tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116252750510247284..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: More Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry ArminianPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162832390348193972006-11-06T08:59:00.000-08:002006-11-06T08:59:00.000-08:00You have got to be kidding me!I'll repost this aga...You have got to be kidding me!<BR/><BR/>I'll repost this again which is from the BIBLE that you read! In fact it's from the very passages that I quoted initially.<BR/><BR/>with GENTLENESS(the very title of this post does not set forth a precedent of anything gentle, but rather quarrelsome, if you deny that my friend you are not a rational man) CORRECTING those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth(Is this the underlying motivation for critique the "opposition"?) <BR/><BR/>Second, I'll let the Apostle Paul answer you here: (I Cor. 1:13)It was the precious blood of Christ that was shed for us. Our divisions are an offense to the work of Christ because it is the work of Christ that has purchased us for Himself. We are His personal property. Taking any other name, saying we are disciples of any particular preacher or theologian is an offense to the very work that Christ has done on our behalf. Believers have no relationship even to inspired teachers such as to justify being called by their names. We are called Christians because we belong to Christ. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Third, please reread Jude in context. Taking the passage out of it's intended context to justify "contending" with a fellow believer over the extent of the atonement is eisogesis at it's best. The passage has nothing to do with contending for Calvinism against a fellow believer. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Lastly, get the book and READ IT FOR YOURSELF! Nowhere does Olson set out to began a debate, but to clear up some misconception that WE often levy against brothers whom we disagree. The fact of the matter is that he says a lot that's simply true. I am guilty and have personally witnessed it more than I like to admit in the Reformed community. <BR/><BR/>Eph. 4:29-32,<BR/><BR/>Alando FranklinAlando Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734785412599628943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162803243241324592006-11-06T00:54:00.000-08:002006-11-06T00:54:00.000-08:00Alando Franklin. Contrary to popular prejudice, Ca...Alando Franklin. Contrary to popular prejudice, Calvinists actually read the Bible. And surely you cannot believe that it is wrong to CORRECT a brother or sister if he or she is mistaken.<BR/> DEBATE is not the same as quarreling. Some of my best friends are Arminian. Recently I preached at a Wesleyan Church. Did I 'quarrel' in the pulpit? Of course not! That would be unseemly.<BR/><BR/> But secondly, is the Arminian/Calvinist debate a matter of 'foolish and ignorant speculation'? And if so, on which side?<BR/> Surely what Paul is commanding is that all such debate ought to be in love and that our language ought to be moderate. Which is what I have always tried to do.<BR/> HOWEVER, we are ALSO commanded to 'Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). In other words, there is 'quarreling' (bad) and 'Contending' (good). <BR/> So what was Paul writing about in II Timothy 2. 23? Probably what he wrote to Timothy about in I Timothy 1.4. The question is, is this a Jude 3 or a II Timothy 2. 23 question?<BR/><BR/> And remember that it was Mr. Olson in his book who started this debate, not the Pyromaniacs.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162660666045795762006-11-04T09:17:00.000-08:002006-11-04T09:17:00.000-08:00Why do you guy's do this in light of Scriptures li...Why do you guy's do this in light of Scriptures like 1 Cor. 12 or 2 Tim. 2 presuming that many of you are elders/pastors/teachers, etc. from your abundance of knowledge? Are not these passages relevant today or just the one's supporting the Doctrines of Grace? <BR/><BR/>For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. <BR/><BR/>14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. <BR/><BR/>Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 But REFUSE foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce QUARRELS(obviously not a good thing). 24 The Lord's bond-servant MUST NOT be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth(Is this the underlying motivation for critique the "opposition"?), 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.Alando Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734785412599628943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162631391998181662006-11-04T01:09:00.000-08:002006-11-04T01:09:00.000-08:00étrangère, indeed, IVP US (a completely different ...étrangère, indeed, IVP US (a completely different company from the UK one) is a lot worse in terms of publishing tosh than IVP UK.<BR/><BR/>And if Olson says that Calvinists have misrepresented Arminianism, he either has to qualify that with 'some', or explain how Packer, Gill, Toplady and Girardeau are guilty of misrepresentation.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162619891280030252006-11-03T21:58:00.000-08:002006-11-03T21:58:00.000-08:00Gary,This problem will NOT be solved. The problem ...Gary,<BR/>This problem will NOT be solved. The problem is really one of human pride. Even the best Christians seem to come to a full understanding and acceptance of the sovereignty of the Potter only with time in the Scriptures and with maturity. <BR/><BR/>God's sovereignty is a humiliating slap in the face of each of us. And that's hard to take.<BR/><BR/>One caveat: cultures that do not major on linear thought have it easier, since they are not stuck by the fallacy of the single cause.<BR/><BR/>Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162605301207596782006-11-03T17:55:00.000-08:002006-11-03T17:55:00.000-08:00Scott,Why wouldn't those who are members of a "tra...Scott,<BR/><BR/>Why wouldn't those who are members of a "tradition" be the ones to define what it is? Why should an outsider be the one to define it?<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162595181506520812006-11-03T15:06:00.000-08:002006-11-03T15:06:00.000-08:00highland host, re tosh you must admit that IVP UK ...highland host, re tosh you must admit that IVP UK are a lot more on-gospel in publishing policy than the IVP on the other side of the pond! Even if frustratingly you can get some bad IVP US stuff through our lot =-zétrangèrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02802871565840479439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162589864567149382006-11-03T13:37:00.000-08:002006-11-03T13:37:00.000-08:00Thanks for the article and the book references. A...Thanks for the article and the book references. At Amazon.com I was able to find the referenced works by Toplady, Gill and Girardeau - all in stock and ready to ship. The "to be read" stack continues to grow - yes, it is a good day in west Texas.<BR/><BR/>The first post in this series provided evidence of Mr. Olson's misrepresentation of Warfield's interaction with Arminians. Today's post provides evidence of Mr. Olson's failure to interact with some of the most effective, able critiques of the Arminian position. Given this - and assuming that Mr. Olson was only attempting to provide an able, readable defense of the Arminian position - one has reason to wonder about the quality of the defense provided by Mr. Olson.<BR/><BR/>If Mr. Olson is convinced of the superiority of the Arminian position, then he should subscribe to and defend that position. That's what I'd expect. However, I'd also hope that Mr. Olson would have an accurate understanding of the Arminian position - both its strengths and weaknesses - and that his defense of the Arminian position would reflect an accurate understanding of these strengths and weaknesses.<BR/><BR/>As an educator who can still back a wagon into the barn fairly well, I'm concerned both with the positions my students ultimately adopt and the quality of the argument they can make in defense of those positions. For example, I take no comfort from a student who supports free market economies but cannot make an able case for the superiority of free market economies over centrally planned ones. Similarly, I take no comfort from someone who only defends his position in front of friendly crowds where his inability to make an able case for his position never comes to the surface.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162582645079448292006-11-03T11:37:00.000-08:002006-11-03T11:37:00.000-08:00On the contrary, Keith, it is common to note the g...On the contrary, Keith, it is common to note the gaping lacunae in a work that purports to present Arminianism or Calvinism for that matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/>What he wishes to do is distinguish between "Arminianism of the head" and "Arminianism of the heart" and wed the latter to classical Arminianism.<BR/>Here, then, we have a case of an Arminian who is ignoring the critiques of Arminianism from the classical period itself. I've read some Arminian blogs that praise this book and proceed to extol Arminius himself, all the while blissfully unaware of De Moulin's work.<BR/><BR/>He chooses particular foils, but why those particular foils? Why not the ones that interacted with the very Arminianism he wishes to present? This is particularly grievous where he interacts with Warfield. Brother Gary is correct, he does not interact with Warfield, rather, he interacts with Riddlebarger on Warfield. He mentions Packer, but doesn't bother to interact with him. <BR/><BR/>What's worse, he doesn't present the best case scenario for Arminianism as devised by its best minds. Rather, he ignores some Arminians by way of prejudicial classification. If this is the best that Arminians can offer, then we Calvinists should thank Dr. Olsen for doing us a great service, for there is a certain amount of damage that only one from the inside can inflict.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162573901371274972006-11-03T09:11:00.000-08:002006-11-03T09:11:00.000-08:00Keith is absolutely right.Olson did not write his ...Keith is absolutely right.<BR/><BR/>Olson did not write his book in an attempt to prove that Calvinism is wrong or even that Arminianism is better.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of his book is to explain what Arminianism actually is.<BR/><BR/>I find it very interesting that Calvinists respond to this book defensively. Somehow Calvinists seem to be threatened if Arminianism is presented in a favorable light.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162571774936849712006-11-03T08:36:00.000-08:002006-11-03T08:36:00.000-08:00This all comes as no surprise to those of us in Te...This all comes as no surprise to those of us in Texas having followed (and suffered through) the theologically liberal shift that characterized much of Texas Baptist life for 30 years. He teaches at Baylor's Truett Seminary, is the featured theological voice of the moderate/liberal Baptist Standard newsletter, and is a member of a Baptist church in Waco with a feminized pulpit. If he consistently turns Scripture on its head on so many areas, he'll continue doing so in others. <BR/><BR/>Beware his leaven as many of us in Texas have learned to do.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222531021998951486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162569623105548002006-11-03T08:00:00.000-08:002006-11-03T08:00:00.000-08:00So, Keith, if a writer sets out to disprove the "m...So, <B>Keith</B>, if a writer sets out to disprove the "myth" that one can be evangelical <I>and</I> deeply thoughtful, but doesn't interact with (say) Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Ronald Nash, John Stott, and a host of others -- it would be wrong to criticize him, because his purpose wasn't actually to interact with anyone who demolished his premise?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162568505436149832006-11-03T07:41:00.000-08:002006-11-03T07:41:00.000-08:00Another great read. Thanks Gary.This makes me thin...Another great read. Thanks Gary.<BR/><BR/>This makes me think of Robert Lightner's <I>The Death Christ Died.</I> It was touted as an answer to Owen's vol 10. I'd read, and been mightily persuaded by, Owen. Owen made me feel as if had taken a toothpick and painted me inescapably into a corner, stroke by meticulous stroke.<BR/><BR/>So I was very interested to read a response to him -- since I'd certainly had none.<BR/><BR/>I was so disappointed when I finished the book. Not only was it no response at all, but it seemed to me that Lightner didn't even really understand what Owen was saying. He didn't merely fail to answer Owen; he failed even to <I>engage</I> him seriously.<BR/><BR/>Your description of Olson sounds similar.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162563460684354362006-11-03T06:17:00.000-08:002006-11-03T06:17:00.000-08:00Good to see Packer's essay being referred to. It ...Good to see Packer's essay being referred to. It is in fact entitled "Arminianisms" (the plural is deliberate). Packer deals with one of the points that Gary raised yesterday. For Packer good Arminianism is inconsistent Calvinism. Packer quotes from the Puritan William Ames' assessment of the Arminianisms of his day: <BR/><BR/>"The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy that is, a major lapse from the gospel, but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, its is the Pelagian heresy, because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion."Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162562302206624342006-11-03T05:58:00.000-08:002006-11-03T05:58:00.000-08:00Host: "tosh"tosh n. 1 Criminals' slang. M19. [Orig...<B>Host:</B> <I>"tosh"</I><BR/><BR/><B>tosh</B> n. 1 Criminals' slang. M19. [Origin unkn. Cf. TOSHER1.] Valuables retrieved from drains and sewers.<BR/><BR/>Good word.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162561919849696382006-11-03T05:51:00.000-08:002006-11-03T05:51:00.000-08:00This bibliography is, in itself, worth the price o...This bibliography is, in itself, worth the price of admission. Holy Mackerels! I have often been asked by people confused by this debate which books are available to represent each side clearly and fairly, and now -- I have that list!<BR/><BR/>I feel like it's Christmas and Santa left exact what I asked for!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162560099847556172006-11-03T05:21:00.000-08:002006-11-03T05:21:00.000-08:00If I wrote a paper like that for my former New Tes...If I wrote a paper like that for my former New Testament tutor at seminary I would be reprimanded! Fancy not looking at Girardeau on the Calvinist side or Morison on the Arminian side!<BR/><BR/>But I gave up on IVP a while ago. They'll publish any old tosh (and frequently do).Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.com