Wanted: More Arminians
It has become a bit routine:
- Email arrives from someone assuming I am (or everybody at SharperIron is) a Calvinist.
- Email poses question believed to be incriminating of Calvinists or unanswerable by them.
- Response from me offers biblical answer that is not especially calvinistic.
- Questioner ignores most of the particulars, broadly condemns “Calvinism.”
- Discussion becomes repetitive, overly heated or both, ends.
A recent example appears below, with details removed to avoid identifying the sender. I’m including the exchange because, this time around, a reality hit home to me that hadn’t before: apparently, many fundamentalists think that anti-Calvinism is a complete doctrine of salvation.
But anti-Calvinism is, at best, a thoughtful rejection of one particular doctrine of salvation. More commonly, it’s nothing more than a feeling of hostility toward doctrines only partially understood. As a result, many anti-Calvinists have no coherent doctrine of salvation at all. They have rejected lasagna from the menu but have walked away without ordering any alternative.
If the emails I get are any indication, most anti-Calvinists are completely unaware that they have an empty hole where their soteriology ought to be.
So this essay is a plea for more Arminians. Love it or hate it, authentic Arminianism offers a thoughtful, self-consistent set of Bible-based answers to all the same questions Calvinism wrestles with. And the cause of the gospel would be far better served if more anti-Calvinists would embrace some kind of coherent soteriology. Classical Arminianism is not the work of slouches and is far better than the semi-Pelagian, Finneyist confusion that came along later—and way, way better than the self-contradictory, quasi-Pelagian mush many anti-Calvinists settle for nowadays!
The conversation
Anti-Calvinist (1)
How do you theologize away “…was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance?”. And, just so I know, are you a Calvinist who opines that, in John 3:16, that when God so loved the world, it was the world of the elect……..and whosoever actually means “whosoever of the elect”? Just wondering, because my 3rd grade sunday school students read it and believe it means all inclusive.
Me (1)
Hi, [name removed].
Since all do not actually come to repentance, and God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph.1), that verse requires an explanation regardless of whether one identifies more closely with a Calvinist, Arminian or quasi-Pelagian approach—or none of the above.
In short, “not willing that any should perish” has to be “theologized away” by everybody in one way or another. The question is how to harmonize it with what is revealed elsewhere. A sort of short answer, from my point of view, is that unless we say those burning in Hell for eternity are there against God’s will, we have to understand “not willing” in 2 Pet. 3:9 to be either (a) describing God as conflicted on this point or (b) having a narrower meaning based on the context. As for (a) the idea would be that He wants them there perishing in some sense but doesn’t want them there in another. It is part of His plan to reveal His righteousness through “vessels of wrath” (Rom. 9:22), yet He is grieved that this part of the plan brings suffering to His creatures (“endured with much longsuffering” - also Rom.9:22).
But the other possibility is that (b) the verse should to be read in context as an explanation for why He delays His coming (see 2Pet.3:4ff), that is, He delays because He is not willing to end His plan early and leave those who would have believed stranded without their day of opportunity. In short, Peter is saying “God has a schedule, and His coming is right on time. There are still those He plans to save.”
I can see merits in both (a) and (b), though I’m still not entirely confident I correctly understand Romans 9. But other passages do indicate He does not take pleasure “in the death of one who dies” (Ezek 18.32). So a scenario where He is “willing” and yet “not willing” at the same time doesn’t seem out of the question to me. All the same, as far as 2 Pet. 3 goes, (b) handles the context better.
Hope that helps. I’m not speaking for others at SharperIron. There would be a variety of answers to that question from folks on the team, not to mention those who would join in discussion.
Anti-Calvinist (2)
See your quote below.
In short, “not willing that any should perish” has to be “theologized away” by everybody in one way or another. The question is how to harmonize it with what is revealed elsewhere. A sort of short answer, from my point of view, is that unless we say those burning in Hell for eternity are there against God’s will, we have to understand “not willing” in 2 Pet. 3:9 to be either (a) describing God as conflicted on this point or (b) having a narrower meaning based on the context. As for (a) the idea would be that He wants them there perishing in some sense but doesn’t want them there in another.
No point in arguing with you, however, I will point out, that it appears that you do not believe people can refuse salvation, and go to hell for their unbelief…..and this is what God desired all along. To put the thought process simply: God created a man, desiring that the man would go to hell, thus not granting him “elect” status, which you oh-so-conveniently purport to possess…..lucky you, that you aren’t part of Gods big ant-squashing rumpus room, right?
Me (2)
Eph2, Romans 3 are clear that people do not want to believe. This is why God must graciously bring conviction to them first. No one comes except the Father draws him. It’s not about luck. It’s called grace. There are ultimately only two possibilities: either I am chosen on the basis of some quality I possess or I am chosen graciously apart from any merit of my own (what you are calling “lucky” here). So which do you choose to believe? If you decide for “merit,” you have rejected the gospel. (This is not a “Calvinist” idea. Even Arminians affirm that human beings do not, on their own, possess any inclination to believe the gospel. An act of Grace by God is required.)*
So in your view, is God’s will eternally flouted by the existence of sinners in Hell? Is He standing helplessly by as His will is defeated by millions who reject His offer of salvation? If so, as the old saying goes, your God is too small.
Anti-Calvinist (3)
Do you believe that it is God’s desire that some people go to hell?
Me (3)
Tell you what, I’ll answer that after you answer my questions. :)
Anti-Calvinist (4)
Its been the basic question all along. Does God desire that certain people go to hell? (His will).
Me (4)
I shouldn’t answer your questions if you won’t answer mine. But I’ll let Scripture answer them…
He “works all things according to the counsel of His own will.” Eph.1.11
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ (Isaiah 46:10)
But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. (Psalm 135:6)
Anti-Calvinist (5)
Almost as if you are afraid to answer yes, so instead you dance.
In order for Calvinism to be true, God must desire (will) that some boys and girls die and go to hell someday.
Me (5)
Quoting Scripture is dancing? I’m happy to be dancing in that case. When you have something to say about the verses I’ve quoted and the questions I’ve raised, I’d be happy to discuss the matter further.
Anti-Calvinist (6)
There is nothing to discuss, because you are wrong. In typical fashion, a calvinist must engage in long drawn-out searching in order to understand salvation.
Yes, you danced. I asked a question about what you believe. Instead of giving a simple response, you attempted to deflect “blame” for your position of predamnation to the Bible.
Your hateful self-important heresy rears its ugly head up every few decades, and gains momentum….only to once again be slapped down with: “For God so loved the WORLD…that WHOSOEVER..”, “..not our sins only..” Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.
Sir, a child hearing the Gospel, can understand these verses, and understand that God wants to save everyone.
Im glad that you are wrong, and that everyone can be saved. You believing the world is flat, does not make it so.
A plea for seriousness
The exchange above is shortened slightly, but even in the full length version the anti-Calvinist offers no explanation for how it is that people can spend eternity in Hell contrary to God’s will, how a God who “wants to save everyone” fails to do so, how a God who wants all to be saved could ever return (thus ending the opportunity of salvation for many), or even why there should be any eternal Hell at all.
To all anti-Calvinists everywhere: I respect your right to reject Calvinism—more than you know! But if you’re going to be anti something, please be for something else. Develop a studious, serious, thoughtful and—yes, systematic—set of answers to the issues of God’s sovereign plan; the phenomenon of human choice; the reality of Hell in God’s plan; the nature of depravity, election and grace; and the extent and application of the atonement. For my part, I’d be thrilled if more of you picked up a copy of Roger E. Olson’s Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and became full-blown Arminians.
*The references to sovereign grace as luck and divine wrath as ant squishing, etc. disoriented me for a bit here, I guess. My counter-argument is pretty much a calvinistic one, since the belief-enabling grace in Arminianism is not granted individually but rather preveniently to all who hear the gospel.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 38 views
Unless this is a church member of your own church, why would you bother getting involved in this type of exchange? It’s a no win situation, as far as I can see. And I wouldn’t get into this with a church member by e-mail… way too inflammatory.
Now, a few comments on what I get from your article…
[Aaron Blumer] Classical Arminianism is not the work of slouches and is far better than the semi-Pelagian, Finneyist confusion that came along later—and way, way better than the self-contradictory, quasi-Pelagian mush many anti-Calvinists settle for nowadays!The way you say this, along with some other points in your article is rather frustrating to any kind of charitable discussion of theology. First, a lot of these terms are inflammatory by themselves. Using the term “Pelagian” is all too easy for Calvinists, they seem to trot it out at the first opportunity, and whether it is qualified by “semi-“, “qausi-“, “demi-“, “hemi-” or any other such prefix it really frustrates non-Calvinists because it is just pejorative and hardly every is an accurate description of what they believe. It is most often used to silence critics lest they should be in any way connected to Pelagius and his heretical beliefs. That’s no way to conduct an argument.
