A Primer for Bossmanham.
Our friend BSmnhm, takes issue with the notion that some Calvinists believe Arminianism to lead to liberalism. By way of reply, he cites groups like the PCUSA and Robert Schuller, as if the existence of these proves that Calvinism leads to it too, or, more properly, "Neener, neener!"
This misses the point..so it seems we'll have to do some explaining for our friend. When representatives of Calvinism, like Philip Ryken state that the road to liberalism frequently leads through Arminianism, they do so from the perspective that Calvinism is a conserving force in theology, not a liberalizing force.
Indeed, one can cite example after example of historical instances in which Arminianism has led directly to theological drift and outright apostasy. The Socinians and Arminians were quick friends centuries ago. The Free Will Baptists nearly died out because of that union, and, if not for the New Connexion would have done so. After Francis Turretin passed on, Amyraldianism and then Arminianism arose in Geneva, and a generation later, Geneva was apostate. Today, we have Open Theists and Universalists.
Ah, says, Bossmanham, what about theological drift in the PCUSA? What about it? Does the PCUSA adhere to the Westminster Standards? No. The liberals had to leave those behind, and with it Calvinism qua Calvinism. Ah, but what about the Neo-Orthodox, aren't they liberals, and didn't they arise, as with Barth, out of Calvinism? Yes on both counts...but what this neglects is this: Neo-Orthodoxy is not a response to evangelical orthodoxy, rather it is a move within the liberal movement back toward orthodoxy...a conserving force, which proves the point, where Protestant theology moves in a more conservative direction, it tends toward more Calvinistic underpinnings. Where it moves in a more Arminian direction, it has a more liberalizing tendency.
I've wondered about the connection between Calvinists and conservative theology... it seems to be a fairly consistent historical rule that if someone can come to the point where they believe in double predestination, it is highly unlikely they will drift into liberalism. The exceptions seem to prove the rule (Pinnock would be an example, I guess).
ReplyDeleteMy best guess is that the essence of liberalism seems to be some kind of correlationist method, where one tries to adapt scripture to experience. But if someone is perfectly comfortable, psychologically speaking, believing a doctrine that many find mysterious and harsh, there's probably no chance they'll be attracted to a correlationist method.
(As someone who does not hold to the "L" in Owen's sense, I would demur about "Amyraldianism" leading to liberalism, but that's a minor point...)
On the other hand, Arminians could probably also retort that the drift to liberalism will only happen when Arminians give up Arminianism qua classical Arminianism. That's probably fair: there are cranky conservative Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and libertarians/non-Augustinians. As long as there is some doctrine sufficiently offensive to modern sensibilities (Papal infallibility, transubstantiation, eternal conscious punishment, etc.), a person is probably less likely to go the correlationist route.
But that's just my $.02
Thanks for the lesson, Gene. Andrew said what I was going to say.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean my response before to be a "neener neener" moment. I was giving examples to show that neither side was immune from people leaving the principles of their founders.
"I was giving examples to show that neither side was immune from people leaving the principles of their founders."
ReplyDeleteThen this would be making an argument that no one would disagree with. What's the word? Trivial comes to mind.
I think Gene's point (correct me if I'm wrong!) was that numerous Arminians drift towards liberalism... because the seed of theological liberalism is embedded within!
Yeah truth unites, and MSNBC's coverage isn't biased. In fact, that's exactly what was going through my head when I read this. If MSNBC were a conservative Calvinistic network, this is exactly the baloney I'd expect from them. Not objective journalism in other words.
ReplyDeleteFor Gene's education, Schleiermacher remained a "Calvinist" till his dying day.
Gene Bridges: "a conserving force, which proves the point, where Protestant theology moves in a more conservative direction, it tends toward more Calvinistic underpinnings. Where it moves in a more Arminian direction, it has a more liberalizing tendency."
ReplyDeleteBossmanham, I took this as a general point by Gene. Whereby, in general, more, much more Arminians drift towards theological liberalism than do Calvinists.
That's not hard to understand.
BSMan is the quintessential example of the dilettante who looks up big words and people's names without giving thought to their meaning or significance...for his education...
ReplyDelete1. He would have been a conservative among liberals, which rather proves my point; Calvinism is conserving, whereas Arminianism is liberalizing and has been from its inception.
2. The exception proves the rule.
I didn't mean my response before to be a "neener neener" moment.
Yes, you did and anybody that followed that discussion knows it, so don't try to wriggle out of it. You didn't intend to show that every side is guilty, rather you sought to call the statement about Arminianism a falsehood. Those aren't convertible ideas.
Dear Gene,
ReplyDeleteNeither FACTS nor TULIP are liberal or not liberal (either in seed or blossom). Both sides are replete with examples of conservatives, liberals and apostates.
In the past, it's true that sometimes liberals jumped on the bandwagon when Arminians took aim at Calvinist strongholds, particularly when Calvinists had political influence. Perhaps you mix this in with Arminianism.
The Socinians and Arminians were quick friends centuries ago.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
God be with you,
Dan
@ BSman,
ReplyDeleteDid Calvinism spawn F. Schleiermacher? No, Moravianism did. He believed in the election so grace, but that's about all that can be said of his Calvinism.
Neither FACTS nor TULIP are liberal or not liberal (either in seed or blossom).
Irrelevant, for that's not the issue. rather as soon as you construct a system based on one or two central planks, like LFW, you enter the realm of theological liberalism. Reformed theology is not constructed along such lines.
Try again, Dan. The issue is one of theological method on the one hand and certain content on the other, namely the push to establish the role of human freedom and theological rationality (as in rationalism qua rationalism) in the attainment of the knowledge of God.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
The denial of the innate idea of God began with Episcopius and ran through to van Limborch, leading to Socinianism, theological latitudinarianism, and eventually apostasy. Where Arminianism arises, liberalism's seeds are sown.
Free Will Baptist history. FWB's were nearly destroyed by Socinianism. Any Baptist history text will show that.
In the past, it's true that sometimes liberals jumped on the bandwagon when Arminians took aim at Calvinist strongholds, particularly when Calvinists had political influence. Perhaps you mix this in with Arminianism.
What did I write? The Socinians and Arminians were quick friends centuries ago. The Free Will Baptists nearly died out because of that union, and, if not for the New Connexion would have done so.
So, how is what you wrote at all responsive? Answer: It isn't.
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteEpiscopius' denial of 'inate knowledge of God' was on pain of charges of Pelagianism. But it does not lead to Socinianism. Festus Hommius clained he was Socinian and it got so bad that Episcopius sued him for slander and won. (Ellis. Simon Episcopius' Doctrine of Original Sin. p. 55 fn 108) Limborich was in the same boat.
God be with you,
Dan
We could bring up people on both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist issue who have turned liberal. I think the better debate is over the biblical issues at hand. While we can no doubt learn from the errors of the past, we need to question now what we believe to see if we are holding firmly to the truth (2 Cor. 13:5).
ReplyDeleteAm I a disciple of Jesus now (John 8:31-32) is so vital in our age of mass apostasy. I am Arminian but I need to hold firmly to the authority of Scripture over the teachings of Arminius for only the Word of God saves (James 1:21).