Yes – Judaism. It’s part of the idea called ‘tikkun olam’.

Then we Christians have got to get back to our Jewish roots on that one.

http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-35w-bridge-collapsed.html

Gak! I guess Phillips never read The Last Battle, since the ‘not a tame lion’ argument was exactly what the Ape used to say all sorts of horrible things in Aslan’s name while trying to pass off a donkey in a lion skin as the Real Thing.

“Re Calvinist/Arminian: Has anyone ever thought to balance God’s Will with free will, with God offering a partnership with his creatures to work and just BE together?” – Ken

Yes – Judaism. It’s part of the idea called ‘tikkun olam’.

I read Piper’s initial post, Olson’s response, and Phillips’ critique. I do think that Olson went farther than he should have, if he were simply responding to Piper’s comments on that one post. (As several have said, he’s got some history with Piper, and he may be responding to more than just that post.)

I also think that he wasn’t careful in how he worded the alternatives: we Arminians can object to the idea that God *directly* caused the bridge collapse (“Let’s smash this bridge on…3, 2, 1, *now!*”) without saying that God isn’t able to stop it. I don’t think Olson said God *couldn’t* stop it, but that God will, in general, not be using miracles (direct, divine intervention, contrary to normal physical laws) to prevent every disaster waiting to happen. Olson was a bit too wishy-washy in how he worded this (especially about God’s response to prayer), but I don’t think he means what some Calvinists have accused him of (believing in a powerless God).

I just finished Olson’s _Arminian Theology_ and was impressed. As for the question of open theology, Olson wrote in that book (in 2006) that he wasn’t an open theist, but he had some sympathy for how they tried to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with libertarian free will. I don’t know if he’s come to agree with open theism in the past year or not.

One other thing I’ve noticed in this discussion is that people too often write of “the Calvinist God” or “the Arminian God,” which would better be written as the “Calvinist understanding of God,” etc. We need to keep the focus on the fact that we’re debating the best way to *understand* God. Olson’s argument is not with God but with how Calvinists think about God. He’s not saying God *is* indistinuishable from the devil, but that Calvinists (wrongly, we believe) understand Him in a way that seems similar to us.
The accusations of blasphemy and whatnot flying around stem from this mistake.

I find it similar to how certain apologists that don’t need to be named will conflate their interpretation of the Gospel with the Gospel itself. And so if anyone says “you’re wrong in your explanation of X,” they loftily respond that they’ll “never be ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!” etc., etc. And accuse the other side of denying the Gospel itself.

Arminianism that is not taken to its logical extreme is not heresy.
Thanks for that, at least. I can cheefully say the same thing about Calvinism!

The logical extreme of Arminianism is Pelagianism… it’s what Finney preached.

Arminianism that is not taken to its logical extreme is not heresy.

And this after giving up…
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-imonk-and-calvinism-qa

And this says it all…
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-closing-of-the-calvinistic-mind-by-james-jordan-must-reading

Isn’t that what most of the debate comes down to? The Scripture references to “back it up” are nothing but an ornate distraction from the truth–we beat each other over the heads with our own opinions, our own understanding. But who cares, because mine is right, and you’re misinterpreting. Yuck.

Michael
For those of us who would like to unpack that a bit, which of the sidebar “Categories” above would you direct us to, if any?

Thanks.