[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”.
Follow the link to view part 9 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 9”.
Lately, I have been asked why I rejected Calvinism after accepting it in 1998. I realized that I don’t have a single post which addresses the issue, which is odd, given that I post so much and so often on the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I’ll give you a brief history of my accepting Calvinism, state what caused me to question and then abandon the system, and then why I continue to reject some of Calvinism’s core doctrines. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive, historically-contextual, biblical and exegetical critique of Calvinism (I don’t really intend to quote Scripture, though I may). This is simply one person’s brief, historical experience with Calvinism. (I encourage you to read other accounts of former Calvinists who rejected Calvinism at Arminian Perspectives.)
Follow the link to view part 8 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 8”.
Follow the link to view part 7 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 7”.
Follow the link to view part 6 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 6”.
Follow the link to view part 5 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 5”.
Follow the link to view part 4 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 4”.
Follow the link to view part 3 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 3”.
Follow the link to view part 2 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 2”.
Follow the link to view part 1 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 1”.
Or “A Mighty Fortress Is Our Theology”
What I Mean by the Stronghold
This is probably going to be the hardest rhetorical analysis that I currently have planned to explain what I mean. It is important for this post that I mention that this is neither a critique on Calvinist theology, nor is this particular anomaly a universal characteristic of Calvinist rhetoric. Instead, this is something that I have noticed experientially as I have talked to Calvinists.
Dr. Michael Brown, a former Calvinists turned Arminian and member of SEA, presents both sides of the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism in 4 sessions. The goal is for his church to better understand the leading points and opposing points of view to prepare them for conversations concerning this issue. It has a tendency to be a divisive topic. But Dr. Brown presents both in such as way as to equally impress and convince.
Dr. Brown’s presentation may be accessed in 4 You Tube videos (though there is no live video) or 4 audio files.
An outline of the sessions may be found below with the appropriate link for each session provided with its description.
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.
Or “Poisoning the Well while Sweetening the Pot”
What I Mean By Euphemism and Dysphemism
Both euphemism and dysphemism are replacing words in order to make a point. With euphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound better (often to be less offensive). With dysphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound worse.
A great example of a rhetorical use of euphemism is the titles “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Using the prefix “pro” makes both of them sound like they are for something, instead of being against something. Additionally, it makes opposing the position sound bad (who wants to be against choice, or life?). Therefore, naming your position can make your position sound better, while making the other position sound worse.
We in America tend to focus heavily on being grateful during this season. While being gracious, thankful and grateful is a nice social virtue, as Christians we are called to live out our lives daily being thankful. In our relationships with other followers of Christ, we are to speak to one another “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with [our] heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19 NASB). The manner in which we are to carry this out is continually “giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:20 NASB).
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.
Follow the link to view distinguished NT scholar Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/18/the-reformed-view-of-regeneration-vs-the-wesleyan-theology-of-prevenient-grace/).
