A word about the parable…

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:32 pm by Roger E. Olson

A word about the parable… 2011-08-18T19:32:18-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Returning to the parable I posted here Monday: A parable is a story that is intended to make one single point. In that a parable is different from an allegory. This parable of mine (viz., the Calvinist professor and the ungrateful student) makes one point and one point only: that a gift freely received is no less a gift. Many Calvinists are fond of claiming that Arminians diminish the sheer graciousness of salvation by saying the person must freely accept it. They claim this free acceptance of the gift is “the decisive factor” in salvation (in Arminian soteriology) and that implies salvation is not entirely of God’s grace alone. The parable simply demonstrates the counter-intuitive nature of this claim. Even the Calvinist who makes it would be furious if someone he or she saved from ruin claimed credit for merely accepting the gift. Nobody thinks there is any credit due a person who merely receives a gift. Merely receiving a life-saving gift is never considered “the decisive factor” in the person having been been rescued. To say otherwise would simply cause most people to scratch their heads in bewilderment.

The parable is not intended to deal with other Calvinist objections to Arminian theology. It is aimed at one point only. Some of my dear readers here have tried to minimize the effectiveness of the parable by claiming it misrepresents the ability of the sinner to accept the gift. That can be dealt with by another parable. And the objections overlook the crucial Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace.

I get frustrated by a frequent experience in debating Calvinists. They often argue AS IF they did not know the whole of Arminian theology. For example, some who object to my parable have responded at length about total depravity AS IF they did not know the Arminian answer to this. But some of their messages seem to demonstrate a rather broad acquaintance with Arminian theology. If you are going to criticize the parable on those grounds (viz., that it allegedly does not take seriously enough total depravity) at least mention the Arminian way of handling that–prevenient grace. You don’t have to think that’s an adequate answer, but please be fair enough to mention that Arminians do have an answer–whether you think it is adequate or not.

Arminians, of course, should do the same with Calvinism. We Arminians should not argue against a point of Calvinism without at least mentioning the Calvinist answer that we know very well. Then we can argue against that. But to argue against Arminian belief in a sinner’s ability to respond freely to the gospel without mentioning prevenient grace seems a bit disingenuous–unless, of course, you really don’t know about it!

I would hope that Calvinists who undertake to argue against Arminianism would at least read some classical Arminian literature such as Thomas Oden’s The Transforming Power of Grace. Of course, Arminians should do the same with Calvinism. I’ll leave it to Calvinists to recommend what they think is the book in print that best represents their theology. For my own edification, I found R. C. Sproul’s What Is Reformed Theology helpful. But I have also read Calvin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, Hoekema, Horton, Piper, and Helm helpful (among many others).

I often wonder how many Calvinists have read as much classical Arminian literature as Arminians have read Calvinist literature? How many Calvinists who consider themselves well-informed about Arminian theology have really read any classical Arminian theologians? How many have read Arminius himself or could name even one of his treatises? My experience of talking with Calvinists has led me to suspect that most of them, even Calvinist theologians, know about Arminianism only through secondary literature–usually Reformed. I urge people of both camps to read primary sources truly representative of the other one. My recommendation is Oden. His book is extremely clear, completely orthodox and biblical. He uses the term “Arminian” sparingly, but his theology in that book is completely consistent with classical Arminian thought.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 10, 2010

A modest proposal to end the gay marriage debate

Next Post

August 12, 2010 Two new books about evangelicalism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Four beasts rose from the sea—one like a lion with eagle's wings, one like a bear, one like a leopard, and a fourth terrifying beast. What did these represent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four kingdoms Four kings Four judgments Four ages