The Society of Evangelical Post-Arminians

Friday Files, 16 Mar 2018

March 16, 2018, posted by K.W. Leslie

Derek Rishmawy (Calvinist), Reformedish.

• “The comfort of a moral cretin.”

[12 Mar 2018] Reviewing Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism, Rishmawy defends the idea that God kills children in tsunamis… but admits it’s not the best thing to tell the grieving.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/ff180316/

i) Apparently, Arminians now believe natural forces like tsunamis have libertarian freedom. God has no control over when and where a tsunami strikes. Does SEA stand for the Society of Evangelical Animists? Does SEA subscribe to panpsychism? Are natural disasters are personal agents with a mind of their own? 

ii) It's ironic that Arminians attack Calvin's distinction between proximate/remote causation, but then act as though natural forces can't be traced back to divine agency. 

iii) Evidently, if Charles Wesley applied for membership to SEA, his application would be rejected since he attributes natural disasters to divine judgment:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-129-the-cause-and-cure-of-earthquakes/

Poor Wesley is too Arminian for SEA. What used to be traditional Arminian theology has now been reclassified as Calvinism. Perhaps SEA should be renamed the Society of Evangelical post-Arminians. 

Wesley now finds himself in the same company as Groucho Marx regarding the merits of  club membership. 

On God, providence, and natural disasters

1. Two recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida renewed perennial debates about the problem of natural evil. Calvinists and freewill theists give different answers. A friend asked me to comment on this old screed by Rachel Held Evans:

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/abusive-theology-piper-mahaney

I rarely read RHE. Outrage is crack cocaine for folks like RHE. The moral satisfaction of waxing judgmental gives them a temporary high. They're addicted to indignation. They live for indignation. Because the high wears off, they are constantly on the lookout for something wax indignant about. 

In her post, RHE uses John Piper as a foil to attack Calvinism in general. She also uses the occasion as a pretext to launch into a gratuitous tirade against C. J. Mahaney. I say gratuitous because that has nothing to do with natural evil. 

In this post I'm not going to comment on the allegations against Mahaney, both because it's a red herring in relation to the primary topic of her post, and simply because I'm in no position to offer an informed opinion regarding his complicity, if any, in the scandal. 

Whitefield's woes

From Arnold Dallimore:

[W]hile [George] Whitefield was at Charleston, Commissary Garden confronted him with a copy of Wesley's sermon "Against Predestination." This was Whitefield's first realization that, contrary to his expressed desire, Wesley was circulating this divisive document, and he could see that the day was approaching when it would be necessary for him to write a reply.

And further disappointment awaiting him: he received an answer to his proposal of marriage. He merely tells us, "I find from Blendon letters that Miss E[lizabeth] D[elamotte] is in a seeking state only." Apparently either the parents or Elizabeth had written to say that she was not a sufficiently mature Christian to undergo all the trials he had listed. But the Delamottes, with the rest of the Fetter Lane Society, had become Moravians and were now opposed to the Wesleys, and we must suppose to some degree to Whitefield too. Moreover, Elizabeth was now keeping company with another young man, William Holland, the one spoken of as reading from Luther on the evening John Wesley was converted, and within five months Elizabeth and Holland were married. Our hearts go out to Whitefield in this further disappointment, and we feel for him as following his mention of the "Blendon letters" he says, "Just now I have been weeping, and much carried out before the Lord."

In this sense of deep disappointment he returned to Bethesda.

After a few days spent in superintending the work of the Orphan House, Whitefield set out on his Fall Tour -- that of New England. He had been invited by the governor and the secretary of Massachusetts, by a number of laymen, and by several ministers.

And now, as always, Boston people thronged to hear him. Civic officials of today would not allow such crowding as was practiced under Whitefield's ministry in the churches. Time after time humanity pressed into the pews, filled the aisles and the stairways, and covered the pulpit area. But in a congregation that had gathered ahead of time at the New South Church and was waiting for Whitefield to arrive, someone broke a board to form a makeshift seat, and a cry went up that the gallery was falling. Immediately the place was in a panic as people rushed to get to the doors, and many fell and were trampled upon. Some even threw themselves out of the windows. Five were killed and several seriously injured.

Whitefield was disturbed by the tragedy . . .

And:

My Dear, Dear Brethren,

. . . Why did you throw out that bone of contention? Why did you print that sermon against predestination? . . .

Do you not think, my dear brethren, that I must be as much concerned for truth, or what I think truth, as you? God is my judge. I always was, and I hope I always shall be, desirous that you may be preferred before me. But I must preach the Gospel of Christ, and this I cannot now do without speaking about election. . . .

O my dear brethren, my heart almost bleeds within me! Methinks I would be willing to tarry here on the waters forever, rather than come to England to oppose you.

Whitefield to John and Charles Wesley, from aboard ship, as it approached England March 1741