Society of Evangelical Arminians

We are happy to announce the addition to our site of another article from an Arminian evangelical scholar published in a distinguished theological journal: Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”, Evangelical Quarterly 81.4 (2009), 306–318. Be sure to check it out!

Here is the author's abstract:

Romans 9:6-26 is commonly interpreted to mean that Jewish unbelief and Gentile
responsiveness to the Gospel was something ordained or predestined by
God. This article identifies elements in the whole context of 9 – 11 which call this
approach in question. It then proposes that Paul’s intent is to rebut the claim
that God was under obligation to ensure that Israel recognize the time of fulfillment.
Paul argues that God: 1. is free to define his people on the basis of who

And also with Christ, God has raised us up and sat us down in the celestrial realms by Christ Jesus so that within these coming times He has shown, in His kindness, the overwhelming riches of His graciousness over us by Christ Jesus.

Because these devotions are based upon my translation of the text, I discovered that not only was it nearly impossible to keep up with it around Christmas time, but that once I lost track of it, it was difficult to start up again. So, I am sorry that I haven't been attending to this for a month.

In Dave Hunt's article, Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useful, Hunt argues that God uses simple foreknowledge providentially. His primary case is a rock, paper scissors example: The lynchpin of my argument was a counterexample, developed at length and with great care. It involved a version of rock-paper-scissors played between God and Satan. In this version God first declares rock, paper, or scissors, but only mentally, without revealing it; Satan then makes a libertarian free decision to declare rock, paper, or scissors; finally, God reveals what he declared. I claimed that the open theist God, who lacks simple foreknowledge, might well lose this game: victory is not guaranteed.

A dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.
(Don't take this too seriously, this is meant in good fun)

All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you're elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general): God's justification to condemn the reprobate.

Below is a response to C. Michael Patton from my site. It has been slightly edited for publication here.

I wrote a lengthy response to C. Michael Patton’s post on Rom. 9 entitled "Why Doe He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9. Apparently, it was a little too lengthy for Patton’s taste since he deleted all but the first in a series of posts and then made a general comment about people spamming his site, to which I responded,

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 between Wesleyans and Classical Arminians. 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.

Robert Chisholm’s article "ANATOMY OF AN ANTHROPOMORPHISM: DOES GOD DISCOVER FACTS?" explains OT texts like Genesis 18:20-21 and 22:12, which seem to indicate God does not know everything. Chisholm is not satisfied with saying they are antropromorphic and leaving it at that; he seeks a full understanding of why the passages, on the surface, indicate God is learning something.

"I don't see how anyone could read the Old Testament and not conclude that Calvinism is right," was the assessment of one Calvinist professor recently. By "Calvinism" he meant the notion of God's exhaustive predeterminism of all things by decree.

This professor was merely being consistent and honest about his own beliefs. He has done nothing immorally or ethically wrong with making such a statement to his students. My only hope is that his students do not take their professor's word on the matter but study, like a good Berean, for themselves (consulting opposing ideas and exegesis) to examine Scripture every day to see if what the professor says is true (Acts 17:11).

One's justification and thus atonement before God is realized by one's faith in and union with Christ Jesus (which is akin to Calvinistic doctrine and very much unlike Roman Catholic doctrine). The following is what Arminius teaches on the union of believers with Christ:

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 God foreknows, a common Calvinist objection claims that stating God foreknows because he stands over and above time doesn't resolve their criticisms as to how God foreknows. However, in point of fact, the claim that God is over and above time or that God's perspective is timeless is a great way to conceptualize how God's foreknowledge works if we take our time and unpack a thought experiment for our Calvinist and Open Theist friends so they can understand what we mean.

Please click on the attachment to enjoy a little humor. Don't miss the caption at the bottom to go along with the picture.

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 it was.

When a disaster occurs, sometimes Christians rush to judgment. We think that the disaster happend because the people who lived there were sinful, or perhaps their ancestors were sinful.

