I made an observation recently that may be completely off base, or it may just betray the reality of the tight Evangelical circles in which I travel most of the time. Either way, here it is:
Calvinists have a corner on theologically-themed conferences. Arminians have apologetically-themed conferences. Leadership conferences don’t do theology.
Is this true? It seems true from my standpoint. Think about the major conferences out there that are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries. All of them fill churches and arenas with thousands of people. Passion fills the air as speakers talk about theological issues in the church. John Piper, Don Carson, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Tim Keller, and the like are invited to speak. Diversity runs deep in these theology conferences. Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians, paedobaptists and credo baptists, charismatics and non-charismatics, and premillenialists and amillenialists are all represented. However, it is hard to find an Arminian invited to (much less putting together) such engagements. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is because Arminianism, as a theological distinctive, just does not preach. Don’t get me wrong. I did not say that Arminians can’t preach. They most certainly can. And I did not say that Arminianism is not true (This is not the question on the table). It is simply that the distinctives of Arminianism do not sell in such settings. Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.
For the Arminian to put together a distinctive conference, things would be a bit less provocative. Things like “The Responsibility of Man in Suffering,” “Man’s Role in Salvation,” or “The Insecurity of Salvation” won’t preach too well. Think about how hard it is for a Calvinist to try to plug in a token Arminian at a general theology conference. On what subject do you let them speak? “Roger Olson, I would like you to come to our conference and speak on . . . (papers ruffling) . . . ummm . . . (papers ruffling more) . . . Do you do anything in apologetics (except suffering)?”
Of course, there was the John 3:16 conference, which was Arminian. But that was not a general theology conference. It was a specific conference which amounted to a polemic against Calvinism. During the conference, the speakers simply countered all five points of Calvinism. This is symptomatic of so much of the Arminian distinctives with regard to their message. Much of the time Arminianism is simply seen as “Against Calvinism,” whereas Calvinism is more affirmatively focused on the sovereignty of God. Even the latest books published on the subject betray such a reality: For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olson. I think one can find this same general approach in the theological blogosphere. Calvinists have something they are for, while Arminians are always on the defensive, fighting what they are against. Finally, as far as I know, the John 3:16 conference only happened once (in 2008). That it, or anything like it, has not been renewed or rebooted may serve to prove my observation.
Now, apologetics seems to be a different story. Not only to do you have Arminians filling the pulpit when it comes to defending the faith, they seem to dominate. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas are all on the roster. It is “Team Biola.” This is not to say that Calvinists don’t do apologetics. However, they normally do so in a less “evidentialist” style that just won’t teach. Have you ever tried to teach people to defend the faith using presuppositional and transcendental arguments? Enough said. The simple observation I am making is that apologetics is heavily dominated by Arminians today. However, I don’t think there is anything distinctive about Arminianism which would make them more equipped to hold apologetics conferences. Perhaps, the focus on the free will of man makes the whole apologetics enterprise more necessary and effective in Arminianism. Theoretically, Calvinists, because of their compatibleness (holding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in tension), could teach evidentiary apologetics just as truly as an Arminian. “Did Christ Rise from the Grave?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, or “Responding to the New Atheists” are all topics on which Calvinists and Arminians could teach together without sacrificing their theological integrity. There may be some distinction with a topic such as “If God is Real, Why is There Evil?” But that is the only apologetic issue which I think could be an exception in this group of topics.
Leadership conferences, on the other hand, are normally very diverse. Why? In all probability, they are not very theological in nature. Stirring passion about finishing strong, leading by serving, and preparing a sermon does not require any theological commitment one way or another. However, if the leadership conference turns on men’s issues or women’s issues, the complementarian/egalitarian elephant enters the room. And, generally speaking, most complementarians are Calvinist and most egalitarians are Arminian.
That said, these observations are not timeless. They are what I see today. I think they represent the chicken or the egg question (I don’t know which comes first) to the resurgence of Calvinism in the pews today. My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism. In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man. Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism. We are more naturally inclined toward the Arminian idea of free will and God’s sovereignty. People normally don’t “become” Arminians. But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God. This creates incredible passion. Therefore, we invite Calvinists only to these theology conferences (even when the organization, itself, claims to be more broadly Evangelical). And people leave with a full heart. On the other hand, when we want to fight against the New Atheists, we do not need to discriminate against the finer points of theology too much. Therefore, we invite either Arminian or Calvinist apologists.
.
140 replies to "Why Arminianism Doesn’t Sell"
I think this post raises an interesting point. The fact is (as has been noted) that Arminians are very actively engaged in public theology conferences, but they tend to be associated with academia rather than church-based venues. I think there is a reason for that. Now mind you, I speak as an Anglican with strong sympathies toward the Reformed/Augustinian tradition.
Nonetheless, Calvinist (whether of the Presbyterian or Baptistic variety) church culture tends to market itself on the basis of the “doctrines of grace” and “Reformed” distinctives (as they understand them). For the adherents of this sort of religion, it is the esoteric doctrines of “Calvinism” which make Christianity interesting. In fact, the whole Christian faith is fed through the prism of divine sovereignty and its implications. So for Calvinists (of that stripe) talking about the Reformed distinctives is what the Christian religion boils down to. Hence their proclivity toward such conferences for…
that and so can anyone who is consistently Reformed.
Btw – your comment word counter isn’t accurate 🙂
I am also interesting in the Leadership conferences lack of theology. Are those organizing those conferences more interested in teaching leadership than theology? Perhaps.
Let me say, though, that I think there is a difference between Catalyst and Passion. Passion is not a “leadership” conference per se, since it is more of a conference for college students, and it can include theological teachings (for example, Piper has spoken there on occaision).
Indeed myself as a “persupper”, the only lasting argument simply must be the so-called “evidence”, as has been said, of the “revelation” of God, and its biblical epistemology! Though I am myself also close to Augustine’s “hermeneutical presuppositions”, and in later life he became more interested in the literal meaning of the Bible, but also never abandoned the spiritual one. But of course the whole Scripture understanding and communication between God and man or humanity is possible because of the Incarnation, thus only through Christ!
I somewhat agree with Paul. But the Canons of Dort, were never really intended to be the only comprehensive statement of the Reformed doctrine and theology. Of course these somewhat came out of the Arminian Remonstrance – their five articles, moving away from the strict Calvinism (Belgic) of the day. But the so-called Doctrines of Grace are not bad or certainly wrong, but we can and must filter them still theologically somewhat, again note Roger Nicole’s wee “acrostic” of Grace/Gospel.
Btw, we can and should note, that there is a debate among the Reformed, that even Calvin did not present the Atonement as so-called “Limited”! It is here myself, I like that old scholastic statement: Christ’s Death is sufficient for all, but only efficient (efficacious) for the Elect. Indeed also, one cannot do Reformed Theology without some aspect of a Reformed Scholasticism! Note, here the works of a Theodore Beza, Francis Turretin, etc. And of course in our day, the grand works of Richard Muller! Yes, I am a Muller Fan! And no apologies! 😉
Fr. Robert,
I find Calvinism theologically incoherent and biblically indefensible, so it is funny to me that you would say that Arminianism is a “tough hill to climb”. Nick mentioned presuppositional apologetics before, and it is important to note that the difference between is principly presuppositions. You even imply as much with Augustine who I see as introducing Platonic categories into Christianity instead of being biblical. It is always important to understand the other side before throwing such polemical haymakers.
Arminianism is not for sale. Apparently, Calvinism is
jc: I am one of those that sees the Platonic in much of the NT Letters, especially the Letter to the Hebrews! I also see St. Paul as a Jewish Greco-Roman Hellenist, noting for example, Gal. 4:4-5, etc. Indeed the NT, especially the Letters did not drop out of the sky, but have a historical formation. And the “presuppositional” is just that, based upon the authority of the Holy Scripture, itself! The only Arminian’s I like to degree, are the Wesley brothers, but hey they are, or were Anglicans! I have been an Anglican priest/presbyter for many years, and both pastorally and theologically, I have not found Arminian doctrine helpful myself. But again, I had myself an Augustinian Conversion over 40 years ago, yes I am a Evangelical Anglican and Reformed to the ‘Doctrines of Grace’. Check out the life and Letters of one John Newton, himself a Reformed Anglican. 🙂
Now John Newton and his hymn ‘Amazing Grace’, that is a “haymaker”! 😉
You know the more I think about all of this Calvinism /Armianian thing, which seems to be the big issue nowadays in evangelical circles at least, the more I think it is more of a man made distraction to take us way from the real issues of the gospel.
