Attacking What is Perhaps the Most Sacred CGGC Cow: We Are NOT Arminian!
Let me say this right up front:
Dan M started this. It's Dan's fault. To mix metaphors with the Sacred Cow thing, Dan's the one who pointed out that the Emperor ain't wearing a stitch of clothing!
I'm only pointing out what Dan said in referencing Olsen's book, Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities. Dan, I'm sorry. But, if we're both burned at the stake and they give us a choice, I'll let you choose the one or the right or the one of the left. ;-)
Here's what Dan started. He pointed out:
Arminians and Calvinists affirm total depravity because of the fall of humanity in Adam and its inherited consequence of a corrupted nature in bondage to sin.
And,
A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an optimistic anthropology.
And, most powerfully and significantly,
Arminians do not believe in absolute free will:
“At the point of God’s call, sinners under the influence of Prevenient grace have genuine free will as a gift of God; for the first time they can freely say yes or no to God. Nothing outside the self determines how they will respond.”
And that is the absolute truth. Arminians absolutely do not, nor have they ever believed that humanity possess a free will. Check out the Third Article of the original FIVE ARTICLES OF REMONSTRANCE:
Article III — 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 anything that is truly good (such as having 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 effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
Now, let's be honest about this just for a moment: That's not what we believe.
Since we are in the process of developing a revision to WE BELIEVE, I'll use the words of the Revision to make this indisputable point.
Page 21 of the revision says:
We believe Humanity has free will.
(See “free moral agency.”)
OUCH!
Page 22 says:
We believe by God’s grace that people are free to make the decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord and that same choice remains throughout their lifetime.
Double OUCH! (Did you ever hit the thumb with the hammer the second time?!)
Now, the statement on page 22 might be compatible with Dan's quote about sinners under the influence of prevenient grace. It might be. The reference to God's grace is there in the statement on page 22. But, it is most certainly not in agreement with the Articles presented by the Remonstants.
On this blog I have repeatedly expressed my admiration for John Winebrenner. I do admire his body of thought for its core convictions regarding the expansion of the Kingdom of God and the establishment of a body on what he called the New Testamant plan.
But, let's be clear in our understanding. Winebrenner was not an Arminian. What he was goes far beyond the theology of Arminius and the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort.
This is something we need to be honest about and carefully examine.
posted by bill Sloat at 5:14 AM
28 Comments:
I'd love for you to sketch out Winebrenner on this in more detail for us.
For the record, none of those statements are mine, they are all book quotes with page numbers.
So there is a third way? The way of the Winebrennarians? Sketch it out more for us. I am sincerely eager.
Oh, you are saying that we're basically semi-pelagian!?!
Dan:
I'd love for you to sketch out Winebrenner on this in more detail for us.
Maybe someday.
For me to do so would require more research than I normally do to blog.
You've taken the Policy course, ain't? Didn't this topic come up there?
Dan:
Oh, you are saying that we're basically semi-pelagian!?!
We?
Years ago I toyed around with the similarities between Winebrenner's and Charles G. Finney's views of the Doctrine of Anthropology. There's similarity but since neither were theologians as much as they were revivalists, I wasn't confident enough to reach a conclusion.
Finney believed in 'total moral depravity. Winebrenner believed in "man's depraved moral nature." He defined regeneration as "a radical change of the moral nature or disposition of the mind."
In his famous 27 points, Winebrenner affirms that the Church of God believes in human depravity:
"3. She believes in the fall and depravity of man; that is to say, that man by nature is destitute of the favour and image of God. (Ro 5:10 8:7 3:10-13 1Co 15:49 Col 1:21.)"
Yet, WE BELIEVE is being true to Winebrenner, if not Arminian, by affirming belief in free moral agency or, as he states it free, (note the comma) moral agency.
6. She believes in the free, moral agency of man; that he has ability, because commanded, to repent and believe, in order to be saved; and that the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, has no foundation in the oracles of God. (Mt 23:27 25:30 Joh 5:40 Mr 1:15 Ac 10:43 13:38,39 17:30 Joh 3:23.)
You tell me if that is Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. I'm not equipped to go there or even to say that it is heterodox, which a judgment of Semi-Pelagianism would suggest.
It's not Arminian. That much is my story. And, I'm sticking to it.
