It happens all the time. I move around in evangelical circles quite a bit and overhear conversations and receive comments about Arminianism. And I invite Calvinists to my classes.
I am certainly not claiming that all Calvinists are guilty of this, but many, in my experience, do not seem to care about representing Arminianism fairly.
Here’s a typical example. A friend and I drove quite a way to browse at a used theological bookstore. The owner is a passionate five point Calvinist who actually has TULIP tracts that he gives out.
Here’s how the conversation went:
Owner: “Oh, you were here once before. We talked about Arminianism because you were preparing to write your Arminianism book.”
I: “Oh, yes, now I remember. That was a while back.”
Owner: “Yes, you tried to convince me that Arminius was not an Arminian.”
I: “Well, no, I tried to convince you that Arminius was not a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.”
Owner: “Right. Arminius was not a Pelagian.”
Huh? Now perhaps he was just confused, but I doubt it. The way I interpreted his final comment was as saying that although Arminius might not have been a Pelagian, Arminianism is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. (I know several Calvinists who try to drive a wedge between Arminius himself as Arminians and Arminianism. One well-known evangelical Calvinist actually calls Wesley a “confused Calvinist!”)
What I think is that many Calvinists are so stuck in thinking of Arminianism as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian that they simply can’t revise their opinion no matter what evidence is shown or told to them. I have sent Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities to many evangelical Calvinists. Only two have bothered to respond. A couple others that I know of reviewed the book for journals or at their blogs. Their critiques were that I am simply redefining Arminianism. Again, huh? I quote Arminius and almost every influential Arminian theologian since him demonstrating conclusively that they all absolutely rejected Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (with the exception of the liberal Remonstrants such as Philip Limborch–that is, “Arminians of the head” who moved away from Arminius and Wesley in many ways such that they can hardly be considered really Arminian).
I have yet to read a book by or hear a lecture by or listen to conversation by a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist who fairly represents Arminianism which means representing it as Arminians themselves represent it. I’m not asking them to buy into it or support it, all I want is fair representation such as they want from non-Calvinists of Calvinism! I’m not seeing or hearing that yet among Calvinists–even ones I know have read my book.
I go out of my way to represent Calvinism fairly. I require my students to read Calvin and
Edwards and, when I teach an elective that deals with God’s sovereignty, I make sure the students read something by a Calvinist on that subject. And I don’t let them get away with distorting the Calvinist position. The same when I teach an adult Sunday School class or speak to a church group or whatever–I always first explain Calvinism as a Calvinist would explain it and only then say why I disagree. I never set up a straw man and then burn it.
I wish someone would point me to an exception. Where is a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist who fairly represents Arminianism before criticizing it? I haven’t met or read or heard him or her.
So what am I after? Clear explanation of Arminian belief in total depravity and prevenient grace and that Arminians’ main concern is not free will but God’s character and of Arminian affirmation of God’s omnipotence and sovereignty over his sovereignty and Arminian affirmation of justification by grace alone through faith alone.
So, if you know of a Calvinist author or speaker who has fairly represented Arminianism in his or her book or article or whatever, let us know who this stranger is. I’d like tocongratulate him or her!
I think C. Michael Patton does a pretty good job (not perfect, but he really seems to try to be fair).
Here is an an example from his Parchment and Pen blog:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/12/first-most-popular-post-of-2010-the-parable-of-the-boat-illustrating-differences-between-pelagianism-semi-pelalgianism-eastern-orthodox-roman-catholic-arminianism-and-calvinism/
Yes, that’s a pretty good description of classical Arminianism. Thanks for sharing it. I assume Patton is a five point, dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist? It’s those I have found resistant to describing Arminianism fairly.
I enjoy both you blog and Michael Patton’s blog — Does that mean there’s something wrong with me?
Seriously, Patton has his positions but does a good job of expressing a broadness in receiving believers of different stripes. And, Roger, so do you.
Thanks. I acknowledge there are many Calvinists who strive to be fair toward non-Calvinists. It’s just that there are so many who don’t and I seem to attract them.
