Follow the link to view part 5 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/14/calvinism-my-history-5/ .
QUESTION: Dr. Cottrell, can you explain the meaning of Acts 13:48? It sounds very much like Calvinism to me. ANSWER: This text summarizes the response of the Gentiles to the powerful preaching of the Apostle…
Thomas Osmond Summers’ Systematic Theology a complete body of Wesleyan Arminian divinity, consisting of lectures on the twenty-five articles of religion–arranged and revised, with introduction, copious notes–and a theological glossary, Volume 2 – Pub. House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888 (link)
Follow the link to view part 4 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view, and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/12/calvinism-my-history-4/ .
Follow the link to view part 3 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view, and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/09/calvinism-my-history-3/ .
In his critique in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, Steve Lemke made some great comments about the doctrine of Irresistible Grace when viewed in light of Jesus’ ministry:
Follow the link to view part 2 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/07/calvinism-my-history-2/ .
Follow the link to view distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/05/calvinism-my-history/ .
Follow the link to view the final installment, part 13 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 13”.
[Humor]
View here for original script
For comments, view here.
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!!
Follow the link to view part 12 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 12”.
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.
Steve W. Lemke explains and argues for agent causation as both logical and biblical, an Arminian view of free will. Here is the attachment: libertarian agent causation
Or “Van Til It Hurts”
What I Mean By Consistency
In the 1920s a Dutch Theologian by the name of Cornelius Van Til (hence the joke in the subtitle) revitalized an apologetic approach known as presuppositional apologetics. In essence, presuppositional apologetics assesses the validity of a philosophical view by its presuppositions (the underlying assumptions upon which the view is based) and whether these presuppositions contradict each other or are consistent with each other.* It is sort of like a monological Socratic argument.
Oh, and Van Til was a Calvinist.
Follow the link to view part 11 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 11”.
The following is taken from a larger essay, exegeting Colossians 2:13, by Brian N. Daniels1, a Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a four-point Calvinist.
“Of the many issues that divide Arminians and Calvinists, one of the more interesting has to be the relationship between regeneration and faith. The question may be put like this: which comes first and grounds the other, new life given by the Spirit or belief in Christ? This question is important because of its connection to many other points of soteriology. One’s answer generally reveals much about what he believes regarding the nature of grace and depravity, as well as the more difficult issue of election and predestination.
[Humor]
We enter Santa’s workshop. Over by the desk we see two elves talking. One is Legolass, who has been Santa’s secratary for the past 200 years, and is moving on to new work. The other is Qeebler, who is taking over the secretary resposibilities. As the scene opens, Legolass is pulling out a large scroll from his desk drawer. Let’s listen:
Or “Are We Inclined to Decline?”
What I Mean by Slippery Slopes
Before I begin, it is important that I differentiate between Slippery Slope Arguments, and Slippery Slope Fallacies.
Slippery Slope Arguments are a form of inductive reasoning which notes that those who hold to a certain position (hitherto referred to as position A) either eventually come to hold a bad belief (hitherto referred to as position B), or their students/descendants come to hold that bad belief (i.e. position B), or it is reasoned that position A should logically lead to position B. It is then induced that there is some quality about position A which usually or necessarily causes a belief in position B. Since position B is bad, it then follows that position A is also bad (or at least too dangerous to be considered).
Follow the link to view part 10 of distinguished NT scholar Scot McKnight’s review of the books For Calvinism (by Michael Horton) and Against Calvinism (by Roger Olson): “For and Against Calvinism 10”.
