- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostSexual Detox II: Breaking Free
- Next Post »Sexual Detox III: A Theology of Sex
A La Carte (10/28)
- 10/28/09
- 6
Where Do You Stand? Randy Alcorn: "I've often been asked, Where do you stand on the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, and what resources do you recommend?" He goes on to describe what he believes and how he got there.
Do You Pray? "The following is a timely reminder adapted from an essay by J.C. Ryle, on the vital importance of this oft-neglected spiritual discipline." The Divorce Divide Dr. Mohler writes about the brutal cost of no-fault divorce. "The availability of divorce without cause, so-called "no-fault" divorce, rendered every marriage less than it was before. Once impermanence became a mark of marriage in the law and in the culture, couples were required to muster a special level of marital commitment to remain married. Right before the nation's eyes, divorce redefined marriage." The Death of the Book Review This is an interesting essay from Fast Company. The author says that the book review (at least the professional book review) will soon be a thing of the past. The Holiness of God Man in the Mirror is offering an amazing deal on R.C. Sproul's classic The Holiness of God if you agree to purchase one or more boxes of it. Midweek Markdowns There isn't too much of value in this week's Midweek Markdowns at CBD, but they do have Tim Keller's (hardcover) The Prodigal God on sale for just $11.99.
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (6)
Alcorn's position was similar to mine until I read more widely and thought more deeply about the issues. Unfortunately, if one reads only what he mentions I can see why he remains a 4 point Calvinist. There are so many excellent books defending the Calvinist position and he mentions none of them. Furthermore, there are far better presentations of the Arminian position than what he mentions. Dave Hunt so muddies the waters with his renegade understanding of the issues that he will be more confusing for most people than not. Alcorn mentions that he is not a good representative of Arminianism so i wonder why he mentions his books. The debate book between Hunt and White is indeed entertaining but it hardly gives a reasonable defense of the Arminian position. Of course White is an able defender of Calvinism but I think he would have had a better challenge if he debated someone like Roger Olson or Jack Cottrell.
RE: Mohler's commentary on divorce... When are guys like this going to realize that divorce causes marriage breakups about like the death penalty causes murder. In this respect, Mohler stoops to liberal "blame the gun" sort of mentality, rather than honestly assess the many cultural shifts that caused 45 states to adopt No Fault in just five years. In a democratic nation, such a massive, nation-wide and speedy change in state code is only possible when there is already a massive, nation-wide consensus supporting their representatives to do so. So political history, too, proves that a divorce-friendly culture was already in place before No Fault, rather than No Fault causing it as Mohler claims.
Mohler has cause and effect completely backwards (again), not to mention a complete misunderstanding of social history. I've talked at length with my Dad on this, as he remembers the days before No Fault here in CA and other places around the country. Couples wanting out of marriages concocted all manner of shenanigans to "prove" cause for divorce. Courts, too, had to grapple with endless he-said/she-said messes, private investigators and all that mess in order to find "cause" to pin the blame. Regan simply signed a law that allowed couple who wanted to divorce the right to simply tell the courts just that.
Agree completely Eloquorious. I can't imagine going back to a system without no fault divorce. The one thing it did do, however, was provide a basis for deciding how to split up the "stuff" and sometimes the kids as well. If one partner had been unfaithful, that person was less likely to get custody. Now custody almost always goes to the mother.
My guess is that prior to no fault, many people stayed in emotionally and spiritually dead marriages simply because there was no other option. Or because of the social stigma attached to divorce. The question is whether such a scenario is any better than actually divorcing.
I can also see the feminist's side in this. If a woman's husband becomes abusive, she should have an "out" from that relationship without having to "prove" to anyone that the abuse is happening, since such things are often hard to prove.
I like Alcorn but as I searched the word over the first years of my conversion , it became quite clear that my assumption that Jesus died for all , was given a real shake down as I began to explore the doctrine of election and particular redemption.
I think the Potter's Freedom by Dr.White is excellent . Plus I have listened to White debate concerning the matter of what election and limited atonement really means and apart from Sproul , he is the best I have ever heard defending good old Calvinism.
Two interesting statistics on divorce: on average 73% of divorces are filed by women. When narrowed to couple where both are have a college degree and work, that number jumps to 90%. Western feminism (itself largely a reaction to endemic chauvinism) killed the nuclear family, marriage, etc. Also, divorce started the huge up-swing in the 60's, yet Reagan didn't sign the law until 1969. Yet Mohler, Dobson, et. al. continue to beat the No Fault drum, utterly deaf to the silence of their arguments when the facts are brought in.
@JPH: I don't know of anyone who lived in the era before no fault that wanted to go back to it. It didn't work, was rife with fraud from dubious evidence, and gave vastly more power to the one who had the money in the relationship because the impoverished had a hard time paying to put on a the show trial that "at fault" divorce laws required. Even Michael Reagan -- who writes about this part of his father's career -- admits that grounds for divorce were nebulous and often perfunctory. The at-fault system was an injustice in itself. But since issues of justice have been largely remanded to the domain of "liberal" Christianity, conservatives almost never consider that angle anyway.
@Reg: Hey, if it helps ya, I stand that both are true. It's true that Jesus died for everyone, just as the scapegoat took upon it the sins of all Israel. "Well," people counter, "you mean only for those who believed." Right, which is paralleled in the NT salvation which also must be received by faith, which is a gift sovereignly granted by God. Thus, He died for all, but by God's sovereign granting of faith He knows it's only effective for (and thus He only came for) the elect. That's I quite comfortable see both positions as true. They complement, not compete.