I was confused about something Arminius said in his response to Perkins so I looked it up in the original Latin. Turns out it was a mistranslation. In the former case [the creation of animals,…
Recent Posts
Minor Mistranslation in the Works of James Arminius
Theologians Explain Why the Chicken Crossed the Road (Humor)
Greg Boyd: It’s a possibility that the chicken crossed the road.
Rick Warren: The chicken was purpose driven.
Mark Driscoll: The chicken crossed because of the rooster’s leadership.
Rachel Held Evans: We’re talking about chickens here, not pigs.
Pelagius: Because the chicken was able to.
John Piper: God decreed the event to maximize his glory.
Irenaeus: The glory of God is the chicken fully alive.
C.S. Lewis: If a chicken finds itself with a desire that nothing on this side can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that it was created for the other side.
Billy Graham: The chicken was surrendering all.
Pluralist: The chicken took one of many equally valid roads.
Universalist: All chickens cross the road.
Recent responses to Against Calvinism
Recent responses to Against Calvinism
By Roger E. Olson, PhD
Here I post two e-mails that typify responses I’ve received from individuals about Against Calvinism.
I’m not going to comment on them, just reproduced them here. I’ll let you, my faithful readers, decide what you think and comment on them. I’ve removed anything that would identify their authors.
Words That Arminians and Calvinists Define Differently
Arminians and Calvinists define some theological terms differently. This has a tendency to cause us to talk past each other when discussing theological issues. Here are some of the words that Arminians and Calvinists have different meanings for:
Decree
Arminians – A plan of God to establish parameters for the way something will work. For example, God can decree for humans to have and make decisions.
Calvinists – A plan of God to cause things to happen in a predetermined way.
Election
Arminians – God chooses Christ. Those who follow Christ benefit from his election.1
Calvinists – God unconditionally chooses certain individuals to be saved. The chosen are elected.
Faith
Arminians – Faith means to trust God. Because of God’s drawing grace, it is possible for each person to trust God.
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.
Debunking the False Faith View of the Hebrews Warning Passages
Below are some comments I made long ago in my perseverance series against the idea that the writer of Hebrews is addressing his warnings of falling away to those whose faith is not genuine, or…
Austin Fischer, “On Theological Certainty”
“Theology is the study of God and his ways. For all we know, dung beetles may study us and our ways and call it humanology. If so, we would probably be more touched and amused…
Defining Arminian Soteriology
The purpose of this post is to define Arminian soteriology. Arminianism in general is the views of James Arminius. Of course, Arminius’ views span more then just salvation. They include the freewill of man, God’s…
A Response to an A/C “Primer” from A&O ministries
I was going to write a second post on corporate election, but I am postponing it to look at something which Alan Kurschner has recently put out on Dr. James White’s blog. He calls it…
A primer on prevenient grace
One of John Wesley’s finest contributions to theology was his understanding of prevenient grace. Broadly speaking, this is the grace that “goes before”—that grace which precedes human action and reflects God’s heart to pursue his…
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…
Roger Olson on Judging God’s Morality
This is a brief snippet from Dr. Roger Olson’s post: “About judging God’s morality” Recently, an acquaintance asked me if I am guilty of “judging God’s morality.” He explained that his reason for asking is…
Can We Morally Judge God?
I have noticed a new tactic from Calvinists—accusing Arminians of “judging God” (cf. Roger Olson’s post about this from January of 2012). But is that a fair accusation? Can we judge God?
First of all, we have to ask what in the world it means to judge God. Let’s first take it in the broadest sense: Do we have the right to make a judgment about whether God is good or bad? Well, clearly we do, since the Bible declares God to be good, and calls us to recognize His goodness. Declaring God to be good is judging Him; judging Him to be good that is. So clearly we are allowed to do this.
Alright, well perhaps our Calvinist friends mean something different when they say judge. So let us consider the most restrictive/literal sense: a judge presiding over a court of law. However, this doesn’t really make sense either since we can’t really pass a verdict on God. At least we can’t enforce one.
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.
Response to Piper’s “What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?”
This was written by SEA member Bob Anderson in response to John Piper’s recent post “What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?” He gave us permission to post it…
Bruce A. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement”
Ware is a 4 point Calvinist who affirms unlimited atonement. This overview of the issue of the extent of the atonement is useful for its arguments against limited atonement (see the attachment). But beware of…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Prooftexting
Or “Say hello to my little friend!”</ What I mean by Proof-texting There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion: Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar,…
Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill
Some Calvinists suggest that God’s foreknowledge is based on His plan and/or knowledge of causal relations rather then based on the future. I thought I would look up what the church fathers had to say…
Bavinck on the Unknowability of God’s Decrees
In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination (link), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined.
Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions – although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided):