User talk:Rclark767

Arminianism project

Hello To editor Rclark767: Some people worked hard to make a nice invitation card, so I think I have to honour their work by copying/pasting its template here :

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Arminianism The goal of WikiProject Arminianism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Arminianism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Arminianism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Arminian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I just want to inform you that a list of notables Arminian Christians is under construction. Please note that a lot of those Christians, have an existing biography in Wikipedia. However, when their articles exist, they are often not sourced and can't be tagged to build the categories : Category:Arminian writers, Category:Arminian ministers, Category:Arminian theologians. Those lists are fundamental because they are the first results of Google searches, and can help people to understand the extent of Arminianism. Would you be interested to create some of the biographies or to help sourcing the existing ones ? ---Telikalive (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I would very much be interested in helping you Telikalive, I am working on a doctoral thesis at Manchester focusing on Arminian theology. I, of course, identify as an evangelical Arminian myself. I am pretty busy as a result but I will help when I can. Thank you for your invitation.

OK, thank for your answer ---Telikalive (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Rclark767: "Sourcing" existing articles of simple-foreknownledge Arminians is actually the task I'm currently dealing with. In the list of notables Arminian Christians I made (counting now 575 names), 50 articles are still to be sourced (the first in the list to be sourced are for ex. C.S. Lewis, etc.). When those existing articles will be all sourced, I think that we will be in position to write additional biographies (309 identified at this point). I'm thinking that you may be motivated to source yourself especially some of the existing articles (even latter). Would you like that I share the details, so that you could indicate to me your preference(s) ? ---Telikalive (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Telikalive:, Sure, I’m happy to help. I have evidence that Herbert Thorndike, Laurence Womock, Henry Hammond, and James Nichols were all Arminian theologians. I will get to adding this info soon. I am respecting the work of my English PhD supervisor and trying to give his dissertation time to publish so that I can cite it. If he takes too long then I will just cute the thinker directly. Rclark767 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC):::

@Rclark767:. So I added a (sortable) column in the list of notables Arminian Christians. This column mentions articles that have to be :

1. sourced (S) and then tagged with: Category:Arminian writers, Category:Arminian ministers, Category:Arminian theologians
2. Created (C)

These are to my eyes the priorities for the Arminian project. Concerning the people you mentioned :

• Please note, that I didn't included Herbert Thorndike in the list, because I haven't found evidences he was an Arminian. He was an Anglo-catholic so I assumed he adopted more a catholic synergism than a protestant one. He seems to me that he only was roughly anti-calvinist. But if you have some evidences, please : 1. include him in the project Arminianism (low importance) 2. source the article 3. tag the article with Category:Arminian ministers, Category:Arminian theologians.
• Concerning the other names you mentioned: there was in the text more or less enough clues (improvable of course) to tag the articles. This is why I don't consider them as immediate priorities for the project. ---Telikalive (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

To editor Rclark767: there are some people to claim to be Arminian but are not. This is the case of William Lane Craig because middle knowledge as nothing to do with Arminianism. I just want to warn you I want to remove it from the category category:Arminian theologians. ---Telikalive (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Telikalive:, I have been in conversation with William Lane Craig, as I am working on my PhD thesis in Arminian theology at the University of Manchester, and he is rightly an Arminian. If you follow recent scholarship it has been demonstrated conclusively that Arminius was a Protestant Molinist. It is actually not for his Molinism that he is an Arminian. It is due to his doctrines of conditional election and resistible grace (but Molinism is certainly compatible with Arminianism). He was until recently, after our conversation, under the impression that Arminius placed middle knowledge after the creative decree. I showed him that Richard Muller and Keith Stanglin have shown that that is not the case. There is still a minority report out there that denies that Arminius affirmed middle-knowledge but they are wrong and they deny it due to their confessional agendas as Stanglin and Tom McCall have pointed out. So, you would be wrong to remove him from the list of Arminian theologians. I hope that you will reconsider your thinking on this. I can provide you with the sources of recent scholarship and the places to find Arminius's affirmations if that would be useful for you.-Rclark767

To editor Rclark767: I have several things to answer :

1) First of all, you are referring to Arminius as the baseline of Arminianism. This is a biased approach of the problem. Please read this article of Olson : Must One Agree with Arminius to be Arminian? As Olson said, you might find TULIP teachings in Arminius, that should not change the baseline of Arminianism as it was consensually defined by historians and theologians.

2) Secondly, you are talking about this "consensus about Arminius being a Molinist". Again Olson point out that this is not what matters, because the main theological point of Arminius was to avoid making God the author of sin. As Olson says, we should accept that any theologian can contradict himself, and in the same time get his main point. Please read this article  : Are Arminian Theology and Middle Knowledge Compatible?

3) The wikipedia article says : Molinism#Difference from Calvinism and from Arminianism : "[Molinism] also differs from Arminianism because it claims that God definitively knows how a person would react to the Gospel message if they were put in a particular situation." Thus, Molinism implies determinism even to a little extent. This is opposed to the main theological point of Arminianism as showed by Olson.

4) Then, whatever his claims, Lane should not be counted as an Arminian because his teaching contradicts the main point of the teaching of Arminius. (God is not the author of sin), even though Arminius contradict himself on this question. ---Telikalive (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Telikalive: I have several things to answer :

It is far from clear that Molinism results in any sort of deterministic consequences. In fact, the majority of Molinist and Molinist-Arminians would not see it that way (this is not an ad populum argument, I am merely noting that the conclusions of Olson et al. are not deductively demonstrated). It is too difficult for me to write out a portion of my dissertation here on how theological terms like 'Arminian' and 'Calvinist' should be demarcated but I think that it is safe to say that I agree with you that what Arminius thought does not necessarily demarcate 'Arminianism.' The point is, and Olson has conceded this much in his FAQ About Arminianism, that the tent of Arminianism is large enough for Molinist-Arminians (like myself) and non-Molinist Arminians that think that the consequences of our theology lead to deterministic conclusions. Personally, I think that Tom McCall has shown that Arminius's conclusions did not lead to any sort of determinism. If middle-knowledge doesn't lead to deterministic conclusions then it is hard to see how God is made the 'author of sin.' Yet, Arminius's thinking cannot be disqualified as 'Arminianism' any more than what Calvin thought can be disqualified as 'Calvinism.' If you deleted Craig from the list because he affirms middle-knowledge, despite his affirming other Arminain tenents like conditional election, resistible enabling grace, ect. then you should likewise delete Arminius from the list to remain consistent. What I am asking you to do is note that this is a disagreement among Arminians (as SEA does) and that you allow Molinist-Arminians and non-Molinist Arminians to be classified as Arminians in the same way that Amyraldians are classified as Calvinists despite the fact that the dominant stream of Calvinists thinks that they implicitly contradict themselves. It has even been argued that, as you wrote above, 'middle knowledge as nothing to do with Arminianism' because it is a doctrine of providence (theology proper) when Arminianism is technically a sort of 'soteriology.' I really hope that we can reach an accord here since this is still a major point of contention between Arminian scholars. Thank you, by the way, for your willingness to discuss this with me before removing him from the list. I think that there must be some sort of middle-ground here. We could even consider making a list of Molinist-Arminian theologians. But I think just leaving them and adding an addendum to their page would be simpler.

I want to add this from Roger Olson's book with the hope that we can agree to include Craig on the list even if we add an addendum on his page that his Molinism makes his being an Arminian as he claims a contended issue among Arminians:

'FAQ 10: Can an Arminian resolve the mystery of divine foreknowledge with Molinism?

A: Some classical Arminians think so. Others do not. Two unsettled questions bedevil this intra-Arminian debate. First is a philosophical one: Is the counterfactual libertarian freedom a viable concept? Second is a theological one: Can God make use of middle knowledge (assuming he has such knowledge) in arranging human affairs without determining them? Classical Arminians are divided about these questions and their answers (This is taken from Roger E Olson's Arminianism FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted to Know, p. 9).'

To editor Rclark767: Personally, I don't know if William Lane Craig really holds on the tenets of Arminianism. His biography refers to an article where he only says "but I certainly do identify with the Wesleyan tradition". Moreover one can find such kind of articles : Martin Glynn, “William Lane Craig Gets Arminianism A Bit Wrong”. As you seems to know him, do you have any evidences that he believes at least in the Five Articles of Remonstrance (or at best with Olson's criteria : Who Is (or Might Be) an Arminian?)? ---Telikalive (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a fair request. I will try to dig some stuff up for you soon. He certainly did get Arminianism a bit wrong that is why I reached out to him actually:-) Rclark767 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Telikalive: I do get to communicate with him from time to time. Most recently it was over his misunderstanding of Arminius and Molinism that he got from MacGregor. I relaid the communication that I had with MacGregor about his misunderstanding. I also shared with him the recent work of Stanglin and Muller on the Protestant reception of middle-knowledge in Arminian circles. Much of his affirmation of the articles of Remonstrance is, of course, implicit. He lauds the corporate-conditional view of election in his chapter in 'The Grace of God and the Will of Man' particularly on 155-61 (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989). Yet, even here he displays a conflation between Arminianism and the dominant simple-foreknowledge view that Olson (and my mentor J. Matthew Pinson) have. I am actually a theological editor for a book that Pinson is about to have published on Arminian theology through a significant publisher. :-) His corporate election view can also be found here and, as I think you will see given your theological astuteness, the conditional element is implicit even here. His affirmation of libertarian free will and universal atonement is everywhere but I will work to provide a citation for you if you would like. In fact, here is a quick one for the latter http://evangelicalarminians.org/william-lane-craig-who-did-christ-die-for-3-minute-video-clip/. For the former see his chapter in 'Four Views of Divine Providence' p. 79-100 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). He affirms prevenient grace and conditional election here (and so many other places) http://evangelicalarminians.org/video-william-lane-craig-evaluating-views-of-appropriating-gods-grace-and-salvation/. Here he affirms the possibility of apostasy and that middle-knowledge is compatible with either the once-saved-always-saved view or the view that people can and do fall away. Again, thanks for working with me on this. I am still not opposed to making a list of Arminian-Molinists but I think that we should include him and a number of others that I will get around too at a later date. Of course, I am interested in all sorts of Arminians, not just those of the Molinist variety.

To editor Rclark767: Thank you for the time that you spent to gather these information. It shows that, on the paper William Lane Craig holds on the Five Points of Arminianism. Nevertheless, it will not change my opinion that his Molinist view is deterministic, and in contradiction with the non-deterministic view of the Arminian system. But I think we need to find a consensus. I propose that we let William Lane Craig in this category, for now. In my opinion, an "Arminian-Molinists" category will not be filled enough to be judged relevant enough. (See my long discussion in order to justify the relevancy of the "Arminian" Categories I created.) But if you add some more Arminians with molinist views to the current categories, it would be interesting for the advised readers that you provide evidences that they holds on the Five Articles of Remonstrance within their biographical article. I think that you should refrain from adding new molinists to the list in absence of those evidences. ---Telikalive (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Telikalive:, I think that this is a fair compromise. I will add some more as I find time to do so with my doctoral work and all but I will be sure to meet this fair stipulation that you have set out by only doing so if I can demonstrate that they explicitly or implicitly affirm the Articles of the Remonstrants. Thanks for working with me on this. I am just as excited of course to add to the information concerning the many simple-foreknowledge Arminians that have historically been overlooked.

To editor Rclark767: I answered you in the § "Arminianism project" above. —Telikalive (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)