Calvinism: why such animosity?

[smaller]

Southern Baptist professor of theology (George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX) and Arminian scholar, Roger E Olson, provided one of the reasons for dislike of Calvinists: 'The sole reason non-Calvinist evangelical Christians object to monergism is because it makes God the ultimate, even if indirect, cause of the reprobates’ unbelief and damnation. It does serious harm to God’s reputation' (Olson 2011:158).

Note: Monergism is 'in theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration' (The Century Dictionary, p 3831. S v monergism).

Oz

It is true that theodicy is at the heart of the debate.

 

[Malachi]

I believe that bringing personalities into Bible truth simply muddies the waters. We don't really need to know exactly what Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, Spurgeon, Piper, MacArthur or anyone else believes. When one examines Reformed doctrine as stated in the Westminster Confession, it is clear that there are some serious flaws in Reformed theology.

God does NOT decree that some will be saved while the majority will be lost. That is completely contrary to Scripture (Mk 16:15,16): And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[Wrg1405]

Calvinism is not much different the OSAS Some place between Arminism and Calvinism to me is the reality..

I am with you on this one. God reveals himself to us, when we beleive he then completes the good work he started in us, he the author an perfector of our faith for those who genuinely belive "That God so much loved the world that whoever believes in him will not perish" what a promise.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry to hear he angers you. Curious as to which of Piper's books you have read to cause such a reaction.

I do appreciate the sources. I will look at them.

What do you think of Piper's presentation of Calvinism? The point of the videos is much more about explaining TULIP and only incidentally addresses Arminianism.

I have already given you links to articles that demonstrate how John Piper misrepresents Arminianism.

See, 'Watershed Differences Between Calvinists and Arminians'. Here Piper grossly misrepresents what Arminians believe. I would never trust him to give an accurate description of the beliefs of Arminianism. He has deliberately distorted what they believe with his comments here.

This is one of the reasons why I am angered by his theological ignorance of the Arminian beliefs and then dares to make that ignorance available online to the general populace.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I believe that bringing personalities into Bible truth simply muddies the waters. We don't really need to know exactly what Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, Spurgeon, Piper, MacArthur or anyone else believes. When one examines Reformed doctrine as stated in the Westminster Confession, it is clear that there are some serious flaws in Reformed theology.

God does NOT decree that some will be saved while the majority will be lost. That is completely contrary to Scripture (Mk 16:15,16): And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The apostle Paul does not agree with your position, Malachi. He brought a personality into the situation when he chastised Cephas (Peter): 'But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned' (Gal 2:11 ESV). Then Paul proceeds to nail Peter for what he was doing that was wrong.

We need to name the people and the errors or misrepresentations they are making, whether they be Arminius, Calvin, Spurgeon, Piper, MacArthur, J I Packer, Louis Berkhof, Westminster Confession, Baptist Confession, Roger E Olson, yourself and myself, etc.

Why? Error or misrepresentations need to be exposed. Paul also did it with Hymenaeus and Alexander who had 'made shipwreck of their faith' and he had 'handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme' (1 Tim 1:19-20 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, one down!

I read the first Olsen article and then listened to the seven minute Piper audio clip to which is he is responding with the article. Did you really think the Olsen article was much more than questioning of Piper's credentials, followed by explaining why Calvinist have problems with performing exegesis well, ending with an argument why C.S.Lewis was Arminian. This was all in response to a very civil audio in which Piper said he had found Arminian writers not influential due to their exegesis of scripture. In the audio, Piper praises G.K. Chesterton, John and Charles Wesley, and George McDonald - all non-Calvinists.

I sure hope the rest of your citations are better at making your point, because that first one was weak at best.

Just curious, did you listen to the audio clip by Piper?

His name is Olson and not Olsen.

I don't know if this is the correct video that I listened to in the 'Ask Pastor John' podcast, 'Stop living a half-life with God'. I wish Olson had given the direct link to the podcast to which he was referring.

Then I read

Related Resources

• Undragoned: C.S. Lewis on the Gift of Salvation
• The Sovereign God of “Elfland” (Why Chesterton’s Anti-Calvinism Doesn’t Put Me Off)

These are the 2 Arminians who have most influenced Piper. However, neither of them is an exegete. I wonder why they are the favoured Arminians?

So what we have so far is you think Piper misrepresents Arminianism because he said he has not found the exegesis of the Arminian writers he has read very compelling. Doesn't seem like a reason to get too worked up.

Do you see what you have done? You did what John Piper does. You misrepresented what I said. What you say here does not come from me. That's your invention about me and what I said about Piper misrepresenting Arminianism. You are referring to an article by Roger E Olson and not by me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It is true that theodicy is at the heart of the debate.

That's not central in my understanding. The issue of soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is at the heart of the debate. However, when some Calvinists erect a straw man regarding Arminianism, it is nigh impossible to engage in a rational discussion as one is constantly refuting the wrong view of Arminianism perpetrated by some prominent Calvinists.

 

[reba]

And some of us are neither.

yup i aint sold on one side or the other

 

[Hospes]

So what we have so far is you think Piper misrepresents Arminianism because he said he has not found the exegesis of the Arminian writers he has read very compelling. Doesn't seem like a reason to get too worked up.

It's too late to tell me that John Piper doesn't misrepresent Arminians. This is one of the things about Piper that angers me - his misrepresentation of Arminians....I have listened to enough of John Piper over the years to know that he does not have a high regard for Arminians and often misrepresents their theology.

Do you see what you have done? You did what John Piper does. You misrepresented what I said. What you say here does not come from me. That's your invention about me and what I said about Piper misrepresenting Arminianism. You are referring to an article by Roger E Olson and not by me.

Ummm......I guess if you make a strong distinction between Piper misrepresenting Arminianism and Piper misrepresenting Arminians, technically I did get you wrong. You must see some significant difference between the statements that escapes me. Nonetheless, I apologize for not seeing it.

I did make the assumption - since you did cite the article about the audio - that you agreed with the article. Was I wrong and you cited the article because you disagreed with it?

 

[Hospes]

Just curious, did you listen to the audio clip by Piper?

I don't know if this is the correct video that I listened to in the 'Ask Pastor John' podcast, 'Stop living a half-life with God'. I wish Olson had given the direct link to the podcast to which he was referring.

The short answer is "No". So, even though you haven't listened to the audio the article addresses, you cite the article for why you are angry about "his misrepresentation of Arminians."

These are the 2 Arminians who have most influenced Piper. However, neither of them is an exegete. I wonder why they are the favoured Arminians?

Why do you ask the question?

 

[Hospes]

These are the 2 Arminians who have most influenced Piper. However, neither of them is an exegete. I wonder why they are the favoured Arminians?

It's too late to tell me that John Piper doesn't misrepresent Arminians. This is one of the things about Piper that angers me - his misrepresentation of Arminians.

I have listened to enough of John Piper over the years to know that he does not have a high regard for Arminians and often misrepresents their theology. See:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);
  
• 'I wish John Piper understood Arminian theology' (William Birch);
  
• Why does John Piper misrepresent evangelical Arminianism?

Here is a helpful article that exposes some Arminian teaching: 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Arminianism (Joseph Dongell).

I attend a church where the pastor is a TULIP, Presbyterian Calvinist. He on several occasions has misrepresented Arminianism. When I talk to him about it, he tells me that he has not read much of Arminius. Most of his Arminianism is sourced through reading Calvinistic texts (especially those recommended by his Reformed college professors) that disparage Arminianism. He doesn't go to the correct source for his information.

I have met my share of Arminians or semi-Pelagians who do something similar. They do not read Calvin to get an accurate understanding of his theology.

However, the issue here is the misrepresentation of Arminian beliefs promoted by John Piper. Therefore, I would not be prepared to engage in listening to a John Piper video to obtain his view of Arminian theology. He has already declared his hand by his promotion of false views of Arminian teachings.

Oz

Oz, two down!

Admittedly, the second citation you give has more reason for an Arminian to get riled than the first. In your second citation, Olson (Note the correct spelling; I know it is important to you. ) addresses a 12 minute You-tube clip of a talk Piper gave, 7 minutes of which he makes an argument, from his experience, for Calvinism having more capacity for mystery than Arminianism. Olson spends 8 paragraphs going over his turbulent history with Piper, (Seems Piper disagreed with his Armeniainism and his defense of open theism as not being heretical.)

Olson has a legitimate difference with Piper, but he kind of lost my respect when at one point he depicts Calvanism "as teaching double predestination, God as designing, ordaining and governing (rendering certain) all that happens including the fall and the Holocaust and hell itself including who will be there selected individually without free will “in the picture,”—you must swallow the “picture” of a monstrous God who gets glory out of the torturing of children and the eternal torment of people created in his own image and likeness predestined to that eternal torture without their free will decisions or choices." The real irony happens 2 paragraphs later - I guess after he forgot what he just wrote - "These Calvinist attacks on Arminianism are shameless and unworthy of Christian gentlemen and scholars."

As a cap, Olson insinuates Piper is "bearing false witness against his or her brothers and sisters in Christ". I despise insinuation; it's a coward's rhetorical tool for saying something they think without really owning it. I'm hoping the rest of your citations are from somebody that keeps my respect a bit longer.

Observation: it's interesting how Piper argues against Arminianism while Olson's passion seems largely against Piper.

 

[Mike]

I believe I need to remind the participants here that this is not a debate forum. I moved it here specifically because of the nature of the question in the OP. There are threads in the A&T Forum that are perfectly suited for making your case.

I don't like to curtail good discussions, but in keeping with the spirit of the OP, this is not the place to mount a defence. Take a page from my beloved Detroit Lions. Drop all your defences, and be charitable to the opposing side in this one of a kind discussion on Calvinism.

 

[OzSpen]

Olson has a legitimate difference with Piper, but he kind of lost my respect when at one point he depicts Calvanism "as teaching double predestination, God as designing, ordaining and governing (rendering certain) all that happens including the fall and the Holocaust and hell itself including who will be there selected individually without free will “in the picture,”—you must swallow the “picture” of a monstrous God who gets glory out of the torturing of children and the eternal torment of people created in his own image and likeness predestined to that eternal torture without their free will decisions or choices." The real irony happens 2 paragraphs later - I guess after he forgot what he just wrote - "These Calvinist attacks on Arminianism are shameless and unworthy of Christian gentlemen and scholars."

My response is consistent with the OP. Roger Olson's example that you have cited provides further ammunition for why there is hostility towards Calvinism.

Remember the US Airways flight 1549 that landed on the Hudson River, New York in 2009? Of this incident, John Piper, a strong Calvinist, wrote:

God can take down a plane any time he pleases—and if he does, he wrongs no one. Apart from Christ, none of us deserves anything from God but judgment. We have belittled him so consistently that he would be perfectly just to take any of us any time in any way he chooses (Piper 2009).

John Piper goes so far as to state:

So when I say that everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son. Whether he causes or permits, he does so with purpose. For an infinitely wise and all-knowing God, both causing and permitting are purposeful. They are part of the big picture of what God plans to bring to pass (Piper 2008:56).

It is not only John Piper, the Calvinist, who thinks like this. Before the time of Piper, Gordon Clark, another Calvinist, was advocating something similar:

‘As God cannot sin, so in the next place, God is not responsible for sin, even though he decrees it…. I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so…. In Ephesians 1:11 Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his own will’ (Clark 2004:40, 27).

It is this kind of theology promoted by Calvinists that can cause animosity towards them because of the unjust God who is promoted.

For further explanations of how God causes evil in the world, see:

• Did John Calvin believe in double predestination?

• Is God responsible for all the evil in the world?

Oz

Works consulted

Clark, G H 2004. God and evil: The problem solved.[6] Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation.

Piper, J 2008. Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.

Piper, J 2009. The president, the passengers, and the patience of God, Desiring God, 21 January. Available at: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...sident-the-passengers-and-the-patience-of-god (Accessed 24 March 2016).

 

[OzSpen]

Ummm......I guess if you make a strong distinction between Piper misrepresenting Arminianism and Piper misrepresenting Arminians, technically I did get you wrong. You must see some significant difference between the statements that escapes me. Nonetheless, I apologize for not seeing it.

I did make the assumption - since you did cite the article about the audio - that you agreed with the article. Was I wrong and you cited the article because you disagreed with it?

Your Ummm is a side-step.

As for the two articles by Roger E Olson:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);

I agree that Olson has exposed how Piper misrepresents Arminians. The nature of the Patheos open access magazine means that comprehensive details of that misrepresentation are not possible like they would be in an academic journal.

There are enough examples given in Olson's 2 articles to demonstrate how Piper's views of Arminian theology cannot be trusted.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I believe I need to remind the participants here that this is not a debate forum. I moved it here specifically because of the nature of the question in the OP. There are threads in the A&T Forum that are perfectly suited for making your case.

I don't like to curtail good discussions, but in keeping with the spirit of the OP, this is not the place to mount a defence. Take a page from my beloved Detroit Lions. Drop all your defences, and be charitable to the opposing side in this one of a kind discussion on Calvinism.

Mike,

In the index of the forums on CFnet at http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php, there is nothing under 'The Lounge' to state that it is not a debate forum - like there are with other forums. If you don't want debate in The Lounge, I suggest you make that clear in the index.

Oz

 

[Hospes]

Your Ummm is a side-step.

As for the two articles by Roger E Olson:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);

I agree that Olson has exposed how Piper misrepresents Arminians. The nature of the Patheos open access magazine means that comprehensive details of that misrepresentation are not possible like they would be in an academic journal.

There are enough examples given in Olson's 2 articles to demonstrate how Piper's views of Arminian theology cannot be trusted.

Oz

Oz,

I think I am done with the back and forth. I don't have the leisure nor the desire to keep up with your citations. (I believe you are up to nine.) I did get through your third citation and Birch actually seems much more able to articulate good arguments. (Though I would love to get clarification around his understanding of man's role in salvation, I think I could dialog with him.) I believe arguing with you is probably not a fruitful exercise. Trying to carry on a legitimate argument with you feels like the pizza shop Whack-a-Mole game. You can throw citations faster than I can read/respond and you don't seem too ready to deal with the main points of my responses. Also, I lost my trust in your fairness when it became evident you accepted Olson's critique of a specific Piper audio and yet had never gone through the trouble of listening to the audio, simply assuming Olson's accuracy. Also, the first two citations had a fair amount of personal animosity woven in to the level I would have never used them as fair presentations of any point. (Again, I thought the third was much more intelligently articulated and the frustration Birch writes with seemed tied to his point and not just personal animosity.)

I wish you the best.

 

[smaller]

yup i aint sold on one side or the other

I might liken it to trying to persuade middle easterners and Israelites to get along.

Not gonna happen.

 

[smaller]

Take a page from my beloved Detroit Lions. Drop all your defences, and be charitable to the opposing side -

You poor soul! heh heh

 

[smaller]

Arminian: a believer must always potentially condemn themselves in order to be saved
Calvin: a believer must believe they are saved no matter what in order to be saved

I suspect that both men were wrong. But neither could admit it.

Obviously the answer is that no man can be totally RIGHT.

On that ground a believer will at least find honesty, and maybe even peace between ourselves.

 

[Mike]

Mike,

In the index of the forums on CFnet at http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php, there is nothing under 'The Lounge' to state that it is not a debate forum - like there are with other forums. If you don't want debate in The Lounge, I suggest you make that clear in the index.

Oz

Oz, this is a point well taken. Probably better if it would have been given in another venue like Talk With the Staff or Questions & Suggestions instead of inline here, but a point well taken nonetheless. In defense of the purpose, it does occur to me that a sub-title like "Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship!" does imply that it's not for debate. That and the fact that I gave a specific reminder in my #13 post here. You could even start a conversation with me. So many options besides posting inline.