Recently in Post-Calvinism Category

Two years ago I posted this letter about some pesky Calvinists but for some reason it has drawn a new series of responses on the blog so I'm reposting it. The question this letter raises is pastoral: How are pastors dealing with pesky Calvinists?

Dear Scot, We met a few years ago when I was youth pastor. Now I am at a church plant in Minnesota. I know that you are up to speed with the post modern church. That's really good. The main reason I am writing is to see if you know anything a person can do in response to hyper-calvinism.

Around these parts, we are getting killed by very vocal, self-righteous hyper-calvinists, especially those who are connected with Piper's church. He has a very strong following around here. They always use the same language and have the same condescending attitude toward everyone else. This stripe also seems to revere Bob Dewaay, Kirk Cameron, and Lighthouse trails research. They turn up their nose at Rick Warren and Bill Hybels.

The problem is that they just are relentless. Absolutely no discussion or compromise. I have had the life kicked out of me at my church this past year by some of these people. For them, it just isn't good enough to be a solid evangelical who really loves Jesus and wants to serve him. It has to be all about reformed theology.

With regards to these dear folks at my church -- the proud Calvinists -- my approach has always been exactly what you were suggesting. I went out of my way time and again to be friends with them -- the number of hours spent over coffee and lunch (funny thing, it was always on my dime!) was incalculable. The tool that I had leaned on for so many years in youth ministry, namely loving relationships, failed me. They were just too stuck in their theology to see anything else. We couldn't ever just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Which is why it is such a stretch for these people to find a home in our church. We deliberately say that we will not divide over theological issues like this. We are centered on the cross, on walking with Jesus. They just seemed like they were always picking a fight.

So, any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions?

In Christ,

The response yesterday surprised me. I thought all I was asking for was some pastoral advice for a pastor struggling with what he perceived to be overly aggressive Calvinists. What we got was some serious expressions of differences. Here's the letter I drafted prior to yesterday's responses and now with just a little bit of touch up late last night when I got home from class.

Dear Friend,

You are not alone as most of us have encountered such folks. Here are my suggestions:

First, love them as Eikons of God regardless of what they believe or don't believe. Love them by believing they are doing what they think is right; love them by knowing that we are not all likely to agree. Love them enough to learn from them. Love them enough to do a missional project with them.

Second, if they are in your local church, and you have said to me privately that they are, then I would urge you to urge them to realize that the theological unity of your church is rooted in its doctrinal statement or affirmations and that division outside of that is unnecessary. This may seem harsh, but if your community of faith has a statement of faith and they'd like it to be redefined, then they are being divisive.

Third, you will need to listen to them if you are expecting them to listen to you. And this goes with the level of the conversation. If, for instance, you want to offer to them some considerations of the warning passages in Hebrews and you think a person can abandon their redemption, then you will have to engage their own defenses of the Calvinist views of those passages. You know as well as I do that such debates are endless and not often productive. I think they are worth it under some conditions, but I'd be wise with time spent.

Fourth, the prospects of changing their minds is not good; and it is probably the case that you are not going to change your mind. Most of us don't enter these conversations green -- we have considered such issues and come to conclusions.

Fifth, if this is in your church, it might be wise for you to have some serious meetings with your leaders to see if a Sunday School class mapping the options would be a good thing to do. Know that doing such a thing might raise the stakes for many, but at least it would bring it into the open. I would urge each session begin with some serious words about disagreements, about how to converse, and about the rules for Christian civility.

Sixth, church plants like this can get off to some bad starts if one doesn't proceed wisely yet firmly. I know you are in contact with your mentors and leaders and it is very important, so I think, to keep that contact close for wisdom.

When this is all over, you will have learned deeply from what has happened. It might not be of much use to you right now to know this, but brother I cannot tell you how many tough experiences have proven to be instructors in wisdom for me.

Blessings and the prayers from the whole Jesus Creed community,

Scot

A letter to which I'd like to hear your reasonable answer and I ask for your pastoral sensitivity.

Dear Scot,

We met a few years ago when I was youth pastor. Now I am at a church plant in Minnesota. I know that you are up to speed with the post modern church. That’s really good.

