Post-conservative, neo-evangelical, egalitarian, Arminian Roger Olson decided he would publicly continue a private discussion he had with some of us who insisted that Arminius was an exclusivist in his post Was Arminius an Inclusivist? Continuing a Conversation. I had initially intended not to respond to him, but since he refused to respond to my private e-mails, and also deleted a response I made on his own blog on this issue, I decided to respond.
I do so in an effort for others to view for themselves the distance Olson's opinions and theology places him from conservative Classical Arminian views -- views of Jacob Arminius himself and his followers the Remonstrants.
Of course, Olson is an inclusivist, and he believes that Arminianism best suits inclusivist ideology. I disagree and think Olson is wrong where Arminius and the Remonstrants are concerned. Wesleyan-Arminianism may best suit Inclusivism, but Classical Arminianism -- that is, the theology of Arminius and the Remonstrants -- best suits Exclusivism.
The charge from Arminius's opponents was made: God undoubtedly converts, without the external preaching of the Gospel, great numbers of persons to the saving knowledge of Christ, among those . . . who have no outward preaching; and He effects such conversions either by the inward revelation of the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of Angels (Borrius & Arminius).1
Arminius began, "I never uttered such a sentiment as this. Borrius has said something like it, though not exactly the same,"2 stating that the words "undoubtedly" and "great numbers of persons" were added by their detractors; neither man ever affirmed the added sentiments. Arminius continues:
Arminius continues to quote from a "very common and frequent" affirmation -- that the "ordinary means and organ of conversion is the preaching of the Divine word," and he states that this confession "obtains our high approval."4 (emphases added) He then wonders why his opponents added words such as "undoubtedly" or the notion that "great numbers of persons" are converted in any other manner.
He continues to expound upon the notion of extraordinary means of conversion which God might employ other than the agreed upon "external preaching of his word to nations." Any other extraordinary means could not, by definition, be admitted to occur to "great numbers of persons," as they were charged as affirming, since the word "extraordinary" is opposed to "ordinary," with regard to means. He continues:
Dr. Olson tends to use Arminius and the Remonstrants when they serve whatever agenda he is trying to advance. For example, when engaging the subject of the doctrine of Perseverance, he tried to demonstrate to his readers that the Remonstrants were ambiguous on the matter (link), confessing their conclusion that more study needed to be made before they were willing to make a dogmatic conclusion. That is true, so long as one is reading The Remonstrance of 1610.
However, by 1618, when they had written The Opinions of the Remonstrants, their Fifth Article clearly affirmed:
I do so in an effort for others to view for themselves the distance Olson's opinions and theology places him from conservative Classical Arminian views -- views of Jacob Arminius himself and his followers the Remonstrants.
Of course, Olson is an inclusivist, and he believes that Arminianism best suits inclusivist ideology. I disagree and think Olson is wrong where Arminius and the Remonstrants are concerned. Wesleyan-Arminianism may best suit Inclusivism, but Classical Arminianism -- that is, the theology of Arminius and the Remonstrants -- best suits Exclusivism.
The charge from Arminius's opponents was made: God undoubtedly converts, without the external preaching of the Gospel, great numbers of persons to the saving knowledge of Christ, among those . . . who have no outward preaching; and He effects such conversions either by the inward revelation of the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of Angels (Borrius & Arminius).1
Arminius began, "I never uttered such a sentiment as this. Borrius has said something like it, though not exactly the same,"2 stating that the words "undoubtedly" and "great numbers of persons" were added by their detractors; neither man ever affirmed the added sentiments. Arminius continues:
Besides, if this saying of Christ had occurred to the recollection of our brethren, "Speak, Paul! and hold not thy peace: For I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10), they would not so readily have burdened us with this article, who have learned from this saying of Christ, that God sends the external preaching of his word to nations, when it is his good pleasure for great numbers of them to be converted.3 (emphasis added)Far from serving Olson's inclusivistic agenda, Arminius here admits that God "sends the external preaching of his word to nations" when God wants their conversion; not through other means but by external preaching of Scripture, nonetheless.
Arminius continues to quote from a "very common and frequent" affirmation -- that the "ordinary means and organ of conversion is the preaching of the Divine word," and he states that this confession "obtains our high approval."4 (emphases added) He then wonders why his opponents added words such as "undoubtedly" or the notion that "great numbers of persons" are converted in any other manner.
