An Appeal for Clarity in Discussing Baptist Elders

A discussion of Elder rule is going on in some Southern Baptist circles (Elderizing the SBC), and it probably affects other Baptist groups as well.

In the discussion of church governance, I find that often people use the term “elder” without sufficient explanation of what they mean. We should first remember that terminology has little value in and of itself. It really doesn’t matter if you refer to those leading your church as a plurality of “elders” or a plurality of “gorillas.” The single issue is whether your church leaders have unilateral authority and are self-perpetuating (i.e., the leaders pick their own replacements).

I am amazed that some ministerial leaders scholars seem to argue for self-perpetuation and unilateral authority of the leadership group on the basis that the Bible uses the term “elders.” There is absolutely no evidence that the earliest churches were governed by the fiat of an elder board or that the elders were self-perpetuating.

In terms of biblical evidence, it appears from 1 Timothy that the indigenous church was expected to choose its own church leaders. In that very troubled church at Ephesus, Paul easily could have appointed church leaders to replace those who had been disfellowshiped (viz. Hymenaeus and Alexander). Or he could have written the church to confirm Timothy’s appointment of church leaders. Instead, he set forth a list of qualifications for church leadership to the congregation at Ephesus. Of course, the list was written ostensibly to Timothy, but as is the case for much of the letter, this was information was not so much written to Timothy as it was written to the congregation. (The church at Ephesus was in such turmoil that a letter written directly from Paul to the church probably would not have been received.) From this, we surmise that the church chose its own leaders.

The claim that the earliest church had a Presbyterian governance requires some far-fetched thinking. It assumes that the apostles appointed a group of church rulers in the infant churches, and that these church rulers continued to serve until they passed on their status to their successors. This really is little different from the notion of apostolic succession of bishops and popes and priests. There really is no indication that elders chose their own replacements.

Some rudimentary church history is important for the discussion. I suspect that early church governance quickly evolved toward an Episcopalian model very early simply because the Roman model of the Caesar was the prevalent model for governance. Thus, the bishop held all authority and ruled by fiat. When the Reformation rediscovered the theology of the priesthood of every believer, some Reformation elements reduced the power and authority of the ruling bishop, divesting it to a ruling Elder board.

Divestiture of the bishop’s power to the elder board was insufficient for Baptists—those who most fully embraced the priesthood of every believer, and the indwelling of the Spirit within every believer. Even the least believer might have insight and was capable of making prophetic contributions to the direction of the church. Consequently, as they strove to apply consistently the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer to ecclesiology, Baptists divested power away from the Presbytery and toward the congregation.

For Baptists, the congregation has all the authority. Indeed, I suspect that many early Baptists avoided the term “Elder” simply because it conveyed a status of too much authority in the church, preferring the term “Deacon,” and so emphasizing the leaders’ servant qualities. Regardless of how the term “Deacon” became the preferred term, Baptists set limits on their leaders.

On one Sunday, when I finished teaching Sunday School, I walked into the church sanctuary, preparing for worship. At the appropriate time, the chief elder (pastor) stood up and, to the absolute shock of the entire congregation, announced to the 150 or so members present that the elder board had decided to dissolve the church, and dispose of its assets, and that there would no longer be any services or ministries. Five minutes later as we sat dazed and astonished, he stood up and said that we must vacate the church building. Such is the authority of a ruling Elder Board.

Baptist congregations delegate responsibility and authority to various church leaders—call them elders (or deacons or trustees or gorillas) if you will. Some churches give greater authority to its leaders than other churches. But in the end, congregationalism gives authority to the congregation to remove its leaders and to appoint new ones when appropriate.

The Validity and Urgency of the Altar Call

In recent years, many Calvinists have severely critiqued the altar call, claiming that it is an Arminian innovation designed to manipulate people into making a faith commitment. While many an altar call may indeed be characterized as manipulative and fleshly, there is such thing as a Spiritual altar call, and it is an appropriate part of Christian worship, arising not out of a misguided Arminianism, but out of biblical urgencies.

The altar call is a natural progression of the sermon. Whether the sermon is evangelistic or meant to challenge believers, the sermon is designed to move individuals toward change in their lives. There should be at least a little movement toward Christ-likeness in every listening believer’s life, and if the Spirit is calling individuals to make a significant decision, there should be an opportunity for people to make their decisions public. The altar call, then, is an opportunity for people to give public testimony, and this is right and good.

