Dan Chapa

John D. Wagner assembled inputs from a wide ranges of authors to put together Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation .   The book starts off with Roger Olson defending Arminianism from the charge of being “man-centered”.   Olson notes that Richard Watson affirmed God could have prevented the fall and that James Arminius only affirmed free will to defend God's righteousness. Olson says that the doctrine of divine concurrence with secondary causes is the primary way of defending God's sovereignty in Arminianism. The book moves on to Vernon Grounds, whose mystical style is not my cup of tea.   He focuses on the personal nature of grace.  Next comes Glen Shellrude.   He makes Calvinists pay full price for determinism by surveying a variety of biblical texts through the lens of determinism. Shellrude doesn't take on compatibilism directly; he just focuses on the awkward results of determinism.  He ends by saying atheism makes more se...

I am not talking about Billy's blog , but the name itself. Lately people are using the term Classical Arminianism, Reformed Arminianism, Arminianism of the heart...  Do these terms do Arminians a disservice? I think the point of these terms is to get back in touch with our roots and point out that Arminius himself was completely orthodox. But what are we distinguishing areselves from? Is there a type of Arminianism other than Classical Arminianism? Are these other Arminians open theists, anti-trinitarians, liberals and Pelagians?  Have the Calvinists been right all along about Arminianism and Classical Arminians only represent a small subset of Arminianism? I think not. Arminianism is Classical Arminianism.

Following up on my Baptist Chronicles post , here's a quote from David Docery in Calvinims: A Southern Baptist Dialogue: We must recognize that there is a need for boundaries to say that some things do not fit in Baptist life.  We need to say that hyper-Calvinims (involving the rejection or neglect of evangelism and missions) does not fit.  We need to say that consistent Arminianism (involving the rejection of eternal security) does not fit.   Pelagianism, open theism and process theology do not belong.   (p. 42) Docery does not like the label Arminianism because of its association with the rejection of eternal security providing another example of why non-Calvinist Southern Baptists don't call themselves Arminian.   

I recently enjoyed the article “ Neither Calvinist nor Arminians but Baptists ” by the authors of Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism. To an extent, I see myself in this category as well. The authors teach Eternal Security and reject Open Theism and therefore distance themselves with Arminianism. I also hold to Eternal Security and Molinism and I think Arminianism is perfectly consistent with these views, but to the extent Arminianism is associated with falling from grace, my accepting the label Arminian could confuse people. But I think this just gives me the opportunity to clarify Arminianism, rather than just reject an otherwise helpful label. Besides, I suspect the authors of the article represent a broad group in which some of the members do truly fall outside the Arminian camp, but are still not 5-point Calvinists, so the motivations for the group may be different for me as an individual. I also like the point that the Calvinism/Arminianism i...

During Arminius' day Calvinists used six distinctions to hold God decreed Adam's fall while denying God is the author of sin. Below are my paraphrases and summaries of the distinctions and Arminius’ responses. Here’s a link to the original text. ( link ) The Act and the Sin The first distinction is " in sin there are two things, the act and its sinfulness. God, by his own ordination, is the author of the act, not of the sinfulness in the act . Arminius argues that the distinction works for sins of omission (i.e. giving money to the church for public praise is a good act done for the wrong reasons) but not for sins of commission, because the acts themselves are against the law. But Adam's fall was a sin of commission, so the distinction is unhelpful. Also, since God's goal was to illustrate His glory and justice, the fall was decreed in that it was evil, not just in that it was an act, since sin (not the act) is forgiven or punished. Even if God predetermined someon...

Calvinsts charge Arminians with making predestination irrelevant - something that doesn't impact life. If God already foreknew Bobby will believe in the future, predestination becomes a rubber stamp of what Bobby will do. It's already the future without predestination. Is this charge valid? Arminian views on predestination vary, but for some views (in my opinion those that most clearly and successfully avoid the charge) predestination seems to favor eternal security. The first view that clearly shows how predestination impacts the world is the foreknowledge is or includes middle knowledge. In this view God chooses what circumstances to put someone in, knowing how they would freely respond. This clearly impacts the world, and equally clearly explains how God could prevent apostasy. The second view the clearly shows how predestination impacts life is that predestination impacts the time after the foreknown event. Let's say predestination impacts Bobby's life from the mo...

John 3:16 is perhaps the best know verse in scripture because it's one of the simplest expressions of the gospel; it's only rival for popularity that I can think of is Genesis 1:1. It states: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. This seems like a plain statement of Eternal Security, and yet so many that know and love this passage don't hold to ES. What I Eternal Security? Eternal Security is the union of two views: 1) the assurance of salvation and 2) once saved, always saved (OSAS). Assurance is knowing for sure that you are saved. Many folks that hold to falling from grace do think we can have assurance (i.e. I know I am saved today, but I might not be tomorrow). So assurance is not as controversial an element as OSAS. OSAS is the view that if your saved now, you always will be. Those that hold to OSAS must be subdivided into two groups: 1) those that hold perseverance is n...

Steve Hays recently pointed out that I believe in Eternal Security and most other people that call themselves Arminians 1 don’t. ( link ) In fact, for many that call themselves Arminians, this question is near and dear to their heart. This isn't a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" issue; questions about security are intensely practical and personal. Looking into “warning passages” may have been what lead them to Arminianism in the first place. They might even view ES as a dangerous doctrine or a license to sin. I can relate, but my journey lead me to a different view of security. Of the two forces binding us to God, love and fear, I find love the strongest. I didn't come by this lightly. I grew up Baptist and was taught ES as a child, but in high school I was so jolted to read the Hebrews warning passages that I questioned a great deal of what I had been taught. Through careful examination and study, I came back to believing Eternal Security is ...

John Goodwin's 531 page commentary on Romans 9 is the longest and most detailed account of Romans 9 I have read. I loved it. I will try to give a brief overview and highlight what I found to be some of his most insightful points. The structure of his work is as follows: a brief overview of the chapter to show how his view flows with the contours of the text, a detailed exposition of the text, a table of scriptures mentioned with some commentary on them, some general comments on interpretation, and some questions on answers on the broader implications of the text. The work also includes the "Banner of Justification", which explains justification in detail and it includes "Agreement and Distance of Brethren" which highlights the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. Overview In his introduction, Goodwin explains two problems with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. First, they miss Paul's point about justification by faith. They argue that if...

The purpose of this post is to define Arminian soteriology. Arminianism in general is the views of James Arminius. Of course, Arminius’ views span more then just salvation. They include the freewill of man, God’s providence, the entrance of sin into the world and foreknowledge. This post is specific to the topic of salvation. Arminian soteriology has been variously defined ranging from any non-Calvinist viewpoint to all views that teach falling from grace (a view Arminius didn’t hold). So how shall we define Arminianism? I suggest we look to the past for clarity. In order to define Arminian soteriology we must look back to the historic Calvinist/Arminian debate. Arminianism was debated hotly during James Arminius’ life. After his death in 1609, his followers summarized his views into five points in 1610. These views were debated up until the Synod of Dort in 1619. The Synod issued the Cannons of Dort, which were organized into five points; the five points of Calvinism. Here is a table ...

In Bob Moore’s Calvinism, Ten Little Caveats , he provides a step-by-step analysis of Romans 9 , and he contrasts his view with John Piper’s. He first admits that Romans 9 is difficult to interpret and we need to lay down our presuppositions and try to put ourselves in Paul’s shoes. He points out that the key issue of the chapter is God’s way vs. man’s way. Paul address the Jewish challenged that God must require works for salvation, by showing that God chose to save through faith. Moore sees the blessings in Romans 9:4 as conditional, Piper sees them as unconditional, but non-salving. Moore sees the choice of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as providing blessings but not salvation, but they illustrate that God saves through faith not works; Piper sees the election of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as unconditional individual election. Both Moore and Piper see “it” in Romans 9:16 as God’s bestowal of mercy, but Piper sees faith as part of “willing” and “running” because he thinks of faith as a kind...

Roger Olson’s article: Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian explains the importance of Arminians and Calvinists accepting each other and working together despite their theological differences. Olson shares several personal anecdotes while explaining why classic Arminians are evangelical and neither humanist or liberal. Olson also shares that even though he remained Arminian, learning about Calvinism provide him some balance on the issues of God’s sovereignty and man’s need for grace. He sees the cooperation of Wesley and Whitfield as a good example of how Calvinists and Arminians need each other and despite important irreconcilable differences, can work together harmoniously for the cause of Christ.

In Robert E. Picirilli’s article Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future, he explains that Reformation Arminians hold that God knows what we will freely choose in the future, whereas Neo-Arminians (a.k.a. Open Theists) disagree. With a little help from Arminius and Richard Watson, Pircirilli carefully defends his thesis that “ there is nothing about the certainty of the future that is in conflict with the ability of human beings to make free, moral decisions ” by defining certainty, necessity and contingency and demonstrating how contingency and certainty don’t conflict. Picirilli explains that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is foreordination, not foreknowledge. For the Reformation Arminian, then, the final set of facts to hold is: (1) the future is certain and foreknown certainly by God; (2) this is in full harmony with the fact that human beings make free, moral choices for which they are held justly responsible. (link)

In Brian Abasciano’s article Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner , Abasciano corrects Schreiner’s mistaken notion that corporate election denies any place to the individual . He argues that election is primarily corporate based on 1) the OT concept of election, 2) Paul’s statements about election to salvation and the fact that 3) first century culture was collectivist rather than individualistic. However, even though the primary focus of election is the community , the fact remains that the individual is elect secondarily as a member of the community . All this sets the stage for correctly understanding election in Romans 9 and answering Schreiner’s arguments. (link)

In Martin Glynn’s critique of the Articles of the Remonstrants, he provides a brief and helpful historical introduction and then dissects each of the five articles. Glynn notes the two surprises in the pile: article 3 is an unqualified expression of Total Depravity and in article 5 the Remonstrants are undecided on the issue of apostasy and simply say they need to research it more in Scripture . (link)

Man’s faith and Freedom is a collection of 5 essays and a sermon presented at the 1960 Arminius Symposium in Holland in 1960. Instead of giving the overall volume mixed reviews, I will review each essay separately. The Life and Struggles of Arminius in the Dutch Republic by Gerrit Jan Hoenderdall presents a succinct and accurate summary of the life and times of James Arminius. Arminius' theological training and pastoral experiences in Amsterdam prepared him for professorship at Leiden, where his disagreements with Calvinistic predestination came to a head. Hoenderdall does a good job capturing the political undercurrents involved in the theological debates in Holland. The topic of debate was predestination but what were the rules and more importantly who was to preside over the debate? Arminius enjoyed some limited, hard-fought progress, but shortly after his death the Calvinists would prevail. The irony in Arminius’ life was his quarreling to gain peace. From Arminius to Armin...