It's not Arminian.
i believe by "we", dan means the cggc in its official stance.
having just re-read the articles on "free moral agency" and "regeneration" in we believe 2 (pp. 22-23), it seems to me that the cggc, according to wb2, believes in proof-texting and does not value logically consistency in its thinking. i don't see how one can hold to the autonomous free-will described in lines 833-865 (the Scriptures used therein seem to be manipulated outside of their context), and the 'sense of victory' and confidence described in lines 866-878. the premises and conclusions of these two sections seem to be directly opposed to each other, completely incompatible.
how can one not be in fear of being lost if one can indeed lose their salvation? how one have a sense of victory if there is a real possibility that they will "not abide in [Christ]" and therefore "thrown into the fire, and burned" (from John 15:6, reference in line 861 of wb2)?
i don't know if that's arminian, semi-pelagian, or whatever other label you want to stick on it. i do think it's not bearing faithful witness to Scripture, but is problematic eisegesis issuing from an autonomous-free-will set of presumptions not found in the text.
yes, I meant our official stance by 'we' not you and I personally.
Prooftexting is something that we all need to continue to repent of. :-)
I am most concerned with what the statements don't say. Having recently gone through our polity class, I beleive that we are Arminian (even if 'we believe' is not adequately representative of that) Either way, I am Arminian and I believe many of our key leaders are as well.
Also, I believe that the Arminian position is logically consistent. If you want to argue that Walt, I am game :-)
I fully agree that autonomous free-will is extrabiblical. If we have free will, it is because God has chosen to give it to us. If we are able to believe, it is because God has granted us such ability. We do possess the ablity to save ourselves. That is Pelagianism and it is heresy.
Also, when we talk about 'being lost' we are talking about apostasy (outright denial of Christ, not sin, not struggling with some doubts etc. Legitimate discussion can be had over the realistic possibility of this, persons not having been actually saved before etc, but I would hold (and argue) that Hebrews makes it clear that apostasy is an option (even if it is only hypothetical).
To wrap up, I think the items ought be be revisited in the 'We Believe'
Bill, short of the total redo you think necessary, do you know if suggestions have been made for revising these statements and/or are their things we could suggest that might have a reasonable chance of acceptance?
Dan-
There are still We Believe convocations on the CGGC calander. I bet you could get into one or the rest of them. If you want me to ask instead I will. I bet we can get you in.
I can't affford to get you to all of them, but I will find a way to get you to one or two of them if finances are a hinderance.
Let me know, and I will see what I can do.
dan,
while i disagree with the arminian position, i'm not arguing against it here, or at least not what i understand it to be. it seems that some things in wb2 don't work together.
it seems to me that, if there is the possibility of truly being Christian (i.e. being regenerated, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and so on), and then becoming apostate and damned, then one must be ever vigilant against such an occurrence. i don't understand how wb2 can state that "God's people can approach life with a sense of victory" while at the same time it holds that they can be ultimately defeated. that is, unless one distinguishes those ex-Christians who become apostate from "God's people", but i've never heard an arminian consent to such a distinction.
i'm not trying to argue for "the perseverance of the saints" in calvinist terms (though i'd be happy to). what i'm saying is that the language wb2 uses seems to fit only in a system where perseverance or eternal security is accepted. if you can, please show me how these are consistent, and i'll drop my accusation.
also, i have no idea what wb2 means by regeneration. it seems to hop around a bunch in the revision without ever clearly stating what it means that we're "born again" or "made new". i'd be grateful for a little insight here.
bill,
i'm a little confused, and if you wouldn't mind, i'd like your help in clearing my head. you said in the last post that "to care passionately about the issue [is] wrong." yet you seem to care a great deal in this post. it's more than likely that i'm misreading you, but i can't find out where. could you clear up this apparent inconsistency for me?
thank you both for bearing with me in these things.
Justin - thanks for that offer. You are the man. I'm wondering if there is a person or place that one could submit a letter / essay.
Walt - I have not studied the wb2. Nor am I necessarily defending it.
I will admit that personally I see much more ground for eternal security then irresistible grace for example (I appreciate you stating that we are not arguing the truth of each here). Actually I personally don't have much problem with the idea of it. Probably most days I believe it eternal security. The Arminian baptists all do. Anyway, that is not our objective...
I have to wonder if your concern over victory is more of a personal beef then necessarily a problem.
Christ has won the victory over sin and death. Only through him do we have victory. As long as we have Christ, we have that victory.
Because we don't believe it irresistable grace (CGGC that is), we believe that God has enabled us to respond to his offer of saving grace (not of our own ability). If the choice empowered but still genuinely ours to make, we can later reverse that decision.
That seems to make logical sense to me. Given my personal experience, I can't see how anyone truly saved and empowered by the Holy Spirit could deny Him. Hence why I am temped to say that most people who deny Christ never really had a saving faith to begin with.
dan,
you're probably right in that, despite my attempts to the contrary, some of my disagreement with arminianism is coming out.
however, if i get you right, then i have been working under a different meaning of "sense of victory" than i originally thought.
when i first read it, i thought, "how can you have a sense of victory when that victory is unsure for you, since you can still lose by turning away?"
from what i'm hearing you say, i think you're saying that the sense of victory is conditional; that is, "i can be confident that Christ is victorious over the grave, and assuming that i remain in Him, i am assured that victory, too."
if that's what that means, then i agree, as long as that assumption holds, it isn't not inconsistent, and i thank you for helping me understand what it meant. i appreciate the patience God has given you all in bearing with me over things like this.
Again, I'm not necessarily sharing the official positions (as if I even needed to say that) but rather some of my thoughts on the matter.
I am thankful that we can all continue to stimulate one another toward deeper thinking.
I also believe that there is great value in being able to state others positions in a way they would affirm.
Dan & walt,
I'm just at the beginning of reading the large number of posts that came in last night.
Good stuff.
Dan:
To wrap up, I think the items ought be be revisited in the 'We Believe'
As far as I know, the only WE BELIEVE meeting in which there was serious suggestion that more careful work needs to be done is the one that I attended. (Based on what I've heard, that seems to be true in the East.)
And, I sensed quite of bit of resistance from the people from the GC and the Regional who presented the draft. I even heard a--probably unconscious--sneer emitted through the nose from an extremely highly placed staff member of our Region.
Bill, short of the total redo you think necessary, do you know if suggestions have been made for revising these statements and/or are their things we could suggest that might have a reasonable chance of acceptance?
I believe in APEST.
I believe that a task such as this should be given over to a body that is formed with intentionality to include each of the five leadership giftings but that, because the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, such a group should be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
I believe the whole document fails because it doesn't affirm the leadership Christ has given the church. It is unbalanced by the cultural values of shepherds.
In my opinion, tweaking would be a waste of time.
I think the entire process should be restarted and that men and women gifted by the Holy Spirit to attend to this task should be called by the Body to do after about 10 tons of prayer.
walt,
bill,
i'm a little confused, and if you wouldn't mind, i'd like your help in clearing my head. you said in the last post that "to care passionately about the issue [is] wrong." yet you seem to care a great deal in this post. it's more than likely that i'm misreading you, but i can't find out where. could you clear up this apparent inconsistency for me?
I owe you a response to the baptism thing and I promise to get to that.
I was chatting with a friend yesterday who took me to task over that statement.
What I realized at that time was that the I cared about it is wrong.
I had come to care about it so much that I was consumed by it and I lost all focus on Kingdom building.
And, honestly, as I read WB the Second, I see something in it that I saw in my old self. Truth is important, as I told anonymous yesterday. But, defending truth with passion when the issue in not crucial to one's inclusion in the Kingdom, I believe, is wrong.
I abhor terms like Arminian and Calvinist, and though I use it sometimes, Missional. Using them is practicing the Corinthian error, "I am of Paul..."
To make of my views about a itsy bitsy part of just the Doctrine of Soteriology as much as I made of it, is wrong.
That's what I meant.
What this whole thread suggests that I care about is how the CGGC finds so many ways to care about things that, from a Great Commission perspective, matter so little. And, even then, to get it wrong?
Yikes.
We are not Arminians. Arminians don't believe in Free Moral Agency!
If we're going to major in the minors of itsy bitsy miro-doctrines, at the very least, we could get it right.
bill,
i appreciate the clarification. what you're saying is understandable, i think. you believe that this is a small issue of relatively little importance, perhaps as some would view some issues in eschatology (the timing of the rapture) or the frequency of communion, and so you see the time that is spent on it as wasteful. is that about right?
i can appreciate your point of view, and i appreciate that you care enough to want the cggc not to be contradictory in its own "doctrinal statement" (i.e. acting like it's arminian when it's not).
the reason that i feel so passionately about the issue is that i don't see the c/a debate as just about a few parts of soteriology. if it were just about the "uli", so to speak, i think it's still important, but i would not argue nearly as passionately about it.
to me, the issue is really God's sovereignty over all things. on the one hand, i think God gets more glory from a predestinarian understanding of salvation. but even more than that, the question is does God really run the universe, or do we? i suppose an arminian or someone who believes in free-will would say it's some mix.
the answer to that question changes how i talk to people, how i pray, how i think; if God is not only in charge of His own, unilateral, supernatural actions in history, but of everything that's ever happened, it matters.
a friend of mine was raped last fall. she's a believer, and a calvinist. in walking her through that...mess, to use a polite word...we took great comfort knowing that though this man committed great evil against her, yet God ordained it for a purpose and will yet bring good from it.
or take the earthquake in haiti. or the wars that rage across africa, where thousands of children are abducted and forced to be soldiers. what of the atrocities of thousands of years, genocides, slavery, abortion? i think we stand together in that we know God hates these things per se.
but i don't see, from what i understand of the arminian perspective, how you speak about those things. from a reformed perspective, God has foreordained all those things to take place, for His own glory and the good of those whom He has chosen and called to be His.
i'm sorry that my bias is probably on display here, but my point is not to argue for the reformed understanding. my point is to say, i see this as hugely impactful, in terms of worship, of mission, of our view of God, and of history and current events, of our confidence in His power to keep us, to work all things for His glory and our good...the list could go on.
so, bill, if you see this as unimportant, than let me empower you to not waste your time in arguing micro-doctrine. i must respectfully disagree and continue to passionate proclaim the sovereignty of God over all things, because as far as i can tell, it matters.
since we are coming out with it, let me share a couple of things.
1. God gets the most glory when we think about Him rightly. We are not necessarily making God more mighty by saying he ordains everything that happens if it is not true.
2. I find your theology DEEPLY troubling. I disagree with all my heart. That God in any way ordained the rape of your friend is repugnant to me.
3. God has absolute soverignty, but it is evident that God does not utilize that soverignty over us in a meticulous way.
4. What would even posess one to think that everything that happens is God's will? We are waiting for God's kingdom to come - on earth as it is in heaven. It is not here. Rape, murder, any sin at all is not God's will. It is the exact opposite of God's will.
5. We have freedom, not because God is small, but because he has given it to us. It is troubling that God does not actively stop such sin, but to claim that he ordains it.
That God might be soverign, but how could He possibly be good?
dan,
i appreciate your concern. i feel i can give answers to your troubles, as i have had to wrestle through them. i do believe there are intelligent Christians trying to be faithful to the Scriptures who fall on both sides of this issue.
however, i don't think this is really the place to debate it, since i'm probably the only one (with the possible exception of justin) who believes as i do, and the cggc certainly doesn't believe what i do.
so, unless most of you want to discuss the reformed understanding of God's sovereignty here, may i suggest that anyone who would like to is free to email me (cvtheoman@gmail.com) and we can talk more. that way, the rest of the bloggers here can stay more on task with cggc issues. sound good?
walt,
to me, the issue is really God's sovereignty over all things. on the one hand, i think God gets more glory from a predestinarian understanding of salvation. but even more than that, the question is does God really run the universe, or do we? i suppose an arminian or someone who believes in free-will would say it's some mix.
the answer to that question changes how i talk to people, how i pray, how i think; if God is not only in charge of His own, unilateral, supernatural actions in history, but of everything that's ever happened, it matters...
so, bill, if you see this as unimportant, than let me empower you to not waste your time in arguing micro-doctrine. i must respectfully disagree and continue to passionate proclaim the sovereignty of God over all things, because as far as i can tell, it matters.
Wow, walt! I love your passion.
I don't mean to suggest that it is not important to understand God.
What I believe is that we can spend all of our energy fighting over the issue of Reformed soteriology or Arminianism or whatever term it is that describes John Winebrenner's view. We may even come to a consensus but that's not what Jesus sent us out to do.
It's possible to spend so much time and energy and passion resolving this issue of truth that we might fail to be obedient to out Lord's command, which is the ultimate truth.
There was a time in my life that I did just that.
And, doing that, it seems to me, is a part of the CGGC culture and it has been during all of the years that I have been active.
We're declining.
Could it be that one reason is that we care more about this issue and why we should be practicing Feet Washing and other issues that do not make us more profitable in our service to our Lord?
Good ideas walt. I appreciate your consistant personal humility (despite your claims otherwise) ;-)
perhaps I have not been around long enough. I don't see a lot of fights about doctrine going on.
There are probably a lot of reason we are not on mission as we ought be be, but I don't think wasting time on doctrine is it.
Actually, it seems to me that the churches/networks/denominations who are taking doctrine the most seriously are the ones who are not in decline.
I would suggest that we don't talk about theology enough. Not this issue so much, but ecclesiology, missiology...
I think we don't reflect on what difference our theology makes enough. I think walt is trying to point that out perhaps.
walt has thought through his theology pretty well in my opinion, and understands most of the ramifications of it.
by the way walt, I forgot to mention earlier - there is no rapture. :-) sorry.
Dan,
There are probably a lot of reason we are not on mission as we ought be be, but I don't think wasting time on doctrine is it.
I'd love it if, on the day after you are ordained, that you recount for us how much time the Conference quizzes you on issues of Denominational Orthodoxy compared to Great Commission issues.
I would suggest that we don't talk about theology enough. Not this issue so much, but ecclesiology, missiology...
I would suggest that the reason for that is that we care too much about Denominational Orthdoxy and far too little about mission.
at least for those of us "young, restless, reformed" types, we've grown up in churches that didn't teach much doctrine, that had a very watered-down lowest-common-denominator view of theology and the gospel, and most of the young guys i know are fed up with that. we're hungering for something more.
and it's the guys who are talking about a big God, one worth worshiping, that we tend to follow, because they're getting at something we as humans long for. we want a great cause, something to give our lives to, and the view of God that most churches are selling is barely big enough to give a couple hours a week to.
that's what i was trying to get at in my "other end of the spectrum" post. if we're talking about God, we're talking about theology, plain and simple. the only question is whether we have good, Biblically-grounded, logically-consistent, God-centered theology, or whether we have "plain, practical religion".
i'm reading tozer's book "the knowledge of the holy" right now, and it's resonating so much with what i hear from my generation. he says, "what a person thinks of when he thinks about God is the most important thing about him." what we think about God, about people, about the world, affects greatly how we act, how we think, how we talk, etc.
someone a little while ago on this blog said that orthodoxy doesn't necessarily lead to orthopraxy, that we can get so caught up in making our creeds and such that we lose sight of the mission. i agree we can be so concerned with ideas that we forget to act on them, but i think that only happens when it's just an idea to you, and you don't really believe it.
if we at our core believed rightly, our actions would necessarily follow. as Christ puts it, "from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." or from Proverbs, "guard your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the wellsprings of life". (btw, heart was not just about emotions back then, it was the core of the being, the seat of the will, etc.)
my biggest sin is unbelief. so is yours. let's fight it.
bill,
you might be surprised (positively) we shall see.
surely our renewed focus on church planting is hopeful.
I think we are (becoming) more kingdom minded than you give us credit for. Because of your calling/gifting, you naturally see what is wrong/shortcomings.
I am hopeful. I think the tide is turning - and the next generation will look different.
I read Tozer's persuit of God last year. ate it up.
I'm not sure if the Bible knows a theology divorced from practice. Maybe we made that up.
Dan,
you might be surprised (positively) we shall see.
I hope you are right. I've made the point that WB, II is fruit of sectarian, internally focused thinking.
All I want is to be wrong.
that may well be, but I think it is a result of 2 generations ago thinking.
Also, we need a narrative statement, not a list of points.
Wow, I've been away from the blog to attend to Haiti matters, and you guys have been busy:-)
I'd like to share where I have come to over many years on this question, for what it's worth. First of all, there are questions connected to this that matter greatly, and which it seems none of us can escape. Is God behind evil acts? (a question that arose in the comments on this post); Does God preordain some to be saved and some to be lost apart from any volition on their own part? I have conclusions on some of these questions (which would be a distraction from what I want to say right here).
Has it occurred to us that part of the reason debates on topics like this one are so difficult is because we have not been given absolutely clear answers in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus? I would never suggest that the question of Calvinism/Arminianism does not matter, but I would suggest with the lack of concise answers in Scripture, we need to be prepared to accept a certain amount of mystery on the subject. In my early days as an evangelical I abhorred mystery as a weakness of my Catholic heritage, but now perceive the acceptance of some mystery as a humble acknowledgment of my creatureliness ("now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror").
Please don't misunderstand me: I have strong opinions on this issue, but I hold them loosely because "we know in part and prophesy in part."
Agree again. Often any fully developed theological system says more than Scripture says. Drawing our implications is important, but yes, we should not be firmer on a point than the Bible is.
That is one of the reasons why I believe the issue should not divide us sharply.
I have been wondering what Christians called themselves before 1500. (I have read what they called each other and it ain't pretty.)
There were no Calvinists or Arminians.
C.S. Lewis was on to something when he came up with "mere Christianity". When I say that people think I am saying "mirror" Christianity. Maybe that is not a bad idea. Let's all be mirrors of Christ.
I have called myself a Calminian but that doesn't work either.
Post a Comment
<< Home