Arminianism and Free Will
Edited with significant material added on August 4, 2022, for a planned entry on academia.edu.
Preface
Within my MPhil and PhD theoretical work on theodicy, sovereignty, free will, and determinism, I have dealt with free will perspectives from Lewis, Augustine and Plantinga, but not Arminianism. A friend of mine, Varun, asked me about Arminianism. The following is a brief discussion of Arminianism and free will, prior to completing my PhD work. Arminianism was not a main focus of my MPhil/PhD work and this article is brief and non-exhaustive. Pelagianism was also, not a major MPhil/PhD work focus.
Total Depravity
A definition of total depravity that I used in my MPhil...The concept of total depravity does not mean (1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man's or God's sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean (2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been effected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean (3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible. Positively total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man's nature, to his being: and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favour with God. Ryrie (1996: 312).
Pelagianism
It must be noted that Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Pelagianism believes that human beings can achieve salvation from their own powers. It is believed that human beings can choose in free will, good or evil. Original sin was a bad example, and not inherited. Yarnold (1999: 435).
Cited from
'Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Anthony A. Killeen. Aeterna non caduca. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.'
'Apart from the chief episodes of the Pelagian controversy, little or nothing is known about the personal career of Pelagius. It is only after he bade a lasting farewell to Rome in A.D. 411 that the sources become more abundant; but from 418 on history is again silent about his person. As St. Augustine (De peccat. orig., xxiv) testifies that he lived in Rome "for a very long time", we may presume that he resided there at least since the reign of Pope Anastasius (398-401). But about his long life prior to the year 400 and above all about his youth, we are left wholly in the dark. Even the country of his birth is disputed. While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory.
Rightly arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer ("Pelagius in Ireland", p. 20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome. Tall in stature and portly in appearance (Jerome, loc. cit., "grandis et corpulentus"), Pelagius was highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin as well as Greek with great fluency and was well versed in theology. Though a monk and consequently devoted to practical asceticism, he never was a cleric; for both Orosius and Pope Zosimus simply call him a "layman". In Rome itself he enjoyed the reputation of austerity, while St. Augustine called him even a "saintly man", vir sanctus: with St. Paulinus of Nola (405) and other prominent bishops, he kept up an edifying correspondence, which he used later for his personal defence.'
Pelagius and Luther
Cited
'A closer examination of this work, so suddenly become famous, brought to light the fact that it contained the fundamental ideas which the Church afterwards condemned as "Pelagian heresy". In it Pelagius denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P.L., XXX, 678, "Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire peccatum"), insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. As all his ideas were chiefly rooted in the old, pagan philosophy, especially in the popular system of the Stoics, rather than in Christianity, he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace.
By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, "per solam fidem justificat Deus impium convertendum"), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no interior renovation of sanctification of the soul. How far the sola-fides doctrine "had no stouter champion before Luther than Pelagius" and whether, in particular, the Protestant conception of fiducial faith dawned upon him many centuries before Luther, as Loofs ("Realencyklopädies fur protest. Theologie", XV, 753, Leipzig, 1904) assumes, probably needs more careful investigation. For the rest, Pelagius would have announced nothing new by this doctrine, since the Antinomists of the early Apostolic Church were already familiar with "justification by faith alone" (cf. JUSTIFICATION); on the other hand, Luther's boast of having been the first to proclaim the doctrine of abiding faith, might well arouse opposition. However, Pelagius insists expressly (loc. cit. 812), "Ceterum sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides". But the commentary on St. Paul is silent on one chief point of doctrine, i.e. the significance of infant baptism, which supposed that the faithful were even then clearly conscious of the existence of original sin in children.' (End citation)
---
In 1525, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, which was a debate with a Catholic scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (ca.1466-1536), that was an advocate of a free will theory. Cairns (1981: 263). Luther reasons that since human beings were fallen and abandoned God, they could not will good but only turned in the direction of their own desires. Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130). He comments that human beings were perverted and evil, Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130), but this can be used by God for his purposes, although people can do nothing but oppose God by the use of their own will. Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130). He dogmatically assumes that there is no middle way between God’s grace and human free will, Luther (1525)(1972: 130-133), and postulates that human free will should be theologically denied and everything should be ascribed to God. Luther (1525)(1972: 133).
When New Advent states in regards to Pelagius:
'By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, "per solam fidem justificat Deus impium convertendum"), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no interior renovation of sanctification of the soul.'
I will counter that true, New Testament, legal justification and as well sanctification, requires the applied atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to believers through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1). The soul is renovated, even as by grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2, Romans).
Luther in Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans reasoned that the righteousness of God was contrary to the human righteousness of works, Luther (1516)(1968: 25), instead when a human being received justification by God the person could then commit truly good works. Luther (1516)(1968: 25).
Arminianism, original sin, and prevenient grace
According to J.K. Grider, Arminianism is the theological view originating from quote 'James Arminius'. Grider (1996: 80). The name is in the original Dutch, Jakob Hermanszoon (1560-1609) Grider (1996: 80). His views were similar to quote 'pre-Augustinian fathers' Grider (1996: 79), as well as later, John Wesley. Grider (1996: 79). Quote: 'In several ways it differs from the Augustine-Luther-Calvin tradition.' Grider (1996: 79).
Grider explains that a key work from Arminius was Examination of Perkins' Pamphlet, and Declaration of Sentiments. Grider (1996: 79). On page 20 from the online version: The Works of James Arminius, Volume 3, Arminius states: 'From which we infer (of this we will speak hereafter) that the decree to leave man to the decision of his own destiny, and to permit the fall, does not belong to the decree of reprobation, since it is prior to and more ancient than the decree of predestination.' Arminius (The Works of James Arminius, Volume 3: 20 (A)).
---
God is the first cause and primary cause of all things. Simultaneously, in eternal existence, God willed, within his infinite nature, as omnipotent and omniscient, all things. There is no divine, reasoning and pondering time in infinity and eternity, although all things, in regards to the human realm, will eventually take place in time. There is no such order, within the nature and will of God, as assumed here by Arminius. God willed the fall (Genesis 1-3), predestination (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 9, as examples) and that some would be chosen and predestined in Jesus Christ.
Christ is the lamb slain from the foundations of the world (Revelation 13: 8).
Also within Ephesians 1:3-4: New American Standard Bible (NASB) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [a]Him. In love Footnotes: (a) Ephesians 1:4 Or Him, in love
Does prevenient grace work?
Arminianism holds to original sin and human corruption and that people are not able to do good without prevenient grace. Grider (1996: 80). Prevenient grace could be explained as preceding grace.
Arminians generally believe that God's grace is not irresistible, and that believers can fall away from God. Grider (1996: 80). A problem I see here is although Arminians believe in original sin, and total depravity, they state that people can reject God's salvific grace. Grider (1996: 80). I would think an understanding of original sin and the resulting fallen human nature, as described by Paul in Romans 1-3, for example, would view God's salvific grace to those who are totally depraved and corrupt, as having to be in a sense irresistible, although not forced or coerced. God would instead persuade and mould human beings he has predestined in order that they freely believe. God would have to change a human being that previously could not believe, so that he/she would follow God and Christ.
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
BEEBE, JAMES R. (2006) ‘The Logical Problem of Evil’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Buffalo, University at Buffalo.
BEROFSKY, BERNARD (1996) ‘Determinism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PhD Full Version PDF
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
MPhil Wales 2003
Arminians generally believe that God's grace is not irresistible, and that believers can fall away from God. Grider (1996: 80). A problem I see here is although Arminians believe in original sin, and total depravity, they state that people can reject God's salvific grace. Grider (1996: 80). I would think an understanding of original sin and the resulting fallen human nature, as described by Paul in Romans 1-3, for example, would view God's salvific grace to those who are totally depraved and corrupt, as having to be in a sense irresistible, although not forced or coerced. God would instead persuade and mould human beings he has predestined in order that they freely believe. God would have to change a human being that previously could not believe, so that he/she would follow God and Christ.
In other words, from my Biblical perspective, human beings with a fallen human nature that were totally depraved would always reject God's prevenient grace, so for the Arminian to say that sometimes the grace is accepted and sometimes it is not, is to assume that the fallen human being has the ability to accept God's grace, despite total depravity.
