tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116287691219636840..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Arminianism: Semi-Pelagianism?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163181414411665032006-11-10T09:56:00.000-08:002006-11-10T09:56:00.000-08:00Ron B,The TeamPyro guys are usually right-on-the-m...Ron B,<BR/><BR/>The TeamPyro guys are usually right-on-the-money. I too am disappointed w/ a few of the responses from DJP here.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,<BR/>ALANRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163178200976389262006-11-10T09:03:00.000-08:002006-11-10T09:03:00.000-08:00jsb,Indeed, Arminius is clearer than even that. Th...jsb,<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Arminius is clearer than even that. <A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1.v.xii.html" REL="nofollow">This </A> is from Disputation 11 in volume 1, "On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers":<BR/><BR/>"In this state [i.e., "Under the Dominion of Sin"], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.<BR/><BR/>The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God..."<BR/><BR/>It almost sounds like he's a theologian in the Reformed tradition. Which, of course, he was. Notice that the above is light years from what is being proclaimed in allegedly "Arminian" pulpits today.Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163138175107667922006-11-09T21:56:00.000-08:002006-11-09T21:56:00.000-08:00"I have already most abundantly stated the great d..."I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, "Without me ye can do nothing:" (John 15:5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ." -- James Arminius, Vol. 1: The Works of Reverend James ArminiusJames Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163133105615029742006-11-09T20:31:00.000-08:002006-11-09T20:31:00.000-08:00Greg,Thank you for presenting argumentation for th...Greg,<BR/>Thank you for presenting argumentation for the historic and logical distinctions between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. I appreciate your cool headedness and gracious demeanor.Paul Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16680036111909848869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163132367597277592006-11-09T20:19:00.000-08:002006-11-09T20:19:00.000-08:00ron,"are calvinist always this obnoxious?"No more ...ron,<BR/><BR/>"are calvinist always this obnoxious?"<BR/><BR/>No more than arminians are.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163119644478377402006-11-09T16:47:00.000-08:002006-11-09T16:47:00.000-08:00greg,like your attitude.greg,<BR/><BR/>like your attitude.Ron Ballewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00120553992041150992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163119325966499422006-11-09T16:42:00.000-08:002006-11-09T16:42:00.000-08:00I am new to this site. Are calvinists always this ...I am new to this site. Are calvinists always this obnoxious? Or just fundamentalists? <BR/><BR/>I have shown some of my friends this thread and they were amazed.(not in a positive way) djp, are you always such a loving jolly guy?Ron Ballewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00120553992041150992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163118077562598032006-11-09T16:21:00.000-08:002006-11-09T16:21:00.000-08:00Hi djp,My point is fairly simple, really. You've e...Hi djp,<BR/><BR/>My point is fairly simple, really. You've endorsed a line of reasoning against the Arminian point of view which, if sound, would constitute a sound critique of Reformation doctrine. On your view, if the Arminian says that (a) all men are totally depraved by nature, but that (b) all men receive prevenient grace by the gracious gift of God through the cross, then the Arminian isn't "really" committed to (a). Their doctrine of total depravity is hypothetical, and doesn't "really" apply to anyone. As Johnson puts it, universal prevenient grace ensures that "total depravity is *not* a descriptive category that is true of anyone."<BR/><BR/>But this is just a bogus argument. The counterexamples from everyday life which Olson offers show that it's a bogus argument. And if that weren't enough, if the argument *were* sound, then it would prove too much. It would prove that if the Calvinist says that (a) all Christians are unrighteous because of their sins, but that (b) all Christians receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, then the Calvinist isn't "really" committed to (a). Their doctrine of our sins making us unrighteous is hypothetical, and doesn't "really" apply to any Christian in particular. In short, the line of reasoning you've endorsed would refute *simul justus et peccator*.<BR/><BR/>Surely this is a sign that something has gone wrong. And what's gone wrong, I submit, is that it's just a bad argument.<BR/><BR/>On the basis of this bad argument, Johnson concludes -- contra Olson -- that Arminianism just is semi-Pelagianism. They don't "really" have a doctrine of total depravity, in which the depravity is actual and not merely hypothetical.<BR/><BR/>Now, why is this all significant? Because, as a Calvinist, I'm sincerely interested in making the best possible case for Calvinism. And that case is significantly hindered if it proceeds according to obvious double standards. If the Arminian were to give a bogus argument to the effect that "Calvinism just is hyper-Calvinism. All you guys are the same. Just admit it. The fact that you don't agree here doesn't mean you haven't been refuted. You *say* you're different, but the 'differences' are hypothetical only. Here, let me give you an obviously bogus argument for this..." Calvinists would (rightly) howl in protest at this extraordinary sloppy treatment of theological terms, the reference of which is ascertained historically. It just isn't true that genuine Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>And yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, why is it that some Calvinists feel free to smash together distinct historical categories? "Arminians just are semi-Pelagians. Here, let me give you a bogus argument for this..."<BR/><BR/>That's why this matters. Arminians who actually know their doctrine will just shake their heads in dismay when we claim that they don't "really" believe in total depravity. They'll hardly have a reason to consider anything else we have to say, when we get it so wrong here. Just like it's hard for *us* to take anyone seriously when they equate genuine Calvinists with hyper-Calvinists.<BR/><BR/>Part of the issue here, in addition, is that I believe the *real* problem that faces the contemporary church isn't Arminianism but rank semi-Pelagianism. Most of the pulpits that are popularly called "Arminian" nowadays are actually much worse than this. They don't have a doctrine of total depravity or prevenient grace (much less converting grace) at all. It's just the naked will of man being confronted by the persuasive power of the preacher, and God is totally absent before and during conversion. That problem (pervasive in our day) gets obscured if we can't even talk about it accurately.Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163115531942011062006-11-09T15:38:00.000-08:002006-11-09T15:38:00.000-08:00Ack! I keep thinking about that song from Oklahoma...Ack! I keep thinking about that song from Oklahoma, the one about how the Arminians and the Calvinists should be friends. <BR/><BR/>Because territory folks should stick together.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163107452533428502006-11-09T13:24:00.000-08:002006-11-09T13:24:00.000-08:00Thought so.Thought so.Pastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163106845499513862006-11-09T13:14:00.000-08:002006-11-09T13:14:00.000-08:00PS to Greg: that's all and only my response to wha...PS to Greg: that's all and only my response to what you and Gary have put in evidence. If Gary himself wants to respond to you further, I think that'd be great -- whether directly or otherwise.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163106326200215902006-11-09T13:05:00.000-08:002006-11-09T13:05:00.000-08:00Rod, as usual, once I ignore the harumphing, brist...Rod, as usual, once I ignore the harumphing, bristling, chest-beating and posturing, there's nothing left to respond to.<BR/><BR/>Greg, this may be a big deal to you, but I just don't see it. Find a post about justification and debate that, if you like. Meanwhile, the Scriptures depict man as dead in trespasses and sins, until and unless God makes him alive (Ephesians 2:1f.). He's not both/and; he's either or. You don't get to be a little dead, until you decide how dead or alive you want to be.<BR/><BR/>This isn't breaking news.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163104809859790452006-11-09T12:40:00.000-08:002006-11-09T12:40:00.000-08:00Dan: The Arminian construct of a defeatable God an...<B>Dan:</B> <I>The Arminian construct of a defeatable God and autonomous man is its shattering point. You expect them to admit it, and still be Arminians?</I><BR/><BR/>Put the sword down and get ahold of yourself.<BR/><BR/>You should be smart enough to know that Arminians do not believe in a "defeatable God" or in "autonomous man." Just because you think that is the logical conclusion of their their theology does not mean that it is what they believe.<BR/><BR/><B>Nor does this mean that it is the truth.</B><BR/><BR/>THIS IS YOUR VIEW OF THE MATTER.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you can line up experts who take your view. But guess what? You can also line up godly people who do not take your view.<BR/><BR/>It is discourteous to keep insisting that other people don't believe what they say they believe.<BR/><BR/>It is also arrogant and not Christlike.<BR/><BR/>I think your theology has its own fatal flaws. But I don't keep calling you an idiot who doesn't know how to read the Bible or even understand what he thinks he believes.<BR/><BR/>There is a huge difference between the confidence that one's views are correct and the arrogance that one couldn't possibly be mistaken.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you'll think of some snappy, insulting reply that will allow you to completely ignore the substance of my comment.<BR/><BR/>But who knows? God is sovereign. Maybe he will change your will and make you want "to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163104364810359872006-11-09T12:32:00.000-08:002006-11-09T12:32:00.000-08:00djp,So, on your understanding, Christian believers...djp,<BR/><BR/>So, on your understanding, Christian believers are "Still sorta-righteous, sorta-unrighteous, with a lot of subject-changing." The great Reformation doctrine of *simul justus et peccator* should be ridiculed as a claim that we're all zombies.<BR/><BR/>Just trying to get some clarity here ;-)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps now you'll actually address the point? Are you really comfortable with the line of reasoning you're endorsing?Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163102734839154082006-11-09T12:05:00.000-08:002006-11-09T12:05:00.000-08:00For my part, I'm glad Gary didn't waste the space....For my part, I'm glad Gary didn't waste the space. That doesn't advance the discussion at all, or change one thing. Still sorta-dead, sorta-not, with a lot of subject-changing. Reminds one of the Monty Python sketch: "I'm getting beter!" It is a fatal flaw.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's worth pointing out <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-is-argument-over.html" REL="nofollow"> yet again</A>: the mere fact that someone talks again after he's been refuted, or denies that he's been refuted, doesn't mean he is "answering." He's just talking. If the refutation was fatal, it was fatal.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163101175708799922006-11-09T11:39:00.000-08:002006-11-09T11:39:00.000-08:00Hi djp,Yes, I was aware of those passages when I w...Hi djp,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I was aware of those passages when I wrote. However, at the time, the reference of "universal" in that particular Olsen snippet was unclear. Was it referring to all of humanity as individuals, or to all of an individual person? If the latter, then my point stands.<BR/><BR/>However, I've done some digging around in Olson's book, and it does indeed seem as if Olson endorses the universality of prevenient grace, where "universal" is speaking about all humans whatsoever, whether or not they have heard the gospel. So that clears up my initial question. I spoke too soon on that narrow point.<BR/><BR/>However, it definitely opens up a larger problem. Quite simply, I don't think Gary Johnson properly represents Olson's argument at this point. To be sure, Olson does endorse a doctrine of universal prevenient grace. Here's a quote from Olson that would make Johnson's point better than the quotes he actually gave in the review: <BR/><BR/>"This common (not universal) Arminian doctrine of universal prevenient grace means that because of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit no human being is actually in a state of absolute darkness and depravity. Because of original sin, helplessness to do good is the natural state of humanity, but because of the work of Christ and the operation of the Holy Spirit universally no human being actually exists in that natural state" (154).<BR/><BR/>OK, then, that's pretty clear. But Olson has an answer to Johnson's point as to whether this amounts to a denial of total depravity. In all fairness, Johnson should have least acknowledged that Olson had at hand a reply such as the following:<BR/><BR/>"In their book <I>Why I Am Not an Arminian</I> Robert Peterson and Michael Williams go after this Arminian doctrine and treat it as tantamount to a denial of original sin and total depravity. They charge that in spite of apparent agreement between Arminianism and Calvinism on the subject of original sin, the difference is still vast and great. That is because, so they argue (basing much of their argument on the words of one contemporary Wesleyan scholar), in Arminian theology nobody is actually depraved! Depravity and bondage of the will is only hypothetical and not actual [This is, of course, Gary Johnson's charge as well. --GW] This seems a bit disingenuous, however, because they know very well that Arminians do affirm total depravity as the natural state of human beings. What would they think of a person who said of a man who is legally blind but with special glasses can see a little bit that he is only "hypothetically blind"? Or what would they think of a person who said of a woman who is deaf but with special hearing aids can hear a little that she is only "hypothetically deaf"? What would they think of a Roman Catholic who accused all Protestants of believing in a mere hypothetical unrighteousness of regenerate and justified believers because of the Reformation doctrine of imputed righteousness? The doctrine of <I>simul justus et peccator</I> lies at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. It says that Christians are always at best simultaneously sinners and righteous because their righteousness is Christ's imputed to their account. To Catholic eyes this appears a subterfuge, but to Protestant eyes it is the very heart of the gospel! Surely these two Reformed authors would reject any claim that they believe in a purely hypothetical unrighteousness of believers. In classical Protestant theology neither sinfulness nor righteousness is a fiction.<BR/><BR/>So it is for Arminians. The moral ability to respond to the gospel freely -- by the graciously freed will -- is a free gift of God through Christ to all people in some measure. It does not mean that anyone can now seek and find God using natural ability alone! It is a supernatural endowment that can be and usually is rejected or neglected." (154-155).<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the above argument strikes at the heart of the main point of the third installment of the Johnson review of Olson. I'm not saying it's a knock-down argument. I'm saying that it's very plausible, and that a fair review would have at least acknowledged that it was there. How would you like it if someone reviewed a book you wrote, and somehow neglected to mention that contained in your book was a direct rebuttal to one of the main criticisms in the review?<BR/><BR/>In any event, the doctrine of universal prevenient grace certainly puts the Arminian in a different camp from the semi-Pelagian, who has no such doctrine, because he has no doctrine of total depravity to which the prevenient grace would be directed. Johnson claims that Olson has failed to defend Arminianism from the charge "that they are in fact semi-Pelagians." Well, maybe, but it would help if Olson's argument on this was engaged, not just hypothetically but actually ;-)Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163089822815116982006-11-09T08:30:00.000-08:002006-11-09T08:30:00.000-08:00Bill Clinton called tax hikes "contributions." Did...Bill Clinton called tax hikes "contributions." Did that make them not tax hikes?<BR/><BR/>The Arminian construct of a defeatable God and autonomous man is its shattering point. You expect them to admit it, and still be Arminians?<BR/><BR/>How many Charismatics bluntly say, "Yep, I have a leaky Canon, and deny the sufficiency of Scripture"? How many Open Theists say, "I'm really threatened by the Godhood of God, and think I've found a way around it"? How many egalitarians say "People won't like me if I affirm what Scripture says about women, and I can't stand that"?<BR/><BR/>That a group won't "cop to" a fatal criticism or characterization does not invalidate the criticism.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163088697680767672006-11-09T08:11:00.000-08:002006-11-09T08:11:00.000-08:00One other nit I have with Johnson's last post is t...One other nit I have with Johnson's last post is this: " In the Arminian scheme, grace is resistible and the human will completely autonomous."<BR/><BR/>If we are keen to allow our opponents (in this case, Arminians) to look over our shoulders at our critique and agree that our assessment is <I>not</I> a mischaracterization in any way, then we must be steadfast here: No classical Arminian would agree with the above quote.<BR/><BR/>First, it's not that saving grace is <I>resistible</I>, as if it's even being imposed from the outside; rather, it is "<I>rejectable</I>," because it is on offer, freely to all. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, in no way can the Arminian's conception of the will be categorized as "autonomous," for the simple fact that they belabor the point time and again that "salvation is all of grace" -- from prevenient grace (which we call "common," and which, we argue, does not effect the will in the manner Arminians argue) all the way through to persevering grace.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, there is a third option, and Calvin was it (contra Muller and in line with Kendall).