Recent Posts

How Revelation 3:20 Creates a Dilemma for Calvinism

, , No Comment

In Revelation 1, 2, and 3 John prophesies to the seven churches in Asia. The last group he addresses is the church in Laodicea. After addressing the Ladocians, he concludes with the following prophesy:

    (Jesus speaking) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. –Revelation 3:20-22

This passage can be interpreted in two ways, both of which present problems for Calvinism.

Read Post →

Jerry Walls, “WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?”

, , Comment Closed

Taken from http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/351Walls.htm

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?

One of the most longstanding debates in the history of theology concerns the relationship between predestination and human freedom. On one side of this dispute, the most famous name is John Calvin, and on the other the most noted name is probably John Wesley. Although Wesley was primarily concerned with evangelism and church renewal, the very nature of his work required him to take positions on certain controversial issues. Perhaps the most significant of these involved his disputes with Calvinism; indeed, his work on these issues represents one of his most important contributions to historical theology.

Read Post →

Arminians are Christians, Barely

, , No Comment

In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R. C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, “‘Yes, barely.’ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.”1 He agrees with J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they “thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all.”2 This is the reason, so the authors are convinced, that “Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principal a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners . . .).3

Read Post →

Unconditional Election and Universal Atonement

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson

Contrary to what one respondent claims, classical Calvinism does believe that God’s election of persons to salvation is absolutely unconditional. To say it is not absolutely unconditional because it is based on God’s “good pleasure” does nothing to ease the problem. What causes God’s “good pleasure” to be found in electing one person and not another to salvation? I have read literally scores of classical Calvinist authors on this very subject (from Calvin to Piper) and found no hint of any answer to why God chooses one person and rejects another. The answer is always an appeal to mystery or something like “God has his good reasons” (without any suggestion what they might be), or “according to his good pleasure,” which doesn’t even begin to answer the question. Jonathan Edwards was consistent in admitting it is an arbitrary choice on God’s part. I just wish more contemporary Calvinists would admit that.

Read Post →

Diversity of Calvinism / Reformed Theology

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson

One person, responding to one of my postings, said something about the diversity of Arminianism compared to Calvinism. The thrust of his message, as I recall, was that Arminianism is so much more diverse than Calvinism that it makes it difficult to respond to Arminianism.

I argue that Calvinism or Reformed theology today is just as diverse if not more diverse than Arminianism.

Read Post →

Grace and Free Will: A Parable

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson

A Calvinist seminary professor lectured on the incompatibility of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and belief that, in order to be saved, a person must freely accept the grace of God. “Arminianism makes the individual person’s free choice the decisive factor in his salvation. Therefore, in his theology, salvation cannot be a free gift. By choosing it freely the person is contributing something to his own salvation. That’s a meritorious work and therefore his salvation would not be absolutely the work of God.”

Read Post →

The Problem with Calvinism is . . .

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson

People often ask me what is my single most serious problem with Calvinism. Why am I not a Calvinist? First, I like to point out that nobody is obligated to be one. Some evangelicals are under the mistaken impression that Calvinism is the norm for all evangelicalism and that if you’re not a Calvinist you’re somehow defectively evangelical. It is wrongly believed to be the default theology of authentic evangelicalism.

I grew up in the thick of evangelicalism — spiritually nurtured by mentors and peers in Youth for Christ where I rubbed shoulders with evangelicals of many different denominations. We used to debate Calvinism versus Arminianism all the time and we generally agreed to disagree and nevertheless worship and witness together. I don’t remember anyone then telling me I had to be a Calvinist to be a faithful Christian or an evangelical.

Read Post →

And Now, a Word about Arminianism

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson My blog is called “My evangelical, Arminian theological musings.” I’ve “mused” about evangelicalism. Now it’s time to begin a brief (I hope) series of posts about Arminianism. Not long ago I…

Read Post →

What is an Arminian?

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson Contrary to what some critics say, an Arminian is someone who believes that salvation is all of grace and through faith alone without any merit (except, of course, the merits of…

Read Post →

What is Evangelicalism?

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson

I proudly consider myself an evangelical Christian theologian, but some commentators on evangelicalism probably do not consider me that. I recently wrote a chapter on the subject for a forthcoming edited volume on evangelicalism to be published in 2011 by Zondervan. There I argue that “evangelical” is an essentially contested concept without boundaries. In other words, contrary to many commentators, I do not believe “evangelical” is a bounded-set category.

Evangelicalism is a movement marked by certain common characteristics or family resemblances. Movements, by their very nature, cannot have boundaries. As soon as they have boundaries they are no longer movements but organizations. Movements are centered-set categories. Other examples from religion are “charismatic,” “New Age” and “fundamentalist.” These, like evangelicalism, have no headquarters, no magisterium (controlling authority) and no definite membership.

Read Post →