One of the problems with attempting to discuss the issue of Foreknowledge as it relates to Free Will is that the term itself prejudices the discussion, bending it in a certain argumentative direction that the…
Recent Posts
On Omnitemporality
Why I am not an Open Theist
by Roger E. Olson Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God.…
Thomas Osmond Summers, Commentary on the Gospels
Matthew Mark Luke
The Orthodox Church Affirms Conditional Security
The Orthodox Church Affirms Conditional Security, by Steve Witzki.
Click on attached PDF to read article.
God’s Self-Limitation
by Roger E. Olson Several readers seem to me to ignore an important presupposition of classical Arminian theology and of open theism. (I could probably list some other theologies that also affirm God’s self-limitation, but…
Dealing With a Dealt-With Deal: An Overview of the Author of Sin Controversy
Even though many of us Arminian e-pologists (as we are affectionately known) have dealt with this issue (see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here), it is still…
Arminian Teaching Regarding Original Sin
by Roger E. Olson One of the purposes of my blog is to clarify Arminian theology and distinguish classical Arminianism from the all-too-common misrepresentations of it by some Calvinists, Lutherans and (ironically!) self-styled Arminians. One…
How Revelation 3:20 Creates a Dilemma for Calvinism
In Revelation 1, 2, and 3 John prophesies to the seven churches in Asia. The last group he addresses is the church in Laodicea. After addressing the Ladocians, he concludes with the following prophesy:
- (Jesus speaking) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. –Revelation 3:20-22
This passage can be interpreted in two ways, both of which present problems for Calvinism.
Daniel Steele and J.W. Lindsay, Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 2: Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy
Daniel Steele and J.W. Lindsay, Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 2: Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — Commentary on the books of Leviticus and Numbers by Methodist professor Daniel Steele, and Deuteronomy by J.W. Lindsay;…
Daniel Steele and M.S. Terry, Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 3: Joshua – 2 Samuel
Daniel Steele and M.S. Terry, Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 3: Joshua – 2 Samuel — Commentary on the Book of Joshua by Methodist professor Daniel Steele and commentary on the books of Joshua…
The Long Lost Sola? (satire)
A sister in the LORD spurred these thoughts this afternoon. Our Calvinist friends are quick to tout their embrace of the five SOLAs of the Reformation. I don’t blame them at all, for we Arminians…
Pelagianism: A Monergist Model of Redemption
“Pelagianism? Monergist? Martin, I think you need to recheck your definitions.” No, it’s true! For those that read mostly internet Calvinist literature, the word “monergism” is understood to be synonymous with determinism. However, the term…
Daniel Steele, Half-hours with St. John’s Epistles
Study in 1, 2 & 3 John by Methodist professor Daniel Steele published in 1901. (link)
Benjamin Field, The Student’s Handbook of Christian Theology
A concise systematic theology by Methodist Benjamin Field written in 1870. (link)
Jerry Walls, “WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?”
Taken from http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/351Walls.htm
WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?
One of the most longstanding debates in the history of theology concerns the relationship between predestination and human freedom. On one side of this dispute, the most famous name is John Calvin, and on the other the most noted name is probably John Wesley. Although Wesley was primarily concerned with evangelism and church renewal, the very nature of his work required him to take positions on certain controversial issues. Perhaps the most significant of these involved his disputes with Calvinism; indeed, his work on these issues represents one of his most important contributions to historical theology.
Francis Hodgson, The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted
The expositional sermons of a Methodist preacher on the topic of predestination published in 1855 at the request of his friends. (link)
Arminians are Christians, Barely
In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R. C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, “‘Yes, barely.’ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.”1 He agrees with J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they “thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all.”2 This is the reason, so the authors are convinced, that “Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principal a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners . . .).3
Kaspar Brandt, The Life of James Arminius
Early biography of James Arminius. (link)
Unconditional Election and Universal Atonement
by Roger E. Olson
Contrary to what one respondent claims, classical Calvinism does believe that God’s election of persons to salvation is absolutely unconditional. To say it is not absolutely unconditional because it is based on God’s “good pleasure” does nothing to ease the problem. What causes God’s “good pleasure” to be found in electing one person and not another to salvation? I have read literally scores of classical Calvinist authors on this very subject (from Calvin to Piper) and found no hint of any answer to why God chooses one person and rejects another. The answer is always an appeal to mystery or something like “God has his good reasons” (without any suggestion what they might be), or “according to his good pleasure,” which doesn’t even begin to answer the question. Jonathan Edwards was consistent in admitting it is an arbitrary choice on God’s part. I just wish more contemporary Calvinists would admit that.
Diversity of Calvinism / Reformed Theology
by Roger E. Olson
One person, responding to one of my postings, said something about the diversity of Arminianism compared to Calvinism. The thrust of his message, as I recall, was that Arminianism is so much more diverse than Calvinism that it makes it difficult to respond to Arminianism.
I argue that Calvinism or Reformed theology today is just as diverse if not more diverse than Arminianism.
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Calvinism and the Atonement”
Why Does God Deny the Opportunity of Choice for or Against Him to Young Children Who Die and the Mentally Impaired?
Mark K. Olson, “Wesley’s ‘Warmed Heart’ at Aldersgate – What Really Happened?”
Adam Roe, “The Crucial Thread of Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan Perspective on Divine Drawing”
