Non-Calvinist theologians?

[whatever]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
Well, regarding the sovereignty-responsibility tension and knowing you guys to have a history of giving straight answers, let me ask you:

Does man have any responsiblity in the process of regeneration? And if so, what?

This might blow your mind, but hear me out. Man is commanded to repent and believe. It does not follow that man is able to repent and believe.

The followers of Arminius built their argument, in part, on the notion that one cannot be held accountable to perform that which he is not able to perform. I think this is obviously false. The first half of Romans 3 makes it clear that we all, every single person, are under sin and we cannot do anything about it. And yet Paul says that while we were in this condition God sent the law "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God". He gave His law, and His people couldn't possibly keep it, and yet He held them accountable. It's the same with us, with God's command for us to repent and believe. Unless the Father draws us we cannot repent and believe, and those who the Father draws will be raised up by Christ on the last day.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
For a well-written "non-calvinist" theology, see "Theological Insitutes" by Richard Watson. It's rather old, and not widely taught today, but even someone like Charles Hodge called this work an "excellent system of theology" and "deservedly in High Repute among the Wesleyan Methodists."

Of course, those in the Methodist tradition like John Wesley and Charles Finney would be non-calvinist.

Norman Geisler refers to himself as moderate calvinist (see Chapter 1 of "Chosen But Free"). Most of those that refer to Geisler as arminian are those who disagree with him on the finer points of election/free will, and don't understand that his perspective comes from Thomas Aquinas (whom they've never read.) Chafer would be considered moderate calvinist.

Other non-calvinists would include Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone, and their followers in the Church of Christ/Christian Church/Disciples of Christ movement. I suppose you could include the whole of catholicism.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Nazarenes are generally non-calvinist.

The Stone-Campbell theology goes quite beyond arminianism to the borders of pelagianism. Most of them don't believe in original sin.

The Nazarenes are conservative Methodists by another name.

Geisler is certainly a Jesuit in his approach to some issues--nuff said on that! He does not disagree with the Reformed viewpoints on some "fine points," he rejects reformed theology totally, and is about a two-pointer, if that.

Finney was, of all things, Presbyterian--but so were Campbell and Stone at first. He later became a perfectionist as well as a Pelagian.

You could include all of Catholicism except for Augustine and his followers, and the Jansenists in 18th century France.

Again, we must qualify our use of the term "Calvinist." Grudem, J.P. Boyce, Dagg, Nettles, Gill,, etc., were Baptists. MacArthur is baptistic and is a dispensationalist. They and those whose categories they represent are Monergists in their doctrines of Salvation, as opposed to the synergism of others, but "Calvinist" is not what they are in every area.

Then again, if you are looking at the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, the infallibility of the Bible, justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, original sin, etc., these evangelical doctrines were first systemized in Calvin's Institutes. So, you could say all evangelicals are calvinst to a degree. After all, so were Jacobus Arminius and Moise Amyraut.

 

[Major B]

More on Finney. Lest you disbelieve, here are some excerpts from his "Lectures"

"

1. Gospel justification is not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Under the gospel, sinners are not justified by having the obedience of Jesus
Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law for them, or
in their stead. It is not an uncommon mistake to suppose, that when
sinners are justified under the gospel, they are accounted righteous in the
eye of the law, by having the obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed
to them. I have not time to enter into an examination of this subject now. I
can only say this idea is absurd and impossible, for this reason, that Jesus
Christ was bound to obey the law for himself, and could no more perform
works of supererogation, or obey on our account, than anybody else...


4. Gospel justification, or justification by faith, consists in pardon and
acceptance with God.
When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not mean
that they are accepted on the ground of law, but that they are treated as
they were righteous, on account of their faith and works of faith. This
the method which God takes, in justifying a sinner. Not that faith is the
foundation of justification. The foundation is in Christ. But this is the
manner in which sinners are pardoned, and accepted, and justified, that
they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins shall be forgiven, for
the sake of Christ.
Here it will be seen how justification under the gospel differs from
justification under the law. Legal justification is a declaration of actual
innocence and freedom from blame. Gospel justification is pardon and
acceptance, as if he was righteous, but on other grounds than his own
obedience. When the apostle says, “By deeds of law shall no flesh
justified, he uses justification as a lawyer, in a strictly legal sense.” But
when he speaks of justification by faith, he speaks not of legal
justification, but of a person’s being treated as if he were righteous...."

 

[bjonson]

Major B,

You have been very enlightening to me. Thank you for sharing this information.

 

[Ransom]

Humblesmith said:

Norman Geisler refers to himself as moderate calvinist (see Chapter 1 of "Chosen But Free"). Most of those that refer to Geisler as arminian are those who disagree with him on the finer points of election/free will,

There is a good reason we call Geisler Arminian. Even though he calls himself a "moderate Calvinist," he co-opts the traditional theological language and redefines terms such as "Unconditional Election" at his own whim - and his revised definitions are practically indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill, four-point, evangelical Arminianism.

If an economist were to label himself a "moderate Marxist," it's reasonable to assume that he isn't going to promote private ownership of property and call it "collectivism."

and don't understand that his perspective comes from Thomas Aquinas (whom they've never read.)

Actually, I have read Aquinas. I have a few friends, critics of Calvinism, who think that the traditional Calvinist teaching on election and predestination was practically unheard of between Augustine and Martin Luther. I like to point them to Chapter 8 of the Summa Theologica, where we find out that Aquinas was quite a strong predestinarian, believing that the election of believers was wholly God's prerogative, not man's. The Roman Catholic Aquinas was more "Calvinist," in fact, than "moderate Calvinist" Norman Geisler.

 

[webdog]

This might blow your mind, but hear me out. Man is commanded to repent and believe. It does not follow that man is able to repent and believe

More circular nonsense. God would not command someone to do something if they were unable to respond to it. When God said to have no other gods beside Him is proof that man can have other gods beside Him. When God says to believe, follow, repent, etc. be assured that man can believe, follow, repent, etc. My God does not speak foolish, impossible double talk.

 

[Ransom]

More circular nonsense.

Do you even know what the word "circular" means? Because you wouldn't be able to guess it from the way you use it.

 

[webdog]

If you want to discuss grammar and the english language, go somewhere else. It is pretty circular to command someone to repent...but they are unable to repent...they are judged on not repenting...so they are punished for not following the command to repent. I thought that there were no "absolutes" when speaking figuratively?

 

[Major B]

Actually, I believe that instead of debating, this thread was for the purpose of identifying and relating information about the persons and positions of non-calvinist theologians.

 

[Ransom]

If you want to discuss grammar and the english language, go somewhere else. It is pretty circular to command someone to repent...but they are unable to repent...they are judged on not repenting...so they are punished for not following the command to repent.

This must be some new and unusual definition of the word "circular" which humanity has not previously experienced.

 

[webdog]

...you now have.

 

[Humblesmith]

Originally posted by Ransom:

Actually, I have read Aquinas. I have a few friends, critics of Calvinism, who think that the traditional Calvinist teaching on election and predestination was practically unheard of between Augustine and Martin Luther. I like to point them to Chapter 8 of the Summa Theologica, where we find out that Aquinas was quite a strong predestinarian, believing that the election of believers was wholly God's prerogative, not man's. The Roman Catholic Aquinas was more "Calvinist," in fact, than "moderate Calvinist" Norman Geisler.

By "chapter 8" I assume you mean I-II.8, which deals with "the will, in regard to what it wills." Nothing there about the determiner of the will, only what is willed. More directly to the subject is I-II.9.3, and I-II.9.6. dealing with "That which moves the will." Here, esp. question 6, "Is the will moved by God alone" explains a position I presume you'd agree with. And you correctly point out that Thomas shows God as determiner of the will. But look more closely.....he also says that "without [God's] universal motion, man cannot will anything. But man determines himself by his reason to will this or that, which is true or apparent good."

Also is I-II.109.2, dealing with "whether man can wish or do any good without grace?" I would think that you'd like this one.

All of this, I'm sure you'll agree, is overridden by scripture, which is the final arbiter of truth. However, all I have read of Thomas and Geisler, they align, such as with the teaching of God's and man's wills in the passages cited here.

 

[EdSutton]

What are the qualifications for 'theologian'? Is there a list somewhere?
Ed

 

[bjonson]

Ed,

Good question. My original hope for this post was to uncover men who are published and reasonably well-known as theologians, preachers or authers and who hold to non-Calvinism.

The feedback has been what I hoped for, excepting the debating...which wasn't intended.

 

[exscentric]

On an internet board - no debating - surely you jest

On this board - no debating - you are jesting

 

[Ransom]

Humblesmith said:

By "chapter 8" I assume you mean I-II.8, which deals with "the will, in regard to what it wills."

Actually, by "chapter 8" I meant I.23, which deals with "Predestination." Don't know where I got that 8 from. Faulty memory.

Aquinas defines predestination thus:

. . . it is clear that predestination is a kind of type of the ordering of some persons towards eternal salvation, existing in the divine mind. The execution, however, of this order is in a passive way in the predestined, but actively in God. The execution of predestination is the calling and magnification; according to the Apostle (Romans 8:30): "Whom He predestined, them He also called and whom He called, them He also magnified." (Summa I.23.ii)

He believed in double predestination:

[A]s predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin. (I.23.iii)

He answers the cavils of those anti-predestinarians that claim that God's election is arbitrary or capricious, responding that election is grounded in love:

His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love. (I.23.iv)

Nor is election based on the foreknowledge of merit in the one elected:

Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lamentations 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." (I.23.v)

A common objection to Calvinism is that it kills evangelism. After all, why bother preaching to the unconverted if God has already predestined them to heaven or hell? Aquinas tackles a similar question, of whether prayer is efficacious in light of predestination, answering in the affirmative:

predestination is said to be helped by the prayers of the saints, and by other good works; because providence, of which predestination is a part, does not do away with secondary causes but so provides effects, that the order of secondary causes falls also under providence. So, as natural effects are provided by God in such a way that natural causes are directed to bring about those natural effects, without which those effects would not happen; so the salvation of a person is predestined by God in such a way, that whatever helps that person towards salvation falls under the order of predestination; whether it be one's own prayers or those of another; or other good works, and such like, without which one would not attain to salvation. (I.23.viii)

We can guess that his answer would be similar if he were tackling the question of evangelism instead of prayer: God has ordained not only the end, which is conversion, but the means, which is evangelism, so go to it!

Now, if you read Chosen but Free, it becomes quite evident that even if we can consider Norman Geisler to be a Thomist, he certainly departs from Aquinas' views on this particular subject.

[ January 16, 2006, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Humblesmith]

If we read Chosen But Free, it becomes quite evident that Norman Geisler is aligned with Thomas' teaching on secondary causes, which you have rightly quoted. That is one of the main points in the book. He also carries the theme through, with extensive support from historical sources, in his Systematic Theology.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:

...BTW, I've heard Spurgeon believed faith was exercised an instant before regeneration - anybody know if that's true? [/QB][/QUOTE]


"a man who is regenerated...is saved already...it is...ridiculous...to preach Christ to him.
- Spurgeon, "The Warrant of Faith", pg. 3

Calvinists argue that salvation and regeneration are two distinct events, regeneration coming first by God's sovereign act without faith, then the gift of faith is given so that the person can believe the gospel unto salvation. This quote from Spurgeon rejects that notion.

Salvation comes by faith - faith is the means of our salvation/regeneration, not something that follows it.

"by grace THROUGH faith" - God's grace to regenerate us by our faith.


Ray

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
...Does man have any responsiblity in the process of regeneration? And if so, what?

Yes, to come, believe and receive Christ -

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

John 1:12 But as many as received him But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

"by grace THROUGH faith" - God's grace in regenerating us by our faith in Him.


Ray

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Originally posted by shannonL:
... If you don't perservere then you never were saved in my opinion...

Calvinist like to believe so but, imo, the Word of God doesn't teach such -

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

(Barnes Commentary on Heb. 6:4-6) That it refers to true Christians will be apparent from these considerations:--

(1.) Such is the sense which would strike the great mass of readers. Unless there were some theory to defend, the great body of readers of the New Testament would consider the expression here used as describing true Christians.

(2.) The connexion demands such an interpretation. The apostle was addressing Christians. He was endeavouring to keep them from apostasy. The object was not to keep those who were awakened and enlightened from apostasy, but it was to preserve those who were already in the Church of Christ from going back to perdition. The kind of exhortation appropriate to those who were awakened and convicted, but who were not truly converted, would be to become converted; not to warn them of the danger of falling away. Besides, the apostle would not have said of such persons that they could not be converted and saved. [But of sincere Christians it might be said, with the utmost propriety, that they could not be renewed again, and be saved, if they should fall away--because they rejected the only plan of salvation after they had tried it, and renounced the only scheme of redemption after they had tasted its benefits. If that plea could not save them, what could? If they neglected that, by what Other means could they be brought to God?

Hebrews 10:26-27,38-39 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries...Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

(Barnes Commentary on Heb. 10:26) If, after we are converted and become true Christians, we should apostatize, it would be impossible to be recovered again, for there would be no other sacrifice for sin; no way by which we could be saved.

1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

There is never a mention of true faith and false faith in Scripure. The faith spoken of here is saving faith, of which some, as the Apostle Paul says, have "made shipwreck"

Originally posted by shannonL:
...I think there are many who oppose calvinism who label all calvinists to be hyper...

'Hyper-Calvinism' is really an oxymoron. Hyper Calvinists are true Calvinists (eg. James White), all others are "leaky" (eg. C.H. Spurgeon)


Ray