Archive for December, 2008

Big words for little ideas

I thought it was a good idea to explain some words that tend to get thrown around in theological discussions but I realized, the folks over at Theological Word of the Day (TWOTD) have already done that. So here are some key words (and their meanings) about why we started this site. Hopefully we can have more fruitful discussions if we all used the same meanings when using our big words. Or at least be able to explain what we mean with our big words.

Oh, and if you haven’t already, you might want to subscribe to TWOTD.

Apologetics

(Gk. apologia “an answer”)

Apologetics is the discipline of defending or giving an answer for the faith to those who have questions or objections to the Christian faith. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Significant apologists today include J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Robert Bowman Jr., and Alvin Plantinga, among others.

Theology

Gk. theos, “God” logos “discourse”

A reasoned study of God. Theology is a set of intellectual and emotional commitments with regard to God and man which dictate one’s beliefs and actions. Theology is intellectual in that is provides for a reasoned study and defense of one’s beliefs about God. Theology is emotional in that we approach the subject as humans with deep subjective commitments to our personal experiences and feelings about God.

Propitiation

Also, “expiation”

Propitiation describes the act whereby God’s wrath toward sin is fully satisfied through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. It is debated among Christians as to whether Christ’s death was a propitiation for all sins of all people, or limited only to the elect. 1 John 2:2 seems to suggest that the propitiation is universal, but this is not without its problems. “Propitiation” translates the Greek words hilaskomai (Luke 18:13 “be merciful” and Heb 2:17 “to make expiation”, hilasmos (1 John 2:2 and 4:10 “expiation” or “propitiation”), and hilasterion (Rom 3:25 “an expiation” and Heb 9:5 “mercy seat”).

Polemics

[puh-lehm’-iks]

(Greek polemos, “war”)

Polemics is to engage in conversation, debate, or argumentation with a very aggressive approach. Sometimes this will involve an attack on (or refutation of) the opinions or principles of another. In the church, this often takes place when one argues for a particular theological position about which he or she is passionate. This is to be contrasted with the peaceful approach of “irenics.”

Irenics

[iye-rehn’-ik or iye-ree’-nik]

(Greek eirene, “peace”)

Irenics is a method of discourse in which a peaceful approach of engagement is sought as opposed to a more polemic, war-like approach. In theology, this involves seeking to accurately understand and represent all positions, even when there is strong disagreement among them. The irenic method seeks to engage in disputes with a gentle, peaceful spirit, educating rather than indoctrinating.

Also “irenic theology” or “the irenic method.”

ad hominem

(Lat. ad, “to” + hominem, “the man”)

In rhetorical argumentation, an ad hominem is a method of argumentation in which a person attacks the character of the opponent(s) instead of dealing with the evidence or the substance of the argument. If someone were to attack the credibility of Reformation appealing to the character of Martin Luther as neurotic and incapable of making valid judgments, this would be an attack on his character in order to discredit his argument and, therefore, an example of an ad hominem.

also: argumentum ad hominem and ad hom for short

More [recent] big words from TWOTD.



Hyper-Calvinism

You’re probably here because someone accused us (or you) of being hyper-Calvinists.

Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one’s own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. For example, Arminians regard any who hold to unconditional election as hyper-Calvinists. The four-point Calvinist views the five-point Calvinist as “hyper” because he holds to a limited atonement. We also find five-point infralapsarians referring to five-point supralapsarians as hyper-Calvinists because of their view of the relationship between the fall of man and God’s predestination of the elect.

But there is such a thing as hyper-Calvinism Read What is Hyper-Calvinism? by Jim Ellis for an in-depth study of the issue. His conclusion posted below.

Simply stated, it consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel. These fundamental errors are a departure from the teaching of Scripture as well as historic Calvinism. These errors were responsible for unbiblical teaching on evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel among 18th century English Baptists. However, as we have seen, the sad effect on evangelism is not the defining error, but a symptom.

On the other hand, in my understanding, historic Calvinism has always maintained that it is the duty of unregenerate men to repent and believe. Calvinism also acknowledges that the gospel is to be preached to all men indiscriminately and that we are to beseech all to individually trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation.

Finally, I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.”

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE