Hermeneutics
Origins: What comes from God vs. what comes from man
Regarding origins...in other of whether something comes from God or from man, note what John Calvin said about the *origin* of Paul's expression of emotion towards his fellow Jews at Romans 9:1-3:
John Calvin comments: “It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was founded on the election of God, which cannot by any means fail. The more passionate emotions plunge impetuously on, without heed or regard for anything but the object on which they are fixed. Paul, therefore, did not add the election of God to his prayer, but put it out of mind, and gave all his attention on the salvation of the Jews.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.192)
Roger Olson on “judging God’s morality” (snippet)
Submitted by drwayman on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:42amThis is a brief snippet from Dr. Roger Olson's post: "About judging God's morality"
Recently, an acquaintance asked me if I am guilty of “judging God’s morality.” He explained that his reason for asking is my answer to my student’s question, “If it were revealed to you in a way you could not doubt that God is as Calvinism says, would you still worship him?” My answer was “No.”
Apparently this response caused my acquaintance some consternation. I responded that I didn’t see why. He further explained that it seemed to him inappropriate to judge God. “But, I said, I’m not judging God. God is worshipful; I worship him. How is that judging God?”
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Prooftexting
Submitted by Martin Glynn on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:58amOr "Say hello to my little friend!"
What I mean by Proof-texting
There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion:
- Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar, definitions, and context.
- Quoting: Repeating word for word what a particular passage says.
- Referencing: Just naming the Book, chapter, and verses to which you are referring.
- Inferencing: Integrating Scripture into what you are saying without reference to origin, by summarizing, partial quotation, or other means.
Naturally, we would like to exegete whenever possible. However, anytime in which you quote, reference, or inference Scripture in order to demonstrate the validity of the point which you are arguing, you are in a sense proof-texting.
Scot McKnight, "Calvinism: My History 2"
Submitted by SEA on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:45amFollow the link to view part 2 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight's personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/07/calvinism-my-history-2/ .
On the Ordo Salutis and Colossians 2:13, As Presented by Brian N. Daniels
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 8:20amThe 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.
The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 10:35amThe acronym TULIP1, in my opinion, works well as a system and should be taken as a whole and not in parts. If one accepts the doctrine of Unconditional Election -- which is a product of the Calvinist's view of Total Depravity and Total Inability -- then I see no reason for rejecting either the doctrines Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, or of course Perseverance of the Saints. I think the only consistent form of Calvinism is Supralapsarian TULIP Calvinism, and any deviation from such is inconsistent. For the sake of space, I do not care to explain my reasons why; I just want to make those statements and carry on to the main point of the post.
James White, Roger Olson & 1 Timothy 2:4
Submitted by postpre on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:19pmIn a recent blog post (10/13/2011), James White took issue with Roger Olson's references to 1 Timothy 2:4 in his new book, Against Calvinism. How does White's view stand up when further scrutinized?
No Interpretation Needed: Deliverance from Naïve Realism
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:43amWe have all, most likely, encountered believers who insist that they neither adhere to this or that theological position: they are, simply, "biblicists" (i.e., what opponents of this theory call naïve realism1). Such believers "don't follow a man's teaching," they "just read their Bible." On one level, there is an admirable simplicity in such a confession. On another level, however, such an approach to biblical interpretation is not only naïve but is fallacious and self-deceptive because it neglects the fact that we all read Scripture from cultural and personal presuppositions already in place.
Various Interpretations vs. Truth
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:36amIs Calvinism biblical? Is Arminianism biblical? Is Pentecostalism biblical? Is Cessationism biblical? Is Exhaustive Determinism biblical? Is Libertarian Free Will biblical? Is Open Theism biblical? Is Trinitarianism biblical? Is Modalism biblical? We can ask this question regarding biblicity about any Christian teaching. To the individual who holds to Covenantal theology, for example, Dispensationalism is not considered "biblical." But what, exactly, does one mean by insisting that a contrary view is not "biblical"? Is there an implication of theological arrogance in insisting that our opponent's theology is "not biblical"? How do we determine the biblicity of a teaching?
How One's Theology Dishonors the Glory of God
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:20amDifficult as it may be to fathom, aiming to attribute all things to the glory and honor of God through Jesus Christ has the potential to lead a person to dishonor Him. For example, should someone declare to murder another human being for the glory and honor of God, such would actually bring Him shame and dishonor, for God commands: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6 NKJV). Therefore, if anyone claims that he or she commits an evil for the glory of God through Jesus Christ, then we know that person is not speaking according to the truth of God's Word.
