I would just like to make some clarification of certain sentences which Jenson has pointed out from my up and coming book Driven Away by Purpose regarding soteriology in this post. So here goes:
"Arminianism in a diluted form caught hold of the evangelist John Wesley."
Well, the Wesley brothers as you know are largely Arminian in their outlook. They reject predestination and election and most of the points of the Doctrines of Grace. The only point which they didn't exactly reject was Total Depravity. However, they were not consistent with true blue Arminianism as they practically depended on the Sovereignty of God in whatever they do, which Arminianism (the Remonstrant variety) would not do. In fact, I have read somewhere that the Wesley brothers are confused Calvinists (don't ask me where though, I can't remember)
"There is NO such thing as a 3-point Calvinist; you are either 5 or 0, anything other than that either implies inconsistency or redefinition of the terms"
And the question is? The sentence is straightforward; it means what it says.
"Sometimes I wonder whether people really know what Arminianism actually is, both the classical and modern varieties."
Well, you can just read articles writeen by modern-day so-called 'biblicists' like the Caner brothers to see the number of strawmen created by them. Read Norman Geisler's book Chosen But Free to see the redefinition of the terms Arminianism and Calvinism and the strawmen positions he has created of both and caricatured and argued against. These modern-day Arminians embrace the first 4 points of Arminianism (Partial Depravity, Conditional Election, Universal Atonement, Resistable Grace) and therefore I call them the modern day variety of Arminianism.
Oh, for a demonstration of their belief in conditional election, check out Ergun Caner's quote 'Elected because I selected'.
17 comments:
after reading this post i went to read up the writeups in Wikipedia about Calvinism and Arminianism. From the way you describe the 2 schools of thought one can easily get the impression that they are polar opposites... but are they really so?
I am not convinced that they are.
wikipedia may not be the most trustworthy source in the world but it seems to represent a more credible position of arminianism as opposed to explanations commonly given in most other websites, which i often find rather dubious and seem to describe semi-pelagianism instead (again a term i jus discovered in wiki, forgive my poor familiarity with these terms as well as lack of more in depth and reliable sources).
"There is NO such thing as a 3-point Calvinist; you are either 5 or 0, anything other than that either implies inconsistency or redefinition of the terms" .. this statement feels so uncompromising.. i dont understand this insistence about "inconsistency" or "redefinition of terms"
+ by forcing pple to either accept all 5 points completely and nothing else as compared to 0 points completely and nothing else... the difference between 5 & 0 is the christian between non-christian already, not between calvinism and arminianism anymore.... its kinda unfair to me... if 5 & 0 then wesley can of course be claimed by critics to be some sort of "confused calvinist" since arminianism doesnt try to claim a 0-point stance
anyway.. im more of a calvinist.. or even a confused one if anyone insists.. and my church stand is calvinist as well
'I brought up those statements to help you in your book. Otherwise, you will become a nice target for others. Well, since your book is out there, it is too late.'
It's OK. I appreciate your concern. I think it is no problem, though.
'Wesley was a well-known Arminian who was editor of a magazine The Arminian Magazine. I will try and obtain copies of this magazine when I meet my fav. second hand book dealer later this week.'
Yes, he may have call himself an Arminian, but the fact of the matter is that he does not behave nor even believe everything the Remonstrants believe. (Btw, I agree with the Canons of the Synod of Dordt in their condemnation of Arminianism, and I regard the Remonstrant opinions and articles as indicative of proper Arminianism, and that's why I say that Wesley's theology is not pure Arminianism, which is heresy.)
'Most of the early dispensationalists are 3-4 point Calvinists, though they would deny it. Even my brother, a Brethren, is a 4-pointer. In fact, he was the one who first taught me Calvinism'
Eh.. I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make here. I wasn't trying to say that there are no person who is a 3- or 4- pointer. I am just saying that logically speaking, no one can logically consistently be a 3- or 4- pointer. Those that are are inconsistent in their soteriology.
'Perhaps you can explain what is classical and modern Arminianism? '
I thought I have explained that in the appendix (I) of my book in the section under 'Arminianism'? Or you can look at the original article found on my website...
Hello Munchy,
I will tackle the Wikipedia entry perhaps next time.
'since arminianism doesnt try to claim a 0-point stance'
Perhaps it would be good for you to read the Remonstrant Opinions and Articles for yourself to see that Arminianism DOES claim a '0-point stance'. Chekc them out here: (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/TheRemonstrants.htm)
'anyway.. im more of a calvinist.. or even a confused one if anyone insists.. and my church stand is calvinist as well'
I don't know about that. I was thinking of designing a soteriological quiz to find out where people really stand on the issue. Then we will see...
lazy to read the opinions (looks so wordy) but ok lets look at the articles.
do you disagree with all aspects of all 5 articles?
i am finding it difficult to find any advocation of the importance of man's role without firstly a clear deferment to the all importance of god's role without which nothing can happen.
the most controversial aspects seem to be the last parts of the 4th and 5th article, which seem to be addressed in the I & P of TULIP. but even then there seems to be some sort of a disclaimer at the end of the 5th article which seems to imply that they themselves are not that convinced over any stand.
apart from this.. the 1st 3 articles look compatible with TUL.. It obviously doesnt state things in terms of calvinist points since it came before TULIP so in that sense its a '0 point stance'.. but they look compatible and do not seem in opposition to each other
so yeah.. what are the aspects of the articles that you disagree with?
anyway.. a quiz sounds fun :)
Munchy:
eh... the Remonstrant opinions are the one which actually show what the Remonstrants mean when they write their articles. Yes, the 1st article and the 3rd article sounds orthodox, and the 1st article can even be embraced by the Semi-Pelagian. The 3rd article is even more orthodox than quite a few Christian leaders nowadays (i.e. Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard Browne etc.), sad to say, and it looks OK. The 2nd article, however, is not OK, since it already floats the idea of universal atonement. ('died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins')
To me limited atonement and universal atonement is just a matter of perspective, both can be argued for, both can be supported biblically.
The last parts of 4 & 5 seem quite related. In the past I remember being v troubled at chancing on accounts of christians who have turned away and even renounced their faith, it seemed to go against what I was taught and believed. However, 2 things ultimately comforted me. 1) was that such matters are best left to God to deal with and I should not be dismayed over them. 2) was that I like and need the idea of assurance in my faith, and I would not be able to continue in my faith otherwise
Glancing through some of the opinions.. I guess it is inevitable that there are more questionable issues in the opinions.. But remonstrants are not arminius incarnate and neither did calvin grow tulips.. if any christian takes the stand of Arminianism in the form of these 5 articles and nothing more, I am confident he'll be alright
'To me limited atonement and universal atonement is just a matter of perspective, both can be argued for, both can be supported biblically.'
And that is why I don't think you are a Calvinist. It is NOT a matter of perspective, as if God in actuality atones for some in particular but then it is right for us to say that God atones for all! Calvinism deny that the doctrine of universal atonement can be supported biblically.
'Glancing through some of the opinions.. I guess it is inevitable that there are more questionable issues in the opinions.. But remonstrants are not arminius incarnate and neither did calvin grow tulips.. if any christian takes the stand of Arminianism in the form of these 5 articles and nothing more, I am confident he'll be alright'
I can point you to the article that I write on the subject here:
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/arminianism_chart.html . Anyway, the Synod of Dordt says this regarding the Remonstrant Articles and Opinions, and I concur:
And so this is the clear, simple, and straightforward explanation of the orthodox teaching on the five articles in dispute in the Netherlands, as well as the rejection of the errors by which the Dutch churches have for some time been disturbed. This explanation and rejection the Synod declares to be derived from God's Word and in agreement with the confessions of the Reformed churches. Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all ...
Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.
Finally, this Synod urges all fellow ministers in the gospel of Christ to deal with this teaching in a godly and reverent manner, in the academic institutions as well as in the churches; to do so, both in their speaking and writing, with a view to the glory of God's name, holiness of life, and the comfort of anxious souls; to think and also speak with Scripture according to the analogy of faith; and, finally, to refrain from all those ways of speaking which go beyond the bounds set for us by the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures and which could give impertinent sophists a just occasion to scoff at the teaching of the Reformed churches or even to bring false accusations against it.
May God's Son Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of God and gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, lead to the truth those who err, silence the mouths of those who lay false accusations against sound teaching, and equip faithful ministers of his Word with a spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all they say may be to the glory of God and the building up of their hearers. Amen.
So, no, it is NOT alright if they take the Remonstrant position. Those who take the Remonstrant position knowlingly are deemed heretics by the Synod of Dordt and since the Synod is rather ecumenical (as in there were representatives from all the Reformed churches at that time - including from the Anglican Church at that time), this is the stand of historic Protestanism with regards to the issue. It is also a known fact that many of the Remonstrants grow deeper in apstasy after they were thrown out of the Dutch churches, with some denying the inspiration of Scripture even. Heresy always begets more heresy.
Eh... typo:
knowingly, not knowlingly
looking at the 5 articles themselves and nothing more..i said "if any christian takes the stand of Arminianism in the form of these 5 articles and nothing more, I am confident he'll be alright".. i did not mention the remonstrants here (i mentioned the word earlier but its not related to this point)
so why do you say "So, no, it is NOT alright if they take the Remonstrant position." ... esp when you expressed the view that the 5 articles do not express the views of the remonstrants?
(are you of the opinion that arminianism must necessarily take the form of the remonstrant position in all its entirety otherwise its not pure arminianism or something?)
Only the chosen are ultimately redeemed.. but I think Jesus' death on the cross certainly has the capacity to atone for everyone..
Oh... eh, I thought you were mentioning both the articles and the opinions. Hmmm.... if you embrace the articles alone, then you might still be a Christian, but you would be an inconsistent one.
>(are you of the opinion that arminianism must necessarily take the form of the remonstrant position in all its entirety otherwise its not pure arminianism or something?)
Eh... yes. Any position that does not take the form of the Remonstrant position is not pure, traditional Arminianism.
>Only the chosen are ultimately redeemed.. but I think Jesus' death on the cross certainly has the capacity to atone for everyone..
Any what does the sufficiency of the atonement has to do with its efficacy? The doctrine of Limited or Definite Atonement has to do with the intention of the atonement, not its sufficiency, which all Christians do not deny. The doctrine of universal atonement specifically deny that Christ's death was only intended to save the elect; it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the atonement is sufficient to save everyone.
So do you concur with the saying, "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect?"
Vincent,
Eh.. yes, I do. However, that is not Limited Atonement. That is just Particularism.
there was this other time i mentioned something about christianity being a "dynamic" faith.. its jus a thot that was brewing in my head and i dont really have much that is substantial to say about it, but jus want to try n explain a bit more about what i was thinking about
its like.. God is great, the bible wonderfully rich and the work on the cross so amazing that it often feels as if man's desires to define various teachings and concepts fall short for that very reason.. God is too big for us to put Him into boxes that we construct in our minds..
its a religion stunningly simple, yet impressively complex, it comprises God's sovereignty, predestination, man's role, justice, mercy, fate, freedom to choose, faith, grace, sin, salvation, rebirth, love, etc etc..
whenever i consider an issue in one way, there are often another sides to it as well.. existing in some sort of balance and tension together with one another.. a tension that is dynamic according to the situation and timing in one's life.. and one that keeps me on my toes and that works to enlarge my perspective and increase my faith and knowledge of God with time.. I relish this richness and variety in our religion, a non-stagnant vibrant faith in a timeless God who actively works in our lives.. and I prefer it this way, chrisitianity would be poorer if God could always be summarized into little boxes for our convenience
Munchy:
Christianity is not dependent on whether we like it or not; it does not conform to whether we prefer something to be this way or that. It depends on God and God alone. Yes, we should not put God into a box, but neither should we redefine who God is. If God reveals Himself to be like this, and he says that he works in a certain way, the issue should be settled for us, period. It is not about boxes or the lack of them.
Oh, and regarding all the talk about balance and tension, God is not a God of confusion. It is not a matter of 'balance' for God, but of the Truth. In God there are no contradictions, only probably apparent contradictions to us. We accept who God is according to the Scriptures, not try to see how God is 'balanced', as though what we would think of as 'inbalance' is not really part of God at all!
yup God is not a God of confusion or contradictions.. i guess 'balance' implies something thats bit neither here nor there, and so its not a v gd word to use.. i guess i view it on a more macroscopic level, an all-encompassing dynamic tension between different aspects working together... im not trying to selectively redefine who God is to me, but rather this is how it all appears to me.. (im not trying to look for 'balance' in God if anything its the other way around)
Post a Comment