An excellent article at Face Book. We regret the paragraphs, but worthy of study. The implications are absolutely enormous for the other doctrines of the faith, including justification by faith alone by grace alone by Christ alone. Arminianism is works-salvation. You won't find this level of discourse at Windbag's forum.
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=695090287&share_id=153096304654&comments=1#/note.php?note_id=157118771393&ref=nf
Arminianism Exposed (Part I)
By Rev. Mark Herzer
I have been a Calvinist for fifteen years or so. I have relished our doctrines and, as a Presbyterian, cherished our ecclesiology. And like all my Calvinistic brothers, I have had my bouts with Arminians. From these encounters, we have formed certain opinions about Arminianism. Some of us have even read Arminian theological works. However, I have found that most of my dear brothers have formed their opinions about Arminianism second hand. This is not to say that the opinions are incorrect but very few books handle them directly. What I wish to do in this essay is to 'expose' Arminianism and expose it to my Calvinistic brethren.Several years ago, I began to 'collect' Arminian theological works. I wanted to read them for myself. I found myself constructing arguments against Arminianism without really being able to cite them. But after several years of hunting them down (the books, that is), I think I ended up actually possessing more Arminian theological text books than the Westminster Theological Seminary library. From those years of dabbling in and out of their works, I found that half has not been told. I suspect you too will discover these findings to be quite surprising.We are accustomed to fighting Arminianism on two major fronts. One is in the area of predestination and the other is over the issue of "free-will." Both have been ably addressed by Reformed writers and scholars. As is well known, those are the critical and principial positions undergirding Arminianism. So I will not traverse those grounds again.In my research, I was set at ease and actually elated to find that their own writers felt that consistency was critical to their system. They relish their doctrines as much as we ours. One of their highly respected Methodist theologians, John Miley, rightly perceived that all our (i.e. Calvinistic) doctrines hung together. They sought a different ground for atonement, a different doctrine of justification and a different formulation of the decrees of God. They yearn to be as consistent and systematic as we. Their system hangs together as well as our own (in many of their works). As one would expect, because the principial issues (God's sovereignty and the bondage of the will) have been precluded at the outset, the reverberations from these concessions crop up throughout their theology. One such doctrine that suffers from this is the doctrine of justification by faith. It has been grossly overlooked by Calvinists in their polemic against Arminianism. In one sense, it is as important as the doctrine of sovereignty and I suspect even more important. Their view of the doctrine of justification, so easily overlooked and misunderstood by evangelicals at large (hence the ECT escapade), is frighteningly non-protestant. But I am getting ahead of myself. Suffice it to say, justification by faith is not the only doctrine that suffered, as we shall see.What I wish to do in this brief survey is to expose some of the major tenets of Arminianism. In order to do this, I will interact with their primary sources. All the authors I cite are decidedly Arminian; it is not my label slapped onto them. They wear it as a badge of honor. But in the end, it will be seen that their system is crassly Pelagian and their position should startle the sensibilities of all true evangelicals. However, the primary audience I have in mind are Calvinists who wish to read it for themselves. Some of these doctrines will receive a more thorough analysis in the near future. This is merely a survey of their positions. I must also convey a word of caution or rather perhaps, an apology of a sort. The tone of this survey is not sympathetic, not in the least. I have grown quite impatient with their perspective because it seems to be gaining some power among evangelicals. It is my hope that the following survey will give ample impetus to further study and information to all readers. I am fast coming to the conclusion that Arminianism may not be evangelical at all. However, I will reserve that judgment and be charitable at this moment. I would appreciate any and all corrections to this survey. If I have incorrectly cited someone or have misrepresented a position, then please inform me. I will stand corrected. Arminianism"It is hard to find a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology, including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired. Few have the stomach to tolerate Calvinian theology in its logical purity. The laity seem to gravitate happily to Arminians like C. S. Lewis for their intellectual understanding. So I do not think I stand alone. The drift away from theological determinism is definitely on." So spoke the Arminian. Perhaps he is absolutely correct. But is this good? Let us see at what cost.Doctrine of God's KnowledgeArminians detest the doctrine of predestination as presented by Calvinists. Since the word itself is Biblical, Arminians are forced to define the term in a manner consonant with their assumptions. In order to do that, they must recast the traditional doctrines related to God's knowledge. Most of us have no problem saying that God knows all things; but this has vexed most Arminians. Many evangelical thinkers are promoting what is called "free will theism" or "the openness of God" theism. Such is the direct result of Arminian theology pushed to its logical tendencies. Gregory Boyd, who himself is an Arminian, has argued that "Arminian theologians have not generally followed through the logic of their insight into the nature of creaturely freedom to its logical (and biblical) conclusions." Their view is astounding.They, the Arminians who are Freewill Theists, are not willing to concede that God knows all things, at least not in the traditional sense. For example, Clark Pinnock argues that "omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. if that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, as is the past." For them, the idea of foreknowledge "requires only that we define the scope of foreknowledge with care. In some respects the future is knowable, in others it is not. God knows a great deal about what will happen. He knows everything that will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already exist. He knows infallibly the content of his own future actions, to the extent that they are not related to human choices. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur." The problem with Rice's seemingly harmless formulation is that the whole future, as envisioned by this explanation, is filled with nothing but numerous human decisions. In order for God to know even two seconds into the future, God must know the decisions of the first second which He is not permitted to know (or, as they argue, He chose not to know). If He does not know it, then how can He know His own future actions when they are dependent upon the free acts of man? Thus God in fact does not know the future at all because He does not know our decisions nor His responses to them. Rice is even more adamant in another book: "Not even God knows the future in all its details. Some parts remain indefinite until they actually occur, and so they can't be known in advance." This sort of formulation is gaining ground among some evangelicals.This would quite naturally lead to the notion of "divine learning." Namely, God must learn as the future unfolds. May it never be said that He infallibly knows all things. In fact, without much shame, they virtually concede in some measure that God is surprised. "God is not startled and is never struck dumb as the future unfolds, but an element of surprise embraces the divine knowledge just as it does ours even when we think our predictive powers are at their height. Were you a god, would you not find it dull to fix the future irrevocably from eternity?" That last question typifies and exposes their theological tendency, namely, God created in the image of man. In response, I ask, "What does it matter if I should be bored? How does my own boredom determine the nature of God's knowledge? And in what real sense do we have any predictive powers? Isn't God's predictive power the sheer evidence of His majestic divinity?" Yet Rice's assumption admits this central thesis: God is merely a superhuman being.John Sanders's thesis is more subtle but also just as destructive. He argues that the nature of the relationship necessitates risks and therefore God's providence is a risk of a sort. He states that God is "amazingly creative" and enters into a risk relationship with human beings. "In the God-human relationship God sometimes decides alone what will happen; at other times God modifies his plans in order to accommodate the choices, actions and desires of his creatures." God, in effect, reacts to our decisions and actions. But that is Sanders's point, God takes risks. He further explains that when God created the world, He had a "great chance of success and little possibility of failure while concomitantly having a ... high amount of risk in the sense that it matters deeply to God how things go." He says that sin was possible, but not plausible because God took a risk. Sanders is aware that our sensibilities would be "shocked" with this sort of formulation. But a God of risk taking (unaware of what the future infallibly holds) is for Sanders the most relational picture of God. In essence, his view could be summed up by these words: "But God sovereignly decides not to control each and every event, and some things go contrary to what God intends and may not turn out completely as God desires. Hence, God takes risks in creating this sort of world." Let us be frank, God is a big God and He can take all these mishaps; the risk is something He is big enough to take. But what about that maverick atom that might destroy my health, is He actively involved? I hope so; no, I know so, the Bible tells me so.For the Arminians, the fundamental belief in man's freedom must be retained at all cost. Omniscience is denied (and thus the doctrine of Middle Knowledge is readily held by many so as to take omniscience seriously). This denial of omniscience is not held by all Arminians. Samuel Wakefield almost sounds like a Calvinist in his defense of God's omniscience, and he is well acquainted with the philosophical "problems" associated with the notion of necessary future contingent acts of human beings. So within their own camp, they see that one cannot concede God's omniscience. Most Arminians cannot accept the balance maintained in Scripture, namely, God knows all things and is in control of everything while man is justly responsible for all his actions. They maintain that it must be 'reasonable' and rational. Sanders argues that it must be reasonable at all costs. Calvinists maintain that it must be biblical at all times; our reason bows before