[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The heart of the Reformation debate was, Who saves whom? Does God save sinners? Or do we save ourselves with God's help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time of the Reformation, but finally determined by the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century that the second answer was better. God's grace is the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God's saving will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves our own participation. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The orthodox Protestants were not over-reacting, therefore, when they regarded the Arminian denials as no different from the positions of Trent, which had declared the evangelicals "anathema." It would have been bigoted for them, therefore, to regard Trent's position as unorthodox if they were unwilling to say the same of a similar "Protestant" deviation. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So what does all of this mean for us nearly four centuries after Arminianism was condemned by the Churches of England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, the French Protestants, and the evangelicals of Eastern Europe? [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the British revival of the eighteenth century, Whitefield (a Calvinist) and Wesley (an Arminian) were willing to work together as close friends and allies in the evangelistic effort. However, as Wesley began to teach that justification was not purely forensic (that is, a legal declaration), but that it depended on "moment by moment" obedience, the Calvinists who had enthusiastically supported the revival and led the evangelistic cause side by side grew increasingly worried. Late in life, Wesley recorded some very unfortunate statements in his Minutes of the Methodist Conference, including the conclusion that his own position was but "a hair's breadth" from "salvation by works." Fearing an implicit antinomianism (license) in the Reformation doctrines, Wesley urged his supporters to warn the Calvinists "against making void that solemn decree of God, 'without holiness no man shall see the Lord,' by a vain imagination of being holy in Christ. O warn them that if they remain unrighteous, the righteousness of Christ will profit them nothing!"4 John Wesley's favorite writer, William Law, wrote, "We are to consider that God only knows what shortcomings in holiness He will accept; therefore we can have not security of our salvation but by doing our utmost to deserve it." "We have," said he, "nothing to rely on but the sincerity of our endeavors and God's mercy."5 Was Law an evangelical? If so, someone owes Pope Leo an apology. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The doctrine of justification--"simultaneously justified and sinful"--is scandalous to human reason and Wesley is famous for his "Quadrilateral" of authority: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. So much for "scripture alone"! Both the material and the formal principle of the Reformation are at least undermined, if not denied. So much of tradition, experience, and reason opposes this doctrine. One modern evangelical theologian writes, "We can love God perfectly and we can be righteous in this world even as Christ is righteous..." and adds that the Bible "leaves no place for voluntary and known sin in the life of the believer."6 Another adds, "But can it really be true-saint and sinner simultaneously? I wish it were so...Simul iustus et peccator? I hope it's true! I simply fear it's not."7 These views were presented in a volume that offered five views of sanctification from evangelical writers. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the Evangelical Revival, therefore, Wesley was allowed to embrace Arminianism while retaining the use of the evangelical label, in spite of the fact that to that time evangelicalism had repudiated the position as the very error of the medieval church that precipitated the Reformation in the first place. In one of his best sermons Wesley nevertheless defined justification not as a purely forensic (legal) declaration distinct from sanctification, but as both deliverance from the guilt of sin and "the whole body of sin, through Christ gradually 'formed in his heart.'" To be justified means that one does not sin "by any habitual sin," "nor by any willful sin," "nor by any sinful desire," nor "by infirmities, whether in act, word or thought...And though he cannot say he 'has not sinned,' yet now 'he sins not.'"8 Further, the Minutes for the First Annual Methodist Conference affirm that repentance and works must precede faith, if by works one means "obeying God as far as we can." "If a believer willfully sins, he thereby forfeits his pardon." "Are works necessary to continuance of faith? Without doubt, for a man may forfeit the gift of God either by sins of omission or commission." [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Justification may be lost every time one willfully disobeys and Wesley adds, "We do not find it affirmed expressly in Scripture that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any, although we do find that faith is imputed unto us for righteousness." This imputation or crediting of faith as our righteousness, rather than Christ's active and passive obedience, is precisely the doctrine articulated by Arminius, rendering faith a work which achieves righteousness before God. Knowing who will most likely balk against the teaching within the evangelical Church of England, Wesley asks, "Have we not then unawares leaned too much towards Calvinism" in the past? "It seems we have," he answers, equating Calvinism with antinomianism.9 Contemporary Wesleyan theologian, John Lawson, writes, "This judicious and moderating 'Arminian Evangelicalism,' which is now so largely characteristic of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, is perhaps the most enduring and important contribution of the Methodist movement to theological understanding in the Church."10 While Wesleyans insist they affirm justification by faith alone, they define it in the same moral terms rejected by evangelicals ever since the Reformation debate. Lawson himself defines justification as "the first and all-important stage in a renewed manner of life, actually changed for the better in mind and heart, in will and action."11 Thomas Aquinas could hardly have improved on this definition. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Today, theologians such as Dr. Clark Pinnock insist on wearing the "evangelical" label while they move beyond Arminianism to an all-out denial of classical theism. Such spokespersons may insist that they are merely contributing to the ongoing evolution and upward development of doctrine, but in fact they are merely reinventing old heresies. As Arminius revived Semi-Pelagianism, Dr. Pinnock is merely advancing a revival of outright Pelagianism and Socinianism, enhanced by the latest academic craze-process theism. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Once he became an Arminian, Dr. Pinnock notes, "I soon realized something would have to be done about the received doctrine of God." God is no longer timeless, changeless, or even all-knowing. After all, "decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God." Dr. Pinnock also denies original sin, admitting that on this point, as on others, he is moving beyond Arminianism. And the next domino? "Obviously it required me to reduce the precision in which I understood the substitution [of Christ on the cross] to take place."12 It must be said that if such writers can continue to be regarded as evangelical leaders (Dr. Pinnock is still a respected member of the Evangelical Theological Society), it is up to us as heirs of the Protestant Reformers to issue an apology to the Roman Catholic Church for dividing over issues no more essential than these. Original sin, the substitutionary atonement, justification, eternal judgment, and classical theism (the doctrine of God) all must go, according to Dr. Pinnock and his team of writers in A Case for Arminianism (Zondervan, 1989). "I do not think we should feel we have lost something of absolute value when we find ourselves at variance with some of the old so-called orthodox interpretations," Dr. Pinnock concludes. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From where I sit, the main problem is this: we have gone back to using "evangelical" as an adjective. As its medieval use was ambiguous, referring more to a general attitude of humility, zeal, and simple Christ-likeness, so too the contemporary use falls most often into that category. An evangelical is someone who "loves Jesus," who "wins souls," and who has a "sweet spirit." Ken Myers notes that evangelicals no longer believe in orthodoxy, but in orthopathos-a concern for right feelings rather than right thinking and worship.13 One Christian publisher released a book by a Franciscan "evangelical" titled, Evangelical Catholics. Karl Barth, the great neo-orthodox theologian, is now widely regarded in conservative Protestant circles as evangelical and reformed, even though he reinterpreted the evangelical message beyond recognition. Again, Barth may be, theoretically, correct from the biblical point of view. I do not believe that he is and that is my primary objection to neo-orthodoxy, but for those of us who hold scripture as the final test of truth, I cannot ultimately reject Barthianism because he is at variance with the creeds and confessions. Nevertheless, one can say that Barth is not an evangelical in the historic, classical sense. The same is true of "evangelical Roman Catholics" who still deny the sufficiency of scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and so on. If "evangelical" means anything at all any more, it is essential that we make such distinctions. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Having said that, it is equally important to realize that this is not a matter of bigotry or denominational pride. We will see non-evangelicals in heaven. As I reflect on views that I used to hold, it is sobering to say the least and it reminds me that the chances are pretty good that I have a good distance to go yet. While we must believe certain essential truths in order to be saved, we are not saved by the amount of doctrine that we know. There will doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were saved by God's grace even if they, like me, did not understand or appreciate that grace as much as they should have. Nevertheless, if we are going to still use "evangelical" as a noun to define a body of Christians holding to a certain set of convictions, it is high time we got clear on these matters. An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become either ignored or denied in contemporary "evangelicalism." [/font]
