Actually, what I have to say here applies to ANY criticism of ANY theology.\u00a0 We need to distinguish carefully between criticism and misrepresentation.\u00a0 Fair criticism is valid; misrepresentation in order to criticize (straw man treatment) is invalid and should itself be criticized by everyone.<\/p>\n
Reformed theologians especially have long pointed out what they believe to be the \u201cgood and necessary consequences\u201d of certain Arminian beliefs.\u00a0 That\u2019s fine, so long as the critics point out that Arminians themselves DO NOT believe the things they are arguing are good and necessary consequences of the things Arminians do believe.<\/p>\n
So, for example, Reformed theologians have often argued that works righteousness (salvation based at least partly on human merit) is a good and necessary consequence of Arminian belief in the necessity of free response to the gospel for salvation.\u00a0 While I disagree, I accept that as fair criticism SO LONG AS the critic clearly says (in some way) \u201cThis is not what Arminians believe; it is what their belief logically entails.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, let me give an example of unfair Reformed criticism of Arminianism.\u00a0 In the youtube video entitled \u201cArminianism: The Root of \u2018Christian\u2019 Liberalism\u201d the presenters argue that Arminianism makes the inspiration of Scripture impossible because it holds free will in such high esteem that God wouldn\u2019t have been able to control the biblical authors so that they wrote infallibly what he wanted them to write.\u00a0 This is unfair because classical Arminianism DOES NOT hold that God never over rides free will or controls human beings.\u00a0 It only holds that God does not decide and render certain who will be saved and who will not be saved.\u00a0 Arminians only value free will to avoid making God the author of sin; we have no problem saying that God is the author of all the good that we do.<\/p>\n
Now, Calvinists such as those who made that video may think Arminianism is inconsistent.\u00a0 But that doesn\u2019t seem to be their point and their point is based on a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Arminian theology.\u00a0 They should say \u201cWe don\u2019 t understand how Arminians can believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, but they do.\u00a0 We just think they\u2019re inconsistent.\u201d\u00a0 That I can handle even if I disagree. But so much criticism on both sides is based on misrepresentations of the other side\u2019s theology.<\/p>\n
The only solution to this, as I have argued in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (in the conclusion about rules of engagement) is for both Arminians and Calvinists to stop attributing to the others beliefs they do NOT hold just because they think those beliefs are good and necessary consequences of what they believe.\u00a0 This is an all-too-common tactic of critics on both sides and it is unfair and even unchristian.<\/p>\n
It is perfectly proper for Calvinists to say \u201cArminians don\u2019t believe that the atonement doesn\u2019t actually save anyone, but we don\u2019t see how they can deny it given what they do believe.\u00a0 That seems a good and necessary consequence of what they believe.\u201d\u00a0 Too often, however, that isn\u2019t what Calvinists say.\u00a0 One leading Calvinist critic of Arminianism says that Arminians \u201cmust say\u201d that the atonement only gives people an opportunity to save themselves.\u00a0 That\u2019s too ambiguous.\u00a0 He ought to add \u201cBut they don\u2019t say that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Similarly, Arminians are perfectly fair to say \u201cCalvinists don\u2019t believe that God is the author of sin and evil, but we don\u2019t see how they can deny it given what they do believe.\u00a0 That seems a good and necessary consequence of what they believe.\u201d\u00a0 What would be wrong would be for an Arminian (or anyone else) to say \u201cCalvinists believe God is the author of sin and evil.\u201d\u00a0 Most of them don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
My forthcoming book Against Calvinism will probably be judged too harsh and even unfair by some critics, but they need to notice that throughout I make clear that most Calvinists do not hold the beliefs I say are good and necessary consequences of what they do believe.\u00a0 I am accusing them of inconsistency, not blatant blasphemy or heresy.\u00a0 Calvinists do the same routinely to Arminians and I have no problem with that.\u00a0 What I do have a problem with is Calvinists (or others) who claim to know Arminian theology but have never read Arminius or any other leading Arminian theologian and who proceed to criticism Arminianism based on woeful misunderstanding of it while misrepresenting it.<\/p>\n
So, to reiterate, we must make a clear distinction between criticism and misrepresentation.\u00a0 It\u2019s really that simple.\u00a0 People on both sides of the debate confuse the two.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Actually, what I have to say here applies to ANY criticism of ANY theology.\u00a0 We need to distinguish carefully between criticism and misrepresentation.\u00a0 Fair criticism is valid; misrepresentation in order to criticize (straw man treatment) is invalid and should itself be criticized by everyone. Reformed theologians especially have long pointed out what they believe to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n