I have tackled the “T” of the Classical Arminian system. In yesterday’s post, I showed how Arminius really believed that the will of man was “maimed, infirm, imprisoned, bent” from the fall and that only the grace of God could free the will. The will then, in the Classical Arminian system, is not seen as “free” will so much as “freed” will (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology”).
In today’s post, I will tackle the issue of election. How does someone become “elect in Christ”? Does God pick certain individuals to be saved---or does He require everyone to repent and believe, and save on the condition of faith? How is it that you are saved, but your next-door neighbor may never be?
This is what Arminius had to say about election:
“Creation in the upright state of original righteousness is not a means for executing the decree of predestination, or of election, or of reprobation. It is horrid to affirm, that ‘the way of reprobation is creation in the upright state of original righteousness:’...and in this very assertion are propounded two contrary volitions of God concerning one and the same thing” (Arminius, “Works,” 2:710).
What Arminius means by the above quote concerning creation and reprobation is that creation was made by God to be good (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Since God made everything to be good, He could not have made reprobation as an intrinsic part of creation (since reprobation is damnation, not blessing, as God made His creation to be). To assert that creation was made to be good, but reprobation (something evil) was an original, intrinsic part of creation would be to assert that God created BOTH good and evil in the beginning. And that contradicts God seeing that everything in His creation was “good,” as well as His own nature (which is goodness).
Now, Arminius speaks against Calvinism:
“It is a horrible affirmation, that ‘God has predestinated whatsoever men He pleased not only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation” (Beza, Vol. 1, fol. 417)...
It is a horrible affirmation, that ‘men are predestinated to eternal death by the naked will or choice of God, without any demerit [proprium] on their part.’---(Calvin’s Inst. L.1, c.2, 3.)
This is also a horrible affirmation, ‘Some among men have been created unto life eternal, and others unto death eternal’” (Arminius, “Work,” 2:710).
Here we find that Arminius simply disagrees with Calvin and Beza (both of whom he quotes here). I don’t have to print what they’ve said anywhere else, because Arminius gives us their thoughts in a nutshell. He argues against unconditional election, which states that some have been reprobated by the will of God Himself, without the cause of reprobation being the creature (the cause is God).
I want to be fair, however, and print Molina’s thoughts here. This is what Molina has to say about unconditional election:
“As a result, there is no room left for divine predestination or reprobation, if all things still to come in the future are so uncertain to God that it is in light of the part of the contradiction that is going to be actualized by free choice that He is even now going to bring it about that from eternity He foreknew that this or that human being would do this or that, and on this basis bring it about that this or that person was predestinate or reprobate...if this is so, then why, when he came to the section on predestination AND TO THE ELECTION OF SOME, GIVEN THAT OTHERS HAD NOT BEEN SO ELECTED, did Paul exclaim in Romans 11:33, ‘O, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God; HOW INCOMPREHENSIBLE ARE HIS JUDGMENTS and inscrutable His ways!” [Luis de Molina, “On Divine Foreknowledge: Part IV (Concordia),” Disputation 51, Sec. 20]
Notice that Molina strongly argues that the nature of predestination and reprobation consists of “the election of some, given that others had not been so elected,” and quotes from Romans 11. Molina makes it clear here that he disagrees with the idea that “all things still to come in the future are so uncertain to God” that the election or reprobation would be “actualized by free choice” of the individual.
Kirk R. MacGregor confirms Molina’s view of unconditional election:
“In book seven of the ‘Concordia,’ Molina queries ‘whether the cause predestination may be ascribed to the part of the predestinate’ and ‘whether the cause of reprobation may be ascribed to the part of the reprobate.’ Contra those who follow ‘the errors of Origen and Pelagius,’ he answers both questions decidedly in the negative. On the basis of the Pauline statement, ‘Before the twins were born or had done anything good or evil...not by works but by him who calls...[God said], Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ (Rom. 9:11-13), Molina declares that ‘FORESEEN FAITH CANNOT BE THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION OR PREDESTINATION,’ as affirming otherwise would undermine the prima facie implication that God’s decree to elect Jacob and reprobate Esau did not take into account their future good or evil works” (Kirk R. MacGregor, “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology.” Lanham: University Press of America, 2007, pages 66-67).
This is what Molina had to say in his “Concordia” about the destiny of the elect and the reprobate, according to MacGregor:
“The total effect of predestination...depends only on the free will of God, such that God could have predestined any ‘of the elect to have truly been reprobate’ and any ‘of the reprobate to have truly been elect’” (Luis de Molina, “Concordia,” 7.23.4-5.1; quoted by Kirk R. MacGregor, “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology,” page 67).
In other words, being elect or reprobate is not based on faith, but on the arbitrary whim of God. Now Molina tries to soften this blow in his “Concordia”:
“Augustine says in ‘De Libero Arbitrio III, chap. 3, ‘Since God foreknows our will, that which He foreknows is going to be. Therefore, our will is going to be, because He foreknows the will. Nor can the will be if it does not have power; therefore, He foreknows its power, too. Hence, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT BECAUSE OF HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE MY POWER IS TAKEN AWAY; MY POWER IS MORE CERTAINLY PRESENT BECAUSE OF IT, since He whose foreknowledge does not err foreknew that my power was going to be with me’” (Molina, “Concordia,” Disputation 51, Sec. 20).
He attempts to say that even though God’s free will decides whether one is elect and the other is reprobate, free will still exists, that God does not take away my free will because He chooses one and not the other. The problem with Molina’s theology, however, is that, because God chooses some and damns others, that person’s free will is a will that is determined by God. If God determines that person’s destiny, what does it matter if they got to “freely choose what God had predetermined”? If God foreordained their election or reprobation, and what He foreordains will necessarily happen, then such persons never had a free will, and never had a choice in the matter. And this is the problem with Molina---he wants to “have his cake and eat it too.” On one hand, he wants to affirm unconditional election; on the other hand, he wants to affirm responsibility. He uses Romans 9 as part of his argument, according to MacGregor (“Molinist-Anabaptist,” page 67), but what Molina missed (as did Calvin) is that Israel was in the situation she found herself in because she tried to receive God’s salvation by her own merit instead of by faith (Rom. 9:30; 10:1-3, 11-13).
I take time here to show Molina’s theology because I think most people believe Molinism to be a completely separate system in its theology. Now obviously, “Molinism” is so named because it is distinct from “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.” However, Molinism bears some resemblance to both Calvinism and Arminianism. Some people tend to prefer this system because they think it is the “middle-road” theology they have longed to find; however, Roger Olson disagrees:
“On several crucial issues related to soteriology, then, no middle ground or hybrid between Calvinism and Arminianism is logically possible. Calminianism can only be held in defiance of reason; ultimately EVERY CALMINIAN TURNS OUT EITHER TO BE A DISGUISED FORM OF CALVINISM OR ARMINIANISM, or it slides inexorably into one or the other. Many people claim to be ‘four-point Calvinists,’ by which they usually mean they agree with total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints but rejected limited atonement. When pressed, however, such four-point Calvinists often turn out to have misunderstood the Calvinist idea of limited atonement, and when it is explained to them correctly...they embrace it...Some Arminians call themselves ‘two-point Calvinists,’ especially if they live, work, or worship in contexts where Reformed theology is considered the norm for evangelicalism. By this they usually mean that they affirm total depravity and perseverance of the saints.(This is especially common among Baptists.)” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pages 76-77)
Molinism faces problems when it comes down to its own theology. The reason? Because it claims that one can “be chosen” and “choose” at the same time in the same way. God chooses from before the foundation of the world...and we choose after the foundation has been laid. The problem with this is that, if God “picks” in eternity past, what does it matter that I choose on earth? God determined what would be before I was even conceived, so, in reality, God has already chosen my eternal destination. My choice on earth, then, is “part of the Divine script.” I’m just “playing my role” on the world stage, awaiting my fixed fate.
To say the least, I agree with Olson. I think that one’s theology comes down to two choices: either Calvinism or Arminianism. And Molinism knows this too, which is why Alvin Plantinga, for example, is a “Molinist Calvinist”...and William Lane Craig, for example, is a “Molinist Arminian.” Even taking on the label “Molinist” doesn’t free a person from the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
In my next post, I will continue with Arminius’s view of predestination and reprobation.
Showing posts with label Roger Olson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Olson. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
"Somewhere In the Middle," Part II: Clearing Up The Misconception About Classical Arminianism
I was once online performing a google search, and I came across Chuck Smith and His statement about Calvinism and Arminianism from Calvary Chapel.
(http://biblefacts.org/church/CalvinismVsArminianism%20.pdf)
View the file above if possible. Some of the critiques of Chuck Smith’s remarks will be made in this post, and I want you, the reader, to look at the misconceptions Chuck Smith has regarding Arminius and Arminian theology. I want to do this so as to present my post as theologically honest (which is what I always aim for when presenting problems with opposing arguments).
Chuck Smith presents what he believes to be the theological systems of Calvinism and Arminianism.I read over his presentation of Calvinism, and I would say that he gets Calvinism right---down to all five tenets of it! When it gets to Arminianism, however, he makes his biggest mistakes.
Look at his version of “free will” in the Arminian system:
“Arminius believed that THE FALL OF MAN WAS NOT TOTAL, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.”
Now the above statement is shocking. Having read Arminius’s works, I’ve come to understand that Arminius NOT ONCE ever said what Chuck Smith accuses him of. This is a gross misinterpretation of what Arminius said.
To show the absurdity of Chuck Smith’s comment, let’s read Arminius’s actual words:
“In his lapsed and sinful state, MAN IS NOT CAPABLE, OF AND BY HIMSELF, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ though the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet NOT WITHOUT THE CONTINUED AIDS OF DIVINE GRACE” (Arminius, “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius,” Works of Arminius, 1:659-60).
Regarding Arminius, Roger Olson writes:
“He [Arminius] was optimistic about grace, not about human nature! Because of his belief in the fallen human condition of spiritual helplessness and bondage of the will Arminius attributed everything salvation to grace” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 143).
This is what Arminius had to say about free will:
“Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. That I MAY NOT BE SAID, LIKE PELAGIUS, to practice delusion with regard to the word ‘Grace,’ I mean by it that which is the Grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration...I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, THAT HIS WILL IS STUBBORN AND DISOBEDIENT, and that THE MAN HIMSELF IS DEAD IN SINS” (Arminius, “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A Collibus,” Works of Arminius, 2:700-701).
Notice here in this quote that Arminius separates himself from Pelagius. And I think so many people (like Chuck Smith above), confuse Arminius with Pelagius. Smith’s quote above matches Pelagius, according to Roger Olson:
“In A.D. 431 Pelagianism was condemned in Ephesus by the third ecumenical council of Christianity because it affirmed NATURAL AND MORAL HUMAN ABILITY TO DO GOD’S WILL APART FROM THE SPECIAL OPERATION OF DIVINE GRACE. Arminius rejected this teaching, and so do all of his faithful followers” (“Arminian Theology,” 81).
Olson had this to say about semi-Pelagianism:
“Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the Second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 because IT AFFIRMED HUMAN ABILITY TO EXERCISE A GOOD WILL TOWARD GOD APART FROM SPECIAL ASSISTANCE OF DIVINE GRACE; IT PLACES THE INITIATIVE IN SALVATION ON THE HUMAN SIDE, but Scripture places it on the divine side. Arminius also rejected semi-Pelagianism, as have all of his faithful followers. Arminians consider both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism heresies” (“Arminian Theology,” 81).
“The natural and moral human ability to do God’s will apart from grace” is the teaching of Pelagius, NOT Arminius! Therefore, when Chuck Smith quotes what he believes to be Arminianism above (“Arminius believed that THE FALL OF MAN WAS NOT TOTAL, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation”), he is, in actuality, quoting Pelagianism (“natural and moral human ability to do God’s will apart from the special operation of divine grace”).
And what’s so saddening is that so many people just gullibly believe whatever they are told from pastors, church members, theologians, etc., without studying such material for themselves. And chances are, members of Calvary Chapel (no matter where), have read this statement and said, “my theology is just somewhere in the middle.” What they didn’t understand was that Chuck Smith got Arminianism wrong! He claimed something about Arminianism that shows he has failed to read one single article of Arminius’s “Works.” And the impression he gives in his article is one that most Calvinists (and lay people) seem to believe: that Arminianism and Pelagianism are synonyms.
Why is there this need to make Arminianism look ugly? And why did writers David Allen and Steve Lemke feel the need to assert the fact that none of the contributors to the work “Whosoever Will” are Arminian? Arminianism has been mistreated, abused, and misrepresented in the name of those who seek to win many people to Calvinist theology.
Most people have listened to the misrepresentations and said, “Well if that’s Arminianism, then I’d rather be Calvinist.” And I don’t blame them: if I had to choose between Pelagianism and Calvinism, I would be Calvinist, too. However, there’s a problem: Pelagianism is not the only option outside of Calvinism---Classical Arminianism is...and I deem it to be the “middle ground” (for lack of a better term) or the “mediator” of the two extreme theologies (Calvinism and Pelagianism). And along those lines, I will talk about how Classical Arminianism lines up among top theologies in my next post.
(http://biblefacts.org/church/CalvinismVsArminianism%20.pdf)
View the file above if possible. Some of the critiques of Chuck Smith’s remarks will be made in this post, and I want you, the reader, to look at the misconceptions Chuck Smith has regarding Arminius and Arminian theology. I want to do this so as to present my post as theologically honest (which is what I always aim for when presenting problems with opposing arguments).
Chuck Smith presents what he believes to be the theological systems of Calvinism and Arminianism.I read over his presentation of Calvinism, and I would say that he gets Calvinism right---down to all five tenets of it! When it gets to Arminianism, however, he makes his biggest mistakes.
Look at his version of “free will” in the Arminian system:
“Arminius believed that THE FALL OF MAN WAS NOT TOTAL, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.”
Now the above statement is shocking. Having read Arminius’s works, I’ve come to understand that Arminius NOT ONCE ever said what Chuck Smith accuses him of. This is a gross misinterpretation of what Arminius said.
To show the absurdity of Chuck Smith’s comment, let’s read Arminius’s actual words:
“In his lapsed and sinful state, MAN IS NOT CAPABLE, OF AND BY HIMSELF, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ though the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet NOT WITHOUT THE CONTINUED AIDS OF DIVINE GRACE” (Arminius, “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius,” Works of Arminius, 1:659-60).
Regarding Arminius, Roger Olson writes:
“He [Arminius] was optimistic about grace, not about human nature! Because of his belief in the fallen human condition of spiritual helplessness and bondage of the will Arminius attributed everything salvation to grace” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 143).
This is what Arminius had to say about free will:
“Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. That I MAY NOT BE SAID, LIKE PELAGIUS, to practice delusion with regard to the word ‘Grace,’ I mean by it that which is the Grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration...I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, THAT HIS WILL IS STUBBORN AND DISOBEDIENT, and that THE MAN HIMSELF IS DEAD IN SINS” (Arminius, “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A Collibus,” Works of Arminius, 2:700-701).
Notice here in this quote that Arminius separates himself from Pelagius. And I think so many people (like Chuck Smith above), confuse Arminius with Pelagius. Smith’s quote above matches Pelagius, according to Roger Olson:
“In A.D. 431 Pelagianism was condemned in Ephesus by the third ecumenical council of Christianity because it affirmed NATURAL AND MORAL HUMAN ABILITY TO DO GOD’S WILL APART FROM THE SPECIAL OPERATION OF DIVINE GRACE. Arminius rejected this teaching, and so do all of his faithful followers” (“Arminian Theology,” 81).
Olson had this to say about semi-Pelagianism:
“Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the Second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 because IT AFFIRMED HUMAN ABILITY TO EXERCISE A GOOD WILL TOWARD GOD APART FROM SPECIAL ASSISTANCE OF DIVINE GRACE; IT PLACES THE INITIATIVE IN SALVATION ON THE HUMAN SIDE, but Scripture places it on the divine side. Arminius also rejected semi-Pelagianism, as have all of his faithful followers. Arminians consider both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism heresies” (“Arminian Theology,” 81).
“The natural and moral human ability to do God’s will apart from grace” is the teaching of Pelagius, NOT Arminius! Therefore, when Chuck Smith quotes what he believes to be Arminianism above (“Arminius believed that THE FALL OF MAN WAS NOT TOTAL, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation”), he is, in actuality, quoting Pelagianism (“natural and moral human ability to do God’s will apart from the special operation of divine grace”).
And what’s so saddening is that so many people just gullibly believe whatever they are told from pastors, church members, theologians, etc., without studying such material for themselves. And chances are, members of Calvary Chapel (no matter where), have read this statement and said, “my theology is just somewhere in the middle.” What they didn’t understand was that Chuck Smith got Arminianism wrong! He claimed something about Arminianism that shows he has failed to read one single article of Arminius’s “Works.” And the impression he gives in his article is one that most Calvinists (and lay people) seem to believe: that Arminianism and Pelagianism are synonyms.
Why is there this need to make Arminianism look ugly? And why did writers David Allen and Steve Lemke feel the need to assert the fact that none of the contributors to the work “Whosoever Will” are Arminian? Arminianism has been mistreated, abused, and misrepresented in the name of those who seek to win many people to Calvinist theology.
Most people have listened to the misrepresentations and said, “Well if that’s Arminianism, then I’d rather be Calvinist.” And I don’t blame them: if I had to choose between Pelagianism and Calvinism, I would be Calvinist, too. However, there’s a problem: Pelagianism is not the only option outside of Calvinism---Classical Arminianism is...and I deem it to be the “middle ground” (for lack of a better term) or the “mediator” of the two extreme theologies (Calvinism and Pelagianism). And along those lines, I will talk about how Classical Arminianism lines up among top theologies in my next post.
Friday, March 5, 2010
"Somewhere In The Middle," Part I: The Need for Consistent Theology
I went in the LifeWay store at my institution today, and took a look around at the new books there. Normally, I wait until about 2 weeks after my last visit to make a new appearance in the bookstore. Believe it or not, there are always new books coming in...and every time I visit, there is at least one book that I start to covet and have to fight the urge to buy...
So today’s book that stood out to me, among quite a few, was the new book “Whosoever Will,” which is a book out of the “John 3:16” conference. Dr. Ken Keathley, as well as Dr. Paige Patterson (now president of Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas), as well as Dr. Richard Land, Jimmy Vines, Jeremy Evans and Dr. Bruce Little (both professors at Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC), and a few others.
This book is titled (in full), “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique Of Five-Point Calvinism,” by the authors David Allen and Steve Lemke. The book has not made it out to Amazon.com yet or any of the other stores, but it is present in the LifeWay here...and probably in the other Southern Baptist seminaries across the country. To say the least, it’s moments like these that make me so thankful to be at Southeastern!!!
I’m in LifeWay, I see that the book is finally out (I knew about it in advance), so I pick it up---and the first thing I did (as I do with all new books that intrigue me) is I read the table of contents. I discovered that some Southeastern professors had contributed to the volume (that always excites me). Then, I read through some of the introduction.
There were two things that stood out to me. First, what surprised me the most (and made my heart glad) was to discover that David Allen and Steve Lemke properly categorized Arminianism, and placed it within its proper historical camp. The writers make it clear that Arminius and the Remonstrants (his followers) were Reformed in their theology---that they were “Calvinists,” which is the term they used. I don’t know if I agree with the label; but the point that Allen and Lemke were getting at is that Arminian theology, flowing from Arminius and his followers, was as Reformed as Calvinist theology. And to that, I say, “AMEN”!!!!
I was so relieved (that’s the word) to discover that these men knew how to rightly categorize Arminius and his theology. Praise the Lord for these men and their work!
But then, they said something else that quite naturally affected me: while these men don’t agree with five-point Calvinism, they also don’t agree with Arminian theology, either!!!
Now, let me say this before I get attacked: I am not one of these “theological crazies” that gets flustered if people don’t agree with my theology. I am not the first (nor last) authority, nor ANY authority whatsoever, when it comes to sound theology. I write and say the things that I do because of the reading and research I have done...not because I think I am a voice in the world.
So it’s fine if they do not accept Arminian theology. But what bothers me is that they accept “none” of Arminian theology, but “some” of Calvinist theology. The writers stated that they remain in the middle when it comes to the two theologies. The opinion of the writers is that, while they accept some Calvinist theology, they cannot accept all five tenets of Calvinism.
But this is inconsistent. The five points of Calvinism all connect into one coherent system. If one affirms the Calvinist definition of total depravity [T] (as being “dead,” unable to do any good whatsoever), then God must “unconditionally” elect (“U” for “unconditional election”) whoever will be saved. If God chooses the number of the saved, then He will only die for those He chose (hence, “L” for “Limited Atonement”). In order to get these specific persons to Himself, God will “irresistibly” win them over by “Irresistible Grace” (“I”). The “P,” which stands for “Perseverance of the Saints,” states that the elect will infallibly persevere, since God elected them. If God elected these persons, then they cannot completely go astray in their salvation. God will not allow them to because He has “fixed” the outcome---and such persons will endure to the end because God has declared it to be so.
But, the moment that you start tampering with, for example, “Limited Atonement,” and declare that “Jesus died for all,” then you’ve ruined the Calvinist system. If Jesus died for all, then everyone must receive an equal opportunity to be saved. How could Jesus have died for people who will never get an opportunity to accept Him? If Jesus died for all, then all must have access to the atoning blood of Christ---which means then, that God cannot “unconditionally elect” certain persons, or use “irresistible grace” (since not everyone accepts the work of Christ). In addition, even those who are now in Christ rejected the grace of God at numerous times in their lives (me included). This truth of experience testifies to the fact that God’s grace is NOT irresistible. God’s grace can be (and often is) resisted.
So to say like the writers that, “We hold to some of the five tenets but not all” is really to say, “we don’t hold to any of them.” The reason is that, if you deny one tenet, you’ve denied them all. As offensive as this may sound to Baptists and Calvinists everywhere, this is the truth. I am just this bold when it comes to my fellow four-point Arminians. I believe that those who hold to four-point Arminianism (but argue unconditional eternal security) are inconsistent in their theology. And I still don’t understand how Israel could forfeit their residence in the Promised Land, but we can’t forfeit the eternal inheritance!
So I’m not just calling out Calvinists on that one; I’m also calling out fellow Arminians who want to claim that they cannot hold to the fifth tenet of Arminian theology. I may upset some of my fellow Arminians with that one, but this is a risk I am willing to take.
So, if “four-point,” “three-point,” “two-point,” and “one-point Calvinism” will not work, then neither will “four-point Arminianism.” It’s either all five points of Calvin, or all five points of Arminius. As Roger Olson states:
“It is not unusual in evangelical circles to hear sincere and well-intentioned Christians declare themselves ‘Calminians,’ a combination of Calvinist and Arminian. I have encountered this claim numerous times when presenting Calvinism and Arminianism to classes in colleges, seminaries or churches. Often students ask, ‘Why can’t there be a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism?’ To which someone replies, ‘There is---it’s called “Calminianism!” A sincere desire to bridge the gulf that has caused so much conflict underlies this misconception. By no means should the desire for unity be belittled; it is admirable even though its fulfillment is, in this case, impossible” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pp. 61-62).
Many of the above called out systems (one-point, two-point, three-point, and four-point Calvinism...plus four-point Arminianism) all attempt to create some form of “Calminian” theology. If both Calvinist and Arminian systems are mutually exclusive, then only one of them can be right; and no “mosaic” forms of “hodge-podge theology” will suffice.
I will continue this mini-series with an often-quoted misconception in my next post.
So today’s book that stood out to me, among quite a few, was the new book “Whosoever Will,” which is a book out of the “John 3:16” conference. Dr. Ken Keathley, as well as Dr. Paige Patterson (now president of Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas), as well as Dr. Richard Land, Jimmy Vines, Jeremy Evans and Dr. Bruce Little (both professors at Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC), and a few others.
This book is titled (in full), “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique Of Five-Point Calvinism,” by the authors David Allen and Steve Lemke. The book has not made it out to Amazon.com yet or any of the other stores, but it is present in the LifeWay here...and probably in the other Southern Baptist seminaries across the country. To say the least, it’s moments like these that make me so thankful to be at Southeastern!!!
I’m in LifeWay, I see that the book is finally out (I knew about it in advance), so I pick it up---and the first thing I did (as I do with all new books that intrigue me) is I read the table of contents. I discovered that some Southeastern professors had contributed to the volume (that always excites me). Then, I read through some of the introduction.
There were two things that stood out to me. First, what surprised me the most (and made my heart glad) was to discover that David Allen and Steve Lemke properly categorized Arminianism, and placed it within its proper historical camp. The writers make it clear that Arminius and the Remonstrants (his followers) were Reformed in their theology---that they were “Calvinists,” which is the term they used. I don’t know if I agree with the label; but the point that Allen and Lemke were getting at is that Arminian theology, flowing from Arminius and his followers, was as Reformed as Calvinist theology. And to that, I say, “AMEN”!!!!
I was so relieved (that’s the word) to discover that these men knew how to rightly categorize Arminius and his theology. Praise the Lord for these men and their work!
But then, they said something else that quite naturally affected me: while these men don’t agree with five-point Calvinism, they also don’t agree with Arminian theology, either!!!
Now, let me say this before I get attacked: I am not one of these “theological crazies” that gets flustered if people don’t agree with my theology. I am not the first (nor last) authority, nor ANY authority whatsoever, when it comes to sound theology. I write and say the things that I do because of the reading and research I have done...not because I think I am a voice in the world.
So it’s fine if they do not accept Arminian theology. But what bothers me is that they accept “none” of Arminian theology, but “some” of Calvinist theology. The writers stated that they remain in the middle when it comes to the two theologies. The opinion of the writers is that, while they accept some Calvinist theology, they cannot accept all five tenets of Calvinism.
But this is inconsistent. The five points of Calvinism all connect into one coherent system. If one affirms the Calvinist definition of total depravity [T] (as being “dead,” unable to do any good whatsoever), then God must “unconditionally” elect (“U” for “unconditional election”) whoever will be saved. If God chooses the number of the saved, then He will only die for those He chose (hence, “L” for “Limited Atonement”). In order to get these specific persons to Himself, God will “irresistibly” win them over by “Irresistible Grace” (“I”). The “P,” which stands for “Perseverance of the Saints,” states that the elect will infallibly persevere, since God elected them. If God elected these persons, then they cannot completely go astray in their salvation. God will not allow them to because He has “fixed” the outcome---and such persons will endure to the end because God has declared it to be so.
But, the moment that you start tampering with, for example, “Limited Atonement,” and declare that “Jesus died for all,” then you’ve ruined the Calvinist system. If Jesus died for all, then everyone must receive an equal opportunity to be saved. How could Jesus have died for people who will never get an opportunity to accept Him? If Jesus died for all, then all must have access to the atoning blood of Christ---which means then, that God cannot “unconditionally elect” certain persons, or use “irresistible grace” (since not everyone accepts the work of Christ). In addition, even those who are now in Christ rejected the grace of God at numerous times in their lives (me included). This truth of experience testifies to the fact that God’s grace is NOT irresistible. God’s grace can be (and often is) resisted.
So to say like the writers that, “We hold to some of the five tenets but not all” is really to say, “we don’t hold to any of them.” The reason is that, if you deny one tenet, you’ve denied them all. As offensive as this may sound to Baptists and Calvinists everywhere, this is the truth. I am just this bold when it comes to my fellow four-point Arminians. I believe that those who hold to four-point Arminianism (but argue unconditional eternal security) are inconsistent in their theology. And I still don’t understand how Israel could forfeit their residence in the Promised Land, but we can’t forfeit the eternal inheritance!
So I’m not just calling out Calvinists on that one; I’m also calling out fellow Arminians who want to claim that they cannot hold to the fifth tenet of Arminian theology. I may upset some of my fellow Arminians with that one, but this is a risk I am willing to take.
So, if “four-point,” “three-point,” “two-point,” and “one-point Calvinism” will not work, then neither will “four-point Arminianism.” It’s either all five points of Calvin, or all five points of Arminius. As Roger Olson states:
“It is not unusual in evangelical circles to hear sincere and well-intentioned Christians declare themselves ‘Calminians,’ a combination of Calvinist and Arminian. I have encountered this claim numerous times when presenting Calvinism and Arminianism to classes in colleges, seminaries or churches. Often students ask, ‘Why can’t there be a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism?’ To which someone replies, ‘There is---it’s called “Calminianism!” A sincere desire to bridge the gulf that has caused so much conflict underlies this misconception. By no means should the desire for unity be belittled; it is admirable even though its fulfillment is, in this case, impossible” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pp. 61-62).
Many of the above called out systems (one-point, two-point, three-point, and four-point Calvinism...plus four-point Arminianism) all attempt to create some form of “Calminian” theology. If both Calvinist and Arminian systems are mutually exclusive, then only one of them can be right; and no “mosaic” forms of “hodge-podge theology” will suffice.
I will continue this mini-series with an often-quoted misconception in my next post.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The "Paradox" of Classical Arminianism
“The upshot is that classical Arminianism may involve a PARADOX: God’s exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge (simple foreknowledge) together with libertarian free will” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, 198-199).
I stumbled over Olson’s quote above a few days ago while rereading through some of Olson’s “Arminian Theology” once more. And then, on the same pages as the labeling of Classical Arminianism as “paradoxical,” came these words in a footnote:
“Some readers may wonder if I am affirming a logical contradiction here. I am not intentionally and certainly not comfortably doing so. I acknowledge a difficulty but am not convinced it is a sheer contradiction... I FEEL THE WEIGHT OF THE OPEN THEIST CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL ARMINIANISM...” (199).
Olson states that to some, the idea of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s libertarian freedom seems to be a “logical contradiction,” although he doesn’t seem to believe it is. And secondly, Olson also notes that he is quite aware of the Open Theist attack of Classical Arminianism.
Bruce Ware gives an example to show what he perceives to also be the Classical Arminian dilemma:
“For example, if God knows that later today Carl will take his family to the Oyster Bar restaurant for dinner and order a shrimp salad, then it must be the case that Carl will do just this and he may not choose differently. That is, because God knows this to be the case, and because GOD’S KNOWLEDGE BY DEFINITION IS INFALLIBLE, it follows that Carl will choose and do precisely and only as God knows he will. BUT IF THIS IS SO, THEN CARL IS NOT IN A POSITION IN WHICH HE COULD CHOOSE CONTRARY TO GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE. That is, he is not in which he could choose instead to eat by himself, or to take his family to Rose’s, or to eat leftovers at home and save the money. In other words, it appears that Carl is not able to choose differently than he will in fact choose, and if this is the case, then he does not choose freely. TRUE FREEDOM IN THE CLASSICAL ARMINIAN MODEL REQUIRES THE ABILITY, all things being just what they are, TO CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY THAN ONE DOES. But all things being just what they are, including God’s foreknowledge being just what it is, Carl must choose what God knows he will choose. Hence, he is not able to choose differently. And hence, he is not free. The challenge from open theism to other Arminians is simple: COMPREHENSIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOTIONS. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH TOGETHER. So, if you value libertarian freedom (as classical Arminianism clearly does), then you must be willing to give up your commitment to comprehensive divine foreknowledge” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000, page 36).
In bold terms, Ware comes right out and states the problem Open Theists have with their fellow Arminian (Reformed) brethren: “Comprehensive divine foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are mutually exclusive notions.” And this is what Roger Olson labels as the “paradox” of Classical Arminianism.
But what would you, the reader say, if I told you that both exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are not “mutually exclusive notions”? To see this truth, let’s look at the story of David, Saul, and the men of Keilah again in 1 Samuel 23:10-13.
I wanna take some time to point out the features of this passage that are pertinent to our discussion.
First, notice that the Lord’s words to David indicate foreknowledge. The Lord told David, “He will come down”(1 Sam. 23:11), referring to Saul (v.13), and “they will deliver you” (v.12), referring to the men of Keilah. Saul had indeed planned to enter Keilah and get David, which is demonstrated by the fact that “he halted the expedition” (v.13). This eliminates the validity of the Open Theist position, which states that God doesn’t know something before it happens. Here, God knew what Saul was doing before Saul even did it (that is, before Saul came to Keilah).
Next, look at how real David’s libertarian freedom is: even though God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, he escapes and Saul doesn’t even arrive in Keilah (v.13).
But this last statement poses a problem for those who believe divine foreknowledge and true libertarian freedom exists. God reveals His foreknowledge to David, but David is allowed to act AGAINST that which God has told him. God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, but David ends up hiding in such a manner that Saul cannot find him.
How do we account for God’s foreknowledge here? The Open Theist would say, “See, God doesn’t get everything right. He forecasted the future wrong on this one.” However, I would disagree. Because the Bible seems to affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge everywhere (cf. Psalm 139), I would say that God’s words to David here are correct. What God tells David is true (Saul really is looking to make his way to Keilah and capture David). And Saul would have done that very thing---IF God’s words to David revealed a PREDETERMINED action! However, they do not, for David is allowed to escape the hand of Saul. David gets to exercise GENUINE CHOICE here; libertarian freedom, as a result, is not an illusion---but a very present reality. Therefore, any theology we hold to must emphasize true, genuine choice, not a choice that turns out to be “predetermined.” It is for this reason that many theologies are wrong. If we are gonna hold to a truly biblical theology, we cannot undermine true libertarian freedom in order to uphold what we believe to be God’s sovereignty. If God is sovereign, surely He can be sovereign DESPITE our choices---and He doesn’t have to “manipulate” us in any situation whatsoever to have His purposes accomplished.
Now, to the paradox. According to Bruce Ware’s comments above regarding the Open Theist critique of Classical Arminianism, we find that there seems to be some “tension” between God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s true libertarian freedom. If God foreknows everything, and what He knows will happen, how is it that man can do OTHER THAN what God already knows? If God already knows what a person will do, aren’t that person’s choices predetermined? The Open Theist tells us, “if you wanna hold on to freedom, get rid of God’s foreknowledge.”
But there is a problem with the Open Theist’s answer. If God is all-powerful, and gives man power to make decisions, then to take away sovereignty from God (foreknowledge) means to take away responsibility from man. Man doesn’t have more responsibility without God’s foreknowledge---but less. This is why taking away God’s foreknowledge is not a good idea. Our power of choice is derived from God. If God is not sovereign, then man does not have free choice (and therefore, he has no responsibility as well). To use the Open Theist attack against the Open Theist, “Open Theists cannot have it both ways.”
Looking at 1 Samuel 23, we find then, that God reveals what He knows to David regarding his immediate future. However, how do we handle the fact that God tells David something that DOES NOT COME TO PASS? God has to be telling the truth, right? Yes. God is telling the truth. But if He’s telling the truth regarding David and yet, David ends up in a different scenario, then God must know that too, right? Yep. So God then possesses two different types of knowledge--- He knows what does happen, as well as “what COULD happen.” “Could” is a conditional statement, which means that true libertarian freedom is present here. When God tells David “He [Saul] will come down” and “they [men of Keilah] will deliver you,” the Lord is saying that, BASED ON DAVID’S ACTION, either Saul could get David or not. It wasn’t of necessity, but certainty (a contingent certainty depending on David’s action in the situation). At the moment God told David, David had a real genuine choice and could make a real, genuine decision about what to do. 1 Samuel 23, then, presents us with not only genuine choice of human beings (David specifically here), but also God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.
