Arminianism: divine election is based on foreknowledge of human choices. (this does touch on the Middle Knowledge debate, which will be discussed below). Rutherford responds that this denies God as the author of second causes. Arminians deny that grace determines the decision of free agency; claiming that both act together, this makes both “joint causes, the one not depending on the other…because second causes were denied, God was no longer master of events and altogether sufficient” (Coffey, 119-120). Even worse, Arminianism (and I will put all forms of full-syngerism and semi-Pelagianism under this umbrella for the moment) does not escape the problem of theodicy. True, the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120).
Tagsadoptionism american presbyterianism archetypal theology arminianism charles hodge christology church order common sense realism constantine covenanters covenant of grace covenant of redemption crec david field decree divine simplicity doctrine of god doug wilson duns scotus eastern orthodoxy ectypal theology english civil war epistemology ethics federal vision foreknowledge francis turretin free will girardeau gustavus adolphus heidelberg catechism hell humor imputation joel beeke john calvin john coffey john owen john wyclif jonathan edwards justification knowledge of God law of god lutheranism martin heidegger mediatorial reign medieval merold westphal millard erickson munus triplex necessity oliver o'donovan outlines perry miller peter leithart philip schaff pneumatology politics predestination richard cameron richard muller robert preus sacraments samuel rutherford sanctification sex systematic theology theodicy thomas aquinas thomas harrison traducianism trinity wayne grudem wgt shedd william ames