You can find Patton's original post here I was referred to this recent post by C. Michel Patton and thought I would respond to it. My comments can be found in-between sections of his post below: Definition of Arminianism Arminianism is a theological system developed by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). It is a … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Ultimate Balanced Guide to Arminianism (From a Calvinist)”:The Good, The Bad, And The [Very] Ugly
An Arminian Response to the Calvinist use of Isaiah 10:5-16 as a Proof Text for Compatibilism
[updated on 1/5/23] From an interaction with a Calvinist: Calvinist: Most Calvinists believe in a soft determinism called compatiblism [sic.]. This is clearly taught in Gen 50:20: “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save … Continue reading An Arminian Response to the Calvinist use of Isaiah 10:5-16 as a Proof Text for Compatibilism
Does Revelation 17:17 Teach That God Irresistibly Controls The Wills of Men to Evil?
Revelation 17:17: “For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.” This is a passage that many Calvinists hold up as a proof text for determinism. It is especially brought up … Continue reading Does Revelation 17:17 Teach That God Irresistibly Controls The Wills of Men to Evil?
Does Arminianism Imply That we Can Boast in Our Salvation Over Those Who do Not Believe?
Out of all the arguments for Calvinism, this is the one that I probably hear the most. It comes in a variety of forms but usually imagines two people under the influence of prevenient grace, suggesting that the one who responds positively should have some reason to boast over the one who did not. It … Continue reading Does Arminianism Imply That we Can Boast in Our Salvation Over Those Who do Not Believe?
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
[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
An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 2: Dead Reckoning
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
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?”
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 One
[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
The Cancer in Calvinism
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
Loraine Boettner Defending the Negative Inference Fallacy
“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
The Transfer of Nonsense Principle (Concise Version)
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)
Does Arminian Theology Suggest That We Depend on Ourselves Instead of Christ for Salvation?
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?
Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies
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
Tackling Calvinist Errors on Omniscience & Aseity (Plus a Deductive Proof)
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)
Calvinist Debate: Talking Past the Argument
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
Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes
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
Arminian Perspectives 