SBC Today, the rising star among Southern Baptist blogs, has continued a helpful series of posts interviewing well-known personalities throughout the Southern Baptist Convention. Mentionables include Jim Richards, Fred Luter, Brad Whit, Bryant Wright, Mac Brunson, Emir Caner, Ergun Caner, Johnny Hunt, Frank Cox, Steve Rummage, Hayes Wicker, Frank Page, and the most recent, Jerry Vines >>>
Continue reading "Calvinists react to Jerry Vines interview (part I) by Peter Lumpkins" »
| | |
| | |
Jim Richards presently is Executive Director of Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. His experience includes longtime Pastorates, Director of Missions and his present position.
After my time with Mac Brunson recently, when I asked him why he thought Jim was the right man for First Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention, I was able to track Jim down and hear his heart.
From Dr. Brunson's words, I came to like Jim Richards. Now, after personally hearing Jim share his heart, I admire Jim Richards more. And, I think, after reading the conversation below, you'll see why.
Jim Richards Sharing His Heart
Peter: I’d like to begin, if I may, Dr. Richards, with your background, your heritage. Tell us a bit about growing up, your family, your conversion.
Jim: God blessed me with a wonderful home. Both my mother and dad were strong believers. They were involved in the Lord’s work. Mother was a registered nurse and would witness to the patients at the hospital where she worked.
Dad worked in law enforcement and as a firefighter. When he died, he had been serving for a number of years as the lay music minister at his church.
Although I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church I was not saved until I was seventeen. Mother’s prayers and constant witness were impossible to escape. My best friend in high school witnessed to me about Christ. Alone in my bedroom in April 1970, I received Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
Three years later I met my wife, June. After a three week courtship I asked her to marry me and within four months, we were married. This is our 34th year together. God has blessed us with two daughters and one son.
Our daughters are married to fine men who love the Lord. Our son was a late-in-life gift and is still home with us going into his junior year in high school. We also have one grandchild, Hannah Grace, whom I call “Gracie”.
Peter: So, when did God call you into the ministry?
Jim: Even before I was saved there were times when I sensed God’s call upon my life. Three months after being saved God burdened me deeply about preaching His Word. I spent a day alone fasting and praying. He confirmed His call in my heart.
Peter: There’s been quite a lot of change in theological education through the years. How was it when you went to seminary and what is different now?
Jim: I need to back up to college. In 1970 I entered Louisiana College, affiliated with the Louisiana Baptist Convention. There, for the first time I encountered theological liberalism. Two of the religion professors denied the miraculous accounts in the Bible. The parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the Five Thousand and the first eleven chapters of Genesis were all ridiculed as myths. More significantly they denied the Virgin Birth, Blood Atonement and the Bodily Resurrection of our Lord.
I would raise my hand and lower my grade in the classes. Eventually, the President asked to me to leave the school because of my activism against theological liberalism. This put a fire in my belly to fight for the Word of God as long as I live. “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the Word of our God stands forever,” Isaiah 40:8.
Today, Louisiana College has been reclaimed. It is a sovereign work of God. Now the professors believe in the inerrant Word of God. It took the courageous sacrifice of untold numbers of men and women who wanted nothing out of it other than a place where their children could get a biblically sound education.
I was out of college nine years before going to seminary. Being a late bloomer put me in seminary during the middle of the Resurgence.
Fortunately, New Orleans Seminary did not have a lot of liberals. There were some who were definitely neo-orthodox in their approach. There were some who did not recognize the historicity of the text. Some denied stated authorship. Yet, about half of the instructors who taught me were inerrantists. Praise God that NOBTS is now completely sound theologically!
Peter: Some have recently raised questions about not only the validity of the CP but its survival. Dr. Richards, tell us the significance of the Cooperative Program and how have you supported it through the years in your ministry?
Jim: As a Southern Baptist pastor, every church I served gave 10% or more through the CP. As a Director of Missions in Arkansas I promoted the CP even though the Association received no direct CP support.
After coming to The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, the Cooperative Program has grown from a $900,000 budget our first year to almost $20 million in receipts last year.
The SBTC gives 54% of all undesignated funds to the Southern Baptist Convention for national and international causes. No other state convention gives away more than it retains in-state.
The Cooperative Program is the envy of the denominational world. There is no other giving channel like it.
Direct support of missions is very undependable and even capricious. Southern Baptists tried societal missions for 80 years and found it didn’t work. Hopefully, we will not return to the past.
Peter: Jim, tell us about the present position you hold and some of the goals you have not only for Texas but the entire globe.
Jim: Since the founding of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention I have served as Executive Director. Anyone who knows Baptists knows my title is a misnomer. There are no “execs” in Baptist life and no one “directs” Baptists to do anything.
Seriously, this has been the greatest ministerial challenge of my life. Almost nine years ago 120 congregations came together to form a confessional fellowship in Texas. Their desire was to be a Great Commission Partner with the Southern Baptist Convention.
These two factors caused the formation of the new convention. Since that time we have grown to almost 1900 affiliated congregations.
Church Planting has been the emphasis of our convention. It is the largest line item in our budget. No other area of ministry is equal to the Church Planting line item.
In a little over eight years the SBTC has been involved in supporting 350 new church starts in Texas. Missions and Evangelism make up nearly 40% of the budget. Reaching into the un-evangelized and under-evangelized areas of Texas with the Gospel of Jesus Christ is our greatest goal.
A new initiative this fall is the Ezekiel Project. With 70% of Southern Baptist churches not experiencing conversion growth, on a plateau or declining, we have developed a comprehensive strategy to assist churches to come to life again. At this fall’s annual meeting we will roll out the plan and put it to work. We are praying that God will use it, not only in Texas but across the SBC.
Time does not permit me to tell you of the over 100 local church ministries the SBTC services. We partner with NAMB and IMB to help churches connect to their Acts 1:8 mission fields. SBTC involves the next generation of leaders through mentoring and coaching. The list goes on.
Peter: Dr. Richards, there is some unrest today about the Baptist Faith and Message, whether it says too much or too little, whether it’s too restrictive or too loose. What is your view of the BF&M 2000 and your personal adherence or non-adherence to it?
Jim: Let me answer the last question first – I believe the BF&M 2000 is good statement for Southern Baptists. The SBTC being a confessional fellowship, requires all ministry employees to affirm agreement with the BF&M 2000. The SBTC staff does their entire ministry within the parameters of the BF&M 2000. Churches also affirm their agreement with the document as they affiliate.
To say the BFM provides exhaustive guidelines for our SBC ministries would leave us in dangerous territory. NAMB has a policy on divorced persons and ordained women (not just senior pastors). IMB has requirements on the age of children and current debt for career missionaries.
As far as I know IMB still uses the Body Mass Index in evaluating missionary candidates. The BFM 2000 does not directly address alcohol or tobacco use. Are we willing to allow missionaries and seminary professors to partake? The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC confronts the culture on issues not addressed in the BF&M.
We cannot include every practice or doctrinal issue in the BF&M. For the SBC each agency must be free to set expectation for service.
Peter: Another question some raise today pertains to fairness and openness when seeking out strong Southern Baptists to serve on our various Boards and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. Do you see yourself potentially working both well and fair with Dr. Page in the appointing process as First VP of the SBC?
Jim: Dr. Page personally asked my input this year and I was happy to give it. If I am elected, I will assist him to the best of my ability in whatever he asks me to do.
Peter: There’s been a tremendous amount of criticism brought against some of the decisions of Boards of Trustees, sometimes coming from vocal dissenters within the Board itself. Consequently, the tiny minority seems to have caused much dissension through their vocal dissent.
Dr. Richards, what is your view of the “Trustee System” we have in place as Southern Baptists to “get the work done” for the Kingdom? Also, how would you intend to “reach your hand across the aisle,” so to speak, to solve some of the divisive issues raised?
Jim: I support the trustee system of the Southern Baptist Convention. With that said, I think, for example, a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on private prayer language might have averted some of the controversy. What someone does in private devotions is between them and the Lord. I believe in reaching out to others who hold a different view.
There is room in the Southern Baptist Convention for those who believe in the active practice of the sign gifts. A popular interpretation is that God could enable a person to speak in a language they had not learned in order to present the gospel. This would correspond with Acts 2, 10 and possibly 19. Indeed, if the Scriptural restrictions on the use of tongues found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 were enforced, most of the modern practice of so-called tongue speaking would disappear.
Since the Charismatic movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s (which split many SBC churches at the time), there have been Charismatic Southern Baptists. Up to this time their practice has not been viewed as normative. Advocacy for these individual experiences to become normative in Southern Baptist life is where the dissent becomes distractive.
Southern Baptists may have to decide whether they are willing to accept some non-language “gibberish” prayer as a valid position within Baptist life.
Peter: Small Churches sometimes seem disenfranchised from the inter-workings of the Convention. Also, sometimes highly qualified men and women appear looked over in the over all appointing process. What is your view of the contribution small Churches and their Pastors offer in Kingdom work Southern Baptists do around the world?
Jim: This is a great question. I never pastored a church that averaged over 350 in Sunday School. I’m not saying that in a prideful way. I wanted to pastor a mega-church. Yet, God allowed me to serve Southern Baptists through the years from the context of a small church. There are many smaller membership church folks who provide invaluable service to the Kingdom.
