from Keith Mathison
originally posted here:

When Dutch Calvinists and Arminians squared off against one another in the early part of the seventeenth century, the Calvinists won the opening battle. The controversy, however, soon spread beyond the borders of the Netherlands. Now, four hundred years later, the conflict continues, and in terms of numbers alone, Arminianism is clearly winning the war for the hearts and minds of professing Christians. Today, Calvinists are a small minority. But why the debate in the first place? Is it really that important?

Many professing Christians today would say that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism should be put to rest, that we have more important things to think about. Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams disagree. In their book, Why I Am Not an Arminian (IVP, 2004), these two authors not only explain what Arminianism is, they demonstrate how it is biblically, theologically, and philosophically unsound and why it must be rejected by those concerned to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture.



We took the gloves off today a bit, but remained within bounds for brothers in the Lord, as Michael and I debated again on the DL. Accusations of a “schizophrenic God” and “robots” came up, which surprised me a little, but that’s OK, at least we got down to some brass tacks, so to speak, in examining the foundations upon which we stand in examining the Scriptures. I got the distinct feeling that some of my more famous internet stalkers, including some who call themselves Reformed (but spend most of their time opposing divine election and the perfection of Christ’s atonement) had gotten in touch with Dr. Brown. In any case, here is the second half of the debate.


“One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.

One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.

The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. READ MORE


Calvinism vs. Arminianism

by Jason Moore on October 28, 2009

*This was taken from Eternal Perspectives. You can read the full blog entry here:

Where do you stand on the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, and what resources do you recommend?

I’ve often been asked, Where do you stand on the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, and what resources do you recommend?

I came to Christ in a church that was Arminian, so that was naturally my early leaning. I went to a Bible college and seminary that were both middle of the road where neither hard core Calvinism nor Arminianism often surfaced in class, though on a continuum, some faculty would lean more toward one than the other.

As the years went by, struck by the power of God’s sovereignty and grace, I became increasingly closer to what is called a Calvinist rather than an Arminian (though I dislike both labels). As I say in other articles on the EPM website, I believe that Christ died for all, not just the elect, which is the one and only major tenet where I depart from Calvinism (not for logical reasons, but simply because after studying the passages they still seem to me to be saying Christ died for everyone.) So I am what might be called a four point Calvinist, though many 5-point Calvinists hate that term, believing it all stands or fall together. Logically, I see what they mean, it’s just my understanding of biblical passages that gives me pause. (It’s not because I haven’t read extensively and discussed the matter with many people I respectfully disagree with.)