revelation, credo ut intelligam.Doctrine of AtonementAnother formulation that might also surprise many is the Arminian view of atonement. Most Christians believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sins and that Christ is our substitute. In this substitution, penal dimensions of divine transaction had transpired. This formulation has forced Arminians to redefine, once again, the doctrine of atonement. They rightly believe that the substitutionary doctrine necessarily entails limited atonement. So the first alteration in their position is the common biblical view of Christ paying the penalty for the sins of sinners. The following is an important observation from an avowed Arminian.A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...They also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment. They understand that there can be only punishment or forgiveness, not both?realizing, e.g., that a child is either punished or forgiven, not forgiven after the punishment has been meted out.A century before, the Methodist theologian, John Miley, one of the most important nineteenth-century Arminian thinkers in America (along with Watson and Pope, who were British), also saw the inconsistency of the theories within Arminianism. He felt compelled to argue that the doctrine of strict substitutionary atonement hung together as a system only in Calvinism.If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false.As a result of this, there is debate among Arminians over the nature of atonement. Some believe that the governmental theory is the Arminian position. Wesley, on the other hand, seems to have adopted the penal substitutionary theory (albeit inconsistently). Most, however, did not. Richard Watson accepted the governmental theory of atonement as did the Methodist William Burt Pope. They knew that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was inimical to their theology. William Pope for example argues: "Arminianism holds that the Sacrifice was offered for the whole world: it must therefore for that reason also renounce the commutative theory of exact and mutual compensation; since some may perish for whom Christ died, and He would be defrauded of His reward in them." What he is saying is that we cannot argue that Christ really paid for the penalty of sin for everyone for whom He died, in the strictest and substitutionary sense. If we were to say He did, then we are (and his inference is correct at this point) forced to conclude some of Christ's blood was shed in vain (or limited to the elect). Then how and for what reason did He die?One writer, apparently feeling the tension, sought to answer this. Benjamin Field gives his own vague model: "Christ did not pay the sinner's debt in the sense in which the objector understands that phrase. It is only in a loose sense that the death of Christ may be thus spoken of. He did a something [sic] in consideration of which it is now quite consistent with God's character as a moral Governor?" How can one argue that Christ died for sin in "a loose sense?" What "something" did He accomplish? But since they already denied penal substitutionary atonement, they are left outside without a working model. Even the modern Arminian theologian J. Kenneth Grider denies it more forcefully. "Scripture never states that He was punished for us or that He paid the penalty for us. Scripture always states instead that he suffered for us." But this is to deny the word 'propitiation' used in the NT, Rom. 3:24, 25; 1Jn. 2:2. Grider's position is even denied by some of the elder Arminians who argued for the punishment doctrine along with their governmental theory (again, inconsistently). We believe this is not consistent on their part but commend them for their attempt to be faithful to the biblical language.The more modern Arminians are unhappy with all the theories; they sense that the governmental theory does not fit well with Scripture (with the exception of Grider). R. Larry Shelton wants to adopt a different model; the model he proposes is even more vague and unbiblical. He argues, "Christ's work was not just a moral example to inspire moral living, but a sacrifice of obedient worship in which we may participate vicariously through faith. Through this work, a grieved God whose faith in us has been compromised is enabled to believe in us again as He sees that we share in the grief for sin and righteous obedience that Christ expressed on our behalf." Wow, now God can believe in us! This is nothing less than the old governmental theory filled with anthropocentric sappy sentimentalism.As you can see, deny the substitutionary atonement and you are lost as to a working 'model' for atonement. Substitutionary atonement is biblical and is the only one that is in accordance with Scripture (for a thorough biblical defense of this, see the numerous works on atonement by Leon Morris). Being forced to recast the doctrine of atonement, Arminians have developed some of the strangest theories. Some, however, are aware of the difficulties of their position, and attempt to say something remotely similar to the biblical language.Having seen their confusion, we now see what the aftermath of their universal atonement might mean. Again, the whole defense of universal atonement is an implicit admission of substitutionary atonement (we greatly differ as to its extent). Nonetheless, if indeed Christ died for everyone without exception and that He suffered for all their sins, then a different ground must exist for man's damnation. This is simple and logical. If all their sins have been effectively dealt with on the cross, then on what basis will unbelievers perish? Donald Lake, out of sheer consistency with his fundamental belief, falls into this conclusion.More importantly since Christ has finished his work of redemption upon the cross, the ground of our salvation has completely shifted. What is it that condemns a man? Is it his sins, large or small, numerous or few, that condemns a man and sends him into a Christless eternity? The answer of the New Testament is an absolute No! What condemns a man is not sins. Why? Because Christ's redemptive and atoning work is complete and satisfying. Even man's rejection cannot frustrate the purposes of God. The issue of every man's salvation turns not upon his sins, but rather upon his relationship to the Son! Sin may have made the cross necessary, but the cross has now made sin irrelevant as far as man's relationship to God is concerned. This is, perhaps, a little too strong, but the fact is, that man's problem now is not so much sin or sins, but his reaction to what God has done in Christ.If the above quote is true, then it also follows that one cannot really call anyone a 'sinner' because no sin can technically be imputed to them. However, unbelief is sin but didn't Christ die for all sins? Alas, I quibble. Who am I to say that such inconsistency is laughable? Perhaps we should shudder instead.Doctrine of Grace (Prevenient)Evangelical Arminians, in some sense, took seriously the doctrine of Original Sin. They knew that the Fall thoroughly impaired man's will. Since the Calvinistic system was the reigning system at the time and it alone gave adequate attention to the doctrine of Original Sin, Arminianism was forced to address the doctrine in a different way. While seeking to recognize the serious effects of Original Sin, they believed that Christ's death nullified all the effects. They believed their doctrine of prevenient grace could both take Original Sin seriously while at the same time put everyone on an equal moral footing. In that sense, grace could be said to precede all acts of faith. John Wesley held to this position. The net effect of it was that God has given grace to everyone to be able to believe if they will. The best sort of definition comes from Kenneth Jones who says, "The prevenient grace of God's convicting Spirit simply lifts the sinner up to the point where the choice is possible."Mrs. Wynkoop, a Wesleyan scholar, goes so far as to say, "No man is found in the 'state of nature.'"If she is correct, then everyone is in some sense (incompletely) in a redeemed state. Whereas the Arminians took Original Sin seriously, they did, however, overcome the problem by simply cloaking it with their novel doctrine of prevenient grace. In other words, they are one with the Calvinists when it comes to the debilitating effects of the Fall. But due to this novel doctrine, they are one with the Pelagians in making everyone capable of believing. So they part company with the Calvinists by somehow [by fiat?] making the grave judicial effects of Original Sin no longer operative by their universal prevenient grace. The beauty of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Original sin is that it controlled the flow of grace to counter the grave effects through their sacraments. Though both are wrong, at least the Roman Catholics limited it to their church and that it was not universal. The Wesleyans, on the other hand, made everyone recipients of grace without exception. For the Roman Catholics, all those inside the church are without Original Sin. For the Wesleyans, all those in and outside the church are without Original Sin (generally speaking). Perhaps this last statement was too strong; nevertheless, some of the judicial aspects no longer apply and for sure, its effect has been greatly dampened. Both systems have a doctrine of grace that is far from affecting salvation.Some have tried to give what appears to be a scriptural argument for their position. Grider submits various passages which argue for repentance and thus concludes that man has the gracious ability to repent. Since God calls man to repent and since God wouldn't demand what we couldn't do, therefore, there is prevenient grace. Impeccable logic! The minor premise, however, is at fault. Even if one granted that, the conclusion could not be drawn. There are other ways for accounting for the premise.They do not wish to relegate the Holy Spirit; they believe He is active in and working with prevenient grace. Grider urges us to believe that the Holy Spirit must work in order that we would believe. The passages he cites hardly argue for universal prevenient grace; it certainly seems to argue for particular prevenient grace.John Miley seems to avoid the phrase 'prevenient grace' but not its meaning. We will let him speak for himself: "Man is fallen and corrupt in his nature, and therein morally helpless; but man is also redeemed and the recipient of a helping grace in Christ whereby he is invested with capabilities for a moral probation. He has the power of meeting the terms of an actual salvation. All men have this power. It is none the less real or sufficient because of its gracious source. Salvation is thus the privilege of every man, whatever his religious dispensation." He makes several startling statements. He states that man has been "redeemed." In what sense? By making man capable or by investing him "with capabilities for a moral probation." [Now, where is that in Scripture?] But the other surprising comment is his argument for a probationary situation (similar to Adam?); it must be a probationary state because if it is denied, then (as they rightly conclude) one would have to fall into Calvinism.This probationary period invested all of humanity with great gifts from the atonement. Similar thoughts developed in the Twentieth Century. The Nazarene Orton Wiley states that the atonement gave the following general benefits:1. "The first benefit of the free gift was to preserve mankind from sinking below the possibility of redemption." But is there such a condition? When can our sin conquer sovereign grace? Most of all, where is that in Scripture?2. "The second effect of the free gift was the reversal of the condemnation and the bestowal of a title to eternal life." He argues that the "culpability ? was removed by the free gift in Christ. The free gift removed the original condemnation?" Again, a statement without proof. We have already seen that sin no longer is a real concern when is comes to our eternal estate.3. "The free gift was the restoration of the Holy Spirit to the race." What he means by this is not that all are regenerated by the Spirit but rather all are now given the Spirit "as a provisional discipline for the fuller grace of redemption." He is to everyone, "the spirit of awakening and conviction."So what do we notice? We are in a probationary state. In this state, the Spirit works in all and prepares everyone for grace but the final choice is up to man. Or as the veritable Arminian Grider says (who was quoting another Arminian): "God voted for me, the devil voted against me, and I cast the deciding ballot for myself." Man may kill grace (see section on Synergism). "The heathen have a measure of grace. The power to resist grace is of grace." The reason this is so forcefully maintained is because the Spirit's work has gushed out into everything and everyone. "The Divine Spirit is atmospheric, and it becomes personal whenever any person appropriates it. The Divine Spirit is like the mother's heart. It is universal and infinite. It is the mother-soul of the universe, with infinite power, and sweetness, and beauty, and glory [blah, blah]? and what time any man accepts the influence of the Divine Spirit, and cooperates with it, that moment the work is done by the stimulus of God acting with the practical energy and will of the human soul." The Spirit is in everyone working to restrain the inherited bias and prompt us towards the good. In fact, they have a good idea when this work begins. Jones is quite sure that this work occurs in every child "as soon as [he] can understand anything."This almost pantheistic notion of the Spirit-Grace obviously could be abused. Modern liberal Methodists did not miss this opportunity to exploit it. Some contemporary Methodists argue that since Wesley promoted this doctrine of prevenient grace, we can further conclude that those who never heard the Gospel could still respond to prevenient grace and thus be justified (apparently hinted at by Wesley). And to push this idea much further, they reasoned that "our evangelistic task is set, not in a world that is lost and deprived of God, but in one in which God is very much active, and where, moved by God's grace, people already experience the love of God in good measure through Christ and the Holy Spirit [mind you, the author is speaking of the unregenerate who never heard the gospel]. The evangelistic task is not to deny this universal grace, but to help persons move from 'grace to grace.'" In other words, we are not bringing Good News to a world under the Wrath of God but we are bringing a decent message to a graceful people (certainly not graceless because of prevenient grace) who were already saturated by and soaked in grace. Similar conclusions had been drawn by another writer in our section on 'The Doctrine of Atonement' where "sins" are no longer an issue for lost human beings.So God has dispersed grace to everyone and everyone has been endowed with some grace, they are in an elevated status, a super-nature status (just short of redeemed nature). One can only wonder why anyone should pray for someone else's salvation since it is ultimately up to the individual. God can't do anymore, He already cast His vote for them, what is there left for Him to do? Thank God for sovereign mercy that can make a sinner willing in the day of His salvation.Another point to consider is that if the atonement has secured the probationary status of everyone, then why hasn't it saved everyone? In other words, did only a portion of Christ's work merely apply to everyone and the rest is in limbo until accepted? They argue that prevenient grace was secured for everyone so that we could believe or reject the Gospel. They also argue that Christ died for everyone. How does only a portion of that work on the Cross apply to Everyone? "I did everything for you, everything and I am applying only 90% of it to you, but you have to believe for the other10%."Their doctrine of prevenient grace is ultimately rooted in their insistence upon the absolute non-negotiability of their theology, namely, man must be free enough to accept or reject. They wish to be debtors to Free Will and we to Sovereign Grace. They argue that since prevenient grace came before our choice, therefore their theology is one of grace. But then again, this sort of argument was advanced by the Papists. It is true that this universal prevenient grace came before our choice; but it affected no one efficaciously. It led none to salvation. The efficacious act came from man who could accept or reject the prevenient grace. Man's choice is the sine qua non of their theology and not God's sovereign irresistible grace. We, on the other hand, declare, "Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus!"
End of Part I. To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment