I first heard of this book on Trevin Wax's Reconstructing Faith podcast, and soon read about it in another book I recently read ("Killing Calvinism" by Greg Dutcher). So I checked this book out.
In "Young, Restless, Reformed," journalist Collin Hansen investigates the modern resurgence of Calvinism. When Emerging Christianity seemed to be the fad of the day, Hansen went to various places where he found traditional Calvinism was alive and strong.
Hansen goes to various locations, such as the Passion Conference, Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota where John Piper is the pastor, and The Southern Theological Seminary which saw a revival in Biblical inerrancy as well as Calvinism.
My opinion? This book is more of a journal of Calvinism's rebirth, interviewing not just the big names but young people who were influenced as well. It reviews people getting into Calvinism not as one trying to convince the unconvinced but a reporter telling what influenced his interviewees' lives.
I recommend this book.
For this reason, I've read a couple of books to see what Arminians really believe several years ago, and reread them recently. As you'd expect, one thing I'd want to read is a biography. "Jacob Arminius: The Man from Oudewater" by Rustin E. Brian is an excellent starting point.
Brian divides his book into three parts. The first three chapters evaluate Arminius' early life, his pastoral ministry, and his years as an educator. Chapters four through six investigates his theology concerning the Bible, his Christology, and - as you'd expect - his views on predestination and salvation. Next, he compares him to Pelagius (the chapter's title is Arminius is not equal to Pelagius), John Wesley, and Karl Barth. He concludes on how this relates to present time.
Interesting facts. Would you believe one of Arminius' teachers was Theodore Beza? Would you believe the starting point of Arminius' theology is not Predestination but his Christology? Would you believe Arminius' focus on free will was not whether the unregenerate could choose to follow Christ (Arminius agrees with Calvin on total depravity) but whether evil men do evil do so by their depraved free will as opposed to God predestining them to do evil and then condemning them for doing what they are made to do?
I highly recommend this book. It may not convince you that Arminianism is more accurate than Calvinism, but it helps us realize that Arminianism falls very nicely into the category of orthodox, evangelical, Biblically based theology.
A one-star review of this book on Amazon was written by someone who was hoping to learn how to destroy Calvinism. To his disappointment, in "Killing Calvinism: How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology From the Inside" author Greg Dutcher writes as a Calvinist encouraging fellow Calvinists to avoid various pitfalls which would alienate others from Calvinism.
One doesn't need to spend much time on on-line theological discussions to see Calvinists come across as bullies. I've seen groups where unbelievers were not welcome - "unbelievers" meaning not only Arminians but those who believe Arminians are true Christians. 😱
Dutcher shares eight ways to destroy Calvinism... or to put it more accurately, things to avoid to keep from destroying Calvinism. These are:
I highly recommend this book.
 |
| The Day of His Great Wrath by John Martin |
"Lord, my heart is not haughty
Nor my eyes lofty,
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me."
Psalm 131:1, New King James Version
Is it possible trying to figure out if the universe is big enough for both God's Sovereignty and human free will and their relation in salvation is a great matter, too profound for us, past our pay grade?
I wish people debating this issue would:
The reality is too many overestimate human freewill. It's not as great as proponents think it is, nor is it the bogeyman Calvinists make it out to be.
You know, free-will makes me think about a '70's song called "Best of My Love." But who did it? I think it was a group that starts with the letter "E." Wait, I hear someone say The Eagles? "Best of My Love" by the Eagles is a great though depressing song, but I'm not talking about that song; the one I'm referring to is more upbeat with some girl singers. Oh, I remember. It was by the group The Emotions.
Likewise, when I hear "free-will," I hear two different things. Some boast God is a perfect gentleman and would not violate our free-will. This theory makes me sick to my stomach - it can be described as "self-sovereignty." And while we can debate if Calvinists are right on their view of God's Sovereignty, it's evident God is Sovereign, not us.
To others, free will means God gives us the ability to choose whether we will be obedient to Him or disobedient. We can call this "human responsibility." The focus is on God, as it should be.
One of my all time favorite books is "Four Views on Eternal Security." It was uplifting to read the four authors - who identify themselves as Classical Calvinist, Moderate Calvinist, Reformed Arminian, and Wesleyan Arminian - as they talked about the wonder that God saves us. One author mentioned from the start he was convinced that John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and the other authors were all saved, and later stated his responses to the other three were written not to win but to learn.
Folks, we've spent half a millennium debating this subject as Calvinism vs. Arminianism and a full millennium before that dealing with the theologies of Augustine and Pegaleus, and I personally feel it's arrogant to think we can solve it now. But if we look over the horizon, we see the real war we're fighting, and it's not against each other!
 |
| Lewis & Clark statue, Falls of the Ohio State Park, Jeffersonville, IN |
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity!"
Psalm 133:1, New King James Version
I've always loved this verse. How about you?
Unfortunately and predictably, living out this verse is easier said than done. That's because of how we interpret "brethren" and "unity." In other words, Goldilocks found some have a view that's too large and others have a view that's too small.
The large view is the "brotherhood of all men" position. Note - yes, the Bible does teach that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free (Galatians 3:28). But did you notice the qualifer? That is if we're in Christ. God has children from all nations (Revelation 7:7-9), but nowhere in the Bible does it teach the whole world - believer and unbeliever, righteous and wicked - are God's children. Rather, John - known as the apostle of love - points out both through Jesus and in his letter that some people are God's children and some are children of the devil (John 8:41-44; 1 John 3:7-10).
But for some people, that leaves too many people in the family of God. So they spell unity u-n-i-f-o-r-m-i-t-y. Some do so by racial/national divisions, and others do so by pet doctrines. (Can you say "Calvinism vs. Arminianism?" How about "Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism?" I knew you could!)
Look at a sports team. No, there's not uniformity in their roles and positions. But they are unified in working together for victory. We should do the same as believers.
I believe there is a soon-coming time we'll realize that we've met the enemy and it isn't us! The devil and those who oppose Christianity couldn't care less about election and free will - their anger is at those who of their free will submit themselves to the Sovereign God. They have no interest in arguments about if the Chruch is Spiritual Israel or when the rapture will occur - their hatred is for those who believe there's a time when Christ will return and defeat them. In those days, we'll find ourselves in prison with other believers we had been debating with on-line, and in those days, we need to encourage each other!
Isn't it a blessing for brothers to dwell together in unity?
 |
| Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Park (some of these birds are native to the area, like the ducks. |
1 LORD, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty.
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me.
2 Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul,
Like a weaned child with his mother;
Like a weaned child is my soul within me.
3 O Israel, hope in the LORD
From this time forth and forever.
Psalm 131:1-3, New King James Version
How often are we guilty of violating verse one of this short and sweet Psalm? No, I'm not saying that your heart's haughty or your eyes lofty. But do we concern ourselves with great matters, with things too profound for us?
Christians have unfortunately done this for centuries. The debate of the relationship of free will and God's Sovereignty/Election has been going on a millennium and a half, and yet I hear people who think they have the final answer on it and why they're right. The same is true in dealing with eschatology (end-times, Bible prophecy) or the gifts of the Spirit.
When I was selecting a photo for this blog, I thought the picture of ducks and swans in the pond (or is it a lake) at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden would picture the calmness in verse 2. Of course, is it completely quiet? That pond isn't far from roaring lions and trumpeting elephants, and it's right by Gibbon Island - Gibbons are known for "singing," but it isn't either quiet or melodious. But as Christians, we can be clam and restful trusting in Christ in spite of all the clamor around us.
 |
| Post Road, Indianapolis, across from Fort Ben State Park |
Three points I want to make with this section.
 |
| Northeast Church of Christ, Cookeville, TN |
Both Testaments warn against false prophets and false teachers. But is it as easy to beware them as it looks?
Let me divide two different groups of false teachers to start with. One is an apostate, which means one who has fallen away. This refers to one who has departed the faith. The Bible warns of those who will fall away (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3).
The second is a word I hear more often: heresy (referring to the teaching) or heretic (referring to the teacher). The dictionary describes heresy as an unorthodox opinion or doctrine. The word "heresy" appears four times in the New Testament, and "heretic" once. The Greek words are respectively hairesis and hairetikos; the former word is also translated as "sect" in several places in Acts.
In The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates points out that the Greek word is relating to choosing and taking for yourself. He distinguishes heresy from schism, which involves a tearing away. A heretic can be part of the church, even though he has divergent beliefs.
In typical usage, there is a negative connotation to heresies and heretics. There are many heretics who take a view contrary to the Bible, such as Marcion who tries to take away the Jewishness and humanity of Christ or Arius who took the opposite error of denying Jesus' Deity. Many would put the prosperity gospel in that category.
