September 2010
Answering "Against Calvinism" on Total Depravity
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 5:46amIn their recent book Against Calvinism: Logical Arguments to Disprove the Doctrines of Grace; Including the Definitive Scripture List Refuting Calvinism, constructed by self-publishing CreateSpace, irenic Calvinists Jeff Peterson, Eddie Eddings and Jon J. Cardwell state: "Man is unable to do anything good or virtuous before God; he is unable to believe in God or come to Him; he is unable to understand the truth; and he is unable to seek God."1 Arminius and Arminians wholeheartedly agree with this doctrinal statement. Arminius argues against his semi-Pelagian opponents:
James Arminius: Analysis of Romans 9
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 5:35amThe following PDF is a guided tour of Arminius's Analysis of Romans 9, written by me, and put into PDF format by Nick Norelli.
Why Can't We All Just Admit Our Theologies are Flawed?
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 5:11amby Roger E. Olson
I admit it. I am a fallibilist – with regard to human beings (except when being infallibly inspired by God). My definition of “theology” is human reflection on God’s infallible revelation. (Or, in the case of philosophical theology – human reflection on God insofar as unaided reason is able to know something about God.) In other words, I assume that all theologies (outside Scripture itself) are fallible because they are created by finite and fallen human beings. Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language, he or she is humanly interpreting Scripture. There is no such thing as a statement about the meaning of Scripture that is not human interpretation. “It’s interpretation all the way down” applies to every theological system and doctrinal statement.
Thomas William Jenkyn, The Extent of the Atonement, in its Relation to God and the Universe
Full length treatment on unlimited atonement published in 1846. (link)
Philip Pugh, Arminianism v. hyper-Calvinism: 3 letters to S. Cozens [in answer to tracts by him]
Three letters reviewing the sermons of Cozens; published in 1860. (link)
God and Evil
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 09/16/2010 - 11:03amby Roger E. Olson
Obviously, one posted message cannot begin to solve the problem(s) of God and evil. All I want to accomplish here is clear up some misconceptions about the Arminian view and ask some questions about the classical Calvinist view as some have articulated it here (and elsewhere).
First, all classical Arminians agree that evil is not a “thing” or a substance; it is strictly no-thing: the absence of the good. That is not a notion of evil unique to Calvinism. And Augustine did not come up with it, either. It is clearly articulated by Gregory of Nyssa before Augustine.
On Omnitemporality
Submitted by geraldowens on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 12:30pmOne of the problems with attempting to discuss the issue of Foreknowledge as it relates to Free Will is that the term itself prejudices the discussion, bending it in a certain argumentative direction that the use of different terms would show is not as inevitable as Calvinists insist.
Why I am not an Open Theist
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:51pmby Roger E. Olson
Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God. I am also attracted to open theism as a solution to the problem of evil (which I, personally, do not think Calvinism can solve. Arminianism does a better job in that it does not say God foreordained or rendered sin and evil certain. The distinction between God’s antecedent will and God’s consequent will is necessary for any good theodicy). Most of the leading open theists are my friends and I would love to be with them on this issue. I have been their defender on many occasions.
The Orthodox Church Affirms Conditional Security
The Orthodox Church Affirms Conditional Security, by Steve Witzki.
Click on attached PDF to read article.
God's Self-Limitation
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 12:11pmby Roger E. Olson
Several readers seem to me to ignore an important presupposition of classical Arminian theology and of open theism. (I could probably list some other theologies that also affirm God’s self-limitation, but our discussion has been mostly about these.) That presupposition is that, in creation, as in incarnation (with important differences) God limits himself.
All Calvinists that I know affirm some kind of divine self-limitation, although they are much less likely to promote it as a crucial theological idea than, say, open theists. I argue that it functions as a "control datum" for classical Arminians as well. (Reformed scholar Richard Muller has found this through his own archeology of Arminius' theological influences and ideas.)