http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:05:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24079 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:05:00 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24079 I agree with it all, of course, but I would not go so far as Nathaniel Taylor in rejecting total depravity. I agree with it all, of course, but I would not go so far as Nathaniel Taylor in rejecting total depravity.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24076 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:57:31 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24076 Funny. Yes, this is a Calvinist "conundrum." Why have anything but patience or even pleasure in the face of doctrinal error (if you're a Calvinist)? After all, even heresy was foreordained by God for his glory. Thus, heresy glorifies God. Why fight against it? Okay, a Calvinist will say that fighting heresy is also God's foreordained means to the foreordained end of upholding orthodoxy. But why, if you're a Calvinist, feel any kind of horror or indignation or even consternation in the face of...anything? If it's all predestined by God for his glory, then all of it is...what? Good? Why not? I think divine determinism has only one logical outcome in terms of psychology--Stoicism. Funny. Yes, this is a Calvinist “conundrum.” Why have anything but patience or even pleasure in the face of doctrinal error (if you’re a Calvinist)? After all, even heresy was foreordained by God for his glory. Thus, heresy glorifies God. Why fight against it? Okay, a Calvinist will say that fighting heresy is also God’s foreordained means to the foreordained end of upholding orthodoxy. But why, if you’re a Calvinist, feel any kind of horror or indignation or even consternation in the face of…anything? If it’s all predestined by God for his glory, then all of it is…what? Good? Why not? I think divine determinism has only one logical outcome in terms of psychology–Stoicism.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24075 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:53:55 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24075 Another book to add to my "must read" list! Thanks. I'll try to get around to it. Right now I'm writing a book and it's taking most of my reading (researching) energy and time. But I will keep Ens's book in mind. Another book to add to my “must read” list! Thanks. I’ll try to get around to it. Right now I’m writing a book and it’s taking most of my reading (researching) energy and time. But I will keep Ens’s book in mind.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24074 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:51:11 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24074 Have you read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities? Or Against Calvinism? In both books I make clear that the Arminian view is not that God is limited by evil but that God is self-limiting for the same of human freedom which is necessary (at least in this world) for a truly loving relationship. We talked about that in my conversation with Mike as well. Irresistible grace does not yield a relationship but a condition. It's all well and good for you to think that your mother's cancer was planned and willed by God for some greater good. Her suffering as well? The Holocaust? Hell? Well, if it seems good to you to believe all those things (including the kidnapping and rape and murder of little children) are planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, then there's really nothing I or anyone else can say. We simply live on different sides of a continental divide in theology. I cannot believe eternal hell is "good" if planned and rendered certain by God for his glory. As for Augustine. Well, it depends on what you read in Augustine. Yes, he did argue that Adam and Eve fell by their own free will. Before the fall it was "possible not to sin." Yet, in his account of divine providence, Augustine clearly believed everything that happens was planned and rendered certain by God. So I don't know "which Augustine" to believe is the "real Augustine." Overall, I think his view of free will was compatibilist. After his controversy with the Pelagians he did not believe in libertarian free will (as power of contrary choice). Have you read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities? Or Against Calvinism? In both books I make clear that the Arminian view is not that God is limited by evil but that God is self-limiting for the same of human freedom which is necessary (at least in this world) for a truly loving relationship. We talked about that in my conversation with Mike as well. Irresistible grace does not yield a relationship but a condition. It’s all well and good for you to think that your mother’s cancer was planned and willed by God for some greater good. Her suffering as well? The Holocaust? Hell? Well, if it seems good to you to believe all those things (including the kidnapping and rape and murder of little children) are planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, then there’s really nothing I or anyone else can say. We simply live on different sides of a continental divide in theology. I cannot believe eternal hell is “good” if planned and rendered certain by God for his glory. As for Augustine. Well, it depends on what you read in Augustine. Yes, he did argue that Adam and Eve fell by their own free will. Before the fall it was “possible not to sin.” Yet, in his account of divine providence, Augustine clearly believed everything that happens was planned and rendered certain by God. So I don’t know “which Augustine” to believe is the “real Augustine.” Overall, I think his view of free will was compatibilist. After his controversy with the Pelagians he did not believe in libertarian free will (as power of contrary choice).

