Join My Community!
-
Google+ Join My Circle of Friends
Tag Archives: Arminianism
Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (in Review)
Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation
By Carl Bangs
5 Star (out of 5)
I am having difficulty containing how much I like this book. At the risk of tipping over the top let me go on record in saying that Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation is quite simply the number one book I’ve read (so far) in 2010, and in all probability it is the best academic biography I have ever read!
Carl Bangs sifts through old church archives, marriage records, municipal records and birth certificates in his investigation into the life and times of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Through this study you will discover the very sad upbringing of young Jacob, the tragedy of his hometown Oudewater with the massacre of his family. You will also learn about the socio-political context of Holland, particularly Amsterdam and Leiden. As this context is laid it will quickly become evident that the Dutch Reformation was unlike any other places of Reformation, such as France, England or Germany, in that the Dutch spirit was one of religious tolerance within the Reformers circles. It is largely because of the Dutch spirit – both in the Church and in the political magistrate – that Arminius was able to fairly defend himself against his critics and – on most all occasions – silence them through reasoned arguments and scripture.
But you will also discover, as the context is laid, how it is the by 1618-19 the Reformers were able to hold a non-tolerant Kangaroo court which – for a brief period – led to the persecution of Arminius’ friends. So much change of the political landscape of Holland – and particularly Amsterdam – in between 1590 and 1610, with the rise of the East Indie Trade Company and many other external factors, which resulted in an influx of non-Dutch Reformers (mostly from places like France) that political arm-wrestling began between the older tolerant Reformers/magistrates and the new influx of non-tolerant Genevian-styled Reformers. Arminius found himself in the epicenter of that clash.
Carl Bangs also clears away the debris of folklores, tall-tales, rumors and slanders which have been circulating about Arminius for centuries by those who opposed him theologically. And as an add-on, Bangs devotes whole sections of the story, during the development of a particular event, to look at Arminius’ theology of that time based on the writings. The book also concludes with an overview, section by section, of what Jacob Arminius believed. So this is not only a history book or a biography, it is also a theology book!
Arminius should be required reading of all who claim to follow in the tradition of Jacob Arminius; all who resist Arminianism ought to read this book to know precisely what it is they are resisting, and anyone interested in the era of the Reformation, or who has done a serious study of Luther or Calvin, needs to read this book and hold it on par with them.
Of all things, I believe what impressed me most was the character of Jacob Arminius. Rare is it that one finds, in this whole era (1500-1600), a leading reformer who is also equally as tolerant, wise, intelligent, but also transparent, humble and – to the surprise of many – non-confrontational. Arminius was a scholar/pastor with a shepherd’s heart and a back-bone. Perhaps that is why so many opposed him without being able to find fault with what he actually taught or believed.
Tagged Arminianism, Carl Bangs, Jacob Arminius
Why Did Wesley Attack Whitefield’s Calvinism?
While dialoguing with my friend Danny in a recent post, I discovered that John Wesley was not so tolerant of “Calvinism” when it came to George Whitefield. Danny also told me that George, “for his part”, did not generally respond to John in kind. For someone who looks up to and admires John Wesley, I wanted to probe further into the “why” question. Why would John, a man so adamant in support of unity and tolerance within Methodism and the Church of England and whose theology is based squarely on the love of God, equally adamantly oppose his friends Calvinism?
The next day I pulled a book off my shelf which I haven’t had an opportunity to read yet, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, only to discover – to my disappointment – that what Danny told me is absolutely correct. But I also found the historical context of their (often one sided) debate very telling, and I want to propose a hypothesis as to why John (justifiably?) opposed George as he did. Disclaimer: I use the term “seems” often and in a critical fashion because this is the only book I’ve read on the subject and so I am endeavoring to keep that in mind. Any historical fallacies in this analysis are probably my own failure to accurately retell the story I’ve read in the book. And now I begin. (more…)
Tagged Anglican, Arminianism, Calvinism, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Methodist
Time To Unlearn A Few Things
I suggest that if we put the question of Calvinism and Arminianism aside for a time and study God as he has revealed himself in the scriptures we will not discover Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as Calvinism has always espoused; in fact we may not even discover God as the Arminian understands him. It may be, after seeking to discover the God of the scriptures on their own terms, that we may discover the God of Open Theism quite by accident! Not of Calvin’s Unmoved Mover, but of Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover.We will, in all probability, discover as John Sanders said, a God Who Risks. This – I believe – is the truth we all must wrestle with whether or not we embrace Open Theism.
Walter Brueggemann, one of the foremost Old Testament scholars, seems quite disinterested in questions of determinism and foreknowledge – except when specific texts’ call attention to such speculation – and in the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism (and Open Theism). But in his studies of the God of the Old Testament, the “Hebrew testimony” and portrayal of YWHW, he writes: “the defining category for faith in the Old Testament is dialogue, whereby all parties – including God – are changed in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties… including God.” And again, “The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change.” He goes on:
“When we are freed of static categories of interpretation that are widely utilized among us, we are able to see that the articulation of God in the Old Testament partakes exactly of the quality of complexity, dynamism, and fluidity that belong to the post-modern world… such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. An Unsettling God; 2009, p.xii; italics added.
What a powerful statement from a man who is not interested in sustaining “static categories of interpretation” such as Calvinism or Arminianism; neither, it is prudent to add, is he interested in Open Theism. When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? When Brueggemann approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible.
Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology.
“In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]
We have come to a point – or perhaps we have always been there – where the God revealed by the Hebrew testimony is rather embarrassing to our sensibilities. The Hebrews speak of a God affected by the passing of time; a God emotionally invested in his creation and sometimes those emotions are even mixed. They speak of a God whose mind is not settled and what’s worse, they don’t seem to mind this God at all! This God repents, He laughs, He tests, He changes His mind and what’s more, He allows his creation to move Him to action and at other times, they have the power to stay His wrathful hand.
“It is common to be embarrassed about the anthropomorphic aspects of this God, so embarrassed as to want to explain away such a characterization or at least to transpose it into a form that better serves a generic notion of God…. All such embarrassments, however, fail to do justice to the scriptural tradition.” [p.2]
Again, Walter Brueggemann has called us out on the carpet; all of us! Classical Christianity cannot escape the ugly reality that we have since near the beginning been embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of God and so silenced it. It does not jive well with our sensibilities, our Hellenistic sensibilities. But who is the guilty one; are they or are we? It is not they who are being unfaithful to the scriptures; indeed they wrote them! And instead of being embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of YWHW we ought to be embarrassed of our selves. It will no longer do, in my mind, to dismiss the challenge of the Old Testament as embarrassing “anthropomorphic” ramblings of ancient people. Christianity needs – to some extent – to put Classical Christian Theology on trial and the judge ought not to be Aristotle, but Abraham. Classical Christian Theology is in need of purification, and its filter ought to be the scriptures.
Were the Remonstrants Pelagian?
Calvinists are perhaps the strongest defenders of Total Depravity in Christendom! And of course. Who better to stand up and proclaim humanities total and complete inability – without the grace of God – to make any move, inclination, or will towards God, then those who take their cue from St. Augustine, the originator of the doctrine of Original Sin who battled against the Pelagian Heresy?
The doctrine of Total Depravity took center stage and became the focus of articulation for Calvinists during the Dutch Reformed Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in response to certain concerns voiced by the Remonstrants, who were themselves (at this point in history) Dutch Reformed Calvinists. Arminius was the strongest voice of the Remonstrants, but did not live long enough to attend the Synod. Other Calvinists strongly opposed the Remonstrants.
“In preparation for the Synod to discuss these issues, some of these Calvinists wrote down their views on Human depravity:
“That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without [the grace of God], can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.”
What a strong Calvinist statement of human depravity and our absolute helplessness apart from God to provide for our salvation! It affirms that human beings are so depraved that they cannot think, will, or do anything that is truly good. Furthermore, humans cannot save themselves by their own efforts, faith, or free will because they live “in the state of apostasy and sin.” It describes their utter helplessness to think, will, or do good, or to withstand temptations. The only hope for salvation is from God – to be born again and renewed by the Holy Spirit of God. The statement affirms that only God can renew human understanding, thinking and willing so that humans can do good, for Jesus said that without Him humans can do nothing. Indeed, it affirms that any good deed “that can be conceived” must be ascribed only “to the grace of God in Christ.”
One might infer that such a strong Calvinist statement was voicing the opinions of the strong Calvinists who formed the majority at the Synod of Dort (the Remonstrants were systematically excluded so that their views had no real representation at the Synod). In fact, this statement is a quote from Articles III and IV of the issues raised by the Remonstrants. Such a strong affirmation of human depravity and the complete inability of humans to save themselves means the Remonstrants cannot responsibly be called Pelagians or even semi-Pelagians. Pelagians and semi-Pelagians affirm that natural human beings can initiate or respond to God completely independent of God’s grace. Nothing could be more foreign to the beliefs of these Arminian Remonstrants than the notion that sinful humans could initiate, much less earn, their own salvation. Just as there are different kinds of Calvinists, with many Calvinists bristling at being called hyper-Calvinists, it is totally inappropriate for theologians to describe these Arminian Remonstrants as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian in doctrine. Indeed, the Synod of Dort unfortunately mislabels the Arminian Remonstrants as “entirely Pelagian.” Let us abstain from calling them what they were not. The Arminians at Dort were Calvinists – members of the Reformed congregations – who had concerns about the extremes to which some Calvinist theologians had taken Calvinism, at points probably further than Calvin himself. Caricaturing the Remonstrants as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians is, therefore, historically inaccurate and inapproapriate.”
This quote was taken from Whosoever Will [p. 3] and is a part of the ongoing internal dialogue among the South Baptist (SBC).
Tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, Remonstrants, Synod of Dort
When Roger Olson and John Piper Meet For Coffee… D.A. Carson Is Sure To Juggle!
When back in 2007 D.A. Carson got wind that Roger Olson and John Piper were duking it out over the issue of the collapse of the Minnesota bridge, he had them flown in to face each other like men. Here is the account of that story (surely it is fiction… but hey, it’s fun):
So a reader of The Secret Diary of D.A. Carson tipped the Don off the other day about a little tiff that’s been happening between John Piper and Roger Olson. A lot could be said about this, but basically it boils down to a Calvinist and an Arminianist arguing over why the bridge in Minnesota collapsed a little while ago.
The Don is a lover, not a fighter, so I hate to see people at odds with one another (you know, unless someone disagrees with me). So I called up those two crazy cats and convinced them to head towards the Chicago area so that we could work things out. I had TEDS fly them into town first class (you wouldn’t believe how much money we have laying around from the outrageous tuition we charge) and then I picked them up from the airport in the Dragon Wagon.
Now Piper and I go way back, but I’ve only met Olson a handful of times. I’m pretty sure that made John a little overly confident because he seemed to assume that the two of us were going to work together to bring Roger down.
We met in a neutral territory: Bennigan’s. After ordering three Monte Cristo sandwiches, the conversation went something like this:
(Read the rest of this near true (but not true) dialogue here.)
Tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, D.A. Caron, John Piper, Roger Olson
Truly T.U.L.I.P.
The acronym T.U.L.I.P was invented by the followers of John Calvin as a convenient way to sum up the Philosophy and Creeds of their theology, in response to the five points of the Remonstrants. “Remonstrant” means, “one who protests”, and these protesters were the followers of Jacob Arminius who were protesting the Magisterium of Calvinism, in favor of having the liberty to disagree with Calvin’s idea of Particular Election.
The reason for this post is because traditionally followers of Arminius have readily rejected all (but one or two) of the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. But recently I read a post in which one Arminian writer utilizes the T.U.L.I.P. acronym in favor of the Biblical teaching on these matters:
Total Depravity
Mankind is totally depraved, but God has extended His common grace to all so that every man or woman can search and find God [through the prompting and calling of the Holy Spirit].
Unconditional Election
[God has unconditionally Elected Christ before the foundation of the world to die for all men, and in this way] God elected all men to salvation but most refuse His offer.
Limited Atonement
The atonement of Christ is open to all men everywhere and is limited only by our refusal to be saved [our rejection of God's saving grace].
Irresistible Grace
The “common grace” [prevenient grace] of God is given to all men everywhere and it is irresistible, but saving grace can be refused by a stubborn heart.
Perseverance of the Saints
Once saved, a person will always be saved unless by defiant, continual, purposeful, rebellion he or she refuses God’s grace and chooses apostasy – from which there is no return.
Source:
The framework for this Arminian reinterpretation of T.U.L.I.P. was taken from the article The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers) by Keith Drury. I slightly modified each point.