My view would require God to enlighten, persuade and mould an enslaved will, but without the use of force or coercion. This enslaved will would prior to salvation not be free to choose God and commit good actions pleasing to God in regard to salvation, but simultaneously in the salvation process the limited free will of a fallen human being would be enlightened, persuaded and moulded to believe in Christ. There must be a limited free will present in the salvation process or else hard determinism is taking place that is force or coercion. My view requires a sinful corrupt human nature, which is totally depraved, as in unable to freely choose God as is, without a divine spiritual alteration, whereas the Arminian view requires human beings to have sinned and be less than perfect, but to have the ability within their nature to accept God's prevenient grace with the use of free will.
My view sees limited free will as allowing God to restore the elect to him by salvation via an alteration of the person, but is not libertarian free will which through prevenient grace allows people to choose or reject Christ. In my understanding the fallen human being has a limited free will that freely rejects God, and through the salvation process God enables the believer to freely follow Christ. By limited free will I accept the idea that a fallen human being is free in the sense that he/she can be restored by God if elected, but not free in a way the he/she could be saved through prevenient grace.
John Calvin in my view held to a concept of free will similar to my own, and he has influenced my theology. He wrote in 1543 in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.
If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).
For Calvin although God must elect and restore an individual for salvation to occur, it is not done by force or coercion, but through the use of soft determinism as human beings are converted to a belief in Christ through the Holy Spirit. I would think a moderate sovereignty or Calvinistic view on human free will, especially in regard to salvation, provides the Christian with a good, Biblical, basic comprehension of something which is not completely understandable by the human mind. God predestines believers as shown in Ephesians 1, and is always the primary mover in human salvation. God has a perfect free will by which he chooses an individual which has far less than a perfect free will, and corrupted human nature.
From my perspective this Arminian view does not present a fallen nature incapable of following God, but one that could possibly follow God if God provided prevenient (preceding) grace. So, an Arminian view is not Pelagian, but it presents a less than perfect nature that is seen as totally depraved, but still able to accept Christ with the help of God's grace. This idea was expressed by my Arminian influenced, Mennonite, Book of Romans professor who did not believe in a sinful nature, but that all human beings of less than perfect nature eventually took a sinful position against God. P.E. Hughes explains that prevenient grace precedes all human decision. Hughes (1996: 480). It sees God as taking the initiative. Hughes (1996: 480).
I am not in disagreement with this aspect of prevenient grace, but as Erickson states, Arminians recognizing the human inability to respond to the gospel introduced the idea of prevenient grace. Erickson (1994: 925). Erickson explains that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement to believe. Erickson (1994: 925). I agree with Erickson that prevenient grace is an appealing concept. Erickson (1994: 925). However, I reason that Biblically when God predestines someone as in Ephesians 1, he regenerates a person that shall believe. God simultaneously has the individual person, with a limited human free will, willingly accept the gospel message in the regeneration process.
Sin nature?
As noted, Arminians hold to a belief in original sin, and total depravity. Grider (1996: 80). But a minority may not hold to a belief in a sin nature, although Grider points out that James Arminius himself viewed persons as fallen and unable to do any good thing on their own. Grider (1996: 80).
I am not in disagreement with this aspect of prevenient grace, but as Erickson states, Arminians recognizing the human inability to respond to the gospel introduced the idea of prevenient grace. Erickson (1994: 925). Erickson explains that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement to believe. Erickson (1994: 925). I agree with Erickson that prevenient grace is an appealing concept. Erickson (1994: 925). However, I reason that Biblically when God predestines someone as in Ephesians 1, he regenerates a person that shall believe. God simultaneously has the individual person, with a limited human free will, willingly accept the gospel message in the regeneration process.
Sin nature?
As noted, Arminians hold to a belief in original sin, and total depravity. Grider (1996: 80). But a minority may not hold to a belief in a sin nature, although Grider points out that James Arminius himself viewed persons as fallen and unable to do any good thing on their own. Grider (1996: 80).
Arminius quote:
'The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to the primitive benediction: For in Adam ‘all have sinned’ (Rom. v,12). Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity.' Arminius (Works, 2:156. (B)) (End citation)
---
A sin nature may seem too negative for those that want to believe that the human being can choose God with divine help, but it may be that some hold to theology that is both Arminian and Pelagian in nature. This may have been the case with my Mennonite professors who claimed to be Arminian, but preferred the concept of sin position over the idea of sin nature in regard to humanity.
My view would require God to enlighten, persuade and mould an enslaved will, but without the use of force or coercion. This enslaved will would prior to salvation not be free to choose God and commit good actions pleasing to God in regard to salvation, but simultaneously in the salvation process the limited free will of a fallen human being would be enlightened, persuaded and moulded to believe in Christ. There must be a limited free will present in the salvation process or else hard determinism is taking place that is force or coercion. My view requires a sinful corrupt human nature, which is totally depraved, as in unable to freely choose God as is, without a divine spiritual alteration, whereas the Arminian view requires human beings to have sinned and be less than perfect, but to have the ability within their nature to accept God's prevenient grace with the use of free will.
My view sees limited free will as allowing God to restore the elect to him by salvation via an alteration of the person, but is not libertarian free will which through prevenient grace allows people to choose or reject Christ. In my understanding the fallen human being has a limited free will that freely rejects God, and through the salvation process God enables the believer to freely follow Christ. By limited free will I accept the idea that a fallen human being is free in the sense that he/she can be restored by God if elected, but not free in a way the he/she could be saved through prevenient grace.
John Calvin in my view held to a concept of free will similar to my own, and he has influenced my theology. He wrote in 1543 in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.
If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).
For Calvin although God must elect and restore an individual for salvation to occur, it is not done by force or coercion, but through the use of soft determinism as human beings are converted to a belief in Christ through the Holy Spirit. I would think a moderate sovereignty or Calvinistic view on human free will, especially in regard to salvation, provides the Christian with a good, Biblical, basic comprehension of something which is not completely understandable by the human mind. God predestines believers as shown in Ephesians 1, and is always the primary mover in human salvation. God has a perfect free will by which he chooses an individual which has far less than a perfect free will, and corrupted human nature.
---
ARMINIUS. JAMES (Jakob Hermanszoon) (1560: 1609)The Works of James Arminius, Volume 3. (A)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/a/arminius/works3/cache/works3.pdf
ARMINIUS. JAMES (Jakob Hermanszoon) (1560: 1609) The Works of James Arminius, 3 Vols, trans. James Nichols (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1825), 1:545, in McGonigle, Arminius and Wesley on Original Sin. (B)
https://didache.nazarene.org/index.php/regiontheoconf/eurasia-2000/304-eu2000-07-mcgonigle-arminius/file
AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.
AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BARNHART, J.E. (1977) ‘Theodicy and the Free Will Defence: Response to Plantinga and Flew’, Abstract in Religious Studies, 13, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BEEBE, JAMES R. (2006) ‘The Logical Problem of Evil’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Buffalo, University at Buffalo.
BEROFSKY, BERNARD (1996) ‘Determinism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.
CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.
CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
HUGHES, P.E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ESHLEMAN, ANDREW (1997) ‘Alternative Possibilities and the Free Will Defence’, in Religious Studies, Volume 33, pp. 267-286. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
GEISLER, N.L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GRIDER, J.K. (1996) 'Arminianism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GRIDER, J.K. (1996) 'Arminius, James', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
HUGHES, P.E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers.
LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering.
ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) '2 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
PELAGIUS (British Monk) (354-418) Note on Pelagius
Cited
Of his surviving works, only few are known in full.
These are:
De fide Trinitatis libri III ("On Faith in the Trinity: Three Books")
Eclogarum ex divinis Scripturis liber primus ("Excerpts out of Divine Scriptures: Book One")
Commentarii in epistolas S. Pauli ("Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul")
Unfortunately, most of his work survives only in the quotations of his opponents. Only in the past century have works attributable to Pelagius been identified as such. Other writings include On Nature, parts of which are quoted in Augustine's On Nature and Grace, and Defense of the Freedom of the Will, quoted in Augustine's On the Grace of Christ. Also surviving are his letter to Demetrias, along with fragments of other letters, and the written statement of faith which was received by Pope Zosimus.
PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
POHLE J. (1911) Pelagius and Pelagianism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 3, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Anthony A. Killeen. Aeterna non caduca. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
POLKINGHORNE, G.J. (1986) '1 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
RYRIE, C.C. (1996) 'Depravity, Total', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368
STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.
TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
YARNOLD, E.J. (1999) 'Pelagianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