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 at times override the will as Arminians would have little difficulty affirming, but that God is always in control of the will in such a way that we cannot will or do anything that God Himself has not caused us to do. If man has any independent control of his will then God is not “sovereign” according to the standard Calvinist understanding of sovereignty (exhaustive determinism). While there may be some Calvinists who do not hold to such a definition of sovereignty, it is the traditional Calvinist position held by John Calvin and most of his theological followers. The subject matter of this post is concerned only with Calvinists who hold to exhaustive determinism and see Prov. 21:1 as a text that confirms this doctrine as Biblical.

The passage reads:

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 extreme form of Calvinism. It states that in the logical order of God's decrees, God first decreed the creation of man and then allowed for the fall.

Patton's post has been criticized by Supralapsarian Calvinist "Tur8infan" of Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White's organization). That post can be found here: Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism. The Supralapsairan view is the most extreme form of Calvinism. It states that God decreed the fall of man before the creation of Adam was decreed.

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 theological concept of corporate election has been gaining force in modern scholarship for quite some time. It is widely held among scholars that a primarily corporate election is the election described in the OT. It is on this basis that Dr. Abasciano and others argue that this corporate view of election is the view that Paul and the other apostles would naturally carry over into the NT. This is not just speculation but is strongly supported by the language of election used especially by Paul, not least in Romans and Ephesians.

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.

Former Calvinist Dr. Michael L. Brown and continuing Calvinist Dr. James White are scheduled to do a radio debate on Calvinism on Jan. 26th & 27th (2009). It will take place on Dr. Brown's daily radio show, "The Line of Fire". You can access it here:

http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/

Here's James White's advertisement for it:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3718

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 said two years ago. We continue to pray that Piper will learn what his brothers in the Lord actually believe.

Point by Point with John Piper on Arminianism

Robert Shank wrote:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29, 30).

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 Saul. So, David asked the Lord that,
if he goes down to Keilah, will Saul also come down there, and will
they deliver David into Saul's hand? The Lord answered yes.

So, what did David do? "So David and his men, who numbered about six
hundred, set out and left Keilah; they moved around from one place to
another" (1 Sam. 23:10-13).

So what we find here is that God knew WHAT WOULD happen IF David went
to Keilah - he would meet Saul there, for God foreknew that Saul would
be there, and that those in Keilah would hand him over to Saul. BUT
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. David left the area of Keilah. God knew WHAT
WOULD happen, even that which DID NOT happen. God foreknows future
contingencies, and is not directing every event by a strict necessity
or predetermined decree.

Here are some great comments from B.J. Oropeza, who holds to corporate election, tying in corporate election with the doctrine of perseverance and Rom 8:28-39:

We have recently added some resources by Dr. Jack Cottrell, a well known theologian from the Church of Christ denomination. Check out our recent articles box on the right side of this page for a few articles by him responding to advocates of Calvinistic election (2 articles) and universalistic election (1 article). We have also added a link on our Links and Books page to an offsite Jack Cottrell resource page, which contains audio resources as well as a few articles. Check out his audio entitled "Once in Grace". It is a really good refutation of Eternal Security.

One of our members drew attention to a clever comparison of God's offer in the gospel to a manufacturer issuing a recall notice. It struck me as Arminian in orientation. So, I thought it would be fun to come up with a Calvinist version and present the two for comparison. Please keep in mind that this is satirical and not to be taken too seriously, though there are serious points underlying the satire. Ok, here we go!

The Arminian Recall Notice

The Maker of all human beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.

This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units. This defect has been technically termed "Sub-sequential Internal Non-Morality," or more commonly known as S.I.N., as it is primarily expressed.

Some of the symptoms include:

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 of the Saints or Conditional Security (Wikipedia Article)

James Arminius: The Security of the Believer and the Possibility of Apostasy

The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618)

John Wesley: "Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints" (1751)

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.

Calvinists affirm the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, and thereby deny the possibility of libertarian free will. Open Theists take the other route. They affirm libertarian free will, and thereby deny the possibility of God's exhaustive foreknowledge.

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 believe John the Evangelist hoped to present in his Gospel. John 6:65 reads, "And he said, 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father,' " and John 6:44 reads, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

From reading these two texts, where does one find evidence from these texts to make Calvinist assertions?

Is predestination found in the text? No. Only if the reader pours it in.

Is individual election found in the text? No. Only if the reader pours it in.

Is eternal security found in the text? No. Only if the reader pours it in.

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”?

[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?