Part of the problem is there seems to be many more popular introductions to Calvinism than Arminianism. Could you recommend a few modern primer’s on Arminin theology outside of your own. I am particularly having a hard time finding something that makes out a biblical case for previenent grace.
Well, I don’t know why that situation would cause dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists such as I’m talking about (educated men and perhaps a few women) fail to describe Arminianism fairly AFTER they’ve been informed. Look at Thomas Oden, The Transforming Power of Grace. It’s the best brief introduction to Arminianism even if he doesn’t call it that. He does mention Arminius favorably, however, and even says classical Arminianism is the soteriology of the ancient Greek fathers brought up into Protestantism.
Roger,
Have you checked out Robert E. Coleman’s The Heart of the Gospel (2011)? It would be a great primer.
Also, I believe Brandon is correct, a biblical case for prevenient grace is needed. For me, the idea of a “common grace” that doesn’t have as it’s aim the salvation of all people and is not mediated through the atonement is theologically weird. The Father makes the sun shine on the evil as well as the righteous. He does this apart from the mediation of Christ? How could this be?
Have you read Allan Coppedge: Portraits of God, which is a study of the nature/character of God, and The God Who is Triune? I think you’ld be interested.
My position is simply “Non-Calvinist.” That was Arminius’ position anyway. Like Oden says, it goes back before Calvin and Augustine to the early fathers.
Norman Geisler also claims to take an early father position in his 3rd edition of Chosen But Free. His understanding on foreknowledge is neither extreme Calvinism (predetermination is independent of foreknowledge), nor extreme Arminianism (Open Theism, predetermination is based on foreknowledge), nor Wesleyan (“God unconditionally willed that salvation would be received on the condition of faith,” which I recall John Fletcher making similar a similar statement). Geisler’s “classical view” is that predetermination is in accord with foreknowledge, and uses I Peter 1:2. This view is called “balanced” and can be accepted by both “mild Calvinists and mild Arminians, Geisler says. In the end he says it preserves the traditional understanding of the nature of God, which is what we are all concerned about. Howbeit, if I’m not mistaken, this view gives gives a nod to the Western Church in it theology proper, and, as Coppedge has shown, the Eastern Church’s view is a bit more relational because they gave emphasis to the distinct Persons within the Godhead. Coppedge also rejects the Open Theist viewpoint from this understanding of the Trinity.
It would be great if you could give a bit more than a hasty response, but I understand you probably have a lot on your plate. At any rate, again, thank you for your thoughts.
I think I’ll append the following because I think inerrancy is important. I’m saddened that you reject inerrancy, yet I accept you as brother, of course, and am thankful for your work. There are some things that must be addressed, as the Council on Biblical Inerrancy has shown. But I think we should put our hearts before our heads on this one. If there is a particular place in the text that is not easily explained, why not at least give God the benefit of the doubt? After all, He’s God. Is it not academically popular these days? Who cares?
Under mercy,
Mark
I reject inerrancy because it has to be qualified to death. I prefer infallibility. I don’t understand why that’s insufficient. I think Oden is wrong. Arminianism is not just the soteriology of the early church. Arminianism is Protestant. Arminians believe, with all Protestants, that salvation is by grace through faith alone. I don’t find that teaching in the early church fathers. (I know Oden claims to find it there, but I don’t agree. I agree with Alister McGrath who, in his work on Justification, says it’s a truth lost between the apostles and Luther (with the possible exception of Hus who I consider to have been Protestant).
Thanks Roger,
Thank you for your gracious response. As I reread my post I should have left the last two lines out. Forgive me for the implication. No excuses.
I understand. It’s about all the qualifications. But does the term infallibility cover everything the Bible asserts to be true as an historical document? Or just “religious” truth? If the later, that’s the problem I would have with it.
Thank you for the heads up about Oden. I have not had a chance to read everything. I’m a busy pastor. When I heard about his position it did raise my eyebrows a bit. I would hope he’s right, but I’m a doubter right now.
Since the whole thing about Calvinism/Arminianism boils down to the doctrine of God proper, I hope to hear your evaluation of Coppedge in the future. You have a great mind and I enjoy your viewpoints. Myths and Realities is a great read. Looking forward to the next one!
Thank again, brother.
Misrepresentation is a very effective rhetorical strategy. I think it is a natural choice for those who truly feel that their ends must be so just that any method used to further those ends must be justified, even sanctified. After all, when you have the whole truth, how do you define anything else? Why not use misrepresentation? One is only using a little lie as a weapon against a bigger one. How bad is that? But mainly, it is used, in all debates, because it works really well. You rightly counsel consistent use of truth to undo untruth. This is really the fundamental battle, isn’t it. The use of misrepresentation by people calling themselves Christian raises a whole boatload of questions – fear and weakness are only two that come to mind along with the old contest of dogma vs faith.
Hello Bev,
I appreciated your comments:
“Misrepresentation is a very effective rhetorical strategy. I think it is a natural choice for those who truly feel that their ends must be so just that any method used to further those ends must be justified, even sanctified.”
My observation is that some Calvinists are so convinced of the “truth” of their theology/theological system, that it becomes like another gospel for them. [Note I did not say a “false gospel” (as most Calvinists that I know believe the same gospel that other Christians believe in and promote).] There is the gospel of the New Testament which all Christians rejoice in, but then in addition there is the “good news”/gospel of calvinism.
Look at how some of these Calvinists are gleeful about sharing their “testimonies” about how they came to know Calvinism (instead of how they came to know the Lord), how they came to Calvinism” (instead of how they came to Christ) . Sadly these folks then sound more excited about their post conversion, conversion to the Calvinisism than to their initial conversion to Christ!
It is also very reminiscent of how at one time some Pentecostals spoke of the “second blessing” of acquiring the gift of tongues after you were saved. These Pentecostals then made a division between the tongue-speakers and non-tongue speakers. This led them to speak about “ordinary Christian living” (which is your condition when you were saved but had not yet spoken in tongues) versus “dynamic powerful Christian living” (which is your condition after you began speaking in tongues). This same mentality is present in many of these contemporary Calvinists. There are the **lesser Christians** (who are mere Christians) and then the **greater and more spiritual Christians** (who have instead of receiving the gift of tongues as their “second blessing” received and embraced the Calvinist system of theology as their “second blessing”). The dynamics and thinking are remarkably similar as to the way that some Pentecostals spoke of tongue speakers versus non-tongue speakers.
“After all, when you have the whole truth, how do you define anything else?”
Well if you really believe that you “have the whole truth” and others do not, then you want others to have this same “truth” as you do. There is also susceptibility to having a perspective where you then you view things as “us” versus “them” (the “us” the good guys, the guys with the white hats being the Calvinists and their system, the “them” being any other professing Christian, the guys with the black hats, the “them” needing to be converted so that they become like “us”).
If you really believe that then you also want to convert other Christians to your perspective.
This is a very important and sad reality of some modern Calvinists: they spend more time and effort (seen especially when you look at their blogs and their use of time: how can you be evangelizing the lost if you spend time debating on multiple blogs?) attempting to debate and convert other Christians to their views than evangelizing a lost world.
So you end up with these guys who are into debating theological minutia and yet appear to have never led another person to Christ (and if you never lead others to Christ you never disciple, you never reproduce your life in another person: you also fail to carry out the Great Commission of Matthew 28).
Instead of **winning the lost to Christ** your priority becomes ** winning other Christians to Calvinism**.
“Why not use misrepresentation? One is only using a little lie as a weapon against a bigger one. How bad is that? But mainly, it is used, in all debates, because it works really well.”
And if it really works well in debates, then the Calvinists who love to debate, will be very interested in it, as they are really into debates. Again the prime directive for some of them then becomes converting other Christians into Calvinists.
“You rightly counsel consistent use of truth to undo untruth. This is really the fundamental battle, isn’t it. The use of misrepresentation by people calling themselves Christian raises a whole boatload of questions – fear and weakness are only two that come to mind along with the old contest of dogma vs faith.”
I agree with you here.
Included in that “boatload of questions” is how will this divisive modern Calvinism (which is inherently divisive) be dealt with?
Robert
I compare this phenomenon of aggressive Calvinism (so well described by Robert in this comment) with the Bill Gothard phenomenon in the 1970s and 1980s. I cannot tell you how many conversations I had with fellow seminary students and friends who talked as if going to a Basic Youth Conflicts seminar saved their lives from absolute spiritual ruin and how everyone would be more spiritual if they attended one. There was more than a hint of fanaticism in that phenomenon and the contemporary aggressive Calvinism phenomenon parallels it in many ways. HOWEVER, I want to stress that not all Calvinists I know are like that. I have good friends who are Calvinists who do not think it makes them higher or better than others. They just think it’s truth and it would be good for everyone to come to know it as they have. But then there are some on the internet and on the radio and who publish and who I know personally who definitely do talk as if everyone else (non-Calvinists) have half the gospel at best and a false gospel at worst. Sproul has said publicly that Arminians are “Christians, just barely” and Piper told a colleague of mine that Arminianism is “on the precipice of heresy.”
Roger,
Does this little metaphor help?
On Fear and Insecurity
A well-grounded faith has the tendency to be just that – grounded, as in immobile. Just as a grounded ship is in danger of even the normal heave of the sea and mortally afraid of anything resembling a storm, a well-grounded faith clings to what is known and tries to claim that that knowledge is incorrigible and complete. When a challenge emerges, all hands are required to come vigorously to the defense of the ship. No means, including violence in word and even deed, are excluded – in today’s political parlance, “everything is on the table”, security is the paramount issue. An anchored faith is something quite different. What it is anchored to is of critical importance as is the strength of the relationship to that point of reference. However, normal sea movement, even some storms can do it no harm. It’s position can change, is expected to change, within limits. Fear is not the issue. Security has a different quality, takes on a different hue. When the call to action comes, the grounded ship is extremely exposed, the anchored ship is ready for battle. It can move to new locations, it can redeploy the anchor for it trusts its rock to be ever present.
I love it!
Robert,
You have understood my points completely. I have paid little attention to this whole conflict because being in a Trinity Pentecostal and Canadian environment most of my adult life made it irrelevant to the point of forgetting. Now in retirement and trying to catch up on a number of theological areas left to rest for years, I run head on ( via Internet) into a world presumed long dead – a real blast from the past! Could it be that one or two of the “angels” of the church (in the sense used by Walter Wink in “The Powers that Be”) are working for the other side? Strong words, I realize, but the spirit of the debate (conflict really) can be, at times, unholy.
This may surprise you but I’ve found Mark Driscoll to be fair on Arminianism. He doesn’t call Arminians heretics abd he doesn’t say they are semi-palagian. He happily says that Arminianism includes total depravity and talks about prevenient grace in a meaningful way. Obviously he doesn’t agree and therefore may not give what you feel to be a 100% accurate look at arminianism but he’s always seemed ok to me.
Have you ever read “Why I Am Not an Arminian”? Does it represent Arminianism fairly? (On that note does “Why I am not a Calvinist” represent Calvinism fairly?) The reason I ask is because I generally find the folk from Covenant Seminary to be very fair and graceful and it wouldn’t surprise me if this was also the case when dealing with Arminianism.
Also, I think there’s a fair amount of mis-representation of Calvinism that goes on in Arminian and Wesleyan circles. Not by yourself, but it definately goes on. I’m just about to start Ten Myths About Calvinism by Kenneth Stewart and it’ll be interesting to see what I find out.
I think you’ll be surprised by Stewart’s book. Much of it is aimed at fellow Calvinists who misunderstand the Reformed tradition. I have watched/heard Driscoll on youtube talking about Calvinism and Arminianism and I thought it was basically right and fair. I didn’t catch any blatant misrepresentation in that brief presentation. Thank you for mentioning him. As for Why I Am Not a Calvinist (IVP book). Yes, I read it and responded to it in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. The authors start out bending over backwards to be generous and fair to Arminians and I appreciate that. However, as the book goes along common misconceptions and misrepresentations pop out. One is that for Arminians, humans are only “hypothetically depraved” in their natural condition because prevenient grace is universal. Not all Arminians (including Arminius) believed this. Also, as I pointed out in Arminian Theology, a deaf person with hearing aids (or implants) isn’t just “hypothetically deaf.”
Thanks for the reply Roger. I’m going to read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities as well. I ordered them both at the same time but Stewart’s book arrived first so I’ve started that one while I wait for yours. Judging from what I’ve read so far it would seem that many five point Calvinists have misunderstood the Calvinism. If they have misunderstood their own theology, is it any wonder they misunderstand Arminianism?
Dr. Olson,
May I just say how much I appreciated your book on Arminian Theology – and how much I appreciate this blog. You’ve helped me better articulate my own Arminian position amongst brothers and sisters of the Calvinist persuasion – who I love dearly. I am fortunate in that post of my Calvinist friends are past the cage phase.
Best regards.
Sadly I have never met one. Vividly remember a lecturer in Scotland tell me that Charles Wesley’s line in the hymn And Cant It Be “Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—” proved that he wrote hymns as a Calvinist.
Despite showing him from John and Charles’ own words that the line represented their thinking on Prevenient Grace he rejected the idea the line was a valid expression of Wesleyan Arminianism and said that Wesleyan/Arminian thinking was that humans had the innate ability to turn to God and choose salvation and so made humanity the author of salvation and therefore negated God’s grace and didn’t take sin seriously enough.
The Arminian straw-man is ingrained in Calvinism that it is almost a 6th point, a vital component of their theological system whatever the evidence to the contrary.
Interesting he would say that about that hymn, because the editors of the Trinity Hymnal (of the Presbyterian Church) didn’t think it was Calvinist enough because it references unlimited atonement. Their version replaces “and bled for Adam’s helpless race” to “and bled for all his chosen race.”
Unbelievable! They actually changed the words of a Charles Wesley hymn to fit their theology? I wonder how they would feel if a Methodist did that with one of Toplady’s or Cowper’s hymns?
I can hear Dr McGonigle, erstwhile Wesley expert and former principal of Nazarene Theological College, fainting when he hears about that, he got worked up enough about editors who changed the orders of Wesley’s hymns never mind the wording!
I am thinking that Charles Wesley’s hymn “The Horrible Decree” didn’t make the cut for Trinity Hymnal then
Probably not. But let’s keep in mind that criticism, even stringent criticism, of a theological view is one thing. Misrepresentation is something else. The two are not the same.
Roger
I think that part of the issue is that some/most semi Pelagians represent themselves in practice as Arminians, not recognizing themselves as what they are. I do agree with you that much of the church in North America is semi Pelagian.
Your representation of the high Calvinists (eg Sproul) seem correct from what little I have read in their publications since I find them very unpalatable. However, as someone from a more moderate reformed position I do not recognize either my beliefs or the beliefs of the church we attend.
—
If an unsaved person hears the gospel and understands it can/do Arminians pray for that person’s salvation? If so please explain.
Dave W
We pray that God will bring all pressure to bear on them that he can within the relational framework he has established. We do not pray that God will just willy-nilly save someone without their consent. That’s not possible. But it seems strange to us that Calvinists pray for people’s salvation unless all they mean is to save the elect which God intends to do anyway. I think Spurgeon was consistent when he prayed “God, save all the elect and then elect some more!”
What about Peterson and Williams in *Why I am Not an Arminian*?
I responded to another query about that. I hope you can see my response.
Roger,
Here’s a question about Calvinism v. Arminianism. I grew up Southern Baptist and it seemed that years ago, the SBC didn’t really come down definitively on either theological view – there always seemed to be some admixture of both. My father was a Baptist minister and a great advocate of “soul Liberty,” or “soul competency” as espoused by E.Y Mullins of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY. I noticed that after the fundamentalist wing wrested control of the SBC, more and more of its leaders began harking back to the Puritans and John Calvin as if those were our true Baptist forebears. Then I read something by Al Mohler, current president of Southern Baptist Seminary, in which he discounted E.Y. Mullins’ soul competency. My question is, was E.Y Mullins Arminian, and is Al Mohler Calvinist? A follow up question, is the fight among moderates and conservatives within the SBC theological along Calvinist and Arminian views, or is it really a culture war using theological terms to try to make distinctions?
I find Calvinists and Arminians among the neo-fundamentalists in the SBC. They have been wrestling over this among themselves. So far it hasn’t become too divisive, but it still may. I have examined the writings of Mullins and Herschel Hobbs and George W. Truett and other moderate SBC leaders and thinkers and none of them call themselves Arminian. They don’t call themselves Calvinist, either. I think there is a long tradition among moderate SBCers to want to avoid labels other than Baptist. As for substance, I find elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism mixed together in them. For example, in Axioms of Religion Mullins’ first axiom is God’s right to exercise absolute sovereignty over creation. Well, Arminians can agree with God’s right to exercise absolute sovereignty and, in a way, we affirm that he does so. But we say he is sovereign even over his sovereignty. When I read further into Mullins (and especially one of his major SBC interpreters Hobbs) I find Arminian strains. It all reminds me of a sermon I watched/heard by Charles Stanley in which he affirmed BOTH absolute divine sovereignty even over salvation (God elects individuals for salvation) AND free will (the sinner always has the right and ability to resist). He admitted it is a “paradox.” I’d call his sermon a contradiction. I think that’s fairly typical of SBC thought on the subject. However, in practice, most SBCers are Arminians. And I am certain the authors of Whosoever Will are Arminian. They just think they’re not because of their strong affirmation of the security of the believer. They equate “Armianianism” with eternal insecurity of the believer which is incorrect.
I suspect that if “dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists” described Arminianism too accurately, many of their followers would ask, “Why, again, don’t we believe that?”!
Wonderful! I agree.
Calvinists generally behave about Arminianism the same way Republicans act about President Obama. Since they know the truth — they believe — there is no way the other guy can be anything other than a heretic/socialist. I know plenty of really intelligent Republicans who believe truly irrational things About President Obama. So, Calvinism is a faith within the faith — the purest form of Christianity (they think). Any other view is both heresy and apostasy and does not deserve deep thought.
You are coming close to asking them to fly; they just can’t do it. You are asking them to think the unthinkable; they just won’t go there. At best, it is just too much work and the payoff is that all your Calvinist friends drop you or even attack you. Most say, “No thanks!”
-Barry
I know you probably get hounded about this all the time, but why can their not be an Arminian Study Bible comparable to the ESV Study Bible? As a United Methodist I love my Wesley Study Bible, but it just inadequate as the Arminian answer to the ESV Study Bible because 1. NRSV is not very popular among Evangelicals and 2. It only is in the Wesleyan tradition.
The reason Calvinism has become so popular imo has a lot to do with popularity of the ESV Study Bible.
Isn’t that fairly recent, though? I think Calvinism’s rising popularity especially among young people (I might say young men) in the last couple decades has everything to do with John Piper. In my opinion, without Piper’s influence, we wouldn’t even be discussing this. I say that as one who was “there” at the beginning of it all. I went to teach theology at the college Piper left (he taught New Testament there for a couple years) a year earlier. For 15 years I heard all about Piper from students who almost worshiped him. Almost all of them were young men; women students didn’t seem to “get it” when it came to the Piper phenomenon. The faculty called the young male followers of Piper “Piper cubs.” So I saw it when it began and watched it grow over the past two to three decades. When I moved to my present teaching position far, far away from the first one and in a different cultural and religious context, I thought I was leaving that phenomenon behind, but at my very first class here several students asked me about Piper (because they knew I came from the state where he pastors and the college where he used to teach). If anything he is more popular here than there! (Not all my students are fans of his, though. Some are and some aren’t.)
Roger:
I will be the first to agree with you that there is too much Calvinist caricaturing of the Arminian position. But will it come as news that the same routinely happens when rabid Arminians are let loose on Calvinism? If one’s Calvinism is low-key, moderately-stated and irenic, this will still provide no defense.
What advocates on both sides of the divide need to recognize is that there is a widespread ‘folk-theology’ out there in evangelical culture which nourishes this kind of jaundiced appraisal by rank and file believers. Seminaries are not so much to blame as are pastors, who themselves resort to caricature and over-simplification of the other view. There are also tracts and popular booklets which portray the other position in a dubious light. It is this ‘folk-theology’ that continues to fuel the prejudice you lament. But please recognize that the traffic is two-way.
A pastor spoke to me about these problems recently. I told him that I thought it would take concerted efforts for at least a generation to cure this problem – and that is if the pugilists on both sides would cease and desist.
Another thing that needs to happen is that representatives of both positions need to appear on the same platforms and to find causes in which they can be co-belligerents. People who harbor these prejudices have never seen that collaboration and they usually cannot count a person of the opposite view among their circle of friends. So, some different ‘modelling’ is needed.
I agree with all that. Thanks for weighing in on this discussion. However, I do think during the past two to three decades it has mostly been mainly among the Reformed that one finds the caricaturing going on by people who should know better. I mean people who are not merely into folk religion and folk theology but who have seminary training and read theology books, etc. I could cite instance after instance of this. Yes, I’m sure there have been and are Arminians who caricature Reformed theology and Calvinism, but they don’t tend to be the tutored ones. I am willing to bet the farm that many more Arminians read Calvin and Reformed theology than Calvinists who read Arminius and Arminian theology. I have sent Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities to many Reformed theologians. Only one responded directly to me. Several responded at their blogs–bashing the book as simply re-defining Arminianism (meaning defining it differently than they do!). Sproul asked me for a copy and I sent him one asking that he respond. He never did. That’s been the general rule, not the exception. I will count on you and other moderate Reformed folks to nudge the aggressive ones toward greater fairness as I will continue to push Arminians to be sure they can state the Calvinist view as a Calvinist would state it before disagreeing. I think you’ll see that in my book.
Quick question, Dr. Olson: Why do so many Calvinists who are so hard against Arminianism go much more lightly on Lutheranism? It seems to get a pass even though it seems much closer to Arminianism on some of the sticky points like the extent of the atonement and faith as the condition of salvation.
Good question. For example, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (the group originally associated with Modern Reformation magazine) included Lutherans. When I asked why Lutherans can join but not, for example, Methodists the answer was that the particular Lutherans who joined were monergists. They were all, by the way, LC-MS. I think the aggressively Reformed folks who tend to attack Arminianism unfairly accept Lutherans who they think are faithful to Luther himself who was a monergist. Other Lutherans, I suspect, they don’t think of as conservative, evangelical Christians at all but as liberal “mainliners.” I do often wonder why the aggressive Calvinists spend so much time and energy attacking Arminians and Arminianism and so little attacking real liberal Protestant theology. I guess it must be because they see liberal Protestants (e.g., process theologians) as beyond the pale and not worthy of serious consideration and Arminianism as leading there. Of course, they’re wrong about Arminianism.
Roger: I don’t want to rain on your parade. But both in your original post and in your response I think you don’t sufficiently admit to the existence and operation of Arminian ‘guerilla-warriors’ who are every bit as vitriolic as the Calvinist variety of which you justifiably complain. Has anyone who reads this list ever handled the ‘pulp’ materials of Dave Hunt and Laurence Vance (just to name two)? They are being read and quoted. I’m not interested in a blame game. But the remedying of this sorrowful situation will require both sides of the controversy to establish a kind of ‘order’ in their ranks which doesn’t presently exist. Both sides have ‘ultras’ and ‘hypers’ in their ranks. Both sides include people for whom theological controversy on these questions is their meat and drink.
