Seemingly based on the Libertarian Party's political quiz, this Moral Politics quiz plots your position on a map whose axes are moral order (x) and moral rules (y). Like any such quiz, it oversimplifies matters, but it's entertaining none the less. I like that I score as the party-less centrist I am. (HT:I Am a Christian Too) Continue reading
I wasn’t nominated for an Evangelical or Catholic Blog Award. I was bummed (but
it was probably better for my ego). My hard work and slavish devotion to my readers
has finally paid off, though. Adrian
Warnock has awarded me one of this week’s Warnies.
🙂
I’ve added the Warnie Awards aggregator and blogroll to my right column. Be sure
to give previous winners some much-deserved traffic. 🙂
*Sigh* The more often people assume my blog’s name is the nick I go by, the more I think about ditching the pseudonym altogether. I’ve been using it for a long time and it’d be weird to abandon it. If you want to know where it came from, read the explanation in the left column. One thing I didn’t mention there is that I’d decided that only famous people ought to use their real names on their blogs. Sure, if I were Hugh Hewitt, I’d have enough name recognition to not use a pseudonym. "Funky Dung" is unique and memorable (if only because it’s odd). "Eric Williams" is not. It’s about as generic a name as one could have. I guess if my name was John, like many of my ancestors, my name would be even less unique. Then again, if people forget my nick and call me "Ales Rarus", how memorable can it be?
I wish my readership was bigger so I could get lots of answers to my questions, but those readers I have are loyal and honest, so here goes.
Should I stop going by "Funky Dung"? If so, should I adopt my blog’s name or use my real name?
As a Catholic and a former relatively "high" church Lutheran, I’m quite lost when it comes to battles between Calvinism and Arminianism. I am somewhat familiar with Calvinism and have been exposed to TULIP. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin wrote a good review of TULIP from a Catholic perspective. I’ve only heard of Aminianism recently. Here’s some of what good ol’ Wikipedia had to say.
The Arminians suggested five, anti-Calvinist corrections [to TULIP], which are summarized below:
Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ, out of fallen and sinful mankind, those foreknown by Him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving.
Universal Atonement: Christ’s death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ.
Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man’s natural state, not a spiritual gift – and thus free will was not lost in the Fall. The grace of Christ works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend.
Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate.
Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace.
Am I wrong, or is this basically what the Catholic Church teaches? It certainly sounds awfully close. Akin focused on Calvinism, so I’m not sure if his Thomistic TULIP is compatible with Arminianism’s formulation (which unfortunately doesn’t have a nice acronym). Help from my readers would be appreciated.
Since I don’t have time to cover everything in depth, here are some samplings from the blogosphere and beyond.
Enjoy. 🙂