Returning to the parable I posted here Monday: A parable is a story that is intended to make one single point.\u00a0 In that a parable is different from an allegory.\u00a0 This parable of mine (viz., the Calvinist professor and the ungrateful student) makes one point and one point only: that a gift freely received is no less a gift.\u00a0 Many Calvinists are fond of claiming that Arminians diminish the sheer graciousness of salvation by saying the person must freely accept it.\u00a0 They claim this free acceptance of the gift is \u201cthe decisive factor\u201d in salvation (in Arminian soteriology) and that implies salvation is not entirely of God\u2019s grace alone.\u00a0 The parable simply demonstrates the counter-intuitive nature of this claim.\u00a0 Even the Calvinist who makes it would be furious if someone he or she saved from ruin claimed credit for merely accepting the gift.\u00a0 Nobody thinks there is any credit due a person who merely receives a gift.\u00a0 Merely receiving a life-saving\u00a0gift is never considered \u201cthe decisive factor\u201d in the\u00a0person having been\u00a0been rescued.\u00a0 To say otherwise would simply cause most people to scratch their heads in bewilderment.<\/p>\n
The parable is not intended to deal with other Calvinist objections to Arminian theology.\u00a0 It is aimed at one point only.\u00a0 Some of my dear readers here have tried to minimize the effectiveness of the parable by claiming it misrepresents the ability of the sinner to accept the gift.\u00a0 That can be dealt with by another parable.\u00a0 And the objections overlook the crucial Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace.<\/p>\n
I get frustrated by a frequent experience in debating Calvinists.\u00a0 They often argue AS IF they did not know the whole of Arminian theology.\u00a0 For example, some who object to my parable have responded at length about total depravity AS IF they did not know the Arminian answer to this.\u00a0 But some of their messages seem to demonstrate a rather broad acquaintance with Arminian theology.\u00a0 If you are going to criticize the parable on those grounds (viz., that it allegedly does not take seriously enough total depravity) at least mention the Arminian way of handling that\u2013prevenient grace.\u00a0 You don\u2019t have to think that\u2019s an adequate answer, but please be fair enough to mention that Arminians do have an answer\u2013whether you think it is adequate or not.<\/p>\n
Arminians, of course, should do the same with Calvinism.\u00a0 We Arminians should not argue against a point of Calvinism without at least mentioning the Calvinist answer that we know very well.\u00a0 Then we can argue against that.\u00a0 But to argue against Arminian belief in a sinner\u2019s ability to respond freely to the gospel without mentioning prevenient grace seems a bit disingenuous\u2013unless, of course, you really don\u2019t know about it!<\/p>\n
I would hope that Calvinists who undertake to argue against Arminianism would at least read some classical Arminian literature such as Thomas Oden\u2019s The Transforming Power of Grace.\u00a0 Of course, Arminians should do the same with Calvinism.\u00a0 I\u2019ll leave it to Calvinists to recommend what they think is the book\u00a0 in print that best represents their theology.\u00a0 For my own edification, I found R. C. Sproul\u2019s What Is Reformed Theology helpful.\u00a0 But I have also read Calvin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, Hoekema, Horton, Piper, and Helm helpful (among many others).<\/p>\n
I often wonder how many Calvinists have read as much classical Arminian literature as Arminians have read Calvinist literature?\u00a0 How many Calvinists who consider themselves well-informed about Arminian theology have really read any classical Arminian theologians?\u00a0 How many have read Arminius himself or could name even one of his treatises?\u00a0 My experience of talking with Calvinists has led me to suspect that most of them, even Calvinist theologians, know about Arminianism only through secondary literature\u2013usually Reformed.\u00a0 I urge people of both camps to read primary sources truly representative of the other one.\u00a0 My recommendation is Oden.\u00a0 His book is extremely clear, completely orthodox and biblical.\u00a0 He uses the term \u201cArminian\u201d sparingly, but his theology in that book is completely consistent with classical Arminian thought.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Returning to the parable I posted here Monday: A parable is a story that is intended to make one single point.\u00a0 In that a parable is different from an allegory.\u00a0 This parable of mine (viz., the Calvinist professor and the ungrateful student) makes one point and one point only: that a gift freely received is […]<\/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-58","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n