Tim,I hate this post. Of course, I’m redefining the word “Hate” to mean “Love”.

Hate,Marc

I wonder if the “heart-Arminians” are just 4-point Calvinists? Some of my Arminian friends have said as much. It’s the Limited Atonement with which they have their biggest beef. They often say they embrace Total Depravity, Uconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, but it’s the big L they can’t stomach.

Upon further probing, however, it sometimes becomes apparent that they really can’t abide the U-I-P either.

In 412 A.D. at the Council Of Carthage, teachers of semi-Pelagianism were declared anathema. As Paul would have stated it: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (I chose the NIV here because it speaks more “loudly” than the ESV for this passage.)

The thing we must remember is that God will still have mercy on whom He wills, whether Arminian, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Augustinian or Calvinist.

I’ve read Olson’s book, and you’re right that his claim is that many people, including some Reformed critics, have misunderstood Arminianism. But he then proceeds to spend the entire book defending that claim—that is, he looks through the primary sources and demonstrates again and again that his distinction between Arminians of the head and Arminians of the heart holds up.

Tim, what you seem to be arguing is that you suspect that his argument can’t be right because it casts the interpretation of Arminianism made by generations of Reformed scholars on its head. But that was the purpose of Olson’s book. He thinks that they’re wrong, that they’re believing myths about Arminiansim instead of the realities of it, and he goes back to the sources to show that and debunk the myths.

It seems me me that you can’t simply dismiss his arguments out of hand because they make you nervous without dealing with the substance of his argument. Yes, he’s claiming that the scholars of the past have misunderstood. And yes, he thinks that they don’t “get it.” But he then spends 250-odd pages showing why he’s making those claims. A critic is going to have to show why those claims are inaccurate—and why there can be no distinction between Arminianism of the head and Arminianism of the heart—if they’re going to deal with his argument. But simply dismissing Olson’s argument that there is a distinction by saying “I doubt Lawson and most other Reformed scholars would care to make such a distinction” is making Olson’s point for him.

Josh said, “One of the fundamental beliefs of Arminianism is that man is not completely dead in their sins…anyone thinks I have oversimplified, please correct me!

Josh, Olson deals with that issue in his book. From his examination of the primary sources from Arminius and other Arminians of the heart, he demonstrates that this claim is false. Some “Arminians” have held this view, but they have broken off from the tradition when they have done so. True Arminians believe that man is completely dead, and a reading of the primary sources makes that very clear.

I mispoke in my earlier message. I meant to say that Prof. Olson does NOT oppose the ordination of women into the pastorate position. If he turns Scripture on its head in that area, where will he stop?

Interesting.

Anyone who reads anything that I write should be able to see Calvinism running through it. I am a Calvinist to the core. However, I happen to agree with Olson.

It is not proper to place Arminianism under Semi-Pelagianism. Don’t get me wrong; both are wrong systems of thought and I believe they deprive glory due unto God. However, they are not the same thing.

Part of our problem is that we have been calling Semi-Pelagianism (in the church) Arminianism. I am quite confident that Arminius would have MAJOR issues with a lot that is taught in these churches (including the matter of Salvation).

Notice the progression:

Pelagianism - Man’s will is good enough to come to God without God’s grace. God’s grace may be helpful but it isn’t necessary. What God commands must be possible to be accomplished.

Semi-Pelagianism - Man cannot come to God completely alone. However, man must take the first step. That is - as we step out in faith, God then comes and assists us with his Grace and we can be saved.

Arminianism - Man’s will is not essentially good. Rather, we are depraved beings. However, God in his grace helps us all enough to make it Possible (but not necessary) to come to Him. Notice, Salvation is still synergistic (like Semi-pelagianism), but it is not the same thing.

Amyraldianism - Man is essentially depraved and only by God’s grace will man come to Salvation. However, on the cross, Jesus secured this salvation for all people, but it is only applied to some.

Calvinism - Jesus’ work on the cross for the elect has secured Salvation for all of His own, and by that Grace alone, they will come to see His beauty and trust in Him.

Point being, I think Semi-Pelagians and Arminians both have a similar problem (namely their synergistic regeneration), but I think Olson is correct in saying that they are not the same thing.

