Do Arminians owe "The Church" an apology?

February 18, 2011 By 17 Comments

The owner of YouTube channel The Pristine Faith has posted a video where he apologizes to the church at large on behalf of Arminians.  He says he is one.

His apology is for what he regards as Arminian churches’ lack of theological depth and rigor and emphasis instead on mass appeal and being relevant.

I think it would be helpful if he named specific Arminian churches.  I wonder if he’s thinking stead of the ever popular folk religion of semi-Pelagianism?  Calvinists, of course, have long confused the two.  So have some self-identified Arminians who aren’t really Arminian at all.

This broadcast apology seems to me based more on Calvinists’ accusations than on reality.  Which truly Arminian churches are guilty of the things for which this man apologizes?

It’s one thing to apologize for oneself or one’s own church or even a few churches.  Can all Arminian churches really be guilty of these things?  Are most churches guilty of them really Arminian?  Are there no Reformed churches guilty of them?

I guess what I’m musing about is this: Is the accusation made by Calvinists (I’d say Reformed but I don’t think all Reformed participate in this accusation) that all Arminian churches are theologically shallow valid?  Is it valid enough to justify a blanket apology on behalf of all Arminian churches?  And what gives one person the right to apologize on behalf of all Arminian churches?  And what is “the church” to which the apology is being made?

I, for one, do not embrace that apology; I do not think of it as on my behalf.  He doesn’t speak for me.  And I suspect most of the churches he is apologizing for are not really Arminian.  Methodist churches?  Are they, as a whole, any more Arminian than Presbyterian churches, as a whole, are Calvinistic?  I doubt it.

I will say that I think the majority of Arminian churches have not done as good a job of catechesis and doctrinal preaching as they should, but that’s probably true of most American churches–most Reformed included. 

The one exception is probably the Presbyterian Church of America that specializes in doctrinal preaching and teaching.  Kudos to them.  But I’m not sure I want to go to a church to hear a doctrinal sermon every Sunday.  And I know I’d rather go to a church that is non-doctrinal (in the pulpit) than one that preaches double predestination!

Filed Under: Uncategorized 17 Comments
  • http://jasonwoolever.me Jason Woolever

    Dr. Olson, I think you nailed it. Very few people know the difference between Arminian and semi-Pelagian. Many semi-Pelagians take pride in calling themselves Arminians, having no idea what they are talking about.

    I would say, as a Methodist pastor, that most UM pastors aren’t true Arminian, and most UM churches function like semi-Pelagians…

    • Vance

      How, exactly, do churches “function like semi-Pelagians”?

      • http://RogerEOlson.com Roger

        By never mentioning that the initiative in salvation is God’s and by implying that human beings can and must approach God first–before God responds with grace? I call it the theology of “Touched by an Angel.” “If you reach out to God, he’ll reach back to you.” Or “If you’ll take one step toward the Savior my friend; you’ll find his arms open wide.”

        • CarolJean

          “If you reach out to God, he’ll reach back to you.” Or “If you’ll take one step toward the Savior my friend; you’ll find his arms open wide.”

          Both those statements seem correct because there has to be some sort of response on our part to the Spirit’s drawing and conviction on the soul of man.

          What would you change about those statements or add to them to make them more in line with Arminianism?

          • http://RogerEOlson.com Roger

            They need to be supplemented by teaching about prevenient grace. Too often (usually?) they aren’t. Without supplementation they promote semi-Pelagianism. For example, in a church that sings “The Savior is Waiting” by Ralph Carmichael the music minister or pastor should have the congregation sing Charles Wesley’s “And Can It Be?,” which strongly emphasizes prevenient grace, and comment on it.

  • http://jasonwoolever.me Jason Woolever

    Just watched the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_sfbXochQ
    He made some good points, the biggest mistakes were in thinking that Arminian theology was behind the errors he pointed out, and in thinking that he could apologize on every Arminian’s behalf…

  • Jeff Martin

    As far as doctrinal preachnig goes one should throw in there as well, Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians. All one needs to do is to talk to one to see what I mean!. Unfortunatley my experience with them is that although they preach doctrine and read voraciously it is only Puritan or Reformed fbooks otherwise, forget about it!

    I have worked in Calvinist churches as well as Arminian and you are right Dr. Olson, none of them are particularly good at teaching doctrine and I have never in my life heard a sermon yet from the pulpit at a Reformed church that talked about double predestination, even though I know the Pastor would believe it more than likely.

