tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post115818043272648763..comments2023-10-10T08:46:17.713-04:00Comments on drulogion: Olson's Arminian Myths #8-10JohnLDruryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01120179182431573460noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-10304865998752317002007-06-20T15:29:00.000-04:002007-06-20T15:29:00.000-04:00With regard to the myth of "unconditional" eternal...With regard to the myth of "unconditional" eternal security...<BR/>I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church and my father is an ordained SBC minister, but I have never been able to reconcile the "Once Saved, Always Saved" doctrine with the whole of scripture.<BR/>Just from a logical standpoint, how can you "fall away" from something if you were never "attached" to it in the first place? This renders Paul's warnings to the early Christians about "apostasy" utterly meaningless.<BR/>Regards,<BR/>Bryan<BR/>More of my thoughts at:<BR/>www.webspawner.com/users/eternalosas/index.html ("Once Saved, Always Saved? Sign Me Up!")<BR/> ("Once Saved, Always Saved? Sign Me Up!")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-88530076345337778932007-04-05T11:20:00.000-04:002007-04-05T11:20:00.000-04:00Woops! The post is "Three Views of Election: Takin...Woops! The post is "Three Views of Election: Taking Barth's Dialectic Further"JKnotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13567721786402019427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-15744590032488623502007-04-05T11:18:00.000-04:002007-04-05T11:18:00.000-04:00John,This is your old classmate Jason Knott. I'm j...John,<BR/><BR/>This is your old classmate Jason Knott. I'm just wondering what you might think of a proposal I make on my blog (gordianknott.blogspot.com) for how to make eccumenical progress on issues of election and eschatology (where I locate the Arminian/Calvinist issue as well as Universalism/whatever). I also wrote a term paper making the same points in a more comprehensive form.<BR/><BR/>The post in question is titled "Taking Barth's Dialectic Further." <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JasonJKnotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13567721786402019427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1166010912268671802006-12-13T06:55:00.000-05:002006-12-13T06:55:00.000-05:00Some good points here on both the Calvinist and Ar...Some good points here on both the Calvinist and Arminian understadins of theology. I think that somehowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1159826412889100172006-10-02T18:00:00.000-04:002006-10-02T18:00:00.000-04:00Dave, I've seen that. The two approaches are "in ...Dave, <BR/>I've seen that. The two approaches are "in the air" it seems. Even a novice minister will "practice theology" based on assumptions and propositions they may be totally unaware of.Keith Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05058949281404407630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1159649488808152262006-09-30T16:51:00.000-04:002006-09-30T16:51:00.000-04:00You got my e-mail on this. Sorry it wouldn't post...You got my e-mail on this. Sorry it wouldn't post here earlier in the week.<BR/><BR/>I love this series... great review.<BR/><BR/>FYI - Scott Mcnight is doing a series on the same book right now at his blog (he's behind you though, only through myth 3)<BR/><BR/>http://www.jesuscreed.org/?cat=7<BR/><BR/>there's the link.<BR/><BR/>ddDavid Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935888468388634009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1159495703726496652006-09-28T22:08:00.000-04:002006-09-28T22:08:00.000-04:00Dear John,This is Brandon Warmke from Trinity Wesl...Dear John,<BR/><BR/>This is Brandon Warmke from Trinity Wesleyan days. If that doesn't ring a bell...well, that's alright.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I keep a blog as well, and a Calvinist guest stopped by today and did a drive-by "demolition" of Wesleyan theology, in which he refers to something your father wrote a few years back. This prompted me to do a little interweb trolling. And here you are. I am glad you are well, buddy!<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Brandon Warmke<BR/>xanga.com/bdwarmkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1159485934751697212006-09-28T19:25:00.000-04:002006-09-28T19:25:00.000-04:00I've encountered your myth 11 frequently and numbe...I've encountered your myth 11 frequently and number 9 occasionally, mostly from seminarians and Baptists.<BR/><BR/>In my experience, most laypeople, whether Reformed or Arminian, are less dogmatic and quite willing to accept the valid points of the "opposing" system. <BR/><BR/>My <A HREF="http://www.heathergemmen.com" REL="nofollow">wife</A>, bless her heart, is not only Reformed but Dutch Reformed--and actually Dutch.<BR/><BR/>She's more Wesleyan than I am.Lawrence W. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13114580620145534592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-1159462414671685832006-09-28T12:53:00.000-04:002006-09-28T12:53:00.000-04:00I've done the most work on the doctrine of assuran...I've done the most work on the doctrine of assurance, so I'll comment on that. As a United Methodist pastor I pastor churches in which theology has, for generations, usually been whittled down to something like "God loves you," "Be nice," "Don't judge." With this "foundation," my folks have no means to deal with the baptists (usually the biggest herd here in E. Texas) have to say about "once saved always saved," and how THEY believe it and Methodists don't.<BR/><BR/>When I teach on the subject I observe that from a phenomenalistic point of view, we all have the experience of people who at one time in their lives appear to be self-avowed, practicing Christians, clearly people of faith, who later in life would claim no such thing. Baptists (who are at least 3 point Calvinists around here) would say that person was never really saved but was just "fooling himself," or "playing games with God." The Methodist - if he or she said anything - would stereotypically describe the person as "falling from grace," or "backsliding." Same phenomenon, two explanations.<BR/><BR/>A quick glance at the bible doesn't help much here - both sets of ideas can be found fairly easily.<BR/><BR/>In this context, however, the common baptist approach to "eternal security" seems to undermine "assurance." Eternal security is something I can have - in theory - but I cannot have assurance that I have it, because it is always possible that I am "fooling myself" or "playing games with God."<BR/><BR/>Wesleyan theology (moving beyond the bare folk theology of many contemporary Methodists) puts its pivit foot on assurance rather than "eternal security." Through the work and witness of the Spirit, the believer can have assurance of salvation. Can this assuance ever be clouded? Yes, plainly. Can one lose the acceptance of God? I think the Wesleyan tradition (at its best) is fuzzy here.<BR/><BR/>How can it possibly be good to be fuzzy on such an important subject? My take is that such fuzziness is a proper stance to take in light of the biblical teaching and its contrast with the modern expectation of certainty. Descartes and his successors (he has many children in theology) tell us he need certainty - even absolute certainty. From what I see of the way this modern epistemological yearning has worked itself out, it has been reduced to absurdity. Sure you can have certainty - if you go no further than solipsism.<BR/><BR/>So - to sum up all this verbiage, I see a bi-polar doctrine of Assurance/Security, with one tradition putting its foot down on one pole, and the other tradition on the other pole.Richard Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787755397416393855noreply@blogger.com