He continues to expound upon the notion of extraordinary means of conversion which God might employ other than the agreed upon "external preaching of his word to nations." Any other extraordinary means could not, by definition, be admitted to occur to "great numbers of persons," as they were charged as affirming, since the word "extraordinary" is opposed to "ordinary," with regard to means. He continues:
With regard to the Second, if "the preaching of the word by mortal men" be "the ordinary means" by which it is also intimated that some means are extraordinary, and since the whole of our church, nay, in my opinion, since the whole Christian world bears its testimony to this, then indeed it is neither a heresy nor an error to say, "Even without this means [without the preaching of the word] God can convert some persons [as given in the example of the apostle Paul, cf. Acts 9:4-6]." (emphasis added)What is the end of the matter, then? If someone like the apostle Paul was converted without the external preaching of the divine word, which is God's ordinary means of converting sinners, then does this, in fact, occur with a great number of persons? The answer, according to Arminius, is no. The ordinary means by which God converts sinners is the external preaching of the divine word. This admission is no semblance of Inclusivism. He continues,
To this might likewise be added the word "undoubtedly:" For if it be doubtful whether any one be saved by any other means (that is, by "means extraordinary") than by human preaching, then it becomes a matter of doubt whether it be necessary for "the preaching of the Divine word by mortal men" to be called "the ordinary means."5
What peril or error can there be in any man saying, "God converts great numbers of persons (that is, "very many"), by the internal revelation of the Holy spirit or by the ministry of angels" provided it be at the same time stated that no one is converted except by this very word, and by the meaning of this word, which God sends by men to those communities or nations whom He hath purposed to unite to himself?6 (emphases added)The conclusion is clear. He qualifies his understanding on the matter by clearly stating that "no one is converted except by this very word, and by the meaning of this word," except in extraordinary or rare cases, due to God's will, as in the apostle Paul's case. Again, this is no semblance of Inclusivism. Arminius's conception is too far a gap to bridge to make it a "form of Inclusvism," as Olson maintains. (Arminius and the Remonstrants' exclusivist claims have been documented here and here, which Olson ignores.)
Dr. Olson tends to use Arminius and the Remonstrants when they serve whatever agenda he is trying to advance. For example, when engaging the subject of the doctrine of Perseverance, he tried to demonstrate to his readers that the Remonstrants were ambiguous on the matter (link), confessing their conclusion that more study needed to be made before they were willing to make a dogmatic conclusion. That is true, so long as one is reading The Remonstrance of 1610.
However, by 1618, when they had written The Opinions of the Remonstrants, their Fifth Article clearly affirmed:
3. True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently.4. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.
When I responded to Olson's post about the Remonstrants' confession of 1618, he would not post it. Why not just be honest and objective about Arminian history? The Remonstrants affirmed the doctrine of Apostasy. This historical fact, however, does not demand obligation of all Arminians to hold the same. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Arminians in history held to the doctrine of Apostasy.7 But if someone holds to all points of the Remonstrants save one, is he disavowed from calling himself an Arminian?
Finally, whether Arminius, the Remonstrants, the Wesleys, or later Wesleyans held to one particular doctrine or another with which one disagrees makes little difference to me. For example, calling myself an Arminian, though it often has to be qualified, is a way to express my own doctrine of salvation; which is what Classical Arminianism is: a theology of salvation. (See F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson, published by Randall House, 2011.) I do not see any advantage in abandoning the title.
Finally, whether Arminius, the Remonstrants, the Wesleys, or later Wesleyans held to one particular doctrine or another with which one disagrees makes little difference to me. For example, calling myself an Arminian, though it often has to be qualified, is a way to express my own doctrine of salvation; which is what Classical Arminianism is: a theology of salvation. (See F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson, published by Randall House, 2011.) I do not see any advantage in abandoning the title.
__________
1 Taken from "Apology against Thirty-One Theological Articles: Article XVIII," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:20.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 21.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., 21-22.
6 Ibid., 22.
7 Picirilli writes, "The very fact that he [Arminius] and his followers raised this question [of perseverance] . . . indicates that this view [Apostasy] was sure to follow from the basic principle that salvation is conditional. Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger." See Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 198.
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Stacy!
ReplyDeleteHi Billy,
ReplyDeleteI line up closer to Olson on most of these issues (inclusivism, women in leadership, etc). But I do think you're correct that Arminius was not an inclusivist - at least not in the way that the term is normally used. At best it can only be proven that he was a narrow inclusivist. And what most people mean by the term is broader than what Arminius affirmed. Now, it may be that Arminius and the Remonstrants also held to a broader type of inclusivism, but they didn't write about it. We can only speculate.
Having said that, John Wesley was definitely an inclusivist, as were his contemporaries like Fletcher. I believe inclusivism is a natural outflow of Arminian theology. To deny that everyone has at least some sort an opportunity to be saved is to affirm a type of particular atonement that is not too far from Calvinism. Of course I recognize that you disagree Billy, and I appreciate your motivations to protect the integrity of God and his written word.
One last point - I think you should be careful about labeling Olson a "post evangelical". That seems to be a bit of a dig at him, and is not warranted. He clearly considers himself an evangelical, and I consider him one also. Perhaps you could elaborate on what's necessary to hold to (in your opinion) in order to be an evangelical. On the face it would seem to exclude most Wesleyans also.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThanks, brother, for commenting. I agree: Wesley was definitely, beyond question, an inclusivist. I haven't read other well known Wesleyan ministers (such as Fletcher). I'll have to rely upon your knowledge of them.
The "post-evangelical" name was intentional, as he tries time and again to redefine the term. Perhaps neo-evangelical would be more appropriate?
I've been thinking a lot about Inclusivism and its connections to the gospel and salvation lately. Since we all (I think) consider the doctrine of the gospel and salvation to be of primary concern, and not a secondary or tertiary issue, then I think we need to seriously consider the implications of this topic in particular.
Of course, we all want to "say" what we think Scripture "says;" we want to "speak" where it "speaks" and try out best to "speak" biblically where it doesn't "speak" so clearly. There is a lot in this debate/discussion worth exploring, and I can't just pretend like the subject is not that big a deal.
BTW, I think Olson has the potential to be harmful to Arminianism. His popularity is enormous. If people think of his views as typical "Arminianism," then, seriously, I'm not sure I want to be called an Arminian.
Try "out" best ... eeesh ... so much for proofreading. Also, I forgot to sign off rightly, meaning, God bless you! As usual, this discussion is not personal (negatively between you and me). If we disagree, we disagree, and there's little to change that. But you and I at least can be cordial. Olson and I, on the other hand, not so much.
ReplyDeleteThere is no hint in the New Testament that a sinner can be saved apart from a personal faith in Christ Jesus. Romans chapter 10 is an excellent and unambiguous treatise on the subject. My personal opinion is that all sharing of the gospel is in some ways "preaching".
ReplyDeleteIf a sinner is born on an island that has never heard the gospel, then he cannot be saved by looking at the heavens or even coming to a belief in one God. Hence, missions.
A serial killer is running from the police and does not see the cliff. He falls over it and gravity assures his death. An infant crawls toward that same cliff and falls over it. The law of gravity is no respector of persons. The gospel is the immutable door to eternal life. It isn't just the preferred way.
The discussion of the age of accountability aside, everyone is born lost. There is not one work or one mental ascent or even a lifetime of monotheistic sincerity that can bring a sinner one electron closer to salvation. Without Christ and some simple gospel explanation, even a very basic and non-frills presentation of Christ and His mission, a lost sinner will remain a lost sinner.
And I do not care in the least what people call me unless they claim I am not a believer in Christ. I am sure that Arminius at this very moment is unconcerned over what men think of him in 2012. I do know godly men who love Jesus on both sides of the inclusivism debate. I believe we should err on the side of preaching and missions.
If God strecthes grace in the end then that is His perogative, however He has given no hints to that effect anywhere in scripture. In fact Jesus Himself claimed He never knew some who made professions and did some good works. In light of that it would seem unlikely that sinners who never heard and never believed would be saved.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteYou stated exactly what I've been thinking for quite some time. Job well done!
Billy,
ReplyDeleteI sent to Dr. Olson's site and here is a comment I left there.... I will ask you (and your readers) to comment.
I have read with interest your article here and the responses. I realize I am chiming in several days after the last post. While I understand the ramifications of your comment relative to God "judging men according to the light they had" I cannot with good conscious agree with that statement or else the argument could well be made that men would be better off having not heard the name of Christ than to have heard it and have it condemn them. The Great Commission makes "going and telling the story, which is a vital part of discipling" essential because it is imperative for us as Christians to tell that story.
Now let me ask a question with regard to the issue of "inclusiveness." This is the FIRST time I have even considered this concept so forgive me if I fail to see the forest for the trees here. It would seem to me the concept of prevenient grace as well as efficacious grace would be by definition inclusive in and of themselves as defined by Arminians and Calvinists. Here is why I make this statement.
The Word, spoken, written or even revealed supernaturally... cannot be responded to apart from this special grace so by default, conversion must be inclusive at the point of regeneration because that is necessary element for conversion to take place at all.
In fact, it can be argued that efficacious grace that is irresistible is absolutely inclusive because that individual WILL be saved because it is God's decree and what God decrees is accomplished and that is it; period; end of discussion. The preaching of the gospel is at best secondary because apart from regeneration, it has no effect on the lost man.
Am I missing something here?
I also agree with the statement made earlier (on this thread or Olson's) that Saul had no doubt heard the gospel message and in addition to that, knew the scriptures (OT) so for the Messiah to speak to him and have him hear, would not be tantamount in my opinion to some extra-gospel conversion experience.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>"
PS.... I am looking forward to some of those questions you said you had as you "better understand my position" last week! Appreciate your ministry!
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI have asked the same question, with the same exact implication, as you did in your first paragraph. We think alike in that regard.
Wesleyan-Arminians view God's prevenient grace as working all around the world today, irrespective of whether the gospel is being preached. Classical Arminians (or at least Arminius and the Remonstrants) disagree. We believe, like you, that Romans 1:16-17, 10:13-17, and other like passages necessitates that the preached Word go forth in order for the Holy Spirit to enlighten one's mind/heart/soul.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think we're in total agreement here. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. But I like this statement: The Word, spoken, written or even revealed supernaturally ... cannot be responded to apart from this special grace, so by default, conversion must be inclusive at the point of regeneration because that is necessary element for conversion to take place at all. I had not given that much thought. That was nice. Well done.
Perhaps others will chime in and respond to your comments. God bless!
BB
DeleteKeep this in mind... It seems to me that you are arguing that CA are exclsivists. You wrote, "but Classical Arminianism -- that is, the theology of Arminius and the Remonstrants -- best suits Exclusivism."
I am in essence arguing the opposite; that ALL Arminians and Calvinists must accept inclusivism because of the role of any prevenient grace on God's part that is absolutely essential for exclusivism to even take place.
><>"
Bob,
DeleteAhh . . . then I did not clearly understand your comments at all.
Then I don't see how you've proven your case as to exactly why this must be for Classical Arminians since prevenient grace does not guarantee the outcome -- i.e., those who experience it have the free will choice to respond to it; not so in Calvinism.
Bob,
DeleteDid I misunderstand you to admit to Exclusivism?
Regardless, I want to keep this particular post about its particular subject: Roger Olson and his claims -- not bring about a full fledged debate about Prevenient Grace or the implications of exclusivism. Perhaps we can save that for a future post, will is sure to come, no doubt! ; ) God bless.
I understand sticking to the post. I am not arguing the point of inclusivism as it is commonly defined and applied. I was really extending the concept beyond its normal applications. So, in that sense I am not charging Arminians or Calvinists according to the "normal" boundaries... I was simply making an observation beyond those normal boundaries.
Delete><>"
Bob,
DeleteIf we go beyond normal boundaries, we could just about try to decimate any system, and I don't think that's advisable. Plus, I have no doubt that you'll have a field day with tomorrow's post on Total Depravity and Total Inability, lol. See you then.
I believe it is unwise and perhaps dangerous to form a doctrine based upon an unique experience such as the Apostle Paul's conversion. Another such experience would be the thief on the cross. All through the Scriptures God reserves the right and authority to intervene in certain events that would be not normal and not to be used as a template.
ReplyDeleteThere must be a teaching that authenticates and encourages a practice or belief that was recorded in a narrative. Paul's "believe on the Lord Jersus Christ" surely was not an exhaustive presentation of the gospel, however it was unambigous in its Christocentric appeal. The Holy Spirit can and many times does use certain fragments of the gospel to invisibly communicate the offer of salvation to a lost sinner's heart.
But the question here is can a sinner be saved when he has never heard either the gospel or a representation of the Lord Jesus as the way to eternal life. How can one open a locked door without the key?
Many missionaries have used certain metaphors and communicative devices that would not be accepted as a clear gospel among the western, doctrinal Bourgousie. But I have never heard of a missionary arriving at an unreached people group and found believers there on any level.
But does it really matter? I would suggest it does on a certain level as does unconditional election. It is impossible to have an equal passion and concern for the lost when one believes that no one will die lost who might have been saved, while the other believes that Christ died for ever sinner and His offer of redemption includes every single sinner. The difference is obvious and must have a subtle and sometimes overt affect upon prayer, witnessing, and the level of sacrifice for missions.
I heard a testimony from a missionary to New Guinea. He said that after several years the chief elder believed on Christ. The missionary began to teach him, and after many months the man began to understand more and more of the gospel as well as the implications of eternity and the exclusivity of the way of redemption. The native one day asked the missionary,
"Did your father know Jesus?"
"Yes", replied the missionary.
"Did your grandfather know Jesus," asked the native.
"Yes," replied the missionary.
After thinking for a moment about the enormous implications, the native elder asked the missionary, "Why didn't your grandfather come here and tell my grandfather?"
Yes, why didn't we all go over and tell him.
Rick,
DeleteI have head that illustration before and it is powerful indeed.
Here is something that I am formulating in my head. It speaks to this very question. God created a world where He gave man the choice to choose. Man had no choice in that matter. Man also has no choice in the consequences of his choices; God has set those as well. The consequences of his choices determine the quality of his life here and the quality of his life eternally.
Now... God has done one more thing. He has made salvation not only a matter of individual choice; He may have made salvation a matter of corporate choice as well in that the salvation of others is interdependent on mine and your committment to go and tell the message!
In this sense, the Great Commission is the mandate of the born again believer because our eternal security is dependent on what we do with Jesus as well as the eternal security of others is dependent on what we do with Jesus!
I am beginning to see that salvation has everything to do with God; He provided the WAY; and everything to do with us in accepting and sharing that way.
><>"
Yes, a glorious mystery indeed.
DeleteBilly,
ReplyDeleteLooks like you might be getting on Olson's list of people not to read "on principle." His deleting of your comment is very telling.
Interesting discussion. I think a certain reader of yours is very confused about what inclusivism entails. All Classical Arminians and Calvinists are certainly not inclusivists nor is it demanded by their respected systems. To prove the contrary would be quite a feat.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought his deleting my comments were telling as well, and especially not answering my emails (which were private).
