Five Part Series Responding to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism”

A while back I did a five part series responding to a post by C. Michael Patton entitled, "The Irrationality of Calvinism." I recently noticed that some of the posts in the series did not have links at the bottom directing the reader to the next post in the series, leaving the impression that there … Continue reading Five Part Series Responding to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism”

An Important Admission on Salvation Assurance from Prominent Calvinist C. Michael Patton

Excerpt: It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot … Continue reading An Important Admission on Salvation Assurance from Prominent Calvinist C. Michael Patton

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 5: Taking The Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments

[updated with some necessary corrections on 2/5/13] Part 5: Taking the Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments Patton: These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery. This is the same claim Mr. Patton made in his first post called “Why Calvinism is the … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 5: Taking The Mystery Out of Mr. Patton’s Strange Arguments

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 4: Returning the Favor (Reversing the Argument)

Part 4: Returning the Favor (Reversing the Argument) Patton: To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. I agree that this creates a problem, but it is a Calvinist problem based on the Calvinist interpretation.  It is not an Arminian … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 4: Returning the Favor (Reversing the Argument)

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging

[Updated with some additional material on 1/28/13] Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging Patton: Therefore, [according to Arminianism] God’s predestination of people is “fair” and makes sense. After all, there are too many questions left unanswered when one says that God chooses who will be saved and who will not. Why did he choose … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 3: False Assumptions and Question Begging

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations

See Part 1: The Set Up Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations  Patton:  However, I think we need take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism. You see, one of the many reasons I am … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations

An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 1: The Set Up

[Some important updates have been added regarding the footnotes as of 1/19/13.] C.Michael Patton is the President of Credo House.  He has now written two separate and similar posts defending the “irrationality” of Calvinism as actually being a strength of the system, specifically over and above Arminianism. In this newest post, Mr. Patton levels many unfair and … Continue reading An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 1: The Set Up

An Apparently Not So Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9

I wrote a lengthy response to C. Michael Patton's post on Rom. 9 entitled "Why Does 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 … Continue reading An Apparently Not So Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9