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163087134626805592006-11-09T07:45:00.000-08:002006-11-09T07:45:00.000-08:00Gary doesn't have easy access to comments, but ask...Gary doesn't have easy access to comments, but asked me to point this out:<BR/><BR/>Prior to Johnson's remarks about total depravity not being a descriptive category of anyone in this Arminian scheme, he quoted from Olson who said that as a result of prevenient grace there is "a universal healing" (note this) of total depravity as well the effects of hereditary corruption being "mitigated" (note this as well). The remark of Olson that he later quoted (and that Greg cites) does not off-set this. So how, in light of Olson's words, is Johnson's point not valid?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163046539190581772006-11-08T20:28:00.000-08:002006-11-08T20:28:00.000-08:00Thank you, Greg.Thank you, Greg.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163043312014170372006-11-08T19:35:00.000-08:002006-11-08T19:35:00.000-08:00I have one small problem with this third portion o...I have one small problem with this third portion of the review. Gary Johnson says that according to Olson, "*total depravity* is *not* a descriptive category that is true of anyone." If this were true, I think he'd have a great point. But he goes on to cite Olson thusly:<BR/><I><BR/>"The person who receives the full intensity of prevenient grace (i.e., through the proclamation of the Word and the corresponding internal calling of God) is no longer dead in trespasses and sins.<BR/></I><BR/>In other words, on the Arminian view prevenient grace goes forth "through the proclamation of the Word and the corresponding internal calling of God." Presumably, not everyone hears the proclamation of the Word. Ergo, total depravity would truly describe *them*, even if it wouldn't describe those who actually hear the gospel preached.<BR/><BR/>What am I missing here? Surely this *is* different from semi-Pelagianism, isn't it? The semi-Pelagians <A HREF="http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/semipela.htm" REL="nofollow">affirmed</A> "that the unaided will performed the initial act of faith". No Arminian believes this, for the initial act of faith only occurs in the context of the aid which prevenient grace provides.Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163022960393540702006-11-08T13:56:00.000-08:002006-11-08T13:56:00.000-08:00ech,Maybe you can loan me your secret decoder ring...ech,<BR/><BR/>Maybe you can loan me your secret decoder ring that always produces the infallible, perfect interpretation. Wait, you should give it to Dan first. He needs it for Leviticus 12:5.<BR/><BR/>I can't imagine why anyone would think that Calvinists are arrogant. Everyone knows that Arminians are stupid, don't know how to read their Bibles, and build their theology on human ideas instead of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Oh, well.Pastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163015830821364972006-11-08T11:57:00.000-08:002006-11-08T11:57:00.000-08:00Pastor Rod,With the great hermenutical theory you ...Pastor Rod,<BR/><BR/>With the great hermenutical theory you espouse in http://pastorrod.blogspot.com/2006/03/should-we-take-bible-literally.html, no wonder the bible doesn't bloom tulips for you.Echindodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17385264316917215046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162969635745950192006-11-07T23:07:00.000-08:002006-11-07T23:07:00.000-08:00Why the Yale editions of Edwards?Well for some of ...Why the Yale editions of Edwards?<BR/><BR/>Well for some of us reading is an aesthetic experience. If I am going to take the time to read J.Edwards or Ezra Pound it seems worth while to find a copy with large clean type on good paper in a solid binding. Libraries are free where I live so there is no cost issue. This goes for Calvin as well. Assuming you want to read the institutes in english the Library of Christian Classics edition is very good. The cheap paper back editions are not what you want. <BR/><BR/>off topic post script<BR/><BR/>Driscoll fans you do not want to miss his latest sermon <A HREF="http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/061105_VintageJesus5.mp3" REL="nofollow">Where is Jesus today?</A> .<BR/><BR/>I may comment about it on my blog if I get inspired. Not much of a blogger really.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162958558744098932006-11-07T20:02:00.000-08:002006-11-07T20:02:00.000-08:00Phil & Frank,Of course, I would never expect eithe...Phil & Frank,<BR/><BR/>Of course, I would never expect either of you to agree to that characterization. But you both should have enough intellectual flexibity to see that this is exactly how an Arminian reads the same Scripture that blooms TULIPs for you.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.com