Post Calendar
-
Podcast Feeds
Sep
14
The Biggest Problem with Calvinism?
September 14, 2007 |
Posted by michaelp · Filed Under Calvinism/Arminianism
I was reading an interesting article on a Ochuk’s blog called “Why I am not a Calvinist.” He lists “Calvinism’s biggest weakness.”
The problem with mongerism, or the argument from grace, is that it ends up taking so much away from the human will that it takes upon things it would rather distance itself from. If God is solely responsible for our salvation, then it seems that he is also solely responsible for our damnation. God’s eternal choice to save some and not others is unconditional. Yet if we hold to unconditional election unto salvation, then it seems we must hold to its logical corollary: unconditional reprobation unto damnation. Therefore, in same manner, we are apparently saved by God’s grace apart from works and we are damned by God’s condemnation apart from works (Rom 9:11-13).
While I hate to take people to task 
or use them as a poor illustration of belief, I think that Ochuk has really misrepresented the necessary outcome of monergism (that salvation is ultimately an act of God alone). I write on this because it is such a common misunderstanding. Ochuk’s supposition, while understandable from a very simplistic standpoint, fails to do justice to the parties responsible for salvation and damnation. To say “If God is solely responsible for our salvation, it seems that he is also solely responsible for our damnation” is a bit presumptuous and forms a non sequitor (the conclusion does not follow the premise). While I appreciate his contingency by adding the word “seems,” he should followed through with this contingency rather than making a conclusion based on it.
In other words, while it might seem that since God is solely responsible for our salvation that He is also solely responsible for our damnation, this is not the belief of Calvinists (unless you are of the supralapsarian variety - even then it is a misunderstanding). Man is solely responsible for their damnation.
The thing that seems to escape Ochuk is that God did not have to save anyone. It would seem that Ochuk is supposing that God was somehow obligated to save all people, yet, despite this obligation, He only chose some.
I wonder what Ochuk’s position would be if God choose to leave all people in their sinful rebellion. Would God still be responsible for their damnation? People are damned because the human race fell into a state of rebellion and necessary condemnation with Adam. God could have left all people in this condition and there would be no one to blame but humanity. This is what makes God’s mercy so radical. His righteousness was satisfied by His own sacrifice when He was under no obligation to do so.
Supposing that God had no obligation to same any, why would we come to the conclusion that when He has mercy on some He is now somehow liable for the rebellion of all the others. While it is a great mystery why He would choose some and not others, He is never responsible for the rebellion of any. We are all solely responsible for our own damnation. God is solely responsible for our salvation. If some are chosen, it is by the mercy of God. If some are damned it is because of their own rebellion. Thanks be to God who rescued some from darkness into His marvelous light.
Having said that, I don’t think that this is the biggest problem of Calvinsim, but the biggest problem with misunderstood and misrepresented Calvinism.
Comments
25 Comments so far
-
-
Theologica
Check it out here.
-
Parchment and Pen Blog - Internet Monk
- Faith and Theology
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
-
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/reclaimi/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Powered by FireStats
Ah, I will play devil’s advocate here. I agree with you completely regarding the choice to save some is not in itself a problem. I think the problem lies back at the beginning, when Man fell. Did God create Mankind with the free will to choose whether to Fall or not Fall? It you say that Man could have chosen NOT to Fall, then that was a REAL possibility. If they did choose NOT to Fall, then they would, in a very real sense, be responsible for their own salvation, something that can’t fit (as far as I can see) in the Calvinist framework of God’s total sovereignty, much less the election and predestination which would have taken place BEFORE that choice occurred.
I have no problem with mankind being in a fallen condition, but does Calvinism really give full credence to the idea of human free will to turn to God, which it would seem must have been an option at some point?
Vance, I think it does. Free will itself is a very loaded term since the libertarian variety supposes absolute neutrality which amounts to perpetual indecision. The will is simply who are are. The choice is the action which evidences this.
As to why Adam fell, I cannot say. As to the state of his “neutrality” is it hard to say. This is not so much a place where there is the Calvinist answer and the Arminian answer. It is a mystery. All we know is that in the end, man is completely responsible for the fall. God is not.
Yes, I know that some hyper-Calvinists, who have it all figured out, say that God is responsible for it all, but this is not “the Calvinist” answer for the situation. Good Calvinists (especially those who are good exegetical Calvinists) would say that the Bible teaches both human responsibility and God’s sovereignty. This is they mystery and the tension.
I do think that there is a theoretically possibility that man could have overcome sin in the Garden. Why he did not, I don’t know. Was it the serpent? I don’t know. Was it the tree that proved more enticing? Maybe? Was it an arbitrary choice? I doubt it, then responsibility seems lacking. God created men upright and they fell. It was monergistically our fault. God saves some. This is monergistically his fault.
Beyond that, I don’t think we can say much.
I think the greatest weakness of Calvinism is that it wants to have its cake and it eat to. The Westminster Confession of Faith says:
The Calvinist position on seems irreconcilably contradictory. On the one hand God is sovereign and has decreed all things (except for some strange reason sin), on the other hand man is responsible for doing the only thing that they can possibly do (rebel against God).
Now you can talk about the mystery of it all or compare it (falsely I believe) to the Trinity and say we don’t know how or why we just know, etc. but this seems to me nothing more than an admission that it doesn’t really make sense. And rather than try to make sense of it all appeal to election as a paradox of faith (or some similar nomenclature).
No Arminian that I have ever read or heard (and again, I’m not omniscient when it comes to Arminian writings) has ever asserted that God is obligated to save all. I can’t even think of a universalist who would assert that universalism was an obligation of God. While I wouldn’t state it quite as Ochuck did I have to agree that if one holds to God’s sovereignty in election and reprobation in the way that Calvinists do, consistency demands that we charge God with the ultimate responsibility of man’s rebellion and subsequent damnation.
Michael, I am not quite getting your point on free will. It seems Calvinists feel comfortable with affirming “personal responsibility”, since that adds to man’s obligation, not his ability, but dances around the teaching of Man’s free will to accept or reject what God is offering, which is described throughout Scripture.
I think the position is very systematic and internally consistent, which is its attractiveness, but I still don’t see it giving full weight to ALL of Scripture (of which, admittedly, the modern presentation of Arminianism is equally guilty).
Yes, Man DID, indeed, Fall, and I have no problem with that being entirely Man’s fault. But that is where the Calvinist position is at its weakest: if Man Fell, and it was ENTIRELY Man’s fault, then this necessarily means that Man could somehow have chosen NOT to fall, which means, ipso facto, that they had the free will to go either direction, which no Calvinist that I know would accept.
There is this cognitive dissonance we have between God’s complete sovereignty and Man’s complete responsibility. Rather than deal with that head on, the Calvinists seem to push it back to the Fall, from which time they can assert total depravity, thus putting all humanity on the road to hell, from which God can choose some for salvation. Then when asked the obvious question of how that cognitive dissonance is resolved leading up to the Fall, they cry “mystery!”.
I am sympathetic, as you know, with the mystery approach, but given the totality of Scripture, I simply think we have to view the mystery as existing with the post-Fall world, and allow the cognitive dissonance to exist NOW, rather than conveniently pre-Fall.
That is my main problem with Calvinism as a systematic approach. I can deal with all of the “hard issues” that most Arminians focus on. I am not worried as much about justice and fairness (I don’t like it, but I can accept it). I just see too much Scripture that discusses Man’s free will and the availability of salvation to all who freely choose to ignore it, or re-define it all away to conform to the (equally present and real) Scripture dealing with election and predestination and sovereignty.
Vance, you said:
“If Man Fell, and it was ENTIRELY Man’s fault, then this necessarily means that Man could somehow have chosen NOT to fall, which means, ipso facto, that they had the free will to go either direction, which no Calvinist that I know would accept.”
