Friday Files: Olson's Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian

Roger Olson’s article: Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian explains the importance of Arminians and Calvinists accepting each other and working together despite their theological differences. Olson shares several personal anecdotes while explaining why classic Arminians are evangelical and neither humanist or liberal. Olson also shares that even though he remained Arminian, learning about Calvinism provide him some balance on the issues of God’s sovereignty and man’s need for grace. He sees the cooperation of Wesley and Whitfield as a good example of how Calvinists and Arminians need each other and despite important irreconcilable differences, can work together harmoniously for the cause of Christ.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I just found this article at Living Journey's blog and thought it was excellent. Oh, btw, also found you on her blogroll. Looking forward to perusing your page!
January 2, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Rev. said…
Thanks for the heads up on this article, Dan.
January 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Caribbean Shulamite,

I hope you enjoy it.

God be with you,
Dan
January 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi James,

My pleasure!

God be with you,
Dan
January 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Kevin Jackson said…
Hi Dan,

This is a great article, thanks for pointing people to it. As a side note, I noticed a misspelling. "Rodger" should be "Roger". Not at all a big deal, but since your post is on SEA today, it should probably be corrected.

Kevin
January 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks, I will fix it.

God be with you,
Dan
January 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous said…
Good article, thanks, Dan.

Hate in general is not a feeling that a good mature christian ought to express, especially not towards his brethren in Christ.

That is what the article would benefit from - a gentle reminder of that truth :)

And , as experience undoubtedly proves, Christian maturity is not theological camp-(calv or arm) dependent. There are babies
(mature Christians) in both camps.
:)
Blessings,
Odeliya
January 19, 2009 at 10:06 PM
John Lofton, Recovering Republican said…
Calvinist site; please visit & comment.

And forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
February 3, 2009 at 11:07 PM
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