I have come to appreciate Dr. Olson’s perspectives on Arminian apologetics over the past few years. The Society of Evangelical Arminians recently posted a well written commentary by Olson considering Scot McKnight’s recent blog posts…
Recent Posts
Roger Olson Hits A Triple Out Of The Park
Hyper-Calvinism: The Logical Conclusion of Regular Calvinism?
Calvinist Phil Johnson has said, “History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences” (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm).
Might this be because hyper-Calvinism is the logical conclusion to the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism? Perhaps regular Calvinism simply refuses to go where its own doctrine logically leads because where it leads contradicts the Bible so blatantly.
A.W. Tozer on the Sovereignty of God
Here is a great quote by A.W. Tozer on the sovereignty of God:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 22 “The Sovereignty of God”
Book can be found online here:
http://www.geocities.com/johncw7000/tozerknowledgeoftheholy.html
Hunt Critiques Piper
While reading Dave Hunt’s book, What Love is This?, I came across an interesting comment by Dave Hunt regarding a quote from Calvinist, John Piper, concerning the universal benefit of Calvary. John Piper: “We do…
Ephesians 1:11-12; A Devotional
Furthermore, in Him we have been chosen by lot (being predetermined according to the plan by which all things are worked out and according to the purpose of His will) to be who we are,…
Friday Files: Edgar’s The Meaning of Proginwskw (Foreknowledge)
Thomas R. Edgar’s THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”) is a word study on ‘foreknow’ and ‘foreknowledge’. Edgar first notes that “In secular Greek, proginwskw meant “to foreknow, to know beforehand.” Scholars do not seriously dispute this definition.” He then contends that “due to strong evidence for the meaning “know beforehand,” those who argue otherwise face the burden of proof for establishing the exegetical necessity for their proposed meaning. The theoretical possibility or the interpreter’s theological propensity is not sufficient. If “to know beforehand” fits the meaning in a New Testament passage, then this must be the preferred interpretation.”
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Reformation Arminianism (Part Three of Three Parts)
R. C. Sproul, in his Willing to Believe, notes:
- Repeatedly the Synod of Dort charges the Remonstrants with teaching the doctrines of Pelagianism. Is not this charge overly severe and unfair? Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism.
Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism.1
But are the “fathers of Dort” right in their estimation? Is there a link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism? Though we agree with the Dortians that the “link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism . . . renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism,” we will witness a rather glaring, broken link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism below.
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Modern Reformation Arminianism (Part Two of Three Parts)
In the (1973) preface of his book Knowing God, J. I. Packer writes, “For more than three centuries the naturalistic leaven in the Renaissance outlook has been working like a cancer in Western thought. Seventeenth-century Arminians and deists, like sixteenth-century Socinians, came to deny, as against Reformation theology, that God’s control of his world was either direct or complete, and theology, philosophy and science have for the most part combined to maintain that denial ever since.”1
In one fell swoop Packer has lumped Arminians with the heresies of the Deists and Socinians. Is Packer right in doing this? That “seventeenth-century Arminians” denied Reformation theology of God’s sovereignty is only part of the story. They did not deny God’s sovereignty, they denied the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty.
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Modern Reformation Arminianism (Part One of Three Parts)
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), in his The Defense of the Faith writes, “since the whole debate between the Christian and the non-Christian positions revolves about the question of the relation of the eternal to the…
Interesting Links 7-26-09
British Calvinist Peter Masters criticizes the new American Calvinism. “The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.” Masters is the current pastor of Charles Spurgeon’s church.
God in the Hands of Angry Calvinists. Describing the angry behavior of some Calvinists, William Birch writes that “How we view God affects how we think and act.”
Ephesians 1:7-10; A Devotional
Because this is all one sentence in the Greek, I wanted to go back and treat it the way it deserves: as one thought.
[It is in the Beloved that] we have redemption through His blood: the excusing of sins according to the abundance of His grace which He teemed into us in all wisdom and understanding having revealed to us the secret of His will, according to His good judgment, which, through Christ, was preplanned for managing the fulfillment of times in order to coalesce all things in Christ throughout the heavens and the earth.