Please, rain on my parade. Give me specific places I can look for these and other “Arminian guerilla warriors” who misrepresent Calvinism and I will offer my criticisms and corrections to and about them. I’m not aware of these two men. I’ve heard of Dave Hunt, but not Laurence Vance. Where are they misrepresenting Calvinism?
Roger:
Here are a few for starters. Please bear in mind, that in listing them, I no more expect Arminians at large to accept collective blame for their excesses than Calvinists at large need to accept blame for their pugilistic fringe. I only mean to show that both camps have this problem. These four sources are a blend of educators (who had more factual information at their fingertips than they used) and popular authors, who largely offer their opinions and resort to self-publishing.
1. The late William Estep (SWBTS) on Calvinism: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/248
2. Don Fanning (Liberty Univ.) on Calvinism and Missions
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=cgm_theo&sei-redir=1#search=“Calvinism+and+Missions,+Liberty+Baptist”
3. Dave Hunt on Calvinism:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Love-This-Calvinisms-Misrepresentation/dp/1929125305
(Hunt can be heard lecturing on this subject via You Tube)
4. Laurence Vance:
http://www.christianbook.com/the-other-side-calvinism-revised-edition/laurence-vance/9780962889875/pd/89873
Thanks. I’ll look at these and get back to you.
Dr. Olson,
I’ve just read “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” and found it enormously helpful. Keep up the good work.
Ken Stewart is probably referring to Dave Hunt’s book, “What Love Is This?” It attacks Calvinism’s portrayal of God’s nature. I’m currently reading it and it’s true that he’s a little over the top and imprecise in some of his criticisms, not just of Calvinism but of other traditions as well.
I’d never read anything by Hunt before. He’s well read but(I think) self-taught when it comes to theology. He seems to be an old school dispensationalist of the Plymouth Brethren stripe. He’s very anti-catholic-the-pope-is-the-Beast-of-the-Apocalypse.
Hunt doesn’t mention Arminian theology much and I’m not sure that he understand the difference between Arminianism and semi-pelagianism. In his critique of Calvinism Hunt tends to shoot from the hip, but he doesn’t always miss his target either.
I think there are two Dave Hunts–senior and junior. As I recall, Sr. was raised Plymouth Brethren and then excommunicated and, as I recall, he wrote a book about that. (I could be wrong; it’s been years since I was familiar with him at all and that only through some of his writings.) I have met Dave Hunt, Jr. some years ago at a meeting of the AAR/SBL. At first I thought he was Dave Hunt, Sr., but some mutual friends quickly corrected me. As I recall, Jr. is a philosopher and very thoughtful in his presentation of Arminianism and critique of Calvinism. In fact, I believe I have seen a book about the subject by him and a Calvinist. Anyway, it might be helpful when discussing the Dave Hunts to clarify which one is being spoken about.
My copy of “What Love is This?” just says, “Dave Hunt” – no “junior.” From how you describe Jr., I think this must be Dave Hunt the Elder.
Of course I don’t know which Hunt Ken Stewart means, but I can see why this book would make Calvinist blood boil. It’s scathing.
Michael Patton and Mark Driscoll have already been mentioned. But as for professional theologians, what about Millard Erickson? His “Christian Theology” was where I first read a cogent explanation of Arminian theology. From what I’ve read of your work, Roger, I still find his summary accurate. He’s not a five-pointer, but he does reject prevenient grace and conditional election, so he’s no Classic Arminian.
Roger, what blame do you place on pseudo-Arminians for the misrepresentation? In your book you often make passing comments about Arminians who misunderstand this or that tenet of true Arminianism. So how much of the blame is due to those in your own fold?
I think the absence of a good, one-volume Arminian systematic theology also contributes to the misunderstanding. Oden’s is really too long to serve as a student’s first introduction to theology. (And as you note in your book, Oden doesn’t call his own theology Arminian so someone being introduced to theology would not know to associate the two anyway.)
By the way, I love the illustration of hearing aids. That’s really helpful because I’ve often felt that prevenient grace leaves us “hypothetically depraved.”
Correction: I just saw that HarperOne published Oden’s systematic theology in one volume a few years ago.