I think our brother sees Classical Arminianism as too close to Calvinism. I've been reading various comments to that effect lately, actually. The late Clark Pinnock admitted the same.
But I think you're absolutely right. Neither Calvinists nor Classical Arminians can in any sense be considered inclusivistic because they hold tenaciously to exclusivism; holding one inevitably relieves us of the implications of the other.
Good job brother. I believe the inclusive position lacks Scriptural basis. It is formed, in my opinion, from good intentions by people wanting to protect the love of God, the unlimited nature of the atonement, and that God would not send people to hell without sufficient light. My reply is simply what does the Scripture say? I really don't care if you show me the position of Arminius, Wesley, Luther, or Spurgeon on the issues related to the inclusive nature of salvation. If the Bible denies it, that is it for me. I do respect the opinions of great men and women of God but in the end, I stand on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post.
Roy,
ReplyDeleteAmen, brother, and I appreciate you standing with me here. Some Arminians are timid and afraid to speak out for what they believe the Bible teaches. They are also afraid to confront someone like Roger Olson. Well, I'm not, and I pray others will be emboldened to likewise take a stand. He does not speak for conservative, Classical Arminians.
God bless.
Hi Billy, I agree that the doctrine of salvation is a primary concern. I won't get into all the pro-inclusive arguments right now, maybe I'll do a post about it sometime soon - although I haven't been feeling real motivated lately. :) It's an issue that deserves careful scriptural study, prayer, direction from the Spirit, and a heart for those who are lost. After all that, good and open discussion is nice too. :) BTW, I don't see this issue as something worth separating over. People who love the Lord will come down on differing sides.
ReplyDeleteWWB - You know that I tend more toward Kevin J's understanding of prevenient grace, the Wesleyan perspective. And like Kevin, I don't take our differences personally. In fact, I think this is the ONLY area in which I disagree with you.
DeleteBilly, you wrote, "Wesleyan-Arminians view God's prevenient grace as working all around the world today, irrespective of whether the gospel is being preached." Wesleyans agree that faith in Christ is what is needed for salvation; however, we have a broader definition of "preach" than classical Arminians.
For example, many songs by Christian rock groups can be seen as "preaching" and God's prevenient grace can use this modality to reveal Himself at a Christian concert.
Also, many individuals have been brought to Christ by their friends/relatives before they even understood what "preaching" is.
For example, I came to Christ at the age of six in a discussion with my mother about the facts of life. The only "preaching" I understood at that time was the consistent witness of my parents.
So, maybe I'm misunderstanding what Classical Arminians describe as "preaching." If so, please correct me :-)
Dale,
DeleteYes, as I wrote this piece complaining about Olson's views, I knew full well that you, Kevin, and many others would not agree with me; and that further demonstrates the distance between Wesleyan-Arminians and Classical Arminians. I've been expecting you and some others (who have not commented) to do so.
I am, however, grateful that you take this for what it is: objective disagreements rather than personal attacks, as Olson considers them.
By "preaching" I and others merely mean the core or basic message of the gospel. If someone can "get saved" aside from the knowledge of the core or basic message of the gospel, the apostle Paul knew nothing of it (Rom. 10:13-15). He concluded, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" Rom. 10:17). So, when I used the word "preaching," I had in mind some communicable aspect of the basic gospel message (whether spoken, sung, written, etc.).
Hopefully this is the clarification you're asking for.
God bless.
WWB - Thanks for your reply and clarifying. I'm glad to see that a classical approach does not mean that one has to listen to a preacher to be saved. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek because some of the preaching that we hear nowadays seem to be more of "tickling ears" rather than presenting a clear understanding of God's Word.
DeleteWesleyans also have a strong social component to our Arminianism. For example, we believe that God can speak thru meeting one's needs. Historically, Wesleyan-Arminians have started programs to help those who are destitute and down and out and have found that in doing so, these acts of charity serve as prevenient grace which opens the person's heart to the things of God.
St. Francis of Assisi said "Preach the gospel. And if necessary, use words." Wesleyans are comfortable with this statement. How does a classical Arminian respond to this?
Dr. W.,
DeleteWe would agree that God uses charitable acts as a way to soften the heart of an individual, preparing him to hear the gospel. But Paul did not say, "And how will they hear without charitable acts?" (Rom. 10:14) He said, "And how will they hear without a preacher [a messenger -- someone to proclaim the gospel]?"
Charitable acts are not the gospel message. They adorn the message, but they are not the message itself. Charitable acts will not inform someone that he is a sinner in need of a Savior, nor will they inform him that this Savior is Jesus Christ, nor will they inform him what Jesus Christ has accomplished for his salvation.
So much of the social justice and the social gospel movement is just being nice to people and doing good things for them. But if someone does not open his mouth and inform the person to whom they are being nice to, or doing nice things for, the gospel, then how shall they be saved?
This is Paul's whole point! "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher [or messenger]?" (Rom. 10:14)
He continues, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" (Rom. 10:15) The good news is what is essential, not necessarily good deeds. I fear that there is a lot of the latter going on with too little of the former.
WWB - Thanks for the response. As a Wesleyan, I wouldn't agree with the Campolo types who believe that charity speaks for itself. Otherwise, you just end up with a drug dealer who feels good about himself but is still far from God.
DeleteI think that we agree that charitable acts in isolation are meaningless. That's no different than what non-christian charities do. Christian charity has a way of tenderizing a cold, indifferent, unfeeling, rebellious heart. Kind of like tilling the soil to make it ready for the seed of the gospel.
I believe that we should perform charity as if it is what brings the person to Christ and we should tell others about Christ as if charity does nothing. Or put another way, pray as if your good deeds are worthless and perform good deeds as if your prayers are worthless.
I'm trying not to pick on you, I'm just picking your brain. So, don't feel you have to respond or we can go private to discuss if you prefer. Here's my question, "Do you think that there are times when preaching is less effective than Christian charity in bringing individuals to Christ?"
Dr. W.,
DeleteI don't feel picked on. You're totally fine. I'm headed to a three hour class, so if I don't respond, you'll know why.
Do you think that there are times when preaching is less effective than Christian charity in bringing individuals to Christ?
In short, no, as long as by "preaching" you mean "proclaiming the gospel." The Holy Spirit only needs the gospel to work with, technically. For example, when my dad was telling me the gospel and the truth of the Lord's return, there was no outward expressions of Christian charity being performed to me by another, unless, of course, we consider the actual proclaiming of the gospel to be a form of Christian charity, haha.
I use that solely as one example. But in short, I would said no to your question, as long as it meets that qualification. Moreover, I find the message of Assisi, Preach the gospel. And if necessary, use words, is antithetical to Paul's message in Romans 10. Paul specifically referred to the verbal communication of the gospel: i.e., "And how will they hear without a preacher?"
I find it difficult to get a Wesleyan to adequately address Romans 10:14-15 on the basis of communicating the gospel. Could you explain to us the Wesleyan view on this matter?
I'll check back after class, which should get out around 4PM.
Yes, undoubtedly Romans 10:14-15 certainly is true. I don't doubt that there is any Wesleyan who would disagree. No argument from me there.
DeleteThere are examples of people to whom Jesus appeared to seemingly out of the blue. I believe that maybe Wesleyans see prevenient grace as also being generational/situational/cultural, as answering the prayers of godly Grandmothers, being born into a family who parents are Christians, being placed in an area where a person would receive godly influence, etc. I just think, sometimes, it is hard to separate what is preached and what is lived in the application of prevenient grace.
Maybe in the case of Cornelius, his devotion to Judaism was prevenient grace in action. Maybe he saw more in Judaism than others and God honored him by giving him faith upon faith. Like I've said to you before, Cornelius is an enigma for me. I would appreciate you blogging on him sometime in the future.
Rom 1:19 clearly states that God [Himself} has made it plain about Himself. We also have Rom 1:20 which states that no one is without excuse. We know that all of history, all of the Old Testament and all of creation is pointing to Christ.
I wonder if in the early part Paul is setting the stage for Romans 10 which appears to be the denouement of his letter to the Romans. Kind of, this is the way it used to be but now that we have the gospel, God has shifted His grace to a more tangible/teachable means.
So, you can see that I have not made up my mind, you can see the shifting in my thought processes back and forth. However, I am confident that God is just and merciful so I don't have to live in consternation just because I haven't figured this out yet.
I have learned, as I get older, that I can live with some elements of ambiguity and these things that I haven't figured out aren't faith busters nor are they worth blustering about for the sake of unity. Nevertheless, even though we may disagree on this aspect, I always look forward to seeing what you have to say :-)
I appreciate this response, brother, I really do. God bless.
DeleteI love the adolescent comment deleting. It speaks to the prtoectionism inherant in some people's theology. On the contrary, strong discussion, civil but energetic, increases our need for solid Biblical support, and I have found it also makes me crucify my flesh because I can get offended.
ReplyDeleteI have sometimes written as if I was not offended (when I was)since I wanted to appear righteous, but in reality it helped me resist the temptation to respond in an unchristian manner. (Don't tell anyone I told you this because I am a pastor and am supposed to be perfect! :) )
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, brother!
Rick,
Hilarious! I won't tell anyone; and neither will everyone who reads this, lol!
Interesting posting, as always. I would ask about that last part about identifying as Wesleyan or Arminian. I know you have documented differences Billy, but I tend to have the habit of identifying as "Wesleyan" because it seems more respectable (everyone respects John Wesley). "Arminian" can seem so dubious and misunderstood (as that mystical figure of Arminius!) that it can be a longer introduction, let's say, to say you're Arminian. I do tell people however if they ask me that I agree with Arminius (makes reference to the man himself, not the system of thought attributed to him).
ReplyDeleteIs this a flaw in me? Does the logic hold water? Meh!
It's not a flaw, it's just that "Arminian" has been given a bad name by its detractors. See Demarcating Wesleyan-Arminianism & Classical Arminianism for some major theological differences.
ReplyDeleteThe Wesleyans today tend toward what I consider to be liberal views (Inclusivism, rejecting Inerrancy, Emerging, Egalitarian, some adopting Open Theism, etc.), while the Classical Arminians tend to be very conservative (Exclusivism, Inerrancy, Traditional, Complementarian, Omniscience, etc.). I am definitely not a Wesleyan.
Call me a mongrel! I hold to a Fruehistic theology which from time to time had to undergo some alterations when confronted with Biblical evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteBut it is now absolutely perfect, which leaves me wide open to criticism!
Hey Billy, my comments are a little off topic, but you said, "But if someone holds to all points of the Remonstrants save one, is he disavowed from calling himself an Arminian?"
ReplyDeleteI have never met a so-called "Arminian" who believed in eternal security, and who did not also believe in some form of irresistible grace after conversion. God either irresistibly makes certain that the Christian will keep on trusting in Jesus, and thus preventing them from falling away, or God graciously steps in when the believer is persisting in unbelief and sin and kills the believer before they would have committed apostasy. From my experience, I have yet to find a four-point Arminian, just a three-pointer. Both irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints (i.e. eternal security) have always been associated with Calvinism, never with Arminianism. So why should the title "Arminian" be used to described a theology that is only found historically in Calvinism?
You do not want classical Arminianism to be misrepresented on this inclusivism/exclusivism issue by someone as influential as Roger Olson, and I respect this. We need to represent Arminianism as it has been consistently and clearly communicated by its prominent theologians. But irresistible grace and eternal security have never been a part of historic Arminianism, so why should we call those who hold to these points an "Arminian." From a historical and theological perspective they have more in common with moderate Calvinists than classical Arminians. I appreciate and respect your desire to protect classical Arminianism from being misrepresented by others on whatever issue it may be, but are you being consistent in fulfilling this desire when it comes to the issue of apostasy and the use of the word "Arminian"?
Just some thoughts to ponder. Keep up the good work.
Blessings,
Steve Witzki
Steve,
ReplyDeleteMany, many people would take issue with your particular use of Irresistible Grace here, since that doctrine belongs more properly to how one becomes saved initially (i.e., regeneration precedes faith), and not necessarily how one remains so. The "Arminian-types" I know who hold to Perseverance do so on grounds of the effect of Regeneration, not to Irresistible Grace, per se.
Of course, what many on-lookers here do not know is that we've discussed this before, and we disagree. Now, if only "five-point" Arminians, so to speak, are allowed to be called Arminian, then what are we to call those believers who hold to Total Depravity, Conditional Election, Unlimited or General Atonement, Resistible Grace, Libertarian Free Will, etc., yet who hold to Perseverance? Even if you think they're terribly inconsistent, can you still not call them Arminian?
This is tantamount to R. C. Sproul, Sr., insisting that "four-point" Calvinists should not be called Calvinists. Why? Because they do not hold to one point: Limited Atonement. Fine, then what do we call them?
One would think that, given the tainted reputation Arminianism has had lately, anyone willing to call himself an Arminian would be welcomed, be he a Wesleyan-Arminian or Classical Arminian who just so happens to hold to Perseverance.
God bless, and thank you for the encouragement, as always!
Solution: "Calvinesque" and "Arminianesque"
DeletePersonally I cannot see how someone can believe in resistible grace and free will and believe in unconditional perseverance. It seems to me that by logical necessity (along with the biblical arguments which can be made) that consistent Arminians MUST hold to the doctrine of Apostasy as a true and genuine danger.
DeleteNevertheless, one can still be "Arminian" and believe in Eternal Security. I don't think any Christian should identify with "Once Saved Always Saved," because of its lawless implications of easy-believe-ism.
B.P.B.,
DeleteWell, as I mentioned in one response, those Arminian-ish types who do hold to Perseverance believe so not due to an irresistible force on the Spirit's point, per se, but on the nature of regeneration. In other words, regeneration changed the nature of the believer to the degree that he would not want to abandon his faith in Christ. He is still free to do so, in the sense that if he wanted to he could. But he will no want to because his nature has been changed.
Again, I just want to steer that conversation to a proper end, that being regeneration and not irresistible grace. And I absolutely agree with you about the "once saved, always saved" implication! Wow, and amen!
God bless.
BPB,
DeleteI actually agree with your point: unconditional perseverance is logically mutually exclusive with resistible grace and freewill.
SLW,
DeleteI responded to your comment to BPB but misunderstood you, so I deleted my own comment, lol. Oh well. Nevermind. Carry on.
SLW,
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer that to "two-point" Calvinist, which would really be a "four-point" Arminian.
Billy,
ReplyDeleteAlthough Olson is obviously in the broad (Wesleyan) stream of Arminianism, I agree with you that despite describing himself as a "Classical Arminian," Olson differs from my understanding of Classical Arminianism at several important points, and the issue of inclusivism illustrates this.
First of all, the most foundational issue is that he (Olson) does not affirm biblical inerrancy. Arminius unequivocally believed in a plenary verbal view of Biblical inspiration (and hence the truth/inerrancy of each word of Scripture):
“We declare, therefore, and we continue to repeat the declaration till the gates of hell re-echo the sound -- ‘that the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration holy men of God have spoken this word, and by whose impulse and guidance they have, as his amanuenses, consigned it to writing –that this Holy Spirit is the Author of that light by the aid of which we obtain a perception and an understanding of the divine meanings of the word, and is the Effector of that CERTAINTY by which we believe those meanings to be truly divine; and that He is the necessary Author, the all-sufficient Effector.'” James Arminius, “Oration III,” The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nicols and William Nichols, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 rep. ed.), 1:333-334.
Second, Olson is anticonfessional, and that was not the case with the earlier Arminians. In (finally) getting around to reading Olson's Arminian Theology book, it was striking that he virtually ignored the various Arminian confessions. However, on this issue of inclusivism, the Classical Arminians are very clear (as voiced in the Standard Confession of 1660):
"So that no man shall eternally suffer in Hell (that is, the second death)for want of a Christ that dyed for them, but as the Scripture saith, for denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. or because they believe not in the name of the only begotten Son of God, John 3. 18. Unbelief therefore being the cause why the just and righteous God, will condemn the children of men; it follows against all contradiction, that all men at one time or other, are put into such a capacity, as that (through the grace of God) they may be eternally saved, John 1. 7. Acts 17. 30. Mark 6. 6. Heb. 3. 10, 18, 19. 1 John 5. 10. John 3. 17."
Third, Olson in Arminian Theology quotes extensively and almost exclusively from the Wesleyan Arminian tradition, but not what others call Classical Arminianism (as in Forlines' book by that title). He virtually ignores Thomas Grantham, Forlines, and other Arminianistic Baptists. As such, it would be more precise to say that Olson was in the Wesleyan tradition rather than in the Classical Arminian tradition.
The Wesleyan tradition may be more open to inclusivism than the Classical Arminian tradition.
Fourth, I don't believe that the idea that someone could be saved apart from Christ ever crossed the mind of Arminius or his immediate orthodox successors. Though there are a few earlier intimations of this doctrine (some say in Irenaeus, for example), it was extremely rare until deism and liberalism (on the one side), and postconservativism on the evangelical side. I can't find inclusivism affirmed in any standard Arminian confessions within a hundred years of Arminius' life.
I value and respect Dr. Olson as a scholar, but I believe he does depart from Classical Arminianism (and classical evangelicalism) at a few significant points. This is one reason that he is not a member of the broad evangelical consensus that is the Evangelical Theological Society.
Dr. Lemke,
ReplyDeleteThank you for adding so much to this conversation, especially historically.
I have received several emails (and private messages on facebook) since posting this last night from people who are saying what we're saying: Roger Olson does not rightly represent Classical Arminianism, the theology of Arminius or the Remonstrants. He represents well the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition -- both historic and modern -- as is demonstrated from his Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, as you well stated.
The scholars today who follow in the line of Classical Arminianism (for those who are curious) are F. Leroy Forlines, Robert E. Picirilli, J. Matthew Pinson, Stephen M. Ashby and the like. I view the distinctions between Wesleyan-Arminianism and Classical Arminianism much as I do with the neo-Calvinism of the YRR and the Classical Calvinism of J. Edwards and J. Calvin.
God bless.
"Roger Olson does not rightly represent Classical Arminianism"
ReplyDeleteAnd more importantly, he does not rightly represent Classic Biblism as it pertains to a sinner gaining haven without a personal faith in Christ.
BTW WB - I subscribe to this as it pertains to Scriptural interpretation.
ReplyDeleteGal.2:6 - But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
And as my systematic theology professor used to say, "They don't add anything to me either!" Scholarship is like betting on the horses. Gather ten men with the Racing Form and experience at betting, and watch how they pick 4 different horses from the same race.
Gather ten "scholars" in Greek, Hebrew, and exegesis and you may well find four different interpretations. And if it is true that the scriptures cannot be rightly interpreted unless you are a "scholar", well then we are all Roman Catholics.
I guess I'm what you'd call a 'hopeful inclusivist'--that those who haven't had the opportunity to hear the gospel MIGHT be saved based on their response to the revelation given. The only ground for their salvation would still be the merits of Christ, but God would apply this to the individuals in question based on their response to His work in their hearts.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this falls in the realm of speculation, and I certainly don't intend to be dogmatic about it--it's just an opinion based on what I know of the merciful character of God. Seeing as how it is only speculation, it doesn't remove the resposibility to evangelize, of which, sadly, I could be doing a much better job than I am currently doing. :-(
DT