The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Executive Board is required to have 1\4 of the members at the time of their election from churches with less than 400 resident members. If a person is elected and the church grows, the person is not penalized but is allowed continued service. This guarantees a perspective from the majority of our churches that fall into the category of “small” church.
Peter: If one description could be spoken, Jim, that captures what you desire others to know about Jim Richards, what would that be?
Jim: He loves the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God. He loves his family. And He loves Southern Baptists.
THE END of Interview
Southern Baptists are graced by our Lord to have sober, humble servants like Jim Richards willing to offer themselves to whatever challenge the task to which they are called affords.
I must say, after hearing Jim Richard's heart, his love for Scripture, his passion for missions and new church starts...his no-nonsense support of the Cooperative Program, his commitment to fairness in the appointing process and his inclusion of and appreciation for small Church leadership... not to mention his kind but sober approach in dealing with dissent, how is it that we could pass up this great opportunity to have, as our First Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jim Richards?
Oh, did I mention Jim is a avid runner?
With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
On Tuesday, June 12th of next week, the Southern Baptist Convention will convene for the 2007 annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas. It promises to be an awesome event. Indeed what could better describe a meeting of 10,000+ Southern Baptists--one of the greatest expressions of historic Christianity on the globe--than awesome?
One particular slice of business that is surely noteworthy is the election of the First Vice President. Thus far, there are two candidates: Jim Richards, Executive Director, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and the other, Southern Baptist missionary and Internet blogger, David Rogers serving and writing in Madrid, Spain.
As I have conversed with many people and gathered some information for myself, one characteristic appears evident as I've attempted to distinguish these two Baptist men:
Jim Richards broadly represents all Southern Baptists who are committed to accelerated church planting, evangelism and unwavering commitment to both who Southern Baptists are and who Southern Baptists desire to be.
On the other hand, David Rogers represents, within our convention, those who, in many ways, dissent from historic Southern Baptist identity, advocating, among other things, charismatic practices within our Convention and seeking to establish Churches that little resemble our Southern Baptist heritage. For me, that is the most crucial distinction that can be made. But a much better opinion than mine awaits!
By God's grace, I recently had communication with Dr. Mac Brunson, Pastor of the historic First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Fl and asked him to share his heart about precisely why he wanted to nominate Jim Richards. What follows contains the content of that conversation:
Dr Brunson, it is a pleasure to meet and talk with you. And while I know we want to get right into the nomination, I just wanted to offer the readers an opportunity to hear your heart personally as a framework for your nominating Jim Richards for First Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I'd like to begin, if I may, Dr. Brunson, with your present position. You serve as Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, FL. And prior to that, you served as Pastor of the historic First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX. Both Churches, Dr. Brunson, had legendary Pastors and Pulpiteers--the late Dr. Criswell in Dallas and of course, Dr. Vines, who presently is Pastor Emeritus at First, Jacksonville. The question, Dr. Brunson, is, how can one follow not one but two eminent Baptists like Drs. Criswell and Vines?
That is a question I am often asked but really have no answer for. I do know this, I cannot fill their shoes but I can be who God called me to be.
Speaking of Baptist leaders, how is it that you came to know Jim Richards and what struck you about him as you grew to know him?
I met Jim the first Sunday I preached at First Church, Dallas. He came to welcome me, and we built a friendship over these past 8 years. I also served on the board of the SBOTC.
You've seen much change through the years, Dr. Brunson, perhaps even much change in Baptist life. How have you seen Jim Richards change?
Jim is a man of God with unparalleled organizational gifts and abilities. He is a conservative and yet reaches out to those who seriously want to do kingdom work. In that sense, I have seen Jim grow personally and spiritually.
There is a swelling concern, Dr. Brunson, that the SBC is so big, it does not appreciate the small Church or the small Church Pastor. Does Jim possess a heart for Churches of all size and influence and, if so, could you offer the readers an example?
Jim was a "small church" pastor if there is such a thing as a small Church. I don't like the term "small church" The first Church I pastored had 12. The building may not have been large, or vast in numbers, but it was no small work. Unfortunately, we use these terms to designate the size of a church, but they sadly and wrongly have become a sign of significance. Jim sees every church as a significant church and every work is important to the kingdom.
There's a rising concern about the significance of the Cooperative Program, Dr. Brunson. From what you know of Jim Richards, tell us how he is committed to the CP.
Jim Richards is the only Executive Director of a State Convention who has led that entire convention to give 54% of their undesignated gifts to the CP. That speaks volumes about where the man's heart is, his passion for missions, and his vision for our convention.
