Calvinism vs. Arminianism, according to The Babylon Bee

The Babylon Bee offers a brief explanation of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism:

Calvinism: Theological framework that centers around God's sovereign choice in salvation. The points of Calvinism include total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, and being a condescending jerk.

Arminianism: Theology that focuses on man's free will to choose or reject God. The five points are kinda-sorta depravity, election but not really, errybody gets some atonement, grace that looks pretty cool but you can say no if you want to, and better hang onto that salvation pretty tightly.

You can always count on the Bee.

How Arminians think Calvinists think

(via 22 Words)

Sorry, Arminians, but free will may just be the brain's 'background noise'

OK, so the title is tongue-in-cheek. Mostly. But consider this report from Live Science:

It's a question that has plagued philosophers and scientists for thousands of years: Is free will an illusion?

Now, a new study suggests that free will may arise from a hidden signal buried in the "background noise" of chaotic electrical activity in the brain, and that this activity occurs almost a second before people consciously decide to do something.

Though "purposeful intentions, desires and goals drive our decisions in a linear cause-and-effect kind of way, our finding shows that our decisions are also influenced by neural noise within any given moment," study co-author Jesse Bengson, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, wrote in an email to Live Science. "This random firing, or noise, may even be the carrier upon which our consciousness rides, in the same way that radio static is used to carry a radio station."

So it would seem Calvinism is backed up by scripture and science! :)

Calvinism debate: Montgomery and Jones vs. Fischer and Zahnd

The following debate, moderated by Christianity Today editor Mark Galli, took place at Missio Dei Church in Chicago on August 27.

Proposition 1: Calvinism necessitates unconditional predestination, and unconditional predestination is incongruent with the God revealed in Jesus Christ.


Proposition 2: The cause of repentance and saving faith is not synergistic but monergistic.


Thanks to THEOparadox for the link.

The Parable of the Wicked Fireman: A "Refutation" of Calvinism

By uploading a few YouTube videos, Kerrigan Skelly has done something no one else has been able to do in hundreds of years: he has refuted Calvinism. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


I wonder how Mr. Skelly would answer my burning question for Arminians.

How Some Arminians View the "God of Calvinism"

When did Roger Olson start writing for The Onion?:

Less than 24 hours after their god bestowed two delicious orange slices upon them, local ants reported the capricious deity had picked up the entire ant farm in which they live and shaken it violently, leaving many to wonder what they had done to incur the all-powerful being's deadly wrath. ...

... The deity, whom the ants know as "Marcus," has long been feared for his volatile and arbitrary behavior. Though he occasionally grants the insects small gifts of sugar water, sources said he routinely abandons the ant farm for days at a time, which sows chaos throughout the colony as hunger-driven hysteria rules its tunnels. Marcus has also been known to smite individual ants by concentrating the sun's rays into deadly beams with his mysterious lens of fire.

From the ants' point of view, it might be difficult to see the difference between Marcus and the Orkin Man.

An Arminian View of the Raising of Lazarus

Here's one pastor who, in a sermon against Calvinism, takes a decidedly Arminian approach to John 11:



In short, dead men can respond to Christ.

An Arminian View of John 11

If Arminianism is true, then one would have to conclude that Lazarus was not resurrected solely because Jesus commanded it. The only logical conclusion is that the dead man was first granted prevenient grace and then, when offered the choice, made the free-will decision to come out of the tomb -- much in the same way spiritually dead people are raised to new life in Christ.

Let's read that into John 11:43-44:

When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out [if you so choose]." The man who had died [heard the call, was given prevenient grace, decided to obey Jesus, and] came out [of his own free will], his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

I suppose Jesus chose to raise Lazarus based on his foreknowledge that Lazarus would choose to obey. Or am I completely off-base here?

All Means All...

...and that's all all means. That's what most Arminians will argue when quoting verses like 2 Corinthians 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:6.

But does all really mean all all the time? Let's take a look at a couple of examples:

1. We all live on the third planet from the Sun.
   
   
2. Let's all go out to dinner.

One of the preceding statements refers to all people everywhere, and one refers to all people of a particular group. So, yes, in these examples all really does mean all. You won't get any argument from me.

A couple more:

1. All sunrises occur in the eastern sky because of the direction of the Earth's rotation.
   
   
2. It's a great restaurant; I eat there all the time.

Both refer to how frequently a particular event occurs. One can be taken in a wooden, literal sense while the other should not. How we make the distinction depends on the context.

All clear? Good!

The Arminian Problem Simplified

If you don't want to acknowledge that the future is decreed by God, Phil Johnson believes you are left with two alternatives:

1. Some being other than God determines the future and is therefore more sovereign than He. That is a kind of idolatry.
   
   
2. Some impersonal force does the determining without reason or coherence. That is a kind of fatalism.

God is not one to relinquish his sovereignty, nor does he simply react to what unfolds.

Still a Tough Question for Arminians

I posted a variation of this last year. However, in light of recent comments from an Arminian brother, I thought it was time for a slight modification.

Imagine the following: A father allows his two-year-old son to go outside to play knowing full well that their house is next to a lake. He also knows that his son has a habit of not listening when told to stay away from the water. Still, this father doesn't want to be the kind of parent that smothers his kid. The little rascal will have to grow up sometime, so he is given great freedom to make his own choices.

Sure enough, as soon as he sets foot outside, the boy heads straight for the water. His father sees this, but does nothing. He just stares out the window and watches. The child steps onto the dock, and still the father looks on.

It isn't until the boy slips and falls into the water that the father rushes to the rescue. But he doesn't jump in after him. He takes a life preserver from the boat that's tied to the dock and tosses it to his son. "Grab it!" he shouts. The boy continues to splash and scream for help. "Grab the life jacket, son! It's all up to you. If you want to be saved, just reach out and take it."

Eventually, the young boy ceases to struggle and sinks below the surface. The life jacket floats where the father threw it. "Son!" he cries. "Can't you hear me? All you have to do is hold on and I can pull you in." No response. The father turns and heads back to the house. Words cannot describe the sadness he feels, but there just wasn't anything he could do. He offered life, but his offer was rejected, and that ultimate act of disobedience resulted in his child's death.

Now, if that really happened, there isn't a single court in the country that would let the father off the hook. At the very least, he would be found criminally negligent for his son's death. But in the minds of most people, the father would be just as guilty as if he had pushed his son into the water in the first place.

Here's the question I have for you Arminians: If a sovereign, loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who neither ordains nor causes bad things to happen but allows them to happen according to his permissive will, creates mankind with the foreknowledge that every human will fall into sin, then how could such a God escape responsibility for the pain and suffering of his creatures, much less the eternal damnation of those who don't respond to his free offer of salvation?

I submit that you cannot answer that question without abandoning your own Arminian worldview. You cannot answer it without resorting to the same theological gymnastics you accuse Calvinists of performing. And you certainly cannot answer it if you have a problem conceiving of a truly sovereign God who works all things for his ultimate glory.