According to Monergism.com, hyper-Calvinism's errors include the following: "that God is the author of sin and of evil, that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect; that the number of the elect at any time may be known; that it is wrong to evangelize; that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith; that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do; that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others; that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned . . ."

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

I have recently been accused of being an inconsistent Arminian because I reject Open Theism. I find it interesting that Calvinists are so concerned with consistency seeing as how they both affirm that God causes all things and is yet somehow not the author of sin.

I admit that I love consistency. I reject Calvinism primarily because I find no support for it in the pages of Scripture, and secondarily because it is so internally inconsistent. I admire Calvinists who are not afraid to “take it in the face”, so to speak, and call God the author of sin. “Traditional” Calvinists call these types “hyper” Calvinists, but in the spirit of my recent conversation, I think it is more accurate to just call them “consistent” Calvinists.

People are often tempted to believe that there is some mediate option which will allow them to avoid the Calvinist/Arminian debate. This inclination comes from a commendable impulse -- to hold fast to Scriptural truth without imposing a man-made system, and avoid being sidetracked in the work of the Gospel by endless doctrinal controversy. These impulses lead people to declare that they are "Biblicist" or that they are both Arminian and Calvinist.

Now, within Calvinist and Arminian frameworks there are many different issues and nuances of dispute. There are systematizers and systemic implications, but there is really only one basic issue: Does God unconditionally choose who will be saved, and who will not? If you believe this you are a Calvinist, if you do not, you are, in the general sense an Arminian. It really is as simple as that.

The content of this post was authored by J.C. Thibodaux and is posted on his behalf.

I came across a writing some time back by Pastor Greg Elmquist called, ‘Four Unanswerable Questions,’ which I’ve seen copied and pasted by Calvinists on forums as evidence that the doctrines espoused in Arminianism could not possibly be true. I decided to examine each of these supposed unsolvable Calvinist conundrums for myself and find out if there was a scriptural and logical answer to them. I’ll be going over his essay, which will be in italics, and my thoughts and commentary will be in normal type.

Greg starts out,

“There are four lies being told in Orlando today.”

I’ve been to Orlando, I’m pretty sure I counted more than that; but Greg is about to add a few more to the list.

“Modern, man-centered, Christ dethroning religionist would have us believe…”