Introduction: I commented (under the screen name “Arminian”) at Justin Taylor’s blog, taking issue with a cited article by John Piper that presents prayer as a cause of God’s answers to prayer in Calvinism/determinism. I…
Providence
A Challenge from Roger Olson for Calvinists
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…
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…
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…
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/
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…
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…
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.
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
John Piper, God’s Sovereignty, and Sin
written by Roger E. Olson, PhD
A friend forwarded this to me: http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-on-mans-sin-and-gods-sovereignty-80617/
John Piper has been at it again. But there’s nothing new in the sermon reported on there. He has been saying this and writing it for decades. According to him, God foreordains sin. He “ordains and governs” it. He stops short of saying God causes sin. But the effect is the same: sin is God’s will, even if it grieves him. And he’s talking about about every specific sin, not just “sin in general.”
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…
Gregory Koukl, “A Good Reason for Evil”
Taken from: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5093
A Good Reason for Evil
What is evil? Could it have a purpose? Here is a view of evil from an adult rather than a childish perspective.
By: Gregory Koukl
The first step in answering the problem of evil is this: We’ve got to get clear on what this thing “evil” actually is. It does seem to follow that if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil. This is a valid syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion would be true as well.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the second premise is not true. Evil is not a thing. The person who probably explained it best was St. Augustine, and then Thomas Aquinas picked up on his solution. Others since them have argued that evil has no ontological status in itself.
James Emery White, “The Joker”
Dr. James Emery White considers God’s relationship to evil in light of the deadly shooting that took place at a showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado: http://www.christianity.com/blogs/JWhite/11674264/?utm_source=Christian%20Living%20Connection%20-%20Christianity.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07/24/2012/
Blog Post About the Aurora Shooting
This believer and her children were at the Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado, where the recent shootings took place. She has some good thoughts to share, especially regarding the character of God. So You Still…
Allowing is not commanding
This reprint of a blog post by Randal Rauser, PhD is placed here due to his accurate reflection of the Arminian position on the allowing vs commanding controversy. Note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and does not necessarily claim an Arminian stance.
Over the last week I have heard on at least three different occasions claims made to the moral equivalency of God allowing x and God commanding x. The argument has been made by Christians to demonstrate that if I accept that God providentially allows evils like genocide and infant sacrifice, I should have no problem if God also commands genocide and infant sacrifice. The argument has also been made by non-Christians to argue that if I have a problem with God commanding genocide and infant sacrifice, I should also have a problem with God allowing genocide and infant sacrifice.
Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism?
The following is from Dr. Jack Cottrell. While he is neither a member of SEA or a self-declared Arminian, his thoughts on Ephesians 1 are very insightful.
QUESTION: Calvinists say that Ephesians 1:1-11 clearly establishes the absolute and all-inclusive sovereignty of God, including the unconditional predestination of the elect to salvation. How do you interpret this text?
ANSWER: A right understanding of Ephesians 1:1-11 begins with the recognition that God’s purpose for Israel was from the beginning limited to preparing for the coming of the Messiah, namely, for the incarnation of God the Logos as the human person Jesus of Nazareth. Once the Messiah came, it was God’s eternal purpose to merge all believing Israelites and all believing Gentiles into one new body called the church. This is the main point of the book of Ephesians, and it is the key to understanding the often misused passage in Ephesians 1:1-11.
Another Round in the Theodicy Debate (This Time Involving Bob Dylan!)
Roger E. Olson, PhD writes: “Theodicy”–The attempt to justify the ways of God in the face of the problem of evil. A friendly correspondent sent me this URL to an article in today’s Chronicle of…
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…
An Explanation of Simple Foreknowledge
In the book Against Calvinism, Roger Olson asserts that Calvinism damages God’s reputation, and that it (unintentionally) turns God into a moral monster who is hardly distinguishable from the devil. Olson doesn’t argue that Calvinists affirm that God is like the devil. Rather, in his view it is the logical implication of Calvinism. It’s a strong assertion, but I agree. John Wesley did also.
