[You can find part one of this series here, and part two here] John Hendryx continues his response to the "synergist" visitor: Finally, your attempt to overturn the doctrine of total depravity relies entirely too much on the one biblical concept of "dead in sin" for the unbeliever. From my standpoint, if those texts which … Continue reading An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 3: John Hendryx Concedes That it is a Plain “Fact” that Faith Precedes Regeneration
Continuing from Part 1... Hendryx begins his response to the visitor: (John) Dear Brother ...You say, "monergists take the 'dead in sin' phrase too far" but, I would turn that around to say that you have relied entirely too much on what you believe to be the force of this ONE argument.... Here's why: ... … Continue reading An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 2: Dead Reckoning
Calvinist John Hendryx takes a “synergist” to task in an article entitled Can We Make an Exact Analogy Between Unbelievers' who are "Dead in Sin" and Believers who are "Dead to Sin"?(Excerpts From Debate in Which Synergist Attempts to Overthrow Doctrine of Total Depravity). We will use this exchange as a basis for interacting with … Continue reading An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 1: What Does it Mean to be “Dead in Sin?”
[The following is an expanded version of a devotional I wrote for a friend's ministry newsletter] "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." (Heb 2:10) In 1999, the blockbuster film, The Matrix … Continue reading The One
From the outset I want to make it clear that I'm not asserting that Calvinism is heresy, as I consider most Calvinists to be genuine brothers and sisters. This post is rather about a serious error that has subtly crept up in the teachings of many Reformed Theology proponents and teachers. It is not one … Continue reading The Cancer in Calvinism
“Furthermore, when it is said that Christ gave His life for His Church, or for His people, we find it impossible to believe that He gave Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He intended to save. Mankind is divided into two classes and what is distinctly affirmed of one is impliedly denied … Continue reading Loraine Boettner Defending the Negative Inference Fallacy
I wrote an article some years back on the Transfer of Necessity Principle (TNP), an idea which some have used as an argument against free will. Looking back, my only real regret writing it was that it was too long, and probably inaccessible to someone who hasn't studied the issue. With that in mind, I purposed … Continue reading The Transfer of Nonsense Principle (Concise Version)
From the late R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries we find a short article "praising" limited atonement by Richard Phillips. For the purpose of this post we will be focusing in on a section that promotes a critique of Arminianism that has been common among Calvinists for a long time and has been expressed in many different … Continue reading Does Arminian Theology Suggest That We Depend on Ourselves Instead of Christ for Salvation?
Does God depend upon anything in creation? Everyone agrees that God has no need of things like food, water, shelter, rest, etc. We often refer to this as God’s aseity –His independence of His creation. So God has no innate need of these things, and is utterly self-sufficient. But can God take on a need … Continue reading Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies
In our last post on Calvinists who talk past the debate, we handily disposed of the fallacious arguments of a Calvinist objector insists on misrepresenting the issue. He tries to salvage his rapidly-crumbling narrative with yet more proof that he is simply talking past what is being discussed without understanding it. Still Missing the Point I've been pretty … Continue reading Tackling Calvinist Errors on Omniscience & Aseity (Plus a Deductive Proof)
In reply to my post on Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes, our dear objector has given us another demonstration of missing the point entirely. As is all too common when discussing theological issues, most 'cage-stage' Calvinists have a dreadful habit of trying to define what you believe for you rather than actually listening to or … Continue reading Calvinist Debate: Talking Past the Argument
Some years after writing this article on God's aseity, I was pointed to a reply by 'TheSire' (hereafter, 'the objector') that more or less misses the point of my original post. It's not very long or well-conceived, but I'll address his main points. Lack of Explaining Power The first of his objections involves people 'explaining' … Continue reading Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes
It has been said that “knowledge is power;” but it is not implied by that expression that it is a power capable of exerting itself. All that is implied is, that it directs an active agent in the manner of exerting his power. What effect, I would ask, can my knowledge of a past event … Continue reading Great Quotes: Thomas Ralston on the Compatibility of Freedom and Foreknowledge With Regards to Judas Betraying Jesus
Dr. Brian Abscaiano's article critiquing the Calvinist claims on the use of 1 John 5:1 to support regeneration preceding faith is now available online. While it was initially posted online, it was later removed because the Journal it was published in did not grant permission for public posting. However, after a year those rights revert … Continue reading Brian Abasciano’s Article on 1 John 5:1 is Now Available!
Whether you freely believe in Christ or not makes a difference only in what you obtain, not what you deserve. But since what you obtain is only what you’ve freely received from God, the One who makes you differ from those with no hope is God, for without His grace and mercy, you’d be no … Continue reading Great Quotes: J.C. Thibodaux on Faith and Boasting
A while back someone on the SEA discussion board referenced the following comments by Calvinist Theologian Wayne Grudem arguing against the compatibility of foreknowledge and conditional election. Below is my brief interaction with this quoted material. The idea that God’s predestination of some to believe is based on foreknowledge of their faith encounters still another … Continue reading Calvinist Sleight of Hand: A Brief Arminian Interaction With Wayne Grudem’s Arguments Against the Compatibility of Foreknowledge And Conditional Election