The main reason I am writing is to see if you know anything a person can do in response to hyper-calvinism. Around these parts, we are getting killed by very vocal, self-righteous hyper-calvinists, especially those who are connected with Piper’s church. He has a very strong following around here. They always use the same language and have the same condescending attitude toward everyone else. This stripe also seems to revere Bob Dewaay, Kirk Cameron, and Lighthouse trails research. They turn up their nose at Rick Warren and Bill Hybels.

The problem is that they just are relentless. Absolutely no discussion or compromise. I have had the life kicked out of me at my church this past year by some of these people. For them, it just isn’t good enough to be a solid evangelical who really loves Jesus and wants to serve him. It has to be all about reformed theology.

With regards to these dear folks at my church – the proud Calvinists – my approach has always been exactly what you were suggesting. I went out of my way time and again to be friends with them – the number of hours spent over coffee and lunch (funny thing, it was always on my dime!) was incalculable. The tool that I had leaned on for so many years in youth ministry, namely loving relationships, failed me. They were just too stuck in their theology to see anything else. We couldn’t ever just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Which is why it is such a stretch for these people to find a home in our church. We deliberately say that we will not divide over theological issues like this. We are centered on the cross, on walking with Jesus. They just seemed like they were always picking a fight.

So, any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions?

In Christ,

Myth #9 from Roger Olson's Arminian Theology is appropriate for me today: I'm at Westminster Theological Seminary, one of America's foremost bastions of reformed theology. The myth is this: that Arminians deny justification by faith alone through faith alone. At issue: Is Arminianism genuinely reformational or is it a retreat toward the Catholicism out of which the reformers broke?

Olson's response is a robust denial: Arminians don't deny justification by grace alone and through faith alone. And a robust affirmation: Arminianism is a Reformation movement.

Olson quotes some who contend that Arminians teach that what is imputed for righteousness is not Christ's righteousness but the merit of faith. Imputation, rather than being solely a forensic declaration, it is argued by some Calvinists, is understood by Arminians to involve a moral change.

Olson argues that Arminians have always been uncomfortable with a declaration-only righteousness; Luther, Olson, argues sees two kinds of righteousness: alien and transforming. Arminians stand with Luther.

It is true that Arminians -- I add along with Genesis 15:6 -- have spoken of a faith imputed for righteousness, but they have also always taught that grace can't be merited or earned and that it is received solely by faith. Olson suggests that what is at stake is a monergistic theory of justification.

Arminius himself: several have concluded that Arminius was thoroughly Reformation on justification (APF Sell, A Skevington Wood, H Slaatte, C Bangs). Arminius said he could sign off on what Calvin says in Book 3 of Institutes on justification. And faith, Arminius stated, is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the effort of a human being. It is instrumental, not material/efficient cause. Arminius distinguished justification from sanctification.

Oden says that Wesley was Calvinistic in his understanding of justification.

The secret is that consistent Arminians have always believed in justificaiton as imputed righteousness (not imparted).

Myth #8: Arminians do not believe in predestination. Not so, says Roger Olson in Arminian Theology. Predestination, because it is in the Bible, is believed by Arminians. Here's his point: predestination is God's sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ, and it includes God's foreknowledge of those believers' faith.

The basic Bible verse for Arminians is Romans 8:29 (with 8:28):

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Now, what this text says is that God predestines according to foreknowledge; and 1 Peter 1:1-2 says the same. Most Calvinists know that Arminians do believe in predestination, but it hasn't stopped the general popular comment that Calvinists do and Arminians don't when it comes to predestination.

Essentially, Arminians believe God knows what humans will do and predestination is rooted in, or related to, that foreknowledge. Election, for the Arminian, is corporate: God chooses Christ; all in Christ are chosen. There is an individual meaning (foreknowledge of individual choices) and collective meaning (election of a people). The individual then is conditional; the collective is unconditional.

Arminians have remonstrated with Calvinists for centuries on this singular point: if God chooses some to be reprobate (double predestination/elective sense), then God's gracious love and justice are threatened. Olson again goes through the same list to show the [in]consistency of Arminian thinking in a similar way] -- while both think they are consistent.] {bracketed material added later due to the mistake of saying "consistency"; thanks Kipp]
Two issues arise: middle knowledge and open theism.

Middle knowledge asks this: If God knows all, how can individuals be free (liberatarian free will)? If they are, then God knows all possibilities resulting from all permutations of decisions throughout all of history! Molinism resolves, according to some (e.g, Wm Lane Craig), the problem. Olson relies on Witt here and contends with him that Molinism is ultimately another form of determinism. (Terry Tiessen: Do you agree?) That is, counterfactuals of freedom are illogical.

Open theism:God does not, according to open theism, know the future exhaustively or infallibly. God's knowledge is limited because God has chosen it to be so. Not all Arminians believe this; in fact, most don't.
Thus, Olson concludes, Arminians are in a paradox: God's exhaustive foreknowledge and belief in libertarian free will. As Calvinists believe in unconditional foreordination of sin and human responsibility for sin, so Arminians have the paradox of libertarian free will and God's foreknowledge.

Myth #6 in Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology, is another oft-repeated accusation against Arminians: that Arminian theology is a human-centered theology with an optimistic anthropology. In fact, Olson argues, Arminian theology is every bit as God-intoxicated as Calvinist theology when...

Myth #4: the heart of Arminianism is belief in free will. Nonsense, Olson argues in his must-read Arminian Theology. The heart of Arminian theology is the character of God, God's goodness, and its system yearns to glorify God by exalting...

In Roger Olson's Arminian Theology, chp. 3, a 3d Myth is addressed: that Arminianism is neither orthodox nor evangelical. I cannot say that I have ever heard anyone say Arminians are not orthodox, but I have heard more than I...

Myth #2: a hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible. Instead, Olson argues, the two systems are incommensurable systems of theology. Many think they are "Calminians" but there is no such possibility -- according to Olson. Now the truth of...

Myth #1: Arminian theology is the opposite of Calvinist/Reformed theology. This is not true: Arminius and most of his followers are part of the broad Reformation movement and there is common ground. So, Roger Olson, Arminian Theology, chp. 1. Do...

The answer, in general, is no. (I need to say that gently as I am in Grand Rapids today to give some lectures.) So argues Roger Olson is his brand-new must-read Arminian Theology. I'll do a series on this book....

I've been asked by a handful of people to comment about the most recent article in Christianity Today called "Young, Restless, Reformed," the cover story for September's edition. Calvinism, the article records, is making a comeback among young evangelical (especially...

What difference does it make, really, to be either Calvinist or Arminian in one's interpretation of the Warning Passages of Hebrews? There are lots of ways to talk about "difference," but at the level of concrete Christian living does it...

Everything about the Warning Passages in Hebrews hinges upon the audience: Who are they? Are they believers or not?I begin with this observation: in the history of the Church many have made a distinction between a genuine believer and a...

The issues in the Warning Passages in Hebrews eventually come down to (1) what the sin is that the author is so concerned about and (2) who the audience is. In this post, I'll look at the sin that concerns...

The Warning Passages of Hebrews, which have vexed both ordinary Christians and professional scholars for centuries, have four elements: the audience, the sin, the exhortation, and the consequences. Our blog today will look at the exhortation. In my own journey,...

I am reflecting here in a series of posts on how "I changed my mind" about Calvinism and adopted a more Ariminian view of whether or not the Christian can throw away redemption.This journey took through the book of Hebrews,...

One of the courses I taught at Trinity, NT 612, included a survey of the book of Hebrews. And, once or twice I taught Advanced Exegesis and we marched through the entirety of the Greek text of Hebrews. The courses...

When I got to Trinity in the Fall of 1976, the first thing I noticed was how tightly the theological discussion was ratcheted. These folks knew what they were talking about, and they knew biblical texts and theological discussions, and...

Tomorrow I will begin a series of posts I will call Post-Calvinism, and I will begin with my journey into and out of Calvinistic theology. I know weekends are harder to stay up with reading blogs, but I'm hoping by...