Non-Calvinist theologians?

Here is Finney's Arminian systematic theology on the Internet: http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Systematic.Theology.1.html. Frankly, it's disappointing. As a theologian, Finney should have stuck to evangelisim (the Calvinist would say, should have stuck to lawyering).

Check out Arminius himself at: http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius.htm. He's much better.

Does anyone know what position Wayne Grudem takes? He has recently come out with a major systematic theology. Also, Norm Geisler is bringing out his one volume at a time. I think he is middle-of-the-road.

 

Wayne Grudem is a 5 pointer. Some consider him a Charismatic but he is not . He is sympathetic to the charismatic movement( non-cessationist).

 

Nope, but he was Arminian! Sorry, exscentric, I couldn't resist. </font>[/QUOTE]John Miley was Methodism's main theologian around 1900, and tended to be more Pelagian than Arminian. His rejection of biblical inerrancy did a lot to push the movement further into apostasy.

To mention another, I. Howard Marshall wrote Kept by the Power of God, wherein he argues against unconditional security.

Something else, while I'm typing.... Most of the "I'm not an Arminian" protests stem from the protester's definition of the term. If you define an Arminian as someone who rejects the doctrines of unconditional election and particular redemption, you include a whole bunch of people who would turn blue and explode at being labeled Arminians. They don't realize that Arminius himself never affirmed the possibility of losing salvation.

So just label the confused among us as "Ambiguists." If they can live with the cognitive dissonance, maybe they have a divine gift or something.

 

Finney was presenting the kinder-and-gentler Calvinism we call New England Theology, New Haven Theology, or Taylorism (named after Nathaniel Taylor). Notice that in the final chapter he affirms Perseverance of the Saints. That chapter was censored from the Bethany House edition that has been available for the past thirty years or so.

I agree with you, John: it's disappointing. A lot of logic based on a lot of assumptions with the Bible brought in occasionally for support.

 

Thanks for the further enlightenment, pipedude.

I read the Bethany House version years ago for outside reading for a class. My assessment was about like yours, and I was particularly disappointed that he didn't even have a chapter on Bibliology. What's a systematic theology without that??

 

I would agree.

Works for who? It doesn't work for any number of Arminians I know.

If I understand it correctly Finneyism (Finney Arminianism) is semi-pelagian, that is to say, Finney rejects the idea that man is totally depraved. From reading (here and elsewhere) this rejection of depravity seems to be what most consider a fundamental of Arminianism, which isn't necessarily true.

Wesleyan Arminianism, on the other hand, believes in total depravity and does not differ fundamentally from non-hyper Calvinism. It has no pelagian element any more than Calvinism does. Basically, if I understand it, the Wesleyan view requires God's active assistance in the election process, but not necessarily regeneration.

I suspect the Pelagian factor has created more confusion and misunderstanding than anything else, from what I can tell. It was certainly true with me. The rejection of the idea that men are born morally depraved and the idea that men have a free-will is not even close to the same thing.

BTW, I've heard Spurgeon believed faith was exercised an instant before regeneration - anybody know if that's true?

 

Also, was Spurgeon, like MacArthur, a 4 or 4 1/2 pt. Calvinist?

 

BTW, I think that the basic questions asked and answered by the two systems have very little gray between them. If someone disagrees, I am interested in that "middle ground" position.

Is man spiritually dead or just marred? What would be the third option?

Is election unconditional or conditional? What would be the middle ground?

Is atonement limited or unlimited... and yes what is the middle position?

Is grace resistable or not?

Do saints persevere or is it possible to fall from grace?

While people might give mixed answers, can they really do so and remain consistent?

 

"While people might give mixed answers, can they really do so and remain consistent?"

Most likely they can, don't think I've ever run into anyone that felt he had an inconsistent postion

There probably isn't a middle ground to the five points of Calvinism, there are some that do not hold to all five points.

 

IveyLeaguer asked:

Also, was Spurgeon, like MacArthur, a 4 or 4 1/2 pt. Calvinist?

Spurgeon, like MacArthur, was a committed five-point Calvinist.

 

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?

 

I personally get really hung up on Limited Attonement. If God desires that all men everywhere repent then how can His atonement be limited? I believe the atonement is "sufficent" for all but only "efficent" for those who repent.
That being said I can only say that the moment I got saved It was me who got down on my knees and repented of my sins and asked Christ into my heart. Yet at that exact moment the moment of "salvation" or "regeneration" I knew it was Christ who had drawn me to himself.
Salvation for each person is a miracle in its self. That instant moment one is brought into the kingdom is a miracle that transcends human explanation. It is a miracle of God's grace we will only know and understand in the fullest sense when we get to heaven.
All I understand is God knows who will be saved and we don't but he uses humans to carry out the responsibility of sowing the seeds.
Also, what is the difference between perserverance of the saints and losing your salvation? If you don't perservere then you never were saved in my opinion. It just seems to me it is on that point that calvinism and armininism run into each other.
I by no means have all the answers. Like Mr. Johnson said I just try to be a biblical. Election and free will are both in the Bible. So to those who think they have all the answers they probably don't.
I think there are many who oppose calvinism who label all calvinists to be hyper. That is just not so. OTOH if your not a calvinist that certainly doesn't make you an arminian or semi pelagianist. IF your saved your going to heaven regardless if you think you made the choice or were elected. Because if your saved you were elected. Round and round it goes.

 

The same responsibility Lazarus had in the process of resurrection.

 

And just read some of Luther's translated works. He was perhaps closer to Baptist than Reformed. He did not teach limited atonement and only single-predestination. And his view of election was not one that precluded the believer's freedom to respond in faith... to choose.

I like Lutheran's idea of subjective and objective justification... I think.

FA

 

Giesler now has 4 volumes of his systematic theolgy in print and available in most Christian book stores.
Would you consider Chafer calvinistic?

 

The theology of Dallas Theological Seminary (which Chafer founded) has traditionally been Calvinistic, or more accurately, Amyraldian - affirming four of the five points of Calvinism, the exception being the extent of the atonement: it was general, not particular.

I have not read Chafer's systematic, but I believe that is what he taught. It would make sense for him to be largely Calvinistic, as he was a Congregationalist. This is the view of election that Charles Ryrie affirms in his systematic theology, as well.

 

Luther was as strong on election and predestination as was Calvin. His magnum opus was "The Bondage of the Will," which is perhaps the greatest "reformed" work of theology from that period. However, he died, and his friend and successor Melanchton, who did not share Luther's full sotierology, altered Lutheran theology for good.

 

I would agree.

Works for who? It doesn't work for any number of Arminians I know.

If I understand it correctly Finneyism (Finney Arminianism) is semi-pelagian, that is to say, Finney rejects the idea that man is totally depraved. </font>[/QUOTE]Finney was a proto-liberal, not even an arminian. He rejected original sin. He referred to the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as "doctrines of devils." He was closer to raw Pelagian than even semi-Pelagian. One of the greatest shocks I have ever experienced came the first time I held a copy of his Lectures in my hand. Most of the fundamentalists who laud Finney would never allow anyone with his views to even teach Sunday School, let alone fill a pulpit.

 

I don't use the word "calvinist" very freely, because most folks don't have any idea what it means. In its full meaning, of course, none of the legal members of this BB could be Calvinist, because Calvinism includes paedobaptism, etc.

And, when we say 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, or 72-point Calvinist, we must grapple with the fact that the "five points" came on the scene over 50 years after Calvin died. He never formulated the Gospel that way. Several scholars believe that Calvin, like I, had internal conflicts about the extent of the atonement.

 

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.