Society of Evangelical Arminians

We recently ran a blog post entitled "Some Chilling Quotes of John Calvin" (http://evangelicalarminians.org/SEA.march-2010.some-chilling-quotes-of-J...) that used two of three quotes improperly, and we apologize for the error. Someone alerted us to a response he put together (www.corkfpc.com/chill.html) demonstrating that, out of context, one of the quotes gave the wrong impression of Calvin's meaning, and that another quote was actually Calvin quoting an opponent's characterization of Calvin's view for the purpose of denying that to be his view. However, the SEA member who provided the quotes to us has written a response explaining that he did not intend to quote improperly and detailing why the quotes remain chilling in light of Calvin's theology and other things he said: http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2010/03/clarification-on-chilling.... There was no problem with use of the third quote from that post; it remains chilling without qualification.

“The Remonstrants clearly were not Pelagians.”

You would think that such a statement comes from the lips or pen of an Arminian scholar or pastor, but it originally came from Reformed Baptist scholar Mark A. Ellis, who had even pastored a Reformed Baptist church. This quote appears in Ellis' introduction to his landmark scholarly translation of The Arminian Confession of 1621 (Mark A. Ellis [trans. and ed.], The Arminian Confession of 1621 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2005]). We are excited to be able to make this introduction available.* Click on this link to read the story behind this historically significant document.

_______________________________________

On SEA’s links and books page, there is an interview with Drs. Matt Pinson and Mark Dever discussing Calvin and Calvinism (link). The moderator is a Calvinist and it shows at times, but overall he asks good questions and generates interesting discussion. Dr. Pinson does a nice job explaining the basics of Arminianism as well as explaining areas where Calvinists and Arminians can work together.

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

A Necessary Implication of Determinism

One of the primary tenets of mainstream Calvinism is the concept of exhaustive determinism (which I'll refer to as 'determinism' here) -- all that is and occurs in the universe is exactly as God has exhaustively decreed it to be. In such a worldview, man doesn't have a will that's truly free, but does everything exactly as it was predetermined for him. Consequently, there's no real contingency upon man concerning what God does. God has (in this determinist worldview) unconditionally decreed that His will be done, and His will is in no way conditioned upon anything men say or do. To this, Jack Cottrell makes the point,

Here is an absolutely chilling quotes of John Calvin. It is hard to believe any Christian can believe such a thing:

John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208)

Wow.

[Note: This post was originally entitled, "Some Chilling Quotes of John Calvin", and gave three quotes. However, someone alerted us to the fact that, out of context, one of the quotes gave the wrong impression of Calvin's meaning, and that another quote was actually Calvin quoting an opponent's characterization of Calvin's view for the purpose of denying that to be his view. For more on this, see http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/863 .]

The following is an edited response to Shai Linne's Limited Atonement rap
song, "Mission Accomplished." The original version was posted by "Murray" in the comments at the Gadgetry, Thoughts, Unleashed! blog. What is in brackets has been re-written or re-worded for this posting on SEA.

_____
Well excuse me Mr. Linne, but I think you’re confused.
And there are one or two verses which you have misused.

It’s true – God only saves the group He’s elected.
But that doesn’t mean we’re born preselected.

The "children of promise" He’s chosen to save;
All who seek God through works remain in the grave.

And God truly desires all men to believe;
His words in The Book weren’t meant to deceive.

_____
And the elect themselves were just like all others,
Once children of wrath, just like their brothers.

So even if His death was selective,

Since I spend so much time expounding upon what I find wrong in Calvinism, I thought I would briefly survey what I find right in Calvinism. This will be my brief quid pro quo -- lit. something for something. Since I am always offering people thoughts against Calvinism and never offering them insights of truth which Calvinism promotes, I thought it would be appropriate to do so -- to offer something for something.

Therefore, remember that at one point you -- the Gentiles in terms of flesh, the ones called "foreskin" by those called "the circumcised", a handmade thing of flesh -- that at that time, you were separate from Christ, ostracized from the people of Israel, and aliens in terms of the covenants of promise: having no hope and being without God in the world.

Sometimes we forget that we were the Gentiles. We were those cut off from the promises of God; aliens from the covenants made with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. It is only in the blood of Jesus Christ that we are brought near to God.

This is part of God's whole project: To redeem all of humanity through Israel. But the first stage of that was redeeming Israel, and the rest of us were set aside until Israel was ready for the Messiah to come.

Douglas Kennard’s article Petrine Redemption: its Meaning and Extent gives an overview of Peter’s concept of redemption and then dives into 2 Peter 2:1’s statement ‘denying the Lord that bought them’.

For Peter, Christ’s death is substitutionary in nature and is like a sacrificial lamb. Kennard argues that for Peter, redemption is not a payment to someone (either God or the devil). Rather it’s simply accomplished. Redemption is a onetime action not a continuing enablement. Redemption is out of a corrupt, sinful life and requires the redeemed to live differently. Redemption for Peter is not equivalent to salvation for Paul. One can be redeemed but not ultimately saved.

A reciprocal dynamic of acting and reacting occurs in any relationship between persons. If we lived in a clockwork universe operating under Calvinist assumptions of predestinating decrees, then we would be little more than very complicated turing machines modeled after game theory, like von Neumann's automation of cellular activity. At issue then is whether or not a living, dynamic relationship exists between a computer program and its creator?

A single verse I think speaks volumes about the extent of Christ's atonement is Romans 5:6. Paul writes, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (NASB). Paul tells us here explicitly who Christ died for; the ungodly. Now, many Calvinists claim that Jesus only died for a select few on the cross. He only paid for the sins of the elect. But if this is the case, then Romans 5:6 would indicate that the non-elect aren't ungodly, since Christ died for the ungodly. Or it means, as the Arminian insists, that Christ really did die for the ungodly; namely all those who are at odds with God because of their sin, who Paul identifies as every individual on earth (Romans 3:23).

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared for us to do.The beautiful thing about this verse is how close one feels with God when thinking that He has shaped us with His own hands. Many times we wonder why God would love us so much. Well, for much of the same reason why I still have some art projects I made in 6th grade. It isn't the quality of the piece, it is its relationship with me. Likewise, it is our relationship with God that causes God to love us so.

But it is also important to remember the context. Overall Paul is comparing faith to works, where faith is the means of salvation instead of what humans would expect: works. So why does Paul take the time to celebrate good works in this verse? After all, that is precisely what he is doing.

Shortly after the death of James Arminius in 1609, his followers summarized his views into the five points of the remonstrants. At Dort, the Calvinists requested a clarification of the remonstrants views. Lead by Episcopius, they drafted the Opinions of the Remonstrants, which expand on the five points. They are organized under the original five points (conditional election, unlimited atonement, total depravity, resistible grace and perseverance) and should be seen as sub-points under the five points of the remonstrants.

On election, they have three subpoints objecting to supra-lapsarianism, one objecting to infra-lapsarianism and three more subpoints defining conditional election. Additionally, they added two points rejecting the damnation of children of believers, if the children die in infancy.

We just added volumes 1 and 2 of Daniel Whedon's commentary on the New Testament to the site, and so now have all 5 volumes . A link to each volume can be found on our Links and Books page. But for your convenience, here they are:

Daniel D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 1: Matthew-Mark -- Wesleyan/Arminain Daniel Denison Whedon’s commentary on the New Testament books of Matthew and Mark (1874)

Daniel D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 2: Luke-John -- Wesleyan/Arminain Daniel Denison Whedon’s commentary on the New Testament books of Luke and John(1874)

Emperor Constantine (AD 272-337), according to Laurence M. Vance,

became the sole ruler of the Western branch of the Roman empire after defeating Maxentius (c. 283-312) at the famous Battle of the Mulvian Bridge, near Rome, in 312. It was here that Constantine claimed to have seen a vision of a shining cross that led to his victory. . . .

After supposedly attributing his victory to the "Christian God," Constantine joined with Licinius (c. 265-325), one of the emperors of the East, in issuing in 313, at Milan, a decree of toleration toward Christianity.1

By this time, the marriage of the Church to the state would be her downfall. Thus, in many cases, the redeemed sat alongside the unredeemed in every church service. Theodosius, Constantine's successor, by AD 381, proclaimed to all people that they "steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has been faithfully preserved by tradition."2

To say that any semblance of a Calvinistic framework is entirely absent from the teachings of the early Church fathers, as will become evident shortly, is an understatement. Ironically enough, however, John Calvin was not the originator of a predestinarian construction, strictly speaking. The founder of this doctrine was none other than St. Augustine (AD 354-430).

According to Vance, "The influence of Augustine upon history in general and Christianity in particular is incalculable -- but not surprising -- since, like Calvin, he was an extensively prolific writer. . . . When a modern Calvinist endeavors to substantiate Calvinism by an appeal to men, the first name mentioned is always that of Augustine."1

Taken from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8145

Ironside on Calvinism

"Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this word predestinate or predestinated is found. The first is Romans 8:29-30, the other chapter is Ephesians 1:5 and 11. You will note that there is no reference in these four verses to either heaven or hell but to Christ-likeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to be lost. Men are to be saved or lost eternally because of their attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Predestination means that someday all the redeemed shall become just like the Lord Jesus"

"D.L. Moody used to put it very simply the elect are the 'whosoever wills' the non-elect 'whosoever wont's'. This is exactly what scripture teaches, the invitation is to all, those who accept it are the elect. Remember, we are never told that Christ died for the elect".

For you see it is from grace that you have been saved through faith; not from yourself. This is a gift of God, not from works so that none may boast.

Ah yes, we are all familiar with this verse. I think it is important to understand what Paul's theology is here really. It is important to note that the basic clause of the first sentence is "you have been saved through faith". Everything else in that first sentence, and even the entire above passage, relies on us understanding that this is the basic view that Paul has about the salvation process. Indeed, the fact of salvation by faith isn't even Paul's point; it is Paul's assumption.

John Davis’ article "The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine" outlines the thought around perseverance and assurance through certain key theologians and churches through the history of the Christianity.

Davis starts with Augustine who held that not everyone who is regenerated and justified receives the gift of final perseverance and a person cannot know if they will presevere until the end. Aquinas held a similar view to Augustine. Luther held a similar view as well, but he added that while a person cannot know if they will presevere until the end, they may know that they are currently saved.

Someone asked a while back in the comments thread to one of my blog posts what I thought of “Decisional Regeneration”. Since this is a rather new label being thrown around mostly by Calvinists in a seeming attempt to mock a view of salvation conditioned by faith, it is important to address. Rather than write a new post I will just quote my initial response to the question below:

I think “decisional regeneration” is a hard phrase to pin down and is just thrown around as a slander by Calvinists towards those who do not believe that regeneration precedes faith or that regeneration is irresistibly and unconditionally given to the “elect” alone. But there can be much more to it and so I wanted to be clear as to what your specific concern was.

To Calvinists, God's grace is irresistible. This follows naturally in their entire scheme of salvation by logical necessity. It is a point that must stand or the system falls. If God has not made His grace that moves the heart of man, convicts them of their sins, and enables them to come to Him irresistibly, then the Arminian is correct in that man has the ability to choose to resist that grace when it is presented to them. The question is, What does the Bible say, and What does that which we know about the character of God say?

Regarding the Calvinist claims that the "all" of John 12:32 actually means "all kinds...."

Why would John the Evangelist craft his gospel to emphasise that God wants "all KINDS" of people to be saved--as if anyone would ever disagree with such an inane statement. In the context of the fourth Gospel, saying God wants to save "all KINDS" of people to be saved is a truism which should go without saying--unless there was a real Jew-Gentile conflict going on in John's Gospel--which there isn't. The only narrative in John's Gospel where diversity in election ("all KINDS") could be viewed as the emphasis is John 4 (the Samaritan woman), but this theme is not emphasised elsewhere.

We are happy to announce the addition to our site of another article from an Arminian evangelical scholar published in a distinguished theological journal: Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”, Evangelical Quarterly 81.4 (2009), 306–318. Be sure to check it out!

Here is the author's abstract:

Romans 9:6-26 is commonly interpreted to mean that Jewish unbelief and Gentile
responsiveness to the Gospel was something ordained or predestined by
God. This article identifies elements in the whole context of 9 – 11 which call this
approach in question. It then proposes that Paul’s intent is to rebut the claim
that God was under obligation to ensure that Israel recognize the time of fulfillment.
Paul argues that God: 1. is free to define his people on the basis of who

And also with Christ, God has raised us up and sat us down in the celestrial realms by Christ Jesus so that within these coming times He has shown, in His kindness, the overwhelming riches of His graciousness over us by Christ Jesus.

Because these devotions are based upon my translation of the text, I discovered that not only was it nearly impossible to keep up with it around Christmas time, but that once I lost track of it, it was difficult to start up again. So, I am sorry that I haven't been attending to this for a month.

In Dave Hunt's article, Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useful, Hunt argues that God uses simple foreknowledge providentially. His primary case is a rock, paper scissors example: The lynchpin of my argument was a counterexample, developed at length and with great care. It involved a version of rock-paper-scissors played between God and Satan. In this version God first declares rock, paper, or scissors, but only mentally, without revealing it; Satan then makes a libertarian free decision to declare rock, paper, or scissors; finally, God reveals what he declared. I claimed that the open theist God, who lacks simple foreknowledge, might well lose this game: victory is not guaranteed.

A dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.
(Don't take this too seriously, this is meant in good fun)

All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you're elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general): God's justification to condemn the reprobate.

Below is a response to C. Michael Patton from my site. It has been slightly edited for publication here.

I wrote a lengthy response to C. Michael Patton’s post on Rom. 9 entitled "Why Doe He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9. Apparently, it was a little too lengthy for Patton’s taste since he deleted all but the first in a series of posts and then made a general comment about people spamming his site, to which I responded,

Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism have much in common, however, there are a few differences. Here's a list that compares some of the differences in belief between Wesleyans and Classical Arminians. These are generalities, as particular beliefs often vary from person to person. And some of these categories overlap a bit. For example: One's view of sanctification influences one's view of righteousness.

Robert Chisholm’s article "ANATOMY OF AN ANTHROPOMORPHISM: DOES GOD DISCOVER FACTS?" explains OT texts like Genesis 18:20-21 and 22:12, which seem to indicate God does not know everything. Chisholm is not satisfied with saying they are antropromorphic and leaving it at that; he seeks a full understanding of why the passages, on the surface, indicate God is learning something.