Back in 2010 J.C. Thibodaux started what would eventually become a four part series on Romans 9, with special focus on the problems inherent in the typical Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. This short series was slow going as it did not conclude until 2012. For that reason it can be hard to follow the … Continue reading Highlighting an Important Series Critiquing The Calvinist Interpretation of Romans 9
Calvinist Election Refuted in Romans 11: A Concise And Devastating Article By A Professor of New Testament And Greek
Article by Günther H. Juncker, re-posted from SEA According to Calvinism, Rom 11:5-7 teaches double predestination. On the one hand there is a “remnant” that is elect and has been “chosen” for salvation from before the foundation of the world. And on the other hand there is “the rest” who are the non-elect, or reprobate, … Continue reading Calvinist Election Refuted in Romans 11: A Concise And Devastating Article By A Professor of New Testament And Greek
Brian Abasciano Responds to Thomas Schreiner’s Recent Review of His Book on Romans 9:10-18
Excerpt: Concerning the hardening of Pharaoh, after a note of agreement, you just assert positions opposite to mine without substantiation. So I’ll take the opportunity to share something merely anecdotal. Before publishing the book, I submitted my chapter on the hardening of Pharaoh to a distinguished Reformed scholar who is writing a major commentary on … Continue reading Brian Abasciano Responds to Thomas Schreiner’s Recent Review of His Book on Romans 9:10-18
Corporate Election Quotes
The following is a series of important excerpts from some of the best scholarly works espousing the corporate view of election. Taken together, these quoted sections give a very detailed description of the fundamental elements of the corporate election view, answering many common questions related to the view as well as addressing and correcting common … Continue reading Corporate Election Quotes
Dr. Brian Abasciano on the Conditionality Implied in Romans 9:16 and its Connection to John 1:12-13
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Romans 9:16 (ESV) “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of … Continue reading Dr. Brian Abasciano on the Conditionality Implied in Romans 9:16 and its Connection to John 1:12-13
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Proof-Texting From a Translation Choice
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:16 ESV) Romans 9:16 is often cited by Calvinists to prove that who is saved is in no way connected with free will or any kind of "human effort." The problem with this claim is that the wording … Continue reading Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Proof-Texting From a Translation Choice
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: “Not of Works” means “No Conditions”
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was … Continue reading Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: “Not of Works” means “No Conditions”
Does Erwin Lutzer Offer False Hope to Calvinist Parents?
I hope to do a few posts on Erwin Lutzer’s book, The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. One might expect that such a book would look to lessen division and ease tension between Christians, but it seems that Lutzer’s purpose is more to present certain divisive doctrines … Continue reading Does Erwin Lutzer Offer False Hope to Calvinist Parents?
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Continuing with the series on Romans 9, we'll now address the issue of God's prerogative in saving who He wishes and how Calvinists often misinterpret its implications. God's Prerogative Reaffirmed When speaking to zealous Calvinists, especially those who are very young and/or "educated" by internet echo chambers, the strawmen abound. It's not uncommon to hear … Continue reading Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
After posting my exegesis of Romans 9, I deemed a follow-up series of posts necessary to show why the observations made therein are relevant to the debate on the conditionality of election. Interestingly, I've had a few comments that my exegesis sounds "Calvinistic;" this is quite far from the truth. Said post was actually foundational … Continue reading Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Introduction Romans 9 is one of the most controversial and often-misinterpreted passages of scripture among evangelicals. Controversy, however, should not make us timid when it comes to the things of God. This inspired chapter is valuable for teaching doctrine, and should not be ignored or glossed over. At the same time, it should not be … Continue reading Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Some New Must Read Articles at SEA (Abasciano and McCall)
SEA has been diligently providing its readers with excellent Arminian resources. Recently Dr. Brian Abasciano's newest theological article on corporate election was made available. Here is the write-up from SEA [Introducing Dr. Brian Abasciano's "Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election"]: SEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article … Continue reading Some New Must Read Articles at SEA (Abasciano and McCall)
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
Jack Cottrell’s Critique of Bruce Ware’s Infralapsarian Calvinism
SEA has linked to a few PDF s of Jack Cottrell’s various responses to others from the Perspectives on Election: Five Views book. Cottrell argues for the Classical Arminian view of individual conditional election based on foreseen faith. He sees many of the election passages in Scripture as corporate but only as corporate election to … Continue reading Jack Cottrell’s Critique of Bruce Ware’s Infralapsarian Calvinism
Corporate Election (Resources)
I am a strong proponent of the corporate election view and wanted to list and link to some good resources which explain and advocate that position. Hopefully, I will add on to this as new resources become available. If anyone knows of any good resources on the subject that I have missed, please let me … Continue reading Corporate Election (Resources)
What Does “Calling/Called” Refer to in the Bible?
Below are two posts that provide strong Biblical evidence that suggests the Biblical concept of Christian “Calling” has primary reference to “Naming” rather than a summons or invitation: Brian Abasciano on Calling Klein, William W. "PAUL'S USE OF KALEIN: A PROPOSAL"