Having read the forward of each book, I think it might be helpful to summarize the main argument that each author will unfold in their book.
Calvinists are inconsistent because if they followed their system to it's logical ends, they would conclude that God is the author of evil, both natural and man-made (sin).
Arminians are inconsistent because if they followed their system to it's logical ends, they would conclude that salvation is works-based, i.e. not by God's grace alone.
Michael Horton puts it like this:
Roger thinks that if I followed Calvinism to its logical conclusions, I should concede that the Holocaust and natural disasters are caused directly by God and that those condemned on the last day could justly blame God rather than themselves...
On the other hand, I think that if Roger followed Arminianism to its logical conclusion, he should go on to deny that salvation is entirely of God's grace; that Arminianism leads inevitably to human-centered rather than God-centered convictions if followed consistently.
Obviously, neither group agrees that their system leads to these undesirable ends.
My initial reaction is that each system does seem to lead logically to the ends described by Horton. It's for this reason that it will be interesting to read the arguments laid out by each author.
5 comments:
Hi Joe,
I have a question for you. I don't have the reformed/Calvinist background that you do and I am curious about how you define what an Arminian is. I have argued with Calvinists before (something I don't think I should have done) and I have never been able to nail down exactly how they use the term. The closest I can come is "protestant but not Calvinist." The reason I ask is that I stating that Roger E. Olson takes the Arminian position doesn't narrow down his theology for me very much.
I don't know what your reading tastes are but I have recently read Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathley and you may find it interesting given some of the questions you are asking.
Glenn
Hey Glenn, thanks for the comment. I have to admit that I don't think I could adequately define Arminianism, especially in a way that would satisfy an Arminian. Fixing this is obviously one of the goals of reading these books.
I think to a Calvinist, the concept of free will is central to Arminianism. People are given the choice to choose or reject God, and the ones that choose Him are saved, and the ones that don't are condemned. Depending on how sophisticated the Calvinists were that you argued with, this may be the extent of their understanding. They may also see Arminianism as rejecting total depravity (If we can choose, there's some nugget of goodness in us, right?) and rejecting justification by faith alone (choice is a work, so we are at least partly justified by our works).
Your comment about Olson suggests that Arminians take a wide range of theological positions. Obviously Olson represents the Arminian side in this particular pair of books, but maybe you'll be able to point out where other Arminians diverge from the approach he suggests.
Oh, and thanks for the book suggestion. It looks like it might be a good presentation of the 3-point Calvinist approach.
Or is ROSES a description of an Arminian theology? If so, I think this shows that many pew-level Calvinists equate Arminianism with a rejection of ALL of the 5 points of TULIP. (As I did just now!)
Hi Joe,
Thank you for your reply, it helps me. I believe that people have the ability to accept or reject the offer of salvation which, I suppose, is why I have been called an Arminian. To me an Arminian believes that salvation can be lost which I reject (I hold to the doctrine of eternal security or “once saved always saved”). So, I would never call myself an Arminian while Christians who hold to reformed theology have called me exactly that (I have also been called semi-Pelagian and a couple other things that I can’t think of right now).
The ROSES theology in the “Salvation and Sovereignty” book would probably be Arminian given your definition. I don’t have the book in front of me right now but Kenneth Keathly is a professor at a Baptist seminary (I am not sure which type of Baptist seminary though). What he is trying to do in the book is to build a case that God can be sovereign and allow people to have truly free will at the same time. This is accomplished through God’s omniscience.
I will comment on future posts if I believe I can contribute anything. It has been great meeting you.
Glenn
Joe, Nice to see you writing again, I have missed reading your insights. As I think you're aware I'm an athiest now so my perspective has changed but I still find these discussions fascinating, and would like to put in my perspective if you would allow.
For now I would say each side has their presuppositions which they assert but can't prove. Arminians have an issue with god as the author of evil, but there is no biblical reason I have found for that assumption, the idea maybe distasteful but that wouldn't make it untrue. Calvinists assume a grace/works dichotomy for salvation which is also difficult to defend. Of course I also come from a perspective that Paul is not a good source to base ones theology on.
Post a Comment