The term “Arminian” itself is likewise very frustrating. The way it is used seems to be generally as a pejorative of any system that isn’t at least 4-point Calvinism. The fact is that there are several different views between full Arminianism and full Calvinism. Personally, I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism as inadequate to fully express the meaning of Scripture. So it is incredibly frustrating when that term is trotted out. I noticed it in a recent review somewhere… Themelios? I think that’s where it was. There was a review of a book I recently read, http://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Ca…] Whosoever Will , edited by David Allen and Steven Lemke. The reviewer basically dismissed the book as “Arminian” … which is not the case at all.
In these discussions, it would be better to just leave off the labels and talk about what we think the actual texts say. On the non-Calvinist side, I have seen too much throwing around of the “Hyper-” prefix, a term designed to frustrate Calvinists and shut them up.
One last quibble, in your footnote, you said:
[Aaron Blumer] My counter-argument is pretty much a calvinistic one, since the belief-enabling grace in Arminianism is not granted individually but rather preveniently to all who hear the gospel.I don’t think that is quite right. I think Arminianism teaches that all men are given prevenient grace such that when they hear the gospel they are able to believe.
Here’s part of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace] Wikipedia entry:
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.There are more definitions there, including one from the Church of the Nazarene that seems to be a pretty representative statement of it.
Well, have at it! I don’t plan to enter into this discussion beyond this post, though you never know…
And I think the internet is about to explode into a discussion of ‘events, my boy, events’ starting tomorrow, so probably this post will get lost in the shuffle!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
No, I usually assume that I can either (a) make my own understanding more clear or (b) give a questioner some things to think about. I have too much of a teaching impulse to turn anybody away who is asking, even if I suspect he isn’t really interested in thinking about the subject.
As for prevenient grace, I think the difference between “comes to all before they hear the gospel” and “comes to all who hear” is not tremendously important. Either way, all who hear have belief-enabling grace in the Arminian system.
But, FWIW, the way I worded it came most recently from here (though I have seen it elsewhere):
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline.FACTS-of-Arminianism-vs-the-TUL…
[Don] The term “Arminian” itself is likewise very frustrating. The way it is used seems to be generally as a pejorative of any system that isn’t at least 4-point Calvinism. The fact is that there are several different views between full Arminianism and full Calvinism.I think you kind of missed my point. I’m serious about the title of the essay. I have a great deal of respect for the Arminianism that came from Arminius, though it does not represent my own views. And the piece is intended to illustrate that many out there today have not thought their soteriology through—with the result that their views are incoherent. Coherent Arminianism is better than any view that is tripping over its own answers to the fundamental questions.
So I’d rather see “in betweeners” go a bit further one way or the other than have a random soteriology. I’m not ready to say that neither system can be modified at all, but these were very serious men trying to answer very important questions biblically (the men I refer to are mainly Augustine and later Calvin and Arminius and their proteges).
They didn’t invent systems in order to enslave everyone to a system. They arrived at systems because they believed that everything God says is true and therefore everything He says is consistent with everything else He says. Therefore, we have not understood Him accurately if our views on a subject are contradictory.
My post is getting long but I need to clarify that I absolutely believe in mysteries, but we’re not qualified to rope a question off as unanswerable until we seriously aim to answer it (and find that God has not given us enough information to do so).
So “modifying” Arminianism or Calvinism is only proper and possible when you understand both first. If we don’t go to that much trouble, we’re likely to have semi-Pelagian mush as a soteriology because this is where we are historically post-Finney. (I use the term Pelagian advisedly because I do know what Pelagianism is).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As I meditated upon these two passages over the years, this is how the Lord led my understanding of them.
Dick Dayton
Many of us, perhaps yourself included, also see a duel track. There is a sense in which whosever will is true, and there is a sense in which no man can come unless the Father draws him, and the Father does not draw everyone. I used to often hear about the paradox of God’s sovereignty and free will (I prefer the term responsibility because I do not actually believe in free will), but that seems to have dropped out of modern discussions.
I have to affirm that your main point is valid about a hole in the realm of soteriology among those who reject Sovereign Grace. People want to take eternal security but not the basis for that security (God’s sovereign hand). They want to assert man’s free will, but, in essence, say after salvation that free will is removed (a saved person cannot choose to be lost).
Personally, I have found much appeal in Arminian viewpoints, although I usually disagree with parts of them. Yet, because they are not encapsulated with the Westminster Confession or a TULIP configuration, they often do a better job of thinking outside the box. Unfortunately Arminianism often borders on works salvation, but not always. Ben Witherington III is a commentator I do not always agree with, but he has to be one of the most amazing Bible scholars of our day. His commentaries are amazing.
Great, bold post brother!
"The Midrash Detective"
I for one am thankful that you would endeavor to answer these kinds of questions and to give us the benefit of your thinking. I believe this kind of discussion can be most helpful to those who are wrestling with difficult Biblical statements.
Don, I would appeal to you to not get so frustrated with the use of terms and labels. These all have well defined meanings, historically, and can be extremely helpful in keeping these discussions from long, detailed explanations. Re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. The problem is not with the labels. The problem is that some do not understand correctly what the labels mean. When that becomes apparent, the discussion needs to slow down and take more time to explain. Otherwise, it can move forward more efficiently. Perhaps the use of these terms will encourage some to learn what they mean, and in the process, to further their understanding of the subject at hand.
It is my observation that a well understood, full blown Arminianism comes closer to Calvinism in many respects than the broadly evangelical gospel so prevalent today. An old-fashioned Wesleyan, for example, recognizes the need for the Holy Spirit’s personal and specific operation upon an individual to enable them to believe the gospel. Many modern day evangelicals/fundamentalists do not, opting instead to believe that saving faith is inherent in every man, or that prevenient grace enables everyone to believe the gospel when they hear it, without an immediate enabling work of the Holy Spirit, a work that may not occur to another sinner hearing the same message at the same time.
Thanks to all for a good discussion.
G. N. Barkman
Thanks for taking a few hits for the team.
One example of Arminius’ views below— one that explains the distinction I’m trying to make between true “Arminianism” and “semi-Pelagianism.” Maybe, Don, I wasn’t clear that I don’t lump these together. Arminius was not a semi-Pelagian because, for one, he did believe we all sinned in Adam.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1.v.viii.html
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I find both Calvinists and Arminians, in their attempts to reconcile the various passages, explaining away the few passages that trouble their system. When this happens on both sides, it ought to be a sign to us that neither system is sufficient to completely explain the fullness of soteriological truth.
[Mike Durning] Aaron, I appreciate the spirit of this article.I agree to an extent… though I find when I read the more serious representatives, they don’t do this as much as they seem to be doing it. That is, whether you see something being “explained away” or not tends to depend on the theological tilt you already have when you read the explanation.
I find both Calvinists and Arminians, in their attempts to reconcile the various passages, explaining away the few passages that trouble their system. When this happens on both sides, it ought to be a sign to us that neither system is sufficient to completely explain the fullness of soteriological truth.
In general, I think the effort these men put into systematizing is underappreciated today. I tend to read Calvin and Arminius with the assumption that these guys were both smarter and godlier than me… so if it looks like “explaining away,” I want to step back and say, well, maybe not.
But on the whole, I’ve come to value the whole idea of “systematic” much more than I did, say, a dozen years ago. (Partly because we seem to live in an era where logical inconsistency is becoming almost a badge of honor. [understatement] Something about that offends me… [/understatement] though I’m all for keeping a keen eye on the fact that we mere humans can only reason out so much and no more.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As for the Arminians who object to being called Arminians … well wow, how many “Calvinists” are actually “Calvinists” (meaning that they agree with Calvin’s entire system, and not just the soteriology)? If they want a better name for themselves, it is their responsibility to pick one (and no, we are not going to go along with their propaganda and trash our own beliefs by calling them “biblicists.”)
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Election and Reprobation
http://scottsdalebible.com/assets/audio/christian-essentials/20080120WG…
The whole series is linked here
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/MP3-Audio—Multimedia/…
And on iTunes via podcast.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wayne-grudems-systematic-theology/id…
[Aaron Blumer]What I am pointing out is that Calvinists tend to use the term ‘Arminian’ to describe all systems that are not Calvinist. But doing so is a misuse of the term. Most of those who it is wielded against are not Calvinists, but they are not Arminians either.[Don] The term “Arminian” itself is likewise very frustrating. The way it is used seems to be generally as a pejorative of any system that isn’t at least 4-point Calvinism. The fact is that there are several different views between full Arminianism and full Calvinism.I think you kind of missed my point. I’m serious about the title of the essay. I have a great deal of respect for the Arminianism that came from Arminius, though it does not represent my own views. And the piece is intended to illustrate that many out there today have not thought their soteriology through—with the result that their views are incoherent. Coherent Arminianism is better than any view that is tripping over its own answers to the fundamental questions.
So I’d rather see “in betweeners” go a bit further one way or the other than have a random soteriology. I’m not ready to say that neither system can be modified at all, but these were very serious men trying to answer very important questions biblically (the men I refer to are mainly Augustine and later Calvin and Arminius and their proteges).
Further, I think it is a mistake to assume that someone who isn’t either an Arminian or a Calvinist is guilty of ‘random soteriology’, ‘semi-Pelagian mush’, or hasn’t thought through the issues.
I think you can find thoughtless people at all points along the theological spectrum. I could say I find a LOT of them at the C end, but I don’t want to inflame things!!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[G. N. Barkman] Don, I would appeal to you to not get so frustrated with the use of terms and labels. These all have well defined meanings, historically, and can be extremely helpful in keeping these discussions from long, detailed explanations. Re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. The problem is not with the labels. The problem is that some do not understand correctly what the labels mean. When that becomes apparent, the discussion needs to slow down and take more time to explain. Otherwise, it can move forward more efficiently.Fair enough. However, the labels I object to most are not used as descriptors in debate, they are used to dismiss the argument or the one arguing and to shut down the argument altogether. “That’s just semi-Pelagianism.” “You’re just an Arminian.” I suppose such statements are fine if they are true, but most often they are not, and when used, they are used by Calvinists who don’t understand what they mean and just want to dismiss the person they disagree with.
[G. N. Barkman] It is my observation that a well understood, full blown Arminianism comes closer to Calvinism in many respects than the broadly evangelical gospel so prevalent today.I agree. That’s one of the reasons I reject full blown Arminianism! (I reject the ‘broadly evangelical gospel’ too, just in case anyone is wondering.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
However, I do think that non-systematic mush is extremely common in the US outside confessional Protestantism and Catholicism. For example, Norman Geisler is a very well respected evangelical theologian. He has been the president of ETS and written an influential 4-volume systematic. His soteriological views are an incoherent mess, and I don’t say that merely because I disagree with him.
He participated in the Zondervan volume http://www.amazon.com/Views-Eternal-Security-Matthew-Pinson/dp/03102343…] Four Views on Eternal Security . That volume included Michael Horton (Classical Calvinism), Geisler (Moderate Calvinism), Stephen Ashby (Reformed [Classical] Arminianism), and J. Stephen Harper (Wesleyan Arminianism).
Now, the remarkable thing is that Geisler, while disagreeing with all the accepted points of Calvinism, nevertheless styled himself a “moderate Calvinist” because of his belief in eternal security. However, the two Arminians, in their responses, lambasted Geisler. They said that he was no Calvinist, nor even an Arminian, but some sort of confused semi-Pelagian. Had that come from Horton, the reader might pass over it as overzealous Calvinism, but when two Arminians starting throwing around the big P-word, we need to listen. If a man as intelligent and well-educated as Geisler doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about in this area, I fear for evangelicalism.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Don] “That’s just semi-Pelagianism.” “You’re just an Arminian.” I suppose such statements are fine if they are true, but most often they are not, and when used, they are used by Calvinists who don’t understand what they mean and just want to dismiss the person they disagree with.I share your distaste for that sort of thing. In the long run, helps nobody because the ideas themselves are not getting thought about. (It’s also pretty boring, IMO… but that sort of depends on whether you prefer chess to free style wrestling ;) )
There’s a really interesting article by J. Matthew Pinson of the Society of Church History, http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/The%20Diversity%20of%20Arminian%2…] published at SEA .
It’s a fascinating look at the differences between the Arminianism of Thomas Grantham and that of John Goodwin, both 17th century English Baptists.
A brief taste: Grantham (with Arminius) embraces both original sin in Adam and imputation with Adam. Goodwin says we all sinned in Adam but are not imputed Adam’s guilt.
Grantham (with Arminius), holds to the penal satisfaction view of the atonement. Goodwin leans toward Grotius’ governmental theory.
The piece is very even handed and well documented and some great background for looking at how we got to where we are with these questions today. It’s kind of the beginning of the departures that eventually led to more popular, but less biblical, variants of Arminianism in the U.S.
[Charlie] They said that he was no Calvinist, nor even an Arminian, but some sort of confused semi-Pelagian. Had that come from Horton, the reader might pass over it as overzealous Calvinism, but when two Arminians starting throwing around the big P-word, we need to listen.LOL. But I agree that the confusion we’re seeing isn’t funny at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion