An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism by Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn (To view this outline in a chart that sets the two positions side by side rather than…
Glynn. Martin
Amyraldism vs. Four-Point Calvinism
I’ve been musing about the idea of Limited Atonement, and there are a few posts that I intend to write about it. In preperation though, I would like to make a point about a distinction…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Jargon
Or “The Obscenity of Obdurate Obnubilating Obfuscation” What I mean by Jargon If we equate any philosophical debate to battle I would argue that our basic weapons are our ideas and arguments, and our rhetoric…
Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians
I just finished Dr. Olson’s book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God’s character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:
Molinism… is the belief that God possesses “middle knowledge” — knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom — freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does — but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]
Playing With Dolls
A question that I was recently considering was whether or not God could truly love us if we did not have free will. Clearly He could care about us like I care about my grandfather’s jacket or my car, but could one really say that He loved us? I think the answer is both yes and no.
For context let us consider the kind of love that we are dealing with. In the Bible, it uses the analogy of marriage to define God’s love for His elect people. However, it uses the analogy of a parent and child to define His relationship with creation. When we are talking about free will, we are naturally talking about how God designed us. Therefore the parent/child relationship is at the forefront and so it is this kind of love that I am going to be addressing.
The Empty Set Criticism of Corporate Election
One of the most common criticisms that I have heard against corporate election is the argument of the empty set: if God elects a group what happens if there is nobody in that group. There…
Corporate Election Analogies
Baseball
I wrote on this analogy a couple of years ago, but it is worth repeating. For many, corporate election doesn’t make sense because groups, or certain kinds of groups, aren’t real entities. James White once referred to it as a “impersonal nebulous group” in his debate with Michael Brown. This doesn’t quite make sense considering that the group is formed through personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but I digress.
My point of the baseball analogy is that one can in fact elect groups, and have personal connection to both the group and to the members of the group in a way that makes sense. So I use something which is very familiar: the election of one’s sports team, in this case baseball.
How Coporate Election Works
As I discussed last week, the idea of Corporate Election is that God chooses a group of people, as opposed to God directly choosing persons individually. However, an individual person who is part of God’s…
The Foundation of Corporate Election
In many places in the Bible we are described as God’s elect, or God’s chosen. What does this mean? How does God choose us? There are a couple of different answers to this, but the…
Would I Worship A Calvinist God?
This question was once posed to Dr. Roger Olson, and I’ve been thinking it over: if I became convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that God really did govern the way that Calvinists claim…
Can We Morally Judge God?
I have noticed a new tactic from Calvinists—accusing Arminians of “judging God” (cf. Roger Olson’s post about this from January of 2012). But is that a fair accusation? Can we judge God?
First of all, we have to ask what in the world it means to judge God. Let’s first take it in the broadest sense: Do we have the right to make a judgment about whether God is good or bad? Well, clearly we do, since the Bible declares God to be good, and calls us to recognize His goodness. Declaring God to be good is judging Him; judging Him to be good that is. So clearly we are allowed to do this.
Alright, well perhaps our Calvinist friends mean something different when they say judge. So let us consider the most restrictive/literal sense: a judge presiding over a court of law. However, this doesn’t really make sense either since we can’t really pass a verdict on God. At least we can’t enforce one.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Prooftexting
Or “Say hello to my little friend!”</ What I mean by Proof-texting There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion: Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar,…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Straw Man
Or “An Affinity for Effigy” What I Mean by Straw Man The term “Straw man argument” or “Straw man fallacy” is usually understood to be based off of the common training technique of using mock…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Consistency
Or “Van Til It Hurts”
What I Mean By Consistency
In the 1920s a Dutch Theologian by the name of Cornelius Van Til (hence the joke in the subtitle) revitalized an apologetic approach known as presuppositional apologetics. In essence, presuppositional apologetics assesses the validity of a philosophical view by its presuppositions (the underlying assumptions upon which the view is based) and whether these presuppositions contradict each other or are consistent with each other.* It is sort of like a monological Socratic argument.
Oh, and Van Til was a Calvinist.
Calvinist Santa (Satire)
[Humor]
We enter Santa’s workshop. Over by the desk we see two elves talking. One is Legolass, who has been Santa’s secratary for the past 200 years, and is moving on to new work. The other is Qeebler, who is taking over the secretary resposibilities. As the scene opens, Legolass is pulling out a large scroll from his desk drawer. Let’s listen:
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Slippery Slopes
Or “Are We Inclined to Decline?”
What I Mean by Slippery Slopes
Before I begin, it is important that I differentiate between Slippery Slope Arguments, and Slippery Slope Fallacies.
Slippery Slope Arguments are a form of inductive reasoning which notes that those who hold to a certain position (hitherto referred to as position A) either eventually come to hold a bad belief (hitherto referred to as position B), or their students/descendants come to hold that bad belief (i.e. position B), or it is reasoned that position A should logically lead to position B. It is then induced that there is some quality about position A which usually or necessarily causes a belief in position B. Since position B is bad, it then follows that position A is also bad (or at least too dangerous to be considered).
CALVINIST RHETORIC: The Stronghold
Or “A Mighty Fortress Is Our Theology”
What I Mean by the Stronghold
This is probably going to be the hardest rhetorical analysis that I currently have planned to explain what I mean. It is important for this post that I mention that this is neither a critique on Calvinist theology, nor is this particular anomaly a universal characteristic of Calvinist rhetoric. Instead, this is something that I have noticed experientially as I have talked to Calvinists.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic Abstractions
Or “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*
What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions
To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our five senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc. As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life, since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.
Imago Dei
The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it. But, ironically, when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in one passage of all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 (though referenced elsewhere). However, this is a rather important verse. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.
Non-Calvinists
For those who frequent my site (both of you), I am sure that you noticed that I disagree with Calvinism. Indeed I have a lot of negative things to say about Calvinism, mostly because I…
Recent Posts
Video: Methodist Arminians & Wesley’s Arminianism: “Who Are the Arminians?” Part 4
How Do You Deal with Calvinist Arguments for Limited Atonement Based on Texts Like Colossians 2:14, Double Jeopardy, and a Commercial View of the Atonement?
Roy Ingle, “God and History”
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 8: The Great Privilege of Those Born of God
