Follow the link to view part 7 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 7”.
Calvinism
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 6”
Follow the link to view part 6 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 6”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 5”
Follow the link to view part 5 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 5”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 4”
Follow the link to view part 4 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 4”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 3”
Follow the link to view part 3 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 3”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 2”
Follow the link to view part 2 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 2”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 1”
Follow the link to view part 1 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 1”.
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.
Michael Brown: Calvinism Or Arminianism?
Dr. Michael Brown, a former Calvinists turned Arminian and member of SEA, presents both sides of the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism in 4 sessions. The goal is for his church to better understand the leading points and opposing points of view to prepare them for conversations concerning this issue. It has a tendency to be a divisive topic. But Dr. Brown presents both in such as way as to equally impress and convince.
Dr. Brown’s presentation may be accessed in 4 You Tube videos (though there is no live video) or 4 audio files.
An outline of the sessions may be found below with the appropriate link for each session provided with its description.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Euphemism and Dysphemism
Or “Poisoning the Well while Sweetening the Pot”
What I Mean By Euphemism and Dysphemism
Both euphemism and dysphemism are replacing words in order to make a point. With euphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound better (often to be less offensive). With dysphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound worse.
A great example of a rhetorical use of euphemism is the titles “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Using the prefix “pro” makes both of them sound like they are for something, instead of being against something. Additionally, it makes opposing the position sound bad (who wants to be against choice, or life?). Therefore, naming your position can make your position sound better, while making the other position sound worse.
Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace”
Follow the link to view distinguished NT scholar Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/18/the-reformed-view-of-regeneration-vs-the-wesleyan-theology-of-prevenient-grace/).
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.
My Cat Illustrates the Difference Between Arminianism and Calvinism
[Humor]
A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. Instead of writing a 2,000 word post on the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, I have posted two pictures of my cat.
The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is this: Arminians believe that grace is resistible. Calvinists believe that grace is irresistible.
First, let’s look at the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. Those to whom God gives grace will certainly receive it. God’s grace is provided in a way that it is not coercive, because God works in the hearts and minds of the elect in such a way that they freely want to receive what He provides. Below my cat illustrates what this looks like:
Ministry Direct – Interview with Roger Olson
George Wood from Ministry Direct recently did a Q&A session with Roger Olson, about his new book: Against Calvinism.
The interview can be found here.
SEA Member Nelson Banuchi Responds To Michael C. Patton On Dr. Olson
Calvinist Michael Patton recently wrote an article in reaction to some of Roger Olson’s rhetoric against Calvinism. Olson has stated: “The God of Calvinism scares me; I’m not sure how to distinguish him from the devil.” Despite the fact the Olson specifically states else where that he believes that Calvinism is Christian, and despite the subjective caveats that Olson places even within that sentence, Patton and others have reacted very strongly what they believe is an Arminian claiming that Calvinists worship another god. Instead of submitting to my impulse to say, “welcome to our world”, I instead wish to highlight a comment that one of our members, Nelson Banuchi, posted on Patton’s blog:
“I can understand Patton’s concern, however, I think he is blowing it up a bit.
The SBC and Calvinism
An interesting post by Scot McKnight about an SBC association in Kentucky that denied membership to a new congregation because their confessional statement was too Calvinistic:
See post here: Jesus Creed: SBC and Calvinism
The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity
The acronym TULIP1, in my opinion, works well as a system and should be taken as a whole and not in parts. If one accepts the doctrine of Unconditional Election — which is a product of the Calvinist’s view of Total Depravity and Total Inability — then I see no reason for rejecting either the doctrines Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, or of course Perseverance of the Saints. I think the only consistent form of Calvinism is Supralapsarian TULIP Calvinism, and any deviation from such is inconsistent. For the sake of space, I do not care to explain my reasons why; I just want to make those statements and carry on to the main point of the post.
The Synod of Dort vs. Arminius and the Remonstrants
Nearly a decade after the death of Arminius, the States General hold a synod (council or assembly), wherein religious and state officials from various regions accuse the Arminians of heresy and expel them from both pulpit ministry and teaching theology in Holland (read “Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom: Synod of Dort“). The result of the Synod of Dort comes to us in the Canons of Dort. (“Canons” refer to a Rule of Decrees or Judgments.) Therein are statements of affirmation and denial of various subjects, both theological and soteriological (i.e., doctrine of salvation).
James White, Roger Olson & 1 Timothy 2:4
In a recent blog post (10/13/2011), James White took issue with Roger Olson’s references to 1 Timothy 2:4 in his new book, Against Calvinism. How does White’s view stand up when further scrutinized?
Calvinists on Hell and the Fate of Everyone Who Ever Lives
I 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…
