"How can God be truly virtuous, truly good in a meaningful way, and foreordain the fall of humanity into sin and certain individuals to eternal torment in hell? It is impossible to reconcile Edwards’s account of God and virtue and 'goodness' with what he believed as a Calvinist about God’s sovereignty with regard to reprobation." - Roger Olson
"...there is a difference between saying 'Calvinist theology promotes evangelism' and 'Calvinists actually evangelize.' There is a difference between saying 'Calvinists have historically evangelized' and 'Calvinists do evangelize right now.' After all, isn’t it possible that we may fail to live up to our theology?" - Challies
"By God’s grace, my prayer is that my current attempt at taking on the topic of free will is characterized by far more humility than it has been in the past. Similarly, my objective with this article isn’t to win a debate nor to provide anyone with talking points to help them win debates. My main objective is to help us see ourselves in light of God’s Holiness and Glory while being thankful for His great mercy offered in salvation through grace by faith in Christ." - John Ellis
"What did Warren Wiersbe believe about Calvinism and Limited or Unlimited Atonement? No doubt he was what some would call a Moderate Calvinist ... but he was not a 5-point Calvinist. Following are some of his quotes on the Atonement." - David Brumbelow
Having been asked to recommend a few books on Calvinism I thought it might make a good post at Dr Reluctant. I myself am about as much a modified Calvinist as I am a modified Dispensationalist. Although many will not agree with me, I believe that “plain-sense,” old fashioned grammatico-historical hermeneutics requires some readjustment of standard Reformed formulations of Calvinist doctrines.
My reason for this is that the hermeneutics of Reformed Calvinism, when aimed at eschatology, produces supercessionism and covenant theology. It is a hermeneutics heavy on deduction. I might characterize it as “deduction before induction,” whereas I believe it ought to be the other way round.
Few doctrines divide God’s people like the doctrine of election. Since both the word, “election” in its various forms, plus the concept using different words is found repeatedly in the Bible, some explanation must be offered. It cannot simply be ignored.
Although there are various shades of interpretation, in the end, it boils down to two possibilities. Either election means God chose His people without reference to anything He saw in man (unconditional election), or God chose people based upon something He saw or foresaw within them (conditional election).
Since the days of the Protestant Reformation, these two concepts have resulted in two different theologies, Calvinism, which holds to unconditional election, and Arminianism which teaches conditional election. In truth, there are variations within these two camps, and some prefer to avoid either label, but there are really only two positions on election. For brevity’s sake, I will use the commonly accepted historic labels.
In this article, I will examine a text that is often claimed by both sides of the debate.
Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love (Eph. 1:4)