Calvinism is not in any sense monolythic on this. Most Calvies (again, of the exegetical variety) would say that Adam could have chosen not to fall.
Even Augustine said that man before the fall was passe non peccare “able not to sin.” After the fall, however, he was non posse non paccare “not able not to sin.” Even this, however, must be qualified with the sin being a perpetual rebellion against God.
The “freedom of the will” battle that took place between Luther and Erasmus was one that focused on our antagonism towards God. Therefore, it only dealt with our hostility. Granted, this hostility gives way to many sins, but the issue is whether or not man, post fall, can choose God on his own. Even Arminians would deny this, knowing that it violates the clear teaching of Scripture (both in illustration and doctrine). Therefore, the introduce prevenient grace to solve the will problem, which, in turn, solves the responsibility problem. But as I have said before, even if you could find prevenient grace in Scripture (which I cannot), then you still have the problem of Why hasn’t it worked? Why to people in other nations, by and large, still not trust the one true God?
Your only choice is to go to Geisler’s semi-Pelagian route (which borders on full-pelagianism), which I believe had taken you completely outside of the bounds of acceptable interpretation.
Anyway, hope this helps.
I see what you are saying about the Fall issue, but as for what “route” I am going, as I said before, where I stand is at the crux of the mystery. I see the Scriptures which point to election and predestination, and I see Scriptures which point just as clearly to Man making a choice, turning to God, etc. I agree entirely that even the ability to make such a choice, to the extent it exists, comes from God, and not from our basic human nature, which makes our Salvation entirely God’s work. So, it is not an issue of sovereignty or Man’s work in an ultimate sense, it is merely a matter of timing and mechanics of HOW God goes about this process.
I just don’t see what Calvinism does with all those Scriptures that state very clearly that Man must take action, turn to God, accept this, believe that, etc. I have just never seen a really acceptable answer for all those Scriptures that really works, any more than many Arminian constructs.
You do not see prevenient grace in Scripture, but you do have Scripture that is not adequately (in my mind) accounted for in Calvinist systems, and this doctrine is a possible explanation of how to bridge the gap between these two groups of Scripture.
But rather than even go there, I just say, as the commentary I quoted in the other thread: it is a mystery and I must hold that both are true. Man is elected and predestined by God in some meaningful way. Man has free will to accept or reject what God offers in some meaningful way. Both of these are facts are in Scripture, but neither Ariminianism or Calvinism adequately accept both facts, they each adopt one side and explain away the other in a way that causes the opposition to cry foul.
So, I stay on the top of the wedge, trying to maintain the balance, not sliding down either side. I am at a point of illogic, or mystery, but I can accept that as the better solution than committing to a systematic doctrinal approach that I don’t see adequate addressing all the issues, but thinking it has. That is dangerous.
And, again, there is the functionality issue. The fact is that some DO turn to God, and some don’t. The mechanics of how it happens really does not matter, in any important way that I can see. So, I am comfortable here, being in tension.
Vance, what you have just described is Calvinism. Although, I would not say that it is illogic, I like the word mystery better. As well, I would not say that the mystery ultimately resides in freedom and sovereignty, but God’s love for all and His election of some.
Calvinism allows the tension, believing that man does have a choice, but that God must supply the grace to make that choice expedient. This grace is either sovereign (Calvinism) or prevenient (Roman Catholicism and Arminianism).
Nick, while I understand your problem, I just don’t think that we can expect to solve the tension. Calvinists can accept the tension believing that human responsibility and divine unconditional election are true. Arminians have to do some pretty extensive acrobats to harmonize the system. I can’t do the same. I will let the tension reside and place my hand over my mouth. Who am I to answer back to God? I know that sounds pious, but if your system does not lead you there based upon an examination of these issues, you are not interpreting Scripture correct (in my opinion). Otherwise, there is not need for the hypothetical objectors’ objections in Romans chapter nine. In other words, only a belief in unconditional election makes sense of the objectors’ objection.
Right, it is either the Calvinist view of the “order” of salvation or it is the Arminian view of the order, but both do make commitments and reach conclusions about that order that I don’t find convincing. So, as much as it is Calvinist, it is also Arminian, since a true classic Arminian would say the same thing as well. The true Arminian also says it is entirely God’s work, that man can do nothing on his own.
The difference lies in the timing of God’s grace, and the irresistible nature of it. Any true and meaningful view of free will that would be consistent with the Scriptures as I read them would require the ability to NOT sin. And many Scriptures only make sense that way. Yet we have clear Scripture which seems to point to election and predestination, which would seem to preclude such resistance. So, there is a mystery here, a tension, but no Calvinist would acknowledge that there is the ability to resist.
And then there is the issue of the salvation being made freely available to all who will receive it, which is strongly taught in Scripture and only has any real meaning if the gift could be refused, yet we have the same concept of election and predestination discussed. These two ideas, both taught in Scripture (if those Scriptures are to mean anything), and yet directly contradict each other. This is where the mystery lies.
So, ultimately, both the Calvinist and the Arminian (at least in its modern flavor) go beyond the basic statement of the tension I described above, whether it be in absolute terms or in how they define the terms. And I see no absolute need to go further down either road.
Really Vance, it all starts and ends with conditional or unconditional election. More specifically, unconditional individual election (as opposed to corporate). If you hold to unconditional individual election, then you are, in essence, a Calvinist. The rest of how you explain things in light of this is nuanced differently by different Calvinists. But the issues is not free will, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, or limited atonement. Calvies would see these issues somewhat differently, and have freedom to do so. But they all would do so understanding that God unconditionally elected some and not others for reasons beyond our understanding. Once this domino falls, the rest will fall somewhere in the vicinity of acceptable calvinistic thought.
This concerns the ordo. For example, Bruce Demarest, who believes in unconditional individual election, believes that faith precedes regeneration. While this is not the traditional Calvinist viewpoint, Demarest is still a Calvinist. (Although, because of misconceptions such as these, many who hold to unconditional individual election, don’t want to be labeled as Calvinist.
That is interesting, I had no idea there was so much diversity within Calvinist circles.
But even the “unconditional individual” part falls short of where I am willing to go, based on my understanding of the whole balance of Scripture. I see that there is a lot of language about election and predestination, all well and good. That can’t be ignored, and must mean something, and something important. Then we have equally clear Scripture that shows salvation is offered and available to ALL, and that God wants everyone to be saved. He greatly desires it. And, we see a ton of Scripture pointing to falling away after having been a believer. All of this must also mean something, and something very important as well.
I don’t see a way to make all of this work together in a coherent way. I see both sides overplaying one hand or the other in pursuit of a coherent system.
So, since there is nothing in Scripture which absolutely mandates that unconditional individual election (I don’t think Romans 9 has to be read that way, when you consider the whole scope of the argument and where he goes with chapters 10 and 11), I leave that open, and step back one square before that.
I still have an inkling that the whole mystery revolves around the idea that for God, everything has happened, is happening and will happen, and it is all instantaneous and complete. For God it is not linear, there is not past, present and future in God’s view. It all just “is”. From this viewpoint, to the extent we can get our minds around it, whatever election or predestination was made as much after we are saved as before we are saved and at the same time we are saved. There is something there that would explain it all if we could understand it, but we just can’t.
Another problem is that I suspect much of the volley of the ball in Romans has to do with his alternating discussions of the nation of Israel on the one hand, and individuals on the other. Paul is struggling mightily to show that Israel is still God’s chosen vessel in a very real way, and much of the imagery and discussion throughout is dealing with Israel as a nation, with that covenant and whether it will be retained or lost, etc.
