a party for his son who was dead. Twice in the parable we are given the scriptural definition of "dead". Dead does not mean inability. The son was able to able to make decisions, including the decision to go home to his father. What the son was not able to do was to unilaterally restore his relationship with his father. So he was dead in relationship to his father. In order to be alive again, he was dependent on the mercy of his father. Thankfully, the father valued relationship over personal glory.

The Father shows genuine love to the older son too.
"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him." (Luke 15:28). The father shows that he desires genuine relationship with both of his sons. Again we see that the father is unconcerned with appearances. He leaves the celebration and seeks out his older son.

The older son misunderstands the Father.
"[The older son] answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.'" (Luke 15:29). The older son misunderstands two things about his relationship with his father. First, he views himself as a slave to the master rather than as a son of the father. Second, he fails to recognize the love and generosity of his father.

The older son wants exclusive treatment.
"But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:30). Perhaps the older son was a Calvinist. He was not glad for the return of his brother, or for the generosity of his father. Yet he fails to recognize that he too is in the wrong. How so? First by devaluing his relationship to his brother. "This son of yours" he calls him. And second by ignoring his father's wishes and pouting instead of celebrating. A paraphrase of Romans 9:20 is relevant here. "Who are you, oh son to talk back to your father?" The father valued both of his sons and desired relationship with both of them. It was not the place of the older son to demand exclusive treatment.

The father corrects the older brother regarding the value of the younger son.
"My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' " (Luke 15:31-32). The older son would not recognize the value of his brother. His father corrects him. "This brother of yours was dead and is alive again." Both sons are valuable to the father.

In conclusion, we have a father who loves us all. We have a father who desires reconciliation so much that he is willing to become vulnerable and to make himself look bad. We do not have a father who stands by and watches us suffer. We have a father who runs to us. We are made alive again by being in relationship with Him.

The FACTS of Arminianism

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has put together a nice article that summarizes and compares the five points of Arminianism to the five points of Calvinism.

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

The FACTS acronym is based on the original Five articles of the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were the Dutch followers of Jacob Arminius.

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ

A Comparison of Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism

Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism have much in common, however, there are a few differences. Here's a list that compares some of the differences in belief. These are generalities, as particular beliefs often vary from person to person. And some of these categories overlap a bit. For example: One's view of sanctification influences one's view of righteousness.

Sanctification / Holiness: Wesleyans place an emphasis on entire sanctification (although perhaps less so though than they used to). Classical Arminians do not hold to entire sanctification. Wesleyans teach that Christians can be completely sanctified in this lifetime, and can live a holy life. Sanctification is not only inward, it is also outward, and motivates a life of service. John Wesley called this "Holiness of Heart and Life". Some Wesleyans see this as a process. Some see it as an instant second work of grace. Some a combination of the two. J Kenneth Grider has a book about this. Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrine of Wesleyanism.

Atonement: Wesleyans often hold to the moral government view of the atonement. Jesus suffered and died as a governmental act to show that God was displeased with the sin of man. Anyone who accepts the suffering of Jesus will be saved. Classical Arminians usually hold to substitutionary atonement. Jesus died as a substitute for mankind, taking our place. Those who believe will be saved. It should be noted that John Wesley himself held to substitutionary atonement. However, most of his followers have held to the governmental view, particularly since the late 1800's. This was the view originally articulated by the Remonstrant Hugo Grotius, and later advocated by evangelist Charles Finney, and Methodist theologian John Miley.

Forfeiting Salvation: Wesleyans believe salvation can be forfeited by a deliberately sinful life. It can be regained by repentance. Classical Arminians have different opinions on the matter. Some agree with Wesleyans that salvation can be forfeited and regained. Some believe that if salvation is forfeited it cannot be regained again. Some believe that salvation cannot be forfeited. Arminius himself never took a position on this issue. As a side note, I think there is a trend toward identifying with Classical Arminianism among some in the SBC, because they can still hold to "once saved always saved". This is good. Calvinism has become very divisive among the SBC and the folks who believe that Jesus died for the world are taking another look at Arminianism.

Righteousness: Wesleyans believe in imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness. Classical Arminians generally hold to only imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is a forensic righteousness before God. It teaches that that we are still sinful at heart after becoming Christians, but God the Father ignores our sin because of our faith in Jesus. When he looks at us he sees the righteousness of Jesus instead of our sin. Imparted righteousness teaches that we are acceptable to the Father because the blood of Jesus has really made us pure and has changed us inside. We are holy in God's sight because Jesus has genuinely made us so.

Spirit Focus: Wesleyans place a priority on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit (healing, prophesy, etc). Charismatic Wesleyans also hold that the gift of tongues is one of the evidences of the filling of the Spirit. Classical Arminians believe in the filling of the Spirit, but generally have less focus on gifts of the Spirit.

Foreknowledge: Wesleyans are more friendly to open theism, although many also hold to classical foreknowledge. Open theism teaches that God does not exhaustively know the future because the future is open and cannot be known. Classical Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.

John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed" Online!

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has obtained a PDF of "Redemption Redeemed" by John Goodwin. It can be found here.

From the website:

John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed may be the best defense of Arminianism ever written. Published in 1651 by the Arminian Puritan John Goodwin (1593-1665), it is written in seventeenth century English with a Puritan writing style, which can make for challenging reading. But it contains tremendous biblical exegesis. The patient reader will be rewarded with a powerful, classic, comprehensive, biblical defense of five point Reformation Arminian theology.

And also:

A revised, shortened edition has been produced, which mildly updates the language and provides excerpts concentrated on defending unlimited atonement from the much larger work made available here: Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement

Thanks to John Wagner for all the hard work he has done to make these resources available.

Delegates to the Synod of Dort

Below is a complete list of the delegates to the Synod of Dort. The list is pulled from two different sources, so the spelling is not consistent (Some names are Latinized, others Anglicized).

There were no official delegates from several regions. The Dutch states of Holland and West Freisland were excluded. They had attempted to send Simon Episcopius as their delegate, and one of the first acts of the synod was to revoke his status. In France, Louis XIII opposed the synod and prohibited French participation. In Brandenburg (Germany), the Lutherans prohibited representation.

Only official delegates are listed. This excludes deputies, secretaries, observers, etc.


England:
George Carleton (1559–1628)
Joseph Hall (replaced by Goad) (1574–1657)
Thomas Goad (1576–1638)
John Davenant (1576–1641)
Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626).

Scotland:
Walter Balcanqual (1586–1645)
Samuël Ward (died in 1643)
William Ames (Guilielmus Amesius) (1576–1633).

Heidelberg (Palatine, Germany):
Abraham Scultetus (1566–1624)
Paul Tossanus (1572–1634)
Hendrik Alting (1583–1644).

Hessen (Germany):
Georg Cruciger (1575–1637)
Paul Stein (1585–1643)
Rudolph Goclenius (1547–1628)
Daniel Anglocrator (1569–1635).

Switzerland:
Johann Jakob Breitinger (1575–1645)
Wolfgang Mayer (1577–1653)
Sebastian Beck (1583–1654)
Mark Rütimeyer (1580–1647)
Hans Conrad Koch (1564–1643)

Krefeld (Germany):
Herman op den Graeff (1585-1642)

Geneva:
Giovanni Diodati (1576–1649)
Theodore Trochin (1582–1657)

Bremen (Germany):
Ludwig Crocius (1586–1653)
Matthiuas Martinius (1572–1630)
Heinrich Isselburg (1577–1628)

Wetterau (Germany):
Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638)
John Bisterfeld (died in 1619)
Georg Fabricius.

Emden (Germany):
Ritzius Lucas Grimersheim (1568–1631)
Daniël Bernard Eilshemius (1555–1622).

Dutch Theologians (at large)
Johannes Polyander, (1568-1646)
Sibrandus Lubbertus, Professor, Friesland
Franciscus Gomarus, (1563-1641)
Antonius Tysius, Professor, Gelderland
Antonius Walaeus, Professor, Middelburg

Gelderland-Zutphen (The Netherlands)
Gulielmus Stephani, Pastor, Arnhelm
Ellardus a Mehen, Pastor, Harderwick
Johannes Bouillet, Minister, Warnesfield
Jacobus Verheyden, Elder, School Rector, Numeghen

South Holland (The Netherlands)
Balthasar Lydius, Pastor, Dort
Henricus Arnoldi, Preacher, Delf
Gisbertus Voetius, Pastor, Huysden.
Arnoldus Musius, Elder, Dort
Johannes Latius, Elder, Leiden

North Holland (The Netherlands)
Iacobus Triglandius, Minister, Amsterdam
Abrahamus à Dooreslaer, Minister, Enchusen
Samuel Bartholdus, Pastor, Monichodam
Theodorus Heyngius, Elder, Amsterdam
Dominicus ab Heemskerck, Elder, Amsterdam

Zeeland (The Netherlands)
Godefridus Udemannus, Pastor, Zurick-zee
Cornelius Regius, Pastor, Tergoose
Lambertus de Rycke, Pastor, Bergen up Zoon
Josias Vosbergius, Elder, Middleburg
Adrianus Hofferus, Elder, Zurick-zee

Utrecht (The Netherlands)
Johannes Dibbezius, Minister, Utrecht
Arnoldus Oortcampius, Pastor, Amersfoort

Friesland (The Netherlands)
Florentius Johannis, Church member, Snek
Philippus Danielis Eilshemius, Pastor, Harling
Kempo Harinxma à Donia, Elder, Leuerdin
Tacitus ab Aysma, Elder, Buirgirt

Overijssel (The Netherlands)
Casparus Sibelius, Pastor, Deventer
Hermannus Wiferding, Minister, Swoll
Hieronymus Vogelius, Pastor, Hasselt
Iohannes Langius, Preacher, Woolenhoof.
Wilhelmus à Broickhuysenten Doerne, Elder's deputy
Johannes à Lauwick, Elder's deputy

Groningen (The Netherlands)
Cornelius Hillenius, church member, Groningen
Georgius Placius, Pastor, Apingdam
Wolfgangus Agricola, Minister, Bedam
Wigboldus Homerus, Minister, Midwold
Egbertus Halbes, Elder, Groningen
Ioannes Rufelaert, Elder, Stedum

Drenthe (The Netherlands)
Themo ab Asscheberg, Pastor, Meppelen
Patroclus Romelingius, Pastor, Rhuine

Wallon (The Netherlands)
Daniel Colonius, Minister and regent, Leyden
Joannes Crucius, Minister, Harleim
Joannes Doucher, Minister, Vluisshing.
Jeremias de Pours, Minister, Wallon
Everardus Beckerus, Elder, Wallon
Petrus Pontanus, Elder of the Church in Amsterdam

Sources used:
Dutch Delegates: English Translation of the Synod of Dort, 1619
Foreign Delegates: Answers.com

The Calvinists Who Became Arminians at Dort

One of the fascinating facts of history is the "conversion" to Arminianism of several of the Calvinists who participated in the proceedings at the Synod of Dort. Below are accounts of three Calvinists, two whom changed their views during the actual proceedings, and one who had already changed his opinion prior.

John Hales (1584-1656): Hales was an English theologian. He was a quiet and gentle man. He was well read, had an excellent memory, and is reported to have had an "exact knowledge of the Greek tongue".¹ For some time he was a professor at the college of Eton, where he taught Greek. He was affectionately referred to as "The Ever Memorable Hales". During the proceedings at Dort, Hales was a chaplain for Sir Dudley Carlton, the English ambassador to the Netherlands. He attended Dort at the request of Sir Carlton. During Dort, Hales is reported to have "bade John Calvin good night"^.2 He became convinced of the merits of Arminianism after hearing Simon Episcopius' defense of Unlimited Atonement and exposition of John 3:16.

Thomas Goad (1576-1638): Goad was an English clergyman. He was fond of poetry and known for his skill in verse. He was a chaplain for George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury. He was a rector in several locations, and was also precentor (music leader) at Saint Paul's Cathedral. Goad was sent to Dort by King James at the request of Abbot. Goad went to the Dort as a Calvinist, but like Hales, he became convinced of Arminianism during the course of the synod. He switched sides and began to defend the Arminians. As a result, he lost much prestige among his colleagues, and his name was omitted (perhaps accidentally) from the acts of the synod. After the synod, Goad returned to his chaplaincy.³

Daniel Tilenus (1563-1633): Tilenus was a Huguenot (French Calvinist). He was a professor at the Presbyterian college of Sedan. He was a staunch Calvinist in his earlier days, but had already embraced the Remonstrants by the time of Dort. Risking his position at Sedan, Tilenus strongly criticized the behavior of the Calvinists at Dort, stating that they treated their Arminian brethren according to "the methods of the Turks"⁴. As a result of supporting and identifying with Arminians, Tilenus was deposed from his professorship at Sedan. He moved to England at the request of King James, and became a capable defender of Arminian theology.⁵


(1) The 1917 Harvard Theological Review, Volume 10 Short biography about the life of John Hales.
(2) The Life of John Goodwin by Thomas Jackson, 1872, page 441
(3) Dictionary of National Biography (British) 1885-1900, entry on Thomas Goad
(4) Religious currents and cross-currents: essays on early modern Protestantism, 1999, page 9
(5) Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, By Frederick Calder, 1838, page 456

"Fun" Calvinist Quotes on Arminian Theology

Here are some less than flattering quotes about Arminian theology from various Calvinists. You can click on the author's name if you're interested in the original context. As an Arminian there's really not much to say in reply to this kind of stuff. I have decided to use my God given free will to make fun of the quotes. My random thoughts are in italics. Don't take them any more seriously than you take the Calvinist quotes. :)

Agustus Toplady: If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged.

Now there you go again playing the Catholic card. If you can't successfully debate your opponents, you can always fall back and call them Catholics. By the way, "Agustus" sounds pretty ROMAN to me. You might want to take a look in the mirror buddy. Mind if I call you Gus for short? Growing up I had a dog named Gus. He was a cool little schnauzer. He could urinate on command. That chubby chocolate eating kid from Willy Wonka was also named "Agustus". That movie is one of my favorites. The Gene Wilder one, not the lame Johnny Depp one. Favorite Augustus line: "I feel very sorry for Wonka. It's gonna cost him a fortune in fudge!"

John Owen: Who would have thought that our church would ever have given entertainment to these Belgic semi-Pelagians, who have cast dirt upon the faces and raked up the ashes of all those great and pious souls whom God magnified, in using as his instruments to reform his church; to the least of which the whole troop of Arminians shall never make themselves equal, though they swell till they break?

But Gus said that the Arminians were dug from the pit of Rome. Now you think that they're entertained dirt casting Belgic semi-Pelagians? What the hey? Arminius was DUTCH, not Belgic. Belgic = Catholic. I hope you're not trying to play the Catholic card again. To help you remember the difference between Belgium and Holland, try memorizing the following: "If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much." Or here's another: "Remonstrants, common sense." Or you can simply visualize a windmill. At any rate, at least Arminius wasn't French. No pious souls have ever come from France. Well, there was Joan of Arc. But she was Catholic AND a female leader - no doubt that's two strikes in your book.

Christopher Ness: Lest this overflowing deluge of Arminianism should bring destruction upon us, there is great need that some servants of Christ should run to stop the further spreading of this plague and leprosy.

I like the word "deluge". It looks like "fudge" and makes me hungry for chocolate. Anyway, you're forgetting your theology again dude. Leprous Arminianism was decreed by God for his glory. Who are you oh man to talk back to the overflowing deluge? Besides, if someone tried to run and stop it, that would be a WORK, and that would give him something to boast about. Not to mention that he would get all wet. Also, I like your last name. It reminds me of Nessie.

Charles Spurgeon: And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Can I call you Chuck? You're right, the work of the Redeemer is nothing without the the gratuitous addition of exhaustive determinism. And don't even get me going about those heretical Arminians, a bunch of tramps and thieves - the whole lot of them. As a side note, your own private opinion isn't private anymore if you put it into print. And what does Touchstone have to do with anything? Touchstone is just the front for Disney's R-rated movies. I fail to see how that is relevant. Oh wait...R-minian. I get it. Cute word play there Chuck.

John Piper: Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

Whew, I had a scare there for a second. Glad I'm just a lowly church member! That means that you have to tolerate me. I'll stick to warming pews so that you can't kick me out. Don't worry, I won't do something rash like become an elder. Don't tell Chuck, but I have my own private opinion that we should run off the Supralapsarians. By the way, since y'all live in the same town, you should stop and have coffee some time with Greg Boyd. It could be a teaching moment, as Obama likes to say. You could discuss something interesting, like whether or not God decreed the Minnesota bridge collapse.

R.C. Sproul: I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, "Yes, barely." They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.

I'm curious, what does R.C. stand for? I'm guessing that it doesn't stand for Roman Catholic. Maybe Remote Control? "Remote Control Sproul" has a very nice flow to it, plus it is consistent with your theology. Whatever R.C stands for, it makes me thirsty for a cola. Back to the subject at hand. Weren't the egregious un-Christian elements of Arminianism decreed by God? And since your answer must be 'yes', I want to know was what was God thinking of when he came up with that particular felicitous inconsistency? Can you answer that without referring to Deut 29:29? Another thing I'm wondering about: how can anything be fatal to a fatalist?

