For J.P. Holding, on Arminianism

[Sheepdog]

hi folks, this is a spill-over of a discussion on another thread. I would have totally hijacked the thread, so i opted to do this here. please note that this is ment to be informative. I don't intend to debate whether Arminianism is actually true or not.

original converstation can be found here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...5979#post285979
(yes, it is a pick of the day... figures that I of all people would turn it into a discussion on Arminianism )

I as an Arminian would not dispute your responses to TULIP. in fact, i agree that we need to go back to the Author's (and authors') meaning in the 1^st Century-- not to the interpretation of said meanings from the c. 16^th Century.

beyond that, a disctinctively Arminian position would have a further refinement of your position on U; and L could go either way.

On U, i think you hit the nail on the head: "'Does God foreknow because he foreordains or does he foreordain because he foreknows?' The latter seems to please Arminians; the former seems to please Calvinists" (Un Conditioning). Although, i think both sides have habitually bastardized what Rom. 8:29 is trying to say (perhaps another passage for you to cover in suppliment to your TULIP articles? just a thought). To narrow the view down a bit, i further propose that the contention between the views is, what is predestination contingent on? i would argue that the traditional Arminian supposes that "whosoever believes" are predestined to salvation (and to be conformed to the likeness of his Son); whereas Calvinists suppose that folks are predestined to salvation and belief, according to God's unrevealed will (or plan, purpose, or good pleasure). i think that these views are the only ones that could conceivably be interpreted from Scripture.

John Wesley places the source of the contention in the form of a dilemma, "'Is predestination absolute or conditional?' The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute." (What Is an Arminian?, paragraph 10). I think this is a helpful approach, though i prefer starting from Previent Grace and working the other way.

now on General Atonement, the Arminian doctrine, there is a bit of ambiguity. The original creed made by the Remonstrants says this:

• That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

(The Remonstrant Articles, Article 2). The actual ambiguity isn't obvious, but i have observed two distinct interpretations of the doctrine.

1) that Christ actually suffered for all in the sense that his blood covers all sins, and it is disbelief that keeps people from being saved. (i've seen a couple on the CARM forums hold this view)

2) that Christ suffered for all, so that his blood would cover the sins of anyone who believes. in this view atonement is limited in a sense, but by man's belief/disbelief, rather than God's absolute election. (Jaltus, myself, and a few others here hold this one)

I believe that the second position is the most biblical and theologically sound, though i can see how some might come to the first interpretation from verses like 1Jn. 2:2. Interestingly enough, an adherent to the latter view would not disagree at all with your language: "Christ suffered sufficiently to atone for all the world's sins, but suffered effectively only for the elect" (Within Limits); that is, so long as it is recognized that "elect" and "believers" are roughly equivalent (which is obviously true, but remember that Calvinists load the term "elect" differently from Arminians). Where we contrast from Calvinism's Limited Atonement is that in their view it is impossible for any person who is not elect to be atoned for (hence it is limited in the most literal sense). On the other hand, we believe that the nonelect could have been atoned for, since anyone could have believed in Christ. As you see, our respective positions on atonement are closely related to how each side views the belief-election relationship.

in regards to Apostasy and Anxiety, my personal view of Conditional Assurance (people use the term "Conditional Eternal Security." i think it is oxymoronic, but oh well), is pretty much along the same lines. And in fact, a lot of Arminians i have chatted with have come to the same conclusion.

[Sheepdog]

one thing, upon reflection, i realized i should correct.

Sheepdog:

I as an Arminian would not dispute your responses to TULIP. in fact, i agree that we need to go back to the Author's (and authors') meaning in the 1^st Century-- not to the interpretation of said meanings from the c. 16^th Century.

it should be noted that i do read and consider the insights of modern writers and even historical writers, but i tend to place more emphasis an info we have regarding the view the writers would have from their cultural background.

[Jaltus]

Good thread. I think we can try to lay out the different doctrines of Arminianism more fully as we go, if you wish.

[Sheepdog]

that'd be good. i didn't want a debate, but i really don't want to discourage informative discussion either.

[geebob]

If you start a thread with anyone in particular in mind, be sure to send him a pm with a link to this thread.

[Sheepdog]

i linked to this thread from the the other thread. Holding mentioned he might be too busy, so i assume he is aware of this thread. you think i should PM him anyways?

[jpholding]

Yes you should have. Luckily I saw this at a bottomside list. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

[Sheepdog]

oh, sorry about that JP.

[jpholding]

Okey doke...now to business... But I have a dumb question...what was I being asked about?

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here
jpholding:

Okey doke...now to business... But I have a dumb question...what was I being asked about?

i guess you weren't being asked about anything per se. i was joking about converting you to Arminianism, you commented that people have thought you were one anyways. i figured it would be cool to have a conversation about where your view and Arminianism are similar, and where they contrast. there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding at large about what Arminianism teaches (and what it doesn't)-- i'd dare say that even many who profess to be Arminians don't know what it is, and many who claim to be middle-of-the-road are actually Arminian in theology. this is just from my observations, however.

i figured if you had any doubt or lack of knowledge about Arminianism, we could flesh this out. i honestly don't know how much you studied about our side of the spectrum, so it's possible you know it better than me! either way i figured this would be a fruitful topic to explore.

i'll be gone for the weekend, so if you post from not till then, i can get back to you monday or possibly sunday night. coo?

[geebob]

i'd dare say that even many who profess to be Arminians don't know what it is

arminianism is just the name for the free will tradition in much of protestantism. most arminians don't feel all that compelled to stick to arminius even on all the details in which he defended free will.

why, just look at Arminian.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 09:56 PM post located here
geebob:

arminianism is just the name for the free will tradition in much of protestantism. most arminians don't feel all that compelled to stick to arminius even on all the details in which he defended free will.

why, just look at Arminian.

i could have sworn Arminian said that he wasn't ... an Arminian

i would agree and disagree, sort of. there is enough wiggle room so that different views have emerged within Arminianism (to some extent the same could be said about Calvinism). however, i would be cautious to define an Arminian as any Christian who disagrees with Calvinism-- lest the term becomes as meaningless as the term "Christian" as become in the popular culture.

i would agree that the definition is heading that way, if it isn't already there. i just disagree that it should.

[geebob]

i would agree and disagree, sort of. there is enough wiggle room so that different views have emerged within Arminianism (to some extent the same could be said about Calvinism). however, i would be cautious to define an Arminian as any Christian who disagrees with Calvinism-- lest the term becomes as meaningless as the term "Christian" as become in the popular culture.

I didn't. catholics don't consider themselves arminians or calvinsits.

actually, there are even reformed theists who prettymuch disagree with all five points of calvinism. For example, up in michigan, there's calvin college which has one of the best undergraduate departments in philosophy. And all the faculty up there are free will theists.

I consider myself an arminian because I come from that tradition, the methodist tradition which championed arminius and I hold to several of the main tennents.

as for the term getting a little squishy, it's really nothing. You should see what wittgenstein observes about the term "game."

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 11:20 PM post located here
geebob:

I didn't. catholics don't consider themselves arminians or calvinsits.

err... you know what i meant though, right? even with a definition akin to "any protestant who believes in free will and disagrees with key points in TULIP," it becomes too vague. if i claim to be an Arminian, Gebob claims to be an Arminian, yet we make statements that totally contradict each other, what is the Calvinist to think? It is little wonder why the Arminian Strawman market is on a steady rise-- everyone is just too darned confused about what Arminianism is, and isn't.

actually, there are even reformed theists who prettymuch disagree with all five points of calvinism.

i'm not sure they could be called reformed if they disagree with the five points. otherwise, i'm reformed (though i do hold to T)

...

as for the term getting a little squishy, it's really nothing. You should see what wittgenstein observes about the term "game."

if a term get's a little soft, i don't object. (some Arminians probably wouldn't consider me an Arminian because of my position on Atonement). the problem is, the more broad a term becomes, the less useful it becomes in practical discourse. we've already seen this happen with "Christian." in America you can no longer ask someone, "are you a Christian?" and get any useful information about the person from one's answer.

[geebob]

if i claim to be an Arminian, Gebob claims to be an Arminian,

then we agree on some things really important to the paradigm.

what is the Calvinist to think?

that paradigms are broad enough such that there are in house squabbles.

It is little wonder why the Arminian Strawman market is on a steady rise

or shallow blanket statements that refuse complexity to the world of ideas.

i'm not sure they could be called reformed if they disagree with the five points. otherwise, i'm reformed

The reformed tradition is too rich to be reduced to the debate on theological determinism. Many reformed scholars though knowing that that issue was very important to calvin are still faithful to other very important distinctives of the tradition.

In epistemology for example, Alvin Plantinga, a fine free will theist (has argued the "free will defence" (which uses libertarian free will BTW, and that's where the definition I use here on the web comes from) so successfully that real philosophers of the atheistic sort (not your interent "free thinkers") don't really talk about the logical problem of evil any more) has piorneered "reformed epistemology" which is part of the project of defending the knowledge of God "without arguements."

There's a lot that goes on in reformed epistemology, such as warrent, and arguements for the rationality of taking belief in God as "properly basic," but some of the main features are inspired by calvin himself.

Another good one to note is that John Sander's book "THe God who Risks" is heavily documented (I rarely run across books with a foot note section as think as his. Open theists are far from shallow on the scholarship). His book is a decent length, and yet one fifth of it is footnotes. Most of those notes tracing deeper support of his arguemets come from reformed scholars.

Free will theists of the reformed bent like Plantinga, Nicolaus Wolterstorff, and Vincent Brummer probably know far more about Calvin and how to understand him then some of your run of the mill "scholastic calvinists" (the likes of RC Sproul), But no, they can't be considered reformed because some calvinists' world revolves narrowly and uninterestingly around just that one issue of theological determinism.