(In progress: the reader may wish to periodically revisit this page in order to behold its expansion, modification, refinement, and/or sheer greatness.)
Table of contents
Preamble
1. A Remonstrant’s run-through of diverse doctrinal positions2. ‘Noteworthy websites’: an overview3. An Arminian’s advisory on articles of faith4. Mammon, affiliations, and The Neo-Remonstrance5. Considering commencing correspondence, comrade(s)?
6. A Remonstrant’s repudiation of irrefutability
7. The most important thing
Notes
J. D. Gallé | Saturday, 2 October 2021 – Thursday, 29 February 2024
Preamble
Welcome to a haven for free-will theistic thought! You have happened upon an idyllic paradise in cyberspace, an online oasis wherein the notion of theological determinism as the unquestioned norm for Christian theology is looked upon as alien.
Negatively, I, J. D. Gallé, the author/host of this blog, The Neo-Remonstrance Commences (an unrivalled slogan, if I do say so myself),* am not affiliated with any particular church denomination or organisation, nor do I belong to a theological society of any sort. Moreover, that all fears might be assuaged, let it be known that I am neither an Eastern Orthodox nor Roman Catholic Christian.
Arminian/Remonstrant theology. Positively, theologically, I identify as falling within the broader stream of Protestant interpretation, adhering to an essentially non-deterministic, Arminian/Remonstrant understanding of the scriptures, the sovereignty and providence of God, divine foreknowledge, and the salvation of humankind.
Integral tenets of Arminianism / Remonstrantism are as follows:
- God, as creator, has elected to grant his intelligent, moral creatures, human and angelic, significant (albeit limited) contra- or non-causal freedom to place their allegiance in him (that is, to trust in Yahweh God and submit to his rulership) or rebel against his authority;
- God, as ruler, has not exhaustively foreordained all things;
- God, as redeemer,† has decreed the salvation of sinful human beings to be conditional in nature (thus negating the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute, unconditional predestination).
Trinitarian theology. As regards the doctrine of God (i.e. theology proper), I adhere to a basic trinitarian view, which recognises the deity, distinctness, unity, and personhood of God the Father; the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; and the Holy Spirit. Unitarian views of the doctrine of God, whether of the Arian, Sabellian (modalistic), or Socinian variety, are thereby denied.
Subordinationism(?). At present, as disheartening as it might be to some, I do not take a stance on the query concerning the eternal, functional submission / subordination (EFS) of the Son. On some doctrines I have reserved judgement.
High Christology. On the far-reaching subject of Christology, I regard the affirmation of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ to be cardinal to the Christian faith, and look upon its denial by those who would claim the scriptures to be doctrinally authoritative as inevitably resulting in a non-standard form of Christianity.
Primacy of scripture. Apart from my appreciation and indebtedness to the Dutch Arminian/Remonstrant Protestant theological heritage, it is not my aim to slavishly follow any particular theologian or theological tradition, or to raise any extra-biblical confession or creed to the level of infallibility or incontrovertibility. The scriptures must be the final authority with regard to faith and practice. Fidelity to the scriptures must therefore supersede loyalty to any man-made theological paradigm.
2. ‘Noteworthy websites’: an overview
For my purposes, the contents of the four ‘Noteworthy websites’, presently listed on the right-hand sidebar of this blog, may be summarised as follows:
- Afterlife (Jn 5.24), the official website of the Conditional Immortality Association of New Zealand, challenges common (or traditional) evangelical understandings of anthropology (i.e. the study of humankind) and eschatology (i.e. the study of the last things), particularly the nature of the future punishment of the unrighteous (i.e. the doctrine of ‘hell’). Articles featured on this website (which are of varying quality, to be sure), argue in favour of (1) monism, the holistic/indivisible nature of human beings (as opposed to bipartite/dualistic and tripartite/trichotomous understandings of anthropology); (2) an unconscious/non-existent interim state of the righteous dead prior to their resurrection at the second appearance (parousia) of Jesus Christ; (3) immortality as a gift to be conferred exclusively upon inheritors of the kingdom of God and Christ, a view referred to as conditional immortality (or, in its condensed form, commonly called conditionalism); and (4) annihilationism, the belief that, following the last judgement, apart from whatever physical and/or psychological anguish the wicked are to endure for their lawlessness and faithlessness towards God, the finally obdurate shall ultimately be annihilated, returning to the condition of non-life.
- Creation Ministries International (CMI) endorses young-earth creationism (YEC) (referred to by CMI, not unbiasedly, as ‘biblical creationism’), a view which understands the scriptures to teach a relatively young divine creation of the earth. This position is therefore incompatible with theological interpretations which require billions of years of creaturely suffering, development, decay, disease, and death (as required by, for example, any form of theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism). As proponents of YEC, contributors of CMI regard the creational account and narrative of Genesis 1–11 as non-allegorical in nature. That is to say, the events recounted in Genesis 1–11 are not to be understood as pre- or non-scientific, mythical tales intended to convey moral and spiritual truths irrespective of their historicity.
- The Arminian Magazine (TAM) and Society of Evangelical Arminians support various Arminian/Remonstrant perspectives on the doctrine of God, divine providence and sovereignty, and soteriology (i.e. the doctrine of salvation). TAM, in particular, features many articles favouring an early, classical Wesleyan-Arminian approach to matters relating to salvation, including the enquiry regarding whether Christ’s personal righteousness‡ is imputed to believers and an emphasis on the expectation of sanctification (holiness) in the lives of believers.
3. An Arminian’s advisory on articles of faith
Readers are advised to exercise caution, time, and discernment in formulating their own views. It is not my intention to give uncritical, sweeping approbation to any particular author, organisation, scholar, or theologian and his/her/their views, much less all the viewpoints expressed via article, book, video, or podcast on the websites or literature referenced or recommended on The Neo-Remonstrance Commences. For example:
- I am at variance with CMI’s consistently Calvinistic soteriological slant, and their denial of the doctrine of annihilationism being an authentic evangelical option. On the latter point, see my article, ‘Thomas Fretwell’s Fallacies on Evangelical Annihilationism’ (8 May 2019), for criticism in this regard.
- Whereas authors on Afterlife (Jn 5.24) argue against bipartite and tripartite views of human nature, I have yet to firmly adopt a specific anthropological understanding; although, admittedly, I am inclined to affirm the non-consciousness of the deceased§ until the corporeal resurrections of the righteous and unrighteous,‖ preceded by the second advent of Jesus Christ.
4. Mammon, affiliations, and The Neo-Remonstrance
Unless otherwise noted, let it be known that:
- I do not profit financially in any way (e.g. via earning commissions) from the citation, purchase, promotion, criticism, censure, or quotation of books, magazines, newsletters, organisations, publications, resources, or visitation of website links which are listed or otherwise mentioned on this blog.
- I am compensated neither for recommendations nor purchases of items cited on my Amazon Idea Lists (see ‘A Remonstrant’s Recommended Writings’).
- Any and all personal endorsements or recommendations of non-profit, charitable organisations enumerated on this website (see e.g. ‘Remuneration for a Remonstrant(?)’) are voluntary as well as conditional in nature, having arisen solely of my limited, non-sovereign (albeit libertarian) free will, and, as such, may be expanded, revised, and/or revoked at any time. Potential contributors are encouraged to contemplate conducting their own research prior to donating to any one of the organisations referenced on this blog.
- Hitherto this website has been unsubsidised, and, for the foreseeable future, I do not anticipate soliciting or accepting any form of sponsorship.
- I am not officially affiliated in any capacity with the websites, organisations, or societies referenced on The Neo-Remonstrance Commences.
5. Considering commencing correspondence, comrade(s)?
For comments, corrections, enquiries, suggestions, or remonstrations, please scroll to the bottom of the page and fill out the contact form below. Your thoughts and participation are appreciated.
6. A Remonstrant’s repudiation of irrefutability
I make no claim of infallibility in my interpretations of scripture, nor do I claim to be a prophet or apostle. Although this admission does not thereby exempt me of accountability for my opinions, it should serve to remind myself as well as the reader of the reality that (should the supposition be granted), if even the most learned and pious of persons are not unsusceptible to err (of whose company I most unhappily do not belong), how much more is a lone Remonstrant unexcluded from potential adherence to inaccurate views of scripture and theology(!). (It has occurred to me that this disclaimer is not likely to instil confidence in my readership, but alas, sobriety is required in all walks of life.)
7. The most important thing
Above all else, do not follow me, any man or woman, any organisation or denomination. Do not give your allegiance to any system of theology, committee, denomination, institution, organisation, person, philosopher, scholar, or theologian. Follow only the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16.16, 24–26). He is the sole Way to the Father (John 14.6). His blood alone cleanses from all sin (1 John 1.7).
Notes
† Here I am borrowing the threefold identification of Yahweh God in his roles as creator, ruler, and redeemer from the respective titles of Jack W. Cottrell’s three-volume series of books on theology proper, originally published in the 1980s. See Jack Cottrell, What the Bible Says about God the Creator, The Doctrine of God, vol. 1 (1983; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000); idem, What the Bible Says about God the Ruler, The Doctrine of God, vol. 2 (1984; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000); and idem, What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer, The Doctrine of God, vol. 3 (1987; repr., Eugene, OR: 2000). The content of the aforementioned three volumes on the doctrine God has been condensed into a single volume in idem, God Most High: What the Bible Says about God the Creator, Ruler, Redeemer (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2012).
Jack Warren Cottrell (1938–2022) was an Arminian theologian who hailed from the Restoration Movement (Christian Churches / Churches of Christ), a North American Protestant tradition often referred to as the Stone–Campbell Movement after its namesakes, Alexander Campbell (1788–1866) and Barton Stone (1772–1844). As an original thinker, Cottrell sought, through his many published works, to correct and refine various aspects of doctrine that he perceived to be in error or in need of reform within his own tradition. Cottrell’s official website may be viewed by visiting the following link: <https://www.jackcottrell.com>.
‡ By ‘Christ’s personal righteousness’ I mean to say, more specifically, what has come to be referred to as ‘the active obedience of Christ’. Christ’s ‘active obedience’ is a technical, theological term, signifying the entire, earthly, lifelong obedience of the man, Jesus the Nazarene, to the will of God the Father under the old-covenant, Mosaic law. This terminology is especially prevalent in Protestant, Lutheran and Reformed-Calvinistic soteriological discussions of imputation and justification by faith in the Pauline epistles.
As comprising but one half of an active–passive dichotomy, the ‘active obedience’ of Jesus Christ is distinguished from the ‘passive obedience’ of Jesus, the latter of which denotes Christ’s submission unto death on a Roman cross for the salvation of sinful humankind (see Phil. 2.8).
(In strict/high Calvinism, it is believed that Christ died salvationally for certain pre-chosen individuals and not all persons without exception. This view is variously referred to as limited atonement, definite atonement, particular atonement, and particular redemption. The language of ‘sinful humankind’ is therefore deliberately intended to accommodate particular and universal perspectives of the extent of the atonement, as such wording need not encompass all persons without exception. Nevertheless, the non-specific, accommodative phrase is in no way meant to lend credence to the novel, high Calvinistic theory of particular atonement.)
§ The non-consciousness of the dead does not require a monistic (or ‘physicalist’) anthropological understanding. For, if human beings possess immaterial spirits and/or souls, it may nevertheless be maintained that, in the interim antedating the return of Christ, the spirits and/or souls of deceased persons may be in a dormant, unconscious state until being supernaturally (re)awakened at the time of resurrection and judgement (a view which may be accurately termed ‘soul sleep’ or ‘spirit sleep’).
‖ Although it is certain that the scriptures affirm the resurrection of the just at the second appearance of Christ, it is not likewise a matter of certitude whether the physical resurrection of the unjust shall occur simultaneously (as in the amillennialist position) or a significant duration of time later (as in premillennialist thought, wherein a literal, one thousand–year interval exists between the two resurrections). As this matter is not at all resolved to my mind, I make allowance for the possibility that some form of premillennialist understanding of Revelation 20, the focal point of the controversy, may prove true.
Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024. All rights reserved.
Latest updates: Friday, 12 May 2023 (converted scriptural abbreviations to full citations; added table of contents); Sunday, 11 June 2023 (emended first bullet point under the heading, ‘Mammon, affiliations, and The Neo-Remonstrance’; added a bullet point under the forenamed heading; added a new heading and paragraph, namely ‘A Remonstrant’s repudiation of irrefutability’); Thursday, 6 July 2023 (slightly emended some wording under the heading, ‘A Remonstrant’s repudiation of irrefutability’; Wednesday, 26 July 2023 (added a sentence under the subheading, ‘Trinitarian theology’; added a subheading title); Monday, 7 August 2023 (slightly emended some wording under the third and sixth headings, ‘An Arminian’s advisory on articles of faith’ and ‘A Remonstrant’s repudiation of irrefutability’, respectively); Tuesday, 8 August 2023; Friday, 11 August 2023 (made a slight correction in one place); Wednesday, 20 September 2023 (converted two words from upper-case to lower-case letters); Thursday, 29 February 2024 (converted hyphen in one place to an en dash).