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/where-i-have-a-problem-with-calvinism/comment-page-1/#comment-24073 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1174#comment-24073 Prove it. First, prove that the SBC began confessionally reformed. If that's the case why did they not adopt an official Calvinist statement of faith? Second, even if the majority or all of the founders were Calvinists, the fact that many of their descendents changed theology does not prove that Arminians "invaded" their space. I'd like to know which ones did that. Who did that? I think most SBCers came to realize Calvinism was inconsistent with their emphasis on missions and evangelize and moved away from Calvinism. But to this day they insist they never adopted Arminianism. I happen to think many have adopted Arminianism, but I don't know of any outside influence that could be called "invading" their space. Now, the story in Texas is quite different. The first Baptist missionaries were Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit-Predestinarian Calvinists who were considered extreme even by other Calvinists. Their mission didn't succeed. Then came Free Will Baptist Missionaries. Historically, Texas Baptists have never been predominantly Calvinistic. If you want to say that Arminians "invaded" Calvinist space in the SBC, let's go all the way back to the beginnings (early 1600s) when all Baptists were Arminians until some became Calvinistic (Particular Baptists)--about thirty-five to forty years after John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. Prove it. First, prove that the SBC began confessionally reformed. If that’s the case why did they not adopt an official Calvinist statement of faith? Second, even if the majority or all of the founders were Calvinists, the fact that many of their descendents changed theology does not prove that Arminians “invaded” their space. I’d like to know which ones did that. Who did that? I think most SBCers came to realize Calvinism was inconsistent with their emphasis on missions and evangelize and moved away from Calvinism. But to this day they insist they never adopted Arminianism. I happen to think many have adopted Arminianism, but I don’t know of any outside influence that could be called “invading” their space. Now, the story in Texas is quite different. The first Baptist missionaries were Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit-Predestinarian Calvinists who were considered extreme even by other Calvinists. Their mission didn’t succeed. Then came Free Will Baptist Missionaries. Historically, Texas Baptists have never been predominantly Calvinistic. If you want to say that Arminians “invaded” Calvinist space in the SBC, let’s go all the way back to the beginnings (early 1600s) when all Baptists were Arminians until some became Calvinistic (Particular Baptists)–about thirty-five to forty years after John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24071 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:11 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24071 Yes, I deal with that question and typical Calvinist responses in my book Against Calvinism. The typical Calvinist response (which Mike gave in a very brief comment during our conversation) is that God is more glorified by there being a hell than by there not being a hell. That is because his justice "needs" hell for its full display. My argument is that such a view demeans the cross of Jesus Christ which was a full display of God's justice and love at the same time. Yes, I deal with that question and typical Calvinist responses in my book Against Calvinism. The typical Calvinist response (which Mike gave in a very brief comment during our conversation) is that God is more glorified by there being a hell than by there not being a hell. That is because his justice “needs” hell for its full display. My argument is that such a view demeans the cross of Jesus Christ which was a full display of God’s justice and love at the same time.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24070 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:35:19 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24070 Yes, that is the conclusion to which I am coming. Yes, that is the conclusion to which I am coming.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24069 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:34:10 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24069 You know I agree, of course. Thanks for making the point. However, Mike includes confessional Lutherans (e.g., LC-MS) with Calvinists under the umbrella of "Reformation theology" which, to him, is true evangelicalism. For some reason, Anabaptists and Wesleyans are excluded from that category. What it comes down to is monerism. Mike regards only monergists (which includes some Lutherans) as truly evangelical in the theological (as opposed to sociological) sense. You know I agree, of course. Thanks for making the point. However, Mike includes confessional Lutherans (e.g., LC-MS) with Calvinists under the umbrella of “Reformation theology” which, to him, is true evangelicalism. For some reason, Anabaptists and Wesleyans are excluded from that category. What it comes down to is monerism. Mike regards only monergists (which includes some Lutherans) as truly evangelical in the theological (as opposed to sociological) sense.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-my-conversation-with-michael-horton/comment-page-1/#comment-24068 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:31:29 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1178#comment-24068 Yes, I was speaking as a non-Molinist Arminian. My own opinion is that Molinism is a disguised form of divine determinism and therefore closer to Calvinism than to Arminianism. Molinism does fall to Mike's comment about foreknowledge. I suspect he thought I am a Molinist. I hope he now realizes his error. Yes, I was speaking as a non-Molinist Arminian. My own opinion is that Molinism is a disguised form of divine determinism and therefore closer to Calvinism than to Arminianism. Molinism does fall to Mike’s comment about foreknowledge. I suspect he thought I am a Molinist. I hope he now realizes his error.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/where-i-have-a-problem-with-calvinism/comment-page-1/#comment-24067 rogereolson Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:39 +0000 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?p=1174#comment-24067 I have never met or heard of a Calvinist who proclaims that to unbelievers. But, if I heard an evangelist preaching that in a non-confessionally Calvinist setting in which I was a supporter (of the event) I would have a problem with it. Did you see my response to Bev? I believe some of Billy Graham's associate evangelists were Calvinist-leaning. If I'm not mistaken Leighton Ford was a Presbyterian. But none of them ever let their specific theological orientation leak into their appeals to the lost to receive Christ. I'm not sure evangelism needs to be that confessionally specific. In fact, I'd say it does not have to be. Discipleship within the local church will usually include indoctrination. I have never met or heard of a Calvinist who proclaims that to unbelievers. But, if I heard an evangelist preaching that in a non-confessionally Calvinist setting in which I was a supporter (of the event) I would have a problem with it. Did you see my response to Bev? I believe some of Billy Graham’s associate evangelists were Calvinist-leaning. If I’m not mistaken Leighton Ford was a Presbyterian. But none of them ever let their specific theological orientation leak into their appeals to the lost to receive Christ. I’m not sure evangelism needs to be that confessionally specific. In fact, I’d say it does not have to be. Discipleship within the local church will usually include indoctrination.

]]>