Why are we there when the world, despite we are fighting these theological wars between ourselves, really needs to know about Christ Himself?
I wonder how many of us who shepherd and pastor, can say as Paul did to the Corinthians:
“For in Christ Jesus through the good-news, I begot you.” (1 Cor. 4:15, lit. Greek) Indeed here is the work of the real “fathers”, verses the tutors or mere guides. Here is the pastoral and the work of the shepherd or “Father”! Note, the “Gospel” itself makes the so-called Man of God! (1 Cor. 9:23)
The way I see it is, you either believe in a sovereign God, (Calvinism) or you believe you make your own “Luck” (Armenian). I tend to believe in what the Bible says. Recommended Reading: “Your God is too Small by J.B. Phillips
Sylvia,
You are just proving my point. God didn’t take sides on these issues, And neither am I. He simply said we should believe in Him. That’s where I am regardless. God is sovereign to me, and that’s not just a Calvinist issue, or otherwise to me, but a strictly biblical one.
Consumerist Christianity where marketing theology conferences to fill the stadium is the sign of authenticity.
I don’t think there is too much marketing involved. Can you explain?
MBaker,
You are exactly right. It has nothing to do with names or people. It has everything to do with how we understand Scripture. Unfortunately some people alleviate themselves of this issue by tying to a person. It is about doctrine, not who held to the doctrine or what name it goes by.
J.C. The apostle John brough platonic categories into Christianity as well. Being platonic does not mean being wrong any more than saying Aristotelian logic is wrong and therefore Paul is wrong. Or that Paul’s diatribes were wrong because Socrates used them. You will have to identify the wrong rather than a blanket guilt by association.
Sylvia,
First of all, it’s Arminian. An Armenian is a person who lives in Armenia.
Second, Arminians don’t believe they make their own luck. Do your research please.
Micheal,
The Apostle John was incredibly Jewish in his expression. I don’t think he brought in Platonic categories at all, though I understand the early church often read Platonic categories into his writing.
I also know that Platonic influence doesn’t make Augustine wrong. I think he was right about some things. Arminianism is essensially Semi-augustinianism. I brought up Plato within the context of presuppositionalism, and that Augustine read a lot of his Platonic assumptions into the Biblical text.
Don’t you have to distinguish between Molinism and Arminianism? Craigs view for example is quite a bit different than classical Arminianism and he rejects classical Arminianism. is that not also true for Moreland and Geisler? I do not know about the others.
Craig also makes a point that many theologians are simply not well informed about molinism and therefore do not adhere to this view. But every serious apologist will sooner or later take that view into consideration because it’s value in apologetics regarding the problem of evil.
Maybe that is the explanation?
I don’t think “distinguish” is the appropriate term. Molinism is about God knowledge, and is also therefore about His sovereignty, but it doesn’t address soteriology itself. Therefore one can be a Molinist and be soteriologically Arminian or Calvinist, depending on how they understand election, the atonement, the dispensation of God’s grace, and the assurance or security of the believer. I know of some Molinists who consider themselves to be ARminian. I know of some who see Molinism as the middle ground in the debate. It is more that the two systems overlap rather than that they are completely distinct.
I think your final paragraph is very revealing.
You – “My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism.”
Translation – You are a Calvinist.
You – “In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man.”
Translation – “God is causing your suffering.”
Arminians teach that God is with us in all events of our lives. However, we believe that sin the ultimate cause of suffering, not God.
You – “Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism.”
Arminians do not try to change the Word of God. We exegete it and interpret it in the light of its context. We do not need to fit it into a theological system, but a contextual framework.
You – “But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God.”
For Arminians, the transformative event is the cross, not a theological…
greg huguley said: “Obviously CAlvinism “sells.” What else would account for its popularity? (especially among the young raised in the evangelical sub-culture) It’s certainly not the logic nor its flawed understanding of the Biblical God.”
Without presenting a solid argument with plenty of evidence and interacting with the best arguments the other side has to offer, putting statements like this out is a little pathetic. I would encourage anyone with such strong feelings about their belief in man’s free will to read “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White and write a rebuttal. I’ve been waiting for years to see an attempt but there is no beating well-applied hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture. If you aren’t willing to take the challenge, why do you believe what you believe at all? The answer is tradition. A person who is committed to the pursuit of God’s truth and not tradition has nothing to fear of examining the best the other side has to offer.
CMP –
Think about the major conferences out there that are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries.
This is one corner of evangelicalism in the US. One corner. 🙂
Nick said, “I’ve been waiting for years to see an attempt but there is no beating well-applied hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture. If you aren’t willing to take the challenge, why do you believe what you believe at all?”
Nick – Arminians are frequently falsely saddled with the idea that Arminianism centers around free-will. It doesn’t. That’s why you haven’t seen any real replies to such a challenge.
Arminianism – pure and simple – is about one thing and one thing only. The character of God. Arminians seek to understand God’s character as seen in a plenary understanding of the God’s Word. We believe that proper theology centers around God’s character.
Nick I would encourage anyone with such strong feelings about their belief in man’s free will to read “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White and write a rebuttal.
Sorry, but why “Potter’s Freedom” in particular? I’ve read plenty of Calvinist works, including some of White, but I haven’t read that particular book. I also have no intention because I’ve read other books by White and have found his style and arguements to be wanting. By why is that particular book so important to you? If you give me a good reason, I might give it a go (when I have time).
A person who is committed to the pursuit of God’s truth and not tradition has nothing to fear of examining the best the other side has to offer.
I don’t really see Arminius and Wesley going along with “tradition”. This seems to be a very ignorant statement. While there are some Arminians who are committed because of tradition, there are also Calvinists who are as well. There are alsothose convinced by…
… There are also those convinced by reason and hermeneutics on both side.
Nick: “I would encourage anyone with such strong feelings about their belief in man’s free will to read “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White and write a rebuttal.”
As I recall, “The Potter’s Freedom” is a polemic against Norman Geisler’s view, partially because Geisler claimed to be a moderate Calvinist. In my reading of the book, White is defending the Reformed viewpoint, using Reformed interpretations of the text to do so. If that is his intent, that is all well and good, although a bit circular in reasoning. But that is not really what I would see as an exegetical approach.
It is interesting that our original poster sees Calvinism as theological and Arminianism as apologetic, yet so much of what I read by Calvinists seems to be either apologetic (seeking to prove a case for their theology) or polemic (attacking another view) in nature. Even the opening post here is taking that approach.
And as noted by others, free will is really not the issue.
Btw, seeing the so-called “likes”, it surely appears that our Arminian brethren are the majority on this blog! 😉 WE are not of course going to solve this “mystery”, or even change people’s minds here. That is the work of God and the Spirit really! But, I find it interesting to say the least, that the man Calvin is still being read, and written about after over 500 years! Now that is simply amazing in itself!
And btw, the Jewishness of both John and Paul, is simply closer to the doctrine of God, within the NT Greco-Roman ideas, but this is also surely very Jewish Hellenistic, noting both the Second temple, and the so-called Greek Septuagint!
But in the end, this is not about today’s personalities, but surely both Church history, and too closer to the Greek and Roman philosophers. I don’t see how we can escape this! (Acts 17, etc.)
Fr. Robert:
Let me refute Calvinism with its own logic. Man cannot accept the free gift of salvation, yet God holds him accountable for rejecting the free gift. What a wonderful Savior! MCP is correct. Believers today love being told how bad and helpless they are. They eat it up. I suppose it is much easier than trying to be holy.
@John B: Of course “Calvinism” is but a moniker for the great doctrine of God’s sovereignty & providence over His world and creation. And it is simply factual that GOD alone sustains life, and really everything on His own, or His own power! This certainly is the general doctrine of the Jewish revelation of God. And thus, too with St. Paul especially we can see God’s sovereignty. But, Paul also presses that God’s salvation is His to give and also sustain, as too St. John (John 15: 16), and also St. Peter (1 Peter 1:2). And so here we certainly enter into the great mystery of God’s predestination and election, of human beings!
Fr. Robert: “Of course “Calvinism” is but a moniker for the great doctrine of God’s sovereignty & providence over His world and creation. And it is simply factual that GOD alone sustains life, and really everything on His own, or His own power!”
I do not think any Christian would suggest that God is not sovereign or providential. The difference is in how we understand Him exercising that sovereignty.
Calvinists have a tendency to see things from a very deterministic perspective, which they translate into the term “sovereignty.” This is evident in how they seem obsessed with refuting “free will,” as we saw from some of the posts above. From a philosophical perspective determinism is opposed to the concept of free will, so Calvinists focus attention on that issue.
But the real issue for the non-Calvinists, as Dr. Wayman so capably stated, is the character of God. Free will is simply a byproduct of the greater discussion of the righteousness of God.
I am an Arminian and I see this as a challenge. I’d like to see a major theological conference be promted that includes major Arminian thinkers. My hope is that I will be able to name several in the future. I suspect we Arminians can prove that our doctrine does teach it’s not just anti-calvinism. Plus as a Wesleyan I believe methodists have some great thinkers like William Willimon, Timmothy Tennent, or William J. Abraham etc. that would gather a crowd.
Free-will, should be more termed resposible will, man is responsible, but he is certainly not free! Read some Augustine on the will, as too Tertullian here. Btw, the idea of Voluntarism is helpful here also. And, reading Calvin himself is also a must! And note too, most of the Reformed Creeds are intralapsarian, so the idea of God that determines everything, fails here, as all humanity are sinful beings, and deserve nothing. But God has given humanity common grace, but for the elect He gives saving grace!
I love these two statements taken from the Irish Articles 1615, i.e. Archbishop Ussher…
Of God’s eternal decree, and Predestination.
11. God from all eternity did by his unchangeable counsel ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass: yet so, as thereby no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty nor the contingency of the second causes is taken away, but established rather.
12. By the same eternal counsel God hath predestinated some unto life, and reprobated some unto death: of both which there is a certain number, known only to God, which can neither be increased nor diminished.
“Read some Augustine on the will, as too Tertullian here… And, reading Calvin himself is also a must!…I love these two statements taken from the Irish Articles 1615, i.e. Archbishop Ussher…”
Have you considered that perhaps the Bible is a better basis of theology?
I have never met a Calvinist who believed he or she was one of those reprobate you mentioned. Why do you think that is?
Theology must not be anthropocentric.
I would agree with Barth, that the nature of God as Spirit, is ‘totally other’, and human and anthropocentric approaches to God are not biblical. Christ is the Last Adam, and only in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), since the Incarnation. But He is still Incarnate on the Throne above, and now “glorified” forever the New Creation in Himself! And yet, even there, HE mediates for the Church and the Body of Christ, soteriogically fully! (Hebrews 9:24 / John 17:2 ; 9-10)
Check out the life of the “Brit” and English Christian and poet William Cowper, he died sadly debating in himself whether he was “elect” or not? Certainly sad, but the older Calvinists were certainly not like so many today!
*Pronounced Cooper btw.
(Have you considered that perhaps the Bible is a better basis of theology?) Come on Bob, that was pretty lame! Do you really want to trade Biblical Textual knowledge with me? A 62 year old Irish Brit, who was weaned on the KJV, by my Irish PB (Plymouth Brethren) greatgram! 😉
Btw Bob: I hope you can pick-up my satire here? I am in many ways a “biblicist” myself! I even have many books by the so-called “fundamentalist” Anglican, E.W. Bullinger! 😉 Very true! But I love to read the Bible, itself! I have since I was a young boy. In fact since I was raised an Irish Roman Catholic, I read both my Douai-Reims Bible (Catholic), given to me at my First-Communion, and then too my KJV, given to me by my greatgram. The KJV won-out! I love the “Jimmy”! 😉
Allow me to clarify my meaning: “I would encourage anyone with such strong feelings about their belief in man’s free will to read “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White and write a rebuttal.”
could have more clearly been stated as:
“I would encourage anyone with such strong feelings about their Arminianism / Wesleyan / non-Calvinist beliefs to read “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White and write a rebuttal.”
Why this book? It isn’t a simplistic polemic on free will. It is exegetically based – many chapters begin with the text and analyze, using historical-grammatical method, the original Greek and yes, you will see Reformed conclusions. I could recommend older authors like Lorraine Boettner’s “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” or Turretin’s systematic theology, but I believe the arguments of the majority of Arminians today are easily answered from scripture as presented clearly in Dr. White’s work. If you don’t like Dr. White, there are certainly many others…
For those who wish to carry on trying to promote that Calvinist soteriology is unbiblical, I find this resource to be most helpful in understanding how one arrives at the Reformed position from scripture: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html
Another point, I really find the idea that people who believe in Reformed soteriology believe that God’s sovereignty absolves them of any need for seeking to be holy to be offensive. Reformed belief does vary in some of the details from one group to the next, but I believe you will find that it is true that none believe in such a concept. God will complete the good work he has begun in those whom He saves. That means sanctification progressively conforms us to the image of the son – but only perfectly when we are in glory after death. The emphasis is on the gospel truth that none of the holiness that comes as a result of God’s monergistic act of regeneration and subsequent sanctification gives us any claim to righteousness of our own. So, the human tendency toward moralism or religiosity is the target of this teaching, rather than to believe that holiness and being Christlike by the power of the Holy Spirit isn’t a strong desire in the heart of the regenerate believer.
If Barth is correct, then why would you impose human and naturalistic concepts such as a deterministic framework on him as Calvinism does? You (or Calvinism) are assuming that God must work as creation works. Yet at the same time you state he is totally other. If that is the case, then perhaps he does not interact with creation at all and is totally transcendent.
As a theist and Christian I certainly am not convinced of this and Paul tells us that we can know something about God.
Cowper is interesting and certainly an exception (there are always exceptions). Perhaps he struggled with where Calvinism ultimately leads. Let’s deal with the following comment.
Fr. R – “Come on Bob, that was pretty lame! Do you really want to trade Biblical Textual knowledge with me? A 62 year old Irish Brit, who was weaned on the KJV, by my Irish PB (Plymouth Brethren) greatgram!”
Yes, I did see the “satire,” but also perhaps a bit of a boast and overconfidence in your position.
You have thrown around quite a few name, but in the end the text of Scripture itself, within its context, is what defines what we believe. Do not the Calvinists (and Arminians for that matter) claim sola scriptura as the basis for theology?
Trading Biblical knowledge is what we are to do! As one of my mentors once said, “True theology is always done in community.”
Whether this is the proper forum is another question, but I have never feared a “fencing” match.
Nick S. (On “The Potter’s Freedom”) – “Why this book? It isn’t a simplistic polemic on free will.”
I would suggest it is a polemic against Norman Geisler’s position and a defense of White’s particular brand of Reformed theology.
As for its exegetical superiority, I would disagree. He is not approaching the text from a neutral position (if that is even possible). He is defending a Reformed interpretation of the text. Simply looking at his table of contents – yes, I have read it – shows that he is dealing topically with issues that concern Reformed thinking.
You might want to take a walk through his footnotes to see how many non-Calvinist (apart from Geisler) he uses in his research. I think it is pretty clear that he is simply defending a position. I am not suggesting this is improper, since the book is theological. But you need to understand his intent in writing the book.
That is, afterall, one aspect of proper exegesis. Right?
From Nick,
For those who wish to carry on trying to promote that Calvinist soteriology is unbiblical, I find this resource to be most helpful in understanding how one arrives at the Reformed position from scripture: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html,
I have never been impressed with the machine gun hermeneutic. Listing Biblical passages is not the same as interacting with them, and we can reference passages too. and this page is a pretty good straw man as well, considering that Arminians believe a lot of these points that the page is “defending”. It doesn’t really address those things which are unique to Calvinism, and makes it look like you have more verses on your side than you do.
Fr. Robert,
You’re beginning to come off a bit pendantic simply throwing out names without addressing ideas. I’ve read Tertullian and Augustine. The former i don’t even see in your camp at all, and Augustine pre-pelagius work “On the Freedom of the Will” is rather consistant with what we are arguing. Most of the pre-augustine works that deal with these topics are anti-gnostic works, which have a very negative view of determinism, and post Augustine the church adopted Semi-augustinianism over augustinism at the Council of Orange, which Arminianism is merely a Protestant articulation there-of. To this day the EOC doesn’t even hold Augustine in very high regard, especially since he is the source of many RCC novelties as much as he is of Calvinism.
All of this is to say that tossing a couple of historical names out may give Calvinism a shiny metallic armor, but it is armor made from aluminum, and doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny.
jc: I actually read Augustine and Tertullian (as many Fathers), as fully as possible, and I don’t just “cherry pic” them! I am an Anglican, and historically we Anglicans are both “catholic” and “reformed”. But yes, I am first an Augustinian, as was Calvin and Luther.