from Leo Peters, who argues that a person named John Bolt is promoting heresy within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) by rejecting free will

 

The text is a letter from Leo Peters, who argues that a person named Bolt is promoting heresy within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) by rejecting free will and making God responsible for all human actions. Peters contrasts Bolt's views with those of Calvin and Arminius, suggesting Bolt needs a refresher course in systematic theology.

Author's Stance: Leo Peters warns that "Bolt" is teaching heresy by rejecting free will.

Theological Contrast: The letter contrasts the views of Calvin (unconditional predestination, accepting paradoxes) and Arminius (conditional predestination, free will).

CRC Position: The author asserts that the CRC's Confessional Standards accept Calvin's theology and reject Bolt's.

Recommendation: Peters suggests Bolt take a CRC-monitored refresher course in theology before teaching students.

==================

THE BANNER

2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE Grand Rapids, Mich. 49560

FOR: VOICES Department

In VOICES 8-22-80 Rev. John Bolt, without supplying even a shred of biblical or doctrinal warrant, set himself up as a judicial authority on our Reformed Confessions when he stated that Richard DeVos's "attitude and philosophy of life reflects what the Reformed Confessions consider a serious heresy - the heresy of Arminianism." Bolt's statement was a criticism of DeVos's 5-2-80 article supporting the free enterprise system in the earthly sphere of economics.

Instead of being Confessionally authoritative, Bolt's theological criticism of DeVos is precisely the opposite. Biblically speaking, it is pure unadulterated theological bunk. By the Confessional Standards of our CRC Church his statement is doctrinal heresy of the highest order. It is shocking by itself. It is critically shocking because it comes from a man who is a newly appointed Professor in Calvin's Dept. of Religion and Theology with responsibility for teaching our students biblical and doctrinal truth.

Now read this:

In his criticism of DeVos, Bolt denies that "anyone who wills can be a (earthly) success." He denies that earthly "personal achievement (is) an effort of the human will."

Bolt thus denies that man is responsible for his earthly performance and so denies that man has free will on the earthly level. He clinches these denials by saying that it is God's "grace or gift" that is responsible for man's earthly performance. Bolt thus makes God the author of both good and evil; makes Him both God and Satan. This is the theology of the man who has the temerity to falsely charge DeVos with heresy.

All reason-mad theologians, incessantly driven to resolve the impenetrable mysteries of God's Revelations, destroy their biblical credentials when they become "authorities" on how to eliminate the "reasoned" conflicts between God's infinite reason and man's finite 

reason. Arminius tried it by rejecting unconditional predestination, and making man's free will responsible for all of man's acts and destinies, earthly and heavenly. Bolt now tries it by rejecting free will and making God responsible for all of man's acts and destinies; leaving only unconditional predestination at work. Calvin was humbled by, and not ashamed to accept at face value, the biblical mysteries; those man-reasoned biblical inconsistencies that have always existed between the temporal and eternal. Calvin took them for what they are: paradoxes, unresolvable by man's reason. On this point, the CRC's Confessional Standards solidly accept Calvin's theology, and solidly reject Bolt's theology.

I've said enough to alert Bolt, and the CRC, to his heresy. For everyone's good, Bolt would be well-advised to take an intensive CRC-monitored refresher course in systematic theology, with heavy emphasis on the Reformed doctrines of free will (accepted by both Calvin and Arminius) and predestination (Calvin's unconditional, and Arminius's conditional). He should do this before he starts teaching our students those purely personal doctrines for which he has no biblical or CRC Doctrinal warrant. (all parenthesis mine.)

Leo Peters.

Response from Andrew Kuyvenhoven

The image contains a handwritten letter from Andrew Kuyvenhoven to "Leo" regarding an edited letter for an upcoming publication issue.

• Sender: Andrew Kuyvenhoven, from the Board of Publications.
• Recipient: Leo.
• Purpose: To inform Leo that his letter has been edited and will appear in the Sep. 29 issue.
• Action Required: Leo should inform Andrew at the beginning of the week if the edited form is unacceptable.

FROM THE DESK OF ANDREW KUYVENHOVEN
Board of Publications • 2850 Kalamazoo Ave. S.E. • (616)241-1691

Recvd: 9-12-80*

Dear Leo:

                This is the edited form in which your letter will appear in Sep. 29 issue.
                If unacceptable, tell me in the beginning of the week.
                If you wish to correspond with Rev. John Bolt, his address is 1323 Griggs SE,
                Sorry for cutting. I believe it's part of my job. I'll give Bolt a chance to reply.

                                                           Sincerely, Andrew K.

---

Summary of the Article

• Initial Criticism: The letter responds to an earlier article by Rev. Bolt in "Voices" where he accused Richard DeVos's philosophy of life and support for the free enterprise system of being the "heresy of Arminianism" [1.1].
• Rebuttal: The author of the letter argues that Bolt's criticism is "pure unadulterated theological bunk" and, in fact, a "doctrinal heresy of the highest order" by the standards of the CRC Church [1.1].
• Bolt's Stance: The author highlights that Bolt denies the concept of free will in earthly matters, stating that success and personal achievement are solely due to God's "grace or gift," not human effort [1.1].
• Author's Conclusion: The author concludes that Bolt's theology makes God the author of both good and evil, a position they find highly concerning, especially given Bolt's new appointment as a Professor at Calvin's Department of Religion and Theology [1.1].

Arminianism is a Protestant theological tradition that emphasizes human free will and personal responsibility in the process of salvation, in contrast to the strict predestination of Calvinism. The debate between the two perspectives centers on how God's sovereignty interacts with human agency. 

Arminianism and Free Will

• Libertarian Free Will: Arminianism is aligned with the concept of "libertarian free will," which asserts that human choices are genuinely free from predetermination, meaning individuals have the capacity to choose or refrain from an action. This freedom is considered essential for moral responsibility; a person can be justly praised or blamed for their actions.
• Prevenient Grace: Arminians acknowledge that humans are totally depraved due to the Fall and cannot initiate their own salvation. However, they believe God extends "prevenient grace" to all people, which enables them to exercise their free will to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. This grace restores the ability to choose spiritual good, which was lost after Adam's sin.
• Resistible Grace: Unlike the Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace," Arminianism teaches that God's grace can be resisted by individuals who choose to reject His call.
• Conditional Election: God's choice of who will be saved (election) is based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to believe in Him, rather than an unconditional, sovereign decree.
• Universal Atonement: Christ died for all people, making salvation available to everyone, though it is only effective for those who choose to place their faith in Him. 

Contrast with Bolt's View (Calvinism)

The letter in the image is a critique of a strict Calvinist perspective, which posits the opposite view on free will, holding that the human will is in bondage to sin and cannot choose good over evil in the spiritual realm without God's direct, irresistible intervention. 

• Total Depravity: In this view, sin affects every part of human nature, including the will, rendering people incapable of seeking or choosing God on their own.
• Irresistible Grace: When God chooses someone for salvation, His grace is irresistible, and the person will inevitably come to faith. God's action is decisive from beginning to end.
• Sovereignty: This view emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty and predestination of all events, including individual salvation. Human free will, in the libertarian sense, does not exist because all things are determined by God's will. 

The conflict in the letter arises because the author believes Bolt's denial of human responsibility for earthly performance makes God the "author of both good and evil" [1.1], an outcome that Arminian theology seeks to avoid by emphasizing a genuine, God-given free will. 

Leo Peters: In VOICES (8/22/80) Rev. John Bolt stated that Richard De Vos's "attitude and philosophy of life reflects what the Reformed Confessions consider a serious heresy-the heresy of Arminianism."
In his criticism of De Vos, Bolt denies that "anyone who will can be a success." He denies that of the human will. Thus Bolt denies that man is responsible for his performance in this world, he denies that man has a free will on the earthly level. And he clinches these denials by saying that God's grace, or "gift" is responsible for man's earthly performance. Thus Bolt makes God the author of good and evil. This is the theology of the man who charges De Vos with heresy.
Theologians are always tempted to resolve the conflict between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Arminius tried it by rejecting unconditional predestination, making man's free will responsible for his eternal destiny as well as for his temporary acts. Bolt is now trying it by making God responsible for all of man's acts leaving only unconditional predestination at work. Rev. Bolt would be well-advised to take a refresher course in systematic theology, with heavy emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of the free will (accepted by Calvin and Arminius) and predestination (Calvin's unconditional and Arminius' conditional). Bolt should take this course before he starts teaching the Calvin students his personal doctrines.-Leo Peters, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Reply To Peters
I am grateful to Mr. Peters for alerting me to a possible serious misunderstanding of my comments on socioeconomic Arminianism. The point of comparison in my letter may not have been entirely clear.
In his interview, Mr. De Vos affirmed on the socioeconomic level what the Arminian (Pelagian) theologian affirms on the matter of eternal salvation from sin, namely that deliverance from poverty is in the final analysis reducible to personal, voluntary choices. It is this individualistic and voluntaristic view of man, held in Arminian theology and laissez faire capitalism, that has theologically and sociologically unacceptable. There is no necessary causal relation. The black slave on plantation did not choose to be and remain poor.
I hardly wish thereby to deny human responsibility. In fact I would insist that human socioeconomic responsibility extends beyond the realm of the individual and includes corporate and structural elements as well. A commitment to charity must be matched with a zeal for social justice. No amount of emphasis upon human responsibility, however, allows a Christian to say, "See the mighty (economic) empire I have built" or to boast of being a self-made person. With the Catechism the Christian confesses: "Prosperity and poverty-all things, in fact, come to us not by chance but from God's fatherly hand." Stewardship, therefore, not relentless striving for personal achievement and success, is the keynote of a proper Christian attitude to socioeconomic life.-John Bolt

------

The dispute between Leo Peters and John Bolt, as detailed in the "Voices" section of The Banner on September 26, 1980, centers on theological differences regarding free will, human responsibility, and God's sovereignty, particularly as applied to socioeconomic success.

John Bolt's Initial Position

Rev. Bolt initially criticized Richard De Vos's philosophy of life, which he claimed reflected the "heresy of Arminianism". Bolt argued against the idea that anyone who wills can be successful, essentially denying that humans have a free will on an "earthly level" and asserting that God's grace is responsible for human performance. 

Leo Peters' Rebuttal

Leo Peters responded by accusing Bolt of making God the author of both good and evil through his extreme view of divine responsibility, a theological stance Peters found problematic. Peters argued that theologians often try to reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility, suggesting that Arminius attempted to do so by emphasizing free will, while Bolt was attempting to do so by minimizing it. Peters advised Bolt to take a refresher course on the Reformed doctrine of free will before teaching his personal doctrines at Calvin College. 

John Bolt's Clarification

In a subsequent reply, John Bolt clarified his position, stating that his point of comparison was not entirely clear. He explained that his issue was with the "individualistic and voluntaristic" view, common to Arminian theology and laissez-faire capitalism, which suggests that deliverance from poverty is reducible to personal, voluntary choices. Bolt affirmed human responsibility but insisted it includes corporate and structural elements beyond individual choice, emphasizing stewardship over relentless striving for personal success.