But what about Olson’s label of Classical Arminianism as containing a “paradox”? The paradox involves divine foreknowledge. The paradox is solvable, but Olson denies help when he writes the following:
“MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE IS NO HELP because it assumes the possibility of counterfactuals of freedom and leads to determinism” (“Arminian Theology,” page 199).
How else can we explain 1 Samuel 23? Both God’s foreknowledge and human libertarian freedom were demonstrated. We can’t explain away the "seeming" determinism if all God knows is exactly what happens. 1 Samuel 23 does not lie under the label “David experiences EXACTLY WHAT GOD FOREKNOWS.” In fact, David does not experience what God foreknows; rather, he is able to change the course of events and make a choice that denies God’s prophecy from coming about. To account for God’s foreknowledge (His knowledge of David’s future was contingent knowledge based upon David’s choice), we must affirm middle knowledge---which is the very thing Olson denies!
In addition, Olson notes that “middle knowledge...leads to determinism.” I think this is a problematic statement for the simple reason that if you talk to any Molinist, they will tell you that Christians can affirm middle knowledge WITHOUT being Molinist in their theology. Thomas Flint affirms the same:
“Though the terminology of natural and free knowledge is Molinist, it is important to remember that we have thus far said nothing with which any traditionalist could reasonably take issue. No sensible proponent of that view could deny that some truths are necessary, and hence not such that God could choose to make them false; therefore, no such proponent could deny that some of God’s knowledge is natural. Nor could any such advocate plausibly deny that some truths are contingent, and that their truth is dependent upon God’s having freely chosen to act in a certain way; hence, no such advocate could deny that some of God’s foreknowledge is free. Our employment of Molinist language...should not mislead one into thinking that anything thus far affirmed would be controversial within the traditionalist camp” (Thomas Flint, “Divine Providence: The Molinist Account.” Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998, page 38).
Therefore, one can be Classical Arminian and still affirm middle knowledge---without leading to determinism or even Molinism. Arminius himself held to a certain Middle Knowledge. With regards to Arminius, I will discuss his view of scientia media (middle knowledge) in my next post.
I stumbled over Olson’s quote above a few days ago while rereading through some of Olson’s “Arminian Theology” once more. And then, on the same pages as the labeling of Classical Arminianism as “paradoxical,” came these words in a footnote:
“Some readers may wonder if I am affirming a logical contradiction here. I am not intentionally and certainly not comfortably doing so. I acknowledge a difficulty but am not convinced it is a sheer contradiction... I FEEL THE WEIGHT OF THE OPEN THEIST CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL ARMINIANISM...” (199).
Olson states that to some, the idea of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s libertarian freedom seems to be a “logical contradiction,” although he doesn’t seem to believe it is. And secondly, Olson also notes that he is quite aware of the Open Theist attack of Classical Arminianism.
Bruce Ware gives an example to show what he perceives to also be the Classical Arminian dilemma:
“For example, if God knows that later today Carl will take his family to the Oyster Bar restaurant for dinner and order a shrimp salad, then it must be the case that Carl will do just this and he may not choose differently. That is, because God knows this to be the case, and because GOD’S KNOWLEDGE BY DEFINITION IS INFALLIBLE, it follows that Carl will choose and do precisely and only as God knows he will. BUT IF THIS IS SO, THEN CARL IS NOT IN A POSITION IN WHICH HE COULD CHOOSE CONTRARY TO GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE. That is, he is not in which he could choose instead to eat by himself, or to take his family to Rose’s, or to eat leftovers at home and save the money. In other words, it appears that Carl is not able to choose differently than he will in fact choose, and if this is the case, then he does not choose freely. TRUE FREEDOM IN THE CLASSICAL ARMINIAN MODEL REQUIRES THE ABILITY, all things being just what they are, TO CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY THAN ONE DOES. But all things being just what they are, including God’s foreknowledge being just what it is, Carl must choose what God knows he will choose. Hence, he is not able to choose differently. And hence, he is not free. The challenge from open theism to other Arminians is simple: COMPREHENSIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOTIONS. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH TOGETHER. So, if you value libertarian freedom (as classical Arminianism clearly does), then you must be willing to give up your commitment to comprehensive divine foreknowledge” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000, page 36).
In bold terms, Ware comes right out and states the problem Open Theists have with their fellow Arminian (Reformed) brethren: “Comprehensive divine foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are mutually exclusive notions.” And this is what Roger Olson labels as the “paradox” of Classical Arminianism.
But what would you, the reader say, if I told you that both exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are not “mutually exclusive notions”? To see this truth, let’s look at the story of David, Saul, and the men of Keilah again in 1 Samuel 23:10-13.
I wanna take some time to point out the features of this passage that are pertinent to our discussion.
First, notice that the Lord’s words to David indicate foreknowledge. The Lord told David, “He will come down”(1 Sam. 23:11), referring to Saul (v.13), and “they will deliver you” (v.12), referring to the men of Keilah. Saul had indeed planned to enter Keilah and get David, which is demonstrated by the fact that “he halted the expedition” (v.13). This eliminates the validity of the Open Theist position, which states that God doesn’t know something before it happens. Here, God knew what Saul was doing before Saul even did it (that is, before Saul came to Keilah).
Next, look at how real David’s libertarian freedom is: even though God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, he escapes and Saul doesn’t even arrive in Keilah (v.13).
But this last statement poses a problem for those who believe divine foreknowledge and true libertarian freedom exists. God reveals His foreknowledge to David, but David is allowed to act AGAINST that which God has told him. God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, but David ends up hiding in such a manner that Saul cannot find him.
How do we account for God’s foreknowledge here? The Open Theist would say, “See, God doesn’t get everything right. He forecasted the future wrong on this one.” However, I would disagree. Because the Bible seems to affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge everywhere (cf. Psalm 139), I would say that God’s words to David here are correct. What God tells David is true (Saul really is looking to make his way to Keilah and capture David). And Saul would have done that very thing---IF God’s words to David revealed a PREDETERMINED action! However, they do not, for David is allowed to escape the hand of Saul. David gets to exercise GENUINE CHOICE here; libertarian freedom, as a result, is not an illusion---but a very present reality. Therefore, any theology we hold to must emphasize true, genuine choice, not a choice that turns out to be “predetermined.” It is for this reason that many theologies are wrong. If we are gonna hold to a truly biblical theology, we cannot undermine true libertarian freedom in order to uphold what we believe to be God’s sovereignty. If God is sovereign, surely He can be sovereign DESPITE our choices---and He doesn’t have to “manipulate” us in any situation whatsoever to have His purposes accomplished.
Now, to the paradox. According to Bruce Ware’s comments above regarding the Open Theist critique of Classical Arminianism, we find that there seems to be some “tension” between God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s true libertarian freedom. If God foreknows everything, and what He knows will happen, how is it that man can do OTHER THAN what God already knows? If God already knows what a person will do, aren’t that person’s choices predetermined? The Open Theist tells us, “if you wanna hold on to freedom, get rid of God’s foreknowledge.”
But there is a problem with the Open Theist’s answer. If God is all-powerful, and gives man power to make decisions, then to take away sovereignty from God (foreknowledge) means to take away responsibility from man. Man doesn’t have more responsibility without God’s foreknowledge---but less. This is why taking away God’s foreknowledge is not a good idea. Our power of choice is derived from God. If God is not sovereign, then man does not have free choice (and therefore, he has no responsibility as well). To use the Open Theist attack against the Open Theist, “Open Theists cannot have it both ways.”
Looking at 1 Samuel 23, we find then, that God reveals what He knows to David regarding his immediate future. However, how do we handle the fact that God tells David something that DOES NOT COME TO PASS? God has to be telling the truth, right? Yes. God is telling the truth. But if He’s telling the truth regarding David and yet, David ends up in a different scenario, then God must know that too, right? Yep. So God then possesses two different types of knowledge--- He knows what does happen, as well as “what COULD happen.” “Could” is a conditional statement, which means that true libertarian freedom is present here. When God tells David “He [Saul] will come down” and “they [men of Keilah] will deliver you,” the Lord is saying that, BASED ON DAVID’S ACTION, either Saul could get David or not. It wasn’t of necessity, but certainty (a contingent certainty depending on David’s action in the situation). At the moment God told David, David had a real genuine choice and could make a real, genuine decision about what to do. 1 Samuel 23, then, presents us with not only genuine choice of human beings (David specifically here), but also God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.
But what about Olson’s label of Classical Arminianism as containing a “paradox”? The paradox involves divine foreknowledge. The paradox is solvable, but Olson denies help when he writes the following:
“MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE IS NO HELP because it assumes the possibility of counterfactuals of freedom and leads to determinism” (“Arminian Theology,” page 199).
How else can we explain 1 Samuel 23? Both God’s foreknowledge and human libertarian freedom were demonstrated. We can’t explain away the "seeming" determinism if all God knows is exactly what happens. 1 Samuel 23 does not lie under the label “David experiences EXACTLY WHAT GOD FOREKNOWS.” In fact, David does not experience what God foreknows; rather, he is able to change the course of events and make a choice that denies God’s prophecy from coming about. To account for God’s foreknowledge (His knowledge of David’s future was contingent knowledge based upon David’s choice), we must affirm middle knowledge---which is the very thing Olson denies!
In addition, Olson notes that “middle knowledge...leads to determinism.” I think this is a problematic statement for the simple reason that if you talk to any Molinist, they will tell you that Christians can affirm middle knowledge WITHOUT being Molinist in their theology. Thomas Flint affirms the same:
“Though the terminology of natural and free knowledge is Molinist, it is important to remember that we have thus far said nothing with which any traditionalist could reasonably take issue. No sensible proponent of that view could deny that some truths are necessary, and hence not such that God could choose to make them false; therefore, no such proponent could deny that some of God’s knowledge is natural. Nor could any such advocate plausibly deny that some truths are contingent, and that their truth is dependent upon God’s having freely chosen to act in a certain way; hence, no such advocate could deny that some of God’s foreknowledge is free. Our employment of Molinist language...should not mislead one into thinking that anything thus far affirmed would be controversial within the traditionalist camp” (Thomas Flint, “Divine Providence: The Molinist Account.” Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998, page 38).
Therefore, one can be Classical Arminian and still affirm middle knowledge---without leading to determinism or even Molinism. Arminius himself held to a certain Middle Knowledge. With regards to Arminius, I will discuss his view of scientia media (middle knowledge) in my next post.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
True Investigation
“A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an OPTIMISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY. And yet even some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit that they share significant common ground with it. ‘Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, EVERY ASPECT of human nature is tainted by sin.’
In his ‘Public Disputations’ the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam’s fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will SURVIVED THE FALL INTACT” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 55-56).
Olson’s work on Arminian Theology is all about providing myth-busters: doing away with wrong preconceived notions about Arminius and his doctrine. And one of the claims that has been made about Arminianism is that it is man-centered.
I have been tutoring a friend for a few days now, and she is the product of a Calvinist upbringing. What stumps her the most in Arminianism is, “How can God have sovereignty and yet, humans have power in free will?” She also doesn’t like to use the words “free will” and struggles to see how both God’s sovereignty and man’s choice exist at the same time.
I choose, however, to see the concept this way. It’s very similar to the parable told by Jesus of the servants and the talents.
14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. (D) He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; [c] to another, two; and to another, one—to each according to his own ability. Then he went on a journey. (E (Matt. 25:14-15, HCSB)
In this parable, a man is going away for a while, so he turns over his possessions to his servants. Evidently, the man is going to be gone for a long while, so he entrusts his servants with his things until he gets back.
The fact that the servants receive their Master’s possessions does not overrule the ownership of those possessions. The Master STILL OWNS THEM, even if he gives them to the servants. His ownership over the possessions is the reason why he is able to reward the faithful servants and condemn the lazy one when he returns (vv.19-30).
It’s the same way with an owner of a store, who entrusts the care of the store to the manager. The manager may have a lot of power, but he doesn’t have as much as the owner. The manager, then, is an assistant to the owner. He is a helper, one who is in charge of overseeing all that happens in the store. If the manager allows things to get out of control, then he will have to answer to the owner. Despite the manager’s control, the owner still has sovereignty, or rule, over the store. Why? Because it’s simple: if he doesn’t like the manager, he can fire him today and get somebody new tomorrow.
So, even though God is in control over ALL the universe, He has given man control over THE EARTH! (Gen. 1:26-28) As a result, man now has control over the earth—but God still controls all of creation, including the galaxies, planets, and time and space. When we sit back and think about it, we only get to “manage” one small piece of God’s creation. Beyond our universe, there is SO MUCH MORE to see that remains in the hands of God.
Looking to Arminius, we find that he, like Calvin, believed in the total depravity of man. Man’s every ability was affected by the Fall, such that man cannot in any way choose God of his own will—unless that will be assisted, or helped, by God’s grace. So grace is needed to “free” man’s will so that he is able to choose God. In the words of Arminius:
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
After Adam and Eve sin in Genesis 3, man’s will becomes bent towards all kinds of evil. We see this with Cain:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you FURIOUS? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, SIN IS CROUCHING AT THE DOOR. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT” (Gen. 4:6-7, HCSB).
Notice that now, sin has become a powerful force in the human heart, such that God has to warn Cain about the consequences of his jealous thoughts. We know Cain is upset because the Lord asks him why he is furious. Next, he tells us of the power of sin: “Sin is crouching at the door.”
When I think of someone “crouching” at the door, I think of a frog preparing to jump on someone, or a little kid “hunched down” to surprise his father and sneak up on his back before the father knows what happened. The same image is there for sin. Sin literally was waiting to overtake Cain. However, God told Cain, “Its desire is for you, but YOU MUST MASTER IT.” Although Cain had wrong feelings in his heart, God let him know that he could control his response to those feelings—by not preparing to do what was already in his heart.
What does Cain do, instead? He kills Abel and is banished from his family. He ends up living as a fugitive until he dies, although he is allowed to have a family (Gen. 4:8-17).
By Genesis 6, we see that sin has spread through all of mankind. Violence and iniquity are so great on the earth that God decrees the Flood:
“Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them” (Gen. 6:7, HCSB).
Why does God decide to wipe man off the face of the earth?
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness WAS WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME,” (Gen.6:5, HCSB).
As the text shows us, evil had increased to such an alarming rate that every thought of man was evil. This is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2, who are able to walk in the Garden with the Creator and enjoy a state of perfection.
Sounds like Arminius had a biblical view of the effects of the Fall on the human will.
But, what about the need for grace, you ask? Arminius’s answer is biblical, as well:
“We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, HCSB).
So the natural man cannot understand the things of God, the spiritual things. In order to understand them, he must have grace given in order to hear the gospel and believe on Christ’s name.
“And you were DEAD in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. WE TOO all previously lived among them in our FLESHLY desires, CARRYING OUT THE INCLINATIONS OF OUR FLESH AND THOUGHTS, and by nature we were children under wrath…But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, MADE US ALIVE with the Messiah EVEN THOUGH WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES” (Eph. 2:1-5, HCSB).
Look at the Ephesians passage above. When we were “dead” in our sins, we lived out “the inclinations of our flesh,” meaning that we did what the flesh was INCLINED, or BENT, to do. Remember Cain from Genesis 4? Well, after Adam and Eve sinned, ALL OF US became inclined to sin, not just Cain. Sin not only crouched at the door of his heart, but ALL OF US.
So then, if man was dead in his sins and was made alive through Christ, how did his “resurrection” come about? “For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8).
So, in order for man to even be able to reach out to God, God had to give him grace and faith. So the process by which man is saved is such that God gives man EVERYTHING he needs to be saved. All God asks man to do is RESPOND with what He has given him. In the same way the Master gave each servant some money to work with when he went away, the Lord expects us to make the most of the grace and faith He has given us. There won’t be any excuse when He returns.
From Arminius’s statement about the human will, it seems that he himself was quite orthodox and Reformed… But sometime, it’s not what the originals say that gets listened to—it’s what the followers say that gets heeded! This happened in Arminius’s case: after he died, a follower of his by the name of Phillip Limborch deviated from the teaching of Arminius:
“For Arminius man is deprived of the ACTUAL ABILITY TO WILL THE GOOD, but for Limborch man is only deprived of the KNOWLEDGE WHICH INFORMS THE INTELLECT, but the will is FULLY CAPABLE within itself…” (John Mark Hicks, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology, 57).
Arminius believed the ability was gone, while Limborch only believed the KNOWLEDGE was gone. For Limborch, which the knowledge would come a renewed ability for the human being before God.
But this is Semi-Pelagianism at its best! And yet, Limborch affirmed the OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, Arminius, affirmed.
And it is Limborch’s view that is followed today:
“Unfortunately, so it seems, many Calvinist critics of Arminianism know only of Limborch’s and Finney’s ideas and are totally unaware of Arminius’s own affirmation of total depravity” (57).
And what Roger Olson seems to be getting at throughout his entire book is the failure of Calvinists to ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND Arminian theology. Calvinists simply don’t take time to investigate Arminian beliefs; for whatever reason, they simply pick extremist Arminians like Limborch and run with them. And this is why Arminianism is called “Man-centered” theology: because, those outside the Arminian camp equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.
All Roger Olson asks for is a true investigation of the facts; and that’s all I’m asking for from the Calvinists—a true investigation of the facts.
In his ‘Public Disputations’ the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam’s fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will SURVIVED THE FALL INTACT” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 55-56).
Olson’s work on Arminian Theology is all about providing myth-busters: doing away with wrong preconceived notions about Arminius and his doctrine. And one of the claims that has been made about Arminianism is that it is man-centered.
I have been tutoring a friend for a few days now, and she is the product of a Calvinist upbringing. What stumps her the most in Arminianism is, “How can God have sovereignty and yet, humans have power in free will?” She also doesn’t like to use the words “free will” and struggles to see how both God’s sovereignty and man’s choice exist at the same time.
I choose, however, to see the concept this way. It’s very similar to the parable told by Jesus of the servants and the talents.
14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. (D) He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; [c] to another, two; and to another, one—to each according to his own ability. Then he went on a journey. (E (Matt. 25:14-15, HCSB)
In this parable, a man is going away for a while, so he turns over his possessions to his servants. Evidently, the man is going to be gone for a long while, so he entrusts his servants with his things until he gets back.
The fact that the servants receive their Master’s possessions does not overrule the ownership of those possessions. The Master STILL OWNS THEM, even if he gives them to the servants. His ownership over the possessions is the reason why he is able to reward the faithful servants and condemn the lazy one when he returns (vv.19-30).
It’s the same way with an owner of a store, who entrusts the care of the store to the manager. The manager may have a lot of power, but he doesn’t have as much as the owner. The manager, then, is an assistant to the owner. He is a helper, one who is in charge of overseeing all that happens in the store. If the manager allows things to get out of control, then he will have to answer to the owner. Despite the manager’s control, the owner still has sovereignty, or rule, over the store. Why? Because it’s simple: if he doesn’t like the manager, he can fire him today and get somebody new tomorrow.
So, even though God is in control over ALL the universe, He has given man control over THE EARTH! (Gen. 1:26-28) As a result, man now has control over the earth—but God still controls all of creation, including the galaxies, planets, and time and space. When we sit back and think about it, we only get to “manage” one small piece of God’s creation. Beyond our universe, there is SO MUCH MORE to see that remains in the hands of God.
Looking to Arminius, we find that he, like Calvin, believed in the total depravity of man. Man’s every ability was affected by the Fall, such that man cannot in any way choose God of his own will—unless that will be assisted, or helped, by God’s grace. So grace is needed to “free” man’s will so that he is able to choose God. In the words of Arminius:
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
After Adam and Eve sin in Genesis 3, man’s will becomes bent towards all kinds of evil. We see this with Cain:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you FURIOUS? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, SIN IS CROUCHING AT THE DOOR. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT” (Gen. 4:6-7, HCSB).
Notice that now, sin has become a powerful force in the human heart, such that God has to warn Cain about the consequences of his jealous thoughts. We know Cain is upset because the Lord asks him why he is furious. Next, he tells us of the power of sin: “Sin is crouching at the door.”
When I think of someone “crouching” at the door, I think of a frog preparing to jump on someone, or a little kid “hunched down” to surprise his father and sneak up on his back before the father knows what happened. The same image is there for sin. Sin literally was waiting to overtake Cain. However, God told Cain, “Its desire is for you, but YOU MUST MASTER IT.” Although Cain had wrong feelings in his heart, God let him know that he could control his response to those feelings—by not preparing to do what was already in his heart.
What does Cain do, instead? He kills Abel and is banished from his family. He ends up living as a fugitive until he dies, although he is allowed to have a family (Gen. 4:8-17).
By Genesis 6, we see that sin has spread through all of mankind. Violence and iniquity are so great on the earth that God decrees the Flood:
“Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them” (Gen. 6:7, HCSB).
Why does God decide to wipe man off the face of the earth?
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness WAS WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME,” (Gen.6:5, HCSB).
As the text shows us, evil had increased to such an alarming rate that every thought of man was evil. This is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2, who are able to walk in the Garden with the Creator and enjoy a state of perfection.
Sounds like Arminius had a biblical view of the effects of the Fall on the human will.
But, what about the need for grace, you ask? Arminius’s answer is biblical, as well:
“We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, HCSB).
So the natural man cannot understand the things of God, the spiritual things. In order to understand them, he must have grace given in order to hear the gospel and believe on Christ’s name.
“And you were DEAD in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. WE TOO all previously lived among them in our FLESHLY desires, CARRYING OUT THE INCLINATIONS OF OUR FLESH AND THOUGHTS, and by nature we were children under wrath…But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, MADE US ALIVE with the Messiah EVEN THOUGH WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES” (Eph. 2:1-5, HCSB).
Look at the Ephesians passage above. When we were “dead” in our sins, we lived out “the inclinations of our flesh,” meaning that we did what the flesh was INCLINED, or BENT, to do. Remember Cain from Genesis 4? Well, after Adam and Eve sinned, ALL OF US became inclined to sin, not just Cain. Sin not only crouched at the door of his heart, but ALL OF US.
So then, if man was dead in his sins and was made alive through Christ, how did his “resurrection” come about? “For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8).
So, in order for man to even be able to reach out to God, God had to give him grace and faith. So the process by which man is saved is such that God gives man EVERYTHING he needs to be saved. All God asks man to do is RESPOND with what He has given him. In the same way the Master gave each servant some money to work with when he went away, the Lord expects us to make the most of the grace and faith He has given us. There won’t be any excuse when He returns.
From Arminius’s statement about the human will, it seems that he himself was quite orthodox and Reformed… But sometime, it’s not what the originals say that gets listened to—it’s what the followers say that gets heeded! This happened in Arminius’s case: after he died, a follower of his by the name of Phillip Limborch deviated from the teaching of Arminius:
“For Arminius man is deprived of the ACTUAL ABILITY TO WILL THE GOOD, but for Limborch man is only deprived of the KNOWLEDGE WHICH INFORMS THE INTELLECT, but the will is FULLY CAPABLE within itself…” (John Mark Hicks, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology, 57).
Arminius believed the ability was gone, while Limborch only believed the KNOWLEDGE was gone. For Limborch, which the knowledge would come a renewed ability for the human being before God.
But this is Semi-Pelagianism at its best! And yet, Limborch affirmed the OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, Arminius, affirmed.
And it is Limborch’s view that is followed today:
“Unfortunately, so it seems, many Calvinist critics of Arminianism know only of Limborch’s and Finney’s ideas and are totally unaware of Arminius’s own affirmation of total depravity” (57).
And what Roger Olson seems to be getting at throughout his entire book is the failure of Calvinists to ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND Arminian theology. Calvinists simply don’t take time to investigate Arminian beliefs; for whatever reason, they simply pick extremist Arminians like Limborch and run with them. And this is why Arminianism is called “Man-centered” theology: because, those outside the Arminian camp equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.
All Roger Olson asks for is a true investigation of the facts; and that’s all I’m asking for from the Calvinists—a true investigation of the facts.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Is Arminianism WITHIN the Reformed Tradition?
I know the title of the post (“Is Arminianism Within the Reformed Tradition?”) is a little scary to people. It assumes something that most people today would scoff at—that Arminianism could actually be Reformed!
Roger Olson tackles this question in his book, “Arminian Theology,” under Myth 1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology.
To find out whether or not Arminianism is Reformed, Olson turned to the Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a biography of Arminius titled “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). In the biography, Bangs says that Arminius was not opposed to everything within the Calvinist belief, but rather tried to show the common beliefs between the two theologies. Olson tells of a myth regarding Arminius:
“One popular story about Arminius is that he was a COMMITTED HIGH CALVINIST until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 47).
Carl Bangs doesn’t believe this story has any proof for it, but he does believe that Arminius believed that he was Reformed:
“According to Bangs, Arminius ALWAYS CONSIDERED himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils” (Olson, 48).
While Arminius believed he was Reformed, he differed from his Calvinist counterparts; his theology, therefore, while Reformed, was also a correction of Calvinist theology:
“Arminianism is a CORRECTION of Reformed theology rather than a DEPARTURE from it. ‘Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.’ The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of STRICT MONERGISM, which many have come to EQUATE WITH REFORMED THEOLOGY ITSELF” (49).
There are many scholars who agree with such a conclusion: Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal; James Luther Adams; Donald Lake; and Howard Slaatte.
To conclude, I’ll leave you with an analysis of Arminius from Howard Slaatte:
“Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a GRACE-QUALIFIED, GRACE-INSPIRED, and GRACE-GUIDED FREEDOM…he can respond to grace freely ONLY as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word” (quoted by Roger Olson, 51).
The Slaatte quote above throws away any attempts to label Arminianism as “man-based” and “work-based.” Faith is something we must demonstrate in order to receive salvation, but we can only do it with the grace that God has given to every man. Ephesians 2:8 says,
“For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST” (Eph. 2:8-9, HCSB).
“Grace” means “free gift,” or, as is commonly believed, “unmerited favor.” The favor of the Lord towards us in salvation is not something we could ever earn. However, we must also demonstrate faith in the work of Christ on the cross—but this faith is also a gift, according to Romans 12, given to EVERY MAN. From Scripture, then, it has been shown that both grace and faith are GIFTS from God, not WORKS from man.
Well then, someone may say, doesn’t that make the work of salvation and subsequent acceptance from God? Well, yes—if you address faith and grace as gifts. But when it comes to APPROPRIATING the atoning work of Christ to our lives, WE are held responsible for utilizing the faith that the Lord has given us (but we can only do this by His grace). His grace is there to demonstrate that we can’t even come to Him unless He first allows us to (that allowance being His Holy Spirit).
So Arminius was reformed…right? Yes he was. So if Arminius was Reformed, then on what basis was he characterized as such?
“According to Bands and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic. While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, THEY DID NOT REQUIRE MINISTERS OR THEOLOGIANS TO ADHERE TO THE TENETS OF THE HIGH CALVINISM BEING DEVELOPED IN GENEVA UNDER BEZA” (48).
It seems then, that the commitment to Calvinism as Reformed today did not exist back in Arminius’s time. With the passing of time, however, Arminianism was shunned as Reformed or anything close to it. Although not seen as Reformed, Arminianism is within the Reformed tradition. Olson levels the playing field with this myth-buster and makes the point that IF someone is gonna attack Arminianism, they can’t claim it to be outside of the Reformed tradition.
Roger Olson tackles this question in his book, “Arminian Theology,” under Myth 1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology.
To find out whether or not Arminianism is Reformed, Olson turned to the Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a biography of Arminius titled “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). In the biography, Bangs says that Arminius was not opposed to everything within the Calvinist belief, but rather tried to show the common beliefs between the two theologies. Olson tells of a myth regarding Arminius:
“One popular story about Arminius is that he was a COMMITTED HIGH CALVINIST until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 47).
Carl Bangs doesn’t believe this story has any proof for it, but he does believe that Arminius believed that he was Reformed:
“According to Bangs, Arminius ALWAYS CONSIDERED himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils” (Olson, 48).
While Arminius believed he was Reformed, he differed from his Calvinist counterparts; his theology, therefore, while Reformed, was also a correction of Calvinist theology:
“Arminianism is a CORRECTION of Reformed theology rather than a DEPARTURE from it. ‘Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.’ The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of STRICT MONERGISM, which many have come to EQUATE WITH REFORMED THEOLOGY ITSELF” (49).
There are many scholars who agree with such a conclusion: Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal; James Luther Adams; Donald Lake; and Howard Slaatte.
To conclude, I’ll leave you with an analysis of Arminius from Howard Slaatte:
“Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a GRACE-QUALIFIED, GRACE-INSPIRED, and GRACE-GUIDED FREEDOM…he can respond to grace freely ONLY as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word” (quoted by Roger Olson, 51).
The Slaatte quote above throws away any attempts to label Arminianism as “man-based” and “work-based.” Faith is something we must demonstrate in order to receive salvation, but we can only do it with the grace that God has given to every man. Ephesians 2:8 says,
“For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST” (Eph. 2:8-9, HCSB).
“Grace” means “free gift,” or, as is commonly believed, “unmerited favor.” The favor of the Lord towards us in salvation is not something we could ever earn. However, we must also demonstrate faith in the work of Christ on the cross—but this faith is also a gift, according to Romans 12, given to EVERY MAN. From Scripture, then, it has been shown that both grace and faith are GIFTS from God, not WORKS from man.
Well then, someone may say, doesn’t that make the work of salvation and subsequent acceptance from God? Well, yes—if you address faith and grace as gifts. But when it comes to APPROPRIATING the atoning work of Christ to our lives, WE are held responsible for utilizing the faith that the Lord has given us (but we can only do this by His grace). His grace is there to demonstrate that we can’t even come to Him unless He first allows us to (that allowance being His Holy Spirit).
So Arminius was reformed…right? Yes he was. So if Arminius was Reformed, then on what basis was he characterized as such?
“According to Bands and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic. While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, THEY DID NOT REQUIRE MINISTERS OR THEOLOGIANS TO ADHERE TO THE TENETS OF THE HIGH CALVINISM BEING DEVELOPED IN GENEVA UNDER BEZA” (48).
It seems then, that the commitment to Calvinism as Reformed today did not exist back in Arminius’s time. With the passing of time, however, Arminianism was shunned as Reformed or anything close to it. Although not seen as Reformed, Arminianism is within the Reformed tradition. Olson levels the playing field with this myth-buster and makes the point that IF someone is gonna attack Arminianism, they can’t claim it to be outside of the Reformed tradition.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
"In Our Image, After Our Likeness": The God of the Calvinists
“There are distressingly many things that happen on earth that are not the will of God (Luke 7:30 and every other sin mentioned in the Bible), that are against his will, and that stem from the incomprehensible and senseless sin in which we are born, in which the greater part of mankind lives, and in which Israel persisted, and against which even the ‘holiest men’ (Heid. Cat. Q.114) struggled all their days (David, Peter). God has ONLY ONE COURSE OF ACTION for this and that is to provide for its atonement by having it all crucified and buried with Christ. To try to interpret all these things by means of the concept of a plan of God, creates intolerable difficulties and gives rise to more exceptions than regularities. But THE MOST IMPORTANT objection is that the idea of a plan is AGAINST THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE since God Himself becomes incredible IF THAT AGAINST WHICH HE HAS FOUGHT WITH POWER, AND FOR WHICH HE SACRIFICED HIS ONLY SON, WAS NEVERTHELESS SOMEHOW PART AND PARCEL OF HIS ETERNAL COUNSEL. So it is better to proceed from the idea that God had a certain goal in mind (the covenant, or the kingdom of God, or the new earth—which are all the same thing viewed from different angles) that he will achieve with us, without us, or even against us” (Adrio Konig, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 39).
In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let Us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…” But today, I’m afraid that we have forgotten what it means to be the “creation”—and instead, we’ve become the “Creator.” Instead of God making us like Himself, we’ve now made God LIKE OURSELVES…
Adrio Konig, as quoted by Roger Olson, gives us the heart and soul of the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. Both sides are known for amassing passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view; but if you wanna get to the bedrock of the issue, just look at Christ’s death and resurrection.
Romans 3:25 tells us that “God presented Him [Christ] as a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25, HCSB).
Let’s examine this verse. We are told that God put forth His Son; why? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.” So God sending His Son as a propitiation [a pleasing sacrifice] was to show His righteousness, to reveal His Holy Law against an unholy act (that being the sins of the world). How then, could God “demonstrate His righteousness,” if He were the one responsible for sin IN THE FIRST PLACE? Sounds like the Calvinists are inconsistent and twist Scripture to say something it doesn’t say.
The re-written “God of the Calvinists” also contradicts what John wrote of Christ in Scripture:
“My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
John, an Elder, is writing to fellow believers, for he says in 1 John 2:12, “your sins have been forgiven on account of His name” (HCSB). However, with the verses above from the earlier part of chapter 2, John is not just including BELIEVERS; he is also including UNBELIEVERS, those whose sins are not forgiven because they have not professed faith in Christ. A person either has to be a Christian or not—a believer or a sinner, a part of the family of God or a part of the family of the world. There is no middle ground when it comes to faith.
So if John states that Christ is the pleasing sacrifice for not just the sins of the believer but of the whole world, then he’s saying that Jesus gave His life for ALL, not just some, and not just “the elect.” Christ gave His life for everyone, INCLUDING those who will reject Him.
I think the god invention of the Calvinists is one that has been made in the image of MAN: this god doesn’t like rejection; he wants to dictate man’s every move and play games with his relationships with his creatures. The Calvinists tell us that this god is the God of Scripture; but I believe we should look for another…
In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let Us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…” But today, I’m afraid that we have forgotten what it means to be the “creation”—and instead, we’ve become the “Creator.” Instead of God making us like Himself, we’ve now made God LIKE OURSELVES…
Adrio Konig, as quoted by Roger Olson, gives us the heart and soul of the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. Both sides are known for amassing passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view; but if you wanna get to the bedrock of the issue, just look at Christ’s death and resurrection.
Romans 3:25 tells us that “God presented Him [Christ] as a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25, HCSB).
Let’s examine this verse. We are told that God put forth His Son; why? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.” So God sending His Son as a propitiation [a pleasing sacrifice] was to show His righteousness, to reveal His Holy Law against an unholy act (that being the sins of the world). How then, could God “demonstrate His righteousness,” if He were the one responsible for sin IN THE FIRST PLACE? Sounds like the Calvinists are inconsistent and twist Scripture to say something it doesn’t say.
The re-written “God of the Calvinists” also contradicts what John wrote of Christ in Scripture:
“My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
John, an Elder, is writing to fellow believers, for he says in 1 John 2:12, “your sins have been forgiven on account of His name” (HCSB). However, with the verses above from the earlier part of chapter 2, John is not just including BELIEVERS; he is also including UNBELIEVERS, those whose sins are not forgiven because they have not professed faith in Christ. A person either has to be a Christian or not—a believer or a sinner, a part of the family of God or a part of the family of the world. There is no middle ground when it comes to faith.
So if John states that Christ is the pleasing sacrifice for not just the sins of the believer but of the whole world, then he’s saying that Jesus gave His life for ALL, not just some, and not just “the elect.” Christ gave His life for everyone, INCLUDING those who will reject Him.
I think the god invention of the Calvinists is one that has been made in the image of MAN: this god doesn’t like rejection; he wants to dictate man’s every move and play games with his relationships with his creatures. The Calvinists tell us that this god is the God of Scripture; but I believe we should look for another…
For the Character of God
“…The main reason Arminians reject the Calvinist notion of monergistic salvation, in which God unconditionally elects some to salvation and bends their wills irresistibly, is that IT VIOLATES THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. If God saves unconditionally and irresistibly, why doesn’t he save all? Appeal to mystery at this point does not satisfy the Arminian mind because the character of God as love showing itself in mercy is at stake. If the humans chosen by God cannot resist having a right relationship with God, what kind of relationship is it? CAN A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE IRRESISTIBLE? ARE SUCH PREDESTINED PERSONS REALLY PERSONS IN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP?...the issue is most emphatically not a humanistic vision of autonomous free will, as if Arminians were in love with free agency for its own sake. Any fair-minded reading of Arminius, Wesley or any other classical Arminian will reveal that this is not so. Rather, the issue is THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP” (“Arminian Theology,” page 38).
I was gonna sit down and write a post called “For the Love of God,” but I thought better of it—why not write a post called “For the Character of God”? So that’s what I set my heart and mind to do—write on the character of God.
What does God’s character consist of? God’s character consists of love, grace, mercy, justice, and holiness. His essence is goodness and perfection. While God is love, He is not a God of love who lacks JUSTICE. God’s justice is a demonstration of His love. And His justice is also a demonstration of God’s holiness.
A relationship is defined as an association, connection, bond, link, affiliation, etc. So to be in a relationship means to be connected to another person. However, the relationship only REMAINS if two people are willing to tough it out and be together. No one can have a relationship by themselves. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essential to the union of God.
Although two people must remain committed to each other to keep the relationship, there are those cases where a person chooses to walk away. Look at what Matthew tells us about divorce:
“When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on ANY grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read, ‘ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them MALE AND FEMALE’…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, MAN MUST NOT SEPARATE” (Matt. 19:1-6, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The Lord Jesus states here that divorce is not a good thing—that God made man and woman to remain one flesh from the very beginning.
In response, the Pharisees turn back and respond to Christ:
“ ‘Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS.BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING” (Matthew 19:7-8, HCSB).
In Jesus’ words here regarding divorce, He makes it clear that man has “deviated” from the original plan, something that is responsible for all the divorce in the world. When the Lord says, “but it was not like that from the beginning,” He is making it clear that man has strayed in his own life; however, I am saying that still, the Lord allows divorce. Surely, the Lord has permitted couples the right to break up because of a set reason. What is the reason?
“And I tell you, WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, HCSB).
Jesus even allows here grounds for divorce, thereby establishing divorce. Look at what the apostle Paul writes regarding marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians:
“I command the married—not I, BUT THE LORD—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, HE MUST NOT LEAVE HER. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, SHE MUST NOT LEAVE HER HUSBAND…but if the unbeliever leaves, LET HIM LEAVE. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE. For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)
Paul says that if the marriage consists of believer and unbeliever, that the believer should not divorce first (but the unbeliever ).If the unbeliever walks away, the person should let him or her go.
What does all this have to do with the character of God? God’s character is such that He will not force mankind into a relationship with Him that mankind does not want. Read John’s Gospel to see mankind’s massive rejection:
“He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, YET THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. He CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them THE RIGHT TO BE CHILDREN OF GOD, to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:10-12, HCSB)
Jesus went to the Jews, His own people—and yet, they did not receive Him. Read the Gospels and you’ll find out that when He went to His hometown, He could not do miracles there because of the pervasive unbelief (Mark 6:1-6).
In addition, look at the rich young ruler: he is allowed to walk away from Christ because Christ gave him instructions about selling his possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
There are several other passages, but this shows us that God desires that all come to Him of their own desire, not because they feel forced to. And I think this tells us about the nature of relationship—that a relationship is a VOLUNTARY association of two or more people. Each person in a relationship gets to CHOOSE whether or not to stay in it.
Roger Olson asks a good question: if people are forced into a relationship with God, then ARE THEY REALLY PERSONS? No—they’re automaton, robotic creatures that simply do what the “remote control” allows. And that is not how God made man. Man was made to have choice.
Arminius believed in the aid of the Holy Spirit as well as the choice of man. And this choice we have been given comes from the fact that we have been made in the image of God and share His LIKENESS; in the same way that God CHOSE to create us out of His own good pleasure, He gives us the power to CHOOSE Him out of our own desire. But if the Calvinists have their way, man has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in anything—God does everything. It seems to me then, that the Calvinist God is no longer the loving, good God of Scripture, but the masochistic, hateful, malevolent God of their own theology…
I was gonna sit down and write a post called “For the Love of God,” but I thought better of it—why not write a post called “For the Character of God”? So that’s what I set my heart and mind to do—write on the character of God.
What does God’s character consist of? God’s character consists of love, grace, mercy, justice, and holiness. His essence is goodness and perfection. While God is love, He is not a God of love who lacks JUSTICE. God’s justice is a demonstration of His love. And His justice is also a demonstration of God’s holiness.
A relationship is defined as an association, connection, bond, link, affiliation, etc. So to be in a relationship means to be connected to another person. However, the relationship only REMAINS if two people are willing to tough it out and be together. No one can have a relationship by themselves. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essential to the union of God.
Although two people must remain committed to each other to keep the relationship, there are those cases where a person chooses to walk away. Look at what Matthew tells us about divorce:
“When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on ANY grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read, ‘ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them MALE AND FEMALE’…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, MAN MUST NOT SEPARATE” (Matt. 19:1-6, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The Lord Jesus states here that divorce is not a good thing—that God made man and woman to remain one flesh from the very beginning.
In response, the Pharisees turn back and respond to Christ:
“ ‘Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS.BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING” (Matthew 19:7-8, HCSB).
In Jesus’ words here regarding divorce, He makes it clear that man has “deviated” from the original plan, something that is responsible for all the divorce in the world. When the Lord says, “but it was not like that from the beginning,” He is making it clear that man has strayed in his own life; however, I am saying that still, the Lord allows divorce. Surely, the Lord has permitted couples the right to break up because of a set reason. What is the reason?
“And I tell you, WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, HCSB).
Jesus even allows here grounds for divorce, thereby establishing divorce. Look at what the apostle Paul writes regarding marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians:
“I command the married—not I, BUT THE LORD—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, HE MUST NOT LEAVE HER. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, SHE MUST NOT LEAVE HER HUSBAND…but if the unbeliever leaves, LET HIM LEAVE. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE. For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)
Paul says that if the marriage consists of believer and unbeliever, that the believer should not divorce first (but the unbeliever ).If the unbeliever walks away, the person should let him or her go.
What does all this have to do with the character of God? God’s character is such that He will not force mankind into a relationship with Him that mankind does not want. Read John’s Gospel to see mankind’s massive rejection:
“He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, YET THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. He CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them THE RIGHT TO BE CHILDREN OF GOD, to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:10-12, HCSB)
Jesus went to the Jews, His own people—and yet, they did not receive Him. Read the Gospels and you’ll find out that when He went to His hometown, He could not do miracles there because of the pervasive unbelief (Mark 6:1-6).
In addition, look at the rich young ruler: he is allowed to walk away from Christ because Christ gave him instructions about selling his possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
There are several other passages, but this shows us that God desires that all come to Him of their own desire, not because they feel forced to. And I think this tells us about the nature of relationship—that a relationship is a VOLUNTARY association of two or more people. Each person in a relationship gets to CHOOSE whether or not to stay in it.
Roger Olson asks a good question: if people are forced into a relationship with God, then ARE THEY REALLY PERSONS? No—they’re automaton, robotic creatures that simply do what the “remote control” allows. And that is not how God made man. Man was made to have choice.
Arminius believed in the aid of the Holy Spirit as well as the choice of man. And this choice we have been given comes from the fact that we have been made in the image of God and share His LIKENESS; in the same way that God CHOSE to create us out of His own good pleasure, He gives us the power to CHOOSE Him out of our own desire. But if the Calvinists have their way, man has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in anything—God does everything. It seems to me then, that the Calvinist God is no longer the loving, good God of Scripture, but the masochistic, hateful, malevolent God of their own theology…
Monday, May 25, 2009
Is Faith a "WORK"?
“The emphasis on the prevenience and preeminence of grace forms common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. It is what makes Arminian synergism ‘evangelical.’ Arminians take with utmost seriousness the New Testament’s emphasis on salvation as a gift of grace that cannot be earned (Eph. 2:8). However, Arminian and Calvinist theologies—like all synergisms and monergisms—diverge over the role humans play in salvation. As Wiley notes, prevenient grace does not interfere with the freedom of the will. It does not bend the will or render the will’s response certain. It only enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. COOPERATION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SALVATION, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ can save. Nevertheless, GOD DOES NOT MAKE THIS DECISION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL; it is a decision individuals, under the pressure of prevenient grace, must make for themselves” (“Arminian Theology,” page 36).
As Olson tells us above, Arminians and Calvinists differ with regard to what the human does in salvation. Calvinists say that the process of salvation is ALL GOD—God does all of the work (monergism, from the Greek words “monos” and “ergo”; means “to work alone”). God overrides the human will such that the person HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Arminians believe that God does not override the human will—rather, God works WITH the human will (this is known as “synergism”; the word comes from the Greek words “sun” and “ergo,” meaning “to work with”).
Now the Arminian believes that God works with the human will, not against it or over it; but, does this mean, then, that faith is a WORK? According to Olson, it doesn’t. In his words,
“…cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply NONRESISTANCE TO GRACE. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by…ADMITTING THAT ONLY CHRIST CAN SAVE” (36).
When a person professes faith in Christ, they are not DOING the work—instead, they are confessing that CHRIST DID THE WORK for them when He died for their sins on a cross at Calvary. They are confirming the work that was already done by Christ.
Romans chapter 10 discusses the concept of faith as confession, which is not a work. Read the following:
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: ‘The one who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that COMES FROM FAITH SPEAKS like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will go up to heaven?” that is, to bring Christ down or, “Who will go down into the abyss?” that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. On the contrary, what does it say? THE MESSAGE IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART. This is the message of faith that we proclaim: if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. With the heart one believes, RESULTING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the mouth one confesses, RESULTING IN SALVATION. Now the Scripture says, ‘No one who believes on Him will be put to shame…” (Romans 10:4-11, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The “righteousness that comes from faith” is different than “the righteousness that is from the law.” Why? because the righteousness of faith doesn’t DO anything, doesn’t perform works to receive it…instead, it simply admits that it is unable to do anything to merit the righteousness.
So, the Arminian and Calvinist differ over the role of humans in salvation. But there's one thing that both know for sure: that is that Christ came to save us over two thousand years ago; and all we have to do is acknowledge our filthiness and lostness before God in order to be saved. The debt is paid—and all we have to do is accept the payment.
As Olson tells us above, Arminians and Calvinists differ with regard to what the human does in salvation. Calvinists say that the process of salvation is ALL GOD—God does all of the work (monergism, from the Greek words “monos” and “ergo”; means “to work alone”). God overrides the human will such that the person HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Arminians believe that God does not override the human will—rather, God works WITH the human will (this is known as “synergism”; the word comes from the Greek words “sun” and “ergo,” meaning “to work with”).
Now the Arminian believes that God works with the human will, not against it or over it; but, does this mean, then, that faith is a WORK? According to Olson, it doesn’t. In his words,
“…cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply NONRESISTANCE TO GRACE. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by…ADMITTING THAT ONLY CHRIST CAN SAVE” (36).
When a person professes faith in Christ, they are not DOING the work—instead, they are confessing that CHRIST DID THE WORK for them when He died for their sins on a cross at Calvary. They are confirming the work that was already done by Christ.
Romans chapter 10 discusses the concept of faith as confession, which is not a work. Read the following:
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: ‘The one who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that COMES FROM FAITH SPEAKS like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will go up to heaven?” that is, to bring Christ down or, “Who will go down into the abyss?” that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. On the contrary, what does it say? THE MESSAGE IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART. This is the message of faith that we proclaim: if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. With the heart one believes, RESULTING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the mouth one confesses, RESULTING IN SALVATION. Now the Scripture says, ‘No one who believes on Him will be put to shame…” (Romans 10:4-11, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The “righteousness that comes from faith” is different than “the righteousness that is from the law.” Why? because the righteousness of faith doesn’t DO anything, doesn’t perform works to receive it…instead, it simply admits that it is unable to do anything to merit the righteousness.
So, the Arminian and Calvinist differ over the role of humans in salvation. But there's one thing that both know for sure: that is that Christ came to save us over two thousand years ago; and all we have to do is acknowledge our filthiness and lostness before God in order to be saved. The debt is paid—and all we have to do is accept the payment.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
No Comment...
Reading Roger Olson’s “Arminian Theology” has pitted me in quite heavy discussions with friends (early this morning and throughout this afternoon). And the one tenet of Arminian theology that seems to crop up again and again is the idea of “losing one’s salvation.” Can people really lose their salvation? Can people really come to Christ and then turn around and walk away? Or, if they leave Christ, were they ever saved from the start?
Surprisingly, my reading in Olson’s book has shown me that the currently developed Arminian theology talks more on this issue than even Arminius himself did. Contemporary Arminians will tell you that someone CAN lose their salvation—they can come to God, enjoy the blessings of salvation, and then walk away. But Roger Olson’s comment regarding this issue will surprise you:
“…the Remonstrants, LIKE ARMINIUS BEFORE, DID NOT take any stand on the question of the eternal security of believers. That is, they left open the question of whether a truly saved person could fall from grace or not” (32).
In order to see what Olson is talking about, I’ll reprint here the fifth principle of the Remonstrance, the foundational document of Arminianism:
“That true believers had sufficient strength through the Divine grace to fight against Satan, sin, the world, their own flesh, and get the victory over them; but whether by negligence they might not apostatize from the true Faith, lose the happiness of a good conscience and forfeit that grace NEEDED TO BE MORE FULLY INQUIRED INTO ACCORDING TO HOLY WRIT” (32).
Even Arminius and his early followers didn’t answer the question regarding whether or not a personal was eternally secure or in danger of losing salvation!
This begs the question, then: “If Arminius and his early followers didn’t talk either way, should we try to answer this problem? Well, Arminius and his followers, according to the Remonstrance document, believed that “Holy Writ” could speak more about the issue than anything—so, it is at least worth a try to find out whether or not a person can lose their salvation. However, as always, the answer to this question requires humility on the part of all—for, if Arminius himself didn’t have such boldness to answer it, then who am I that my studies should reap the missing reward?
Surprisingly, my reading in Olson’s book has shown me that the currently developed Arminian theology talks more on this issue than even Arminius himself did. Contemporary Arminians will tell you that someone CAN lose their salvation—they can come to God, enjoy the blessings of salvation, and then walk away. But Roger Olson’s comment regarding this issue will surprise you:
“…the Remonstrants, LIKE ARMINIUS BEFORE, DID NOT take any stand on the question of the eternal security of believers. That is, they left open the question of whether a truly saved person could fall from grace or not” (32).
In order to see what Olson is talking about, I’ll reprint here the fifth principle of the Remonstrance, the foundational document of Arminianism:
“That true believers had sufficient strength through the Divine grace to fight against Satan, sin, the world, their own flesh, and get the victory over them; but whether by negligence they might not apostatize from the true Faith, lose the happiness of a good conscience and forfeit that grace NEEDED TO BE MORE FULLY INQUIRED INTO ACCORDING TO HOLY WRIT” (32).
Even Arminius and his early followers didn’t answer the question regarding whether or not a personal was eternally secure or in danger of losing salvation!
This begs the question, then: “If Arminius and his early followers didn’t talk either way, should we try to answer this problem? Well, Arminius and his followers, according to the Remonstrance document, believed that “Holy Writ” could speak more about the issue than anything—so, it is at least worth a try to find out whether or not a person can lose their salvation. However, as always, the answer to this question requires humility on the part of all—for, if Arminius himself didn’t have such boldness to answer it, then who am I that my studies should reap the missing reward?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Ground Rules
This summer, I am starting a new project here at The Center for Theological Studies. Owning another blog has taken away from my time needed for further theological study, but I’m putting it off no longer.
The next three months will serve as an exciting time for CTS, since we’ll be tackling the issue of the Arminian/Calvin debate. I know that a great deal of my viewers may be a lot more informed on these issues than am I; but over the next few months, the readership here will watch my knowledge grow, as we’ll work our way through both Arminian and Calvinist texts. While I am starting with Olson, an Arminian (include the fact that I have been raised an Arminian), I plan to dive into Calvinism as well. I also intend to engage both the works of Arminius and Calvin’s “Institutes.”
In order to start this research off in a godly manner, some ground rules must be laid. Having read Olson’s Introduction, I noticed that Olson gives us a groundwork principle to keep in mind:
“One principle that ought to be observed by all parties to this debate is BEFORE YOU DISAGREE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. In other words, we must make sure that we can describe another’s theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn” (“Arminian Theology” by Roger Olson, page 41).
Olson writes this in his introduction section called “Myths and Misconceptions About Arminianism,” where he shows the reader how, whether Calvinist or Arminian, theologians have trampled the Arminian view—all based on lack of knowledge. Olson’s example is startling:
“Several authors in the Arminianism issue of Modern Reformation contrast Arminianism with evangelicalism and deny the possibility of evangelical Arminianism. At least one blatantly calls Arminianism a ‘NATURAL, GOD-REJECTING, SELF-EXALTING RELIGION AND HERESY.’ Throughout the issue these mostly Calvinist authors (one is a Lutheran) treat Arminianism as the heresy of semi-Pelagianism but NEVER DEAL WITH THE KEY DOCTRINE OF PREVENIENT GRACE OR QUOTE ARMINIAN THEOLOGIANS’ MANY STRONG AFFIRMATIONS OF THE PREEMINENCE OF GRACE. The common tendency is to impute to Arminianism EVERY FALSE BELIEF that the authors see lying at the bottom of an imaginary slippery slope” (“Arminian Theology,” page 41).
Olson shows us in the above quote is that Arminianism is being labeled something that it is not—semi-Pelagian. But in order to distinguish Arminianism from semi-Pelagianism, we have to know what semi-Pelagianism is. Olson provides such a definition:
Nazarene theologian Wiley correctly defines semi-Pelagianism by saying, ‘It held that there was sufficient power remaining in the depraved will to initiate or set in motion the beginnings of salvation but not enough to bring it to completion. This must be done by divine grace’” (30).
So semi-Pelagianism states that man initiates salvation, but God completes it. Imagine the implications of such a thought! Semi-pelagianism sounds to me to be a theology of “Helping God,” that God needed help in the plan of salvation—so He turned to humans and asked them, “Can you help me get this thing started?” What’s most disgusting about the heresy of Pelagianism is that it makes God out to be a weakling, an impotent Creator—and the act of salvation itself to be one that can be HALF-complete because a person can start the work but must wait until God gives His grace. So until God gives the divine grace, the person is in a “half-saved” mode. There is no such thing as being “in the middle” of salvation: we’re either saved or not. Christ hung on the cross in the middle so we wouldn’t have to “hang in the middle” of salvation and wait for His divine grace. It’s already there. We just have to receive it and have faith in
the work of Christ at Calvary.
This, then, doesn’t sound like Arminianism at all! To see the difference, let’s look at the definition of Arminianism:
“Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritual[ly] depraved, and helpless to do ANYTHING good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects of original sin…Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born ‘children of wrath.’ However, Arminians believe that Christ’s death on the cross provides a universal remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ’s sake” (33).
From the base of Arminianism, we can see that, unlike semi-Pelagianism, humans CANNOT START the work of salvation: they are unable to because they are helpless, totally incapable of coming to faith without God. In order for a person to come to faith, Arminians believe that God must give them His grace.
Simply put, Olson wants the critics of Arminianism to take time to understand the view first—without criticizing that which they rarely know. Despite what seems to be his disgust with the Calvinists, Olson just wants Arminianism—like Calvinism—to get a proper seat at the theological table.
The next three months will serve as an exciting time for CTS, since we’ll be tackling the issue of the Arminian/Calvin debate. I know that a great deal of my viewers may be a lot more informed on these issues than am I; but over the next few months, the readership here will watch my knowledge grow, as we’ll work our way through both Arminian and Calvinist texts. While I am starting with Olson, an Arminian (include the fact that I have been raised an Arminian), I plan to dive into Calvinism as well. I also intend to engage both the works of Arminius and Calvin’s “Institutes.”
In order to start this research off in a godly manner, some ground rules must be laid. Having read Olson’s Introduction, I noticed that Olson gives us a groundwork principle to keep in mind:
“One principle that ought to be observed by all parties to this debate is BEFORE YOU DISAGREE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. In other words, we must make sure that we can describe another’s theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn” (“Arminian Theology” by Roger Olson, page 41).
Olson writes this in his introduction section called “Myths and Misconceptions About Arminianism,” where he shows the reader how, whether Calvinist or Arminian, theologians have trampled the Arminian view—all based on lack of knowledge. Olson’s example is startling:
“Several authors in the Arminianism issue of Modern Reformation contrast Arminianism with evangelicalism and deny the possibility of evangelical Arminianism. At least one blatantly calls Arminianism a ‘NATURAL, GOD-REJECTING, SELF-EXALTING RELIGION AND HERESY.’ Throughout the issue these mostly Calvinist authors (one is a Lutheran) treat Arminianism as the heresy of semi-Pelagianism but NEVER DEAL WITH THE KEY DOCTRINE OF PREVENIENT GRACE OR QUOTE ARMINIAN THEOLOGIANS’ MANY STRONG AFFIRMATIONS OF THE PREEMINENCE OF GRACE. The common tendency is to impute to Arminianism EVERY FALSE BELIEF that the authors see lying at the bottom of an imaginary slippery slope” (“Arminian Theology,” page 41).
Olson shows us in the above quote is that Arminianism is being labeled something that it is not—semi-Pelagian. But in order to distinguish Arminianism from semi-Pelagianism, we have to know what semi-Pelagianism is. Olson provides such a definition:
Nazarene theologian Wiley correctly defines semi-Pelagianism by saying, ‘It held that there was sufficient power remaining in the depraved will to initiate or set in motion the beginnings of salvation but not enough to bring it to completion. This must be done by divine grace’” (30).
So semi-Pelagianism states that man initiates salvation, but God completes it. Imagine the implications of such a thought! Semi-pelagianism sounds to me to be a theology of “Helping God,” that God needed help in the plan of salvation—so He turned to humans and asked them, “Can you help me get this thing started?” What’s most disgusting about the heresy of Pelagianism is that it makes God out to be a weakling, an impotent Creator—and the act of salvation itself to be one that can be HALF-complete because a person can start the work but must wait until God gives His grace. So until God gives the divine grace, the person is in a “half-saved” mode. There is no such thing as being “in the middle” of salvation: we’re either saved or not. Christ hung on the cross in the middle so we wouldn’t have to “hang in the middle” of salvation and wait for His divine grace. It’s already there. We just have to receive it and have faith in
the work of Christ at Calvary.
This, then, doesn’t sound like Arminianism at all! To see the difference, let’s look at the definition of Arminianism:
“Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritual[ly] depraved, and helpless to do ANYTHING good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects of original sin…Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born ‘children of wrath.’ However, Arminians believe that Christ’s death on the cross provides a universal remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ’s sake” (33).
From the base of Arminianism, we can see that, unlike semi-Pelagianism, humans CANNOT START the work of salvation: they are unable to because they are helpless, totally incapable of coming to faith without God. In order for a person to come to faith, Arminians believe that God must give them His grace.
Simply put, Olson wants the critics of Arminianism to take time to understand the view first—without criticizing that which they rarely know. Despite what seems to be his disgust with the Calvinists, Olson just wants Arminianism—like Calvinism—to get a proper seat at the theological table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)