This Week in Calvinism - March 27, 2015

• The reason Roger Olson believes that "Calvinism makes God morally monstrous" is that if God even passes over certain people when he could save them, "then God is not good in any meaningful sense." As usual, Olson avoids explaining why his theology isn't subject to the same criticism by saying he has written on this issue before. However, he does say regarding the reprobate that "[God's] knowledge corresponds to their free choices." Olson even quotes C. S. Lewis. And who are we to argue with a guy who can quote C. S. Lewis?
  
  
• "Modified" Arminian James Goetz goes a step further. He believes in "restricted free will" and "conditional universalism," saying "that God never ceases to reach out to humans regardless of death." And he brings up a good point. If Arminians like Roger Olson believe that God "desires all people to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), why should a minor inconvenience like physical death get in the way of that?
  
  
• Kyle Dillon has created a "quick and easy" chart on two kingdoms theology and neo-Calvinism. What do you think of his comparisons?
  
  
• In reviewing Nancy Pearcey's book Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes, John Mark N. Reynolds writes, "Anyone who tells you that you do not have free will deserves being ignored." He later qualifies that by saying, "Pearcey rightly notes that even Calvinism does not deny human free will, just free will in regard to salvation."
  
  
• We now know the reason why a new Calvinist tends to be so aggressive. It's because when an Arminian comes along and uses the Bible to shoots holes in his theology, the "Calvinist has to choose between the Bible or their new found worldview." Thankfully, most of us eventually learn to explain and rationalize our way around passages like John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 33:11.
  
  
• If there is any "choice" in Calvinism, Rich Davis doesn't see it.
  
  
• Ian Clary responds.
  
  
• Four lessons from a Calvinist slave.

This Week in Calvinism - March 20, 2015

• More historical reflections from Dr. Robert Hughes on Calvinism and Southern Baptists. Ever heard of Servetus?
  
  
• Dr. Hughes reflects some more: "I don't think I would have enjoyed being around John Calvin. I think I'd probably feel that, behind his polite smile and bulging eyeballs, he was sniffing the scent of free-thinking upon me." Brace yourself. Part four is coming soon.
  
  
• Dominic Bnonn Tennant cuts through the thorny problem of Calvinism and evangelism.
  
  
• Your joy rests on Christ's righteousness.
  
  
• New and notable books.
  
  
• Coming soon: Calvinism debate between James White and Leighton Flowers.

Meet the modern 'Good Samaritan'

(via Young Americans for Liberty)

This Week in Calvinism - March 13, 2015

• Sweetly devastated by grace.
  
  
• R. C. Sproul on "cage-stage Calvinism."
  
  
• Dr. Robert Hughes offers historical reflections on Calvinism and Southern Baptists.
  
  
• James White refutes the a-contextualizing of John 6 by Leighton Flowers.
  
  
• If you're still having trouble pronouncing "Calvinism"...well, here you go.

'I Am the Very Model of a Biblical Philologist'

About the only line I understood was, "And proved the Philistines were almost certainly Canadian." Still, I thought this was pretty funny.


(via Dave Black Online)

This Week in Calvinism - March 6, 2015

• Dr. Malcolm Hester concludes his examination of the two pillars of Calvinism: "God is sovereign and man is responsible because he is free to accept or deny God’s will. It is not an attack on God’s sovereignty for God to grant limited freedom to mankind."
  
  
• David Bishop decries "tolerant Calvinists" like James White, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, Paul Washer, and Matthew McMahon for spreading the "heresy" of Lordship salvation.
  
  

• Concerning those "crusty Calvinists."
  
  
• The folks at Mortification of Spin interview Tom Ascol about Calvinism in the SBC.
  
  
• Dave Jenkins discusses Spurgeon, inerrancy, and what we still need today.
  
  
• Speaking of the Prince of Preachers, John Piper has written a new book, titled Charles Spurgeon: Preaching Through Adversity.

A Reformed Libertarian perspective on the theonomy debate

C. Jay Engel and Brandon Adams of Reformed Libertarian provides an in-depth analysis of the recent theonomy debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon. One highlight:

Israel was not like every other nation – not then, not now. Israel was a type of the church. It’s land was a type of the new earth. Israel was a holy nation, unique from all others. They were not a model for other nations to follow. They were a shadow of the eschatological Kingdom of Christ (they were not themselves the Kingdom of Christ). Their nation represented an “intrusion ethic” from the eschaton. Sin was not allowed in this holy land because God’s presence dwelt there externally.

They were to “purge the evil from their midst” because the land itself was holy, set apart by God. No land today is holy land. The new earth will be holy, and as such, no sin can remain. Thus all sin will receive its just wages. Israel’s civil laws were a foretaste, a shadow of this final judgment. The most extreme outward sins were punished with death. The purpose of this was not to set a standard for all nations to follow. The purpose, just as Israel’s purpose as a whole, was a ministry of condemnation. It was to teach us how much God hates sin.

Read the full analysis here.

Watch the entire theonomy debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon

You can watch the debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon on the resolution "Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today." One question I wish would have been addressed: Is civil government itself obligatory?