As I read Mark Talbot’s chapter on God and suffering in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) a thought occurred to me: Since most Calvinists are harshly critical…
Determinism
Gregory Boyd, “How do you respond to Exodus 4:11?”
Note: Although the author of this article is an open theist, a position that SEA rejects as unbiblical, his comments on Exodus 4:11 are helpful. Please click on the link to view Gregory Boyd, “How…
Karl Barth the Arminian?
Karl Barth the Arminian? this post was written by Roger E Olson, PhD Okay, that would be a stretch! I’m not claiming that Barth was an Arminian in any classical or historical sense of Arminianism.…
A Movie Illustration of What’s Wrong with Calvinism
A Movie Illustration of What’s Wrong with Calvinism this post is written by Roger E Olson, PhD Spoiler alert! If you intend to watch “Ruby Sparks” (a 2012 movie now on DVD) and you don’t…
Calvinism and the God-as-Author Analogy
Calvinism and the God-as-author analogy written by Roger E Olson, PhD One of my faithful visitors here pointed me to the following recent essay posted to the Desiring God blog by one Joe Rigney (professor…
Michael Brown, “The Newtown Massacre and the Pain of God”
Michael Brown, “The Newtown Massacre and the Pain of God” — http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/12/17/the-newtown-massacre-and-the-pain-of-god-n1468169/page/full/
Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future”
Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43/2 (June 2000) 259–271.
The Problem with Deterministic Arguments
Some time ago, I had a conversation with a brother named Stephen over at SBC Tomorrow, in which we discussed philosophical determinism and the role it plays in discussions of divine election. I had been…
Contradiction Alert: Calvinist Scholar John Feinberg on Ethics
One of our members, named Robert, recently made some comments in our private discussion group about an interview that Justin Taylor did with Calvinist scholar John Feinberg, pointing out how they contradict Calvinist doctrine and draw on Arminian doctrine when they talk about ethics. His comments have been edited a little and pasted in below:
I listened to Justin Taylor’s recently posted interview with John Feinberg and heard some real contradictions between Feinberg’s views in the area of ethics and his views on compatibilism/soft determinism.
To set the stage, John Feinberg is a Calvinist who calls himself a
soft determinist/compatibilist and he presented the Calvinist view in
the famous PREDESTINATION & FREE WILL: FOUR VIEWS OF DIVINE
SOVEREIGNTY & HUMAN FREEDOM (other contributors included Pinnock,
Supercalvinisticexpialidocious
One of our memnbers commented that Bob Passantino was a great apologist for the Christian faith, extremely well read and knowledgeable, who died prematurely and that he was also an outspoken critic of Calvinism. Here…
The Calvinist View of Foreknowledge Makes God the Cause and Author of All Sin and Evil
One of our members commented concisely and incisively in our private discussion group (slightly revised here): In Calvinism God cannot see into the future. He only knows what will happen because He will make it…
Daniel L. Migliore on Election as Corporate
The following quotes are from Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, states that by God’s secret decrees…
Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?
Do Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God? If one has only ever read Calvinistic books, the answer would seem to be a no-brainer, for according to most Calvinists, an Arminian is by definition someone who denies God’s sovereignty. For example, notable Calvinist exponent Edwin H. Palmer (1922 – 1980) explicitly declared that “the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God”.1
Funny though it may seem, there are even those who reject the tenets of Calvinism, yet try and take a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism. These so-called ‘non-Calvinists’ are usually known by the maxim, “I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but simply a Bible-believer.” I should know; I used to be one.
Arminius on the Will of God
Arminius on the will of God
provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle
DISPUTATION XVIII
ON THE WILL OF GOD
I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.
II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.
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]
Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views”
Please click on the attachment to view Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views,” Testamentum Imperium Volume 2 (2009) Mallinson and Keith. Divine Election. A Representation of Different Views Some…
Refutation of Jonathan Edwards
Following up on Roger Olson’s post about Jonathan Edwards, I would like to draw attention to some resources we have that refute Edwards’ influential Calvinistic views on free will. First, we have a list of…
Why is Jonathan Edwards considered so great?
WHY IS JONATHAN EDWARDS CONSIDERED SO GREAT? by Roger E Olson, PhD I know. I’m almost committing blasphemy by questioning Jonathan Edwards’ greatness. I wouldn’t be doing it except there seems to be a kind…
Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian
Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
MONERGISM: BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE ME A DIME?
“God doesn’t need me to round up the Elect. But He gives me the unspeakable privilege of participating in this work of redemption.” R. C. Sproul, Amazing Grace (DVD) Arminians must be asleep at the…
