This Week in Calvinism - January 28, 2011

• According to Dr. Jack Cottrell, "election" can mean just about anything -- except, of course, the unconditional election of an individual for salvation. Consider what he says about Ephesians 1:1-14, for instance:

  [Paul's] main point is not the predestination of individuals to salvation, but the predestination of all the Jews as a nation, and then the predestination of all the Gentiles also, to be a part of his chosen people. However, he is not here speaking of every individual Jew nor of every individual Gentile as the object of predestination to salvation, but of God's choice to make salvation available to both groups and to unite both groups into one body, the church.

  I guess that means when Ephesians 1:5 says we have been predestined "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will," it's referring to all of us, believers and unbelievers alike. Sounds a little too close to universalism for my comfort.
  
  
• If Calvinism is true, why evangelize? Let's start with this: God tells us to do it.
  
  
• Craig Olson draws some parallels between abortion and Calvinism and the issue of choice. Yes, we all make choices in life, but in the case of abortion the unborn baby isn't free to make a choice, so I'm not sure how the illustration applies to God giving us free will.
  
  
• Bobby Grow announces the end of his Evangelical Calvinist blog. His blogging efforts will now be focused here.
  
  
• Steve Hays on Norman Geisler's charge that Calvinism is "theological racism."
  
  
• James White reflects on Geisler's book Chosen But Free.
  
  
• I don't know about you, but I'm really growing tired of how paranoid atheists always point to isolated incidents involving "religious nuts" to discredit everyone who has a belief in the supernatural. And how they always bring up the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials as examples of the evils of religion. And how they exploit the execution of Michael Servetus without bothering to read up on their history. I suppose that kind of willful ignorance explains why C. Boyd Pfeiffer can make the erroneous claim that "Calvin insisted that he be burned 'slowly' to extract the maximum amount of pain for his sin of differing theological views."