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”.
Recent Posts
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 8”
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 7”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 6”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 5”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 4”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 3”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 2”
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”.
Scot McKnight, “For and Against Calvinism 1”
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”.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: The Stronghold
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.
Michael Brown: Calvinism Or Arminianism?
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.
Book Review: Providence and the Problem of Evil by Richard Swinburne
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.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Euphemism and Dysphemism
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.
Living Out Thanksgiving
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).
Sovereignty, not Determinism
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.
Ben Witherington, “The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace”
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/).
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic Abstractions
Or “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*
What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions
To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our five senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc. As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life, since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.
My Cat Illustrates the Difference Between Arminianism and Calvinism
[Humor]
A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. Instead of writing a 2,000 word post on the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, I have posted two pictures of my cat.
The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is this: Arminians believe that grace is resistible. Calvinists believe that grace is irresistible.
First, let’s look at the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. Those to whom God gives grace will certainly receive it. God’s grace is provided in a way that it is not coercive, because God works in the hearts and minds of the elect in such a way that they freely want to receive what He provides. Below my cat illustrates what this looks like:
Ministry Direct – Interview with Roger Olson
George Wood from Ministry Direct recently did a Q&A session with Roger Olson, about his new book: Against Calvinism.
The interview can be found here.
Imago Dei
The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it. But, ironically, when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in one passage of all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 (though referenced elsewhere). However, this is a rather important verse. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.
J.I. Packer and Arminianism
by Roger Olson
Today I received an e-mail from a reader who asked why I didn’t mention J. I. Packer in either Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities or Against Calvinism. That’s a good question. I didn’t, so now I will.
To the best of my knowledge, the only lengthy, detailed treatment of Arminianism in print by Packer was his Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ in A Quest for Godliness. It may be found at this web address. There Packer, a Calvinist, completely misrepresents Arminianism. It’s truly shocking how distorted his understanding of Arminianism was then. I don’t know if it’s improved since then or not.
For example, there he wrote that:
Recent Posts
Richard Coords, “Purpose”
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 5: The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption
Video: Arminian Denominations & Arminius’ Lutheran & Anabaptist Influences: “Who Are the Arminians?” Part 1
How Should We Respond to the Claim That the Calvinistic View of Predestination and Election Is Central to the Gospel?