John MacArthur: The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.

Uh oh, the last thing I want to do is jeopardize your confidence, John. I'm probably going to lose some self-induced sleep over that one. By the way, it almost sounds like you think that Arminians can lose their salvation by thinking that they can lose their salvation. Now THAT would be a felicitous inconsistency.

C Matthew McMahon: Arminianism is not something hidden under a stone, but lives in full view, and in direct opposition, to the Gospel. It is a deceiving doctrine of demons wrought up from the pit of hell, where, in the consummation of the age, it will be cast for all eternity with the devil that spawned it and the false teachers who propagated it.

Devil spawned doctrine of demons huh? Tell me how you really feel C Matthew. Hmm, what does C stand for? Catholic? Sorry, redundant joke. Do you know how you can easily recognize demons? They're the ones who like to burn human beings at the stake. By the way, are you any relation to Ed or Jim? Naw, probably not, they're a lot nicer. And how did a hyper-Calvinist get on this list? Oh well, what's done is done. Que sera sera I always say.

Two Views of Regeneration by John Hendyx

I just ran across this little beauty: Two Views of Regeneration, by John Hendryx. I don't know too much about Hendryx, other than that J.C. Thibodaux likes to take him to task. I see why now.

Simply put, Hendryx's representation of Arminian Theology is about the most biased that one will ever run across. His descriptions are worthless for accurately representing what Arminians hold to. These descriptions are not even an accurate representation of Semi-Pelagianism.

Either Hendrix is uninformed, or is completely dishonest. I hope the former. He really needs to read Arminian Theology, by Roger Olson.

Ok, I'm done ranting now. Stuff like this really ticks me off. :)

A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends

A little quiz for your Calvinist Friends. Inspired by the ever resourceful JC Thibodaux and by a Calvinist dude named Jay Banks. Enjoy.


Genesis 25:23 The LORD said to [Rebekah], "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."

Q: What was in Rebekah's womb?

A. Two nations and two peoples.
B. One elect person and one reprobate person.
C. Don't even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic.

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Q: How much pleasure does the Sovereign Lord take in the death of the wicked?

A. No pleasure
B. Much pleasure
C. No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Q: Why didn't Jesus gather up those in Jerusalem, when he longed to?

A. Because they were not willing.
B. This is a mystery.
C. Hello pea brain. Jesus was speaking of general chicks, not effectual chicks.

Luke 10:30-37 [The story of the good Samaritan - the priest and Levite "pass by" the traveler, the Samaritan stops and helps.]

Q: Which of these three do you think showed mercy?

A. The Samaritan. Go and do likewise.
B. The priest and the Levite showed mercy by passing by.
C. Each person showed a different kind of mercy. If all had stopped to help, the act of the Samaritan would have been diluted.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Q: God loves what?

A. The world
B. The elect.
C. His glory.

Q: Who will not perish?

A. Whoever believes in God's only son.
B. Let me get back to you on that, I need to look up the answer on "Desiring God".
C. Francis Schaeffer won't perish, but his kid Franky was decreed to go off the deep end.

Acts 16:30,31 [The jailer] then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Q: What must I do to be saved?

A. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
B. Win the divine lottery.
C. The jailer was a Pelagian.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Q: Who does "all" refer to in this verse?

A. All
B. The elect
C. An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect.

1 Timothy 1:18,19 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.

Q: Paul says that some people have done what with their faith?

A. Some have shipwrecked their faith.
B. This is a hypothetical analogy with no real world application. It is merely used by God to ensure the perseverance of the elect.
C. Nice try. Obviously the ship was never floating in the first place.

1 Timothy 2:4 [God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Q: Who does God want to be saved?

A. All men
B. All men, but no women.
C. God really wants all men to be saved, but only in such a way that he damns most in order to maximize his glory.

1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Q: How are the elect chosen?

A. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
B. If you were elect you would already know the answer to this question.
C. Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Q: Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for what and what?

A. Our sins and also for the sins of the whole world.
B. The sins of the elect, and also for the sins of the elect.
C. The correct word is "propitiation". You show your Arminian tendencies by quoting from the NIV. Read the ESV, heretic.

BONUS ROUND!

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

Q: Which picture best depicts the above verse?

A. B.
C.

Add up your score:
2 points for every A
1 point for every B
0 points for every C

Score:
25+ points - Congrats! You are predestined to be an Arminian
20-24 points - You read a lot of Norm Geisler.
15-19 points - Old school Calvinist
10-14 points - Neo-Reformed
0-9 points - James White is your homie.

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 out, but the other two refused to come. They died in the fire. Afterwords, forensics determined that the fire was lit by the children inside the house. They were playing with matches.

The House Fire (Calvinist version):
Once upon a time there was a house on fire. Inside were three children. The dad was outside, and went in to rescue one child. He took one child out, and left the other two to burn. They died in the fire. Afterwords, forensics determined that the fire was deliberately lit by the dad. The dad admitted that he planned the whole thing because he wanted to be a hero. He also claimed that he started the fire, but not in such a way that it was his fault.

Which dad do you think was a hero? Which dad has better motives? Which dad is double minded?

These analogies are not perfect, but they get the point across. Calvinists claim that their theological system glorifies God. The reverse is true. Calvinism calls into question the very motives of God, and diminishes His glory by undermining his character. Any dad who deliberately starts a fire to burn his children is not worthy of being called a hero.

Update 3/31/09: This post is now available in Chinese, thanks to the efforts of Wesley Wong. Thanks Wesley!

Can my ministry flourish in a Reformed environment even though I hold to Arminian theology?

This post was inspired by something John Piper wrote, which you can read here.

Can my ministry flourish in a Reformed environment even though I hold to Arminian theology?

I don't want to encourage a pastor, whether a worship pastor or senior pastor or associate pastor, to act in a knee-jerk way about being out of sync with his church. It may have happened because he came into the church unaware of where they were. It may have happened because her theology changed after she got there.

There are different reasons why you might wind up in this situation. And once you do, what I want to say first is, Don't assume it can't happen. Don't assume flourishing can't happen. And by "flourishing" I mean that over time the people would grow with you into greater truth about the love of God. And it can happen in ways that are not dramatic.

In other words, an Arminian position mainly means, God is holy, good, just, moral, loving, and always does what is right. You can trust Him. We're going to ask God to change lives here. We're going to tell individuals that God loves them. There are a lot of born-again Calvinist people who like that. It's because they don't see the implications of their theology.

And if you get a congregation liking that over time—"God is good, and we're going to celebrate his character and his nature and his love" (just leave it undefined for the time being. Everybody believes in the love of God, one way or the other)—what happens is that when God works on your heart, you begin to trust him and seek first his kingdom. So even if you initially have a distorted view of God, when you get to specifics in John 3, Romans 10, 1 John 4, about love and whatnot, your heart is more ready for it.

So the flourishing could be that you're taking people where you know you want them to go, just because you know that God genuinely cares about them. And your Arminain orientation makes you keenly aware of that. Their Calvinistic orientation doesn't naturally make them as aware of that. And you're going to take them there. And when the whole spirit of the place changes, then the theology might grow. And that's what I mean by flourishing.

Now that might not happen, because as you begin to go there you might encounter opposition. People might say, "I'm tired of this God shows no favoritism nonsense. We need more exclusivity. It's not my responsibility to preach the gospel, God loves me but he hates you"—though they wouldn't use those words necessarily. They think that God values them more than others. They're showing pride. This is just too serious.

And so over time, your effort to simply make much of God in Christ would encounter opposition. And then, yes, you would probably have to find another place.

So the general point there is, Pray toward a process that is open and above board. If you are a worship leader, then you should be totally candid with your senior pastor or the pastoral team and say, "Here's where I am. Do you want me here? If you don't want me here, I should go." If they say, "We want you here, just don't push your peripheral distinctives," then you may respond, "Well, we'll make a go of it, and I'll try to design services that I think honor God. And you'll have to tell me in the long run whether you think I'm pushing my distinctives."

Stuff Young Calvinists Like (Satire)

[Updated favorite music artist section on 9-20-09]

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 ESV translation: Young Calvinists (YCs) love the ESV. In certain circles its use is mandatory. The translation can easily be identified by the prominent circle on the front and/or on the binder. Since every YC uses the ESV, the "circle" has the nice side benefit of allowing them to easily identify each other when in unfamiliar environments.

The easiest way to explain why the ESV is preferred is by pointing out out the problems with all other Bible translations. The KJV is archaic. The NKJV is too much like the KJV. No one uses the NASB. The NIV and NLT are thought for thought translations (bad). The Living and The Message are paraphrases (really bad). The NRSV and TNIV use gender neutral language (really really bad). Special note: people who prefer the NRSV are invariably liberal (keep in mind that "liberal" and "Arminian" are synonymous term in the Calvinist mind). When in the presence of YCs it is wise to avoid all reference to the NRSV for reasons of safety.

The ESV is generally the only permitted translation for Calvinists; however, there is one notable exception: The NASB is considered acceptable if one is buying a MacArthur study Bible. In all other cases the NASB should be avoided in order to maintain conformity. It is a matter of great consternation among YCs that there is currently no ESV MacArthur study Bible.

Arminian Corollary: All Arminians use the NIV. If you catch an Arminian using a translation other than the NIV, this indicates that he intends to convert to another branch of Christianity. You can determine what branch based on the translation used. A few years ago there was an Arminian movement to migrate to the TNIV. This was singlehandedly shot down by James Dobson.


Mars Hill Church: YCs like Mars Hill because it is contemporary, hip, and Reformed. The first rule when discussing Mars Hill is to be aware that there are actually two of them. One is very cool. One is evil. To mix them up is a sign of terrible ignorance and is considered almost as bad as reading the NRSV. The cool Mars Hill is pastored by Mark Driscoll, and is located in Seattle. The evil Mars Hill is located near Grand Rapids. It is pastored by Rob Bell (The Emergent who produces the NOOMA series). It is excessively irritating to YCs that there is a successful Emergent mega-church in Mecca (Grand Rapids).

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like the evil Mars Hill.


Alcohol: All YCs drink alcohol. Other Christians drink too, but alcohol has special significance among YCs. Most of them grew up in churches where drinking was frowned upon. Since YCs are invariably fundamentalists, it is important for them to be able to point to something that indisputably proves that they have thrown off the legalistic chains of their youth. Alcohol fills the role nicely.

Arminian Corollary: Young Arminians drink too, and for the same reasons.


Old Theologians: YCs love old theologians. Their favorites include: Edwards, Owen, and Spurgeon (primarily because their works are written in English). All YCs own works from old theologians. They love to display them in their library. A special note of precaution here: It is better to not ask the YC specific questions about the classic works that he owns. This can create an embarrassing moment, because there is a good chance that he hasn't read them. This is not intentional. When the YC bought the works he fully intended to read them, but then realized that wading through Owen and Edwards is quite difficult. Though rare, it is worse to ask a question to a YC who has actually read the classics. In that case you will get more than you bargained for, such as a dissertation on the merits of John Owen's insight into penal substitution theory. It is always safer to merely notice the YC's large library, and to comment on his excellent tastes.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians don't know the names of any old theologians. If you ask an Arminian to name one, he will say "Billy Graham". Like YCs, Arminians rarely read the books that they own.


John Piper: John Piper is the "holy grail" of Calvinist authors. YCs own all of his books. In many cases his work is actually preferred over scripture (of course you will never get a YC to admit this). Unlike "old theologians", YCs actually read Piper. In fact it is common to find YCs who have memorized large portions of his work. If you attempt to argue with a YC, there is a 100% chance that he will refer you to something written by Piper. If you have a good friendship with a YC, you have an excellent chance of receiving a Piper book for Christmas.

There is no Arminian corollary to John Piper. Arminians do own and memorize the "Left Behind" books.


Caedmon’s Call: Caedmon’s Call is the preferred music group for all YCs. This is not because Caedmon’s Call has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of their songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don't get a Piper book for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Cadmon’s Call CD instead.

LACRAE: Caedmon's call is very 08. Lacrae is now the preferred artist for all YCs. This is not because he has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of his songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. For white YC's he is also the only rap artist that they can name, although they'll be offended if you point this out. And no, DC Talk doesn't count. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don't get a Piper gook for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Lacrae CD instead.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like Michael W Smith, because he sings about love and endorses books like "The Shack". White Arminians can't name any rap artists.


Second Generation Calvinists: Second generation Calvinists are highly esteemed because there are so few of them. Most children of Calvinists become either non-Calvinists (the Schaeffer route) or hyper-Calvinists (the Sproul route). If you happen to be a level headed second generation Calvinist, there are lots of YCs who want to pepper you with questions about how exciting it must have been growing up in a Reformed Church. You get extra points if you are from Michigan, have a Dutch sounding last name, or have spent time at L’Abri. If you happen to be a Calvinist of South African descent, you present a special situation. In this case the YC still desires to question you; however, he will be very discreet about it when in the presence of minorities.

There are no second generation Arminians. They invariably become liberal, or convert to another branch of Christianity.


The Word "Reformed": YCs actually hate to be called Calvinists, due to the negative connotations associated with the word. They instead prefer to use the word "Reformed". The term is less recognized, and when in mixed company it allows the YC to maintain the illusion that he is on the sly. If someone comments in passing that he enjoys "Reformed Theology", this is code to tell you that he is a Calvinist. This is quite similar to a Mormon casually mentioning where he served his mission, and it is done with identical motives. The YC will be closely watching your response. Appropriate responses include: "That's cool, what is your favorite John Piper book?" or "I am a huge fan of Caedmon's Call." If you ask what Reformed theology is, you will immediately be put on the YC's list of Arminians to convert.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians hate to be called fundamentalist. They will spend 10 minutes explaining to you why they are not fundamentalist, even though they are. Arminians also will never admit that they are Arminians.


The Five Solas: Among educated brethren YCs refer to themselves as adherents of the five solas. YCs prefer not to use the term TULIP. However, references to TULIP become necessary when indoctrinating non-Calvinists, as the unique distinctives of Calvinism are not readily apparent from the five solas. YCs always say the solas in the original Latin. This makes them feel smarter. When a YC is losing an argument, he will often shout out "SOLI DEO GLORIA!" YCs rarely refer to "sola fide" or "solus Christus" because they sound too Arminian. Much like the word "Reformed", YCs frequently refer to the solas as part of an elaborate code language in an attempt to vet out other Christian's knowledge of Calvinism.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians agree with the five solas, but usually don't know what they are. Arminians sometimes refer to themselves as adherents of John 3:16, and will often hold entire conferences based on the verse.


Small Groups: All YCs attend a small group. While small groups are by no means unique to Calvinism, YCs have particular reasons for attending them. Calvinist small groups have much in common with military boot camps. They are intended to indoctrinate and promote conformity. In mixed denominations where Calvinism is taught on the sly, small groups present the unique opportunity to indoctrinate with minimal oversight. It is also the desire of every YC to work for Desiring God or Crossway. Since this is not always a realistic goal, it is considered an acceptable fall back to lead a small group.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians host small groups primarily as a motivation to clean up their messy house. They rarely discuss theology, unless a YC has infiltrated the group. Typically the purpose of Arminian small groups is to discuss politics, watch football, and eat food.

Why I Became an Arminian

This is a personal post that deals with my journey as an Arminian.

I became a Christian at a young age. I remember going to a church service, being convicted of sin, and going down to the altar to pray with my dad. I asked Jesus to forgive me and to come into my heart. He did. I remember the experience. I felt forgiveness, peace, and the personal love of Jesus. This brought me great joy. I was around the age of 4 or 5 when this took place.

I grew up in a Christian family. My parents were committed church goers. If the church doors were open, we were there. My family attended the Nazarene church. Growing up, I did not realize that my denomination was "Arminian". But, I was learning Arminian concepts. John 3:16 was the first verse memorized. In Sunday school we sang "Jesus Loves Me" and "Jesus Loves the Little Children". I grew up believing that Jesus loves every person, that he wants each person to be saved, and that it is genuinely possible for anyone to become a believer. To this day, I believe that these distinctives are the heart of Arminian theology.

Until several years ago, I was largely ignorant of Calvinist theology. I knew that Calvinists placed a lot of importance on predestination. I also knew that they believed that a Christian could not lose his salvation. I thought that "eternal security" was the defining characteristic of Calvinism, thus, in my mind every Baptist was a Calvinist. I was blissfully unaware of the TULIP. I was also unaware of the Calvinistic concept of exhaustive determinism.

There were three events that piqued my interest in Calvinism. They all took place around the same time.

1) I attended Sunday school class where we went through a book by John Piper.
2) I started memorizing scripture, and ran into Romans 9.
3) My brother became a Calvinist, and began to try to convince me and other family members of its merits.

In the Sunday school class we studied the book "The Dangerous Duty of Delight" by John Piper. The discussions were lively. At the time I had never read Piper, and didn't know that he was a Calvinist. However, I knew that I didn't care for his book. Initially I couldn't put my finger on the reason why. In retrospect, I think it was my "stink detector" going off. I didn't really know what Calvinism was, but was still able to detect something amiss in Piper's writing.

To this day, I don't enjoy Piper's work. No doubt he is a godly man with spiritual insight. However, his deterministic theology is in focus in all of his writings. This turns me off. When I read his writings I know that he is using Biblical terms in a way that is quite different from the way I understand them, and the way they have usually been interpreted historically. As a result, I find it difficult to appreciate his work (As a side note, I don't find this to be true of all Calvinist authors.).

Around the same time as the Sunday school class, I began to memorize scripture. There was a man at our church who had memorized huge chunks of the Bible. He said that anyone could memorize large passages, and encouraged me to do so. I decided to give it a try. Over the course of several months I memorized Romans 8 and 12 - two of my favorite chapters. When I had 8 and 12 down, I decided to work on the chapters in between.

When I dug into Romans 9, it bothered me. What I read in Romans 9 did not sound like the God that I had heard about growing up, or had read about elsewhere in the Bible. A God who hates Esau before he was born? A God who hardens hearts, and creates objects of wrath? And to top it off, He tells us not to talk back and question his motives. What did this mean? What kind of God was this? Fortunately, I didn't start or stop at Romans 9 (as I fear many Calvinist "converts" do).

When I read Romans 10, it seemed to me to flat out contradict Romans 9. There I read that that the same Lord is Lord of all. He richly blesses all who call on him. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 9 created a lot cognitive dissonance for me. I didn't understand how it fit in with Romans 10, or with other passages that seemed to contradict it. As I began to research the issue, I found that there were some viable Arminan interpretations of Romans 9. They made a lot of sense to me. I now enjoy Romans 9. Understood in context, it is a refreshing passage (My thoughts on Romans 9 can be found here).

As they say, sometimes life happens in threes. Around the time these other events were going on, my brother became a Calvinist. At the time I was still unaware of the distinctives of Calvinism. I just figured that he had bought into the "eternal security" thing. This didn't really worry me. I had always respected my brother's views and insight. He was (and is) a kind, patient, and reflective person. If he thought eternal security was true, that was fine with me. Maybe it was true.

But, to be sure, I decided to read up on Calvinism - both pro and con. What I read about it bothered me. I discovered that there was much more to Calvinism than "eternal security". There was this thing called TULIP. TULIP contradicted what I knew to be true - that God loves the world (John 3:16), that Jesus died for all (1 Tim 2:4-6), and that God does not desire for anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9). These were all biblical concepts that Calvinism rejected. I did not believe in a God who damned people before they were born for "His glory". It was at that time that I realized that Calvinism was more than simply a minor variance in theology.

When I read Calvinist authors, I did not find their criticisms of Arminianism to be accurate. They said things like: Arminians deny the sovereignty of God. Arminians believe in a works salvation. Arminians are man-centered. Arminians don't believe in the sinful nature. Arminians worship free will. Arminians are liberal. I knew from personal experience that none of these criticisms were legitimate (As a side note: Roger Olson's book addresses many of these myths.).

Later on my brother convinced my sister and her husband of the merits of Calvinism. Both of their families broke fellowship with the churches that they had been attending, and began attending Calvinist churches. Unfortunately theology is now a matter of division in our family. I have learned to agree to disagree with my brother. I have not discussed the issue much with my sister. We are neither likely to change opinions, and I feel that addressing the matter would only strain our relationship. To my brother and sister: if you happen to read this, I hope you both know that I love you dearly, and accept you as fellow believers.

I have found that my experiences are not unique. Calvinism is in a period of resurgence. Thankfully, there are many godly Calvinists who are followers of Jesus. My brother and sister are among them. However, I also believe that Calvinist theology damages the body of Christ. Calvinism is a distortion of the Gospel. It misrepresents the character of God. It is something that needs to be addressed, checked, and opposed. For this reason I am now dedicated to to promoting Arminian theology.

Arminian Articles on SEA

Here are some great Arminian resources available on the SEA website (Society for Evangelical Arminians). Thanks to Ben Henshaw for putting together this list.

A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL

Arminius, James. “ANALYSIS OF THE NINTH CHAPTER OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS”

Arminius, The Scapegoat of Calvinism Part 1 (Arminian Magazine)

Arminius, The Scapegoat of Calvinism Part 2 (Arminian Magazine)

Arminius, The Scapegoat of Calvinism Part 3 (Arminian Magazine)

Arminius- Hero or Heretic?

Calvinism — Ten Little Caveats (Bob Moore)

Corporate Election

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian (Olson)

Edgar, Thomas R. “THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (”FOREKNOWLEDGE”)”

Election in Romans Chapter Nine (Hamilton)

Extent of the Atonement (Ware)

For All, For All My Savior Died (Marshall)

Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future (Picirilli)

Is God’s knowledge the cause of all things?

John Fletcher: “REPLY TO THE PRINCIPAL CALVINIST AND FATALIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY”

John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace

Moral Agency and Accountability

Objections To Calvinism As It Is

On Predestination (Wesley)

Paul’s Use of Kalein: A Proposal

Post-Calvinism (McKnight)

Predestination Calmly Considered (Wesley)

Romans 9 (Adam Clarke)

S. M. BAUGH AND THE MEANING OF FOREKNOWLEDGE: ANOTHER LOOK

Salvation by Faith, Applied (Picirilli)

Sovereignty and Free Will (Cottrell)

The Extant of the Atonement (Ryrie)

The Extent of the Atonement (Picirilli)

The False Antithesis Between Monergism and Synergism: A Lesson from Historical Theology

The Five Points of Calvinism: “Weighed and Found Wanting”

The Possibility of Apostasy (Picirilli)

The Problem of Apostasy in NT Theology (Marshall)

The Question, ‘What Is an Arminian?’ Answered by a Lover of Free Grace

The Theology of the Atonement (Marshall)

The Warning Passages In Hebrews (McKnight)

Anyone Speak Portugese?

Here's an Arminian resource if you speak Portugese. I ran the page through Babel Fish, it looks like a great site. :)

www.arminianismo.com

Interesting side note: Babel Fish translates "Deus" as "God", while Google sometimes translates the term as "Allah".

The Arminian Web Presence

As an Arminian, one frustration I have is with the dominance of the Calvinist view on the internet. In this post I want to do a little musing on why this is the case. Why is the Calvinist web presence so dominant?

Reasons for the Calvinist dominance on the internet:
1) Calvinists are writers and authors. They love studying doctrine. They are articulate. Arminians are too busy "changing the world" to spend time writing. Unfortunatly these differences in approaches have resulted in a disproportionate Calvinist presence on the web.

2) Calvinists have lots of big names: Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, White, etc. These big names have big web sites, with lots of free resources. There are no really big Arminian names out there.

3) Monergism.com: This is an excellent resource that I use myself. All free. All Reformed.

4) The young Calvinist resurgence: Let's face it, there are lots of young Calvinists. If they were all new believers that would be wonderful. Unfortunately many come from nominally Arminian backgrounds. Anyway, all that to point out that younger people are much more active on the web, and these young Calvinists are busy busy busy online.

5) Lots of Non-Calvinists do not consider themselves Arminian, and this limits the effectiveness of the Arminian web presence. Over and over I hear people say that they are neither Calvinist or Arminian. However, if you question them on their doctrine you find in most cases that they're nominally Arminian. Talk to your average Joe Baptist, and there's a good change that he believes in the P in TULIP, but is Arminian in other respects. However, if you ask him what Arminianism is you're likely to get a blank stare, or perhaps a lecture on how a believer can't lose his salvation. :)

6) Arminians seem to be more siloed than Calvinists. We're too busy in our various denominations to be troubled with Calvinists or even with other Arminians that have slightly differing views. This is very true of my own denomination.

7) Calvinism is easier to define than Arminianism. 5 Points. Tulip. Arminianism is more a rejection of Calvinism than a movement all on its own. As a result Arminian Theology is not a nice little package. We know Jesus died for everyone. That's about it for a starting point.

This disproportionate Calvinist web presence is a problem. Average Christians are not getting a fair representation of what Armininaism is really is all about: the Goodness of God. If a Christian has been unaware of the A/C debate and then begins to look into it on the web, he will find the Calvinist view well represented, but not so the Arminian view. More than likely he will find only Calvinist resources that give a caricaturization of the Arminian view. This disproportionate web presence and dishonest caricaturization I think is in large part the cause of the young Calvinist resurgence. Good Arminian resources are hard to find. Fortunately, this is starting to change.

Signs of the growing Arminian Web presence:
1) An Explosion in Arminian Blogs: A year ago Arminian blogs were few and far between. Roy Ingle's Arminian Today was the first one I ever remember running across, and it took me a while to find that one. Now there are so many Arminian blogs I can't keep up with them all. This is a fantastic development. For example, check out this list of blogs and resources that Billy from Classical Arminianism has come up with. A year ago I would have done a cartwheel for the list like that.

2) Networking: Arminians are starting to find each other, and outside of our respective denominational "silos". Some of this is due to the blogging I mentioned above. Some it is also unfortunately due to excessively negative interactions with Calvinists. We have had to learn to defend ourselves. (May we be graceful in the process.)

3) A dedicated Arminian resource site: Evangelical Arminians. This site is beginning to make an impact. I hope that over time it will become the monergism.com for Arminians.

4) The slumbering Non-Calvinist "silent majority" is starting to awake: This seems particularly evident in the Southern Baptist denomination, with the Building Bridges conference, and now the upcoming John 3:16 Conference. Limited Atonement is not an easy thing to get Bible believers to buy into (for obvious reasons). As insulated Christians become aware of this terrible doctrine, they will have a strong reaction against it. This awakening is starting to take place.

I would be curious for other's thoughts on this topic as well. Comments? :)

Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge means to have knowledge of something before it happens. In scripture there are are references to God's foreknowledge of those who will believe in Jesus. Those whom God foreknows, he also elects to be saved.

The Greek word - proginosko
Proginosko is the word used in the New Testament that today we translate as "to foreknow". It literally means "to know before". The word breaks down like this: Pro (before) ginosko (to know).

We are familiar with this word in English. For example: a doctor will give a prognosis. And someone who makes predictions is called a prognosticator.

The word in its noun or verb form is used several times in the New Testament to explain the foreknowledge of God or of individuals. Here are some passages where the word is used:
Acts 2:23
Acts 26:4-5
Romans 8:29
1 Peter 1:1-2
1 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:17

Arminians believe that foreknowledge works like this: God has exhaustive knowledge of the future, thus He "prognosticates" it perfectly. God knows who will believe in Jesus. Those who believe are elected. Election is corporate in scripture (those who believe) as opposed to individual election. The Arminian understanding of foreknowledge is apparent in passages like Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2

(Bold mine - represents the Greek word for foreknowledge)

Romans 8:28-29: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (NKJV)

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. (NKJV)

Calvinists err in their understanding of foreknowledge, confusing foreknowledge with predestination. They believe that God decrees whatever happens, so foreknowledge is only a byproduct of His decree. In Calvinist thought, foreknowledge is a synonym of election. But Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 show instead that God's election is a result of His foreknowledge, not the cause of it.

Another Calvinists interpretation of foreknowledge is "to forelove" instead of "to foreknow". However, there is no justification for this interpretation in the context of the passages in the New Testament.

God is working for the good of those who love Him! He sees everything, he always knows what will happen, and He is always working on the behalf of those who He knows will believe. He is for us!