However, a minority are branded heretics by the majority when in truth the majority are the ones who have drifted from the truth and the "heretics" are the ones who search the Scripture daily as the Bereans were applauded for doing (Acts 17:11). In Acts 24, when Paul is accused by the Jews before Felix, the Jews call Paul the ringleader of the Nazarene sect, and Paul responds that his belief, called a heresy by the Jews, is the truth. (I italicized "sect" and "heresy" to point out that in the Greek text, it's the same word.) I had a Bible College teacher say he's proud to be called a heretic by the real heretics.
This leads me to another point. Heretical views have a lot of overlap with Biblical ones. In fact, often a heresy is formed by focusing on one Biblical concept and giving it undue importance while minimizing the due importance of the other side of the coin. One example is in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Some on both sides correctly realize they're both part the body of Christ, but others on both sides brand their opposition as heretics teaching a false Gospel. Could it be that it's not the accused but the accusers that are the heretics?
One other thing about heretics is that they commit the abomination of sowing discord among the brethren (Prov. 6:16-19). First off, heretics don't hold their views quietly; rather, they are quick to promote it. They will go to certain passages trying to get you in a corner, and of course those Scriptures are taken out of context. Should you challenge them and point out they're in error, will they ever show godly humility by admitting their wrong? No, they won't concede any error on their part; they'll find another route to attack. And they will keep attacking until either they convince you their error is truth or until you become weary and let them have the last deceptive word.
Allow me to close this point - if you see someone standing up for Biblcal truth, please encourage him! Often in these discussions, I feel alone. Those standing for Biblical truth deserve to have their brothers and sisters to hold their hands up and if not go on the offensive to join in refuting the erroneous troublemaker, then thanking and complimenting the warrior for orthodoxy.
By the way, I'll be dealing more with this topic in a couple of days.
.jpg) |
| Calvinist Charles Simeon on left, Arminian John Wesley on right. |
Consider: My purpose is not to promote one theology over the other, because both are held by godly but imperfect men who have searched the Scripture. Rather, my goal is to help us realize that the other side of the debate is NOT the enemy. I believe the time is coming that we'll find ourselves sharing a jail cell with believers who differ in theology but share our love and devotion for Christ; thus, we need to encourage each other, not try to win an argument.
So allow me to give several bullet points of things to think about.
1. WHAT MODEL OF CAR WAS THAT?
One of my college classmates was in a car wreck, so two other friends asked his roommate (interestingly, Tom Cousins, who introduced me to Calvinism vs. Arminianism) the important question: what make was the car? One thought it was one kind of car, and the other thought it was a different kind. Cousins laughed, and said it was a custom car, with the front end being one make and the back the other. In other words, both were right, but not completely.
I've heard some use the argument, "We can both be wrong, but we both can't be right." Usually, they mean, "I believe I'm right, but I know you're wrong;" they really don't consider that I'm right and they're wrong as a possiblility. But they've missed two other options: 1) That neither is wrong, like my friends and the wrecked car, and 2) In eternity, it doesn't really matter who's right: We're to love one another.
2. ARE MY IDIOSYNCRASIES PREDESTINED?
Remember the days when Baskins and Robbins was known as 31 flavors? Each month they had a selection of 31 varieties of Ice Cream, Sherbet, and Ices, and, of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. Do you know how many possibilities to mix and match for getting a two dip cone? I do: Five hundred ninety five! So how many choices do I have? Would you believe 10? On a good month, it might be 15, and a great month it would be 21!
I'm sure you're scratching your head, since there are more flavors (31, and of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla) than the largest number I gave. And why did I give three exact numbers? Well, let me explain.
Before I walk in the store and get the list of 31 (and of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla), I've mentally discarded any option with chocolate, strawberry and vanilla: I can get those anyplace! Plus, I know I won't be limiting myself to one flavor. Then I pick up the list and usually I find five flavors that interest me, which cuts it down to ten choices! On a good month I might have six attention grabbing flavors (15 choices), and maybe even seven (21 choices).
Of course, just because I quickly eliminated 585 choices for me doesn't mean the guy behind me will choose two scoops of chocolate. It is just me; it's the way I'm made. But did I make myself that way? Let's look at Psalm 33:15-"He fashions their hearts individually, He considers (or understands) all their works."
To the topic I'm dealing with, is it possible that those who are drawn to the Gospel are drawn because God fashioned their hearts to be drawn?
3. IS GOD THE MASTER SCRIPT WRITER OR THE MASTER CHESS PLAYER?
I'll be honest. I shake my head in disbelief with the Calvinists who say that if God is sovereign, we can't have free will - even libertarian free will.
I'm impressed with the script writer who can work magic in story telling, but not as much as the chess player who watches you move and sees the next ten moves on both sides, allowing you to think you're making a great move as you're falling right into his trap. If God is sovereign as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, He is fully capable of allowing free will without worrying about how it affects His plans.
4. IS THERE A THIRD CHOICE BESIDES FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION?
I believe there is: Granted free will. God allows us to make a choice between options He in His sovereignty has chosen. We're not the ones who make the list of what we can do - God imposed His sovereign limits to our choices, and maybe He's comfortable enough to let us decide between two or more choices.
Let me take it a step further. Total depravity (believed by Calvinists and Classic Arminians) says we're not able to obey God until the Spirit draws us. Both sides also believe we have free will after salvation - does God predestine His children to disobey Him? The Arminian believes that when the Spirit draws us, He gives us the ability to obey His call, in addition to the ability to disobey we're born with. Is the Calvinist saying that when the Spirit draws us, He both gives us the ability to obey and takes away the ability to disobey, and then a second later, restores the ability to disobey that as believer we don't really want?
5. IS IT POSSIBLE BOTH ARMINIANS AND CALVINISTS OVERESTIMATE FREE WILL AS EITHER A RIGHT WE HAVE OR AS A BOGEYMAN FALSE GOSPEL?
But first a question: Do you remember who did a '70's hit called "Best of My Love?" I believe it's by a group that starts with an 'E'? I really liked that song. Okay, back to the topic at hand.
How much free will do we have in reality? Do you chose your first name, middle name, last name, nationality, birth gender, hair color, eye color, skin color, place you grow up in, your parents, your siblings, or your grade school teachers? Does your free will ever get defeated by the free will of opposing sports teams and political parties or criminals? How is your free will helping get low gas prices or picking up every item you want at the grocery store or your favorite menu item at your restaurant?
One thing that makes me cringe are the "We have a free will/God's a perfect gentleman and won't violate our free will." I'm sure Saul of Tarsus would say an amen to that. What? He won't?
I mentioned in the previous point the concept of Granted Free Will. The reality is that any free will we have is given by God. It's not a natural commodity. God's will WILL be done.
Oh, you're wondering why I asked about "Best of My Love?" You're telling me that was the classic song by the Eagles? No way. That song's totally depressing. The one I enjoy is upbeat. Oh, I remember. I'm thinking of the disco song by the Emotions. Same title, same era, performed by groups starting with the letter "E". And totally different songs.
Guess what, Calvinists who claim free will is a false gospel? When I hear people talk about free will, I hear two songs as different as the Eagles and Emotions songs. When some people say "free will", they mean "self-sovereignty," and I'm with the Calvinists on how wrong they are. But other times, "free will" is better seen as human responsibility, and that type of Free will has less chance of being a false gospel as the Indiana Pacers have of winning the Super Bowl. (For the sports challenged, the Pacers will NEVER will a Super Bowl, since they're a basketball team.)
6. WHILE DISCUSSING POSSIBILITIES, COULD BOTH CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM HAVE THEIR PLACE IN THIS WORLD?
Here's a thought I have. If witnessing to someone who believes he's the captain of his own ship, shouldn't we point out to him he isn't, and that God is sovereign over every area of his life? Likewise, when dealing with a secular pre-determinist who denies free will, would it be important to tell him that God holds him responsible for every decision he makes?
7. CAN WE "HONOR ALL MEN" (1 PET. 2:17) BY NOT CREATING CARICATURES NOT BASED ON REALITY?
I'll admit I see more of this from Calvinists than the other way around, but I have no doubt Arminians can be guilty of this as well. I saw one Calvinist quote Hebrews 7:25 - "Therefore He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to Christ through Him," then claim that Arminians and two Arminian groups don't believe in the "through Him." At that time, I was in the Society of Evangelical Arminians, and asked them if they agreed with that characterizaton. The response was an unanimous NO!!!
Another oft-used argument is Calvinists claim Arminians believe we have to give God permission to save us. Is that true? Probably with the more semi-pelagian territory. However, I disagree. God gives us invitational imperatives: "Come and let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18); "If you're thirsty, come to the water" (Isa. 55:1); Come all that are weary and heavyChar laden" (Matt. 11:28). "Come" is both an invitation but also a command. If we obey and come, He saves us. If we disobey the command and don't come, then we face the consequences of disobedience.
Allow me to wrap this long but hopefully thought provoking blog with this story.
One of my heroes of the faith is Charles Simeon, for several reasons, including the story I'm sharing which I first read in Warren Wiersbe's 50 People Every Christian Should Know: Learning from Spiritual Giants of the Faith; John Piper also mentioned it in a blog. Below is an account of a conversation between Charles Simeon and John Wesley, thanks to Simeon's biographer Handley Carr Glyn Moule (pp.79ff). Allow me to write it as a script so it's easier to follow.
Simeon: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
Wesley: Yes, I do indeed.
Simeon: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
Wesley: Yes, solely through Christ.
Simeon: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
Wesley: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
Simeon: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
Wesley: No.
Simeon: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?
Wesley: Yes, altogether.
Simeon: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
Wesley: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
Simeon: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.
Why can't we have more conversations with each other like this on the topic of Calvinism and Arminianism?
 |
| "Wesley/Watts Concert, Oct. 4, 1738" On that day, pastors/hymn writers Calvinist Isaac Watts and Arminians Charles and John Wesley conversed for an hour, then walked, sang, and conversed for another hour. |
One unforgettable moment on-line was when on one post in a group one person stated, "Free will is a false gospel!" and another responded, "The Five Points of Calvinism are a false gospel!" So what did I do? I stood up to both bullies, because those two bozos were attacking my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of which are Calvinists, some are Arminians, and some don't identify as either, such as...
At that moment, I considered myself a 2.5 point Calvinist. I agreed completely with points 1 and 5 (respectively Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints). Like most of the faculty of the school, which I'm guessing were 4 point Calvinists, I did not agree with point 3 (Limited Atonement). However, I considered point 4 (Irresistible Grace) to be saying the same thing in different ways. Point 2 (Unconditional Election) was one I struggled with. I agreed with the concept of election: after all, that is clearly in Scripture. But the wording of that view made me uncomfortable, and I couldn't articulate why.
As I stated in the previous installment, that was not a major part of my Christian life for years, until I moved into Indianapolis. True, I dealt with the related subject of the security of the believer, but the issue of how free-will and God's Sovereignty relate. However, since moving to the home of the 500, I've had several things influence my thinking. Here is a list of books and radio programs that caught my attention:
So where does that leave me? Well, I never identified as an Arminian, though there was a time my theology would have made me Arminian. I'm probably still a 2.5 pointer. But I do feel God's Sovereignty is an important issue.
Another fact is that I believe most Calvinists and most Arminians are men who love God, believe the Bible is His Word, search the Scriptures, but still see through a glass dimly and as imperfect people this side of heaven are not perfect in theology. Same with any other debate between Christians.
So now I consider myself a NOTA - None Of The Above. That absolves me of having to figure it all out - God never asked me to. Psalm 131 says, "Neither do I concern myself with great matters Nor with things to profound for me;" the free will/predestination debate falls into that category. In addition, it leaves me free to defend my fellow believers who are attacked, as mentioned above.
This does not prevent me from having thoughts on the subject. So there will be a part 3 of this series.
 | |
| At Cool Creek Park, Westfield, IN |
My hunch is the best known "family squabble" in Christianity is the Calvinist (Predestination)/Arminian (Free Will) debate. Of course, there are some in both camps who disown the other camp. ðŸ˜
If you asked me when I started Bible College my thoughts about Calvin, I'd reply that I'm not familiar with his presidency, but I knew he had a wry sense of humor. Yes, I had heard of Calvin Coolidge, but had no knowledge of John Calvin, or of Calvin Klein jeans or Calvin and Hobbes (the latter for good reason, since this was seven years before that comic started).
Two events that occurred in a day or two which introduced me to the subject. First, one of my professors teaching Old Testament Survey commented about a book and said it was a little too Calvinistic for the students. Shortly afterwards, one of my fellow students said the teacher had no right to say that, and he handed me a booklet with the five points of Calvinism and the five points of Arminianism. (A little history - the Arminians came up with their points first, and the Calvinists' points were in response.) This friend, Tom Cousins, mentioned most of the college teachers were four point Calvinists, disagreeing with the concept of Limited Atonement. I'll tell you about my reaction in the next installment.
At this point, I'll ask you to fasten your seat belts, because this paragraph will travel from talking with my fellow student on a fall 1978 afternoon in Phoenix to mornings in Indianapolis in the late '90's. Here are the few developments in that theological tussle:
I'll deal with the last 27 years in Indianapolis and how my views developed in the next two installments, but I'll give you a quick summary of my knowledge of this issue at that time:
 |
| Triunfo de San Augustin by Claudio Coello |
You may say that a short blog like this definitely won't do justice to Augustine. I agree. The reality is that the chapter in Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction just touches the tip of the iceberg. The primary emphasis was Augustine's testimony from his book Confessions (including an introduction to Ambrose, the bishop whose preaching God used to draw Augustine to Himself), and then a brief mention of dealing with the Pelagians and Donatists. Litfin gives a list for each of the twelve church fathers titled "Good books to dig deeper", and for Augustine he has a translation of Confessions and some biographies and overviews of his thought, but fails to include translations of his other classic City of God.
I heard someone comment that Augustine was the one who started the Roman Catholic Church. To be honest, I'm not equipped to debate that issue, and have no reason to refute it. However, you can also call him a Father or Forefather of the Reformation: Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Calvinism reflects an Augustinian theology.
You can see grace being an issue in Augustine's conflicts with both Pelagianism and Donatistism. The former denies we were born in sin and claim we can live choose to live a righteous life, thus rendering grace unnecessary. Donatists, while orthodox doctrinally, refused to forgive church leaders who "lapsed" (i.e. burning incense to Caesar to avoid persecution) and considered only Baptism by Donatists to be valid. Is this reflective of God's grace? Nope!
I did smile. Litfin believes every Christian should read Augustine's Confessions; no other book by the Church Fathers he mentioned got the same endorsement. Maybe reading it might make me more of an Augustine fan - I'm neutral on him. I have areas of disagreement with him. But I cannot deny the influence he's been on others.
The Night Watch by Rembrandt
I recall reading a review on the book Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment by Gregg Allison. The reviewer, a Catholic, gave it a one star review, stating that if you really want to know Catholic teaching, you need to go to a Catholic (either not realizing or ignoring Allison based his book on the Roman Catholic Cathechism). He then added that if you want to understand Protestantism ... you need to go to a Catholic.
Allow me to give a story from last week, taken from a different perspective. I saw a cartoon by a political cartoonist quoting Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York (popularly known as AOC) saying, "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them."
Yes, that quote would make most people scratch their heads. But one person pointed out that was part of what she said. The full quote was: "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them. The answer is to make sure that we actually build more hospitals, we pay organizers, we get people mental health care and overall health care, employment, etc. It’s to support communities, not throw them away."
Do I agree with the congresswoman's rationale and solution? No. I find it simplistic, overlooking the sinfulness of man. But when I read the complete thought, I wasn't scratching my head anymore. While I differ with her ideas, I get where she's coming from and thus am able to have more respect for her than from that brief quote.
On theological lines, it dawned on me that my impression of Arminianism was colored by Calvinism. In some cases, it was where people considered themselves a balanced medium between "Strong Calvinism" and Arminianism, often branding themselves as "Moderate Calvinists." Then there was R. C. Sproul's answer to the question of whether Arminians were Christians: "Just barely." While Sproul allowed that most Arminians were Christians, others denounce "free will" as a false gospel, and one Calvinist making it clear that those who believe an Arminian may be saved is in error.
So what did I do? I was already influenced by the book Four Views on Eternal Security which included two Calvinist views and two Arminian views and made realize that the debate is not as linear as I thought. Then I read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olsen and Jacob Arminius: The Man From Oudewater by Rustin E. Brian. Now, I know more about Arminianism and made me see the rumors of that theology's unorthodoxy are greatly exagerated.
When it comes to discussions on a view I disagree with, I like the view presented by author Andrew David Naselli. He said he likes to present his opponents arguments in a way that his opponent would say he gave an accurate representation. After all, those who disagree do so because they have reasons for their view. True, those reasons could be flawed, but then they think the same of my viewpoint. Besides, I'm not inerrant - I can be wrong just as much as they can.
Have you heard someone who does a good job of being fair to his opposition? Are there times when you make assumptions of somebody else's viewpoint and learned their opinion is not as off base as you thought it was?
