Comments on William W. Birch: Roger Olson's Use of Arminian History

SLW, I responded to your comment to BPB but misun...

2012-01-23T15:00:54.865-05:00

SLW,

I responded to your comment to BPB but misunderstood you, so I deleted my own comment, lol. Oh well. Nevermind. Carry on.

BPB, I actually agree with your point: uncondition...

2012-01-23T14:36:54.279-05:00

BPB,
I actually agree with your point: unconditional perseverance is logically mutually exclusive with resistible grace and freewill.

I appreciate this response, brother, I really do. ...

2012-01-23T14:25:59.042-05:00

I appreciate this response, brother, I really do. God bless.

Yes, undoubtedly Romans 10:14-15 certainly is true...

2012-01-23T13:53:47.084-05:00

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.

There 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 :-)

Dr. W., I don't feel picked on. You're to...

2012-01-23T12:48:13.457-05:00

Dr. W.,

I 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.

WWB - Thanks for the response. As a Wesleyan, I w...

2012-01-23T12:24:41.342-05:00

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.

I 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., We would agree that God uses charitable a...

2012-01-23T12:00:23.813-05:00

Dr. W.,

We 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 your reply and clarifying. I'...

2012-01-23T11:48:21.600-05:00

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.

Wesleyans 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?

I guess I'm what you'd call a 'hopeful...

2012-01-23T11:22:44.377-05:00

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.

Again, 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

B.P.B., Well, as I mentioned in one response, tho...

2012-01-23T11:16:43.507-05:00

B.P.B.,

Well, 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.

Personally I cannot see how someone can believe in...

2012-01-23T10:10:02.929-05:00

Personally 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.

Nevertheless, 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.

BTW WB - I subscribe to this as it pertains to Scr...

2012-01-23T06:16:04.178-05:00

BTW WB - I subscribe to this as it pertains to Scriptural interpretation.

Gal.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.

"Roger Olson does not rightly represent Class...

2012-01-23T05:52:57.098-05:00

"Roger Olson does not rightly represent Classical Arminianism"

And more importantly, he does not rightly represent Classic Biblism as it pertains to a sinner gaining haven without a personal faith in Christ.

Dale, Yes, as I wrote this piece complaining abou...

2012-01-22T22:32:27.562-05:00

Dale,

Yes, 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 - You know that I tend more toward Kevin J'...

2012-01-22T22:05:29.909-05:00

WWB - 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.

Billy, 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 :-)

Dr. Lemke, Thank you for adding so much to this c...

2012-01-22T21:05:42.107-05:00

Dr. Lemke,

Thank 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.

Billy, Although Olson is obviously in the broad (W...

2012-01-22T20:44:38.681-05:00

Billy,
Although 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.

Bob, If we go beyond normal boundaries, we could ...

2012-01-22T19:48:10.493-05:00

Bob,

If 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 understand sticking to the post. I am not arguin...

2012-01-22T19:25:13.169-05:00

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.

><>"

SLW, I'd prefer that to "two-point"...

2012-01-22T18:20:47.822-05:00

SLW,

I'd prefer that to "two-point" Calvinist, which would really be a "four-point" Arminian.

Solution: "Calvinesque" and "Armini...

2012-01-22T17:41:30.880-05:00

Solution: "Calvinesque" and "Arminianesque"

Steve, Many, many people would take issue with yo...

2012-01-22T16:49:05.440-05:00

Steve,

Many, 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!

Hey Billy, my comments are a little off topic, but...

2012-01-22T16:37:04.953-05:00

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?"
I 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

Call me a mongrel! I hold to a Fruehistic theology...

2012-01-22T11:19:28.050-05:00

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.

But it is now absolutely perfect, which leaves me wide open to criticism!

It's not a flaw, it's just that "Armi...

2012-01-22T10:49:18.945-05:00

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.

The 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.