If you could describe Jim's heartbeat for ministry and Kingdom work around the globe for all Southern Baptists, what would you say?
Just look at how many church plants there have been in the past 8 years. This Texas state convention is just 8 years old and they have planted over 350 new churches. Beyond that Jim is on the field over seas on a regular basis and encourages the staff of the SBOTC to do the same. I know that when we went to Lebanon, we had several of the SBOTC staff with as we worked in that city for two weeks planting a church there.
How does Jim Richards relate to cooperating with those with whom he might personally disagree? In other words, while Baptists possess much unity particularly around the Faith once for all given to the saints, and the Baptist Faith and Message in general, does Jim Richards' leadership approach lend itself to a "reaching across the aisle" so to speak, when Baptists disagree?
I know Jim has personally passed along names of pastors in the BGCT to be nominated for boards and agencies because they were good, conservative men who would add to the work. If that is not reaching out across the aisle and beyond to the other row I don't know what would constitute reaching out! He is concerned about building the church and building churches. Any Texas Baptist who knows him knows that.
Not to give away your nomination speech, Dr. Brunson, but if you could describe Jim Richards in summary fashion and state precisely why you think, under God, he would be God's man to serve all Southern Baptists at this critical hour, what would you say?
Jim Richards is a missions minded, pastor supporting, church building, caring conservative who could strengthen the hands of our President, Dr. Frank Page. He does not bring a bureaucratic mind-set to the table, but a solid record of building up pastors and churches.
Dr. Brunson, thank you for taking time to speak your heart about Jim Richards. I trust, under our Lord, He sees fit to bring Jim Richards to the task of this hour serving all Southern Baptists.
With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
Today , I offer the final installment on the interview series with Dr. Roger Olson, Professor of Theology, Truett Theological Seminary, Waco, TX. We talked in this final section on many issues raised in his latest book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. I trust your understanding of Arminiansim has deepened as a result. Let's begin:
Do you think the historic debate between God’s Sovereignty and human Free Will is where emphasis should be placed in discussions between Calvinists and Arminians, or are there other more significant discussions to pursue?
Well, definitely there are larger issues. The people who engage in this discussion often are a little myopic and they go around in circles arguing about subjects that are not the central issue. While they argue about predestination and free will without realizing that the reason Arminians emphasize free will and the reason Calvinists emphasize predestination is different views of God’s sovereignty--God’s ability to control all events. So sometimes we just need to step back and say, OK, now what is this really all about?
And that’s what I do in my book--I argue for the larger picture, which is God Himself--Who is God and what is God like and what does God want. Arminians are simply Christians who believe passionately in God’s love. And Calvinists are Christians who believe in God’s love, but think things like, God loves all people in some ways but only some people in every way. Arminians recoil at that. We believe God loves everyone in everyway.
Many charge Arminianism with being works oriented because it is not a theology of grace. Dr Olson, what is meant by “prevenient grace” and where in Scripture is it taught?
John 6 is the classical passage I would point to, but Calvinist dispute the Arminian interpretation of it and vise versa. It talks about God’s calling or the callings of God; Arminians believe that is prevenient grace. Wherever the Bible talks about God calling people to himself, it is referring to prevenient grace. Now, "prevenient grace” is not a term in the Bible but neither is "Trinity". So the fact that the term itself isn’t there, for me, does not say anything for it or against it.
I believe in the Trinity even though it’s not spelled out in the Bible. Why do I believe in it? It’s because it’s the only concept that makes sense of all that the Bible says. And that is the way I believe in prevenient grace; it’s a concept that is the only one that, to me, makes sense of all that Scripture says.
For example, Scripture says that salvation is a free gift. Paul says to the Corinthians, what do you have that you have not been given. How do we reconcile those things that are Calvinists’ favorite passages with other passages that talk about choosing and make dire warnings against not choosing rightly? Well the only way that reconciles those that makes sense to me is the concept of prevenient grace. That is, God comes and gives us the ability to choose.
So Paul’s statement that says, “faith comes through hearing and hearing by the word of God“, that’s prevenient grace. The word of God is the vehicle of prevenient grace. Where the word of God is preached, God’s Holy Spirit works in the lives and the hearts of the hearers, and begins to create in them a power to overcome the bondage of the will, and liberates the will from bondage to sin so that people can make a choice. Now it doesn’t make the choice for them, it just gives them the liberty and the ability to make the choice that they may not have had otherwise.
Dr. Olson, John records in the first chapter of his Gospel “In him was life, and the life was the light of men…The light shines in the darkness…that all might believe through him…The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world“(1.4-9). Would these verses be speaking of ‘prevenient grace’?
Well, now you are asking a question Arminians have never settled among themselves. Just as Calvinists disagree about some things among themselves, so do Arminians disagree. Wesley believed that God is an equal opportunity Savior. He believed that John 1 is referring to prevenient grace and God gives everyone born in the world some measure of grace that makes them accountable and able to respond to God’s offer of salvation.
Arminius himself--as I read him anyway--believed that prevenient grace is tied to the message of the Word of God--the Gospel--and wherever the Gospel is preached or taught or communicated in anyway, that’s how prevenient grace works in the hearts and lives of people. He left it an open question as to whether the people who never hear the gospel have any measure of prevenient grace working in their lives.
Wesley did not leave that an open question. He definitely believed that God reaches out to everyone through conscience, through nature, through the unwritten word of God imprinted on the hearts of people so that everyone is given a supernatural ability. And that’s the key thing--to keep faith a supernatural ability. It’s not a natural ability. God restores supernaturally their ability to reach out to Him and to receive salvation.
Today, Arminians still disagree about that. Some Arminians believe that God is an equal opportunity Savior. I think Clark Pinnock probably believes that. I personally, along with some other Arminians, believe that we can’t know that and all we can know is that “prevenient grace” works through the Gospel. And that is why missions and evangelism is so urgent because that is how “prevenient grace” works in people’s lives.
Dr. Olson, in many dialogues I have with convictional Calvinists, the repeated assertion is that Arminians do not believe in Election nor Predestination which Calvinists rightly point out is plainly Biblical. Does Arminianism deny the Biblical doctrine of either Election or Predestination?
Well that would be impossible because for Arminians, both of them are Biblical concepts. Predestination is in the Bible--Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and other places. So, of course Arminians--being Biblical Christians--cannot reject election and predestination. We simply have a different interpretation of them than Calvinists have.
Calvinists believe that election is unconditional and they virtually equate election and predestination. However, Arminians believe that election is corporate, that God has chosen to have a people and that predestination is God’s foreknowledge of who will freely choose to be among God’s people. So it’s not that we reject those concepts, we simply interpret them the way we think the Bible means them.
Dr. Olson, what does Arminianism hold pertaining to the extent of the Atonement? Was the atonement limited or unlimited or are those categories outdated?
Well Arminians believe that the atonement is unlimited in scope from God’s perspective, and that Christ died for all humanity. In fact, the guilt of original sin is forgiven for everyone through the cross of Jesus Christ. So that no one goes to hell for Adams’ sin because of Jesus Christ.
But we believe that the atonement is limited in the sense that we actualize it through our decision of faith. So unlimited from God’s perspective--in His intension, it’s for everyone. But it’s limited in that it’s only actualized in those that receive it by faith. It’s a both/and for Arminians.
As far as theories of atonement go, there is no essential difference. You often hear people saying that Arminians believe in the governmental theory of atonement. There was a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, a couple of issues ago, that said that in response to a larger article about the atonement, and I disagree with that.
I am certain that Arminius believed in the satisfaction theory of atonement which we call generally the substitutionary theory. Wesley certainly believed in the substitution view did as did most of the 19th century Arminian Methodist theologians. There was some debate among them about governmental theory of atonement but even that is a form of substitution theory of atonement. It’s not a rejection of the substitution theory. It simply says that Christ did not take the punishment of everyone but took an alternative punishment to uphold the government of God--His holiness, righteousness and justice.
To a non-specialist, it is a very fine distinction. So I would say, that in Classical Arminianism, they do hold to the substitution view of the atonement.
Dr. Olson, I want to pick up on something you mentioned a moment ago. You indicated that Christ’s death actually paid for the ‘original sin” of all such that no one goes to Hell because of Adam’s sin. Is that the way Arminians as distinct from Calvinists apply the Cross to the death if an infant, for example?
It seems to me that a Calvinist would have to say of an infant that dies, “We don’t know what happens.” That, of course, would depend on whether they are elect or not and I have heard some Calvinists say that. Arminians can confidently say that all infants who die before the age of accountability go directly to Heaven. The only sin an infant could be guilty of is Adam’s sin but the guilt of Adam’s sin is washed away by Christ’s blood.
We base that on Romans 5 and the universal aspect of Christ’s atonement and the equivalency between Christ and Adam in terms of the effect between disobedience and obedience. Arminians have historically believed this as well as Anabaptists such as Hubmaier and Simons.
In your view, Dr. Olson, what do you feel is the “weakest link”, if I can say it like that, in the Calvinist understanding of salvation? Which letter in the “TULIP” seems easiest to refute?
The first thing that comes to my mind is Limited Atonement. And I realize that some Calvinists say they don’t believe in Limited Atonement. But I think that makes Calvinism inconsistent. But if we are talking about consistent Calvinism, it would be Limited Atonement.
Simply, Scripture is crystal clear on that--Christ died for all. In fact, so clear that Paul warns the Corinthians about the weaker brother and not to cause him to stumble through their liberty, causing someone’s destruction for whom Christ died. Now in consistent Calvinism, that’s not possible because Christ died for the elect only and the elect will never be destroyed. So that would be an empty warning.
Clearly, Paul believed that Christ died for some who might very well end up not being saved. I think that Limited Atonement is so unbiblical and that’s why some Calvinists just cannot swallow it. But the problem is, they then have to answer why would Christ die for people predestined not to be saved. For me, that does not make sense. There is a real problem there--theological as well as Biblical.
Dr. Olson, can Arminianism & Calvinism co-exist in future Evangelicalism?
Yes, within the larger Evangelical movement, they can and have for a very long time. Whitefield and Wesley had their ups and downs and disagreeing with one another but also ministered together in the Great Awakening in Britain. And Wesley gave a very laudatory message at Whitefield’s funeral.
Ever since then, evangelical Calvinists and Arminians have founds ways to cooperate and have fellowship and we need to continue to do that. However, we probably won’t be able to go to the same Church.
And that’s what many people might find shocking toward the end of my book. I argue that thinking Christians will simply not be able to endure the cognitive dissonance of sitting under a Calvinist Pastor if you are an Arminian or sitting under an Arminian Pastor if you are a Calvinist.
I think it inevitable that thinking Christians will tend to go to a Church where the Pastor tends to agree with their theology on God’s sovereignty. That does not mean that a Calvinist Baptist church and an Arminian Baptist church, for example, cannot cooperate. They can cooperate on many things and have fellowship.
Is there one final comment that you would like to say to our Calvinist readers that you feel may assist them in understanding Arminians better?
I would appeal to them to open their mind to the possibility that I argue in the book that Arminianism is a part of Reformed theology. Arminianism is one part of it and Calvinism is another part but we are all part of the same family theologically. I offer evidences for that in the book. Simply put, I try to open their minds to the idea that Arminianism in its classical manifestation is a part of the Reformation.
Thank you, Professor Olson. This chat enriched my appreciation for theology in general and especially the contirbution Arminian thinkers have historically offered the Church in knowing the Lord of Scripture better. May His Body and their belief continue to reform. With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
Today, we continue our Interview with Dr. Roger Olson, Professor of Theology, Truett Theology Seminary, Waco, Texas. This is part three of a four part series.
Professor Olson is both an accomplished theologian in the Arminian tradition as well as a renowned historian of Christian Theology. His many books include "The Story of Christian Theology", "Who Needs Theology?", "The Mosaic of Christian Belief", "20th-Century Theology", "Pocket History of Theology", and under discussion today, his latest book," Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities." Welcome Dr. Olson...
Professor, what does Classic Arminianism teach concerning the “P” in the Calvinistic Tulip?
What I say in the book is what I found in my research—there is no one Arminian view of the Perseverance of the Saints. Arminius himself never came to a definite conclusion about that subject. Arminius said several times in his various writings that Scripture wears two aspects—two things about Perseverance that we haven’t figured out yet how to reconcile—there are the warnings passages against apostasy such as Hebrews 6 and the assurance passages like Romans 8.
How to reconcile those two types of Scriptures, Arminius did not figure out. So, he left them as an open question. He adamantly insisted he did not deny Eternal Security. However, some later Arminians did reject Eternal Security—many of the Remonstrants, for example—and opt for the belief that a Christian can reject the grace of God. They used such examples as Paul’s warning to the Galatians who turned back to the Law that they would “fall from grace” (Gal 5.4).
So Arminianism probably by and large has rejected the doctrine of eternal security of the believer. However, among Baptists in particular, Arminians have often kept that doctrine—the “P” in the Tulip. Not all Arminians who are Baptists do. For example, you have the Free Will Baptists who do not.
On the other hand, most Southern Baptists, in my experience with them, are Arminians who believe in eternal security of the believer. There’s nothing wrong with that. You can be an Arminian and hold to eternal security.
In your view, Dr. Olson, is Arminianism squarely within Reformation theology or is it an attempt to bring back some of Rome’s teachings into the Protestant movement? For example, Arminianism embraces synergism and Calvinists, who rightly point out that Catholicism teaches synergism, adamantly hold to monergism.
Well, there are exceptions. If you go back to the Reformation itself, there is Melanchthon, who kept up the Reformation when Luther died and who was Luther’s “right hand man” throughout the Reformation, who was a synergist not a monergist. And all of the Anabaptists—the Radical Reformers--were synergists including Menno Simons, Balthasar Hubmaier, and others who were Trinitarians and not rationalistic were all synergistic, evangelical believers.
So, as an historian, I dispute the Calvinist claim that monergism—that is, God is the sole agent active in salvation—is part and parcel of being Protestant. I would argue that there were Protestant synergists from the very beginning of the Reformation. Zwingli’s followers in Zurich in 1525—Conrad Grebel & Felix Manz, the early Anabaptists—they were synergists.
Thus, I simply do not accept the premise that you have to be a monergist to authentically be a Protestant. I just don’t agree. I think Arminianism is Protestant. It teaches justification by grace through faith alone and I spell that all out in the book, utilizing many sources to that effect.
One Myth you appeared to be so passionate about exposing was Myth #3: Arminianism is not an evangelical option. Dr. Olson, do you sense there seems evidence that Arminians are being squeezed out of the Evangelical movement? Why or Why not?
Definitely (laugh). Definitely. That’s why I wrote the book. I remember what a shock it was to me in seminary when one of my beloved professors pulled me aside and said to me “Remember. Arminianism always leads to Liberal Theology.” And I thought to myself, well how can that be true? I’m Pentecostal. We Pentecostals—I was Pentecostal at that time—we were very conservative, theologically.
And I could name many denominations that have been part of the National Associational of Evangelicals from the very beginning—Free Methodists, Wesleyan, Nazarene and many others—who are Arminian but have never flirted with Liberal theology.
Yet I have encountered among many Calvinist evangelicals, over and over again the idea that Arminians are not authentically evangelical. When I first read the magazine “Modern Reformation” it really struck a cord with me or touched a nerve is a better way to describe it, because some of the articles implied that Arminians can not be genuine evangelicals.
So, I began a dialog with the editor of the magazine, Michael Horton, and through that dialog I think we both came to see the other’s point of view more clearly. I think he still holds to the view—as many evangelical Calvinists do—that being evangelical is synonymous with the monergist view of salvation. Or that monergism is necessary to authentic evangelical theology.
Some Calvinists do grant that Arminians are evangelicals but inconsistently so. My argument would be that we are just evangelicals period, not inconsistent evangelicals. We need to simply get along in the evangelical community of ours whether we are Calvinist or Arminian.
Dr. Olson: The heart of Arminianism is the belief in Free Will. Everybody knows this is so. Could you comment on that?
That’s what people think they know. That’s the major myth I expose in my book. It’s perhaps the core myth about Arminianism. Well, it’s wrong. The heart of Arminianism is not free will. The heart of Arminian theology is the goodness of God. The character of God is unconditionally good, is benevolent, is loving.
That’s not to erase God’s wrath at all. Arminians believe in God’s wrath. John Wesley, for example, and so many Arminians throughout the ages spoke of His wrath. It is to say that God is good in a somewhat analogous sense to what we understand goodness to be. In other words, God does not set out to will anyone to be damned for eternity. If someone is damned for eternity, it is against God’s wishes. God does not want that to be the case.
How do Classic Arminians view God’s Sovereignty?
God’s Sovereignty is viewed in Arminianism as God’s ability to control all events. But we distinguish between God’s Sovereignty de jure—which is His right and ability to control all events—and God’s Sovereignty de facto—which is His self-limitation so that He does not control all events. We do this because if God were controlling all events, sin and evil would fall under that spectrum.
At the heart and core of Arminianism is the revulsion that God would be the Author of sin and evil. And though Calvinists don’t say He is…Jonathan Edwards wrote an entire treatise denying God was the Author of sin and evil...But Arminians cannot see how it is avoided that God is not the Author of sin and evil in the overall Calvinist understanding of Sovereignty.
So we say it is God’s Sovereign right and ability to rule but it is compatible with His self-limitation so that He doesn't control everything that’s happening. He could but He doesn’t.
Thank you, once again, Dr. Olson. With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
Dr. Olson, in the Introduction to Arminian Theology: Myths & Realities, you write: “The thesis of this book is that Arminianism is at a disadvantage in this controversy because it is so rarely understood and so commonly misinterpreted both by its critics and its supposed defenders.” But Dr. Olson, I hear so often that Arminianism is rampant in America’s pulpit--usually by Calvinist apologists. What do you make of that?
Well, it’s a misunderstanding. What’s rampant in America’s pulpit and pews are not Arminians but semi-Pelagians. But what has happened is that Calvinist spokesmen have equated those two, mistakenly in fact. Arminianism is not semi-Pelagianism. But over the years, many Calvinists have come to equate them and to simply use them interchangeably.
The difference is this: in classical Arminianism--in real Arminianism--if someone gets saved, it’s because God came to them first; the initiative is God’s. God calls them and God enables them. That’s called prevenient grace.
But you don’t hear that in pulpits a lot. What you hear in pulpits and pews is what scholars call semi-Pelagianism; although they don’t know it’s called that.
And that is a very different idea in that God is kind of standing at a distance, waiting for us to take the initiative and, if we take the imitative, take one step toward God, then He will come near to us, and perhaps save us if we do the right thing. That is not Arminianism.
Arminianism is that God comes to us first, through the gospel which can be efficacious in our lives—through a sermon, a song, a witness, or reading the Bible. But that God the Holy Spirit reaches into our lives first, through prevenient grace, and partially regenerates us, then we have to actualize that with our free will decision which God’s grace makes possible.
Without God’s prevenient grace, we would not be free, so we don’t believe in Free Will, we believe in the Freed Will. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism believe that humans have inherent free will apart from any supernatural grace. So, there is a very important difference there.
One surprise in your book I observed, Dr. Olson, was your taking Charles Finney to the theological woodshed. Since he is so often cited by Calvinists in poster-boy fashion as representing Arminianism, could you tell us a little about Finney’s soteriological beliefs and how they differ from Classic Arminianism?
(laugh) And that is so wrong. Well, in the book I quote Finney. Finney said of Jonathan Edwards--I don’t remember the exact quote but it’s in my book--something to the effect that Edwards the man I adore, but his mistakes I deplore. And he was saying that about Edwards’ Calvinism.
In other words, Finney respected Edwards’ preaching and his revivalism, but he deplored his Calvinism. And that’s what I would say about Finney from my Arminian perspective. I adore his revivalism but I deplore his semi-Pelagianism.
Finney was not an Arminian; Finney was a semi-Pelagian. Or, you might say he was inconsistent. Some of the time he was a semi-Pelagian, some of the time he was an outright Pelagian and some of the time he was perhaps Arminian.
But more than anything else, he believed in the natural ability of human beings—even apart from any special work of grace— to obey God and respond to the call of God without prevenient grace. That’s semi-Pelagianism.
Dr. Olson, one interesting distinction in your book was one you picked up from Calvinist theologian Allan Sell regarding “Arminians of the heart” vs. “Arminians of the head”. Could you explain that distinction for our readers?
Well, I don’t think that Finney fits into that distinction. Finney—(laugh) if I can say it— was a semi-Pelagian of the heart. Since he was not an Arminian, I would not put him into the category of an “Arminian of the head” or an “Arminian of the heart”. He was a semi-Pelagian--in other words, a heretic of the heart. He had good intentions, but he was very wrong about his theology.
Now, the distinction of the Arminian of the “head” and of the “heart” has more to do with the Remonstrance after Arminius died in 1609. He left his work unfinished and a group of about 10 pastors in Holland wrote up a document called the Remonstrance and they became known as the Remonstrants.
And they divided over time throughout the 1600s and into the 1700s between those who had a very pietistic attitude--and we would call them Evangelicals today-- and those who were more rationalistic and lean more toward Deism and eventually Unitarianism.
Now one of the things Calvinists have always said about Arminians is that Arminians often went off into Deism and Rationalism and Liberal Theology. Well some did; but not all did. Wesley certainly didn’t. Wesley was an Arminian.
Others such as today—the Nazarenes are Arminians, the Pentecostals, the Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Church of Christ all are Arminians…Evangelical Arminians…Arminians of the heart. And so you have to recognize that distinction.
In fact, I would say there is the same distinction among Calvinists. Friedrich Schleiermacher, the Father of Liberal Theology in Germany, was a Calvinist of the head—a Liberal Calvinist. But not all Calvinists are.
Most Calvinists are Calvinists of the heart—Evangelical Calvinists, I would say. So that’s the distinction I would make and I am not sure how to put Finney into that for he really was not Arminian.
Thank you, Professor Olson. With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
Finally! The post many have been anticipating. Today I begin a series of three posts of a formal interview with Professor Roger Olson concerning his newest book, Arminian Theology: Myths & Realities. New Testament scholar, Scot McKnight at The Jesus Creed is presently doing a review series definitely worth your time. I also reviewed Olson's book elsewhere >>>
| | |
| | |
Just a note before I offer my final installment on Professor Olson’s forthcoming volume, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, scheduled to be released in October, 2006 by IVP Academic. On my first post for this book, I mentioned that a possible interview with Dr. Olson was in the works. That now seems a reality! It has been confirmed. Thus, within the next three weeks, expect a posting of that interview >>>
Continue reading "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities: A Review: Final Installment" »
| | |
| | |
