This Week in Calvinism - September 28, 2012

• Justin Holcomb discusses two major streams of Reformed theology: the Scottish tradition and the Dutch tradition.
  
  
• Roy Ingle explains why Arminians find Calvinist "conversions" offensive.
  
  
• Southern Baptist pastor David Platt clarifies his position on the "sinner's prayer."
  
  
• Part 6 of Austin DeArmond's series of posts entitled "Myths & Caricatures of Calvinism."
  
  
• A statement often quoted against Calvinism briefly examined.
  
  
• Calvinism and Stoicism are not the same thing.
  
  
• From Ligonier: Six practical reasons to study eschatology.

Noah's Ark: A Picture of Limited Atonement

Eddie Eddings of Calvinistic Cartoons nails it:

This Week in Calvinism - September 21, 2012

• Robert Arakaki offers a critique of Calvinism from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. He thinks Calvinism presents a "zero-sum theology." In other words, "for any human to possess the capacity to freely love and have faith steals glory from God." That's an interesting take, but I think it has less to do with stealing glory from God than it does with the fact that scripture teaches man lacks the ability to "freely love and have faith" (Psalm 14:3, Psalm 143:2, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:20, Romans 3:10, Romans 7:18, Romans 11:32, etc.).
  
  
• Paul Copan lists his top books on Arminianism and Molinism.
  
  
• SBC president Fred Luter Jr. has a message for Southern Baptists: "This debate we're having across the convention about Calvinism needs to be resolved among us ASAP. Brothers and sisters, the dream of turning this convention's heart to missions and evangelism, missions and discipleship can easily turn into a nightmare if we do not resolve this Calvinism issue in a Christ-like manner. However, if it's going to be resolved, it must start with many of us right here in this room."
  
  
• Dan Phillips has a question for you about evangelistic tracts: "What tracts have you found useful?"

The Gospel of Jesus's Wife?

That's what Harvard researcher Karen King is calling a certain fourth-century papyrus fragment.

You can read more about the fragment here.

This will no doubt cause waves, but only for a moment. None of these Gnostic "gospels" ever hold up under scrutiny, and once the novelty of this latest discovery has passed, people will forget about it.

For a more pointed critique, check out Dr. James White's posts here and here.

This Week in Calvinism - September 14, 2012

• Lecrae on religion, race, and holy hip-hop.
  
  
• Check out Solid Joys, the new iPad/iPhone devotional app from Desiring God.
  
  
• A Wesleyan appreciation of Calvinism.
  
  
• Jerry Walls presents part 4 in his series of kind-of-theological-but-mostly-philosophical discussions on Calvinism.

Hank Hill on Christian Rock

(via Abraham Piper)

This Week in Calvinism - September 7, 2012

• In the eighth of a 12-part series, Mark Rathel wonders if Southern Baptists can be called Arminian, since he is "unaware of any Southern Baptist theologian that espouses prevenient grace in the sense described by Arminians."
  
  
• Greg writes, "Calvinism teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS and TAKES DELIGHT IN every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell." I can't believe this guy has actually been accused of caricaturing Calvinism.
  
  
• Tim Challies reminds us that discipline is grace.
  
  
• Is sanctification simple or complex? Short answer: yes.

A "Bible" Camp for Atheists

I know. You atheists don't proselytize. You don't organize meetings, hold seminars, form support groups, or write books. And you certainly don't hold any beliefs based on faith. No, atheism is not like a religion in any way.

Still, if your kids are looking for a Bible camp experience without the Bible part, you might want to check out Camp Quest. The camp aims to:

Develop supportive communities for freethinking families

Foster curiosity, scientific inquiry, and critical thinking in young people to enable them to draw their own conclusions

Cultivate reason and empathy as foundations of an ethical, productive and fulfilling life

Provide a safe and fun environment for personal and social growth

Encourage exploration of the natural world

Promote open dialogue that is marked by challenging each other’s ideas while treating each other with respect

Raise awareness of positive contributions made by atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic people to our society

Demonstrate atheism and humanism as positive, family-friendly worldviews

Bill Nye would be proud.

A Little Biblical Anger Management

(From my blog White Noise.)

Is It Government's Role to Care for the Poor?

Jim Wallis of Sojourners has written an article entitled "Caring for the Poor is Government's Biblical Role." His argument isn't so much biblical as it is philosophical. It can pretty much be summed up like this: "Caring for the poor is a good thing, and governments are supposed to promote good, so therefore government should care for the poor."

The intention behind wanting government to step in and care for the poor may be noble indeed, but those who call for such action seldom look beyond mere intentions. There are deeper implications to consider.

Penn Jillette, entertainer and avowed atheist, wrote an article last year for CNN.com that touched on this issue:

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment -- suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I'm a nut, but I'm not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force -- literally, not figuratively.

When seen from that perspective, all the talk about government doing more to help the poor takes on an entirely different meaning.

This Week in Calvinism - August 31, 2012

• If "all" means "all" all the time without exception, and God wants "all" men to be saved, but not "all" men are, then we can only conclude that God doesn't get what he wants. Right?
  
  
• Roger Olson writes, "I cannot accept, even with chagrin, Calvinism that says God foreordains and renders certain specific sins. That inexorably, ineluctably, inescapably makes God the author of sin and evil. That sullies God's character OR makes sin not really sin. You have to choose. There's no way around it." Dr. Olson, does that include the greatest sin of all, the murder of God's Son? I might be going out on a limb here, but scripture seems to imply that the crucifixion was foreordained.
  
  
• Relax, folks. The SBC's advisory committee on Calvinism meets this week. I'm sure the whole issue will be resolved in short order once and for all.
  
  
• Where did New Calvinism come from?
  
  
• Two years ago, a group of Baptist leaders published a substantial critique of Calvinism entitled Whosoever Will. This summer, Calvinists responded with Whomever He Wills.
  
  
• Romans 4:6-8 is apparently "a knock-out blow to Calvinism." I'm not sure I can follow the reasoning here, but maybe you can.
  
  
• Stephen Richardson, chair of the Biblical Studies Department and associate professor at Pacific Christian College of Ministry and Biblical Studies, believes that God's relationship with us "is a partnership in which God honors our humanity enough to value our free embrace of his Son and the resulting wholesome fellowship." This freedom to choose has some challenging implications. He says, "I must wrestle with the conclusion that God has taken risks in creating a being in his image and does not always get what he desires." So, God can't always get what he wants. Is that taken from scripture or a Rolling Stones song?

Time to Change Witnessing Tactics

(via xkcd)

An Anti-Calvinist's Idea of Consistent Calvinism

Kerrigan Skelly has posted many videos on YouTube in an attempt to refute Calvinism. His latest is a lengthy, 32-minute video from a 2010 Daytona Beach spring break outreach during which he encountered "one of the most consistent Calvinists I have ever met." He posted it as a warning of Calvinism taken to its logical extreme.

During the course of this interaction, the foul-mouthed "Calvinist" in question does seem to know a little bit about Reformed theology. He even throws out the names of John Piper and Paul Washer. But this man most definitely seems to fit the bill of what we would call a "cage stage Calvinist."

Naturally, Mr. Skelly assumes this man exemplifies Calvinism: "He's the one who claimed to be a Calvinist. It's obvious he is, but he's still living in a wicked, sinful life. And that's consistent Calvinism to me."

Case closed, I guess. Well, you be the judge.

(WARNING: contains quite a bit of NSFW language)


The alleged "Calvinist" is certainly in the wrong, but there was another troubling thing that jumped out at me. At the 23:10 mark we hear our drunk "Calvinist" friend say, "You are a sinner. Admit it." What is the only biblical response to that question for a Christian? "Yes, I am. A sinner saved by grace." However, the person with the camera says, "I'm not a sinner, I'm a saint. I stopped sinning." I just don't see how that squares with 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

While Mr. Skelly seems to think this video shows us consistent Calvinism, perhaps what we're actually witnessing is consistent synergism. Rather than presenting the truth in love, these street preachers seem to take a "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah! You're going to Hell and I'm not!" approach.

I could be wrong. Maybe my own bias is clouding my judgment. But if anyone thinks he has a reason to boast, isn't it the one who believes he had a part in his own salvation?

This Week in Calvinism - August 24, 2012

• Is the God of Calvinism a moral monster?
  
  
• According to Dr. Tom Nettles, "Calvinism should still occupy the place of universal adherence in Baptist life." Dr. Rick Patrick takes issue with that.
  
  
• It's nice to know some Christians have fewer problems "with the role of the pope or Mary in the Roman Catholic Church" than they do with Calvinism.
  
  
• Dave Hunt continues to spew his hatred of Calvinists:

  Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they "shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life" (Jn:5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.

• It seems the problem some people have with The Gospel Project is that it doesn't teach that there is a responsibility on God's part to love us.

Lame Church Sign

Church sign I passed by yesterday: "Hang in there! Even Moses was a basket case!" Um...Ok.