Book Giveway: Arminius Speaks

ATTENTION: Be sure to sign up for a chance to win one of three free books being given away in March on this site. The first book to be given away is Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, edited by John D. Wagner, published by Wipf & Stock publishers, 2011. (Details on how to enter below.) I will be heavily promoting this giveaway. Spread the news!

Classical Arminian scholar J. Matthew Pinson, President of Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, Tennessee, writes, "I have long awaited the publication of a selection of some of Jacobus Arminius's key soteriological writings, and here it is! . . . Reading Arminius directly will correct misconceptions of Arminian theology based on what many Arminians -- whose theology diverges from Arminius at key points -- have themselves taught. This will offer a corrective to the caricatures of Arminianism that characterize so many non-Arminian writings."

From the back cover we read, "James Arminius is one of the most maligned and misunderstood theologians in Church history." Calvinist theologian Richard A. Muller writes a statement similar in his God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius, published by Baker Book House, 1991: "The theology of Jacob Arminius has been neglected both by his admirers and by his detractors" (269).

Again, from the back cover of Arminius Speaks we read: "In an era of major debate over predestination, free will, and related concepts, Arminius was accused of being Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or a heretic of all sorts. This is a trend that started in his time and has continued to this day.

"The truth is that he was a brilliant theologian who shook the foundations of Calvinism to the core. Yet he was quite orthodox in his thinking, as he had come right out of the Protestant Reformation, though he sought to reform some ideas of Calvin and Luther.

"Contrary to common belief, Arminius believed in the utter depravity of man and that a major work of grace, i.e., prevenient grace, is necessary to bring a person to repentance. He also emphatically rejected Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He thoroughly answers every accusation against him and masterfully refutes William Perkins, a major Calvinist [Cambridge-educated] writer of that time.

"How do we ultimately understand what he thought? By carefully reading his writings. Until now, this was not an easy task. The only way has been to wade through his three volume "Works," totaling 2,300 pages. Hence the need for a compendium of some of his best writings, edited for modern readers.

"Our hope is to help a new generation of Christians understand this much-misunderstood theologian, an understanding especially needed in an era in which Calvinism is experiencing a major resurgence."

__________

RULES FOR GIVEAWAY:

• If you own the book already, you are not eligible to enter (I want this in the hands of someone who needs it).
• Entries may be made (by anyone in any place in the world) in the comments section below or via e-mail: remonstrants@hotmail.com (or) williamwbirch@gmail.com.
• Anyone may enter, regardless of age, gender or creed (that's right, Calvinists, I want you to enter as well).
• The requirement for the giveaway is for the eligible individual to write, in no more than three sentences, how God could allow Satan to torment Job without being responsible for Job's torment (cf. Job 1:6-12; 2:1-10). Give it some thought and give a serious answer. (Silly answers will be ignored.) The person with the best answer (subjective as that may seem) wins! The answers will be evaluated by myself and two others (one Calvinist, one non-Calvinist).
  
• Answers should be submitted before midnight, 9 March 2012. The book will be mailed on Monday, 12 March 2012.
  

Make this fun, people, not tedious or laborious and within under three sentences. Don't get angry because your explanation was not deemed the best. There will be two more chances to win a free book this month.

The next book to be given away is F. Leroy Forlines' book Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, edited by J. Matthew Pinson, published by Randall House, 2011. The last book to be given away this month will be Robert E. Picirilli's Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism, also published by Randall House, 2002. I consider these three books essential to Classical Arminianism and necessary to proper understanding of Classical Arminian theology -- three books which every believer should have on his shelf.

Biblical Authority: What We Do Mean

The following is edited from the chapter "Biblical Authority: What We Do and Don't Mean," in Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ, written by James Draper and Kenneth Keathley, published by B&H Publishers.

__________

Let us . . . look on the positive side. By inspiration we mean that the Bible is accurate in all that it says and that it will not deceive its readers theologically, historically, chronologically, geographically, or scientifically. In other words, it may contain approximations, it may use figures of speech, it may use the common language of the day, but whatever it says, the Bible says it accurately.

Of course, the Bible is not a textbook on science. Of course, it is not even a textbook on theology! But whatever it says about any of these is correct, and no one will ever be deceived or led into error by believing what the Bible says. That is the crucial point. . . .

Sometimes we speak of verbal inspiration. We simply mean that, in the original autographs [manuscripts], every word is inspired of God. Sometimes we speak of plenary [fullness] inspiration. Plenary means that all [the fullness of] the words are inspired -- every one of them! Ecclesiastes is just as inspired as Romans. The Song of Solomon is just as inspired as the Gospel of John. All of it is God-breathed [2 Tim. 3:16 NIV].

Infallible is literally defined in the dictionary as "that which cannot deceive or that which cannot lead astray or be deceived." Inerrant means "without error." It is important to understand that all of these terms say essentially the same thing. The terminology is flexible. The terminology can even be dispensed with. No one word is essential, and everyone is not required to use the same words. One might choose true, or accurate, or whatever word conveys the same idea.

There should be no problem with or objection to "truth without any mixture of error," as stated in our Baptist Faith and Message, except that some people have distorted that phrase to the point where it is virtually meaningless. Of course, they can do that with every other term also. They can take the term inerrant and say that it means inerrant in purpose, that God accomplishes what He wants to accomplish through the Bible inerrantly, even though there may be factual errors in Scripture.

Those who criticize conservative Christians for using all of this terminology should consider the reason why we have to keep coining new terms to describe our position. It is because others keep usurping the old terms and twisting them into something totally different from their original meaning. Many of us would have no objection to speaking simply of the inspiration of Scripture, except that the term has been used in such diverse ways for the last two centuries by those who no longer believe in the historical doctrine that we have had to come to a more definitive terminology.

Take the word Christian, for example. Why should that not be sufficient? I am a Christian. Why should I have to say that I am an evangelical Christian? Why should I have to say that I am a born-again Christian? Those terms are actually tautological [needless repetition]. They should not have to be used. They are redundant. But we feel a necessity to use those terms because the term Christian has now been usurped by those who are not really Christians. Therefore, we try to sharpen our terms in order to make absolutely clear what we mean.

The same thing is true of inspiration. We keep adding terms such as inerrant, or infallible, or verbal, or plenary because the simple term inspiration has long since been taken over by those who do not really believe in historic inspiration at all. We keep coming up with new adjectives in an attempt to preserve the original definition. But the terms are relatively unimportant. It is most emphatically not a problem of semantics. It is the concept that is important. We need to understand that, whatever terminology we use, the issue before us today is not interpretation; it is not transmission; it is accuracy.

In other words, it is not a question of interpretation, but it is a question of what the Bible is rather than what the Bible says. It is not literal versus figurative. It is not that which we have versus that which we do not have. That is not the point. The point is whether or not we can trust the Bible. Is it trustworthy in all that it says, not just in areas of theology? Is it our ultimate authority in every area of knowledge?

Historically, the Christian church has said yes, it can be trusted. It is accurate. There are those today, however, who are saying that the Bible is not altogether trustworthy and accurate. It is trustworthy, they say, in matters of faith and conduct, in matters of theology and morals, but not necessarily in matters of science, history, chronology, or geography. . . .

If we say it is not trustworthy in some of these areas, we have shifted our base of authority, and there is no intrinsic reason why we should maintain that it is authoritative in theology either. Scripture does not teach that the Bible is authoritative in some areas and not in others. It teaches that it is authoritative in all that it says. That is what Jesus said. Therefore, there is no logic in assuming that it is authoritative only in some areas and not in others.

We must emphasize that, according to the clear inference of Scripture itself, of Jesus, and of the Church Fathers, the Bible is either reliable altogether or else it is not necessarily reliable at all and thus may be suspect at any point [this is my own view as well]. Who is to say where it is reliable and where it is not?

The modern answer is that the Holy Spirit will guide us, but that is nothing more or less than existential philosophy. That is nothing more than sheer mysticism. That cuts the very ground out from under the ultimate authority of Scripture, because . . . mysticism (for our purposes) is a form of rationalism, and it now becomes a basis of authority above Scripture. It means that the human mind is the grid through which all data and all phenomena must pass. It leads to an entirely different form of Christianity from that known historically and biblically.

__________

James T. Draper, Jr. and Kenneth D. Keathley, Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 101-05.

Biblical Authority: What We Don't Mean

The following is edited from the chapter "Biblical Authority: What We Do and Don't Mean," in Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ, written by James Draper and Kenneth Keathley, published by B&H Publishers.

__________

When we talk about biblical authority and inspiration, what do we mean? [L]iberal thinkers have circulated accusations depicting conservative Christians as ignorant and foolish in their views on this subject. They have muddied the waters with accusations that, by and large, are "straw men," verbal tools to discredit what they do not accept or perhaps do not understand.

This is the old game of ridiculing your opponent in a debate and intimidating him rather than honestly facing up to his arguments. At this point it is necessary to destroy some of these "straw men" [seven of them] that have been unjustly set up and frequently used. To do that, we need first of all to say what biblical inspiration does not mean.

It does not mean mechanical dictation -- that is, that God dictated the material to the writers as a businessman would to his secretary. I do not know of any modern evangelical scholar who believes in mechanical dictation. Yet this "straw man" is constantly thrown up against conservative Christians. In spite of many denials, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, opponents are still using this old, moth-eaten argument. . . .

The definition of inspiration which reflects the classic understanding of the church is this: God so supernaturally directed the writers of Scripture that without waiving their human intelligence, literary style, or personal feeling, His complete and coherent message to man was recorded with perfect accuracy, the very words of the original Scripture bearing the authority of divine authorship. God used the human intelligence, the literary style, the personal feelings of each author. He did not override them. He did not force material through a reluctant penman. He supernaturally prepared the penman. . . .

Second, biblical inspiration does not mean that the translations or editions or versions are inspired. Only the original manuscripts, the autographa, are. This has also caused a lot of furor today. There are those who are saying that this does not really make sense, that since we do not have the original manuscripts it makes no difference whether the originals were inspired or not. It is a cop-out, they say, to claim that scribal errors have been made, for example, when we do not have the originals to prove it. . . .

Another question arises. Why would God allow the originals to perish if they are so important? We certainly do not know for sure, but Thomas Grantham, an early Baptist . . . had a noteworthy comment. Grantham said that perhaps God allowed the autographa to perish because, if they had survived, they might have fallen into unscrupulous hands and been altered so as to produce heresy; then there would be no way to restore the original readings. Whereas, under the present circumstances, nobody anywhere has the lock on all of the existing manuscripts of Scripture. . . .

Third, biblical inspiration does not eliminate the human element in Scripture. The human element is there, the way they think. But the point is that God superintended the process so that no error intruded into the text. Some today are saying that unless we rule out the human aspect of Scripture altogether, we have to agree that the biblical writers were omniscient and sinless. This is so, they say, because if there were any flaw in their knowledge of character, they obviously would have written Scripture that was flawed and, in some ways, obviously wrong. But that is not necessarily true at all. The doctrine of inspiration simply says that God the Holy Spirit superintended, He overruled their particular imperfections to intrude into the Scripture that they wrote. . . .

Fourth, biblical inspiration does not eliminate figures of speech. This is where the word literal is somewhat unfortunate. When we talk about literal interpretation, some people take that to mean that we believe all the Bible is to be interpreted in a very plastic, literalistic fashion, ruling out all figures of speech. This is absurd, but it is a common misconception. There are twenty to thirty different kinds of figures of speech found in Scripture, and it is simply ludicrous to say that we do not recognize these. As a matter of fact, we need to emphasize that it is just as destructive of biblical truth to take a figurative passage literally as it is to take a literal passage figuratively or allegorically. Either will destroy the intended meaning of Scripture. . . .

Fifth, inspiration does not eliminate approximations and loose quotations. We do this in common speech. Why should we not recognize that the biblical writers do the same? We frequently say that Jesus Christ was on this earth two thousand years ago. At other times, we say He was here nineteen hundred years ago. Both of these are acceptable approximations, and neither is to be regarded as an error, because they are not intended to be exact. . . .

Sixth, inspiration does not demand exact duplication in parallel passages -- such as in the Gospel accounts. Even when there is an apparent discrepancy, we should be cautious and patient. The assumed or presumed discrepancies may well result from our incomplete understanding. . . .

Seventh, inspiration does not mean grammatical and syntactical conformity. Today, because of our schooling, we tend to think that people who do not observe certain so-called "rules of grammar" are departing into unacceptable speech. But we must be reminded that grammar is not a set of rules that we must obey. Grammar simply describes how a society has spoken and written in a particular generation and thus communicated effectively.

Ultimately, what we are trying to do in speech is to communicate thought. If the thought is communicated adequately and accurately, the individual idiosyncrasies of grammar and syntax are not to be considered as errors, but simply as peculiarities of the individual writer, even as we have today. . . .

One of the most awe-inspiring facts of history is that, in spite of deliberate attempts throughout the centuries to ban or burn the Word of God, thousands of ancient copies have survived and today the Bible is the most published book of all time. Christians have traditionally understood the indestructibility of the Scriptures to be the evidence of God's preservation of His Word. . . .

__________

James T. Draper, Jr. and Kenneth D. Keathley, Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 89-101.

My "Litmus Test" for "True Classical Arminianism"

Some people want me to mention not one negative word whatsoever about Arminian or non-Calvinistic ministers and scholars but to concentrate on some of the errors of Calvinism. But from my perspective Calvinism is not the looming threat to conservative Classical Arminian theology; the theology of Arminians like Roger Olson, Jerry Walls and their followers is, again, in my opinion, what is threatening conservative Classical Arminianism. Our "problem," so to put it, comes from within and not from without.

Are you looking for good, solid, conservative Classical Arminian¹ theological scholars and resources? Allow me to guide you on what I perceive to be the right path (no pun intended) and help you steer clear of the liberal- or Rome-leaning paths.

First, we need to consider the somewhat "Wesleyan"-Arminian theology of Roger Olson. While claiming to adhere to the authority of the Bible, he denies the inerrancy of Scripture (which should be one's first red flag, no matter who is being discussed). Olson holds to a philosophical view of Inclusivism -- permitting himself to reinterpret or redefine that word however he pleases (link); is open to the advocates of Open Theism as a viable and orthodox view of Christian doctrine (link); thinks that Mormons can be considered Christians while holding to Mormonism (link); and teaches Christians how to be evangelical without being conservative.

Regarding the latter, pay careful attention to the wording "without being conservative." This is why I call Dr. Olson (among other titles) "post-conservative" and thus "post-evangelical." If this Baptist (CBF, not SBC) historian is certain about one matter it is that conservatism = fundamentalism, a Christian category for which he has great disdain (link, and also here and here).

In his book How to be Evangelical without Being Conservative, published by Zondervan, 2008, Olson permits himself to, again, reinterpret the ("broad") definition of "evangelical" to suit his own leftist-leaning agenda (link). You might re-title his book How to be a Leftist Masking as an Evangelical.

Evangelicalism has historically always been considered conservative: theologically, socially, and politically. Dr. Al Mohler rightly states, "The evangelical movement in America emerged in the twentieth century as conservative Protestants sought to perpetuate an intentional continuity with biblical Christianity" (link). But Dr. Olson wants to reinvent and "broadly" redefine the term as to include those to the "left of center" -- to say nothing of leftist theology and ideology (which is the exact opposite of the same with regard to the "right") -- enabling him and his ilk to link with the (historically conservative) idea of what it means to be an evangelical. He "broadens" the "evangelical" umbrella enough to convolute the concept entirely. I highlight the word "broad" due to his own explanation:

I'm tempted to say "anyone is an evangelical who is sincerely, passionately committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ as that is conveyed to us through the inspired narratives of the Bible." Another way of putting it is that anyone is an evangelical who is a God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christian. I know that won't satisfy some people who want the label evangelical to mean more, but I've become satisfied with this broad definition.²

In truth, I have met some very liberal Episcopalians (ECUSA) and Presbyterians (PCUSA) who would fit Olson's admittedly "broad definition" of what is an evangelical. As a matter of fact, by Olson's own definition, we should not be shocked to learn of his admission that even a Mormon could be considered Christian! Beyond his books The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform and Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, both published by IVP, the only two of which I recommend, I do not consider Dr. Olson a voice for Classical Arminianism. You can hiss, spit, scream, or cry about my having stated that, but some of his views stray significantly from those of Arminius.

Second, we need to consider the philosophical theology of Jerry Walls, a Wesleyan-Arminian philosopher and Inclusivist who affirms a nuanced view of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory in his latest book Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation, published by Oxford. Dr. Walls is co-author (with Joseph R. Dongell) of the book Why I am not a Calvinist, published by IVP, 2004. Any "Arminian" who rejects the legal, biblical declaration of total justification -- including the imputation of Christ's righteousness (link) and substitutionary atonement -- of an individual by grace through faith in Jesus Christ in lieu of spending time in an imagined place called Purgatory, wherein one is allegedly being purged of sins in order to be allowed into heaven, should be avoided. Dr. Walls is such an "Arminian."

Unfortunately, for the last decade or more the lights of Arminianism, whether merely theologically or soteriologically, have been championed by Roger Olson, Jerry Walls, Jack Cottrell (who denies total depravity and holds to baptismal regeneration), as well as the likes of Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders and Richard Rice (who strayed into the false teaching of Open Theism); while the more conservative Classical Arminian scholars have not been as successful, at least, not popularly so. These include scholars from the Free Will Baptist tradition: Robert E. Picirilli, F. Leroy Forlines, J. Matthew Pinson and Stephen M. Ashby.

Other published scholars which deserve attention come from the non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist tradition: David Allen, Steve Lemke, Malcolm Yarnell, Bruce Little, Jeremy Evans, Paige Patterson, Richard Land, Kevin Kennedy, R. Alan Streett, Jerry Vines, and others.

There are some conservative members and writers from the Society of Evangelical Arminians site (e.g., Drs. Brian Abasciano and William Klein), as well as at the Helwys Society Forum (e.g., W. Jackson Watts and Matthew Bracey). SBC Today is a good non-Calvinistic resource, as are the sites Arminian Baptist, Reformed Arminian, and Skarlet's Two Cents' Worth. (Do not feel slighted if your site was not mentioned. I just wanted to offer a few resources by way of example; there are plenty more which could have been listed.)

My intent here is to offer people conservative alternative resources of non-Calvinistic and Classical Arminian theology to popular authors such as Roger Olson and Jerry Walls; it certainly is not to demean Olson and Walls personally (these issues are not about their person), nor to merely "score points" with my Calvinist brothers. The theology of Olson and Walls and their like fails the litmus test of true Classical Arminian theology at significant points, in my opinion -- too significant to overlook.

If I were forced to point toward one conservative Christian group which best represents Arminius and his followers the Remonstrants, I would point to Free Will Baptists and their scholars, the already mentioned Picirilli, Forlines, Pinson, Ashby and their kin. If you want to learn Arminius's theology in one single, relatively inexpensive volume, I recommend Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, edited by John D. Wagner. This is a primary source, void of commentary, in Arminius's own words. If you want to learn Arminius and the Remonstrants' theology accurately represented, well articulated and well formed, I recommend F. Leroy Forlines' book Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, edited by J. Matthew Pinson, as well as Robert E. Picirilli's book Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism.

If you are a Classical Arminian or a conservative non-Calvinist who also disagrees with and is concerned about some of the theology from the likes of Roger Olson and Jerry Walls, then my suggestion and encouragement to you is to voice your opinion, either verbally or in writing (whether on websites or books). Certainly you have noticed that neither one of those men or their followers are shying away from boldly declaring what they believe. I encourage you to do the same. Boldly defend what you believe Scripture emphatically teaches on the subjects with which we are at odds. Failing to do so could have disastrous effects:

• First, those who are undecided about the Calvinist-Arminian debate may be won over to Calvinist theology merely because they are repulsed by some of Olson and Walls' theology. That would be tragic.
• Second, Calvinists will gain a sense of affirmation that Arminianism inevitably leads either to liberalism (Olson) or to Rome (Walls). This does not have to be the case. Just as Classical Calvinism does not inevitably lead to hyper-Calvinism ipso facto, neither does Classical Arminianism inevitably lead to liberalism or Roman Catholicism.
• Third, we Arminians have a responsibility to confront error when it is in our own camp. Neglecting to do so leads others to think that we are zealous to show favoritism, giving those in our own camp a "free pass." This, too, would be tragic.
• Fourth, by demonstrating and highlighting our "opponent's" errors from Scripture, there remains a possibility that he may change his mind. This, we think, would glorify the Lord whom we love and serve. We should do so firmly and in love, wanting not merely to be proven right, but to see believers follow in the way of truth.

I realize that advocates of Olson, Walls, and others will read this and become angry, entirely disagreeing with what I have written, calling me an alarmist and fundamentalist (the latter being one of their favorite words of accusation when their opponents voice their opinions). I wrote this as if Drs. Olson and Walls themselves would read it. I actually had them and their followers in mind as I typed this message.

Many of the views that these men and their followers hold (and teach others) I find unscriptural and dangerous to Christian orthodoxy, to say nothing of Classical Arminian theology. I would actually be negligent if I did not "voice" my opinion and oppose and call attention to what I perceive to be their errors. I can only pray that those who agree with me will also "voice" their opinion on their own sites, Facebook, Twitter, or any other type of social media, including published books. If God's word is truly a lamp (Ps. 119:105), then may we bring these errors into the light so that others may clearly see the pitfalls and avoid them completely.

__________

¹ My own "litmus test" for true Classical Arminian theology -- and by that I mean the theology of Arminius himself -- includes belief in:

• Total Depravity and Total Inability, that no man can come to or believe in Christ by his own free will, being inherently, due to the bondage of indwelling sin, unable to do so
• Conditional Election, grounded in God's exhaustively omniscient (link) plan in Christ savingly towards those and only those who would come to be "in Christ Jesus" during their life on earth through the means of the exclusivity of the gospel (link), as presented in the inerrant word of God (link), through the ministerial work of the Holy Spirit
• General Atonement, that God the Father sent Christ to die for all, yet only those who by grace through faith in Jesus have His propitiatory blood applied to them by the Spirit
  
• Resistible Grace, which is the acceptance that God must first draw a sinner to faith in Christ by the Spirit but does not do so irresistibly or deterministically; as well as the acknowledgment that faith precedes regeneration
• Perseverance, that all believers who persevere in and by Christ to the end will be saved

Views such as baptism, eschatology, ecclesiology, Church-state relations, liturgy, confessions, etc., have no bearing on whether one is aligned to Classical Arminian theology. In other words, these latter issues are not particular to Classical Arminian theology. Note also that my litmus test, under the first point, rejects Open Theism, promotes the exclusivity of the gospel and the inerrancy of Scripture, all of which Arminius (and the Remonstrants) also held -- the latter two being denied by both Olson and Walls.

² Roger E. Olson, How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 13.