Burning of the Koran: Some Random Thoughts

See wordpress post here: Burning of the Koran: Some Random Thoughts

Women are Called to Preach - Part 1

See post at Wordpress: Women are Called to Preach - Part 1

Moved to Wordpress

My blog is moving to: http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com. If you follow the blog, please update your links!

I have become increasingly disappointed with blogger, particularly withe the comment moderation options. Nick Norelli gets the props for the move. He often preaches of the merits of Wordpress and gets another convert. :)

The blogspot blog will stay up (to help with link backs, etc). I'm turning on comment moderation here. And of course all new posts will go wordpress. Thanks for following the blog, and God bless! -Kevin

How Revelation 3:20 Creates a Dilemma for Calvinism

In Revelation 1,2, and 3 John prophesies to the seven churches in Asia. The last group he addresses is the church in Laodicea. After addressing the Ladocians, he concludes with the following prophesy:

(Jesus speaking) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. -Revelation 3:20-22

This passage can be interpreted in two ways, both of which present problems for Calvinism.

Interpretation #1: This passage is applicable to everyone. Although Jesus is addressing the Ladocians, he uses universal language ("If anyone..", "he who has an ear..."). Thus this passage has application to everyone and helps to establish the doctrine of prevenient grace. This is usually the Arminian position.

Interpretation #2: Jesus is speaking only to the church in Laodicea, or to only to the seven churches in Asia. This passage is meant to apply to the original audience, and has no application to non-believers today. This is usually the Calvinist position.

If interpretation #1 is correct, we have a clear example of prevenient grace. The passage illustrates both the universal scope of grace, and the ability to resist grace. Jesus knocks on the door of each person, and the person can choose whether or not to open the door.

If interpretation #2 is correct, the Calvinist unwittingly creates another problem for himself. He disproves the doctrine of eternal security. Immediately prior Jesus speaks of "spitting out" the Ladocians because they are neither hot nor cold. If Jesus is addressing only Ladocian believers, the passage indicates that those same believers can become apostate (bold mine):

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. -Revelation 3:14-16

So the Calvinist is left with a dilemma. If the passage applies to non-believers, it teaches prevenient grace. If the passage applies to Ladocian believers, it teaches the possibility of apostasy.

Roger Olson's New Blog

Theologian Roger Olson has started a blog. He has a couple of posts up already. You can check the blog out here: www.rogereolson.com. HT: John Guthrie

Olson has authored a number of books, including, The Story of Christian Theology (an overview of the history of Christianity) and Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. I appreciate Dr Olson's work, because he writes at a level I can understand.

And as a completely irrelevant side note, I think Olson and my father-in-law look alike. See if you agree.

Wired Article on Free Will

Wired Magazine has an interesting article on libertarian freedom: My First Act of Free Will.

The author Jonah Lehrer addresses the problems of scientific determinism - or having a purely mechanical view of freedom.

He notes that:

There’s a certain frivolousness to all these eloquent arguments over free will. The fact is, we are deeply wired to believe in our freedom. We feel like willful creatures, blessed with elbow room and endowed with the capacity to pick our own breakfast cereal.

The question is, why do we feel free? Why are we "deeply wired" to believe in our freedom? Perhaps it is because as creatures created in the image of God we really do have genuine freedom.

The article also referenced a study that correlated libertarian freedom with ethics. People who don't believe in libertarian freedom are more likely to engage in unethical behavior. In the study "the amount of cheating was directly correlated with the extent to which the subjects rejected free will."

What we believe about free will actually impacts the decisions we make.

Jerry Walls on Problems With Calvinism

Here is a great video clip by Jerry Walls where he addresses some of the inconsistencies of Calvinism. The clip runs about 10 minutes, and is well worth the viewing. HT: Brennon Hartshorn.

Walls is a professor at Asbury seminary. He is also co-author of the book Why I'm not a Calvinist. If you have read the book, you will recognize some of his arguments here.

Comment by George Bryson

George Bryson left a comment on my other blog. I'm cross posting it here, where it is more likely to be read. Bryson is associated with Calvary Chapel, and is a non-Calvinist who does not consider himself Arminian. His comment deals with why he writes against Calvinism and not Arminianism.

Bryson is the author of several books that deal with the problems of Reformed Theology.(Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting, and The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System).

I just happened on your site (or as our Reformed friends would say, was foreordained to find you. One of the questions I hear a lot is "why don't you write a book against Arminianism" or why not explain "why it is that you are not an Arminian"?

For many years I thought about writing a book explaining why I am not an Arminian but never felt a need to write a book against Arminianism. The reason is that I am not against Arminianism the way I am against Calvinism. It never offends me and I do not see it as a threat to the health and well being of the church of Jesus Christ.

I do not see Arminianism on a agressive campain trying to win everone over to their views, even if it means misleading their potential converts. For these and many other reasons, I do not see Arminianism as a threat. So it is difficult for me to justify the kind of time it takes me to write a book that I would be happy with.

My disagreements with Arminians are real but not usually serious. When an Arminian scholar represents his views, he does not usually feel a need to hide anything or to hold anything back. They tell you what they believe and why

This is not always so for many Calvinists. I am happy to see a lot of Arminians representing themselves and I do not think they will find a need to become rude, personally attack those they disagree with, deliberately attempt to insult or offend non-Arminians. I am sure there are exceptions.

On many Calvinist websites to be rude and crude is considered cool and hip. May it never be so with Evangelical Arminians. In Christ, George

Answers to Common Calvinist Questions

Some answers to common Calvinist questions:

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true.
Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilio. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.

Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
A: This is a non-scriptural definition of death. Death does not mean "unable to respond", rather, it means "separated from God". In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15), the father states "my son was dead, but now is alive. He was lost, and now is found." The son was able make decisions, including the decision to go home. Yet, he was separated from relationship with his father, and dependent on his father for reconciliation. To be dead is to be separated from Christ. To be alive is to be in relationship with Christ. Making choices does not give one the ability to be reconciled to Christ absent his consent.

Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
This is a statement that Arminians fully agree with! Arminians believe in prevenient grace, that God is in the process of drawing non-believers to himself. It is God's drawing that enables the sinner to believe. We differ with Calvinists in that 1)We believe scripture teaches that God gives a measure of genuine grace to everyone (Titus 2:11), and 2)We believe that grace is resistible (John 5:34,39-40).

Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Sovereignty is not synonymous with determinism or meticulous control. Rather, it means that God does what he pleases (Psalms 115:3). It pleases God to endow mankind with a measure of genuine freedom. A.W. Tozer stated it like this: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. "(1)

Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Arminians believe that God can know our choices without causing them. Some Arminians believe that God exists outside of time and sees the future as present (The Eternal Now theory). Others believe that God exists in the present but can see into the future. In this case, man's actions are the cause of God's foreknowledge, not the other way around. All man's actions are certain but not necessary.(2)

Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true!
A: This is a debate tactic. While it may result in a Calvinist winning an argument, it is not a reasonable or contextual approach to reading and understanding the Bible. For a detailed and funny description of this tactic, check out The Machine Gun Hermeneutic, by Martin Glynn.


Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?
Arminian Theology is an entirely grace centered theology. We are saved by the work of Jesus Christ. By grace through faith. In order to be saved one must believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice on his behalf. Since Jesus died for everyone, we have no grounds for boasting. Rather, we are motivated to share the gospel with everyone, so that they can also believe. On the other hand, Calvinism can easily lead to a haughty attitude. Calvinism teaches adherents that there are two classes of people: those who will be saved and those who cannot be saved. John Wesley correctly stated: "As directly does this doctrine [Calvinism] tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast from God."(3)

(1) A.W. Tozer, The Sovereignty of God
(2) See Thomas Ralston, Elements of Divinity
(3) John Wesley, Free Grace, Section II

A Wesleyan Criticism of Theistic Evolution

The purpose of this post is to argue that Wesleyans should reject theistic evolution. To do so doesn't require defending a literal view of the Genesis creation account.

Theistic evolution functions on principles that are contrary to God's revealed character. It is absurd to argue that a good God who is involved with His creation would create a world that runs on principles that contradict His nature.

As Wesleyans we believe that everyone has great value. We have value not because of our genes, but because God created us.

As Wesleyans we believe that God cares for the weak. He hears the prayers of the widow. He protects the fatherless. He defends the poor.

As Wesleyans we believe that God heals the sick. He gives sight to the blind, and speech to the mute. God makes us whole.

All of these values contradict the principles of natural selection. Natural selection rewards the strong, the powerful, the aggressive, the fertile, the selfish, the genetically perfect. Natural selection is efficient, but it is not loving.

Jesus says that the last will be first. Jesus says that blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the meek. Jesus says that the meek will inherit the earth.

Jesus himself was not physically attractive, and he had no physical descendants (Isaiah 53). Yet he was also perfect. God's definition of perfection does not include the attributes that are required for natural selection.

Natural selection is a result of the fall. God created a perfect world, a world without death. Yet we live in a world in decay. We live in a world where the strong survive and the weak often perish. The fallen world we live in is not the way God originally created it. When we argue on behalf of theistic evolution, we are arguing for a world that has always been fallen, and we are arguing that God created a world that contrary to his intrinsic character.

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. -Romans 8:20-21

Trailer for Wesley the Movie

Here's a new trailer for "Wesley the Movie". It looks pretty good. The production looks to be about the caliber of Luther.

What's wrong with this picture?

This place is near where I live. Can you find the problem? Hint: Proverbs 22:22

Audio Series on Romans 9-11

HT:Onesimus

Here is a good audio series on Romans 9, 10, and 11 by historian / preacher David Pawson. Pawson argues that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans in order to address the problem of antisemitism among the Gentile Christians in Rome.

The Roman Church was initially exclusively Jewish, then over time Gentile converts were added. At some point Emperor Claudius ordered all Jews to leave Rome (likely because they were bickering over whether or not Jesus was the Christ). After the death of Claudius, Nero permitted the Jews to again return to Rome.

These edicts impacted the demographics of the Roman church. The church was first Jewish, then because a mixture of Jewish and Gentile, then became exclusively Gentile, then finally was again a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. When the Jewish Christians returned they were not welcomed by the Gentile Christians. The Gentiles were arguing that the Jews were now rejected by God. Pawson argues that the purpose of Paul's letter was to address the exclusion of the Jews, and that Romans 9-11 in particular addresses this issue.

Romans 9
Romans 10
Romans 11

"The Prodigal Son" and Arminian Theology

One of Jesus' best known parables is the story of "The Prodigal Son" (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children. It illustrates the nature of his love. And it shows how He goes about reconciliation.



The parable presents a picture that is in harmony with the Arminian understanding of God. Restored relationship is what is important to God. It is so important that he will set aside his rights and his honor in order to be reconciled with his children. Let's take a look at the parable:

The Father gives the younger son what he requests.
"The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them." (Luke 15:12) The younger son demanded his inheritance from the father. In effect, the son wishes that his father was dead. The father would have been well within his rights to deny this demand, but instead he gives the son what he asks for.

The Father doesn't worry about his glory.
"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living." (Luke 15:13) In the culture of the time, the father had the ability to prevent the son from leaving. The son's freedom was more important to the father than the fact that the son's actions would shame the father. The father permitted the son's behavior out of love.

The Father did not force the son home, the son chooses to go home.
I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father. (Luke 15:18-20). The father did not effectually cause the son to go back home, rather the son made the decision to return on his own. The son's ability to make this decision did not make him proud. The son was instead humbled because he knew he had wronged his father. Even though the son made the decision to return, he was still at the complete mercy of the father. The son could not restore the relationship, only the father could.

The Father RUNS to the son.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him." (Luke 15:20) In the culture of the time it was unthinkable for a father to run to a son, particularly in a situation where he had been wronged. It was undignified. The father would stand and wait, and the son would walk to him and beg. But we see in this parable the father runs to his son. Reconciliation was more important to the father than appearance or position.

Death means separation. Alive means reconciliation.
For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:24, also see 15:32) The father throws a party for his son who was dead. Twice in the parable we are given the scriptural definition of "dead". Dead does not mean inability. The son was able to able to make decisions, including the decision to go home to his father. What the son was not able to do was to unilaterally restore his relationship with his father. So he was dead in relationship to his father. In order to be alive again, he was dependent on the mercy of his father. Thankfully, the father valued relationship over personal glory.

The Father shows genuine love to the older son too.
"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him." (Luke 15:28). The father shows that he desires genuine relationship with both of his sons. Again we see that the father is unconcerned with appearances. He leaves the celebration and seeks out his older son.

The older son misunderstands the Father.
"[The older son] answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.'" (Luke 15:29). The older son misunderstands two things about his relationship with his father. First, he views himself as a slave to the master rather than as a son of the father. Second, he fails to recognize the love and generosity of his father.

The older son wants exclusive treatment.
"But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:30). Perhaps the older son was a Calvinist. He was not glad for the return of his brother, or for the generosity of his father. Yet he fails to recognize that he too is in the wrong. How so? First by devaluing his relationship to his brother. "This son of yours" he calls him. And second by ignoring his father's wishes and pouting instead of celebrating. A paraphrase of Romans 9:20 is relevant here. "Who are you, oh son to talk back to your father?" The father valued both of his sons and desired relationship with both of them. It was not the place of the older son to demand exclusive treatment.

The father corrects the older brother regarding the value of the younger son.
"My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' " (Luke 15:31-32). The older son would not recognize the value of his brother. His father corrects him. "This brother of yours was dead and is alive again." Both sons are valuable to the father.

In conclusion, we have a father who loves us all. We have a father who desires reconciliation so much that he is willing to become vulnerable and to make himself look bad. We do not have a father who stands by and watches us suffer. We have a father who runs to us. We are made alive again by being in relationship with Him.

Wesley Study Bible on Sale

Cokesbury is running a special on the Wesley Study Bible. If you're interested in getting one, now's the time to do it. Link here. Cost is $19.95, half off the regular price. On sale through April 30, 2010.

As a bit of side trivia, Cokesbury is named after two famous Methodists. The first two American bishops in the American church were Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury. They were appointed by John Wesley after the pesky Americans decided to have a revolution.

Good-bye to the Internet Monk

Thanks for all the good reads, even if I didn't always agree. Michael Spencer 1956-2010

The Meaning of the Christian Fish - ΙΧΘΥΣ

One of the first symbols of early Christianity was the fish. The Greek word for fish is "ichthus" (ΙΧΘΥΣ). It is pronounced "ik thoos". ΙΧΘΥΣ spells an acronym in Greek. It was an early statement of faith.

The acronym means "Jesus, Christ, Son of God, Savior". The Greek letters break down as follows:

I - Iota is the first letter of Iesous (Jesus)
X - Chi is the first letter of Christos (Christ)
Θ - Theta is the first letter of Theos (God)
Y - Upsilon is the first letter of Yios (Son)
Σ - Sigma is the fist letter of Soter (Savior)

The Greek letters Alpha and Omega also both look like fish. The little alpha looks like a fish swimming right to left, and the Omega looks like a fish swimming up. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8).
The fish has Biblical significance. Jonah was swallowed by a fish (Jonah 1:17). Several of the disciples were fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James, John). Jesus told his disciples to be be "fishers of men" (Mark 1:17). Jesus did miracles involving fish - feeding the 5000 (Matt 14:18-21), and helping the disciples to catch fish (John 21:6). Jesus also proved he was physically risen by eating a fish (Luke 24:40-43).

Tradition has it that that early Christians used the fish symbol to identify each other during times of persecution. If a believer met a stranger and thought the stranger might also be a believer, he would draw the top half of the fish in the dirt.

If the stranger was a believer he would know to complete the other half of the symbol, and the two believers would be safe to acknowledge each other. If not, the non-believer would just think the other person was a little loopy for drawing in the dirt. Hopefully the early Christians were better at drawing than I am.


In early Christianity the fish and dove were common Christian symbols, more so than the cross. Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to mention the fish in writing. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that:

the earliest literary reference to the symbolic fish is made by Clement of Alexandria, born about 150, who recommends his readers (The Pedagogue III.11) to have their seals engraved with a dove or a fish. Clement did not consider it necessary to give any reason for this recommendation, from which it may be safely be inferred that the meaning of both symbols was unnecessary.

(Early Coptic Art)

Today the fish is quickly recognizable as part of the Christian subculture. According to Wikipedia, the modern fish movement was started by some Australian university students. Over the last forty years the symbol has become common again. Today it is cliche. You can get your fish auto emblem, fish T-shirt, or fish jewelry.

Darwinians have their fish too. Perhaps you have seen it on a car or two. The Darwinian fish swims from left to right, whereas the Christian fish always swims from right to left. The Darwinian fish has feet, emphasizing their belief that humans evolved from sea creatures.


And of course the Christian subculture never misses a beat. Not to be outdone, you can buy a Christian fish eating a Darwin fish.


The fish has evolved a long way over the years, and that is no fish story. :)

Good Article on Open Theism

Here's a good article Open Theism written from an Arminian perspective. It has some criticisms, yet also presents the system fairly. It is by James Railey, an Assemblies of God seminary professor.

HT: Steve Noel

Open Theism, an Arminian Pentecostal Response

They Must Be Arminian...

Sign at a nearby church.

The FACTS of Arminianism

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has put together a nice article that summarizes and compares the five points of Arminianism to the five points of Calvinism.

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

The FACTS acronym is based on the original Five articles of the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were the Dutch followers of Jacob Arminius.

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