Saturday, May 23, 2009

Reading John Frame again

A while ago, I read Apologetics to the Glory of God, by John Frame. I think it was an excellent work, demonstrating the excellence of the presuppositional approach to apologetics. Despite my Arminianism, I am pretty keen on Presuppositionalism. I think Classic apologetics and Evidentialism are useful, but have their limitations.

I am now reading No Other God, John Frame's critique of Open Theism. This is a little less to my taste, as I do not share his Calvinism. I find his hostlity to the libertarian notion of free-will to be particularly misplaced. Nevertheless, like him I do not agree with Open Theism (though I still feel they make some good points). I find their rejection of exhaustive foreknowledge to be unteneable and I feel their aversion to classic theism to be as misguided as Frame's rejection of libertarian free-will.


Colin Maxwell said...

Despite my Arminianism...It wasn't all that long ago (I think, on this very blog) that you told me that Arminians were unsaved.



P/s Rose, do you feel Arminian today?

P/Ps O yes she is (or soon will be)

Celestial Fundie said...

Arminians who have never had assurance of eternal acceptance with God are unsaved.

I use the term 'Arminian' in two ways.

1. The theological tradition embracing Wesleyanism and the Remonstrants, which historically has rejected eternal security (though Arminius himself was uncertain on this point).

I believe that the rejection of eternal security by Arminians is antichrist.

2. The view of election that holds it to be conditional and based upon God's foreknowledge of faith.

This is the sense in which Calvinists typically use the term.

Some Dispensational Non-Calvinists have a real phobia of the term 'Arminian.' I do not.

On the subject of election and predestination I proudly take my stand with Arminius.

Every Blessing in Christ