Hyper-Calvinism
Calvinists on Hell and the Fate of Everyone Who Ever Lives
Submitted by SEA on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 6:25amI don’t know how Calvinists do it. Like many bloggers Justin Taylor posted an obituary of Steve Jobs. Unlike many bloggers, he receives comments. Not three comments in, the post got this one: Justin Taylor posted an obituary of Steve Jobs.
- I am saddened by Jobs’ passing. My prayers are with his family and friends. I don’t mean for this to be insensitive, but why would those who believe in the concept of God’s sovereign saving grace have any “hope” one way or the other that Jobs found rest in it? Wouldn’t they just want God to carry out His salvific desires in whatever way HE sees fit?
“Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”
Eric Holmberg, "Truly Reformed . . . and Truly Wrong"
Eric Holmberg is a convinced and serious Calvinist who produced the Calvinist documentary "Amazing Grace." In this article, he corrects Calvinists who write Arminians "off as necessarily ill-informed, stupid, deceived, heretical - or worse unredeemed." Readers should be wary of Holmberg's affirmations of Calvinist theology.
An Examination of James White’s Parable: The King and the Castle
Submitted by Kevin Jackson on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:55amIn the book The Potters Freedom, Calvinist James White sets forth a parable called "The King and the Castle." The purpose of the parable is to explain why (in White's view) the concept of "Limited Atonement" does not impugn the character of God. White contrasts his story with one written by non-Calvinist Norm Geisler. A summary of Geisler's parable can be found here: The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond.
Here is a paraphrase of "The King and the Castle":
The Theological Fatalist's Modal Fallacy
Submitted by bossmanham on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 2:49pmTheological fatalists posit that God's foreknowledge of future events mean that it is not possible for anything other than what happens to happen. Since God knows every event that will happen, then aren't those events necessary?
This mode of thinking works out like this:
1) Necessarily, if God foreknows x will happen, then x will happen
2) God foreknows x will happen
3) Therefore, necessarily x will happen
which would take the form:
□ P -> Q
P
___
□ Q
But this is a non sequitur. All that would actually follow from the premises displayed is Q. In terms of God's foreknowledge, all that would follow is that x will happen, not that necessarily x will happen.
Theological fatalists have tried to remedy this by positing that the second premise is also necessary. So the argument would go:
1) Necessarily, if God foreknows x will happen, then x will happen
2') Necessarily, God foreknows x will happen
3) Therefore, necessarily x will happen
Pascal's Wager Against Calvinism
Submitted by TheMessianicDrew on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:02pmMany of you have heard of Pascal's Wager as a motivator to believe in God, but I think it also applies to the Calvinist/Arminian debate.
Here is Pascal's Wager: Belief in God, if God exists, gives infinite gain; God does not exist, gives finite loss.
Unbelief in God, if God exists, gives infinite loss; if God does not exist, gives finite gain.
I think that this can be applied to the debate of whether human free will plays a part in salvation.
If Calvinism is true and (by implication) our witness makes no difference in other people's salvation (because salvation does not depend on human will or exertion), then our beliefs in Calvinism and Arminianism make no difference in the salvation of others. X number of people get saved if we all become Calvinists, and X number of people get saved if we all become Arminian.
When Calvinism becomes...another Gospel
Submitted by Richard Coords on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:33pmSome Calvinists wisely warn other Calvinists about making Calvinism into another gospel. In one particular dialogue, the following conversation took place. Unfortunately, the entirety of the dialogue has been lost since the webhost had taken down his website entirely. I had merely quoted what I felt were the most interesting segments of the discussion, and here they are:
Calvinist: “People who make election a test of fellowship, or suggest that belief in election is necessary for salvation, introduce a new kind of ‘Galatianism’ into the church-- they add to the gospel an extra requirement to simple faith, and thus people like this are even-- dare I say it-- bordering on cultic for making some teaching of the Bible in addition to the gospel an acid test for true Christian belief.”
Now this person certainly was a Calvinist, as they declared: “My transition to Calvinism was somewhat reluctant, but the inevitable result of Christian maturity....”
Philip Pugh, Arminianism v. hyper-Calvinism: 3 letters to S. Cozens [in answer to tracts by him]
Three letters reviewing the sermons of Cozens; published in 1860. (link)
Arminian Minute: Eye of the Tiger & Romans 9
Submitted by postpre on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 8:58amShare 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 :-)
Supralapsarian Calvinists Criticize Infralapsarian Calvinist C. Michael Patton
Submitted by Kevin Jackson on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 1:52pmCalvinist C. Michael Patton recently did a post entitled Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. In the post Patton argues for the Infralapsarian view of Calvinism. The infralapsarian view is a less extreme form of Calvinism. It states that in the logical order of God's decrees, God first decreed the creation of man and then allowed for the fall.
Patton's post has been criticized by Supralapsarian Calvinist "Tur8infan" of Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White's organization). That post can be found here: Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism. The Supralapsairan view is the most extreme form of Calvinism. It states that God decreed the fall of man before the creation of Adam was decreed.