As Calvinists (those of us who are), we’re going to have enough differences with Arminians to start with, we need not add to it with a baseless charge that they are semi-pelagians (and therefore condemned as Heretics already!).

Just my thoughts.

In Christ alone,mike

Just a q:

Don’t Calvinist writers do the same thing; namely asserting that non-Calvinist writers lump Calvinists together with Hyper-Calvinists?

Now, never mind for just a moment that is actually a true statement. What I am getting at is: is it not possible that Calvinists have done the same thing to Arminians?

As careful as Calvinist and Calvinist-sympathetic writers generally tend to be, we can still not avoid portraying “opposing” viewpoints in ways that are not exactly faithful to what is actually taught. Arminianism tends to get painted with the brush of the “logical conclusions” Calvinists see. Even I, a non-Calvinist, am guilty of such.

I also want to ask: are there any good sources (beyond the primary) on Arminianism? Is there anything out there on the level of the Calvinistic sources?

Talk about redefining… Now Arminus, who was ruled a heretic by the church, is the conservative theologian, and the Remonstrants are the liberals. If that is not reconstructionist history then nothing is.

“What is the purpose of saying that you believe in total depravity when at the same time you believe that total depravity is removed in everyone by prevenient grace, which is suppose to “neutralize” the depraved will that enables all to be a position to assent or reject the grace?…In other words it was disingenuous for Arminius to claim he believes in total depravity and claim that everyone is has the free will to assent or reject God’s grace.”

If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that Arminius was giving back with one hand what he was taking away with another. That is, while he affirmed that man was totally depraved and thus destroyed by sin, he also argued that prevenient grace enabled man to freely assent or reject God’s offer of grace. So why argue for total depravity if you’re just going to neutralize the effects of that depravity with prevenient grace?

The reason is to shift the foundation of the act of free will away from man and to God’s grace. In other words, what Arminius is basically doing is offering a robust affirmation that we are saved by grace alone. By affirming total depravity, Arminius was affirming that man is dead in his sins and thus has no ability on his own to make a decision for God—he is dead. Man cannot make a free will decision for God in Arminian theology on the basis of his own fallen nature. However, by affirming the effect of prevenient grace on everyone, Arminius was affirming that man is able to make a free decision for God—but only on the basis of the healing effects of God’s prevenient grace which make that decision possible.

He is thus able to affirm free will—which is important for him because he thinks not affirming it eventually makes God responsible for sin and evil. But by affirming it on the basis of prevenient grace he attributes the decision not to man’s inherent abilities, but solely to healing effects God’s grace. That’s why you make the move he did—it’s simply an affirmation that salvation is by grace alone. What’s disingenous about that? It’s different than Calvin or Augustine would do it, but Arminius thought that their way of doing it inevitably led to a God responsible for evil. He was intended to offer an alternative to it, while never falling into the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian error of putting giving man credit for making a decision for God.

If you are familiar with Arminius’ primary writings, (which I am) then you must also be aware that Arminius wrote that everyone’s total depravity is “neutralized” by common grace (prevenient). This is an important fact that I have not seen stated yet on this thread.

Calvinist Gadfly,

You are correct, and if you read my summary of Arminianism (contra semi-pelagianism) then you will see that I agree. However, I think it is exactly this point that separates Arminians from Semi-Pelagians. It might have the same end result, the same synergistic problem, but Arminianism does start with a dead man, and does require grace to come before human response. Semi Pelagians start with a hurt (but not dead) man and require man to take the first step.

Again, both teachings are false, but both are not identical.

Michael Garner,

That’s correct. The semi-pelagians during and after Augustine believed in a weakened will, as well as affirming that man must take the first step. Classic and contemporary Arminianism both affirm that God is taking the first step in prevenient grace. (Most contemporary Arminianism rejects total depravity and thus affirms a “partial dead” will—excuse the contradictory terms ;-)

And indeed, what is important is that they are both synergistic.

Alan

Hi Alan. You said, And since Arminius affirmed synergism, his theology is not a theology that is grace alone.

From what I can tell, you seem to be thinking of synergism in terms of some sort of equal cooperation between God and a human in salvation, where a human is contributing something crucial or decisive to salvation. But that’s not Arminius’s synergism. He held to an evangelical synergism that reserves all the power, ability, and efficacy in salvation to God’s grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only “contribution” humans make is non-resistance to grace. This is the same as accepting a gift, and Arminius did not understand why a gift that must be freely received is no longer a gift.

So when you say, “For Arminius, the grace of God is not effecual. That is, prevenient grace for Arminius will affect some people different than others. So the determining factor that someone chooses Christ is found in man, not the nature of grace itself.—that just doesn’t make sense to Arminians. For Arminians, the one and only decisive factor is the grace of God—from beginning to end. For example, if a begger accepted money from a rich man to feed his family, what was the decisive factor in his family’s survival? Obviously, it’s the money—not the beggar’s acceptance of it. Another anlogy would be the endorsement of a check. If you received a check to pay a debt, who says that endorsing the check constitutes the decisive factor in paying the debt? That would be absurd. Obviously, the check was the decisive factor. Human acceptance is performing an analogous function in the Arminian view of grace and Arminian evangelical synergism: the bare act of deciding to rely totally on God’s grace for salvation and to accept the gift of eternal life is not the decisive factor in salvation. That status belongs to God’s grace alone. The grace is what is effectual. Grace is the sole determining factor. Grace alone is decisive. To say otherwise is a distorting of what Arminius taught. [Olson goes through all of this in his book, by the way, by looking at the primary texts].

You said, “A grace that only “enables” or “prepares” a heart is not saving grace. Grace that actually changes the heart is Biblical saving grace.”

Obviously, the term “prevenient grace” is not in the Bible. But Arminians believe that prevenient grace is a biblical concept assumed everywhere in scripture. They see it as the powerful but resistible drawing of God that Jesus spoke about in John 6 (Olson deals with this in his book, for example). Arminians believe that if a person is saved, it is because God inititated the relationship and enabled the person to respond freely with repentance and faith. Prevenient grace, in the Arminian depiction, includes four aspects: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. No person can repent, believe, or be saved without God’s supernatural support from beginning to end. All the person does is cooperate by not resisting. The movement toward salvation is grace all the way down. Most Arminians would argue that you are narrowing the definition of grace down to something more limited that was appears in scripture.

They see it as the powerful but resistible drawing of God that Jesus spoke about in John 6 …Arminians believe that if a person is saved, it is because God inititated the relationship and enabled the person to respond freely with repentance and faith.

The problem, though, with this thinking, Jason, is that it still leaves man’s destiny ultimately in his own hands, and not in the hands of God.

I wonder if you can, in your own words, explain how God’s drawing can be powerful and resistable at the same time. If it can be resisted…then how powerful can it be?

I encourage you to do a word study on the Greek word for ‘draw’ in John 6…it is ‘helkuo’ and means to draw or drag off…and it is the same word that is translated elsewhere as dragged, haul, & drag. And in all the places where it is translated ‘draw’ or ‘drew’ (save two - John 6:44 & John 12:32), it is denoting a physical action, like drawing water out of a well, or drawing a sword.

In light of that information, doesn’t it make more sense that the metaphorical (or spiritual) use of it in the two verses in John denotes more than just a mere wooing or pull by God, and in fact indicates something much stronger, much more certain…something we know as irresistable grace?

Alan,Thanks for your contribution. I have but one question that bugs me:What is what Reformed Christians call ‘common grace’. Is it a different concept than Arminius’ prevenient grace? and how?

Alan,

I do very much enjoy your postings. Thanks for linking to this from your blog so that I had the opportunity to follow your arguments!

SDG,DBH

PS — For common grace, per the request of the previous poster, try the link I just provided. :)

David,Thanks for the link. I perused several of the articles at monergism.com about common grace. This one in particular caught my attention:

“This is how the common grace of Kuyper found its way into the CRC. In her three points of common grace adopted in 1924 the CRC reflected the influence of Kuyper. Particularly in her second and third points is this revealed. In her second point the CRC stated her belief that there is a “restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community…. God by the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart of man, restrains the unimpeded breaking out of sin, by which human life in society remains possible.” This is Kuyperian common grace pure and simple. Thus also in her third point the CRC expressed her belief that “the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good.” This too is nothing but Kuyper’s doctrine. And the CRC has continued to develop and promote this teaching throughout her history. It is the doctrine that dominates her theology and practice. And, sad to say, it has borne an evil fruit in her midst. Because of her adoption of common grace the CRC has steadily departed from the historic Reformed faith and practice. Due to her belief in God’s general favor toward and good work in the world she has imported the “blessings” of higher criticism of the Bible, evolutionism, feminism, unbiblical divorce and remarriage, rock music, and movies.”http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?ID=11

After reading I am quite intrigued to ask this: how different is kuyperian common grace from arminian prevenient grace? I mean, if by kuyperian common grace we understand a God-given grace that restrains sin of man and enables him to do civil good and yet does not save a man, how far -or close- is that from arminian prevenient grace that ‘neutralizes’ man’s depravity making him potentially saved to exercise his ‘free will’. Perhaps I am confusing the terms but my point is that arminians would say that their view of prevenient grace is equivalent to the Reformed kuyperian view of common grace in the fact that none of them saves.

To close, I have a couple of questions: is there any other reformed view on common grace? and is really that bad the kuyperian view?

Alan,

I think you are assuming too much about me/my view from my post.

I wasn’t saying humanity’s condition is mysterious; I was saying that Calvinists appeal to mystery in understanding humanity’s responsibility in light of God’s complete deterministic control over all creation. Like I mentioned, most Calvinist acknowledge this and are comfortable living with the inconsistency. Grudem is good example.

With the Calvinists’ (and Arminians) philosophical presuppositions, there’s only one way to understand the texts you are implying. I want to suggest there are flawed assumptions shared by Calvinists and Arminians that lead them to positions that ultimately are incoherent.

Your analogy argues against your view as much as it argues for it. For it implies what Calvinists can’t understand in light of God’s complete deterministic control; namely, a person acted irresponsibily. How can one do that when another is in complete deterministic control of them?

Brian W,

”But, taken to its logical conclusion, human responsibility doesn’t fit within God’s complete deterministic control.

…and why?

Let’s take a Biblical example,

God determined the evil sin of Herod, Pilate, Gentiles, and the people of Israel to conspire against Jesus; yet they were still held responsible for their actions:

[Determined] Acts 4:27-28”Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”

[Responsiblity] John 19:10Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

”namely, a person acted irresponsibily. How can one do that when another is in complete deterministic control of them?”

God has freedom to withdraw his hand of grace.

No one can be held responsible for their actions if in fact there were no antecedent causes to bring about an effect. I have commented on this suject before on my blog so I can refer you to that discussion:

http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=263

”I was saying that Calvinists appeal to mystery in understanding humanity’s responsibility in light of God’s complete deterministic control over all creation. Like I mentioned, most Calvinist acknowledge this and are comfortable living with the inconsistency. Grudem is good example.”

Could you give me the exact quote from Grudem in which he calls this an “inconsistency”?

God is sovereign over all, and he demands his creatures to live by his law.

Because we live in a deterministic world is precisely why there is a basis for responsibility.

Arminian theology asserts that if we could not have chosen to do something otherwise, then there is no free will. Here is their irrational fallacy in a nutshell. They are resisting any idea of a guaranteed result from any same conditions. It is irrational because there is no explanation for the effect of an action.

If they object, “oh yes, there can be an explanation,” then I ask, “Will it always be guaranteed to produce the same action?” They of course being the libertarian have to say “no.”

This is ironic because Calvinists are frequently accused of having no basis for personal responsibility. It is the Arminian who has no basis for personal responsibility because there are no conditions that can exist in their system that can produce the desired result every time.

For personal responsibility to exist there must be the same set of conditions to always bring about the exact same result. How else can you hold someone responsible if they can claim no reason (i.e. set of antecedent conditions) for their actions?

Thanks,Alan

I don’t mean to say that Grudem says he’s comfortable with Calvinistic “inconsistencies”. But in his Systematic Theology, he acknowledges the “unaswered questions” left by Calvinism and says he more comfortable with them than the ones left by Arminianism.

i) I’d like a citation of Grudmen’s mention of “inconsistency” on that issue.

ii) “unasnwered questions” of what? You fail to provide any specifics.

iii) Interestingly, it is the Calivnist who is confident to allow God’s freedom and man’s will to co-exist. The Arminian will not allow for this “mystery” and thus they jettison the freedom of God and retain the libertarian “free will” of man.

How can God create something out of nothing? Sounds like an “inconsistency” to use your language. Yet, I am going to embrace this fact as truth because the Bible teaches it.

“Primarily, if God determined all creaturely acts before time (as if he is before time) than how can creatures be held accountable for their actions? I know the Calvinistic answer: Because God says so. But that doesn’t help explain anything.”

i) Gary, you just finished saying that you want this to be a mystery and now you want an explanation! —> “But that doesn’t help explain anything.”

Which is it? Do you want to accept both truths and leave it as a mystery, or now you are saying you want an explanation of this divine mystery? And if you don’t get one you will keep “free will” and reject God’s freedom.

By that reasoning you must also reject the truth of ex nihilo and the truth that Jesus is all fully God and fully man because our sensibilities are not in accord with this reality.

”In fact, its contrary to what we experience in this world.”

With all due respect, I believe you have just revealed your problem: Theological truths must accord with our human sensibilitlies. Again, your being inconsistent in that previously you have stressed that we need to accept certain “mysteries,” and now the exact same subject you want explanations that agree with our experience.

“Secondly, we don’t live in a deterministic world contrary to what you say. Science has shown that the 17th century mechanistic assumptions can’t explain all natural phenomenon.”

Who is functioning from scientific and philosophic pressups? It is I who wants to stay in the Biblical text.

“Scientists have demonstrated that at times, we have no antecedent explanations for particular phenomenon.”

Misleading. They may not have specific explanations, but they admit that their are causes of some sort. And while we are on the subject, I want to make note that you are arguing for a position (indeterminism) that leaves no basis for human responsibility: I can commit evil acts and claim that there were no causes for my actions.

Lastly, I noticed that you did not respond to my Biblical example of Acts 4 and God ordaining the evil acts of men and holding them accountable.

It is inconsistent to say: We should leave human responsibility and God’s determinism of his creation a mystery, and then at the same time demand an explanation for these two co-existent truths otherwise you will reject it.

Thanks,Alan

Your post is a perfect example of why I started #38 as I did. This forum is obviously a poor one to debate these issues. I either did a terrible job explaining myself, you misunderstood me or simply took my words and spun them for your own purposes. Let’s assume the first. Here’s a few comments, hopefully clearer.

1. There’s a huge difference between recognizing and embracing mystery and living with logical incoherence.

2. You say, “And if you don’t get one you will keep “free will” and reject God’s freedom”. I don’t even believe in “free will”. Free will assumes a faculty psychology that has long been abandoned by everyone except American Evangelicals. You just assume I believe in free will. So I certainly wouldn’t privilege free will over God’s freedom since I don’t even believe in it. I’m reformed in my intuitions. I’m trying to practice what the first reformers championed, which is continual reformation. So I’m unwilling to try to put the square peg of Calvinism into the round hole of reality. Thankfully, there are reformed theologians out there who are actively engaged in the continual process of reform and have abandoned the philosophical presuppositions that plague this debate.

3. I obviously never said I wanted the mysteries of God “resolved”. But if a person contends that two contradictory notions are in fact both true, than its up to them to show how they are not. For a third time, most honest Calvinist writers say, “ultimately, we don’t know how to understand our responsibility and God’s sovereignty”. Apparently, you are unwilling to say such things. (more on this point below).

4. I agree that all phenomenon has an explanation. You just assume that it always comes from the past. I was suggesting that those actually following in the reformation tradition (i.e. continually reforming) are coming to see that it makes more sense from scripture and science to privilege the future.

5. “Inconsistency” was my word, not Grudem’s. On page 351 of his Systematic Theology, he points out that both views leave crucial unanswered questions, but (in his view) the questions left by Calvinism are not so bad. (An illustration of what honest Calvinists say). In fact, on page 350, Grudem has two questions that he says Calvinists “must say they do not know how to answer”. #1) Exactly how can God ordain that we do evil willingly, and God not be blamed for evil.#2) Exactly how God can cause us to choose something willingly.I’m glad you drove me to what he said, for he’s more unsure than I remember.

5. As for Acts 4, I agree with it.

Rather than go on, I just point out LeRon Shult’s book “Reforming the Doctrine of God”. It demonstrates many of the new trajectories of those in the reformed move and he elevates the discussion from the typical Calvinist/Arminian banter.

My name is Brian, by the way.

Hey, play nice, Alan. The chuckle was unnecessary. We aren’t the Caners, are we?

Unless, of course, it was predestined. ;-)

Alan, sorry I didn’t get to check back to your response until today. Here are a few quick responses:

You said, This is elementary logic: If one believes that prevenient grace is given to every individual equally, and some assent to it and some individuals reject it, then the determinative factor is found in the creature, not in the grace itself.”

I just don’t think that your elementary logic is all that logical. If a poor man in debt is given a check by a rich man which eliminates the debt, what is the decisive element in paying off that debt? The check or the poor man’s endorsement of it? What man would go around bragging that his endorsement of the check was the decisive factor? THAT would be illogical.

You said, “By your own admission of Arminius’ view, all the power of God in heaven cannot save an individual sinner—it only grants the creature ability, not the efficacious desire.

That’s not what I “admitted.” As I said, in the Arminian view, all power for salvation is from God alone, and God’s grace along is efficacious for salvation. It alone causes any movement toward God.

You said, Notice the absence of “saving.” And this is the watershed difference between Calvinism and Arminianism: God’s grace actually saves, it does not make it possible

This comment was in reference to my comment on prevenient grace. The absence of “saving” shouldn’t be surprising, since that effect isn’t included under the depiction of “prevenient grace” at all! That’s why it’s prevenient! You’re basically arguing that the Arminian term for prevenient grace doesn’t do something it was never intended to do.

I’ll wrap up my discussion with those all-too-brief remarks, since we could go back and forth quite literally for years. I do hope you’re read Olson’s book, since it seems that your understanding of Arminius’s teachings falls into some of “mythical” readings that he corrects. I’m sure you’ll still disagree with Arminianism at the end of the day, but at the very least, you’ll have a more accurate view of what Arminians actually believe.

I think that’s the goal of Olson’s book, and it’s certainly my goal here. Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa. But if we can get a better grasp of what both sides actually believe—instead of dealing with false depictions, mischaracterizations, etc—then we’re honoring God by our discussions. Where Calvinists and Arminians persist in presenting demonstrably false views of each other’s positions, we fail to honor God. Olson’s attempt to “define” Arminianism in the face of the various myths about it thus seems like a helpful enterprise to me, and one worth embracing even if we ultimatley disagree with his conclusions.

“I just don’t think that your elementary logic is all that logical. If a poor man in debt is given a check by a rich man which eliminates the debt, what is the decisive element in paying off that debt? The check or the poor man’s endorsement of it? What man would go around bragging that his endorsement of the check was the decisive factor? THAT would be illogical.”

i) Could you provide for me a logical law that I am violating in the following statement:

If one believes that prevenient grace is given to every individual equally, and some assent to it and some individuals reject it, then the determinative factor is found in the creature, not in the grace itself.

ii) Your analogy fails to take into account the quality of God’s grace and its effects on the sinner’s heart.

“ As I said, in the Arminian view, all power for salvation is from God alone, and God’s grace along is efficacious for salvation. It alone causes any movement toward God.”

Your in error. Arminianism does not believe that God’s grace is efficacious. They deny this. Um…this is what most of this thread has been discussing.

”The absence of “saving” shouldn’t be surprising, since that effect isn’t included under the depiction of “prevenient grace” at all! That’s why it’s prevenient! You’re basically arguing that the Arminian term for prevenient grace doesn’t do something it was never intended to do.”

Hence, the reason why Arminian notion of grace is defective: it does not save, only prepares the heart, but does not actually efficaciously bring a sinner to grace. Christ did not raise us up to spiritual “neutrality”; he raised us up to life.

”Not many committed Calvinists are going to convert to Arminianism, and vice versa.”

On the contrary, I meet many believers who are ex-Arminian and delight in their Reformed precious truths (myself included.)

Thanks,Alan

Alan, I’m just saying that belittling someone’s reading is kinda dumb. Counter-productive. Disrespectful. It’s kinda as if we belittled Tim for some of the books he’s put up here and thoughtfully critiqued.

It’d be better to point the guy to something you think is more worthy, if you’re going to put yourself out here as someone who knows better about the reading.