Providence

Calvinism and the Evil of Kim Jong-Il

, , Comment Closed

After the passing of Kim Jong-Il (our font makes it look like “Jong the Second,” but it is really the capital letter i followed by the lowercase letter L), Justin Taylor did a brief post highlighting how diabolical he was:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/19/inside-kim-jong-ils-diabolical-world/

It is simply baffling that Calvinists can decry the diabolical, heinous actions of Kim Jong-Il (and others like him), and yet they hold that God first conceived in his own divine heart every one of the man’s wicked actions, thought them up without any influence outside of himself, and unconditionally and irresistibly decreed them without any influence outside of himself, resulting in the man doing them all without any chance, power, or ability to do anything else. It’s madness I tell you! Madness!!

Read Post →

If Calvinism Were True

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Book Review: Providence and the Problem of Evil by Richard Swinburne

, , Comment Closed

Please follow the link to view J.W. Wartick’s review of Richard Swinburne’s Providence and the Problem of Evil at the “Apologetics 315” website: http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/book-review-providence-and-problem-of.html.

Please note that the comments on the review reveal that the author mistakenly stated that Swinburne rejects the doctrine of original sin, when he actually rejects the doctrine of original guilt. SEA affirms the doctrine of original sin, and allows for differences on the issue of original guilt. For information about Arminian thinking on original sin, see Roger Olson’s post here on SEA entitled, “Arminian Teaching Regarding Original Sin” (http://evangelicalarminians.org/olson.Arminian-Teaching-Regarding-Original-Sin). It is also worth noting that Swinburne is an open theist, a position rejected by SEA.

Read Post →

Sovereignty, not Determinism

, , No Comment

Arminians have a high view of God’s sovereignty, contrary to the caricatures and lies spread of us to the contrary. As a matter of fact, we think Arminians hold to a higher view of God’s sovereignty than do Calvinists, as I was reminded recently from my Arminian brother Johnathan Pritchett. The reason our view is considered “higher” is due to the following. For an omnipotent God, strictly controlling all people is easy and effortless. Like moving chess pieces on a chessboard, the movements are swift and carefree. The pieces move wherever the overseer places them without the slightest challenge whatsoever.

Read Post →

Do Calvinists Seek the Specific Will of God?

, , Comment Closed

This was a comment made by Rebekah Reinagel in regards to the nature of prayer within the Calvinist system. She gave us permission to publish it here.

Calvinists pray, even though they “know” that God has everything decreed in advance. But here’s what I was wondering about: Do Calvinists seek the specific will of God?

And what I mean by that is that Arminians, in addition to following God’s moral law (i.e. Do not murder), also seek God’s will in specific situations in which it isn’t clear which way to go. For example, praying about whether to take a job or not. This presumes that God knows which is the better option, and it is an attempt to seek His will in the matter.

Read Post →

The Freedom of God

, , No Comment

“But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3 NASB). The Psalmist follows this declaration of the sovereignty and capability of God with the inferior and impotent nature of idols:…

Read Post →

What is Reprehensible about Calvinism

, , No Comment

According to The Oxford American College Dictionary, the word reprehensible means “deserving censure or condemnation.” While there are aspects regarding Calvinism which are orthodox, overall I find its analysis of God’s character, and at times…

Read Post →

More On the Authorship of Sin

, , No Comment

[Editor’s note: This post was originally posted at http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/, so any time references are no longer applicable.]

A few weeks ago I wrote on a fallacy common to Calvinist apologetics, namely, that they often claim that while they teach exhaustive determinism, they still claim that God isn’t the author of sin. It garnered substantially more responses than I expected. To clarify things and answer some common questions/objections, I’m putting together a synopsis of the relevant arguments (this is part 1).

Moral problems?

Read Post →

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics

, , No Comment

Related Fallacies:
Red Herring
Equivocation

“All I have tried to do here is show how clearly, succinctly and simply that Calvinism does NOT charge God with the authorship of sin and so (to employ the somewhat aggressive language of Scripture) to shut the mouths of the gainsayers. If any have a case against Calvinism, then let it be based on truth and not on falsehood and slander.” – Colin Maxwell, Do Calvinists believe and teach that God is the Author of Sin?

Colin Maxwell put up the page linked to above showing various quotes from prominent Calvinist sources indicating that they do not believe or teach that God is the author of sin. His point apparently, judging from the content and page’s title, is to stop non-Calvinists from ‘slandering’ them by claiming they teach such a thing.

Problems with this logic

Read Post →