History of Calvinist—Arminian debate Christians who were influenced by the teachings of Jacobus Arminius such as Methodists believe that while God is all-knowing and always knows what choices each person will make, and he still gives them the ability to choose or not choose everything, regardless of whether there are any internal or external factors contributing to that choice. Like John CalvinArminius affirmed total depravitybut Arminius believed that only prevenient grace allowed people to choose salvation:
Detailed Table of Contents II. Homosexuality in the Old Testament In the Old Testament homosexuality is most explicitly discussed in four passages. Two are prohibitions in the law against homosexual activity.
The other two are historical events: We will not attempt to answer every issue that could be raised about each text. This has already been done in a number of resources that will be referenced.
Then we will look at the two narrative accounts. This straightforward law prohibits all homosexual acts. It makes no distinctions as to whether or not they were consensual.
It comes in the midst of a section of laws related to sexual relationships. No consequence is given here in each verse for the individual laws, but rather they are all listed as things that must not be done.
In balance, homosexuality here is not singled out from among the rest of the sexual sins which themselves are being highlightedbut is included with the rest. These various sexual activities are ones which brought about the punishment of God upon the previous inhabitants of the land Lev.
Thus in the law homosexuality was an offense against God. It, along with the other sexual sins, was not to exist in Israel at all.
They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. It comes in the midst of a section detailing crime and punishment lists. This particular section deals with sexual offenses and their judgments. The punishment for homosexual acts was to be death for both participants.
Thus in the law homosexuality was a sin against God that required capital punishment. Indeed all the men of the city tried desperately to rape them. Attempts have been made to see the sin here as only inhospitality, or of unnatural relations with angels.
Similarly, the face value reading that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah included not only inhospitality but also the homosexual activity is the best interpretation. While aspects of this verse unnatural desires similar to angels may raise questions, it definitely extends the sinful conduct beyond hospitality to sexual immorality.
Thus, before the giving of the law, God considered this attempt at homosexual rape—which continued even after the men were blinded— to be part of the great wickedness that resulted in the wholesale destruction of these towns.
She died after their treatment of her.
Like many real life issues today, the sin that resulted in all this seems to have been an array of actions. Fourthly, the rest of the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn these men over to punishment Judges The brief re-telling of the story to the tribes Judges In the re-telling it seems that there was more of a focus on the actual offenses rather than on the intended ones.
However, the attempt is included in the longer record of the event and distinctly labeled as wrong. Consequently, it is fully appropriate to see it as part of the events being judged.
Conclusion to Homosexuality in the Old Testament Both before the law was given and then under the law, homosexuality was considered to be sin for Israelites and non-Israelites. This was true for consensual and non-consensual cases. Before the law was given this was not the only incident of God directly judging the sinfulness of man on a large scale cf.
Far from minimizing or maximizing any particular sin, this shows that God is active both in declaring many deeds to be sin and in punishing them all. There is no injustice with God.
His actions were not limited to one particular sin, and many other examples from the Old Testament could be cited showing His involvement in dealing with sin.
It is possible, though, that the variety of sexual sins and their subsequent connection with idolatry may have been more strictly punished and warned against as a whole cf. However this is not where the story ends in the Old Testament.
Noah and his family, Lot and his family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Aaron, David a prime example of grace to one whose sins deserved death under the lawthe remnant of Israel and Judah, the giving of the sacrificial system, Jonah and Nineveh etc. These commands would include homosexuality.
However, homosexuality is most explicitly discussed in three passages.Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible.
Kevin Dodge. Having been discipled in local churches, and received his ThM. from Dallas Theological Seminary, his desire is to see God's liberating grace lived out . Drawing upon the discussion held at the John Conference in late , Whosoever Will is a collection of theological assessments that serve as a response to the five points of Calvinism.
The book ultimately highlights the notion that many Baptists do not hold to Calvinism's doctrines on Election and 'Limited Atonement,' and offers an alternative, yet biblical, understanding of how God.
Christian Philosophy: The s French Debates. Between and , important debates regarding the nature, possibility and history of Christian philosophy took place between major authors in French-speaking philosophical and theological circles.
Aug 24, · Christian Forums Home Forums > Theology (Christians only) > Theology (Christians only) > Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding. Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general.
Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible.