Friday, September 14, 2007

This Week in Calvinism - September 14, 2007

  • David Heleniak doesn't understand Calvinism, let alone Christianity, but that doesn't matter. He's on a mission to help people overcome their "pyrophobia."

  • Ronnie W. Rogers thinks God's love poses a problem for the Calvinist. He writes, "While it is true that I love my children differently than I love another man's children, I would not sit idly by and let his child be run over by a car, when I could have delivered him, and then try to convince the father of the child how much I loved his son even if in a different way." His analogy is self-defeating because God most certainly is able to save all people, yet does not. Has Mr. Rogers allowed for the possibility that God is more concerned with his own glory than our fallen human concepts of love and fairness? Perhaps he would care to answer the burning question I posed a few days ago.

  • Ever since lashing out at Calvinists for embracing God's sovereignty, Roger Olson has been getting pummeled.Triablogger Steve Hays delivers the one-two knock-out punch.

  • Without using scriptural arguments, can you prove Calvinism is a false teaching? Isaac Hulke can. He claims that Calvinism is false because "it is stated that Jesus is the Savior of the entire human race." I suppose in a future post he will explain why it is that the entire human race is not saved.

  • Mark Snow doesn't like Calvinists and their adherence to sola fide because they reject the idea of baptismal regeneration. So, if you repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you aren't quite saved yet; you've got to take the plunge. Mr. Snow would probably advise that if you do make a profession of faith, you should take care not to get into a car accident while driving to church to get baptized. You wouldn't want to risk dying before the process of salvation is complete.

  • Laying claim to a theology that "lies somewhere between Reformation Arminianism and five-point Calvinism, with a decided aversion toward the latter," T.J. Pennock declares war on all Calvinists: "To be sure, we see Calvinism as a serious threat to the stability of Christ's churches (fundamentalist churches, in particular) and earnestly desire its elimination from our ranks. However, we fear it will take a long and nasty battle before we can finally rid Geneva from our assemblies. A rocky road lies ahead." Good luck, T.J.! May you have as much success as everyone else who has ever tried to rid the world of sound, biblical teaching.

  • Calvin vs. Luther. I'll admit that when it comes to extending the influence of the church into civil government, I'm more Lutheran than Calvinistic. Real change comes through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the gospel.

  • Adam Omelianchuk explains at length why he is no longer a Calvinist.

  • Stan is not a Calvinist, either -- but in a different way.

  • C. Michael Patton remembers the day he became a Calvinist. For many, that day won't come until they get to heaven.

  • The Seeking Disciple thinks the Synod of Dort was a "kangaroo court": "From the beginning the Arminian view was not held as equal to the Calvinist view nor was the true purpose of the synod to help bring about clarity to the issues in the Reformed churches in Europe. The true nature of the Synod of Dort was simply to put Calvinist in complete power of the churches in Europe." Now, if that isn't a biased view of history, I don't know what is. He goes on to talk about how persecuted the Arminians were and uses that as evidence of just how bad Calvinism is. Has he forgotten the Reformation? Some saw that as an excuse to lash out violently against the Catholic church, and war eventually exploded all across Europe. Does that mean there never should have been a Reformation? Besides, the Arminians got their revenge when they took over the political systems of England and Europe and forced Calvinism out of the churches.

  • The Highland Host begins a series of posts entitled "Lies Arminians Tell," the aim being "to deal with a few Arminian misrepresentations of Calvinism."

    Anonymous said...

    Regarding the example of loving your own child versus a neighbor's child...

    The simple fact is that God is not obligated to always do the most loving thing for everyone, and indeed he -doesn't- always do the most loving thing for everyone.

    The doctrine of Hell proves this. It is self-evident that an eternal punishment from which there is no subsequent recourse is very much an unloving action toward the punished.

    Now, the punishment of the reprobate is in fact a loving action in one context: it is loving toward God's people, to whom He promised that He would "trouble those who trouble you." However, since the punishment is not merely disciplinary, and since it doesn't serve to instruct the reprobate to bring them to an improved state, clearly it is unloving toward that person as an individual.


    LeRoy said...

    Lies < Old Blog I < New Blog II

    Lee Shelton said...

    Terrance & Josephine,

    What, exactly, are the lies to which you are referring?

    Stan said...

    I'm a little slow ... but thanks for the mention.

    Related Posts with Thumbnails