Monthly Archives For February 2012

Quotable Quotes – Richard Baxter, If Christ Died For All, Why Are All Not Saved?

, posted by Matthew Murphy

Taken from The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, p. 455

“It is… proved by the sufferings of his Son, that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Would he have ransomed them from death at so dear a rate? Would he have astonished angels and men by his condescension; would God have dwelt in the flesh, and come in the form of a servant, and have assumed humanity into one person with the Godhead? Would Christ have lived a life of suffering, and died a cursed death for sinners, if he had rather taken pleasure in their death? Suppose you saw him but so busy in preaching and healing of them, or so long in fasting, or all night in prayer, or praying with the drops of blood trickling from him instead of sweat, or suffering a cursed death upon the cross, and pouring out his soul as a sacrifice for our sins, – would you have thought these the signs of one that delights in the death of the wicked?

Read Post →

Strong meat, not milk: Are some things impossible to believe?

, posted by drwayman

Are Some Things Impossible to Believe?

written by Roger E. Olson, PhD

Lewis Carroll’s White Queen tells Alice that sometimes she has believed six impossible things before breakfast. That led some later wits to quip that faith is believing six impossible things before breakfast.

Lately I’ve been re-reading Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (having read it many years ago).The first volume was first published in the early 1870s. I wonder if Hodge had read Through the Looking Glass which was published in 1871?

Or perhaps Dodgson (Carroll’s real name) and Hodge had read the same source? Perhaps someone associated with the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy?

In any case, interestingly, and I dare say surprisingly to many of his admirers, Hodge believed there are things it is impossible to believe.

Read Post →

Who Is (or Might Be) an Arminian?

, posted by SEA

By Roger Olson Who Is (or Might Be) an Arminian? One of my favorite visitors and frequent commenters here has challenged me to say what I think is necessary to believe in order to qualify…

Read Post →

John F. Parkinson on Romans 9

, posted by Matthew Murphy

This interpretation of Romans 9 is taken from (non-Calvinist) John F. Parkinson’s book The Faith of God’s Elect, pages 21 through 28.

_____________________________

“The individual Jew had come to believe mistakenly that, since he was a part of Israel’s national election, he was already personally justified by God as of right. Just as the eldest son receives the family inheritance as his natural right, so the law-keeping Jew thought he was naturally entitled to personal salvation. It is Paul who enlightens us that those who share in Israel’s national election are not automatically justified (ie. declared righteous by God), notwithstanding their national covenants, law, promises and descent. Paul insists that his great doctrine of justification by faith applies equally to all men without distinction, whether Jew or Gentile.

Read Post →

Ephesians 1 Chosen “In Him”

, posted by Godismyjudge

Introduction The central theme of the passage is that our blessings and salvation are in Christ Jesus. This is clear because the phrase “in Christ” (or equivalent expression) takes place a dozen times in verse…

Read Post →

The Transfer of Nonsense Principle

, posted by JC_Thibodaux

A concept that’s gained some popularity among Determinists is that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will. One proponent of this idea is Dr. Linda Zagzebski, who has published works arguing this concept based upon the ‘Transfer of Necessity Principle’ (TNP)

Necessarily Non-Transferrable
The basic argument can be understood from a determinist dilemma by Diodorus Cronus, which I provide {translation} for where appropriate.

Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.

Read Post →

Roger Olson, Some thoughts about my conversation with Michael Horton

, posted by drwayman

Posted on February 4, 2012 by rogereolson

Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton

I spoke about why I am “Against Calvinism” for about 15 minutes focusing on the goodness of God and how classical, “high Calvinism” is inconsistent with any meaning of “good” and “love” known to us. Then Mike spoke for about 15 minutes focusing on humanity’s depravity and God’s mercy in electing some to salvation. In other words, he also said that God is good even if not in terms of our “fairness” (because he doesn’t save everyone).

Read Post →

A Very Brief Explanation of Jacobus Arminius’ Doctrine of the Twofold Will of God

, posted by B. P. Burnett

Calvinism posits that in God there exists a distinction of wills; the will of revelation and the will of sovereignty (i.e. the revealed will and the secret or sovereign will). However, Arminians posit that the problem with this theory of two wills is that when one is put into effect then the other is put to naught. Let me make an example of this.

It is often said by Calvinists in Genesis 50:20 that God has commanded that it is unlawful to do ill to one’s family (in this instance, kidnapping). This is said to be the revealed will of God. And yet, allegedly in this Gen. 50:20 circumstance, Calvinists believe that you can also discern the operation of the sovereign or secret will of God working through the sin of Joseph’s brothers to a good and godly end.

Read Post →

Where I have a problem with Calvinism

, posted by drwayman

Posted on February 1, 2012 by rogereolson

One commenter has raised a question about my statement that I have no problem with Calvinism in confessionally Reformed circles (churches, denominations, etc.). I made that statement in my previous post about my public conversation with Mike Horton.

So, let me clarify that.

First, by “no problem with” I don’t mean “agree with!” What I mean is, I don’t object to Reformed folks holding to their Calvinism within their own ecclesiastical settings that are confessionally bound. The same is true of many other doctrines with which I disagree in other confessional traditions (or non-confessional but with unwritten or supposedly non-binding statements of faith).

Read Post →

Does God repent? – Bible Answer Man clarifies

, posted by drwayman

The classic King James Version of the Bible says, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6). Elsewhere, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1 Samuel 15:11). If God is perfect, how could he repent?

First, the Bible unequivocally teaches that God is perfectly good and thus incapable of doing evil (Psalm 5:4–5; James 1:13; 3 John 1:11). As such, God’s repentance must not be understood as entailing moral guilt. Indeed, the moral perfection of the Creator sets him apart from his sin–tainted creation (Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15–16).

Read Post →