Among such biblical texts as Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1, Calvinists are convinced that John 6 secures the notion that Jesus taught a Calvinistic soteriology. I am convinced, however, that Calvinists tend to see Calvinism in every text. I know. I used to be one.

My zeal for Calvinism clouded my interpretation of Scripture. Whatever scriptures I encountered which contradicted Calvinism, I had to find a way to make it mean something other than its simplistic meaning. I am not saying that all Calvinists are necessarily guilty of this very thing. But I will admit that I was immersed in the writings of John Calvin, John Piper, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, John Owen, Martin Luther, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, and others, and was raised, spiritually speaking, on a strict Calvinistic hermeneutic of Classical Reformed theology.

JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College

I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith

Introduction

The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley's observation that to say, "This man is an Arminian," was, to some, much the same thing as saying, "This man is a mad dog."1

JOHN FLETCHER'S INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESLEYAN THEOLOGY IN AMERICA

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
By John A. Knight

Introduction

Not until recent years has the significance of John Fletcher's theology been assessed by interpreters of the history of Christian doctrine. For almost two hundred years his work was eclipsed by the Wesleys and by some in the Calvinistic wing of the 18th century Evangelical Revival in England, except for occasional references by historians and biographers of his contemporaries.

David C. Shipley's perceptive study, "Methodist Arminianism in the Theology of John Fletcher," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1942, was a pioneer work in this country. Particularly in the last two decades others have begun to recognize the importance of Fletcher to the development of Wesleyan theology.1

Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.

Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more "hear" the gospel or "see" our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

The apostle Paul wrote that his prayer was that Christians would know "what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1.19-20).

Many Calvinists insist that Arminianism is a graceless theology. God has been cast aside in favor of honoring man. Humanism reigns supreme. This is due, mostly, to the Calvinists' doctrine which mistakenly equates God's grace with regeneration.

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

Most Christians are familiar with the story of Job. Job endured severe trials but did not curse God (though he did question God). The emphases of the book are many. It is probably mainly concerned with a faulty theology which claimed that bad things don’t happen to good people. But how does any of this relate to Calvinism and Arminianism?

We are told in the first two chapters of Job that Satan presented himself before the Lord and the Lord pointed out the righteousness of Job. It would appear that God was proud of Job’s righteous conduct and wanted Satan to take notice. God was truly pleased with Job.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Before examining some of the other Calvinists “proof texts” for irresistible regeneration, we will take a moment to deal with a common Calvinist objection to the Arminian appeal to Jn. 12:32 as an example of universal “drawing”.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated that the Biblical ordo salutis (order of salvation) is not that regeneration precedes faith. I gave both a positive argument, and negative arguments (ed.s note referring to the author's blog). Before moving on to examine the other petals of our favorite little flower, I wanted to give some brief attention to what I believe to be a rather odd proof text often urged by the proponents of irresistible grace.

This argument focuses on the grammar of two related passages in 1 John. James White makes use of these passages in The Potter’s Freedom. He sets up his argument by first quoting 1 John 5:1,

“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.”

In his book The Potter's Freedom, James White equates the saving grace of God with regeneration. He writes, "The doctrine of irresistible grace is easily understood. Once we understand the condition of man in sin, that he is dead, enslaved to a corrupt nature, incapable of doing what is pleasing to God, we can fully understand the simple assertion that God must raise the dead sinner to life.

"This is all, really, the phrase means: it has nothing to do with sinners rebelling against God and 'resisting' Him in that way. It has nothing to do with the fact that Christians often resist God's grace in their lives when they sin against Him. No, irresistible grace means one thing: God rasies dead sinners to life."1

Calling Arminians Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian is somewhat of a tradition within Calvinism. The Synod of Dort repeatedly did so, clearing the path for generations to come. I recently completed a study on John Owen’s book Death of Death in the Death of Christ, where he relates Arminians with Pelagians. Additionally, J. I. Packer calls Arminians Semi-Pelagian in his introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The charge that Arminians are either Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians is false. I intend to demonstrate this though 1) comparing the Canons of Orange to Arminius and 2) critiquing Packer’s argument.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Rakestraw. "John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace," published in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:2 (June 1984): 193-203.

I. Grace Is Essential Because Sinners Are In A "Dead" State Of Mind. (2:1-3)

The Greek text of Ephesians 2:1 begins with, Kai hymas ontas nekros, literally, "and you were dead." The New King James Version renders the first verse as, "And you He made alive (hath He quickened- KJV), who were dead . . ."

The phrase "He made alive" is in italics, informing us that the translators inserted it for clarity. H. A. Ironside stated, "You will notice that the words, 'hath He quickened,' are in italics [in your bible]. That means that there is nothing in the original to answer to them, and yet we actually seem to need them to fully bring out the thought of the Greek . . ." If someone is "dead," how then shall he "live"? The thought that "He made [us] alive" is found in verse five of chapter two. It was inserted here because the concept of being "dead" rendered it necessary.

How does your perception of what is and is not Arminian theology dovetail into the following true story that relates to mans' sin nature?

The great Wesley scholar, Albert Outler was once giving a lecture on original sin in which he was trying to explain the debate between Augustine and Pelagius. A very angry student (who Outler termed as a "West Texas Pelagian") stormed into his office and said, "Look, if what you’re saying is right and we don’t have the natural ability simply to choose between right and wrong, then God help us!"

Outler replied, "That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to help you to see! We can’t do it on our own, so we need God’s help. You’ve betrayed yourself into orthodoxy!"

I'll put the basics of Outler's argument into a syllogism:

1) If people were naturally good, then they would naturally be able to fellowship with God.