Recent Posts

Roger Olson, “Strong Meat, Not Milk: Are Some Things Impossible to Believe?”

, , No Comment

Are Some Things Impossible to Believe?

written by Roger E. Olson, PhD

Lewis Carroll’s White Queen tells Alice that sometimes she has believed six impossible things before breakfast. That led some later wits to quip that faith is believing six impossible things before breakfast.

Lately I’ve been re-reading Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (having read it many years ago).The first volume was first published in the early 1870s. I wonder if Hodge had read Through the Looking Glass which was published in 1871?

Or perhaps Dodgson (Carroll’s real name) and Hodge had read the same source? Perhaps someone associated with the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy?

In any case, interestingly, and I dare say surprisingly to many of his admirers, Hodge believed there are things it is impossible to believe.

Read Post →

Who Is (or Might Be) an Arminian?

, , Comment Closed

By Roger Olson Who Is (or Might Be) an Arminian? One of my favorite visitors and frequent commenters here has challenged me to say what I think is necessary to believe in order to qualify…

Read Post →

John F. Parkinson on Romans 9

, , No Comment

This interpretation of Romans 9 is taken from (non-Calvinist) John F. Parkinson’s book The Faith of God’s Elect, pages 21 through 28.</p align=”justify”> _____________________________ “The individual Jew had come to believe mistakenly that, since he…

Read Post →

The Transfer of Nonsense Principle

, , No Comment

A concept that’s gained some popularity among Determinists is that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will. One proponent of this idea is Dr. Linda Zagzebski, who has published works arguing this concept based upon the ‘Transfer of Necessity Principle’ (TNP)

Necessarily Non-Transferrable
The basic argument can be understood from a determinist dilemma by Diodorus Cronus, which I provide {translation} for where appropriate.

Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.

Read Post →

Roger Olson, Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton

, , No Comment

Posted on February 4, 2012 by rogereolson

Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton

I spoke about why I am “Against Calvinism” for about 15 minutes focusing on the goodness of God and how classical, “high Calvinism” is inconsistent with any meaning of “good” and “love” known to us. Then Mike spoke for about 15 minutes focusing on humanity’s depravity and God’s mercy in electing some to salvation. In other words, he also said that God is good even if not in terms of our “fairness” (because he doesn’t save everyone).

Read Post →

A Very Brief Explanation of Jacobus Arminius’ Doctrine of the Twofold Will of God

, , No Comment

Calvinism posits that in God there exists a distinction of wills; the will of revelation and the will of sovereignty (i.e. the revealed will and the secret or sovereign will). However, Arminians posit that the problem with this theory of two wills is that when one is put into effect then the other is put to naught. Let me make an example of this.

It is often said by Calvinists in Genesis 50:20 that God has commanded that it is unlawful to do ill to one’s family (in this instance, kidnapping). This is said to be the revealed will of God. And yet, allegedly in this Gen. 50:20 circumstance, Calvinists believe that you can also discern the operation of the sovereign or secret will of God working through the sin of Joseph’s brothers to a good and godly end.

Read Post →

Where I Have a Problem with Calvinism

, , No Comment

Posted on February 1, 2012 by rogereolson

One commenter has raised a question about my statement that I have no problem with Calvinism in confessionally Reformed circles (churches, denominations, etc.). I made that statement in my previous post about my public conversation with Mike Horton.

So, let me clarify that.

First, by “no problem with” I don’t mean “agree with!” What I mean is, I don’t object to Reformed folks holding to their Calvinism within their own ecclesiastical settings that are confessionally bound. The same is true of many other doctrines with which I disagree in other confessional traditions (or non-confessional but with unwritten or supposedly non-binding statements of faith).

Read Post →

Does God Repent? – The Bible Answer Man Clarifies

, , No Comment

The classic King James Version of the Bible says, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6). Elsewhere, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1 Samuel 15:11). If God is perfect, how could he repent?

First, the Bible unequivocally teaches that God is perfectly good and thus incapable of doing evil (Psalm 5:4–5; James 1:13; 3 John 1:11). As such, God’s repentance must not be understood as entailing moral guilt. Indeed, the moral perfection of the Creator sets him apart from his sin–tainted creation (Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15–16).

Read Post →

Appalling Examples of Evil that Imply the Incoherence of Calvinism # 3: The Satanic Power of Pornography

, , Comment Closed

Here is a quote from Calvinist Al Mohler provided by Calvinist Justin Taylor on “The Satanic Power of Porn”(http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/01/23/the-satanic-power-of-porn/). Russell Moore ( http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/01/23/should-i-marry-a-man-with-pornography-struggles-my-response/ ): Pornography is a universal temptation precisely because it does exactly what…

Read Post →

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Handwaving

, , No Comment

Randolph Sinks Foster, in his book, Objections to Calvinism (1852) writes:

[The Confession of Faith states,] “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; [and now your disclaimer,] yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature.”

But this disclaimer [God is not the author of sin] by no means relieves my embarrassment — it greatly increases it, by placing you [Calvinist brother] in the attitude, to my mind, of believing a palpable contradiction, namely, that God did cause all things, sin included, yet in such a way that he did not cause sin.”

Read Post →

Seedbed - sow extravagently

Check out Seedbed – A New Arminian Resource

, , No Comment

Asbury Theological Seminary has started a new theological resource site called Seedbed [asburyseedbed.com]. They have an RSS feed, and regularly post free content from an Arminian and Wesleyan Perspective. You can sign up to be on their email list, and on a monthly basis they will send you a free resource (such as an e-book). They also have an online store with reasonably priced resources.

Be sure to check them out!

Read Post →

Scot McKnight, A Brief Response to Some Calvinistic Views of the Warning Passages

, , Comment Closed

In a blog post entitled, “Warning Passages Ahead: Brief Response,” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/16/warning-passages-ahead-brief-response/) top notch Arminian-ish New Testament scholar Scot McKnight has responded to the view of top notch Calvinist New Testament scholar Peter O’Brien on O’Brien’s view of the warning passages in Hebrews (O’Brien has written a major commentary on Hebrews). In the comment section on the post, McKnight also responds very briefly but incisively to the view of Calvinist New Testament scholars Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday (see comment numbers 5 and 8).

Read Post →