I have recently had impressed upon me the need to discuss freedom. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free, as Galatians 5:1 tells us. As an exploratory venture into this realm I offer this:
Not long ago I watched yet another debate between a Christian and an atheist hosted by Biola University. I was particularly struck by the introduction to the debate by the host- director of the Master of Arts Program in Christian Apologetics at Biola, Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D.
What struck me, along with the obvious enthusiasm (I'm not sure if "relish" would be the appropriate word here!) in which Dr. Hazen intruduced this debate was his unabashed, confident Christianity. Paraphrasing- it was simply that Christians, who are assured of who they are in Christ, are not bashful or ashamed to dialogue with others concerning their views. And this got me to thinking about closed minds and defensive people and the privatization of faith. Indeed it is somewhat of a daunting challenge to face anyone in public, Christian or otherwise. Indeed all respect should be afforded to those whose worldview is atheistic and who will appear publicly to offer themselves- not only as willing sacrifices to public opinion, but who are willing to take the risk of public humiliation if their worldview does not stand up to what is sometimes a withering display of refutation. Of course that is what it is like in a basically Christian University like Biola, the same needs to be recognized for those Christians who venture into the "lions dens" of fundamentally secular Universities and other institutions and face audiences of a hostile worldview.
What I have noticed in coercive groups is the continued attempts to shut dialogue down. I fairly regularly get household visits from certain cult groups and notice that almost without exception these people will dialogue to a certain extent, but will almost never accept literature or extended dialogue from those outside their "orthodoxy". On the other hand confident Christianity- like its Lord- is only too happy to dialogue with respect to those on the outside, or those within the ranks- who are "overtaken in a fault".
Now while I agree with his basic definition I do not agree with his arguments against it. I have met the basic argument once before in the person of Randal Rauser Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada. This argument lies heavily on the omni-benevolent nature of God.
First Lets Define Calvinism:
Second The Intrinsically Fatal Flaws:
Thirdly, WHY These Issues Matter, and how they actually affect the way we live out our faith:
Not long ago I watched yet another debate between a Christian and an atheist hosted by Biola University. I was particularly struck by the introduction to the debate by the host- director of the Master of Arts Program in Christian Apologetics at Biola, Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D.
What struck me, along with the obvious enthusiasm (I'm not sure if "relish" would be the appropriate word here!) in which Dr. Hazen intruduced this debate was his unabashed, confident Christianity. Paraphrasing- it was simply that Christians, who are assured of who they are in Christ, are not bashful or ashamed to dialogue with others concerning their views. And this got me to thinking about closed minds and defensive people and the privatization of faith. Indeed it is somewhat of a daunting challenge to face anyone in public, Christian or otherwise. Indeed all respect should be afforded to those whose worldview is atheistic and who will appear publicly to offer themselves- not only as willing sacrifices to public opinion, but who are willing to take the risk of public humiliation if their worldview does not stand up to what is sometimes a withering display of refutation. Of course that is what it is like in a basically Christian University like Biola, the same needs to be recognized for those Christians who venture into the "lions dens" of fundamentally secular Universities and other institutions and face audiences of a hostile worldview.
What I have noticed in coercive groups is the continued attempts to shut dialogue down. I fairly regularly get household visits from certain cult groups and notice that almost without exception these people will dialogue to a certain extent, but will almost never accept literature or extended dialogue from those outside their "orthodoxy". On the other hand confident Christianity- like its Lord- is only too happy to dialogue with respect to those on the outside, or those within the ranks- who are "overtaken in a fault".
The freedom of confident, respectful dialogue is the mark of authentic Christianity.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah Chapter 1:18As a token of both my respect for Christian liberty and the importance of the free interchange of ideas, I want to post here three videos that oppose what I believe- that is the Reformed perspective on the faith we call Christianity. I post this guys refutation of Calvinism because he is one of the only antagonists that correctly, succinctly and fairly represents it in the first place (at least in my estimation). He, unlike many, does not offer a caricature of it or an abuse of it, in order to debunk it, but represents it honestly. While straw-man arguments abound- Dr. Jerry L. Walls defines the position correctly and shows why he resists and disagrees with it.
Now while I agree with his basic definition I do not agree with his arguments against it. I have met the basic argument once before in the person of Randal Rauser Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada. This argument lies heavily on the omni-benevolent nature of God.
First Lets Define Calvinism:
Second The Intrinsically Fatal Flaws:
Thirdly, WHY These Issues Matter, and how they actually affect the way we live out our faith:
