Follow the link to view part 6 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/16/calvinism-my-history-6/ .
Author/Scholar Index: Arminian
Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 5”
Follow the link to view part 5 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/14/calvinism-my-history-5/ .
Thomas Osmond Summers’ Systematic Theology
Thomas Osmond Summers’ Systematic Theology a complete body of Wesleyan Arminian divinity, consisting of lectures on the twenty-five articles of religion–arranged and revised, with introduction, copious notes–and a theological glossary, Volume 2 – Pub. House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888 (link)
Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 4”
Follow the link to view part 4 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view, and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/12/calvinism-my-history-4/ .
Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 3”
Follow the link to view part 3 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view, and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/09/calvinism-my-history-3/ .
Quotable Quotes – Steve Lemke on Irresistible Grace and the Ministry of Jesus
In his critique in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, Steve Lemke made some great comments about the doctrine of Irresistible Grace when viewed in light of Jesus’ ministry:
Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 2”
Follow the link to view part 2 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/07/calvinism-my-history-2/ .
Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 1”
Follow the link to view distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/05/calvinism-my-history/ .
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 13”
Follow the link to view the final installment, part 13 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 13”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 12”
Follow the link to view part 12 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 12”.
If Calvinism Were True
I very much appreciate Olson’s book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone who asks me for a brief defense of Classical Arminian theology.1 Neither this book nor his latest is in any way meant to be an exhaustive, exegetically detailed theology textbook in defense of Classical Arminianism. These are popular books meant for the populace, like many of John Piper’s books. In Dr.
Steve W. Lemke, Agent Causation, or, How to Be a Soft Libertarian
Steve W. Lemke explains and argues for agent causation as both logical and biblical, an Arminian view of free will. Here is the attachment: libertarian agent causation
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.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 11”
Follow the link to view part 11 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 11”.
On the Ordo Salutis and Colossians 2:13, As Presented by Brian N. Daniels
The following is taken from a larger essay, exegeting Colossians 2:13, by Brian N. Daniels1, a Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a four-point Calvinist.
“Of the many issues that divide Arminians and Calvinists, one of the more interesting has to be the relationship between regeneration and faith. The question may be put like this: which comes first and grounds the other, new life given by the Spirit or belief in Christ? This question is important because of its connection to many other points of soteriology. One’s answer generally reveals much about what he believes regarding the nature of grace and depravity, as well as the more difficult issue of election and predestination.
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).
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 10”
Follow the link to view part 10 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 10”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 9”
Follow the link to view part 9 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 9”.
Why I Rejected and Continue to Reject Calvinism
Lately, I have been asked why I rejected Calvinism after accepting it in 1998. I realized that I don’t have a single post which addresses the issue, which is odd, given that I post so much and so often on the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I’ll give you a brief history of my accepting Calvinism, state what caused me to question and then abandon the system, and then why I continue to reject some of Calvinism’s core doctrines. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive, historically-contextual, biblical and exegetical critique of Calvinism (I don’t really intend to quote Scripture, though I may). This is simply one person’s brief, historical experience with Calvinism. (I encourage you to read other accounts of former Calvinists who rejected Calvinism at Arminian Perspectives.)