This article was written by Pastor Phillip M. Way, a five point Calvinist! We include it on our site because it criticizes the hyper-Calvinistic view that one must believe Calvinism to be saved, as represented by the statements of C. Matthew McMahon, the operator of the Calvinist website "A Puritan's Mind." The fact that it comes from a five point Calvinist helps show how extreme and unreasonable such a view is. Please be aware that SEA does not approve of everything in the article. For example, the author implies that Arminianism is heresy. However, he must mean this in the sense of "false teaching in non-essential doctrine," since one of the main points of the article is that that non-Calvinists can be saved.

James Leonard provided a nice summary of Roger Olson’s book: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Olson’s book is quickly becoming an Arminian classic. One of Leonard’ key points is “Arminians are not driven to their position because they want to cling to free will, as if it were absolutely precious and the one non-negotiable of the debate. The real issue for Arminians is the character of God. Arminians are driven to their position because they see that Calvinism leads to making God the author and the effecting power of sin, and denying God's goodness.” (link)

Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part III.IV
Commands inconsistent with LFW

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V

Background - LFW and responsibility

Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else - we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness.

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I

1. Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible.
2. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices
3. If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible.

My Response
Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leaves us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose.

How Does Grace Work in Arminian-Wesleyan Theology?

by Eric Landstrom

How grace is understood to work is the key to unlocking any Christian theology or theological tradition. As such, I thought it beneficial to unpack the Wesleyan or traditionally Methodist view of how grace is understood to work. The Wesleyan view should be of particular interest to Christians influenced by eastern theological thought since John Wesley, in his later years, backed away from the doctrine of original sin in favor of ancestral sin.* As a result, there are several "Wesleyanisms" that bear Wesley's name that stem from different points of Wesley's own theological development. Here I present Wesley's mature view via Tom Oden's works.**

Discussion: Grace and Sin