Owens vs. Owen

Terrell Owens












.
.
.
.
Vs.

John Owen
















.

.
.
.
Round 1: Providence

Terrell Owens starts out strong with his views of God’s providence.

God may not be there when you want him but he is always on time. -Terrell Owens
This is God's world this is not the media's world. -Terell Owens

John Owen counters with his view of God’s providence

The providence of God protecting and governing all, but watching in an especial manner for the good of them that are his - John Owen

Round 2: Morals

Owens comes back with his take on morality:

Right is right and wrong is wrong. - Terrell Owens

But Owen counters:
The custom of sinning takes away the sense of it, the course of the world takes away the shame of it - John Owen

Round 3: Top performers

Owens recently made the top 5 list of all time touchdown receptions.

Owen bounces back as he reciently was ranked in the top 5 theologians for Indonesian Christians to read.

Round 4: Verboseness

Owens can't keep his mouth shut in front of the media, recently telling Jessica Simpson not to come to the games so her boyfriend can focus.

Owen is always talking as well. His commentary on Hebrews is roughly 100 volumes.

Round 5: Trash Talking

Owens has a hard time respecting longstanding, honorable traditions.














.
.
.
In Owen’s intro to the Death of Christ, he hints that Arminians are associated with Pelagians, Gnostics and Judas.

Looks like a tie. Seriously, can’t discussions about Calvinism/Arminianism take place without the anger?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more