How post reformational Arminianism misuses terms.

[Reformed Baptist]

One writer who calls himself a 'Reformation Arminian' defines his theology in this way;

For those well acquainted with the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Reformation Arminianism (or Classic Arminianism) is a theological system which emphasizes universal atonement within a framework of Calvinistic total depravity and the penal satisfaction view of the atonement.

Yet he goes on to say;

Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement
Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both view Jesus death as substitutionary. Instead of God's wrath being poured out upon deserving sinners, Jesus died in their place, bearing the full wrath of God.

Note what he says, the reformed Arminian believes in penal Substition, yet he also believes in a universal atonement, are these two compatible? Well he goes on to try and reconcile the two with this;

A recurring argument in the debate against Reformation Arminianism is that if Jesus' death was a payment for sin, and if Jesus died for all humanity, then how could unbelievers rightly be sent to hell for sins which were already paid? Universal atonement, then, was argued to teach either universal salvationism (everyone goes to heaven), or to imply an unjust double payment for sin. (One wonders if this argument may have driven later Arminians to reject penal satisfaction.)

Reformation Arminianism unties the knot by appealing to the idea that the atonement was provided for everyone, but only applied to believers. (Lewis Sperry Chafer was one person who wrote a strong article to this effect, which was republished in a DTS journal in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

Now, my freinds, I am not debating what the scriptures teach about the penal substition of Christ in the atonement, I am talking about what penal substitution itself teaches. Penal substition is the teaching that upon the cross Jesus Christ actually bore the punishment not for sin generally, but for the sins of those for whom he was substituted - there is nothing potential about that as this blogger would have you believe. Indeed the fact that is an actual substitution should do away with any concept of potentiality. Hence again we see that the 'reformation Arminian' although he tries to use the same words as we do, he actually means something different. Back on GF we saw this to be the grace with Arminius definition of sola gratia, on a current thread here we are seeing it also the case with 'total depravity.'

So why don't people say it as it is? Why this struggle to associate wih reformed orthodoxy? Why not just admit that actually we are sub-orthodox or even heterdox, afterall the idea that orthodoxy equals correctness is obvioulsy false or else they wouldn't be 'reformational' Arminians

[Trips]

One writer who calls himself a 'Reformation Arminian' defines his theology in this way;

For those well acquainted with the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Reformation Arminianism (or Classic Arminianism) is a theological system which emphasizes universal atonement within a framework of Calvinistic total depravity and the penal satisfaction view of the atonement.

Yet he goes on to say;

Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement
Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both view Jesus death as substitutionary. Instead of God's wrath being poured out upon deserving sinners, Jesus died in their place, bearing the full wrath of God.

Note what he says, the reformed Arminian believes in penal Substition, yet he also believes in a universal atonement, are these two compatible? Well he goes on to try and reconcile the two with this;

A recurring argument in the debate against Reformation Arminianism is that if Jesus' death was a payment for sin, and if Jesus died for all humanity, then how could unbelievers rightly be sent to hell for sins which were already paid? Universal atonement, then, was argued to teach either universal salvationism (everyone goes to heaven), or to imply an unjust double payment for sin. (One wonders if this argument may have driven later Arminians to reject penal satisfaction.)

Reformation Arminianism unties the knot by appealing to the idea that the atonement was provided for everyone, but only applied to believers. (Lewis Sperry Chafer was one person who wrote a strong article to this effect, which was republished in a DTS journal in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

Now, my freinds, I am not debating what the scriptures teach about the penal substition of Christ in the atonement, I am talking about what penal substitution itself teaches. Penal substition is the teaching that upon the cross Jesus Christ actually bore the punishment not for sin generally, but for the sins of those for whom he was substituted - there is nothing potential about that as this blogger would have you believe. Indeed the fact that is an actual substitution should do away with any concept of potentiality. Hence again we see that the 'reformation Arminian' although he tries to use the same words as we do, he actually means something different. Back on GF we saw this to be the grace with Arminius definition of sola gratia, on a current thread here we are seeing it also the case with 'total depravity.'

So why don't people say it as it is? Why this struggle to associate wih reformed orthodoxy? Why not just admit that actually we are sub-orthodox or even heterdox, afterall the idea that orthodoxy equals correctness is obvioulsy false or else they wouldn't be 'reformational' Arminians

Interestingly enough, the thread title directs one's attention to "POST reformation arminianism"

never heard of that flavor of arminianism.

I myself hold to reformation arminianism. I wonder if this is a new type of Arminianism, of just another charicature/strawman created by calvinists who lay claim to owning all sorts of words....

[Nomad]

So why don't people say it as it is? Why this struggle to associate wih reformed orthodoxy?

I may be able to help answer this. Classic Arminians learned this behavior from their mentor Arminius. Have you ever read Arminius' account of the many requests he received to give an account of his beliefs? He refused many times and complained that his beliefs were in line with Reformed standards. I see this same attitude of equivocation in Classic Arminians today. I've dealt with others on various message boards and the encounter always goes the same way. There are first complaints that those addressing modern Arminians are misrepresenting Arminianism. Then there is a refusal to acknowledge that there is a big difference in the way Calvinists and Arminians view the same doctrines as you have rightly demonstrated. The doctrine of Total Depravity as discussed in another thread is a prime example of this. As you said RB, just say it as it is. Classic Arminians and Calvinists do not believe the same things.

[Skala]

I too am disturbed by all of this redefining of terms. Here is Arminius' "definition" of election:

"the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers" Arminius Writings, III:311

[Reformed Baptist]

Interestingly enough, the thread title directs one's attention to "POST reformation arminianism"

never heard of that flavor of arminianism.

I myself hold to reformation arminianism.

'Trips

There aint no such beast brother, just because it is a name that seesm to be gaining some noteriety on the internet presently doesn't make it the correct theological distinstion which is actually 'Classical Arminianism' so for my insistence of what you claim is reformation being in reality post reformational well brother simply put, the redefinition of reformation doctrines, so that classical Arminians can sound like orthodox folk when they speak.

I wonder if this is a new type of Arminianism, of just another charicature/strawman created by calvinists who lay claim to owning all sorts of words....

Two things here brother,

Firstly this is no strawman arguement, I am seeking to establish which view is correct and biblical I am simply asking why do folk feel the need to redefine terms that used to have a definite meaning to suit their own theologies, it results in muddying in the waters of theological debate, the Arminian does not need to use the term 'penal substitution' or 'total deparvity' then can come up with their own lingo.

Secondly, I have never said we own words, I have just asked why the Arminian feels free to redefine theoligical concepts in this way and just what is he trying to achieve by doing it?

[Reformed Baptist]

So why don't people say it as it is? Why this struggle to associate wih reformed orthodoxy?

I may be able to help answer this. Classic Arminians learned this behavior from their mentor Arminius. Have you ever read Arminius' account of the many requests he received to give an account of his beliefs? He refused many times and complained that his beliefs were in line with Reformed standards.

Yes I am familiar with those complaints

I see this same attitude of equivocation in Classic Arminians today. I've dealt with others on various message boards and the encounter always goes the same way. There are first complaints that those addressing modern Arminians are misrepresenting Arminianism. Then there is a refusal to acknowledge that there is a big difference in the way Calvinists and Arminians view the same doctrines as you have rightly demonstrated. The doctrine of Total Depravity as discussed in another thread is a prime example of this. As you said RB, just say it as it is. Classic Arminians and Calvinists do not believe the same things.

And sadly it stifles open debate. Interestingly I am quite prepared to admit my position on baptism is sub-orthodox, that is why i choose the name RB. I have no problem with that because I do not equate orthodx with being right. But it seeme to me that the classical arminian (generally speaking) is happy to hide behind a feigned orthodxy of redefined words, and then as you say use certain styles of arguementation to avoid actually tackling the valid challenges that are raised against their theological system

[Reformed Baptist]

I too am disturbed by all of this redefining of terms. Here is Arminius' "definition" of election:

"the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers" Arminius Writings, III:311

Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

[Trips]

Brothers,

Reformation Arminians base their arguments on the works/writings of Arminius, thus, it is his definitions and arguments that we use. The question of what is and is not orthodox is not one that I have ever seen a reformation arminian begin, rather it is the apparent knee-jerk reaction of calvinits that begins the discussion of this non-issue. I could honestly care less if the ideas I hold as true are considered orthodox or not by calvinists or any other group for it is not the approval of man I seek.

As to the name "reformation arminian" it is seperate and distinct from classical arminian, modern arminian, and arminian. If you'd like, I could engage in the same tactic and start using different terms to refer to those self-labeled as calvinists, the resulting distraction from the discussions themselves would be the same.

I'd enjoy focusing on the issues themselves, but this pettiness in ownership of words and names is distracting to say the least.

[Reformed Baptist]

Reformation Arminians base their arguments on the works/writings of Arminius, thus, it is his definitions and arguments that we use.

Hence it is post reformational, as he is post reformational

The question of what is and is not orthodox is not one that I have ever seen a reformation arminian begin, rather it is the apparent knee-jerk reaction of calvinits that begins the discussion of this non-issue.

Then why take on an inaccurate name rather then sticking to the long existing name of classical arminian.

I could honestly care less if the ideas I hold as true are considered orthodox or not by calvinists or any other group for it is not the approval of man I seek.

Exactly as it should be, but this does lead to the question; why the refusal to admit that these doctrines are actually post reformational?

As to the name "reformation arminian" it is seperate and distinct from classical arminian, modern arminian, and arminian.

My freind, everything I have read from youy is esposuing classical Arminianism, the term that has suited to differenetiate the original teachings of Arminius from that of Wesley and many of the modern day doctrines that fall under that umbrella.

If you'd like, I could engage in the same tactic and start using different terms to refer to those self-labeled as calvinists, the resulting distraction from the discussions themselves would be the same.

What, you could start argueing that we use the commonly accepted terms to discribe our theology. My freind, if this was a mere distraction from the discusion i would not be engaging in it, the simple fact is, this term is very recent in origin and needs to be challenged. How, when all is said and done, we see a soetraiological systems that redefines every reformational concept, can it referred to as reformational. This isn't a distraction brother, understanding these redefinitions is foundational to being able to discuss these things properly.

I'd enjoy focusing on the issues themselves, but this pettiness in ownership of words and names is distracting to say the least.

I am sure you would like to dismiss it as pettiness, but we have seen time and time again that when we actually nail down what the 'reformational' arminain means when he uses words and terms like Sola Gratia, Election, Foreknwoledge, total depravity he does not mean what we mean and until that point is realised, and admitted, we will always be talking at cross purposes for though we think we are talking about the same thing actually we each mean something different.

Again, I reiterate, this is not about the ownership of words, this is about the subtle changes of meanings that if allowed to go undetected undermine the whole effort to discuss, and these subtle changes lie at the root of the the contention between Arminius' teachings and genuine reformational soteriology. My freind, language is language, and yes words do evolve and take on new meanings, but we are talking about theological terms, and sometimes biblical terms, and these my freind should not be redefined with explanation, but should be precisely defined, anything else is merely post modernism in action. You mean one thing by sola gratia, I mean something else - I would suggest the folk who defined that term should be able to define it's meaning, wouldn't you agree?