Calvinist Polemics

Why Does One Person Accept Christ, While Another Rejects Him?

, , No Comment

Why does one person accept Christ, while another rejects Him?

Notwithstanding God’s prevenient, enabling and intervening grace, free will is reasonably the cause of the aforementioned divergence, and which certainly requires greater explanation, and I believe that there is one. However, the first thing that Arminians point out is Adam and Eve, because the equation of total depravity no longer applies in their situation, and which begs the question: Why did they choose the way that they did? Arminians argue that God presented them with the opportunity to choose well, and by choosing well, to form good moral character. The same matter of free choice also applies to the angels as well, pre-Fall. No issues of depravity applies to their equation either. It is to this point that Calvinists, even such as R.C. Sproul, state the following:

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Slippery Slopes

, , No Comment

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).

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: The Stronghold

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Euphemism and Dysphemism

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic Abstractions

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

The Liberalism Straw Man of Young, Restless Reformers

, , No Comment

As Arminians, we often have to deal with a number of scurrilous charges and various innuendos inflicted upon our faith by an assortment of polemicists, predominantly at the hand of the young, restless, Reformed variety and their elder teachers. Whether it is a straw man of “free willism,” salvation by works, or open theism and a host of other unsupportable accusations, each is brought to nothing by the revelation of plain, simple truth. Truth will always bring to naught any straw man fabricated for divisive purposes. I came across another bale of straw dressed up as knowledge today. The following quote was offered to buttress another’s doctrine of mush and as always, truth will grind it to chaff.

“We are living in a day in which practically all of the historic
churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many
of them have already succumbed. And most invariably the
line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism,

Read Post →

Is Faith a Work Created by Man?

, , 1 Comment

Here are some edited comments by one of our members posted in our private discussion group concerning the Calvinist claim that the Arminian view of faith makes faith a work created by man: When they…

Read Post →

Do We Need an Arminian Defense League?

, , Comment Closed

by Roger Olson Okay, so I used that title to get your attention. No, I don’t really think we need an Arminian Defense League (although sometimes I feel like the only person doing anything to…

Read Post →

Assuming Determinism to Disprove Free Will

, , No Comment

Phil Johnson of John MacArthur’s Grace to You has authored a post entitled “The Problem for Arminians”. Quoting Phil:


If God knows every detail of the future with infallible certainty, then (by definition) the outcome of all things is already determined. And if things are predetermined but God did not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then you have two choices:

1. A higher sovereignty belongs to some being (or beings) other than God. That is idolatry.
2. Some impersonal force did the determining. That is fatalism.

Read Post →