I think it is very possible that the language regarding election in Romans deals with the nation of Israel, with whoever is grafted in or out, being elected and secure and that “nation”, as revised by the New Covenant, has their destination secure. But which individuals are grafted in and out, based on faith alone, as enabled by God, will make up that “People of God”. In other words, I think it is possible that too much of Calvinist construction ignores Romans 10 and 11.
Now, I am not married to that approach, but it does prevent me from allowing anything in Romans 9 from being an absolute proof-text for unconditional election of individuals (although it teaches mightily of sovereignty!). As one commentator put it, Paul teaches of destiny, but not individual determinism. I am not dogmatic on that, but I think that could be right.
Anyway, these are deep waters and I choose to remain agnostic on most of them. It is an ongoing area of study, obviously, and I try to keep an open mind in all directions on this point.
Vance, you are correct in so many ways. You said: “Then we have equally clear Scripture that shows salvation is offered and available to ALL, and that God wants everyone to be saved.” Calvinists agree. And thus lies the tension. If I were you I would read Tom Schreiners chapters in the book Still Sovereign. It is really helpful and presents a balanced approach. This is what I have been arguing all along. There is REAL tension that you have to live with. It is not unlike that with the doctrine of the Trinity. Both perspectives are taught very clearly. Calvinism just chooses to leave the tension.
Concerning Romans 9, Israel does have a very big part to play in the argument. In fact, they are the very reason for the argument. But the point that Paul is making is not about Israel it is about the justification of God in light of the Israel’s situation (apparent unbelief). Paul argues that this does not mean that God is going to be unfaithful. Remember, Romans 9 is brought about by the arguments of Romans 1-8. In the end, again, I say this over and over, but if your exegesis does not empathize with the objector’s objections, then you have something wrong. If in the end, you interpretation does not riddle you with fear to the point where Paul responds “Who are you to answer back to God” then you have something wrong. My point is that conditional election or cooperate election does not do justice to the passage at all. I would read Cranfield’s commentary on this. It is about the most objective (even somewhat liberal) approach to the book of Romans there is. The next best commentary is Moo, then Schriener.
Romans 10-11 carry the exact same theme, but answer the question of responsibility. Why is Israel in rebellion? Paul answers with two arguments: 1) Because they did not have faith. You see, he does not say “because they are not elect.” This follows the original intent of this post. God is not responsible for people’s damnation. They are. 2) Paul argues that he himself is an Israelite, therefore, they have not all turned away.
In the end, the tree represents the blessings of God. Israel fell off because of their unbelief. But if Gentiles don’t believe, then they will fall off as well.
In the end Paul’s argument is that people are secure in the promises of God because the gifts and calling are “irrevocable.” If anyone is saved, they are because God’s mercy. If anyone is lost, they are because of their own failure to recognize God (going back to the theme began in Romans 1 where all sin is vitally linked in Paul’s theology to a lack of recognition of God).
Right, and a failure to recognize, as described by Paul is purposeful, thus intentional, thus true resistance. I know that your approach to Romans 9 is pretty common among Calvinist, but I don’t think it is so obviously the right one as to accept it fully. I think that it is very possible that the entire chapter is dealing with Israel as a nation, and their collective role, not dealing with individuals at all. Given all of the other Scripture, I just think that works better. But, regardless, that can go round and round.
My real issue is that I still don’t think that the Calvinist position really DOES keep the two in tension. They adopt the one wholly, then just give lip service to the other, saying “well, yeah, that is true as well, but we don’t know how, it is a mystery. But what is IMPORTANT is that God has elected certain people.”
That is not balanced or maintaining REAL tension and mystery. You do not hear any Calvinist really preaching the point adamantly that salvation is available to all, all may come, all may be saved, and God desires everyone. In truth, I hear more respect and sincere attempts to accommodate the texts regarding election, and truly taking that as something real and serious from Arminians than I see Calvinists placing the other side of the tension up at the same level as their predestination and election. Do Calvinists really view “salvation available for all” in EQUAL place with “God has elected some”?
In short, what I see from Calvinists is a fixed and systematic construction of exactly how God must have done it all, and everything He intended. Then, those things which don’t fit their scheme (and there is a lot), they call it a mystery and push it off to one side.
Maybe I have been reading or listening to the wrong Calvinists, but I don’t hear them expounding equally on the other side of the tension equation. They only raise it to explain it away in some way, then back to the main agenda.
What I think is valuable in Calvinism is the focus on salvation being ultimately entirely God, whether it is Him electing unconditionally or using some sort of prevenient Grace, or some other, broader, enabler in our lives. And since that is so much missing in our modern religious culture, Calvinism is on a resurgence in response. However, I think that the fact that there are so many flavors of it, as you mention, might show that it is arising more as the cure for the ill, regardless of whether it goes to far, itself, in the other direction.
The pendulum, when it swings, always goes to the other extreme before heading back to the middle. Hegel all over, I suppose. I have long since chosen to hop off the pendulum in an area I see as safely within solid Scripture, even though that means saying I really have NO idea what God is doing exactly.
Addressing no one in particular, though I have found reading through the various comments interesting. I have been a 5-point Calvinist for over 40 years, having been introduced to the doctrines in a Fundamentalist Baptist College (which DID NOT agree with them!) It seems to me that, if you are not willing to accept the Scriptures on the sovereignty of God in salvation, then the question is, whose “will” are you willing (no pun intended) to limit - God’s or man’s? The truth of the matter is that the Scriptures clearly teach the interplay and intermingling of the Divine will and the human will with no thought of contradiction or embarrassment. At the same time, they do not “reconcile” such statements or seek to make them acceptable to our fallen minds. They simply present them as facts. The difficulty seems to be that we cannot accept the idea that perhaps God is smarter than we are and if we can’t figure out something He says, then it’s His fault, or words to that effect, and not ours.
the biggest problem with calvinism, is the incompatibility between God unconditionally electing a few, and the attribute omnibenevolence.
If God truly loves everybody-then that means by simple definition that he wishes the best for everybody. An all loving God would wish nobody to perish. he would offer grace to all hoping that nobody be sent to hell (the worst possible thing that could happen to a person).
the calvinist says God is just and may be merciful. I say that God is just, and he is merciful.
Mercy is shown to all, not a few.
and the common answer of saying God has two wills (one wishing for all to be saved, but then another working out greater plans which require some to be damned) is absurd and duplicitous. a person can have two contradictory wills, but not God. such a false dichotomy is impossible. besides you would have to redefine “love” in an abstract sense, which I find silly-love is a verb, its an action. not an ideal.
Have to essentially side with Vance on this one - I think he’s honestly trying to maintain the Scriptural balance (’tension’, ‘mystery’ or what have you). He may not even be succeeding, but it seems that’s what he’s genuinely after. I very much appreciate Michael’s irenic dialogue and his intelligent attempt to hold and explicate his view consistently yet in a way open to the mystery. Nevertheless, I think Vance is correct that Michael is merely maintaining the classical Calvinist view that affirms ‘unconditional individual election’ to the exclusion of Scripture’s pervasive emphasis on human responsibility in any meaningful sense (and I do mean meaningful from a biblical point of view, not merely a human one.)
I would love to see Michael respond to the very last comment from ’stud’ as it seems Michael is saying this is where the true mystery/tension lies for true Calvinists: how God can love all, yet only save some. For all that Calvinists want non-Calvinists to really face up to whether they’re doing justice to God’s sovereign grace or whether they’re really letting in a fatal ounce of human effort (self-salvation, thereby undermining God’s sovereignty), it seems to me that I have yet to see a Calvinist really face up to this charge that their view of God as ‘all-loving’ is coherent with their system. Answering that God is not ‘all-loving’ is I believe unbiblical and a careful exegetical case would have to be made successfully by the Calvinist. That aside, appeals to mystery at this point are decidedly disappointing. Levelling accusations of prideful inquiry at the questioner and leaving it at that is equally insufficient, irresponsible, prideful itself, and unloving. Not an attitude I see expressed in Scripture toward enquirers. Indeed, Paul puts us in our place as clay before the Potter in Romans 9 (I am profoundly humbled and in awe every time I read it), but then he does go on explaining and ‘justifying’ God’s character and actions as a not only a sovereign but a GOOD and WISE God - one that we can recognise as being such! Not just a God we have to go ahead and ‘believe’ to be good and just even though our system of election makes our hearts feel very much the contrary when we really look at that one unmentionable part squarely (leaving some to damnation that he, on this scheme, certainly could have sovereignly regenerated and saved).
Cheers all.
Oops. The above link should be my actual site. The previous one was an error.
Oh, I was so into this discussion, when I realize the last post was in March of this year. I really wanted to see Micheal answer Daniel Petterson’s point. This is something I have been struggling with lately, trying to figure out if it is one or the other. Been reading alot, and was hoping this might be a little insight. Guess I will have to wait and see if this actually gets a response.
Oh well, I wish the best for all, and God bless.
Oh, I was so into this discussion, when I realize the last post was in March of this year. I really wanted to see Micheal answer Daniel Petterson’s point. This is something I have been struggling with lately, trying to figure out if it is one or the other. Been reading alot, and was hoping this might be a little insight. Guess I will have to wait and see if this actually gets a response.
Oh well, I wish the best for all, and God bless.
A confused Christian
I know, I was reading it many months after it was originally written also. God bless you too, Dan P.
(You might be interested to see what I wrote about this subject here: http://maneatingchurchplant.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-provisional-statement-on-election.html)
@Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
Thank you brother. I have been reading into the main two sides of the discussion around the Doctrine of Salvation. Many of my professors are Calvanist, with my favorite, being a 5-Pointer. But the more I got into this discussion the more I realized that it one side couldn’t have all the answers, so flawlessly written down into one system. That is when I started to move into the center. A good friend of mine showed this link, and I found it very interesting and helpful to my understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
http://www.imarc.cc/esecurity/arminius.html
Not saying I agree with all his points, but like I said before, it was very interesting.
God bless you,
Daniel Palomino (Yes, we are both named after the awesome Jew, Daniel jaja.)
Thanks for the great article, Daniel! (’ja ja’?) I especially love the affirmations straight from the horse’s mouth (or from the mad dog’s bark, to reference Wesley’s comment that Arminians are viewed as such - I’ve always loved that quote!):
‘But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any 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 through 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.’ (James Arminius, Works, 1:659-60)
‘In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, 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.’ (Works, 2:192)
‘Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. . . . I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good: It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the affections, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperated lest we will in vain.’ (Works, 2:700)
Honestly, with forthright statements like these I genuinely can’t understand why some still try to place (classical) Arminians outside the ‘pale of orthodoxy’.
For now, I personally still maintain something of a ‘Calminianism’. Believe it or not, this unwieldy term is actually used by the fine evangelical New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg to describe what he takes to be the best interpretation of Rom. 8:29-30 in his excellent work on Acts through Revelation, From Pentecost to Patmos (2007, IVP). In the same book he also interprets Eph. 1 non-Calvinistically in terms of corporate election in the Son, which I also find helpful. And this is mainstream ‘conservative’ evangelical scholarship, which goes at least some ways toward showing that dissenting from strict classical ‘unconditional individual election’ is not a fringe ‘liberal’ theological position. (Even Calvinist D. A. Carson - whose works I generally value and profit from - employs Blomberg’s quality devout scholarship in several volumes of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series he [Carson] edits for Apollos.)
I love both the ‘theocentricity’ of so much of robust, culturally engaged, compassionate Calvinism (people like Jerram Barrs and Francis Schaeffer come to mind), as well as John Wesley’s affirmation of God being essentially summed up as ‘holy love’. I think we do well to keep these emphases together - all-inclusive Sovereignty and all-inclusive Love - no matter what the tensions - I’m certain it is nothing but healthy (the true meaning of ’sound’) to do so.
I also somewhat resonate with what the famous Oxfordian evangelist, historian, and theologian Michael Green said recently to a group of us listening to his seasoned wisdom: ‘I’m an Arminian in my appeal and a Calvinist on my knees.’ (By Arminian appeal he means ‘God loves each person in this room so much he died for each of you’ rather than a Pelagian ‘God will do his part if you’ll meet him half way and do yours’ sort of caricature of Arminian evangelism.)
And I agree very much with author of the link you gave when he quotes Wesley that we have got to stop using ‘Arminian’ and ‘Calvinist’ as terms of reproach to each other and spend more time understanding one another’s positions from credible sources - and I would add working together in gospel proclamation and kingdom living (tough as that may be at times with such doctrinal divides!). The Charles Simeon/John Wesley exchange is a classic and shows such gospel unity is a genuine way forward we may embrace! I’ve seen a number of Calvinists (both local lay friends as well as international authors) say the same thing.
Thanks again,
Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
“Thanks for the great article, Daniel! (’ja ja’?)”
Sorry, alot of my english speaking friends wondered about the “jaja” thing. I am from Latin America, so “jaja” = “haha”.
“And I agree very much with author of the link you gave when he quotes Wesley that we have got to stop using ‘Arminian’ and ‘Calvinist’ as terms of reproach to each other and spend more time understanding one another’s positions from credible sources - and I would add working together in gospel proclamation and kingdom living (tough as that may be at times with such doctrinal divides!).”
I definitely agree my friend (if I may call you that). I believe too many times, each side deems the others as heretics, verging on saying any who hold to the other position is non-Christian. Personally, I believe neither side can be totally correct. Each side has valid points in their discussion. But to claim that one’s system (through finite means) has figured out an infinite God’s ways of salvation is foolishness. Not saying we should not seek out to understand our Father in heaven. But as finite beings, we will never understand our Lord completely, especially in a fallen state such as we are now.
“Honestly, with forthright statements like these I genuinely can’t understand why some still try to place (classical) Arminians outside the ‘pale of orthodoxy’.”
That is exactly what I though Daniel. I, being younger in my faith than most, always accepted the Calvinistic view of Arminianism. Meaning, that it was “heretical” and taught a water down version of Pelagiasm. The article was very insightful and has made me think a lot more these days. I find myself to be leaning towards a Wesleyan Arminianism view. But I still have alot to read in the Scriptures before coming to a clear stance (for myself).
Well my brother in Christ, I wish you a pleasant day (or night), and may the Lord watch over you.
-Daniel Palomino
Oh, and Daniel, here is another article I think you might enjoy. Very insightful within the American church, and a….unexpected turn about within the theological standings of Christians. Hope you enjoy it.
http://www.cresourcei.org/arminianism.html
Have a pleasant day mate.
- Daniel Palomino
To take this apparently still-ongoing discussion in another direction, I think Vance is right for another reason. God has responsibility for the damnation of man because he could have done something about it and didn’t.
Obviously I’m on much-debated ethical grounds here, but I think most people would agree that if a kid were about to be hit by a truck and you had the time to save him, then you would be at least somewhat guilty of his death if you didn’t, even if they maintained that it was the truck driver’s (or, heaven forbid, the kid’s) actual fault.
I’d like to hear at least one possible reason why the universe is a better place because God didn’t save someone. Appeals to justice don’t count, because apparently God’s justice isn’t impinged by saving the Elect.
I mean to talk about this next on my blog, but for now, since everyone else is link-plugging, I’ll link to my thoughts about Calvinist evangelism:
http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/calvinist-evangelism/
Also, Michael? It’s spelled “non sequitur.”