Below is a letter I sent last week. Not surprisingly, I haven't received a reply.
Does anyone notice an emerging pattern here? Arminians preach love and brotherhood. And they denounce Reformed theology for its exclusivism. Yet in practice, notice how many Arminians observe the blue code of silence. Arminians have an in-group mentality. They are loyal to their own.
I'm afraid too many Arminians have a Mafia honor code without the fine cuisine or beautiful women.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
REV. JAMES M. LEONARD SAID:
Thanks Mr. Hays for drawing my attention to the excellent article by Billy Birch and vindicating his analysis.
Billy, you have a bright future ahead of you, and are already way out in front of your peers. Just beware that your first class work will draw lots of criticism from those who fear you.
8/04/2009 12:09 PM
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/calvinazis.html#528065437586824751
Hi Rev. Leonard,
That's a striking endorsement. Since you're both an ordained minister as well as a doctoral candidate at Cambridge, I don't think it's asking to much if you clarify your endorsement. Let's take the following claim by Birch:
“And since God has allegedly decreed to unconditionally save some and unconditionally reprobate the rest, since ‘few’ will find the narrow way to heaven, and ‘many’ will follow the broad path to hell, according to Jesus, then my statement concerning Calvinism's teachings are correct.”
Do you think that analysis represents first class historical analysis?
I myself can think of some rather obvious historical objections to that analysis.
1. A number of Calvinists believe in the universal salvation of those who die in infancy. For example, I believe that's the position of Hodge, Warfield, and Webb. Given high rates in infant mortality, both in the past, and at present in 3rd world countries, that's a very sizable chunk of humanity.
2. Likewise, many Calvinists are postmillennialists. While they think Christianity has been a minority position in the past, they also think Christianity will be the majority position in the future. Thus they think that, overall, the majority of human beings will be saved.
3. You also have Calvinists who subscribe to both (1) & (2).
4. To give a concrete example, take Warfield's classic monograph: "Are they few that be saved?"
If you like, I can also contact some church historians to see if they confirm my historical assessment.
Now, unless you take issue with these historical data-points, is it still your considered opinion that Birch's statement is an accurate depiction of Reformed historical theology?
I trust that your answer will be dictated by historical evidence rather than partisan sympathies.
Steve Hays
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat is a simply letter with straight forward questions. I don't imagine that should be to hard for someone of those credentials to answer.
(I believe I am remembering rightly here.) I just recently read is that Birch is a student at SEBTS, a Southern Baptist institution. SEBTS holds to the Abstract of Principles. I'm just wondering if Arminian theology lines up with the Abstract.
Steve,
ReplyDelete1. A number of Calvinists believe in the universal salvation of those who die in infancy.
Would you care to produce those statistics? "A number of Calvinists" is supposed to mean "the majority"?
2. Likewise, many Calvinists are postmillennialists.
C'mon, Steve. You know as well as I do that this is a minority position among very few Calvinists. You're straining here.
Mark,
No, Arminianism is not compatible with the Abstract of Principles. But one does not have to hold to the Abstract to attend SEBTS. If a person desires a teaching position at the Seminary, then yes, one does have to hold to the Abstract. I have no intention of teaching at a Southern Baptist institution in the future.
God bless you both.
Birch said:
ReplyDelete---
C'mon, Steve. You know as well as I do that this is a minority position among very few Calvinists.
---
Wow, you're worse than even my low expectation of you. Can you even name a postmil who's not a Calvinist of some stripe? Even the Wiki article on it (a source Arminians tend to go to since they seem to have no access to these things called "books") mentions Warfield, Boettner, Rushdoony, Calvin, Spurgeon, Gary North, Gentry, and Bahsen. The only name included in there that might not be a Calvinist (since I'm not familiar with him so I don't know) is H.A.W. Meyer.
Now obviously the article probably was written by a Reconstructionist who was only uses sources s/he was familiar with, but a) that's a lot of big Reformed names and b) no one's "corrected" it yet by adding other examples of non-Reformed postmils.
Furthermore, when you add in the fact that most (partial) preterists alternate between amil and postmil positions, and they tend to be Calvinists, then you can add folks like RC Sproul to the mix. This is hardly a minorty position among "very few" Calvinists.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteHistorically, and I would argue that even today, Amillennialism would constitute the majority view among Calvinists. Have you not found this to be true as well? And then there's the MacArthur Premillennial camp. But the Postmill view has been a minor view since WWI and WWII.
Now, I did not know that some Preterists were also Postmill.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAnd I didn't mean Steve, but Peter Pike.
God bless.
Billy,
ReplyDeleteYou're trying to retroactively change the terms of your original claim. Here is what you initially said:
"In a nutshell, Calvinists read a verse in Scripture such as Romans 9:15 and conclude that God is communicating that he will have mercy on a few and refuse aid to the majority of humanity, merely because he decreed it."
And here is your follow-up claim:
"Hays responds: 'i) To begin with, Calvinism has no official position on the relative percentages of the elect and the reprobate.' I did not present a percentage, Jesus did (Matt. 7:13-14). And since God has allegedly decreed to unconditionally save some and unconditionally reprobate the rest, since 'few' will find the narrow way to heaven, and 'many' will follow the broad path to hell, according to Jesus, then my statement concerning Calvinism's teachings are correct."
Because I disproved your original claim, you now introduce ex post facto qualifications to retroactively salvage your original claim.
Does this mean you're prepared to withdraw the inaccurate and misleading claim which you originally made?
I guess I'm confused. Does being Amillenial some how mean one believes only a very few are saved? (No one has defined few either so...)
ReplyDeleteWeren't there many theologians past who weren't Calvinists yet were Amillenial? Do they get the same "few" charge?
How is using such broad categories of "few" and "many" lead to a vindicated analysis?
Does "many" have to mean "most"? Does "many" mean more than "few"? How do we answer these questions?
Anyway...even Loraine Boettner said Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved.
And Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own;and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls..
Steve,
ReplyDeleteJesus said that few find the narrow gate leading to Life, and that many follow the broad path. If you have any contentions, it is not with me, but with Jesus.
Since God has unconditionally elected to save some, and Jesus said that they are few (cf. Matt. 7:13-14), and he has also uncondtionally elected to reprobate the rest, and Jesus said they were many, then my claim still stands: and supported by the Savior, nonetheless.
Mark,
As for infants, the Westminster Confession of Faith states: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Chapter X Of Effectual Calling, 3).
The historic Calvinistic position has not been that all infants who die in infancy go to heaven.
William,
ReplyDeleteYou're quote of the WCF doesn't affirm nor deny that all infants who die go to heaven.
Apparently, Boettner thought differently about what most Calvinists thought.
And now your quoting Jesus concerning the narrow gate and the few. I thought your original objection was against Calvinists who taught this.
Man, I'm confused.
WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"Jesus said that few find the narrow gate leading to Life, and that many follow the broad path. If you have any contentions, it is not with me, but with Jesus."
You're dissembling. You were making a claim about what Calvinism teaches. Now you're try to change the subject.
William,
ReplyDeleteYou should know that many commentators, both Arminian and non, have interpreted Matt. 7:13-14 as not referring to numbers. The dogmatic way you've expressed yourself is actually underdetermined by what can be exegeted from that text.
You should also know that the Confession which you cite (but have probably never read a commentary on) is neutral with respect to numbers of elect who die in infancy. All infants who die in infancy could be elect, the Confession takes no position on that (see Williamson's commentary on the Confession, 2nd ed. 2004, pp.119-121).
You are misrepresenting the Reformed position and trying to force it into your simplictic categories set for refutation (and this is all granting that you can refute what you take to be "the" Calvinist position, of course). Come hell or high water, Calvinism is going to teach what I say it teaches, seems to be your motto. In reality, there simply is no such thing as "the Reformed" view on this question. In fact, the only thing inherent in the Calvinist position is that God may elect as many s he wants unto eternal life
If you can be that far off here, how far off are you in other areas? Perhaps people should cast more of a skeptical eye on your "body of work."
Birch said:
ReplyDelete---
Historically, and I would argue that even today, Amillennialism would constitute the majority view among Calvinists.
---
But here's what you originally said:
---
You know as well as I do that this is a minority position among very few Calvinists.
---
A minority of people voted for McCain in the last election. Would you say that that constitutes "very few votors"?
In any case, Puritains were also postmil. Would you consider them to be only a few people, insignificant to consider?
And since you asked:
---
Have you not found this to be true as well?
---
The vast majority of people I run with couldn't care less. They're pretty much united against premil, but as to whether it's a- or postmil, it's not a vastly important issue to them. To those who it is an important issue, it's split about evenly.
For the record, I am amil on every even day, and postmil on every odd day, excluding prime numbers, in which case I'm postamil, or if the even number day is divisible by 8, 9, or 13 in which case I'm an apostmil. However, to account for leap year, I sometimes change this as arbitrarily as possible.
Birch said:
---
Now, I did not know that some Preterists were also Postmill.
---
I take it you haven't read Gentry.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not yet read Gentry. And the prime numbers thing was funny :)
The Paddle,
Yes, I've read the WCF and some commentary. But the Confession could have stated it as "all infants," but instead chose "elect infants."
Yes, God could have elected all infants who die in infancy unto salvation. MacArthur believes such (and I'm sure other Calvinists believe so as well). Perhaps you also think that the authors should have been more clear.
As far as commentaries on the words "few" and "many" are concerned, I have read a number of them, both Calvinist and Arminian (or non-Calvinist).
A. T. Robertson, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, states: "Few. In contrast to the many. Absolutely many will be saved, but apparently more go the broad way" (116).
Steve,
I am not changing the subject whatsoever. I'm responding to your exact comment marked 8:44. Nothing has changed.
Mark,
You're quote of the WCF doesn't affirm nor deny that all infants who die go to heaven.
The Confession says "elect" infants who die in infancy go to heaven, not "all" infants. That was my point.
And now your quoting Jesus concerning the narrow gate and the few. I thought your original objection was against Calvinists who taught this.
I am complaining about what Calvinists claim; but Jesus did not speak of unconditional election at Matt. 7:13-14. I'm just making the observation that if "few" will find Life, and "many" will find Destruction, and Unconditional Election is true, then God has only pre-selected (relatively) few for heaven. For some reason, that sparked controversy.
WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"I am not changing the subject whatsoever. I'm responding to your exact comment marked 8:44. Nothing has changed."
You are starting with your own interpretation of Mt 7:13-14, plugging that into a Reformed calculus, then deriving an equation which results your own interpretation. That is hardly an accurately way of describing Reformed theology. It turns in a key assumption which you impute to Calvinism.
And it's demonstrably the case that major Reformed theologians like Warfield would reject your interpretation. There is no Reformed interpretation of Mt 7:13-14.
William,
ReplyDeleteYou say in responnse: "But the Confession could have stated it as "all infants," but instead chose "elect infants."
I say in reply: And this closes the door on you. Yes, the Confession could have said that, but it remained neutral between opposing views, as it did on many other issues. This therefore goes to show that the issue is one that was debatable within Calvinism, which clearly undercuts your very claim.
Even your backtracking wound up disproving your initial claims.