Bored Protestant

 "DECREES. Acts ii: 23. What does St. Peter say was done by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? Did they take him, and by wicked hands crucify and slay him by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? This is not said: but he was delivered, that is, put into their power, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? and then they took him and with wicked hands slew him: And then we must observe, that here are two distinct acts of God relating to this event; the determinate counsel, and the foreknowledge of God. The will or counsel of God, which he had fore-ordained, and predetermined, the Boule Proorismene was, that Christ should die an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world, which was a work of such stupendous wisdom, goodness, holiness, and justice, that nothing could more become God, than such counsels and decrees. But then by his Infinite prescience and foreknowledge he saw by what means this would be done, if he thought fit to p...

Open theism a view which says God can't know the future contingents infallible. Some Christian's view this as a viable option because LFW is the only way to have moral responsibility but no Christian should accept open theism. Since this view comes from Socinians and there are answers to reconcile libertarian free will (LFW) and God's infallible knowledge of future contingents. Orthodox Arminians have gave answers to the objections that the follower's of Socinus and Calvinist. The standard objection is this "that the foreknowledge of contingent events, being in its own nature impossible, because it implies a contradiction." In simple terms God knowing future contingents infallible make them necessary so the Arminian view is no different than the Calvinist. But Richard Watson a great 19th century Methodist theologian in his Theological Institutes gave a great answer to this objection.   Watson makes a very important point that has to always be kept ...

Prevenient grace is an important and essential doctrine for all Arminians but what is the relation of it and the will when it comes to prevenient grace? I will say that prevenient grace is irresistible in one sense and resistible in another sense. And it's not uncommon for Arminian theologians to say prevenient grace is irresistible and I will give two examples of that. But first I need to define what prevenient grace is since it's meaning is essential to understand why I say it's irresistible.     I think William Burt Pope, one of the best Methodist theologians, gives a great definition of prevenient grace. "It is the sole, efficient cause of all spiritual good in man: of the beginning, continuance, and consummation of religion in the human soul. The manifestation of Divine influence which precedes the full regenerate life receives no special name in Scripture; but it is so described as to warrant the designation usually given it of Prevenient Grace."(1) Pope giv...

Verses 3-6   " Blessed be God, who hath blessed us " —God’s blessing us is his bestowing spiritual and heavenly blessings upon us. Our blessing God is the paying him our solemn and grateful acknowledgments, both on account of his own essential blessedness, and of the blessings which he bestows on us; " with all spiritual blessings" —The spiritual blessings here spoken of are such as are necessary to the perfection and happiness of our spirits; namely, the light of the gospel, the influences of the Spirit of God, the pardon of sin, adoption into God's family, the sanctification of our nature, and eternal life. These blessings are here opposed to the earthly blessings which were promised to the natural descendants of Abraham, the ancient church of God, which consisted in the possession of Canaan, in victory over their enemies, fruitful seasons, &c., as described Deut xxviii. To these, and such like blessings, Abraham's seed, by faith, were enti...

Verses 9-13 Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God's children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. And that God's blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil—The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works—Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that ...

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29    Romans 8:29 a very important passage of scripture when it concerns predestination and its meaning is vital. So what does Arminius have to say on this particular verse he first starts by laying out two views that explain what foreknowledge means in this verse. So the first view Arminius explains is "whom He foreknew," i.e. whom He previously loved, and affectionately regarded as His own" and the second view is "others say that foreknowledge, or prescience of faith in Christ, is here signified." Arminius knows people like William Perkins would accept the former but reject the latter interpretation of foreknowledge in Romans 8. But Arminius has a goal and that is "it shall be demonstrated that God can "previously love and affectionately regard as His own" no sinner unless H...

If you look within Arminianism you will see two schools one is Classical Arminianism that mainly follows Jacob Arminius. The other school is Wesleyan Arminianism that mainly follows John Wesley. Now both sides love Arminius and Wesley but each side favors one over the other.  But within these two schools there are differences like the Atonement, Christian perfection and Imputation. But for this blog post I'm gonna be focusing on Christian perfection or entire sanctification since many see this as the main dividing line. But I will argue that christian perfection is not the main dividing issue. But first we need to define this doctrine since this great doctrine has been corrupted and goes against what John Wesley originally intended. Definition of Christian Perfection Here is how I would define christian perfection: loving God with all our heart and able not to commit sin. Now the first part every Christian will affirm that we should love God with all our heart. But saying that a Ch...

You will hear this from some Calvinist that Arminians believe in a works based salvation that leads straight back to Romanism. Is the Calvinist right and Arminianism goes against the Reformation principle of Sola Fide?      Now let's define what is a works based salvation I would define it as a system that says the works we do merit eternal life alongside faith. But do the best theologians of Arminianism affirm that John Wesley says  "The righteousness of Christ is the whole and sole foundation of all our hope. It is by faith that the Holy Ghost enables us to build upon this foundation. God gives this faith; in that moment we are accepted of God; and yet, not for the sake of that faith, but of what Christ has done and suffered for us. " Arminius echos the same thing "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers ...

I'm responding to this article and you can read it here https://medium.com/@kayakayayak233/on-an-unsound-argument-against-calvinism-e8c18ff79629   First he lays out a argument that Arminians would give  (1) Either God willfully determined the original sin or the original sin is of Adam’s (Libertarian) Free Will (2) If God willfully determined the original sin, then God is morally responsible for the original sin. (3) God is not morally responsible for the original sin. (4) God did not willfully determine the original sin. (5) The original sin is of Adam’s (Libertarian) Free Will. The argument he gives is what Arminians would use against Calvinism. He rejects premise 2 and says "There is a greater intuition than the initial intuition for the principle that if you are actively willing a greater good by willing a lesser evil, that you aren’t morally responsible for the lesser evil." So for him the fall would be God willing a lesser evil for a greater good. Now the question w...

The goal of this blog post is to answer the question of whether open theism fits within the Arminian tradition. Since you will hear Open theists proclaim they are Arminians or Calvinist use it as a polemic against Arminianism. It's my opinion that open theism does not fit within Arminian orthodoxy and I will define what this orthodoxy is. Since there is a foundational difference in what God can know about between the Arminian and open theist. Since believing in free will doesn't make one an Arminian it's following the great tradition built by great theologians like Arminius and John Wesley that makes you Arminian. The Orthodox Arminian view of God's foreknowledge We need to first define what the orthodox Arminian view is when it comes to God's foreknowledge. The best way to do this is by looking at Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. The reason is that those two are the best representatives for Arminianism since they both help build this tradition. When it comes to God...