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”.
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.