The altar call provides a unique Spiritual context which is not available at other times. To be sure, a person can be saved anywhere and at any time. However, the altar call has as its context the preached word and the praying congregation. These two elements, contemporary as they are with the altar call, are means by which the Spirit moves in the lives of people.

When the word has been preached, it is incumbent upon the congregation to pray mightily for the Spirit’s convicting power. This is often the missing ingredient in the altar call. We might have pensive music and other mood setting elements in play, but this is nothing, for the one thing which is relevant is the Spirit’s drawing. Thus, the congregation needs to be taught and urged to pray with all their strength for the salvation of those in attendance, or for their fellow believers who are being called to make decisions.

Again, I emphasize that it is not mood setting elements that make a difference. The real difference is when the congregation is gathered in the Spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus is present. This is the ideal behind the altar call, with God’s people fervently praying with great expectation. If this element is lacking, I’d suggest getting rid of the altar call.

It is altogether insufficient for the minister to stand in front with the musicians quietly playing, and with the congregation reverently standing with heads bowed and eyes closed. No, every believing Christian must be called to pray with hearts heavily burdened for the lost. We must learn to pray as if it matters, for prayer really does matter. The model in Jonah 3:7-9 is instructive.

Arminians do believe that each one of our individual friends and loved ones can be saved, and that none is excluded from the offer of salvation on the basis of some unbiblical decree. Indeed, we believe that God is pleased for us to pray for the conversion of our individual friends and loved ones, and that he is eager to answer our prayers by sending his Spirit to convict them and to draw them to faith. No doubt, Calvinists often pray for their friends and loved ones, even though their theology tells them that some eternal degree may very well have excluded their loved ones from any hope of salvation. Arminians have no such deterrents to prayer.

Because we Arminians believe in a “whosever will” gospel, we should be all the more urgent in our praying for those in the altar call.

How Reformation Arminian Soteriology Safeguards Reformation Theology and the Character of God

Reformation Arminian Urgencies (PDF)

Baptist Primary Distinctives: Soul Competency and “Believers’ Church”

The Baptist movement was forged in an age when a kingdom’s subjects were required to belong to the monarch’s own religion, and in an age when that religion was being switched back and forth with every other new monarch. Moreover, the Baptist movement was forged in an age when infants were baptised into their parents’ religion. And finally, the Baptist movement was forged in an age when everyone belonged to the church. These cultural factors significantly influenced Baptist distinctives.

In broad categories, Baptist distinctives can be brought down to two urgencies. The first urgency has historically been known as Soul Competency. Soul competency arises out of the conviction that the Spirit dwells in every believer. To be sure, this was an emphasis in all the Reformation churches, providing the impetus for bypassing intermediaries such as priest, bishop, and pope for one’s access to God’s forgiveness of sin. However, Baptists thought more deeply and more consistently about the indwelling of the Spirit than other movements. This doctrine informed their polity in that they accepted “congregational governance,” refusing to accept the notion that a powerful bishop or powerful elder board should rule over the congregation by fiat; rather, they embraced the notion that the congregation itself was competent to make decisions about its own ministry. This also implied that Christians did not have to embrace the religion or theology of the Crown, resulting in the martyrdom of many Baptist preachers who languished under poor health conditions in jails throughout Britain in the 17th century, including, for example, John Bunyan. Thus, the concept of the separation of church and state historically was first espoused and cogently argued by Baptists, although the term has been much abused in recent American history and political life.

The second urgency was a view of the church as a “voluntary association.” That is to say, people were not members of the church on the basis of their parents’ decision to have them baptised as infants. Rather, inclusion in the church was on the basis of the individual’s decision to follow Jesus, and upon his profession of faith as he was immersed in the waters of baptism. Early Baptists recoiled at the notion of baptising unbelievers, which is precisely what happens when an infant is baptised.

These two urgencies had several practical outcomes in the local church. First, Baptist churches were countercultural; in a culture where everyone belonged to the official, State-sponsored church, Baptists withdrew and formed their own independent congregations. Secondly, Baptist churches often had a congregational intimacy and purity which was practically impossible with those churches which included into its membership the whole of society on the basis of infant baptism. Thus, while the term “Believers’ Church” ought to have been theologically redundant, it was a practical reality, given that membership in the “Cultural Church” did not even include a person’s own declaration of faith.

Regrettably, many Baptists today have no clue as to these two primary distinctives and urgencies.

Thomas Helwys' Declaration of Faith

Thomas Helwys is known as the founder of the Baptist movement. He was an Arminian, and so history records that the first Baptists in Europe were Arminian. His Declaration of Faith is recorded below, although I have not checked it against a printed edition, and its domain source is no longer available.




***********************************************************************************


Declaration Of English People In Remaining in Holland


A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM IN HOLLAND. Hebrews 11:6. Without Faith it is impossible to please GOD. Hebrews 11. Romans 14:23. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin. 30/84
Printed. 1611. To All The Humble minded | which love the truth in simplicity Grace and | peace. [This is followed by two pages of preface.] A DECLARATION, ETC. WE BELEIVE AND CONFESS

1. That there are THREE which bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT; and these THREE are one GOD, in all equality, (1 John 5:7; Philippians 2:5, 6). By whom all things are created and preserved, in Heaven and in Earth. (Genesis 1).

2. That this GOD in the beginning created al things of nothing, (Genesis 1:1) and made man of the dust of the earth, (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in righteousness and true Holiness. (Ephesians 4:24); yet being tempted, fell by disobedience. (Ephesians 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. (Romans 5:12-19). His sin being imputed unto all; and so death went over all men.

3. That by the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, [and by] his obedience, al are made righteous. (Romans 5:19). All are made alive, (1 Corinthians 15:22). His righteousness being imputed unto all.

4. That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural man perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, & no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or my reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

5. That GOD before the Foundation of the World hath Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved, (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and al that believe not shall be damned, (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before. (Romans 8:29) And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that GOD hath Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked shall be damned, for GOD would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) and wills not the death of him that dies. (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author of no mans condemnation; according to the saying of the Prophet. (Hosea 13). Thy destruction O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.

6. That man is justified only by the righteousness of CHRIST, apprehended by faith, (Romans 3:28. Galatians 2:16) yet faith without works is dead. (James 2:17)

7. That men may fall away from the grace of GOD, (Hebrews 12:15) and from the truth, which they have received &acknowledged, (Hebrews 10:26) after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the HOLY GHOST, and have tasted of the good word of GOD, &of the powers of the world to come. (Hebrews 6:4, 5). And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein &overcome. (2 Peter 2:20). That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish (Ezekiel 18:24, 26). And therefore let no man presume to think that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall always have grace: But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

8. That JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD the second Person, or subsistence in the Trinity, in the Fullness of time was manifested in the Flesh, being the seed of David, and of the Israelites, according to the Flesh, (Romans 1:3 and Romans 8:5) the Son of Marie the Virgin, made of her substance, (Galatians 4:4) by the power of the HOLY GHOST overshadowing her, (Luke 1:35) and being thus true Man was like unto us in all thing, sin only excepted. Hebrews (4:15) being one person in two distinct natures, TRUE GOD, and TRUE MAN. 32/84

9. That JESUS CHRIST is Mediator of the New Testament between GOD and Man, (1 Timothy 2:5) having all power in Heaven and in Earth given unto him. (Matthew 28:18) Being the only KING, (Luke 1:33) PREIST, (Hebrews 7:24) and PROPHET. (Acts 3:22) Of his church, he also being the only Law-giver, hath in his Testament set down an absolute, and perfect rule of direction, for all persons, at all times, to be observed; Which no Prince, nor any whosoever, may add to, or diminish from as they will avoid the fearful judgments denounced against them that shall so do. (Revelation 22:18, 19).

10. That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people (1 Corinthians 1:2. Ephesians 1:1) separated from the world by the word &Spirit of GOD (2 Corinthians 6:17) being knit unto the LORD, &one unto another, by Baptism. (1 Corinthians 12:13). Upon their own confession of the faith (Acts 8:37) and sins. (Matthew 3:6).

11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church be one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it consists of divers particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the World, every of which congregation, though they be but two or three, have CHRIST given them, with all the means of their salvation. (Matthew 18:20. Romans 8:32. 1 Corinthians 3:22). Are the Body of CHRIST (1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church. (1 Corinthians 14:23) And therefore may, and ought, when they are come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the Church. (1 Peter 4:10 &2:5).

12. That as one congregation hath CHRIST, so hath all, (2 Corinthians 10:7). And that the Word of GOD comes not out from any one, neither to any one congregation in particular. (1 Corinthians 14:36). But unto every particular Church, as it doth unto al the world. (Colossians 1:5. 6). And therefore no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other.

13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according to the primitive Institution, (Matthew 28:19) and practice, (Acts 2:41). And therefore Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament. 33/84

14. That Baptism or washing with water is the outward manifestation of dieing unto sin, and walking in newness of life. (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no wise appertains to infants.

15. That the LORDS Supper is the outward manifestation of the Spiritual communion between CHRIST and the faithful mutually (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17) to declare his death until he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26).

16. That the members of every Church or Congregation ought to know one another, so that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another, both to soul and body. (Matthew 18:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:25). And especially the Elders ought to know the whole flock, whereof the HOLY GHOST hath made them overseers. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). And therefore a Church ought not to consist of such a multitude as cannot have particular knowledge one of another.

17. That Brethren impenitent in one sin after the admonition of the Church, are to be excluded the communion of the Saints (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 13) &therefore not the committing of sin doth cut of any from the Church, but refusing to hear the Church to reformation.

18. That Excommunicants in respect of civil society are not to be avoided, (2 Thessalonians 3:15. Matthew 18:17).

19. That every Church ought (according to the example of CHRISTS Disciples and primitive Churches) upon every first day of the week, being the LORDS day, to assemble together to pray, prophecy, praise GOD, and break Bread, and perform all other parts of Spiritual communion for the worship of GOD, their own mutual edification, and the preservation of true Religion, &piety in the church (John 20:19. Acts 2:42 and 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) and that ought not to labor in their callings according to the equity of the moral law, which CHRIST came not to abolish, but to fulfill. (Exodus 20:8 &c).

20. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their souls, (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 3) or Deacons Men, and Women who by their office relieve the necessities of the poor and impotent brethren concerning their bodies, (Acts 6:1-4). 34/84

21. That these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament, (1 Timothy 3:2-7. Titus 1:6-9. Acts 6:3. 4) by Election and approbation of that Church or congregation whereof they are members, (Acts 6:3. 4 and 14:23), with Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands, (Acts 13:3. and 14:23). And there being but one rule for Elders, therefore but one sort of Elders.

22. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are tied by Office only to that particular congregation whereof they are chosen, (Acts 14:23, and 20:17. Titus 1:5). And therefore they cannot challenge by office any authorities in any other congregation whatsoever except they would have an Apostleship.

23. That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever.

24. That Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul ought to be subject to it not for fear only, but for conscience sake. Magistrates are the ministers of GOD for our wealth, they bear not the sword for naught. They are the ministers of GOD to take vengeance on them that do evil, (Romans 13). That it is a fearful sin to speak evil of them that are in authority, and to despise Government. (2 Peter 2:10). We ought to pay tribute, custom and all other duties. That we are to pray for the, for GOD would have them saved and come to the knowledge of his truth. (1 Timothy 2:1. 4). And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars any from being a member of CHRISTS Church. They bear the sword of GOD, — which sword in all Lawful administrations is to be defended and supported by the servants of GOD that are under their Government with their lives and al that they have according as in the first Institution of that Holy Ordinance. And whosoever holds otherwise must hold, (if they understand themselves) that they are the ministers of the devil, and therefore not to be prayed for nor approved in any of their administrations, — seeing all things they do (as punishing offenders and defending their countries, state, and persons by the sword) is unlawful.

25. That it is Lawful in a just cause for the deciding of strife to take an oath by the Name of the Lord. (Hebrews 6:16; 2 Corinthians 1:23. Philippians 1:8). 35/84

26. That the dead shall rise again, and the living being changed in a moment, - having the same bodies in substance though divers in qualities. (1 Corinthians 15:52 and 38. Job 19:15-28. Luke 24:30).

27. That after the resurrection all men shall appear before the judgment seat of CHRIST to be judged according to their works, that the Godly shall enjoy life Eternal, the wicked being condemned shall be tormented everlastingly in Hell. (Matthew 25:46).

Finis

Last modified: 19.01.06 by GenBap 36/84

Rapping the Whole Gospel

The Christian rapper Flame must not be your average rapper. I came across the lyrics of one of his songs. It is heavy with theology and is to be commended for being weighty. I suspect that his music must appeal to many younger people.

However, there are some basic problems with it in regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue. Here are some of the words; a select few are chosen for discussion, as indicated in all-caps.



"who can pluck us?"

See what I'm about to mention some consider secondary
But never weary guarantee it's very necessary
When Jesus hit the wood and she'd His blood on the tree
He did something good He was atoning for me
AND ALL BELIEVERS WE SEE PETER WOULD CALL THE ELECT
And even Jesus said that His sheep could never be snatched
Out of His hands nor the Father cause He's greater than
All and they're one like a married woman and man
So listen up (listen up) I'm bout to make it plain
So you can hear me clearly and sincerely what I'm saying
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (run it back)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (one more time)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied
Now He gives assurance to all those for whom He died

I'm trying to tell you something you probably have never heard
And if you have you probably perceive them as dirty words
WORDS LIKE ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION
CAN GET YOU STONED AND THROWN OUT OF A CONGREGATION
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (run it back)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (one more time)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it
We can still love each other and share our thoughts about it
When Jesus died He drank the full cup of God's Wrath
WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED IT WAS ON OUR BEHALF
FOR ALL THOSE THE FATHER CHOSE IN ETERNITY PAST
To be redeemed that simply means to be bought back
SO WHEN CHRIST EXPIRED THE DEBT AND THE PRICE WAS PAID
FOR PARTICULAR PEOPLE ON THAT NIGHT TO BE SAVED

In regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue, I think it is important to debunk the myth that just because I'm an Arminian doesn't mean that I don't affirm election and predestination. The difference is that Arminians don't teach that God elects a few people to believe; neither does the Bible. Rather, we think that all who BELIEVE are elect. Yes, from eternity past, God elected a select group of people to be saved: he elected believers.

In fact, Flame's words here illustrates the Arminian point: "And all believers we see Peter would call the elect." That is to say, if you believe, then you are elect! Flame sounds more Arminian than Calvinist here!

That God predestined the Elect to eternal salvation is good Arminian theology. We just don't believe that God predestined some people to believe or chose some people to believe. Biblical election is entirely centred in Christ: we are ELECT "in Christ," but no one gets "in Christ" unless he first believes. Calvinist err here in centring salvation in a decree back in eternity pass rather than "in Christ."

Flame's lyrics at one point overlooks this important doctrine of "Union with Christ." He writes, "So when Christ expired the debt and the price was paid For particular people on that night to be saved."

However, I am certain that the elect experience not even the first salvific benefit until they are united with Christ through faith. Flame claims in this line that the sin debt of all the elect was expired when Christ died on the cross. This simply isn't true. The sin debt is not expired until a person is united with Christ by faith.

Ironically, if the elect's sin debt was expired when Christ died on the cross, Flame (and many Calvinists) would end up teaching that the elect were born into this world without being guilty of sin, and the elect were born into this world already reconciled with God through Christ, and that the elect were never under wrath. Of course, Calvinists don't believe this, but this seems to be the inevitable conclusion if they strongly assert that atonement for the elect was actually effected on the cross.

To avoid such a heretical conclusion, a good Calvinist (something very rare these days) would say, Christ provided atonement on the cross, but atonement is not effected until a person is united with Christ. But this is exactly what Arminians believe.

Ultimately, sometimes Flame's lyrics unjustly read Calvinism into the biblical texts to which he alludes. Flame writes, "When He was crucified it was on our behalf For all those the Father chose in eternity past." These two lines state that God sent his Son to die (only) for the select few. This is not biblical election. Biblical election only teaches that a select few will be saved; it does not state or imply anything about the extent of the atonement. God could provide atonement for everyone, yet only elect believers.

This song seems to represent yet another means by which Calvinists are getting out their message to young Christians. Let me urge Arminians to counter this by producing good music which focuses on the Good News which is meant for all people. Perhaps someone could write a rap song on the theme, "Not willing that any should perish."

A Message from Arminian Theologian Roger Olson

Prof. Olson writes about theological bullying and blatant misrepresentation of Arminians by present day Calvinists.

Feel free to copy and post this anywhere but only without editing it.
You may and should attach my name to it.

I appreciate and agree with everything Scot McKnight has written in his
blog postings "Who are the NeoReformed?" (See his blog The Jesus
Creed.) He was very judicious about naming names. Namely, naming names
would only inflame the controversy and make things worse. "If the shoe
fits [someone]...."

I would like to add that many contemporary Calvinists who are feeding
the "young, restless and Reformed" the fuel with which they go out and
cause trouble (one of them told me I'm not even saved because I'm an
Arminian!) totally misrepresent Arminianism (to say nothing of other
traditions).

Here is a quote from one Calvinist pastor's sermon on limited atonement:
"The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the
atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who
die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for
all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a
powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible
plight of depravity."

Now, either this well-educated pastor knows little about classical
Arminian theology or he is intentionally mispresenting it. But in the
former case he should have read at least my book Arminian Theology:
Myths and Realities. Because his statement is simply false. It
completely ignores the Arminian emphasis on prevenient grace.

One thing I find appalling but often practiced by the people Scot calls
"NeoReformed" is attributing to others beliefs the others not only do
not hold but explicitly deny. When confronted the NeoReformed say "But
that's the good and necessary consequence of what they do believe."
Then they should say that and also say "But they don't actually believe
that."

So the followers of these highly educated leaders of the NeoReformed
hear them or read them and go out thinking and saying "Arminians believe
people save themselves." That's poppycock and the leaders of the
NeoReformed movement know it.

There's a lot of dishonesty going on in this "Village Green" we call
evangelicalism. And frankly, as I see it, most of it is the result of
NeoReformed people blatantly misrepresenting Arminianism and by that
trying to marginalize Arminians (and Anabapts who basically hold the
same theology). How? By convincing the movers and shakers of the
evangelical movement that Arminianism is dangerously close to heresy.

I cannot read their hearts or minds, so I do not know whether they are
misrepresenting Arminianism intentionally or not. But I am sure they
are educated enough to have checked out their representations of
Arminianism to see if they are correct. Either they haven't done that
or they are intentionally misrepresenting Arminian theology (even if
only by saying only what they think Arminian theology leads to and
neglecting to make clear that is not what Arminians themselves believe).

I've been fighting this battle, to clear the good name of Arminian
theology (by showing how it different from Semi-Pelagianism) for years
now with very limited success. I find that most of the people doing the
misrepresenting of Arminianism and aggressively asserting the sole
theological correctness of Reformed theology (their version of it) have
little or no interest in being educated about real Arminian theology.
Their minds are already made up; don't confuse them with the facts.

Every year I have a group of Calvinist pastors from a local Reformed
church come to my class and speak. One of them started out by saying
"Arminianism is just Pelagianism." After several such unfortunate
encounters I gave them copies of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
on the condition they read it. To the best of my knowledge they never
have.

I have received e-mails and letters from scores of "young, restless and
Reformed" evangelicals thanking me for clearing up their misconceptions
(which they all say they were taught by leading Reformed evangelicals)
about Arminianism. But I have not heard from a single evangelical
Reformed leader saying that anything I wrote there made any difference
in the way they think or speak or write about Arminian theology.

Without any doubt in my mind, the "Village Green" metaphor for
evangelicalism is not a good one. After all, the Village Green in
England and then New England was simply a place where all the citizens
could come together and talk about the weather or politics or business.
Evangelicalism is a loose coalition of like-minded Christians who
acknowledge their differences. It's motto has always been "In
essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
(See the National Association of Evangelicals web site.) The
multi-denominational tent revival is a much better metaphor for
evangelicalism.

Lately, however, there's been trouble under the revival tent. Some
folks are trying to convince the organizers and sponsors of the revival
and newcomers as well that their particular theology is an essential and
not a non-essential. They are very careful how they choose their words;
they usually strictly avoid the lable "heresy" for other views such as
Arminianism and even open theism. But their rhetoric is the rhetoric of
exclusion: "Arminianism is profoundly mistaken" and "Arminianism is on
the precipice of heresy" and "all Arminians are on their way to open
theism," etc., etc.

It's time for evangelicalism's leaders to stand up and say no--not to
Calvinism but to those evangelical Calvinists who are causing trouble in
the evangelical camp by blatantly misrepresenting other evangelicals'
beliefs and by implying, if not asserting, that their theology is the
only authentic evangelical theology.

Roger E. Olson