The Divine Proposal: Grace the Bridegroom, Faith the Bride This post is written by SEA member Pastor Christopher C. Chapman [Editor’s note: The author speaks of faith as a sort of work, using the language…
Search Result
Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views”
Please click on the attachment to view Jeffrey Mallinson and Scott Keith, “Divine Election: A Representation of Different Views,” Testamentum Imperium Volume 2 (2009) Mallinson and Keith. Divine Election. A Representation of Different Views Some…
Evangelical Calvinism?
This post is written by Roger E. Olson, PhD I have been reading a new book about Calvinism entitled Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church edited by Myk Habets and Bobby…
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life”
THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE: WHO’S IN AND WHO’S OUT? BY RONNIE ROGERS Part 1 Posted on July 18, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/18/8942/ **The title below dons chapter 16 in…
Ronnie Rogers Responds to Selected Comments from His Recent Posts
Taken from SBC Today, where it was posted on July 28, 2012 by the editors of SBC Today:
http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/28/ronnie-rogers-responds-to-selected-comments-from-his-recent-posts/
As I have read the comments regarding my interview and a portion of my book, a few things deserve a response from me. First, I am greatly heartened by those comments, agreeing or not, that sought to interact with my actual words in a gracious manner. Being human, I know how hard that is, and hence my magnified gratitude and admiration for your valiant reliance on the Holy Spirit. Thank you!
Ronnie Rogers, “The Lamb’s Book of Life” Part II
From SBC Today: http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/19/the-lamb%E2%80%99s-book-of-life-who%E2%80%99s-in-and-who%E2%80%99s-out-by-ronnie-rogers-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4/
[For Part 1, see http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/?q=sea.Ronnie-Rogers.The-Lambs-Book-of-Life-Whos-In-and-Whos-Out.Part-1]
What does the text not say? Neither (13:8) nor any other references to the book state the deciding factor of how names came to be in the book. Calvinists treat the passage as though it does state the determining factor, which is God’s determination to elect some to salvation, and therefore record their names; however, it does not.
A New Book on Justification and Some Questions about Calvinism and Heavenly Rewards
A New Calvinist Book on Justification Perplexes by Roger E. Olson, Ph.D. I have been asked to review Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed by Reformed theologian Alan J. Spence (T&TClark, 2012). Spence is a…
The New Calvinism and Preaching
This post is from the blog of Roger E. Olson, PhD written by Austin Fischer Neo-Calvinism Preaching My Conversion…to Calvinism I was converted to Calvinism because of the preaching of John Piper. I was in…
Roger Olson, “Thoughts about the Terms ‘Heresy’ and ‘Heretic'”
By Roger E. Olson, PhD The recent “dust up” over possible semi-Pelagianism among certain Baptists has given rise to the usual confusion about terms like “heresy” and “heretic.” So let’s clear things up a little…
Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism?
The following is from Dr. Jack Cottrell. While he is neither a member of SEA or a self-declared Arminian, his thoughts on Ephesians 1 are very insightful.
QUESTION: Calvinists say that Ephesians 1:1-11 clearly establishes the absolute and all-inclusive sovereignty of God, including the unconditional predestination of the elect to salvation. How do you interpret this text?
ANSWER: A right understanding of Ephesians 1:1-11 begins with the recognition that God’s purpose for Israel was from the beginning limited to preparing for the coming of the Messiah, namely, for the incarnation of God the Logos as the human person Jesus of Nazareth. Once the Messiah came, it was God’s eternal purpose to merge all believing Israelites and all believing Gentiles into one new body called the church. This is the main point of the book of Ephesians, and it is the key to understanding the often misused passage in Ephesians 1:1-11.
John Piper and Pietism
John Piper and Pietism Posted on April 1, 2012 by Roger E. Olson, PhD Recently John Piper declared himself a pietistic Reformed person. See: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/john-piper-racism-reconciliation.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=eNews&utm_term=3050084&utm_content=122851977&utm_campaign=2012 As someone who likes to think of myself as a…
John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin and Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”
John Piper preached a sermon on God’s sovereign control over all things. In this sermon, Piper highly praises the works of Jonathan Edwards and relies heavily on his accounting of sovereignty to explain how God…
John F. Parkinson on Romans 9
This interpretation of Romans 9 is taken from (non-Calvinist) John F. Parkinson’s book The Faith of God’s Elect, pages 21 through 28.</p align=”justify”> _____________________________ “The individual Jew had come to believe mistakenly that, since he…
Roger Olson, Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton
Posted on February 4, 2012 by rogereolson
Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton
I spoke about why I am “Against Calvinism” for about 15 minutes focusing on the goodness of God and how classical, “high Calvinism” is inconsistent with any meaning of “good” and “love” known to us. Then Mike spoke for about 15 minutes focusing on humanity’s depravity and God’s mercy in electing some to salvation. In other words, he also said that God is good even if not in terms of our “fairness” (because he doesn’t save everyone).
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Slippery Slopes
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).
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.
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:
Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom: Synod of Dort
Arminius and the Remonstrants fight tenaciously for religious freedom in Dutch society (link), but early seventeenth-century Calvinists are adamantly opposed to any semblance of theological toleration — not to mention freedom — other than their…
Interview with Ken Stewart by Derek Ouellette
Earlier in the year a book was released by Ken Stewart titled ‘Ten Myths About Calvinism‘. It’s a fantastic read which will be shelved in my library right next to Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology: Myths…
This Ain’t Your Grandpa’s Arminianism
What I have witnessed from recent Arminius and Arminian scholarship, at least among those who are self-identified as being Arminian, differs, I think, from what was known as Arminian fifty to hundred years ago, with very few exceptions.1
