Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities

[Guest]

Just finished reading Roger Olson's book "Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities." I've found it to be very refreshing, as a defense of what arminian theology really is and what it is not. I found out about it from listening to a podcast interview of Roger Olson from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries' Converse With Scholars program. The download is found here:

http://reclaimingthemind.org/cws/home

The two gentlemen (Michael Patton, & Rhome Dyk) interviewing Roger are Calvinists, but it was very fruitful. It has some good Q&A in there also.

[Guest]

Hello JS,

I've known C. 'Michael' Patton, Rhome Dyke, and the RMM (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries) folks since 2005. Someone had given me a year's subscription to Paltalk and I found the TTP (The Theology Program) rooms, having no idea they, or anything like it, was on the web. For a couple years I went to their classes and participated even though I wasn't enrolled. Cool people--they let you do that!

I also went to the live CWS (Converse With Scholars) broadcasts, asking questions of the 'famous theologians' they have. I miss that! (My computer got too old to be able to get into Paltalk) ....

I remember after one TTP session, 'CMP' gave me the mic, saying, "The room is yours, Rick. Present a case for amillennialism." I wasn't really prepared but he let me wax on for about 15 minutes,

Due to my dinosaur computer, I have to download CWS, TUP (Theology Unplugged), and have heard the Olson session you posted. It really is a good presentation of Classical Arminianism. If I'm not mistaken, TTP uses one of Olson's Church History books as a textbook. I haven't read the Arminian book but have read good reviews from Calvinists and Arminians alike. If I'm not mistaken, Scot McKnight has a series on his blog. Yep, here it is: Jesus Creed: Post-Calvinism, Olson's 'Arminian Theology'.

I also read Michael's P&P (Parchment & Pen) blog. Somewhat jokingly, but honestly, I've named Michael as "World's Favorite Calvinist." He gets a kick out of that, The thing of it is, he's such a really nice and decent guy! "Irenic," as he says....

Anyway, my nic used to be "ixthys4u" then later, the same as here: Rick_C. Were you around TTP a year or so ago? and/or do you post on P&P?

Btw, myself and others have suggested Steve Gregg for a CWS session on Preterism....

Sorry if this is off-topic...I just miss the RMM folks!

[Guest]

Just finished reading Roger Olson's book "Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities." I've found it to be very refreshing, as a defense of what arminian theology really is and what it is not. I found out about it from listening to a podcast interview of Roger Olson from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries' Converse With Scholars program. The download is found here:

http://reclaimingthemind.org/cws/home

The two gentlemen (Michael Patton, & Rhome Dyk) interviewing Roger are Calvinists, but it was very fruitful. It has some good Q&A in there also.

I happened to listen to several MP3s from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries a few weeks ago, one of them was with Roger Olson. I really enjoyed listening to it. It was very informative.

[Guest]

I have really enjoyed both the Theology Unplugged and Converse With Scholars programs. I especially enjoy the "irenic" nature of their approaches. However, I must say the Olson interview revealed that even though they try hard to be objective, they just can't help themselves (can any of us, really?). They went out of their way to support the Calvinist view while failing to follow up on points with Olson that would have answered some folks' questions, leaving lingering things that he could easily have resolved. They went out of their way to ask the Calvinist (I can't remember his name) follow up questions to answer Olson's points and to leave no stone unturned. It was still very edifying, though an interactive or at least follow-up session would have resolved some of those limitations.

I thought you might appreciate Michael Patton's blog entry a year or so ago on Romans 9 discussing the Olson interview.

I do think there's a middle ground posted elsewhere here -- that God may have elected some very few unconditionally in the way the Calvinist supposes, but not normatively and instead of reprobating the others, that is who gets to choose (most people). As Steve has pointed out, I don't think such a middle ground is necessary, but it should at least eliminate the irreconcilable tension problem used by some to unconditional election.



- Reclaiming the Mind Ministries - http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog -

Why I am still a Calvinist: The Objector of Romans 9
Posted By C Michael Patton On March 22, 2007 @ 11:13 pm In Converse With Scholars, Personal (Michael Patton), Soteriology, Calvinism | 99 Comments

I don’t really mind labels like some. I just mind people having the wrong idea about what the labels mean and therefore making faulty assumptions based upon misinformation. I am a Calvinist and I don’t shy away from the label. Not only this, but I am a committed Calvinist who is very passionately persuaded by the reformed doctrines of grace.
Roger Olson was on [1] Converse with Scholars and did a tremendous job of explaining Arminianism. I was not blowing smoke during the broadcast when I repeatedly told him how much he has influenced my methodology and approach to theological issues. I can say with all honesty that Roger Olson is a top rate scholar who represents Christ with great integrity of the mind and an irenic tone. But I can say with just as much honesty that I do not agree with his conclusions about the doctrine of salvation and how it is appropriated to one’s life.

Why am I still a Calvinist? Well, this would take much more than a blog to expound upon and I could offer many reasons (as well as explain the difficulties that make things more complicated), but I want to focus only on one, the issue of unconditional election. As well, I am only going to focus on one passage, [2] Romans 9.

While I do agree that the Scriptures teach that God loves all people and desires all to come to repentance (and I don’t qualify the “all” of [3] 1 Tim. 2:4 as some), I also believe that this love does not motivate Him to elect all people to salvation. Unconditional election is the issue. Olson said it himself. There are incompatibilities within the Calvinist and Arminian systems of theology that make it impossible to have a hybrid. There is no middle ground between unconditional election and conditional election that I know of. I believe that God has unconditionally elected certain individuals before the beginning of time for salvation, and passed over others that He loves. I don’t understand why He passes over anyone, I just believe that the Scripture clearly says that He does. Of all the passages that teach unconditional election, there is one that I simply cannot explain outside of a Calvinist worldview–[4] Romans 9. [5] Romans 9 is so clear concerning the issue of unconditional election that in order to deny it I believe that one only has three options: 1) Deny inerrancy and attribute this teaching to the remnants of Paul’s pharisaic theology that he integrated with his new faith but was wrong (ouch!). 2) Deny that Romans should be part of the canon (overkill, don’t ya think?). 3) Adopt a radical new hermeneutical strategy that sees the difficulty of this passage, but denies its clear reading in favor of an interpretation that fits with an already supposed theological system (we all do this sometimes). While I am often tempted to choose the latter, I have not as of this date in my life. I believe that the plain reading of this passage tells us that Paul believed in what is to most a radical doctrine that seems unfair. Here is the passage:

[6] Romans 9:6-24 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

We must understand some contextual background here. In [7] Romans 9, Paul is defending the security of a believer that was put forth in [8] Romans 8. Remember, he ended that chapter by saying that there was nothing that could separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. In the context, the love is the love that foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified the elect. Therefore, according to Paul, there is nothing that can separate the elect from God’s salvation.

That is an incredible statement that Paul knows must be defended. He had been in the position before teaching this same thing to others. I could see it now. In Ephesus, teaching on the security of the believer, Paul makes the same proposition: “Nothing can separate you from God’s electing love in Christ Jesus.” Someone in the audience raises their hand and says, “Paul, this is great and all, but I have a problem.” “What is that,” Paul responds. “Well you say that the elect are secure in God, right?” “That is right” Paul says. “Well, what about Israel? Weren’t they God’s elect? Weren’t they promised security as well? What happened to them? They don’t seem to be following God right now? If their election is the same as my election, my election does not seem to secure.”

It was a good objection and needed to be responded to. Paul does so in [9] Romans 9-11. He begins 9 by saying, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” ([10] Rom. 9:6). Why? Because he sets up a diatribe (a conversation with an imaginary person) in anticipation of the response that the Romans will have to the claims of security in [11] Romans 8. He wants to show that the word of God has not failed with Israel and it will not fail with Christians. He ends this section by reinforcing the bold security claims of [12] Romans 8, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” ([13] Rom. 11:29). So the entire section is about security. It is in defense of God; it is in defense of His claim that we cannot be separated from His love.

Paul’s explanation for the apparent failure of God’s electing love with Israel is right to the point. He explains that God’s election of Israel, with regards to ultimate salvation as he has been explaining it, was not of the entire nation without exception. In fact, it was always only a select few, a remnant, that were the true elect of God. He illustrates this historically by referring to Jacob and Esau ([14] Rom. 9:10-13). Even though they were both from Israel, only one was chosen. Therefore not all Israel is elect. He later illustrates this by referring to the elect within Israel at the time of Elijah ([15] Rom. 11:2-4). The argument again is the same. Not all of Israel could be considered among the true elect. Finally, he illustrates this in a contemporary way by saying that he himself is an Israelite and he has placed his faith in God ([16] Rom. 11:1, 5). This is enough to show that God’s security is based upon the true elect, a remnant within Israel. Therefore, God has not broken His word in the past with Israel, and will not do so in the present or future. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

Once again, this brings up another objection that Paul has most certainly heard through the years of teaching. Imagine this Ephesian once again hesitantly raising his hand saying, “Okay Paul. Forgive me, but now I have another question. If this is true, that God elects some individuals and not others as was the case with Jacob and Esau, this seems very unfair. Why does God still find fault? Who resists His will?”

Now at this point we must stop and realize the significance of this question with regards to the Calvinism Arminianism debate. Remember, this is the question that we are all baffled by when we first read this. When Paul says, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” ([17] Rom. 9:18), we are taken aback. We think to ourselves the same as Paul’s imaginary objector. How can God hold someone accountable for making this choice when it is only God’s election that can cause them to do otherwise? It is a good question. One that I often ask myself. But we must realize this: the question itself helps us to understand that we are following Paul correctly. If you don’t empathize with the objection, then you have misunderstood Paul. But if we do understand how such a question could arise out of Paul’s seemingly radical comments, it means that we are interpreting Paul the same way as the objector. Now, when the objector says, “How can God still find fault, for who resists Him will?” if the Arminian position of conditional election were correct (that God simply looks ahead into the future and has decided to elect all who trust in Christ), there is really no problem. Paul just needs to calm the objector down by explaining how he has misunderstood the argument. If the Arminian position were correct, this is how we would expect the diatribe to proceed:

Objector: ”If this is true, why does God still find fault in people. Who can resist His will.”
Paul: “Oh, you have misunderstood me. You think that I am saying that God’s will is the ultimate cause of our salvation, not ours. Let me clarify. God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him. Therefore, He finds fault in people who do not choose Him by their own freedom. Doen’t this make perfect sense?”
Objector: “Oh, yes, it does. I feel much better. But you need to teach more clearly in the future. I thought you were saying something radically different.”

But of course this is not the direction the conversation goes. In fact, it gets stronger and more shocking. Paul did not have a definite answer to the objectors question. He confirms that the question assumes the right presupposition (unconditional election) by His response. ”On the contrary, who are you to answer back to God oh man. Will the thing molded say to the molder why have you made me in such a way? . . . ” I could see the objector cowering in the fierceness of the response. He is simply doing the same thing that I would do and have done upon reading this passage. The response let’s us know that while we don’t have the answer we were looking for, the presupposition, unconditional election, is indeed what Paul is teaching. There is no other way to take it in my opinion.

What a fearful thing. What an awesome thing. What a confusing thing. What a terrible thing. In sum, I believe that Romans is inerrant. I believe that Romans should be included in the canon. I cannot approach this passage from any other hermeneutic than an authorial intent. It seems to be the case that the intent of Paul was to say that God unconditionally elects some people to salvation and not others. This is the Calvinist’s doctrine of Predestination. This is why I am still a Calvinist.

Subscribe to the Reclaiming the Mind Ministries Podcast on Itunes.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Article printed from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog

URL to article: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... -romans-9/

URLs in this post:
[1] Converse with Scholars: http://www.ttpstudents.com/content/cws/home
[2] Romans 9: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9
[3] 1 Tim. 2:4: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Tim.+2%3A4
[4] Romans 9: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9
[5] Romans 9: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9
[6] Romans 9:6-24: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9%3A6-24
[7] Romans 9: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9
[8] Romans 8: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+8
[9] Romans 9-11: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9-11
[10] Rom. 9:6: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+9%3A6
[11] Romans 8: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+8
[12] Romans 8: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+8
[13] Rom. 11:29: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+11%3A29
[14] Rom. 9:10-13: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+9%3A10-13
[15] Rom. 11:2-4: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+11%3A2-4
[16] Rom. 11:1, 5: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+11%3A1%2C+5
[17] Rom. 9:18: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom.+9%3A18

Click here to print.

[Guest]

If one is interested in a Arminian response to the Calvinist treatment of Romans 9, go here.

[Guest]

I thought you might appreciate Michael Patton's blog entry a year or so ago on Romans 9 discussing the Olson interview.

I do think there's a middle ground posted elsewhere here -- that God may have elected some very few unconditionally in the way the Calvinist supposes, but not normatively and instead of reprobating the others, that is who gets to choose (most people). As Steve has pointed out, I don't think such a middle ground is necessary, but it should at least eliminate the irreconcilable tension problem used by some to unconditional election.

Thanks for posting this. I read through Michael's blog entry on Romans 9. I've been thinking about Romans 9 a lot lately because we are going through the book of Romans. One thing I have noticed is that if you accept a Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 then I suggest you keep reading because the context has not ended. It extends through chapter 11.

-Paul mentions that not all Israel are of Israel.
-Paul then mentions that some were children of promise and others were not. The Calvinist sees this as some are saved and the others will not be.
-Paul mentions that this is according to God's choice
-Paul then (chap 10) says, even though we are to believe he just explained how salvation occurs, that his heart and desire is for (unbelieving) Israel to be saved! He just explained that they were not the elect and were vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, yet Paul still has a desire for them to be saved!
-Paul goes on to state that they will be driven to jealousy by the Gentiles coming to God
-Paul (Rom 11:1) asks if God has cast away His people? An important question. No, there is a remnant according to election.
-Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
-But what about the non-elect, the blinded? Paul answers this question, a question springing out of his Romans 9 comments.
-Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
Now let's understand what Paul is saying, because it's very destructive to the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. The very Jews who are said to not belong to "true" Israel, the ones prepared for destruction Paul asks if there is any hope for them. Amazingly Paul says that not only is it his desire and prayer (10:1) for them to be saved, but that they have not fallen beyond recovery! So much this being permanent.
-Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
-Rom 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
How can Paul say this if we interpret what he said about Israel in Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way? We can't
-Rom 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Now let's not lose track of the flow of thought. Those cast off are those who were spoken of in 11:7 as blinded because they were not the elect.
-Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
This is Paul in his normal repetitive style saying the same thing in another way. The broken off branches are the non-elect Jews broken off the tree so Gentiles could be grafted in.
-Rom 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
So now why were the "natural branches" broken off? I thought is was nothing to do with man and only God's choice (Rom 9) Here we see that is true, but Paul did not mean unconditionally true. Faith, or the lack of it, is the condition. Paul cannot at this point be contradicting himself, so we know the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is incorrect.

The Calvinist may respond that this "apparent contradiction" can still be resolved in their favor. I disagree, for one major reason. Paul's flow of thought from chap 9-11 is the Jewish people. Paul mentions that they are in one of two categories: the elect and the castaways. Paul then goes on to prove these non-elect castaway's are not beyond recovery, and as a matter of fact can be grafted back onto "their own" olive tree (Abraham's true seed). Gal 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Paul did not have a theology that saw that non-elect as unredeemable. He said, in fact, they can be saved. Even though they were not the elect (but were rather blinded) they can be grafted back on by faith. Imagine a theology were the non-elect can be saved. That's Paul's theology. They can indeed become "the elect" by faith. A Calvinist says this cannot be so. So, IMO, it is the Calvinist that disagrees with Paul. I would very much like to go line by line through Romans 9-11 but I just don't have the time to do this right now. I'm also sorry if this is choppy, I'm in a hurry to get done, I gotta go to work. Just follow the thought of Paul, read slow and carefully through these three chapters and see what you think.

[Guest]

Darin, et al,

First, anyone can sign up and post on P&P. This might be something to consider along netiquette lines or if one would want to get-right-in-there.

Otherwise, there's several FBFF posters who frequent RMM stuff. I'd forgotten if you were (Darin), if you mentioned it before. But anyway....

Actually, I know Michael pretty well, having spent much of my web time in Paltalk rooms when I still could. RMMers used to be online before and after TTP, TUP, and CWS. I'm assuming they still do this.

Earlier I mentioned CMP (C. 'Michael' Patton) gave me the mic to present a case for amillennialism. And, actually, I've done the same on Romans 9 many a time in RMM-related Paltalk rooms. (After sessions we would pick a topic and discuss/debate it, sometimes till the wee hours of the morning. Romans 9 was one of them).

I don't think Steve knows this but, I had a Paltalk room named "The Narrow Path -- Lectures by Steve Gregg"! Yep, I got in there and played them! Romans 9 and Rev 20 were what I usually featured (and btw, I gave links to Steve's site: NETIQUETTE). I had the room open about once a week and played one or two lectures, then we would discuss. I invited RMM members and staffers, including Michael, but he said he didn't have the time. One RMM staff member said Steve's lectures were "pretty convincing." Another, without mentioning any names (netiquette), just plain didn't want to hear it! In any event...the person who liked what Steve had to say, unlike Rhome and Michael, isn't a committed Calvinist, nor a grad from DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) So....

In early 2006 I emailed Michael links to Steve's Romans 9 (and other) lectures. A couple of months ago I emailed him about considering Steve for CWS or some other Paltalk format to present a case for preterism, which has been a topic of interest among RMM folks; they've been asking for preterist information. I don't know how far along Michael & RMM staff are with this, or where it is might be in their plans.

To date, Michael hasn't heard any of Steve's lectures unless he's listened since December. Michael emailed me back last month regarding 'Steve on preterism' saying, "I don't know who he is." So I emailed him a brief bio about Steve--though I had 'informed' him about Steve quite some time before--mentioning Steve is an endorser of a book by one of his other guests: Hank Haanegraaf (which should make Steve sort of 'significant', imo)....

Where am I going with all of this? (and I'd better watch my NETIQUETTE), !!!

Not long after I met him, Michael introduced me as a TTP student in a CWS session, thinking I was an enrolled TTP student. He made this mistake, I'm guessing, because I always had pertinent comments on the curriculum and knew about topics (but never had any of their material). I could 'jump right in' due my Bible college background.

I guess what I'm getting at is: Michael has 'theological respect' for me. However, though he is my "World's Fave Calvinist" and has a high regard for my ideas; he remains a committed Calvinist. I've literally begged him to give just one of Steve Gregg's Romans 9 lectures "15 minutes of your time." I don't think he's done it. So on this particular theological matter, it might be that CMP doesn't think my IMOs are all that relevant, I can't say....

At any rate, I saw this blog when it got posted, have read it from time to time, and have never commented on it. Why not? Steve Gregg's lectures on Romans 9 say it all! and I don't have time to transcribe them on Parchment & Pen! Nor can I easily remove the "Calvinistic lens" from the eyes of committed Calvinists; whether they're of the especially friendly, or the more "un-irenic" persuation....

[Guest]

I just scanned the P&P blog again.

Interesting that, thus far, no real exegesis of Romans 9 has happened; in particular with regard to the "objector."

Calvinism and Arminianism are one thing: Views of guys who lived about 400 years ago.

What Paul said 1600 years earlier is quite another.

SO many Christians claim "authorial intention and original meaning" is the key to understanding the Scriptures and that we MUST use the historical-grammatial method---but they don't DO IT.

This P&P blog and the unending comments perfectly illustrates why 400 year old opinions--with their amendments and additions---Don't Matter: Nor do they accomplish a single thing! Where's the 2000 year old TRUTH in all of this? ... <sigh>

Actually, Calvin simply revived Augustine. So, technically speaking, opinions from about 1600 or 400 years ago er whatever, er whenever, by whoever...They Do Not Matter.

Well, anyhoo....
I don't have high blood pressure and don't want to get it! So I let the Arminians and Calvinists have-at-it. Thanks for the gestault therapy,