Calvinism

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 also embrace the same five SOLAs. Some Calvinists have even suggested dropping the TULIP in favor of promoting the Five SOLAs instead. I am not sure what they would think to accomplish by doing such because it would take away one of their war clubs.

How does a Calvinist reply after touting Five Solas only to hear "So what? We do too"? Only Scripture, Only Faith, Only Grace, Only Christ, Only God's Glory … yeah that sounds about right, although I have wondered how you can have five "onlys" and still be true to any of them. It is kind of like being faithful to your only wife, all five of them.

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.

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

The Problem with Calvinism is . . .

by Roger E. Olson

People often ask me what is my single most serious problem with Calvinism. Why am I not a Calvinist? First, I like to point out that nobody is obligated to be one. Some evangelicals are under the mistaken impression that Calvinism is the norm for all evangelicalism and that if you’re not a Calvinist you’re somehow defectively evangelical. It is wrongly believed to be the default theology of authentic evangelicalism.

I grew up in the thick of evangelicalism -- spiritually nurtured by mentors and peers in Youth for Christ where I rubbed shoulders with evangelicals of many different denominations. We used to debate Calvinism versus Arminianism all the time and we generally agreed to disagree and nevertheless worship and witness together. I don’t remember anyone then telling me I had to be a Calvinist to be a faithful Christian or an evangelical.

The Enemy of my Enemy

Calvinist Greg Welty states: Clearly then, the controversy between Calvinists and non-Calvinists over unconditional election is not the Calvinists’ assertion that God elects some for salvation, since non-Calvinists believe this too. Rather, the controversy is over the Calvinists’ negative claim, namely, the denial that divine election unto salvation is on the basis of works or foreseen faith. (link)

Arminius' Impact on Calvinism

Arminius didn't teach anything new, but his shoulders were strong enough to carry the cause of the many non-Calvinist Protestants of his day. While his influence on non-Calvinists was the strongest, I did want to point out his influence on Calvinism.

As those familiar with Arminius know, his primary issue with Calvinism was supra-lapsarianism - the idea that the decree of unconditional election logically precedes the decree of the fall. In supra-lapsarianism, God uses the fall as a means of coming up with the end. It's like planning a trip. First you set the destination, then you plan the route. In supra-lapsarianism, God first decides who to glorify and who to destroy, then He plans for man to fall so they will need salvation and punishment in Hell.

Nichols’ Calvinism & Arminianism Compared 1824

James Nichols did a great amout of work getting Arminian books published, but he also wrote a bit himself. Here’s his work Calvinism and Arminianism Compared in Their Principles and Tendency. (link)

Answers to Common Calvinist Questions

Some answers to common Calvinist questions:

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true.
Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology lead to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
A. This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilo. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.

Arminian Minute: Eye of the Tiger & Romans 9

Share with us in a little humor over the importance that Calvinists place on Romans 9, with a revealing comment from John Piper for no extra charge :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21g_zKK_FTk

Arminian Minute: Is Unconditional Election Good News for the Despairing Soul?

Does Calvinism (with its upholding of unconditional election) really have good news for the despairing sinner? At most, a Calvinist can tell a disturbed soul that they could be among God's elect. But, is such a response sufficient enough to engender hope in the heart of the broken? No, it is not. Nothing short of full assurance (no "could be's") that one can turn to God for relief from guilt will do.

The following YouTube video interacts with a 2003 sermon of John Piper's and seriously questions whether the belief in unconditional election is good news for the despairing soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdanH9-uaYA

Syndicate content