Quotes & Sayings

We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater


Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Is there a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism?

Is there a middle ground between
Calvinism and Arminianism?
by Roger Olson
* * * * * * * * * *
Why I wrote my books
by Roger Olson
May 15, 2011
I’m flattered that some commenters listed one or more of my books as among their favorites. I should not assume that anyone really cares why I wrote any of my books, but just in case someone wonders or finds it interesting…
20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age: Stan Grenz called me and asked me to write a chapter in a book he planned to edit on modern/contemporary theology. IVP asked him to head up this project. Stan and I met through our mutual connection with Pannenberg. He left Munich just as I was going there and mutual friends suggested I get in touch with him to learn about life in Munich. After I returned we met and struck up a friendship. I said to Stan “Why don’t you and I write the book together–edited books aren’t usually very good.” He immediately agreed and the book came together with very little difficulty because Stan and I thought very much alike. We agreed very easily on which theologians to include and who should write which chapters. For any of you interested in such, I wrote chapters on: Schleiermacher, Ritschl (including Harnack and Rauschenbusch), Barth, Brunner, Tillich, Radical Theology, Rahner, Kung, Moltmann, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology and maybe one or two others. I am now in the process of revising 20th Century Theology. The revised, updated work will include more chapters on 19th century theology (thus probably requiring a new title) and postmodern theology. One glaring omission of 20th century theology was Kierkegaard who got only passing mention in the introduction to the section on neo-orthodoxy. We struggled over where to put Bultmann–in the section on neo-orthodoxy or in the section on neo-liberal theologians (with Tillich and process theology). Stan finally made the decision to put him with neo-orthodoxy because of his existentialist leanings and his emphasis on kerygmatic theology in spite of his very liberal demythologizing project.
Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God: Stan and I came up with the idea for that book while driving around Washington, D.C. with our friends from IVP during an AAR meeting in about 1993 (I think). We were talking about the difficulty of getting evangelicals to take theology seriously. I had quoted over dinner Vance Havner (radio preacher from the 1950s): “Happy is the Christian who has never met a theologian.” That led into a discussion of the need for a book explaining why theology is not bad. By the time we got back to the hotel after dinner the outline of the book was already decided. Who Needs Theology has been my best selling book after Finding God in the Shack.
The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform: I guess this is my magnum opus. I wrote it in four months–during my second sabbatical in (I think it was) 1998. (I wrote my portions of 20th Century Theology during my first sabbatical in 1991.) The book came about because Rodney Clapp, then my editor at IVP, asked me about writing a book alone. I was anxious to do that to establish my own reputation as an author apart from Stan. If felt the need for a textbook to replace the one I usually used when teaching historical theology–William Placher’s History of Christian Thought. Placher mashed the Christological and trinitarian controversies together into one chapter! I had to spread that one chapter out over three weeks in class. Also, I wanted to tell the mostly untold stories of Arminian theology, Pietism and Anabaptist theology–three movements mostly ignored and neglected in volumes of historical theology. The book kept growing as I wrote and IVP graciously allowed me to let it get longer and longer although I had to really cut back in the modern theology section. In effect, the book became a prequel to 20th Century Theology.
The Trinity: I was asked to write this by my friend Alan Padgett. We taught together for two years and he knew of my passion for the doctrine of the Trinity. This was to be the first volume of a series he was editing for Eerdmans (Guides to Theology). I was working on another project and so asked my friend Christopher Hall to write it with me and he agreed. Chris wrote most of the first half of the book and I wrote most of the second half of the book. As I recall, I picked up with the Reformers.
The book I was busy working on was The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (IVP). This book came about because my friends at IVP asked me about writing another book and out of our discussions we agreed on a brief summa of Christian doctrine. I had been using Stan’s Theology for the Community of God as a textbook in a basic Christian doctrine class. But the students complained it was too long and contained too much speculation and was too singularly focused on one theme–community. I loved the book, but I had to agree about the speculation part. Personally, I think most systematic theologies contain too much speculation. The Mosaic book was to omit speculation. Each chapter would follow the same pattern (to make it easier to use as a textbook). The approach would be to promote The Great Tradition of Christian doctrine while acknowledging legitimate diversity within it. I suggested the title. Then I realized Stan was using the term “Mosaic” in some of his writings. So I asked him for permission to use it in my title. He refused at first, then said okay. Later I realized he was planning to use the Mosaic word in what became is Matrix series–left unfinished when he died. He substituted Matrix for Mosaic, giving me Mosaic. I appreciated that. However, I had given him permission to write a little book on modern/contemporary theology for Fortress that really cut into sales of 20th Century Theology. So we did each other favors.
I believe my next book was The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. This came about because WJK editor and old friend Don McKim asked me to write it and I jumped on the opportunity. It was a major and very time consuming project that hasn’t sold well. But that’s because it is really a reference book.
I’m skipping over a couple of smaller books here.
Then came Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Questions to All Your Answers–written at the same time during a sabbatical several years ago. I had been wanting to write a book about Arminian theology for a long time, but several publishers expressed doubt about whether there would be an audience for such a book. My friends at IVP gave me the green light to write it and it has sold very well. The impetus for Arminian Theology was very specific and precise–the 1992 special issue of Modern Reformation magazine entitled simply Arminianism. It contained articles caricaturing Arminian theology. When I read it I knew I had to write a book refuting that and other caricatures and misrepresentations of Arminianism. My research was extensive. I read virtually everything I could get my hands on for and against Arminian theology. I would have to say that so far Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities has been the book most satisfying and fulfilling for me as an author. I believe it satisfied a felt need and corrected misconceptions about my own theology and that of many evangelicals.
Questions to All Your Answers: The Journey from Folk Religion to Examined Faith (Zondervan). This was my first foray into popular writing and publishing. The book came about as a result of something I can only describe as a revelation. I won’t go into that here. But that is to say something remarkable happened. The whole book–title and outline and chapter titles, etc., came to me in a flash while walking for exercise. I wrote it in two weeks and submitted the manuscript to Zondervan who immediately accepted it.
Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (BakerAcademic) and How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative (Zondervan) were written almost simultaneously. They came about because of lectures I gave at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia and at Carey Theological College in Vancouver. Reformed and Always Reforming was, in many ways, my defense of Stan Grenz’s theological method, but I was also becoming convinced that Kevin Vanhoozer’s method was compatible with Stan’s and the two together point a way forward beyond evangelical theology’s fundamentalist roots into something new that is not liberal. I admit to being inspired somewhat by postliberal theology (more Hans Frei than George Lindbeck!).
God in Dispute: Conversations between Great Christian Thinkers came about because my friend Bob Hosack at BakerAcademic kept asking me to write another book for them. I had a few imaginary conversations between theologians that I had used in my theology classes. I revised those and wrote some more and that’s how that book came about. Writing it was simply fun.
Somewhere in there I wrote my best selling book to date: Finding God in the Shack. It has sold about 55,000 copies in the U.S. and many thousands in Brazil and other countries. I had no intention of writing it. In fact, I had not read The Shack until my friends at IVP called me and asked about my interest in writing such a book. I didn’t think much of the idea until I read The Shack and absolutely loved it. I wrote the book in about two weeks (with some revisions that took a week later). It’s not the book I’m proudest of, but it was fun to write.
Against Calvinism: This book is finished but not yet published. It will be published by Zondervan in October (if not before). The impetus for this book goes back a long way. It began when a “Piper cub” (Bethel students who were passionate fans of John Piper) came to my office and said “Professor Olson, I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re not a Christian.” I said “Oh,why is that?” “Because you’re not a Calvinist,” he replied. I still remember that student’s name many years later. I asked him “Where did you get the idea that only Calvinists are Christians?” He said “from my pastor, John Piper.” Years later I recounted that story to Piper who laughed and claimed he never said that. But I encountered other people who gained that impression from listening to him speak. I didn’t feel the time was right to write the book until about two years ago and I approached my editor at Zondervan about it. She was enthusiastic about the idea, but the publisher wanted to publish a book entitled Against Arminianism simultaneously with mine. They asked me for recommendations for an author. I couldn’t think of anyone more qualified than my friend Michael Horton who agreed to write it with the revised title For Calvinism. It was my idea to have him write the Foreword to my book and for me to write the Foreword to his–to make clear that Calvinists and Arminians can profoundly disagree with each other without hating each other.
What brought me to the realization that the time was right to write Against Calvinism was the tidal wave of passionate but often unreflective Calvinism among especially young evangelical men. I met and talked with so many of them and often discovered they had never thought about some of the problems with Calvinism. Often, when I pointed those out to them, they gradually gave up their Calvinism. I became convinced that “high federal Calvinism” (5 point Calvinism) including especially “double predestination” was so full of flaws that anyone who saw them and took them seriously would have to amend his or her Calvinism. (I make clear in the book’s Introduction that I am not against every and all Calvinism but only against that particular kind of Calvinism.) I had one very providential moment while doing my research. I needed to find an American Reformed evangelical theologian who had come to reject high federal Calvinism while remaining Reformed. I had read Berkouwer, but he was Dutch and didn’t quite fit the bill. I was browsing in a used theology bookstore and saw The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit by the late Fuller theology professor James Daane. I knew of him from some essays and knew that he, like Nicholas Wolterstorf and Alvin Plantinga, has revised Reformed theology. I bought the book for about $5 and it became an invaluable asset for writing my book. I quote Daane extensively in Against Calvinism. Daane blasted what he called “decretal theology” (represented by, for example, Lorraine Boettner–the R. C. Sproul of an earlier generation) for de-historicizing and therefore de-personalizing God and God’s relationship with the world. Many of his criticisms parallel and echo Berkouwer’s (who was his teacher) and T. F. Torrance’s and, of course, Barth’s. If I had not found that book in that obscure used bookstore, my book would have been much poorer. I really do believe God led me to it. I can’t recommend it highly enough, but it is out of print. Read Against Calvinism to get its essence.
So what am I working on now? I get asked that a lot. Two projects. One on Pietism and the revision of 20th Century Theology which will probably turn out to be a whole new book on modern theology incorporating some of the material in 20th Century Theology.
I hope I didn’t bore you to death with these little anecdotes about my writings. I don’t imagine that I have fans or that anybody cares a lot about these things. But going back over them and writing about them was fun for me!
* * * * * * * * * *

Arminian Theology Is Evangelical Theology
(the looong version)
by Roger Olson
Inside the special Arminianism issue of Modern Reformation various Reformed theologians blasted Arminianism as tantamount to the heresy of semi-Pelagianism. The best example of this misrepresentation and of the claim that Arminianism cannot be authentically evangelical is in Michael Horton’s article “Evangelical Arminians” subtitled “Torn between two systems, evangelical Christians must make a choice.” Near the end, Horton declares his thesis that “An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic.” (p. 18) Why did Horton and why do many other Reformed critics of Arminianism exclude it from evangelical theology?
Horton’s reasons are representative of many other Reformed critics of Arminianism. I know this because I was invited to participate in a meeting of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in Colorado Springs in 2001. I was their token Arminian brought in to explain why I think Arminian theology can be authentically evangelical. The discussions held over those two days revealed clearly that Horton’s article nicely sums up the main line of thinking about this matter among at least some Reformed theologians.
Horton defines “evangelical” as adherence to the Reformation tenets of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. (p. 15) He admits that before 1520, the year in which Luther was excommunicated and therefore the date of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, “evangelical” had a different meaning. It referred to anyone who had a sincere love for Christ and a zeal for missions. After 1520, however, Horton claims, “an evangelical was a person committed to the sufficiency of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, the total lostness of humans, the sole mediation of Christ, the gracious efficacy and finality of God’s redemptive work in Christ through election, propitiation, calling and keeping.” (p. 15) Ultimately, according to Horton, authentic evangelical faith does not exist without what he regards as the distinctive Reformation doctrines of simul justus et peccator—“simultaneously justified and sinful” and monergism—unconditional election and irresistible grace. He concludes “[h]istorically speaking, those who do not affirm those doctrines are, by virtue of the law of non-contradiction, not evangelicals.” (p. 16)
I would like to suggest that Horton has simply committed an error of thought and argument. He has defined a label in such a way as to exclude people he does not want in his camp or party. In other words, his claim that these doctrines are necessary to authentic evangelical faith since 1520 is a mere assertion; he cannot prove it or even support it except to say that he and his peers have always used the label this way. That others, such as Wesleyans and Anabaptists, have defined it differently is simply dismissed as irrelevant. In fact, one can peruse the major historical treatises about the history and theology of the evangelical movement and not find this strict limitation to all the Reformation principles to which Horton appeals. For example, David Bebbington and Mark Noll, two widely acknowledged experts on the history and character of the evangelical movement nowhere limit evangelical theology to Horton’s doctrinal hallmarks. Their InterVarsity Press series “A History of Evangelicalism” traces the movement back to the Great Awakening with Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers as its progenitors. Obviously, the Wesleys did not embrace all of Horton’s crucial doctrines. And neither have many evangelicals since the Great Awakening.
In his introductory article to the special Arminianism issue of Modern Reformation Horton equates Arminianism with the ancient heresy of semi-Pelagianism which places the initium fidei in the sinner rather than in God and his grace. (p. 4) And he says that for Arminianism man’s contribution to salvation becomes central. (p. 6) He writes that “Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism” (p. 10) and he claims that Arminianism denies the Reformation belief that faith is a gift. (p. 16) Horton’s argument can be summed up by his assertion that monergism, belief that God alone saves without any cooperation by the person being saved, is necessary for authentic evangelicalism. (p. 17)
Horton and others like him reveal two things by these statements. First, they arbitrarily pre-define evangelicalism their way so as to exclude adherents of theologies they don’t like, and second, they clearly have not read Arminius or any true, classical Arminian thinkers. They may have read Charles Finney and misused him as a true representative of classical Arminianism and they may have read B. B. Warfield’s critical review of 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley’s Systematic Theology, but they cannot have read Arminius or Wesley or Fletcher or Watson or Pope or Summers or Wiley or Oden. If they had, they would know that classical Arminians all believe that salvation is all of grace and by faith alone.
Without accepting Horton’s narrow definition of evangelicalism, here I will demonstrate that Arminius, the touchstone of Arminian theology, and other, later Arminian theologians affirmed the core soteriological tenets of the Reformation. Whether one must affirm them to be authentically evangelical I’ll leave to others to decide. For my purposes here and now I will simply show that Arminius and his faithful followers of the past and present have always embraced salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works or merit on the part of the person being saved. This seems to be the central fear of critics such as Horton—that Arminianism somehow attributes merit to the human person being saved so that salvation is not a free gift of God’s grace alone acquired through faith alone. Of course, I cannot satisfy him or other Reformed critics insofar as they simply, arbitrarily insist that authentic evangelicalism must include belief in strict monergism. But I consider that claim historically inaccurate and unsupportable.
For me, following Bebbington and Noll and a host of other scholars of the evangelical movement such as Marsden, Carpenter, Stone, Collins, Bloesch, Balmer and McGrath, authentic evangelicalism necessarily includes a conversional soteriology that emphasizes salvation as regeneration as well as justification and rejects works as any foundation for it. Evangelicalism centers around the unconditional good news that anyone who throws himself or herself on the mercy of God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross, leaving behind all claims to meritorious righteousness, is saved. This classical Arminianism teaches and it is therefore a form of evangelicalism.
Some critics accuse Arminianism of implicitly denying this soteriology. So I will begin my refutation with appeal to Arminius himself. Then I will proceed to the Remonstrants such as Simon Episcopius and Philip Limborch and then to John Wesley and his followers, the 19th century Methodist theologians mentioned above, and conclude with appeal to 20th century Arminian theologians such as H. Orton Wiley and Thomas Oden.
What did Jacob Arminius himself say about salvation? He went out of his way to affirm in every way possible its nature as sheer gift not dependent on good works or merits—except the merits of Christ. Giving the lie to claims that he was a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, making salvation partly dependent on good works or on human initiative (e.g., by exercising a good will toward God apart from supernatural assisting grace), Arminius strongly affirmed that regeneration precedes anything good in man and that grace is the beginning and continuance of all good that a person has or does. In his “A Declaration of Sentiments” delivered to the Lords of the States of Holland less than one year before his death in 1609, Arminius said that
[i]n 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 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. (The Works of James Arminius, Volume I, p. 659)
Shortly after that he added I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good,–and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will nor do any good at all, nor resists any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace,–From this statement it will clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free-will…. (Ibid., p. 664)
Immediately after that statement, Arminius went on to deny irresistible grace. This, he thought was the nub of the disagreement between him and Gomarus and the other Calvinists who were persecuting him. With them, however, he agreed entirely that salvation is all of grace and not at all based on any goodness or merit or even autonomous decision or choice of the person being saved.
Arminius’ affirmation that regeneration precedes even the first movement of the will toward God may surprise even many Arminians. It is usually thought that only Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes conversion. However, as later Arminians explain perhaps better than Arminius himself did, the regeneration of which the Dutch theologian here spoke is not complete regeneration but a partial regeneration in which the bondage of the will to sin is released so that the sinner can for the first time respond freely God’s offer of mercy in Jesus Christ. This is, of course, prevenient grace—an Arminian doctrine much neglected, misunderstood and sometimes maligned by Reformed critics of Arminianism. It is a, if not the, distinctive doctrine of Arminian theology that sets it apart from all forms of monergistic soteriology. For Arminius, at least, this prevenient grace of God, which is not merely common grace but supernatural grace, is not automatically salvific but it is essential to salvation. Without it, the fallen human person could never exercise a good will toward God.
In virtually every essay answering his critics, Arminius extolled the power and necessity of prevenient grace for salvation. In his “Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A Collibus” he wrote that Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace That I might 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 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 cooperates lest we will in vain. It averts temptions, assists and grants succour in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the world and Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes and supplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it. (Works, Volume II, p. 700)
A few sentences later Arminius wrote that “That teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to Divine Grace; provided he so pleads the cause of Grace, as not to inflict an injury on the Justice of God, and not to take away the free will to that which is evil.” (Ibid., pp. 700-701)
In other words, Arminius believed and taught that the source of all good is God and his grace; nothing spiritually worthy arises from the human person alone—not even the first inclination of the mind or heart toward God. God “bends the will” to the good but not irresistibly. And God does not take away the person’s freedom to resist God’s grace. In essence, then, what Arminius was saying is that the only thing the human person does in salvation is not resist the grace of God. Everything else is God’s work alone and human non-resistance to God’s grace can hardly be called a “work.” It certainly cannot be claimed as meritorious.
And yet, some critics will claim it is meritorious. A common saying among Reformed critics of Arminianism is that it makes the human decision not to resist the grace of God “the decisive factor in salvation” thus robbing salvation of its entirely gracious character. This, of course, is sheer folly. Suppose that critic gave a check for $1,000 to a student to save him from starvation and homelessness. Suppose then the student went around claiming that by endorsing the check and depositing it in his account he actually earned part of the money so that it was not a sheer gift. Suppose further that, when challenged, the student said “Well, I know of others who were offered money and didn’t accept it, so I must be better than them.” Who would consider the student anything other than a stupid, ungrateful wretch? Surely the Calvinist critic would so consider him. So why do Calvinist critics of Arminianism continue to claim that the sheer decision to not resist the grace of God makes God’s salvation something less than a gift? It boggles the mind.
In order to put to rest any notion that he denied the sheer graciousness of salvation or somehow fell short of the fullness of Reformation belief in justification by grace alone through faith alone, Arminius adamantly denied any merits in human persons and affirmed even faith as a gift. He also affirmed justification as the imputation of righteousness on the basis of faith alone as merely the instrumental and not effectual cause of justification. In other words, he affirmed everything the critics demand except their version of monergism—unconditional election and irresistible grace.
With regard to merits and the means of the blessings of salvation Arminius wrote that “God destines these means to no persons on account of or according to their own merits, but through mere grace alone: And he denies them to no one except justly on account of previous transgressions.” (Works, Volume II, p. 395) With regard to justification he expressed full agreement with the Reformed and Protestant churches’ doctrines saying “I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiment concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions.” (Works, Volume II, p. 695) Lest anyone doubt, Arminius laid out his doctrine of justification clearly and unequivocally: “I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law.” (Ibid., p. 700) What about faith? Arminius had a motto that he frequently stated and that was quoted by most of his followers, especially the 19th century Methodist Arminian theologians: “To a man who believes Faith is imputed for righteousness through grace.” (Ibid.) To those who questioned then or question now his meaning he wrote of Calvin’s doctrine of justification as imputed righteousness by faith alone that “[m]y opinion is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject, in the Third Book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval.” (Ibid.)
Some critics, such as Horton, have accused Arminius and his followers of turning faith into a good work and teaching by this motto, “faith imputed for righteousness,” that faith is a substitute for righteousness. Nothing could be further from Arminius’ meaning and that is demonstrated clearly by the context quoted above. Clearly, for Arminius, faith is no substitute for righteousness; it is merely the instrumental means or “proximate cause” of obtaining the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Christ’s righteousness is the “meritorious cause of justification” and that which is imputed to the repentant sinner on account of his or her faith. (Works, Volume II, pp. 701-701) Furthermore, Arminius argued that faith is a gift of God as well as an act of the believer; his teaching is a classical example of “both/and” thinking in theology. Call it a paradox, if you will, but clearly Arminius held faith to be both a gift and a human act. What he wanted to avoid by calling it a gift is any hint that it is a good work that merits salvation; what he wanted to avoid by calling it an act of the believer is any hint that the God-human relationship is an impersonal or mechanical one. So, on the one hand, according to Arminius, “Faith is the requirement of God, and the act of the believer when he answers the requirement.” (Ibid., pp. 49-50) On the other hand, “Faith is the gift of God, which is conferred on those only whom He hath chosen to this—that they may hear the word of God, and be made partakers of the Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., p. 67)
Normally people think that only Calvinists teach that faith is a gift of God; allegedly all others including Catholics and Arminians, believe faith is a work of man that partially merits salvation. This is simply false; Arminius, at least, believed faith to be both a gift of God and an act of man in response to prevenient grace. How can this paradox be relieved? Is it a sheer contradiction? I think not. What Arminius meant is that God offers saving faith to a sinner under the influence of prevenient grace and the sinner, under that influence, allows himself to receive the gift. The reception of the gift is also called “faith.” But it is properly the empty receiving of the gift of faith which is confidence in God’s grace through the cross of Christ to the exclusion of one’s own righteousness. At the moment a person receives that gift of faith by the act of faith he or she receives the imputation of righteousness. The righteousness imputed is Christ’s. (Ibid., p. 701) So, when Arminius says that “faith is imputed for righteousness” he is not making a work out of faith; he is simply saying that faith is the condition of the imputation of righteousness. But we must understand that for Arminius even the condition is supplied by God. All the person being saved does is freely receive it which is an act that can also properly be called “faith.” The “faith that saves,” however, is a gift of God passively received.
What about good works? Did Arminius leave out good works entirely? Was he an antinomian as some accused Calvinists of being? Naturally, he did not want to emphasize good works because he was wrongly accused of making them a condition of salvation. However, he often mentioned good works as a necessary concomitant of faith. For example, in his “Letter Addressed to Hypollitus A Collibus” he stated that “Faith, and faith only, (although there is no faith alone without good works,) is imputed for righteousness.” In other words, with Luther Arminius affirmed that true faith is always accompanied by good works, but good works are not part of faith or a condition of justification.
I think that Arminius’ true soteriology would come as quite a shock to many people—both Reformed critics and uninformed Arminians. It is thoroughly evangelical in the sense of attributing all of salvation entirely to God and his grace and requiring nothing of the human person except empty, passive reception of the gifts of grace. And it is thoroughly Protestant in the sense of viewing justification as the gracious imputation of Christ’s righteousness on account of faith alone. Whether Arminius would affirm the simul justus et peccator is open to debate, but I think he would.
What about Arminians after Arminius? Did the Remonstrance and Wesley and the 19th century Methodist theologians carry on Arminius’ strong affirmation of salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone? I believe a strong case can be made that they did with some slight alterations of emphasis.
In 1621 Arminius’ main disciple Simon Episcopius wrote a document called “Confession or Declaration of the Remonstrant Pastors” which is commonly known as “The Arminian Confession of 1621.” Interestingly, the self-proclaimed “Calvinist pastor of a Reformed baptistic church” who edited and translated the Confession for new publication in the Princeton Theological Monograph Series in 2005 writes in the Introduction that “[i]f one allows history to define labels, neither Arminius nor the Remonstrants were semi-Pelagian.” (The Arminian Confession of 1621 [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005], p. vi) What do we find in this early Remonstrant Confession about grace and faith? Echoing Arminius, the Confession says.
We think therefore that the grace of God is the beginning, progress and completion of all good, so that not even a regenerate man himself can, without this preceding or preventing, exciting, following and cooperating grace, think, will, or finish any good thing to be saved, much less resist any attractions and temptations to evil. Thus faith, conversion, and all good works, and all godly and saving actions which are able to be thought, are to be ascribed solidly to the grace of God in Christ as their principal and primary cause. (Ibid., p. 108)
What about faith? Is it a work that merits salvation as critics of Arminianism say? Hardly. According to the Confession, “Man…does not have saving faith from himself, nor is he regenerated or converted by the powers of his own free will, seeing that in the state of sin he cannot of himself or by himself either think or will or do anything that is good enough to be saved.” (Ibid., p. 107) The Confession goes on to say, with Arminius, that the sinner must first be regenerated by God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit before he or she can even will anything that is savingly good. (Ibid., pp. 107-108)
What about justification? Does it require any good works? Or is it wholly and exclusively by grace alone through faith alone? Here is what the Confession says:
Justification is a merciful, gracious and indeed full remission of all guilt before God to truly repenting and believing sinners, through and because of Jesus Christ, apprehended by true faith, indeed, even more, [it is] the liberal and bountiful imputation of faith for righteousness. For indeed in the judgment of God we cannot obtain to it except by the pure grace of God and only by faith in Jesus Christ…without any merit of our own works. (Ibid., p. 111)
What more do critics of Arminianism want? Well, I supposed they want a clear and unequivocal affirmation of monergistic grace, but the evangel only requires this—the confession that salvation is a gift and not of works lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) The Arminian Confession goes so far as to say, with Arminius, that faith is a gift and that regeneration must precede conversion and that justification is without merit a pure imputation of righteousness on account of faith alone.
A case can be made that Arminianism began to take a wrong path with Episcopius’s disciple and nephew Philip Limborch whose system of theology minimized human depravity and downplayed the supernatural aspect of prevenient grace. What actually happened, however, was not that Arminianism took a wrong path but that it split into two paths—what theologian Alan P. F. Sell calls “Arminianism of the head” and “Arminianism of the heart.” Limborch and his late Remonstrant followers headed toward rationalism and deism; John Wesley and his followers preserved the true spirit of evangelical Arminianism. Nevertheless, even Limborch affirmed that God, not man, is the primary cause of both repentance and faith even though the person being saved must “concur” with the divine operation of grace. (A Complete System, or, Body of Divinity, trans., William Jones [London: John Darby, 1713], p. 531) Of justification Limborch wrote that “[i]t denotes a declaration of righteousness, that is, absolving a man from guilt, and treating him as one that is righteous.” (Ibid., p. 835) Also, in justification, “[a] man is esteemed by God as righteous upon account of his faith.” (Ibid., p. 836) Finally, Limborch’s full definition of justification is as follows: “[j]ustification is the merciful and gracious act of God, whereby he fully absolves from all guilt the truly penitent and believing soul, through and for the sake of Christ apprehended by a true faith, or gratuitously remits sins upon account of faith in Jesus Christ, and graciously imputes that faith for righteousness.” (Ibid., p. 836) Limborch’s description of the synergism of salvation was not as subtle or paradoxical as Arminius’s and that is where he begins to get into trouble as an evangelical. In some places he emphasized the human side of the synergism calling faith an “act of obedience” and he denied that the righteousness imputed to the believer is Christ’s. (Ibid., pp. 838 and 837 respectively) Nevertheless, he clearly rejected any idea of human merit in faith and taught that salvation is a free gift of grace received by faith alone.
John Wesley was a true Arminian in spite of what some Calvinists claim. One notable Reformed theologian has called him a “confused Calvinist”—probably because of his strong belief in human depravity apart from supernatural grace and because of his strong emphasis on grace. Wesley himself said many times that his theology was “on the very edge of Calvinism” or a “hair’s breadth from Calvinism.” In his book John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994) Thomas Oden quotes from Wesley’s “Minutes of 1745:” “Q[uestion] 23. Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism? A[nswer] (1.) In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2.) In denying all natural free will, and all power antecedent to grace. And (3.) In excluding all merit from man, even for what he has or does by the grace of God.” (p. 253) His Arminianism was evident, however, in his strong rejection of unconditional election and irresistible grace—see his sermons “Predestination Calmly Considered” and “Free Grace”—and in his affirmation of synergism in salvation. What did he mean by synergism—a dirty word to Calvinists? Wesley explicitly rejected semi-Pelagianist synergism and defined his synergism this way (as paraphrased by Oden): “By synergism we do not imply that fallen freedom retains a natural capacity to reach out and take the initiative and establish a restored relationship with God. Rather by synergism we mean that human freedom by grace is being enabled to cooperative interactively with God’s saving plan. It is the coworking by grace of human willing with the divine willing.” (Ibid., p. 269) This is what I call “evangelical synergism” as opposed to semi-Pelagian or Roman Catholic synergism.
Some Calvinist critics accuse Wesley of attributing a part of salvation to human effort in a way that attributes it to human merit rather than solely to grace. This is Horton’s treatment (or one should say “mistreatment”) of Wesley in his article “Evangelical Arminians.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hear Wesley on salvation:
[i]t is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in any wise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God. (“Free Grace” in The Works of John Wesley, Volume 3, ed., Albert Outler (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986, p. 545)
Also, Wesley wrote that “Whatever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it.” (Ibid.) What more can anyone ask of an evangelical theologian? Contrary to what Horton and other critics imply, Wesley attributed everything in salvation to God alone.
What about justification and faith? Wesley preached two sermons entitled “Salvation by Faith” and “Justification by Faith” in which he delivered as strong an account of justification by grace alone through faith alone as possible. In the former sermon he even declared all good works “unholy and sinful.” (John Wesley: The Best from All His Works, abridged and edited by Stephen Rost [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1989], p. 91) Of course, he meant good works insofar as they are compared with Christ’s righteousness and viewed as a cause of salvation, which they are not and cannot be. In the same sermon Wesley declared that “[n]one can trust in the merits of Christ till he has utterly renounced his own.” (Ibid., p. 99) He also preached that in salvation God does all so that he “leaveth us nothing whereof to glory.” (Ibid., p. 98)
So what is justification according to Wesley? Here he departed somewhat from Arminius and other Arminians in asserting that justification is not an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner which Wesley considered a legal fiction and therefore unworthy of God. He defined justification as “[p]ardon, the forgiveness of sins.” (Ibid., p. 182) However, he clearly distinguished it from sanctification: “[i]t is not the being made actually just and righteous. This is sanctification….” (Ibid., p. 181) So, for Wesley, justification is not forensically imputed righteousness, but neither is it, as in Roman Catholic theology, being made righteous inwardly. It is the total and complete forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ and his atoning death on account of faith alone. Wesley preached that Faith…is the necessary condition of justification. Yea, and the only necessary condition thereof. … [t]he very moment God giveth faith (for it is the gift of God) to the ‘ungodly’ that ‘worketh not,’ that ‘faith is counted to him for righteousness.’ He hath no righteousness at all antecedent to this, not so much as negative righteousness, or innocence. But ‘faith is imputed to him for righteousness’ the very moment that he believeth. Not that God…thinketh him to be what he is not. But as ‘he made Christ to be sin for us,’ that is, treated him as a sinner, punishing him for our sins; so he counteth us righteous from the time we believe in him. That is, he doth not punish us for our sins, yea, treats us as though we were guiltless and righteous. (Ibid., p. 188)
How are we to interpret this? Wesley sounds confused. I suggest that what he is saying is that the righteousness we have in justification on account of faith only and by God’s grace alone is not Christ’s righteousness imputed to us but God’s considering us as if we were righteous. That is, in justification God treats us as if we were righteous while knowing we are not. Wesley was apparently afraid that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us would lead inevitably to antinomianism. Admittedly, Reformed folks will never be satisfied with this, but the point is that Wesley affirmed the forgiveness of sins in which we are accounted righteous by God to be wholly and exclusively a gift. Even faith, he said, is a gift of God and not a meritorious work. I think Wesley could have affirmed the doctrine of imputed righteousness, even the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, if he had not been so nervous about antinomianism and if he had not been afraid of implying that God deceives himself about what we actually are. Neither of these things is necessarily attached to the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
What about the 19th century Arminian Methodist theologians—Wesley’s main interpreters and the main conveyors of evangelical Arminianism in that century? Were they evangelical in their soteriology? That is, did they remain faithful to the great Reformation truth of sola gratia et fides? I believe they did. They consistently rejected salvation by works and human merit as having any role in salvation. Their version of the gospel of Jesus Christ was genuinely good news—that God loves all people, wants all to be saved, has freely provided salvation for everyone and requires nothing but faith for salvation.
One of the earliest and most influential 19th century Arminian theologians was Richard Watson whose Theological Institutes was published in 1851. Another was William Burton Pope who wrote A Compendium of Christian Theology and who died in 1903. Another was Thomas O. Summers, author of Systematic Theology: A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity published in 1888. Finally, there was John Miley who wrote Systematic Theology in 1893. Together these four represent the cream of the Arminian crop between Wesley and the 20th century. They largely handed on the Arminian faith to the 20th century. Rather than treat them one-by-one I would like to select quotes from some of them on the crucial subjects of evangelical soteriology. They largely agree on these matters; their differences are minor. One area of disagreement among them is the atonement; some of them believed in the penal substitution theory, with Wesley himself, and some of them believed in the governmental theory with Arminius’ follower Hugo Grotius. On the major soteriological doctrines, however, they were largely agreed.
First, then, the necessity of supernatural grace for anything spiritually good in the human person including even a first inclination toward God. Watson: “It is not denied, that the will, in its purely natural state, and independent of all grace communicated to man through Christ, can incline only to evil.” (Institutes, Volume II, p. 438) According to him, even repentance is a gift of God; sinful men are not capable of repentance. (Ibid., p. 99) Watson emphasized that even repentance does not save; only the death of Christ saves and restores the lost relationship with God. (Ibid., p. 102) Finally, Watson writes that “[s]acred is the doctrine to be held, that no person can repent or truly believe except under the influence of the Spirit of God; and that we have no ground for boasting in ourselves, but that all the glory of our salvation, commenced and consummated, is to be given to God alone, as the result of the freeness and riches of his grace.” (Ibid., p. 447)
William Burton Pope declared in his Compendium the “inability of man to do what is good” apart from renewing grace. (Volume II, pp. 65, 67) Also, “The natural man …is without the power even to co-operate with Divine influence. The co-operation with grace is of grace. Thus it keeps itself for ever safe from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.” (p. 80) With regard to grace, Pope wrote that “It is the sole, efficient cause of all spiritual good in man: of the beginning, continuance, and consummation of religion in the human soul. The manifestation of Divine influence which precedes the full regenerate life receives no special name in Scripture; but it is so described as to warrant the designation usually given it of Prevenient Grace.” (p. 359) Also, “[t]he salvation of man is altogether of grace” (p. 361) and “The Grace of God and the human will are co-operant, but not on equal terms. Grace has the pre-eminence….” (p. 364)
What about Thomas O. Summers? He strongly defended the doctrine of inherited total depravity firmly rejecting Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. According to him, “Apart from grace the will is bad, because the man’s nature is so bad that of himself he cannot choose that which is right.” (Systematic Theology, Volume I, pp. 64-65) Also, “It is impossible for a man in this [natural] state to will and to do works pleasant and acceptable to God.” (Ibid., p. 68) Finally, he affirmed that “[n]oone can repent or believe without the aid of God’s grace….” (Ibid., p. 120)
Our final 19th century witness to Arminianism’s emphasis on the priority of grace is John Miley who said of man’s “native depravity” “This is a state of alienage from the true spiritual life, and utterly without fitness for a state of holy blessedness. Nor have we any power of self-redemption.” (Systematic Theology, p. 529) Miley argued that the power of choice in spiritual matters is a “gracious endowment” and not a natural capacity and that moral regeneration is entirely a work of the divine Spirit. (Ibid., p. 305) Only with the help of the Holy Spirit can a person choose to accept God’s mercy.
What about justification and faith? Did the 19th century Arminians believe, like Arminius and Wesley before them, that justification is entirely a work of grace through faith without meritorious works? Did they believe righteousness is imputed and not imparted or infused? Richard Watson affirmed that “Justification by faith alone is…clearly the doctrine of the Scriptures.” (Theological Institutes, Volume II, p. 246) He also affirmed faith as the sole condition for justification to the exclusion of virtue or good works (Ibid., p. 253) and taught that sanctification cannot be a formal cause of justification (Ibid., p. 251). As for imputation of righteousness, Watson claimed the motto “the imputation of faith for righteousness” and explained it thus: “The Scriptural doctrine is…that the death of Christ is accepted in the place of our personal punishment, on condition of our faith in him; and, that when faith in him is actually exerted, then comes in, on the part of God, the act of imputing, or reckoning righteousness to us.” (Ibid., p. 242)
William Burton Pope wrote that “[j]ustification is declaratory and altogether of grace.” (Compendium, Volume II, p. 411) and faith is its sole instrumental cause while Christ’s obedience is its sole meritorious cause. The Holy Spirit is justification’s sole efficient cause. (Ibid., p. 414) About justification he said: “Justification is the Divine judicial act which applies to the sinner, believing in Christ, the benefit of the Atonement, delivering him from condemnation of his sin, introducing him into a state of favour, and treating him as a righteous person. … [i]t is the imputed character of justification which regulates the New Testament use of the word.” (Ibid., p. 407)
Thomas Summers unequivocally affirmed justification by grace through faith alone as well as justification’s declaratory nature and the imputed nature of righteousness. “In justification we are accounted , accepted—dealt with—as if we were righteous, just as pardoned culprits, who are not by their pardon made innocent, are dealt with as if they were not criminals.” (Systematic Theology, Volume I, p. 121)
John Miley also affirmed justification by grace through faith alone: “The imputation of faith for righteousness is…easily understood. It means simply that faith is accepted [by God] as the condition of justification or the remission of sin, whereby the believing sinner is set right with God.” (Systematic Theology, Volume I, p. 320) He taught that faith as trust is the only condition of justification (Ibid., p. 323) and that justification requires no interior moral change (Ibid., p. 312). According to him, justification is at once complete the moment the believing sinner exercises faith in Christ—it sets him right with God as if he had never sinned. (Ibid., p. 313)
I could go on and offer similar quotations and arguments from 20th century Arminians such as H. Orton Wiley, the leading 20th century Nazarene theologian, and Thomas Oden, a contemporary evangelical Methodist theologian. Time and space prevent it. Suffice it to say, however, that both teach unequivocally that salvation is a sheer gift of God’s grace given apart from any human merit, received by faith alone resulting in the imputation of righteousness.
So what more do Reformed critics of Arminianism want? First, they want affirmation of monergistic grace—something they require not because it is clearly taught in Scripture but because they think it is logically necessary for salvation sola gratia et fides. Of course, it isn’t. Second, they want affirmation of justification as the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience to the sinner. Arminians have been reluctant to offer that because it is not specifically taught in Scripture and because it could easily result in antinomianism. Finally, Calvinists want a clear and unequivocal affirmation of the simul justus et peccator—something many Arminians are reluctant to offer because it implies a static salvation that ignores the transforming power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. Arminians affirm everything necessary for a fully evangelical soteriology; Calvinists require more. Why? One wonders if it is because they are over reacting to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation that includes salvation by means of human merit and confuses justification with sanctification? I suspect that is the case. But it is always wrong to over react and the Calvinist over reaction of strict monergism suffers a fate as bad or worse than its opposite. It makes salvation a mechanical process in which those being saved are puppets rather than free partners in a relationship.

continue to -


Three Aspects of Arminianian Hope: "A Godly Kingdom That Is Becoming"

A Guest Post: “Three Reasons Why I Preach An Arminian Theology”
T E Hanna is the author of Raising Ephesus: Christian Hope for a Post-Christian Age, and he writes regularly on issues of faith and culture on his blog at OfDustAndKings.com.
continue to -

N.T. Wright, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" (Vol 4) - What Jewish Monotheism Means

Monotheism in a Christian Framework: NT Wright
by Scot McKnight
Oct 31, 2013

At the heart of Paul’s theology is classic Jewish monotheism ([compared] to later philosophical and theo-logical monotheism), and NT Wright opens with a sketch of Jewish monotheism and then shows how Paul reframes Jewish monotheism.
1. First Century Jewish Monotheism
Wright begins with Akiba being martyred, and in the act of dying reciting Shema as his expression of loving God with his “life” (naphsheka).
As we saw earlier, the most intimate and personal way of ‘taking on oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven’ was the praying of the Shema, two or more times a day. Invoking YHWH as the ‘one God’ and determining to love him with mind, heart and nephesh - life itself - meant a total commitment to the sovereignty of this one God, the creator, the God of Israel, and a repudiation of all the idols of paganism and the cruel empires which served them. That is, more or less, the very heart of what ‘monotheism’ meant to a devout Jew of the period (620).
And from 623-624: If what we loosely summarize as ‘monotheism’ is to be clarified in terms of the world of thought and practice we may safely ascribe to Saul of Tarsus, we should expect to find it, not in the realm of fine-tuned religious or philosophical speculation, not in debates about how many angels are permitted in the divine entourage before they compromise the divine unity, but in the sphere of Israel’s aspirations, Israel’s kingdom-of-God expectations. Monotheism of the sort which fired Saul of Tarsus meant invoking God as creator and judge, and also as the God specifically of Israel, and doing this within a framework of actual events, including not least the fierce opposition by pagan tyrants, leading in some cases to torture and death. Jewish monotheism was rooted in prayer, particularly in praying of the Shema. To pray this prayer was not to make a subtle affirmation about the inner nature of the One God, but to claim the sovereign rule of this One Creator God over the whole world, and to offer oneself in allegiance of mind, heart and life itself in the service of this God and this kingdom.
This kind of Jewish monotheism, so rooted in actual realities, is an affirmation not of ontological dualism but the goodness of creation and the created order as well as opposition to idolatries. This kind of monotheism formed itself into a community, Israel.
2. Paul’s Re-Affirmed Monotheism.
From p. 634: The central claim of this chapter, and in a measure of this whole book, is that Paul clearly, solidly, skillfully, and dramatically reworked exactly this ‘monotheism’ around Jesus the Messiah and also around the spirit. It is for the sake of Jesus, and in the power of the spirit, that Paul faces, and knows that his ekklēsiai are facing, the equivalent challenges to those faced by the Maccabees before him.
We see Paul’s robust monotheistic faith in Romans 8:28-39, and in 2 Corinthians 4; Philippians and 1 Thessalonians — the interlocking themes of suffering and Jewish monotheism are held together as they are found from the Maccabees to Akiba. Allegiance to Israel’s one God means opposition from the surrounding world.
Then, too, we see the same monotheism in God as creator and God as judge. From p. 638: “Monotheism of the second-temple Jewish kind, as we saw, was the belief not so much that there was one supernatural being rather than many, or that this God was a single and indivisible entity, but that the one true God was the creator of the world, supreme over all other orders of being, that he would be the judge of all, and that in between creation and a final putting-to-rights he had a single purpose which arched its way over the multiple smaller stories of his creation and, not least, of Israel.
In practice, classic Jewish monotheism also means one people. P. 641: “A further tell-tale sign of Paul’s foundational commitment to his ancestral Jewish monotheism comes in a couple of short but crucial passages. In all of these we see Paul drawing on the basic monotheistic heritage to argue for the unity – not indeed of ethnic Israel, but for what he saw as the renewed people of God in the Messiah.” Here Abraham comes to the front of Wright’s discussion — the Abraham in whom the new family finds its home, e.g., Galatians 3:27-29.
Continue to Index -

Trick-or-Treat? What Does It Mean to be Unified in Christ?

Frankly, I don't follow Christianity Today (CT) any more. I use to care greatly about what they thought and published but since my "rebirth" from my evangelical stupor over the past dozen years and more I have found CT, its contributors, and its selective readings of today's theological issues, topics, and ideas, naïve at best, and dissembling at worst. 
/dɪˈsɛm bəl/  verb, dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.
verb (used with object)
1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence in business.
2. to put on the appearance of; feign: to dissemble innocence.
3. Obsolete . to let pass unnoticed; ignore.
Today's article from October 22nd more than proves my point. Here, Christena Cleveland gives an agreeable argument for the necessity of embracing Christian unity in its diversity of cultural ideas, theology, and adaptation of Christianity, uplifting difference and dissimilarity as admiral marks of any mature organization, religion, or faith. And in reply comes CT's officious proclamation under an amanuensis (sic, a person employed to write what another dictates, or to copy what has been written by another; a secretary.) that these ideas are agreeable to a point before marking off uncrossable sanctioned barriers. Barriers which, if crossed, makes a Christian anathema to their (evangelical) faith, to be described in whispered tones of being (or becoming) a false prophet carrying an unchristian gospel only worthy of biblical rebuke, reproof, condemnation, judgment and wrath. Where such a one is to be abandoned from the hallowed halls of the body of Christ unless an acceptable level of "homogeneity" is restored in balance with the general beliefs and tenets of evangelicalism's main ideas and message.
Hence, while Cleveland argues for the idea of unity within an enlarged Christian fellowship beyond the more restrictive definitions of its borders and boundaries, CT's reviewer rejects this auspicious idea by warning that it is a ruse, or a trick, to get Christians to betray their faith:
"While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not." - CT
In effect, to bear the attitude of a general Christian acceptance of a (non-evangelic) brother or sister falls under the Halloween-like guise of conveying a godly "love and unity" which is basically a slick authorial "trick" or rubric that would open up any culpable reader to the dangers of moving away from the bastions of evangelical Christendom. The reviewer goes on to suggest that to take the author's attitudinal perspective would be like departing from the "narrow road" cautiously travelled unto an exiting off-ramp leading to a "larger road" of certain spiritual death, misleading ideas, and a disingenuous Gospel. Though the idea is good, it is not good enough when it leads to unsanctioned biblical ideas and teachings.
"Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived." - CT
In sanctimonious unction the reviewer than proclaims the preferred "contextual" reading of 1 John 4 by qualifying Jesus' admonition to love one another with the apostle John's further admonition to hold to Jesus' incarnation (v.15)... or, in modern evangelical parlance, to only love those who are of the same doctrinal "brotherhood." Suggesting that all other Jesus-followers are not of God, but false and untrue. To this arena of demarcation we then get the unstated rubric of the three kinds of biblical "love" in the Bible - eros, phileo, and agape (translated: deeply passionate love; brotherly love within the church's fellowship; and godly love for those outside the church; as it is normally described).
The idea being here of carefully qualifying who is "in" or "not in" the true church's fellowship. And in this sense, to beware of deceptive ruses suggesting indiscriminately love in Christ as a binding blinder so that its participants become unaware of the false gospel that it conveys. A gospel bourne of false prophets and teachers. Not that this reviewer suggests that Cleveland is a charlatan, just that her idea contributes to the unqualified idea of an indiscriminate love that can be hazardous to evangelicalism's stricter theological walls of "biblical truth." Choosing always for truth over love, rather than love over truth. For those who wish this latter course, beware the larger consequences of becoming proselytized to a more worldly, less "Christianized" ideas beyond one's current fellowship. It is a message of fear. And unduly so as I will explain.
For the "trick" here is actually a "treat" not cooked in a witch's brew of discord and canker, but in the delights of discovering a newer, unbounded land of freedom shed of its religious blinders and deceptions. Which brings me to my reasons for leaving the attitudinal boundaries of my more restrictive evangelicalism, to a broader definition of what my Christian faith should bear. Yes, I believe in an incarnate Christ. It is one of the bedrocks of my faith. But I no longer qualify my faith by an adherence to evangelicalism's ideas of strict inerrancy, spontaneous creation, a dipolar God, a gospel of wrath, judgment, and exclusivity, nor any other dozens of qualifiers.
I have decided to "progress" beyond my formerly closed theological boundaries to a more open center-set nexus of a Jesus-centered faith. That is, a faith in which Jesus is first, and not my beliefs about my Christian religion first. To be marked as a Jesus follower rather than a follower of my temple, my church, my dogma, doctrine, or religious tribe. It is less rigid, more reflective, more open and accepting of postmodernism, and of science in general. It grants to biblical studies a historical, narrative theology and multi-vocal biblical hermeneutic, that leads out in unconditional, non-qualifying love that is inclusive and not exclusive. That serves others and not itself. And does not lead out in judgment and condemnation, or by denominational drivers or doctrinal barriers.
It is postmodern, emergent, and progressive in traditional Christian orthodoxies by updating one-and-all with today's newer research and biblical discoveries. Importantly, it is willing to critique its former idea of itself by deconstructive and reconstructive philosophical elements. Is unafraid of its doubts about God, His Word, or of the church in general. Does not have the incessant demand of needing answers and solutions to every event or mystery uncovered in the Bible or within our lives (that is, it tries to be non-apologetic realizing that all apologies but support their own narrower epistemologies even as I am doing now in this apology for my faith :/ ). Is critical of itself, its epistemologies, and its pride, and is properly confessional where, and when, this is possible. It is active in Christian love and reclamation of people in humanitarian projects; this Earth in ecological restoration; and in philosophic discussions. At the last, it is an apocalyptic Christian faith that doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but to become in our midst."
Though CT's reviewer likes the idea of unity within the Church it must be a unified church around his own ideas of what the Christian faith is - as set out in its dogmas and doctrines. By this admission, unity is a good thing, but it can also be a lamentable thing should it disrupt and destroy the fabric of evangelicalism as it is presently understood by its official organs of media dissemination (churches, schools, seminaries, and so forth).In the process, it refuses genuine discussion and openness to biblical movement and sway, preaching fear instead of hope; blind allegiance to its binding agencies; and exclusion to any unlike itself. It has become its own templed bastion similar to the Pharisaical Jewish laws and teachings in Jesus' day needing its pillars broken, and dividing curtain ripped in twain, that the Word of God's good news can be released to all of mankind, and not to the elected few.
So then, what does it mean to be unified in Christ? Is it a trick, or is it a treat? For many Christians they see it as a trick. But for some, they have unexpectedly discovered it to be a great, sumptuous treat that will last far beyond the sugar-rush of evangelical doctrine. It is become a hollowed celebration of freedom and not a Halloween of dungeons and dragons, if I may misuse the adage. To those few adventurers, be worthy of your exploration to God's unknown lands of bounty awaiting you. As Joshua's spies soon discovered, they dwelt in a land of "milk and honey," though they rightfully feared the "giants" of their day. For such explorers our giants have become bound Christian tradition against a rampant atheism set abroad and about. It will take the wisdom of God to search out and reclaim by the power of His Spirit in loving proclaim.
R.E. Slater
October 31, 2013
* * * * * * * * * * *


by Paul Louis Metzger
October 22, 2013