Here are some thoughts that I had when I decided to dig deep into John chapter 6:
Recent Posts
Thoughts on John 6
Arminius on Sola Scriptura
by Godismyjudge I recently read Michael Patton’s post on the canon of scripture, Dave Armstrong’s response, and Turretinfan’s debate with Matthew Bellisario on sola scriptura. Before I continue, let me make it clear that I…
Is the Inspiration of Scripture Important?
Browsing through my stack of readings this morning I came across a beautiful quote by A.W. Tozer that I would like to keep fresh in my mind for a while. It is taken from his…
Do the Scriptures Explicitly Teach What Is Necessary for Salvation?
This question is a bit of a problem for Catholics, because their councils come along over a thousand years after the writing of scripture and require you to believe some things not explicitly taught in…
Calvinists Interpreting Church History
In a previous post I suggested that when it comes to interpreting non-Calvinistic Church history or representing Arminian or non-Calvinistic theology, many Calvinists cannot be trusted. We find very few academic exceptions (and this can…
Sin & God’s Sovereignty
Here are some edited comments, short but sweet, from a member of our private discussion group:
The following quote is by RC Sproul, SR.
“Every sin is an act of cosmic treason, a futile attempt to dethrone God in His sovereign authority.”
No matter how long I’ve been involved in the A vs. C debate, I absolutely cannot reconcile in my mind how God ISN’T the author of sin if Calvinism is true given Calvinism’s doctrine of exhaustive divine determinism.
In turn, this quote by Sproul would be false if Calvinism is true, since our sins would reinforce God’s sovereignty.
Calvinism and Evangelistic Method
In my Evangelism class at The College at Southeastern, composed of both seminary and college students, the professor had the class form groups of four in order for each group to construct a gospel tract, each group having its own leader (chosen by date of birth). The leader of our group was taking advice from the other members and was very open to suggestions. When he declared that we were nearly finished, except for a few statements which needed to be nuanced, I responded, “Wait, but we have yet to inform the person what to do with this information.” He responded, “Well, I’m against anything like ‘pray this prayer after me.'” I agreed and said, “Is that our only option? We must tell the person to trust in Christ.” He was not fond of that idea.
Book Review: Man’s Faith and Freedom
Man’s Faith and Freedom is a collection of 5 essays and a sermon presented at the 1960 Arminius Symposium in Holland in 1960. Instead of giving the overall volume mixed reviews, I will review each…
Dr. Brian Abasciano Introduces His New Book on Romans 9:10-18
Dr. Brian Abasciano has done a guest post in the blog of his publisher, T&T Clark/Continuum, introducing his new book on Romans 9:10-18. We have reproduced the post below, which was taken from http://tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2011/04/a-guest-post-from-brian-j-abasciano.html :
<a href="http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=125352&SearchType=Basic
Josh Thibodaux, “More on the Authorship of Sin (Part 3)”
In parts one and two of the authorship of sin series (as well as the post that kicked it off), we examined some of the Calvinist defenses against the charge of their making God the…
More On the Authorship of Sin (Part 2)
This is the second of a series on the authorship of sin that came about as a result of discussions and observations on this post. Part 1 and the first section of this post address Calvinist claims that Arminians “also make God the author of sin.”
Conflating Origins
When discussing authorship implying the origination of sin, the argument inevitably arises, “but if sin originates in people, people still originate from God, therefore sin originates from God as well!” Not quite. Beings capable of sin originated from within God, it doesn’t follow that their rebellion itself came from within Him.
More On the Authorship of Sin
[Editor’s note: This post was originally posted at http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/, so any time references are no longer applicable.]
A few weeks ago I wrote on a fallacy common to Calvinist apologetics, namely, that they often claim that while they teach exhaustive determinism, they still claim that God isn’t the author of sin. It garnered substantially more responses than I expected. To clarify things and answer some common questions/objections, I’m putting together a synopsis of the relevant arguments (this is part 1).
Moral problems?
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Red Herring
Equivocation
“All I have tried to do here is show how clearly, succinctly and simply that Calvinism does NOT charge God with the authorship of sin and so (to employ the somewhat aggressive language of Scripture) to shut the mouths of the gainsayers. If any have a case against Calvinism, then let it be based on truth and not on falsehood and slander.” – Colin Maxwell, Do Calvinists believe and teach that God is the Author of Sin?
Colin Maxwell put up the page linked to above showing various quotes from prominent Calvinist sources indicating that they do not believe or teach that God is the author of sin. His point apparently, judging from the content and page’s title, is to stop non-Calvinists from ‘slandering’ them by claiming they teach such a thing.
Problems with this logic
Ben Witherington III, Review of Rob Bell, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”
Distinguished Arminian scholar Ben Witherington III has reviewed Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived chapter by chapter in a series of posts at…
Ben Henshaw, Review of F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation
Classical Arminianism is one of the best resources available for those who are interested in Arminian theology. F. Leroy Forlines is a senior theologian from the Free Will Baptist camp and this volume represents Arminian…
A Minor Change to Our Statement of Faith
We have made a minor change to our statement of faith (http://evangelicalarminians.org/sof), which must be affirmed to join the society and which members must continue to affirm to remain in the society. This change has been made to make the statement clearer and smoother, and to underscore our belief in unlimited atonement, which is nonetheless already addressed elsewhere in the statement.
In article 3 of our statement of faith, we have changed this affirmation about Jesus:
- He lived a sinless life, dying on the cross as a substitute and sacrifice for sinners
to this affirmation:
- He lived a sinless life and died on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for all sinners
All members of the society must agree with the revised statement of faith to remain in the society.
Praise Jesus for dying as a substitute and sacrifice for all sinners! What love and grace!!
“The Prodigal Son” and Arminian Theology
One of Jesus’ best known parables is the story of “The Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children.…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Oversimplification
Non-Sequitur
Slippery Slope
“The choices are not between Calvinism and Arminianism; it’s between Calvinism and universalism. Arminianism is a self-contradictory mess that can never defend itself.” – James White
This is a favorite rhetorical jab of many Calvinists, but is in fact one of the more obvious fallacies they often employ. The logic behind it is simple and can be summed up with the statement:
“If Christ’s death saves, and Christ died for everyone, then everyone would be saved.”
Seems pretty easy, right?
Problems with this logic
Turns out the simplicity of the argument is its weakness, because it masks a hidden difference in underlying assumptions. The critical distinction lies in the first part of the sentence, “…Christ’s death saves….”
The differences in viewpoint on atonement
Dr. Kyle Roberts, “Tsunamis: Or, Why I’m No Longer a Calvinist”
Dr. Kyle Roberts, “Tsunamis: Or, Why I’m No Longer a Calvinist” Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Lead Faculty of Christian Thought, Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN).
Michael Bird on Calvinistic Synergism
Some good comments from Calvinist Michael Bird, admitting that Calvinism (not just Arminianism) involves synergism (in the context of talking about Universalism): Calvinists like to tout themselves as holding to a form of monergism whereby…
Recent Posts
Richard Coords, “Strawman Argument”
Isn’t God Doing Everything He Can to Save People, Making Prayer for the Lost Pointless?
Roy Ingle, “The Oft Error Made by Calvinists”
Video: Debate Review – Dr. Joshua Farris & Dan Chapa (Unlimited Atonement) vs Dr. James White & Jeremiah Nortier (Limited Atonement)
