as Christians who profess to be ever-reforming and always seeking to conform ourselves to the scriptures, we have to hold open the possibility that we may yet be persuaded by our opponents, which would leave us holding fast--because we think it is biblical--to a view we now find mystifying.

Amen.

"as Christians who profess to be ever-reforming and always seeking to conform ourselves to the scriptures, we have to hold open the possibility that we may yet be persuaded by our opponents, which would leave us holding fast--because we think it is biblical--to a view we now find mystifying."

Umm...actually, I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean by that last phrase. Do you mean a Calvinist might be persuaded to fear and hate predestination, and yet be responsible to "hold fast" to the tenet? And that therefore he should avoid thinking about rhetoric that describes predestination as fearsome and confusing?

These are not idle questions--you seem to be making a point, and Mariner seems to get it, I'd just like to also know.

I'm saying be careful about the rhetoric you use, because as you continue to search the scriptures and listen to the wise counsel of other Christians, you might just change your mind.

Olson is dissenting from the way that some/many Calvinists (like Piper) have applied their theology to a concrete situation and the God that is described thereby. The problem I had with Phillips' response to Olson was his criminalization of such dissent. To dissent from a particular Reformed gloss on God's involvement in the bridge collapse and other such tragedies is tantamount, in Phillips' view, to the unpardonable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit). To dissent from the approved Reformed explanation is to place one's soul in mortal danger of hell fire. Phillips can hardly be accused of "casually dismissing as blasphemy" Olson's view!

As far as Olson living up to his own standards, I think charity demands that the dissenter be allowed some rhetorical flourishes to make his point. Olson is the outsider and the minority voice in the theological discussion. He is speaking and acting outside the conventions and norms for acceptable views on Reformed theodicy and metaphysics. Phillips imposes a false dilemma: either you agree with his God-thesis and theodicy or you blaspheme. It seems to me that a united Xian response to these complex matters and tragic events requires that we humor the one who dissents from our bold confessional lines--we may find a third (or 4th or 5th) option to be more faithful to the biblical witness. Phillips seems to be prepared to say catholicity extends only as far as the footprint of our confessional tent.

It seems like you're calling for balance, but I'm not sure I follow your closing paragraph. Who, precisely, do you believe has exhibited lack of care in rhetoric besides Olson? Frankly, I find Phillips' inflammatory ad hominem "rhetoric" way out of proportion to Olson's. I cannot find anything to commend "for Phillips" in his reply to Olson. I agree with John H: it is a spiritual hatchet-job.

I'm trying to understand your point. Would you elaborate some more on this: "because (...) we have to hold open the possibility that we may yet be persuaded by our opponents (...)"? Is this an admonishment primarily to Calvinists? And "our opponents" would then signify Arminians. Or Arminians? And "our opponents would then signify Calvinists. The pronouns 'we' and 'our' may be what is confusing me.

And then this: "which would leave us holding fast--because we think it is biblical--to a view we now find mystifying." So: we have listened to our opponent's presentation, which we find to be a faithful biblical case for ____________ and to which we are now persuaded for that reason. So to what are we left "holding fast?" And which view do "we now find mystifying?" Once I understand better your point, perhaps its relation to your admonishment to watch our rhetoric will become clearer.

I haven't carefully read Phillips' response to Olson. I just glanced at it. So keep that in mind.

Olson is dissenting from the way that some/many Calvinists (like Piper) have applied their theology to a concrete situation and the God that is described thereby.

That's the weird part for me-- Olson doesn't even refer to Piper's response to this tragedy, just sort of the generic Piperian take on the Calvinist position.

To dissent from the approved Reformed explanation is to place one's soul in mortal danger of hell fire. Phillips can hardly be accused of "casually dismissing as blasphemy" Olson's view!

What I meant by characterizing Phillips' response as "casual," I meant in historical context. Olson's Arminianism is generally considered to be at least within the pale of orthodoxy among American evangelicals, and while his rhetoric is a little heated, it's nothing other Arminians haven't said before, and it likely resonates with a majority of American evangelicalism. Thus I consider it casual in that it is oblivious to the fact that many, if not most, American evangelicals are broadly Arminian and thus would fall under his net as well.

As far as Olson living up to his own standards, I think charity demands that the dissenter be allowed some rhetorical flourishes to make his point. Olson is the outsider and the minority voice in the theological discussion. He is speaking and acting outside the conventions and norms for acceptable views on Reformed theodicy and metaphysics.

I disagree here. Olson is writing in the Baylor Lariat. Most of Baylor's students are evangelical, if not Baptist, and Calvinism is a small (if perhaps vocal) minority presence. I'm not aware, offhand, of any Calvinists on the religion faculty. I'm pretty sure there weren't any there when I was there (Shrode?). I have little to no familiarity with the seminary. The point is that he is preaching to the Arminian choir. His words have reached a broader audience, to be sure, but that is who he was writing to originally.

As for my last paragraph, I was trying to say that, as we continue to search the scriptures, we may someday find ourselves embracing doctrinal positions we now reject. When discussing such positions on which earnest and sincere Christians have disagreed, this should be reason enough for us to tone down our rhetoric.

I wasn't aiming at Olson, Phillips, Calvinists, or anyone in particular.

Gotcha, Alan. Thanks, that helps me understand.

I see that we're looking at Olson's contribution from two different angles. I see what you're saying about preaching to the choir. I never thought of the majority of American evangelicalism as Arminian. For some reason I've always thought of the majority as outside the entire Calvinian-Arminian theological axis (in any confessional or dogmatic sense--I understand there are historical connections). I have no idea.

My main complaint is the vehemence brought to bear against Olson's questions and claims, which, as you rightly point out, are "within the pale of orthodoxy." I think there's something to iMonk's intuition that the line Olson crossed was not theological, but political-practical. He's actually bringing Arminian theology into a difficult matter as if it were a legitimate discussion partner! The gall! Outrageous!

When I read Phillips feigning concern for Olson's immortal soul, I simply cannot believe it. Does he really think that Olson's theologizing is tantamount to being an unpardonable sin? But if he *doesn't* believe that Olson is in the process of damning himself (so to speak :-) then why say he is? To shock him into silence? To make an example of him to passersby? Why? Why can't Olson make his points and raise his questions and we all slouch around our keyboards and say something like, "Roger, it's good to see the quiet side of the room--you Arminians--trying to apply your theology to these lamentable tragedies. But you're wrong and here's why...". I mean, a little good-natured arrogance and grandstanding can go a long way.

Instead, Olson gets a hatchet to the skull and truly reformed theology scores another notch on its belt. And then the noble science of theology is no longer pursuit of the knowledge of God in Christ, it's a team sport. It stinks.

I see.

I guess it was just the quote you used that threw me off. I can't decide whether to join the Armenian or Calvinist camp, really, but as a nonpartisan I must admit that the God of Calvinism truly does terrify me--and I suppose that no matter what rhetoric I use, if I ever decide that the Scriptures support Calvinism and condemn Armenianism I will view the fear of God as "fear of a creature who actively sends people to the Hell they deserve, no matter how much they try to seek him." (i.e. "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.")

I guess, from the perspective of one who stays up until 4 in the morning wondering if Calvinism might be right, the whole "scared of God" thing seems not so much "rhetoric" as the honest first reaction of someone trying to understand the Calvinist's view of God's providence. And I'm not sure that even theologians like Olsen can make fears like that go away by just never stating them.

So, I guess that means that in my opinion Olsen's rhetoric wasn't "toned up." I also think you're setting up a standard for "toned down" rhetoric that's impossible to keep--after all, one of the things I like most about Calvinists is that they say what they believe, and don't ask themselves what they'd think about their "rhetoric" if they one day became Armenians.

if I ever decide that the Scriptures support Calvinism and condemn Armenianism I will view the fear of God as "fear of a creature who actively sends people to the Hell they deserve, no matter how much they try to seek him."

Two verses spring to mind. On the fear of God...

Psalm 111:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;all those who practice it have a good understanding.His praise endures forever!

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;fools despise wisdom and instruction.

On going to hell, regardless of how much you seek God...

Romans 3:11
no one understands;no one seeks for God.

It is not that a person goes to hell, whether he seeks or not - it is that NOBODY seeks, unless moved by the Spirit.

Re: same thing Ellen quoted-- if you start believing that God sends people to hell no matter how much they try to seek him, you won't be understanding any Calvinism I would recognize.

Andrew Osenga (Caedmon's Call member who wrote "There is a Reason") responds to this article.

Very, very good point...I feel like an idiot for that bit of slip. It's just...the idea of double predestination I do find to be a logical extension of Calvinism, and yet hard to rectify.

I guess, for me, I find the Calvinist view that we have no real choice about salvation, in combination with the "Jacob/Esau" verse, to be both counterintuitive and very scary. (According to most Calvinists I've talked to, there is essentially no free will before salvation, only the choice of which spirit to respond to after salvation.) I see the verses in the Scriptures that can point towards Calvinism, but don't see how it works with a loving God.

It's a long debate, but even without going overboard, even sticking to more reasonable Calvinism...it's not hard to see double predestination as scary.

Random, thanks for the link. That was a civil and yet unyielding response.

I especially liked this:

The chorus of the song you referenced contains that Scripture “He makes all things good.” Either we believe that’s true, because He said it, or we believe it’s not. If it’s not, not only is God not powerful, but He’s a liar, and He’s not that good.

Well, I think we've demonstrated that Alan's opening sentence is, if not wrong, at least a little overstated; this may not be on its way to a 400-comment post, but the discussion isn't dead, either.

the idea of double predestination I do find to be a logical extension of Calvinism

So did Calvin himself, I'll grant, and so he accepted it, albeit with great reluctance. Personally, I don't, and there are a great many other Calvinists who don't either.

it's not hard to see double predestination as scary

IMHO, it's not as scary as the idea that you can lose your salvation, which I find to be a logical extension of Arminianism. (I know Arminians who disagree, but on the actual grounds of their theology, I don't see how they get there in a self-consistent fashion.) As it seems to me, if you try to create a theological system which is completely logically coherent within the capacity of the human mind, you're going to get something terrifying somewhere. I don't think Andrew Osenga gets it quite right on this point--his option C doesn't actually defy logic, rather it extends beyond the limits of the human mind, and thus of the human capacity for logic--but he has the basic idea right.

(According to most Calvinists I've talked to, there is essentially no free will before salvation, only the choice of which spirit to respond to after salvation.)

I would be interested to know what Calvinists you've talked to, because that's something of a distortion of the position. J. I. Packer argues--correctly, I think--that a lot of the problem with our conversations on this point is rooted in terminology. "Free will," when you stop and think about it, is a profoundly unhelpful philosophical abstraction, because it treats the will as something separate from the soul; it's this mistake that allows determinism to creep in, made it possible for David Hume to make his arguments, etc. The truth is, the will is a property of the soul, and what we should really be talking about is free agency, our status as moral agents, responsible for the choices we make.

On Dr. Packer's read, then--and again, I think he's absolutely correct--Calvinism does in fact affirm human free agency (though not all Calvinists do), even as it recognizes limits. In the case of the unsaved, the chief limit is that they are under the power of sin, a power against which they may struggle but which they lack the ability to overcome. Thus Scripture describes them as enslaved to sin--language, it should be remembered, which was used unhesitatingly and with complete affirmation by no less an Arminian than Charles Wesley--and thus salvation isn't a matter of human beings in "free will" making a free choice to accept God, but rather of a commando raid by the power of God on the prison of sin in which we sit chained to the wall, unable to escape by our own power. If you truly don't see how that works with a loving God, then I'm not sure what more to say. It seems to me, though, that your reaction isn't really against Calvinist theology as such, but rather is against a particular stream of that which, honestly, I find perilously close to self-caricature.

Dr. Olson came to Baylor RUF a while back and gave us all a survey about Calvinism--but all the questions were obvious strawmen and stereotypes of Calvinism, which had nearly all of us a little miffed/amused. He went on to have a talk with our leadership that didn't go well, to say the least...

This is all to say that what he's saying goes beyond rhetoric, if we're going to be completely honest. Of course, the fact that Baylor in general isn't a friendly place for Calvinists doesn't help matters a whole lot. :)

Oh, and no, I still don't think there are any Calvinists on the religion faculty, although I can think of several in the English department and Honors College, if that tells you anything.

Thanks for the info, Manders.

Count yourself lucky. There weren't no RUF or PCA when I was there. Back in my day, the only Presbyterians in town hosted the Americans United for Separation of Church and State meetings. And if we wanted Reformed theology, we had to walk 25 miles barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, with that hot Texas sun beatin' down on us. And we liked it.

Kids these days don't appreciate how easy they got it.

If I have my story straight, the RUF was actually there before the church was--the Reformed kids used to have to drive all the way to Dallas and back on Sundays to go to the current church's parent church. These days I think it's a 20-minute drive from campus to the church, so I am definitely grateful for how easy I had it, comparatively speaking. :)

That may be one reason the sparks aren't flying around here like they used to.

C'mon! You know the real reason is because I haven't been around on a regular basis!