Friday Files: On Morison’s Commentary on Romans 9
In James Morison’s commentary on Romans 9, he makes the three helpful points about God’s promise that the greater shall serve the lesser. First, it was not said of Rebecca but to her, second it…
Exegeting 1 Timothy 2:4: God Our Savior, Who Desires All People To Be Saved
To some Calvinists, the very mention of an Arminian exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4, in an effort to defend the biblical notion that God desires the salvation of every individual on earth, is insulting, both logically and theologically.
As Alan Kurschner, from the Triablogue blog, stated, “Arminians start with the human-centered assumption that if God does not love all people undifferentiated, then he would be unjust to love some more than others. The Calvinist begins with the Biblical principle that because man is unworthy of grace and deserving only of death, God in his holiness, wisdom, and freedom chooses to love and elect any creature he desires.”
John Wesley Charges that Calvinism Makes God Out to Be Worse than the Devil
To follow up on Roger Olson’s essay recently posted here, perhaps it would be appropriate to post an excerpt from John Wesley’s famous sermon, “Free Grace”, in which he made a very similar charge about Calvinism as Olson, but more passionately and more forcefully. Whereas Olson states that Calvinism’s consistent divine determinism makes it difficult for him to tell the difference between God and the devil in the system, Wesley says that the system makes God worse than the devil and so is blasphemous (and he explains why). Now Wesley accepted Calvinists as brothers in Christ, so he surely did not mean that Calvinists are blasphemers or that they worship a false god or anything of the sort. I take him to mean that the logical implications of Calvinism are blasphemous, which Calvinists themselves might not really see, and which Wesley labored to help them see to bring them to the more bibilical position of Arminianism.
Interesting Links – 07-19-09
The Albert Mohler program interviews Matt Pinson (Arminian) and Mark Dever (Calvinist) on Calvin’s 500 year legacy. They amicably address their theological differences. Were the 18th century (largely Arminian) revival movements based on Enlightenment thought?…
Ephesians 1:9-10; A Devotional
As I said last time, 7-10 is one sentence, so it is important to have 7-8 in mind as we read 9-10. I intend to recapitulate this section next week, but for now, we’ll just…
Brennon Hartshorn, “Proof-texting without Context: A closer Look at 2 Timothy 2:25”
Some well-meaning Christians make the mistake of using proof texts to prove a theological point without considering the context of the larger passage that the proof text comes from. It is important to keep in…
Exploring the Psychology of Embracing Calvinism
In one of our private discussions, one of our members was wondering about the influence background may play in nudging some toward acceptance of Calvinism. He noted that he knows someone whose family background resulted…
J.C. Thibodaux, “The Calvinist Mitigation of the Divine Warnings Given to the Saints”
Central to the debate over inevitable perseverance are the the numerous warnings in scripture cautioning the saints against falling away. A prominent explanation offered as to why the scriptures would say such things, if falling away is not truly possible for a believer, is that God uses such warnings as a means to spur Christians on to perseverance. Despite these efforts, the scriptural warnings addressed to genuine believers, some of which pronounce eternal destruction for violating certain commandments of God, constitute an airtight argument against the Calvinist teaching of inevitable perseverance of the saints, in that teaching that what the scriptures warn against could not truly occur strips the divine warnings of all relevance, making them of no effect.
The Controversial Jacobus Arminius
What typically denominates an individual as controversial is not necessarily the truth which he or she promotes but the manner in which one argues against an established dogma. The reason why Arminius was so controversial in his time was because the truth which he proclaimed was at variance with an established form of Calvinism in Holland. John Calvin was not controversial due to the “hard truth” which he proclaimed. Nearly everyone within his theological circle (Reformed) agreed with his teachings. What kind of controversy could possibly be caused by someone whose teachings are nearly unanimously agreed upon by a majority of people?
Recent Posts
X-Calvinist Corner Files: Testimony # 42
Richard Coords, “Remote Tribes”
Steve Lemke on Irresistible Grace and Jesus’ Lament Over Jerusalem
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 7: Salvation by Faith
