Recently there has been some discussion of the claim by the editors of Whosever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (B&H Academic, 2010) that they are not Arminians. Here I responded to that claim as have others.
Please read my review of Whosoever Will in The Southwestern Journal of Theology at:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/WhosoeverWill.cfm
There I make clear that, whether the editors and authors of the book claim the title Arminian or not, the theology of the book and its authors is consistent with classical Arminianism and some of them fall into the common errors about what Arminianism is that are spread mostly by Calvinists.
I contend that anyone who rejects unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace is de facto an Arminian (assuming he or she is Protestant and not Catholic). The only exception I can think of are Anabaptists (e.g., Mennonites) whose rejections of those doctrines of Calvinism pre-dates Arminius by almost a century.
Now, of course, anyone can reject a label even if it fits him or her perfectly. Imagine that I live in a state where “Baptist” is almost universally treated as a pejorative term–equated with extremists who picket funerals with signs that say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers.” (I don’t live in such a state, but I used to live in one where many, if not most, citizens tended to equate “Baptist” with hard core fundamentalism.) Suppose I claim I’m NOT a “Baptist” because of that connotation of the label. Well, fine. I would have that right. But suppose someone else described me as a Baptist because of my writings and my public theological affirmations of historical baptist doctrines and practices. What would people think if I kept on insisting I’m not a Baptist?
In such a case, I would be right (because I actually own the right to label myself) and the someone else who labels me a Baptist would also be right (because that label fits my theology). Right? I think so.
Actually, that’s not a totally imaginary scenario. Many Baptist churches in Minnesota, for example, and at least one Baptist denomination I know, have dropped the label “Baptist” because of the contexts they find themselves in where the label is almost universally negative (in non-Baptists’ minds). Does that mean such churches aren’t Baptist anymore? Well, yes and no. Insofar as they continue to affirm Baptist beliefs and practice Baptist practices (e.g., requiring believer baptism of all members) they are still Baptist even if that label appears nowhere in their churches and even if they eschew the label.
I know Pentecostals in the South who say they’re not Pentecostal because they don’t want to be identified with the United Pentecostal Churches (non-trinitarian) which are the only Pentecostal churches in many peoples’ minds. I have met Assemblies of God pastors in Texas, for example, who reject the label “Pentecostal” even thought he official AG magazine is called The Pentecostal Evangel!
This matter of religious labels is very complicated. But I take umbrage at being criticized for calling people whose theology is clearly Arminian in every classical and historical sense Arminians! It’s a historical-theological label, not a political one! If they don’t want to call themselves Arminians, fine. But as a historical theologian and commentator on the evangelical Christian scene in America, I don’t know what else to call them. That label fits their theology perfectly even if it’s politically sensitive for them.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In