When the Calvinist Becomes a Practical Arminian

I have found it interesting throughout my journey as a follower of Jesus and specifically, a Calvinist, the ways in which I have found my own "kind" sounding and acting more like the Arminian, than what our doctrines shouldcall us to be. There are two ways I have found this to be true most blatantly in my Calvinistic brothers (and much in myself): Theological Discussion and Evangelism.

Even more specifically in these discussions is the glaring difficulty the Calvinist seems to have with our own doctrine of God's sovereignty. I believe we need to repent and start acting like good Calvinists. We love to say that Calvinism leads one to complete humility, but to be honest, I see more pride in Calvinistic people, than humility. The reason that Calvinism SHOULD drive us to humility is the understanding of man's condition and understanding that God is so sovereign that he doesn't need our wisdom or works, but has decided to work through them, spefically preaching, to bring the sinner to Jesus.

But, why doesn't this Calvinistic orthodoxy actually follow in our Calvinistic orthopraxy? Here is what I mean.

This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Titus 3:8-11

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 1:6

In our dealings with other cultures and peoples in evangelism and gospel living, we shouldn't feel as though we have to have every answer, nor should we feel as though we have to give every available answer to the hearer/discusser all at once. We should rest in the fact that God is sovereign and that his Spirit is truly at work. We should truly be humble with the sinner, knowing how to engage them where they are and how much to engage them with. As a Calvinist, we should be able to give some truth, not all at once, depending on the situation and the true urging of the Spirit, not the urging of our self glorifying pride. We should allow the Spirit to engage each person where THEY are, not where WE WANT them to eventually be.

This doesn't mean to purposely hold back for the sake of holding back, but we need to know when to lay off of our fire hose of orthodoxy and allow God to work on their heart, instead of acting like we are both the scalpel and the surgeon on the sinner's heart. We need to remember that we are merely the axe (Isaiah 10:15) and must allow God to be the one that receives all the credit instead of our own intellect or source of timing of giving the sinner knowledge of his Maker. We should allow God to decide when to strike the wood and when to lay the axe aside. While in conversation, don't feel like you have to correct every error made by the other's involved, but act like you actually believe in God's sovereignty and have real conversations in love.

Not only this, but remember that God is at work on Christians as well. We need to remember Phil 1:6 and act like we believe it. When speaking to those who do not agree with Calvinistic doctrines, it makes more sense to show them (live them out) our doctrines than beat them over the head with them, which shows zero understanding of humility or God's sovereignty. When we do this, we act like we are God's sanctification expert, sent to correct those other dumb people. When you get into debates, where you try and correct every error, you sound really dumb. First, these debates have been happening for centuries, and you think you are the new Martin Luther attacking the Wittenburg door of the Arminian. There is so much pride just within those kinds of debates, that you will drive the Arminian away instead of pressing them into Jesus. We should strive to press everyone into Jesus, including ourselves, knowing he is the one full of truth, full of wisdom, full of God and full of rest and sanctifying power. Why do you feel it is your job to sanctify the Arminian? You aren't being a peacemaker, nor are you being one who exudes Christlikeness, but you end up looking like a prideful ass, who looks like they hate their "enemy" instead of loving them.

I just ask my Calvinist brothers to please start living out what we believe to be truth.

Be humble. Trust Jesus. Be ready to speak. Be ready to listen. Let Jesus sanctify. Side note...you're not Jesus.

I'll leave it at that, and trust that Jesus will speak to some through this post and start sanctifying us all to his side for his glory.

Read More......

Freedom of the Will

This is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will and this was the start of my understanding the obsurdity of the will being truly free. This takes a little time to understand and read through but Edwards does a great job in taking apart the Arminian view of the will through logic. I would encourage any to pick up this book and read it in its entirety. Here ya go:

If the Will, which we find governs the members of the body, and determines their motions, does also govern itself, and determines its own actions, it doubtless determines them the same way, even by antecedent volitions. The Will determines which way the hands and feet shall move, by an act of choice: and there is no other way of the Will’s determining, directing, or commanding any thing at all. Whatsoever the will commands, it commands by an act of the Will. And if it has itself under its command, and determines itself in its own actions, it doubtless does it the same way that it determines other things which are under its command. So that if the freedom of the will consists in this, that it has itself and its own actions under its command and direction, and its own volitions are determined by itself, it will follow, that every free volition arises from another antecedent volition, directing and commanding that: and if that directing volition be also free, in that also the will is determined; that is to say, that directing volition is determined by another going before that; and so on, till we come to the first volition in the whole series: and if that first volition be free, and the will self-determined in it, then that is determined by another volition preceding that. Which is a contradiction; because by the supposition, it can have none before it, to direct or determine it, being the first in the train.

But if that first volition is not determined by any preceding act of the Will, then that act is not determined by the Will, and so is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the Will’s self-determination. And if that first act of the will which determines and fixes the subsequent acts, be not free, none of the following acts which are determined by it can be free.— If we suppose there are five acts in the train, the fifth and last determined by the fourth, and the fourth by the third, the third by the second, and the second by the first; if the first is not determined by the Will, and so not free, then none of them are truly determined by the Will: that is, that each of them are as they are, and not otherwise, is not first owing to the will, but to the determination of the first in the series, which is not dependent on the will, and is that which the will has no hand in determining. And this being that which decides what the rest shall be, and determines their existence; therefore the first determination of their existence is not from the Will. The case is just the same, if instead of a chain of five acts of the Will, we should suppose a succession of ten, or an hundred, or ten thousand. If the first act he not free, being determined by something out of the will, and this determines the next to be agreeable to itself, and that the next, and so on; none of them are free, but all originally depend on, and are determined by, some cause out of the Will; and so all freedom in the case is excluded, and no act of the will can be free, according to this notion of freedom. If we should suppose a long chain of ten thousand links, so connected, that if the first link moves, it will move the next, and that the next; and so the whole chain must be determined to motion, and in the direction of its motion, by the motion of the first link; and that is moved by something else; in this case, though all the links, but one, are moved by other parts of the same chain, yet it appears that the motion of no one, nor the direction of its motion, is from any self-moving or self-determining power in the chain, any more than if every link were immediately moved by something that did not belong to the chain.— If the Will be not free in the first act, which causes the next, then neither is it free in the next, which is caused by that first act; for though indeed the Will caused it, yet it did not cause it freely; because the preceding act, by which it was caused, was not free. And again, if the Will be not free in the second act, so neither can it be in the third, which is caused by that; because in like manner, that third was determined by an act of the Will that was not free. And so we may go on to the next act, and from that to the next; and how long soever the succession of acts is, it is all one: if the first on which the whole chain depends, and which determines all the rest, be not a free act, the Will is not free in causing or determining any one of those acts; because the act by which it determines them all is not a free act; and therefore the Will is no more free in determining them, than if it did not cause them at all.— Thus, this Arminian notion of Liberty of the Will, consisting in the will’s Self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shuts itself wholly out of the world.

Read More......

God's Permissible Will

We have gotten to a great discussion, in my opinion, on how God's sovereign will interacts with man's sin and responsibility. I am mainly going to be pulling things back out from the comments section from our debate posts because I believe that this discussion warrants some "front page news." I think by posting this, one can get a clearer understanding of where I fit into the discussion and in where historical Calvinism fits into this discussion. Of course, being a good Calvinist :) I believe that my view and the historical view are identical.

What I would like to accomplish in this post is simply how I believe God remains sovereign while man remains responsible for sin. I want to look at some passages to see how God ordains all things, but how this keeps God unstained by sin or allowing God to be the author of sin. I will use both biblical narratives and explanation of those narratives biblically and also take a look at some quotes from Turretin and Calvin to help us better understand how this all "meshes."

The first to establish is that God is completely sovereign and in control of all things. This cannot be overlooked, nor can this be taken lightly. The Arminian confirms this, but then fails to carry it out all the way to salvation. The libertarian free will thinkers just cannot allow this to be carried out in either their orthodoxy nor their orthopraxy. The reason is because the man can resist God and His call to the sinner, in the belief of all synergistic and libertarian free will thinkers. To the Calvinist this simply does not make sense.

Some of the verses that ascertain God's complete control of all things are (understand this is not exhaustive):

I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Job 42:2

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Isaiah 45:7

For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
Daniel 4:34b-35

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Romans 8:28

Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass.
Job 14:5

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
Psalm 139:16

“Alas, who can live except God has ordained it?
Numbers 24:23b

Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?
Proverbs 20:24

We see these mentioned and our minds, at least mine does, asks, "If all is ordained and determined by God, then how can I be responsible for my sin?"

This is where we understand the permissible will of God. If there was no more understanding than these verses, it would be harder to explain. But, once you take some of the prophetical and narrative sections of Scripture and put it to the light of these passages, one can get a better handle on how God determines all things, yet still can punish those who are guilty by their own sin. Before we look at these verses, know that all good comes from God. Nothing that happens, that is good, happens apart from the direct hand of the Lord.

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
James 1:17

To get a better understanding of the permissible will of God, I will first give a small commentary on 3 passages and then give you some quotes from Turretin and Calvin, thanks to my friend David Ponter.

First, to look at this, we must come to one of the greatest passages dealing with this and that is Genesis 50:20

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

This actually is a great living example of the above mentioned verse, Romans 8:28.

Joseph's brothers did some very evil things in their hearts and actions against their brother. But, through Joseph's dreams and through the end result, and especially this verse, we find that the brothers meant evil, and Genesis 50:17 shows that the did actually sin in their actions, but Genesis 50:20 shows that this was all by God's hand. God's permissible will, allowed the brother's to carry out their hatred towards their brother to perfectly extend God's will to Joseph. This word, "meant" is the exact same word for "reckon" or "impute" and is used in the famous verse Genesis 15:6

Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

This word is not used in the sense that God was hoping all this would come to pass, but it is more forceful in its use, and is also used of Joseph's brothers as they "reckoned" evil to their brother.

The second passage is in Jeremiah 25:1-17 (I will simply link so this post isn't abnormally long)

What we find here is God showing His power over, not only His own people, but even to His people's enemies. In verses 9-17, which is where God is showing that He is going to send Babylon to punish Judah, God uses the terms: I will send, I will punish, I will destroy, etc. 11 times! God is showing that He is sovereign over these men's decisions. How do we know that God is not literally causing these people to sin? How do we know that God is not tempting, which would go against James 1? Habakkuk 1 actually shows us that the Babylonians were like this. They were an utterly sinful people who loved to destroy and mock nations (Hab 1,2). So, we can see that how God used the Babylonians was to simply remove his hand of protection from Judah and allow the Babylonians to carry out the evil plans that they already had in their heart. It is the same idea that we find in Hebrews 4:7

“Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”
Hebrews 4:7

It is the hardness of man that causes sin and destruction and ultimately death in hell, not God. This also helps one to understand the dichotomy of how Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Was it God or Pharaoh? In reality, it was both. (Ex 4:21; 7:3; 8:15; 8:32; 1 Sam 6:6; Romans 9:17,18) Both Habakkuk 1:11 and Jeremiah 25:12 which state:

‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the Lord, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation.
Jeremiah 25:12

“Then they will sweep through like the wind and pass on. But they will be held guilty, They whose strength is their god.”
Habakkuk 1:11

We can see the hand of the Lord directing the Babylonians to defeat and punish Judah for their sin, but we also see that the Babylonians did not escape punishment for their sin, because this sin was already in their heart to destroy. What is said of Satan, as far as the reason he sinned?

But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.
Isaiah 14:13

Lastly, we have the greatest providence of God ever predestined and set forth. Shown in Acts 2:22,23

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Acts 2:22-23

Notice that we have here that God predetermined (there is no way around this word) the cross. We actually have the same seen in Revelation 13:8

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Revelation 13:8

Notice that the book of life and the Lamb who was slain (they must be together) were determined before the world was formed. So, these two passages show God's sovereignty, but notice also this does not release the men from their sin. At the end of Acts 2:23 we see that God, through Peter, says, "you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men..." This shows the permissible will of God allowing the men to do what they had determined in their heart to do, all while God is still completely sovereign.

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
Acts 4:27-28

One of the most simple verses that molds these all together is found in Proverbs 16:9

The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.
Proverbs 16:9

The word, in the Hebrew, for "directs" can be also translated as "determines." This verse shows us how God is completely sovereign yet man is still culpable for his sin.

Here are some great quotes from both Turretin and Calvin on the subject:

Turretin:

In this question, which all confess to be the most intricate and difficult among those agitated concerning providence, two extremes occur which are equally dangerous and to be avoided. First in defect, wherein an otiose permission about sins is ascribed to God. The other in excess, when the causality of sin is charged upon God. The former clashes with the providence of God, but the latter with his justice and holiness. Into the former, the Pelagians, who refer the method of God’s providence about evil to a bare and idle permission, run (as if he put forth no action in reference to it, but only indifferently beheld and permitted it). On the latter, however, the Manichaeans, Simonians and Priscillianists formerly struck who made God the cause of wickedness and of sins. This sinners readily seize to excuse their crimes: as Homer’s Agamemnon, “I am not to be blamed, but Jupiter and fate”… and Lyconides in the Aulularia of Plautus, “God was the instigator, I believe the gods wished it” (The Pot of Gold [Loeb, 1:310-11]). This impiety is indulged by the Libertine of the present time.

The orthodox hold the mean between these two extremes, maintaining that the providence of God is so occupied about sin as neither to idly to permit it (as the Pelagians think) nor to efficiently to produce it (as the Libertines suppose)m but efficaciously order and direct it…

The orthodox hold the mean between these extremes, maintaining that the providence of God is so occupied about sin as neither idly to permit it (as the Pelagians think) nor efficiently to produce it (as the Libertines suppose), but efficaciously to order and direct it. However, in order that this may be readily understood, we must treat of it a little more distinctly.

Second, this permission must not be conceived negatively, as if it was a mere keeping back (anergia) or cessation of his will and providence in evil works (by which God, sitting as it were on a watchtower, should behold only the event of the permitted action and who, therefore, would be left uncertain and doubtful-as the old Pelagians thought and as their followers of the present day hold obtruding upon us the comment of an otiose and inert permission; cf. Bellarmine, “God does not hold himself towards sins positively to will or nill, but negatively not to will” (”De amissione gratiae et statu peccati,” 2.16 in Opera 4:107). But it must be conceived positively and affirmatively; not simply that God does not will to hinder sin (which is an otiose negation), but that he wills not to hinder (which is an efficacious affirmation). Thus the permission involves a positive act of the secret will by which God designedly and willingly determined not to hinder sin, although he may be said to nill it as to the revealed will of approbation. In this sense, our divines do not refuse to employ the word “permission” with the Scriptures. And if at any time they reject it (as Calvin, Beza and others), they understand it in the Pelagian sense of otiose”permission” which takes away from God his own right and sets up the idol of free will in its place. Hence Beza: “if by the word permission is meant this distinction (to wit, since God does not act in evil, but gives them up to Satan and their own lusts) that I repudiate not in the least. But if permission is opposed to will, this I reject as false and absurd; its falsity appearing from this, that if God unwillingly permits anything, he is not certainly God, i.e., Almighty; but if he is said to permit anything as not caring, how much do we differ from Epicureanism? It remains, there, fore, that he willingly permits what he permits. Will then is not opposed to permission” (A Little Book of Christian Questions and Responses, Q. 179 [trans. K.M. Summers, 1986], pp. 72-73).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:515, 516-517.

Calvin:

It is indeed true, that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all inherit from Adam; yet, that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple good pleasure of God... Calvin, Commentary Romans 9:11.

Calvin:

Here again I entreat the honesty of my readers, to compare my language, and the whole strain of my teaching, with your garbled articles. Thus, when your calumny is detected, all the odium which you labor to excite, will vanish of its own accord. Meanwhile, I do not deny, that I have taught along with Moses and Paul, that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Here you expostulate with me to the contempt of Moses, and treating his word as of no account, ask “When the same Moses declares, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, why have recourse to that violent interpretation—God hardened Pharaoh’s heart?” Now I need go no further for an explanation, than the ninth article, which while you quote, you either distort or misunderstand. For if the will of God is the highest, or remote cause of hardening, then when man hardens his own heart, he himself is the proximate cause, I everywhere distinguish between primary and remote causes, and those which are mediate and proximate; for while the sinner finds himself the root of depraved feeling, there is no reason why he should transfer his fault to God. Calvin, The Secret Providence of God. Article 8, Calvin's Reply.


Because God’s wisdom appears manifold (or “multiform” as the old translator renders it), ought we therefore, on account of the sluggishness of our understanding, to dream that there is any variation in God himself, as if he either may change his plan or disagree with himself? Rather, when we do not grasp how God wills to take place what he forbids to be done, let us recall our mental incapacity, and at the same time consider that the light in which God dwells is not without reason called unapproachable [1 Timothy 6:16], because it is overspread with darkness. Therefore all godly and modest folk readily agree with this saying of Augustine: “Sometimes with a good will a man wills something which God does not will … For example, a good son wills that his father live, whom God wills to die. Again, it can happen that the same man wills with a bad will what God wills with a good will. For example, a bad son wills that his father die; God also wills this. That is, the former wills what God does not will; but the latter wills what God also wills. And yet the filial piety of the former, even though he wills something other than God wills, is more consonant with God’s good will than the impiety of the latter, who wills the same thing as God does. There is a great difference between what is fitting for man to will and what is fitting for God, and to what end the will of each is directed, so that it be either approved or disapproved. For through the bad wills of evil men God fulfills what he righteously wills.” A little before he had said that by their defection the apostate angels and all the wicked, from their point of view, had done what God did not will, but from the point of view of God’s omnipotence they could in no way have done this, because while they act against God’s will, his will is done upon them. Whence he exclaims: “Great are God’s works, sought out in all his wills” Psalm 111:2; cf. Psalm 110:2, Vg.]; so that in a wonderful and ineffable manner nothing is done without God’s will, not even that which is against his will. For it would not be done if he did not permit it; yet he does not unwillingly permit it, but willingly; nor would he, being good, allow evil to be done, unless being also almighty he could make good even out of evil.” Institutes, 1.18.3.

Read More......

The Resurgence Conference 2007

This last March, Justin, my pastor and I went to the Resurgence Conference with Mars Hill and Bruce Ware and it was very well done. If you would like to read my review of the conference you can see that here. I wanted to link over there as they now have the video, notes and Q & A sessions.

Hope you enjoy:

Uncertain Hands of God and Men: Providence in Process Thought and Open Theism

Independent Hands of God and Men: Providence in Classic Arminianism

Coordinated Hands of God and Men: Providence in the Reformed Tradition

Read More......

Our First Importance

I want to be clear here first and foremost: I love a good discussion on theology that is open, biblical and honest. But what I want to bring to our discussion today is of FIRST importance. Take a look:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 15:1-4

There are some points I want to make and then I will actually open up this passage to some discussion on some old school theology. Notice that Paul gives us a look at not only what has happened in the past but also where we should be in the present.

First, Paul tells us that he is speaking to his brethren, the saved, the elect, the chosen because of the gospel preached and they received. In our society and church that loves to show plays and theatrical dramas or dance, this is another good example that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. We, as teachers, pastors and theologians need to remember to never leave our post of proclaimers of the truth. This is the only way that people are converted to the saving knowledge of our Saviour.

Notice also that Paul says that they, the Corinthians "also stand" in the gospel. This is speaking of the truth that perseverance is proof of conversion. This correlates very well with the antithesis of Psalm 1:1 that states the one who is not blessed is the one who "stands in the path of sinners." To stand in the gospel is to live the gospel, to breath the gospel, to preach the gospel. Are you standing in the gospel, or are you of "that faith that doesn't save" that even the demons believe in? Good questions to examine ourselves with.

But notice where our first importance lies: the gospel. We get into a lot of discussions and allow our minds and fellowship be broken with many loving brothers in Christ over matters that aren't essential to the eternal proof, the eternal FIRST IMPORTANCE. I believe this is why Whitefield and Wesley could minister together, they were humble in their theology knowing the gospel was the first importance. I am not one who proclaim that the Arminians preach a different (heretical) gospel, and in my humble opinion if you truly believe this you preach an elitist gospel that definitely didn't save the thief on the cross. Now I love debating and discussing with my Arminian friends, but my hope would be that afterwards we would both scour the streets together telling all sinners to repent and believe, to understand the first importance. Remind yourself this week what must be of first importance in your life. It isn't your job, it isn't your ministry, it isn't your family, it isn't your wife, it is the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!

A post on the blogosphere wouldn't be complete though without asking the "ole skool theology" question. The unlimited atonement folk (not just Arminians here) would state that Paul defends the thought that Christ died for all in this passage. This is not a new discussion, it is actually a very old one. One that more of the reformers held to than many of us like to admit. Take a look at what Paul says: I delivered to you...Christ died for OUR sins...

The unlimited atonement folk would say that since none of the other facts changed since Paul delivered the message, such as, Christ being buried and raised on the third day, then we must also take Paul's words to mean that Paul delivered to the Corinthians when they were not believers that Christ died for our sins...meaning Christ died for all the sinner's sins to whom Paul was proclaiming, regardless of whether they ended up repenting or not. I hope I made this point clear, and if I didn't just ask. I am sure that this will cause some good discussion on the subject.

Read More......

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

I didn't know what to expect when I picked up this book. I actually tried to stay away from reading any reviews beforehand so that I could give it a good, honest, unbiased opinion as I read through it. I will tell you this, I think Roger Olson is very fair and very honest about the Arminian theological system. I was expecting to get attacked as a Calvinist, but I truly found just the opposite. I have seen reviews since I started the book that call out Dr. Olson as being angry and hateful, but I found just the opposite. I expected to be "railed against" but really just found an honest dissertation of some of the myths of the Arminian theology.

What I did find was that the crux of the difference between the two theologies really lies in the manner in which God chooses men to be saved. The Calvinist states that we as dirty, sinful, godless humans should be grateful to see that God is gracious to choose any to go to heaven, instead of allowing us all to go to hell. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God is so loving that He would choose everyone to heaven if He could, but He leaves the choice in salvation to the libertarian free will of man through prevenient grace.

The Calvinist cannot see God ever giving up any of His sovereignty, even in the choice of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. The Arminian cannot see God, being loving, to ever control humans in their choices, or this results in God being the author and creator of sin and the human not having true love for the Creator. This chasm, as Dr. Olson plainly states, will never be brought together between the two sides. Which I completely agree.

The one place that I saw Dr. Olson arguing for over and over in the book is that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian because it is not that good was left in man after the fall, but that God, in His grace gave all men prevenient grace. Here is my issue with this argument. Did not God allow the good to be humans before the fall? So, whether you believe that a little good was left over (Semi-Pelagian) or that God, after the fall, gave all men prevenient grace (Arminianism), which is also good, how is this different? It's just a matter of timing, in my opinion. Dr. Olson also goes into a little dissertation on Open Theism where he does not really try and disprove, but says simply that some Arminians are going "that way" and some are undecided. This is where Arminianism gets real dangerous, in my opinion.

I did enjoy the book and Dr. Olson's thoroughness in it. Do not expect the book to be one that tries to "convince" you of the Arminian position, for this was not the intent (this is also the reason why there was very little biblical references). The intent was to clear up some misconceptions of Arminian theology. Which for me, it did the job that Dr. Olson was trying to do, but that does not mean that I agree with him. I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone looking for an honest assessment of Arminianism.

I also appreciate Dr. Olson's heart in wanting the two sides to be able to serve with one another and to proclaim the gospel together. I found this a place where a lot of my Calvinist friends could learn from. Link to Buy

Read More......