    I know with Pentecostal churches they have a bad track record. I grew up in one and I can definitely say that scholarship was not a priority. The AG has attempted something with a Systematic Theology but if you have ever read it it is pretty bad. They need to at least double the space for each chapter.

  • http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/ James Goetz

    The basic consensus is that the most prominent evangelical theological scholars are Calvinists. But given that I see the New Testament teaching that the new covenant is a conditional covenant with a condition of faith, I cannot applaud the sum of Calvinist theological scholarship as superior to Arminian theological scholarship.

  • http://atdcross.blogspot.com/ Nelson Banuchi

    An apology for “lack of theological depth and rigor and emphasis instead on mass appeal and being relevant”?

    When will the Church – Arminian or otherwise – apologize for what she may truly need to offer a genuine apologize (at least, the American Church), the lack of depthness in Christlikeness, the lack of a rigorous eschewing of sin , and the mass appeal to be like the world?

    • http://RogerEOlson.com Roger

      But who should apologize and to whom? There is no “American Church.”

  • Ben

    When are Christians going to start apologizing about the fact that they’re not walking in love? It’s sad to see these pompous theologians insulting people right and left when the core of their theology is supposedly love. I’m not speaking of you of course Roger.

  • http://christianikoapologia.wordpress.com/ B. P. Burnett

    I also watch that video by ThePristineFaith Youtube channel, and sent him notificastion of this blog post. I’m glad you have responded, Dr Olson.

  • Brian Peterson

    Dr. Olson: I am the creator of the video you’ve commented on. The intent of my video was not necessarily to be as precise as you’ve been in your review. I’m sure the video could be picked apart in different ways if this was the intent I embraced. My main premise is this: It’s been a general observation of mine that non-Calvinistic churches (whether they label themselves as Arminian or not– yet generally hold to Arminian soteriology) are not doing a very good job of appealing hungry Christians (by preaching a strong and weighty Christianity) when it is a ripe time for them to be doing so. Is this definitely true of all Arminian churches? No, I mentioned that that there have been some positive strides for which we should be grateful for. Whether or not I precisely defined my terms or made appropriate disclaimers was not a high priority during my short video clip. Anyhow, I appreciate you taking the time to think about what I said.

    • John I.

      A weasely response. If one is going to speak on such a very contentious topic, one bears an onus to be more precise. It is no excuse to say that doing so was not a “high priority”; it should have been, especially given the nature of the video and the points being made.

      J.

  • Wittenberg

    Protestantism does not all understand the Gospel the same way. There is an enormous ideaological gap. Thus there is a gap in how the Christian sees God.

    In one model, the impetus for reconciliation between God and man is the man – who, armed with the trite so-called ‘sinner’s prayer’ approaches a God who stands back waiting. Once the prayer is said, the supplicant person is ‘saved’ once and for all, free to do whatever he or she wishes – because the Law of God is done away with, and because the person has prayed ‘the sinners’ prayer’ and now God is somehow bound.

    In the other model, the impetus for reconciliation is God, who approaches the sinner with grace and reconciliation with no merit. The sinner believes, responding to that which is, and enters into a new life with God. The impetus did not come from the sinner in this model, and so there is none of this nonsense about God being obligated to ‘save’ the sinner because the sinner jumped through the correct hoops to get salvation – ie utter the sinners’ prayer and bend the knee once, even if they never do it again.

    Only one is real. The one results in a changed life of gratitude that is lived in conformity to the will of God. But the first one, the one in which the sinner is the impetus for his own salvation, results in the snooty superiority and nastiness that you see in many Christians. Because grace is not extended to the world first – it is a response of God to a legalistic observance.

    • rogereolson

      The first model is semi-Pelagianism (if not outright Pelagianism) and is, I fear, the default theology of American Christianity. The “other model” is exactly what classical Arminianism teaches.

  • Wittenberg

    Unfortunately, I agree. Pastors and churches are preaching a message that both lessons the grace and goodness of God and lessons His sovereignty.

    It changes the way a person sees God. And it changes the way a person sees his or her fellow humans. It changes the way a person sees themselves.

    By beholding we become changed. If we behold God in a way which He is not we surely will be changed into that image. And so we see the corresponding change in what Christianity in America is coming to be, and the corresponding societal issues that are an inevitable result.

    Lost is the message “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their transgressions and has committed to us the ministry of reconciliation”. 2 Cor 5:19