Pages

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Arminianism in a nutshell


I have said that if it were revealed to me in a way I could not doubt that the God of consistent, five point Calvinism is the one true God over all, the maker of heaven and earth, I would not worship him because I would not think him worthy of worship. 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/05/do-arminians-and-calvinists-worship-the-same-god/

That implicitly sums up the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, but let's spell out the comparison:

Calvinism: Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. I'm unworthy to worship you. And I'm eternally grateful to you for redeeming me and forgaving me in spite of how utterly unworthy I am to be called your son.

Arminianism: Now, Jesus, I summoned you to this interview to determine if you are worthy of my worship. You can start by filling out this questionnaire to see where you rank in my rating system. If you make the first cut, I will quiz you further to see if you deserve my approbation. 

23 comments:

  1. Of course, the quote does not show that Arminianism as a position entails such a belief nor that such a belief is a necessary condition of Arminianism, it only shows what one person (albeit a prominent Arminian) thinks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a bad habit of taking issue with me when I quote Arminians. Yet your real disagreement is with your Arminian cohorts, not with me. Is there some Arminian omertà which inhibits you from taking your objections straight to the source? If you disagree with how Olson or Walls or Fischer represent Arminian theology, then what don't you argue with them?

      Delete
    2. A couple of things. First, I have no issue with you quoting Arminians, I just think your extrapolations from there are unfounded. Now, your extrapolations may be right, but that doesn't mean they are warranted based upon a quote by some guy that doesn't even give a line of reasoning that would support your conclusion. Second, I'm not an Arminian. :) Third, I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with their representation of Arminianism, I'm only saying that your extrapolations are unfounded. In essence, I'm making a very simple claim that I think you would agree with so that I don't have to get bogged down in longer discussions. :)

      Cheers.

      Delete
    3. I'm really not interested in hearing you whine to me about how the Arminians I quote don't speak for Arminianism. Take that up with them, not me.

      Moreover, if they don't speak for Arminianism, then neither do you, so I can safely discount your complaints. Extrapolation is a two-way street.

      If you have something substantive to contribute, then say it. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your misdirected comments.

      Delete
    4. I'm not saying they don't speak for Arminianism in the sense of what people believe about Arminianism or influence what Arminians believe because they are in the same tribe (because they clearly do), I'm simply saying that whatever they say about Arminianism doesn't entail it is the truth. For instance, if tomorrow they all started saying that God caused evil, that wouldn't mean that Arminianism entails such a thing!

      So what I am saying is this: if you want to say that Arminianism entails what you summarize as Arminianism, then you need some type of argument, not just a quote from an Arminian. If I found a quote by a Calvinist (even if he were a famous one) that said God is the author of evil, I don't think I would be justified solely based upon that quote that Calvinism entails such a position. I hope you agree about that much.

      Regards.

      Delete
    5. Don't play hall monitor on my blog.

      Delete
  2. Okay. Btw, I'm not sure if you are alerted to comments but I commented on your post about Blomberg and Isaiah. I just didn't want it to get missed is all. If you are not sure, no big deal.

    Thanks for the exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As for the quote by Olsen, he is expressing his opinion and shs opinion may or may not be grounded in Scripture. He might add that from the theological determinists perspective God has not yet given him the grace to believe in theological determinism. What's up with the straw man argument after the comment by Olson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no straw man argument. Rather, there's a satirical contrast that draws out their respective frame of reference.

      Delete
    2. dont forget to mention that you are thanking the person who put you in that dire circumstance in the first place!

      Delete
    3. well finally! the great Steve Hays has responded to my post :) the point i am making is that no one is "rebelling" against your god in a meaningful if your religon is true, so i just like to give you a friendly reminder to kindly remind your fellow xtians of this

      Delete
    4. Since you present no argument for your assertion, your reminder is vacuous.

      Delete
    5. but Steve you didnt seem to care about what i said in my first post which means that you basically admitted no one is "rebelling" against god in a meaningful sense

      Delete
    6. You are big on attitude, but small on argument. If you refuse to argue for your contentions (because you can't?), further comments from you will be deleted.

      Delete
    7. @wakawakwaka

      Are you implying there's some sort of an inconsistency between God's sovereignty and human moral responsibility? For example, if God has foreordained when and where we are born and when and where we live, then we're not morally culpable for our wrongs? Is this what you're attempting to say? If so, then make your argument.

      If not, then what are you trying to say? You seem quite muddled in your words.

      Delete
    8. Maybe someone should stick to dancing. J/K *g*

      Delete
    9. Oh man--laughing out loud for Fozzie Bear!

      Delete
    10. @rockingwithhawking yes and not because Steve can easily "refute" that by saying either god has his own special way where he can make people have freewill and be 100% in control at the same time OR he could say God commands you to do this even though you cant because he is god and he decides what goes on not regualr people.
      i am saying that what ever reason steve uses to reconcile these two condtradictory ideas in the end its gonna raise more questions then it attempts to anwser and end up in weirdness and of course meaning that no one is "rebelling" against god in a meaningful sense due to him setting up adam and eve to fail back in that garden

      oh and i would like to thank Steve for helping me by critize my flawed and broken reasoning so that it would lead to my self-improvement

      Delete
    11. @wakawakwaka

      "yes and not because Steve can easily 'refute' that by saying either god has his own special way where he can make people have freewill and be 100% in control at the same time OR he could say God commands you to do this even though you cant because he is god and he decides what goes on not regualr people."

      1. You sure do make a lot of breezy assumptions. How do you know what Steve will or won't say? Can you read his mind?

      2. You say "yes" in response to my question. Okay, so where's the inconsistency? All you've done so far is assert there's an inconsistency between God's sovereignty and human moral responsibility. As I said, if so, then make your argument. What's your argument that the two are inconsistent given Christianity?

      "i am saying that what ever reason steve uses to reconcile these two condtradictory ideas in the end its gonna raise more questions then it attempts to anwser"

      1. Say this is true. So what? So what if there are more questions? How does raising more questions necessarily mean these are "contradictory" let alone not "meaningful"?

      2. More to the point, how does what you've been alleging even follow from this? Again, what's your argument?

      "and end up in weirdness"

      Why would it "end up in weirdness"? Without some sort of rationale behind this, it's just your own tendentious characterization. Once again, it'd be nice if you attempted to make an argument rather than give people your rather befuddled opinions. You need to tame your haphazard thinking.

      "and of course meaning that no one is 'rebelling' against god in a meaningful sense due to him setting up adam and eve to fail back in that garden"

      1. Another addled assertion. Why do you think God "set up" Adam and Eve "to fail"? If you're going to attempt an internal criticism of Christianity, then you have begin with some sort of an argument.

      2. Say for the moment God did "set up" (ignoring the loaded language) Adam and Eve "to fail." Given Christianity, God also "set up" Adam and Eve to be redeemed. So what's your point?

      "oh and i would like to thank Steve for helping me by critize my flawed and broken reasoning so that it would lead to my self-improvement"

      You obviously have a long way to go still.

      Delete
  4. "I have said that if it were revealed to me in a way I could not doubt that the God of consistent, five point Calvinism is the one true God over all, the maker of heaven and earth, I would not worship him because I would not think him worthy of worship."
    Olson would need to add that he became convinced that the God of 5 point Calvinism is the one true God that he would worship God, if God ordained such a world. Olson's inability to worship such a God might be overcome by God's gracious gift of delight in the God of Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Hays, does not such a post not also through your fellow worker Mr. Engwer under the bus? Is such appropriate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're assuming Jason agrees with Olson's statement. Based on what?

      Even if I was "throwing him under the bus," he's free to return the favor by throwing me under the bus. There's enough room under the bus for both of us. In fact, on a hot day, that's a nice, cool, shady spot.

      Delete