Calvinism v Arminianism, for ever and ever, Amen.
Adrian has a
post that quotes Spurgeon on prayer and then offers a challenge to Arminians to respond. Of course these things tend to turn into the same old debates about Calvinism and Arminianism.
As someone who is neither Calvinist or Arminian, I find these discussions rather fascinating for a whole number of reasons, partly because both sides frequently just attack cartoon versions of their opponent's position, but also because some of the presuppositions that both sides bring are frankly bewildering. People who have a theological position - even one based on scripture - seem to simply think that it will suffice to turn a theological and biblical viewpoint into an unquestionable dogma that can never be questioned, improved upon, or reformed. Even if a theology is biblical, that does not excuse someone from continued inquiry into their position, from further study, and from facing tough questions about their own position from those who disagree with them. Hurling proof texts around is not a substitute for exegesis and neither is being 'biblical' a shortcut to humility and to being correct.
I wonder how many Calvinists or Arminians have actually read Calvin or Arminius? I wonder how many TULIP fans are aware that Calvin never taught limited atonement? Or that the preaching of TULIP caused a pastoral crisis that threatened to cripple the faith of thousands of believers in Britain throughout the 1700s and 1800s because it is impossible for one to be assured about one's salvation?
I also wonder whether either side has considered that may both be quite severely wrong in many areas of their theology and that both their reading of scripture and theological positions are not above correction, and that God's Spirit may in fact have much more to teach us?
It's not all negative however. Theology
must be an activity that involves the whole body of Christ, and should be done in dialogue, not in civil war. As ever Moltmann has a suitable quote for the occasion:
"Theology is a community affair. Consequently theological truth takes the form of a dialogue, and does so
essentially, not just for the purposes of entertainment. There are theological systems which are designed not only to be non-contradictory in themselves, but aim to remain undisputed from outside too. They are like fortresses which cannot be taken, but which no one can break out of either, and which are therefore starved out. I have no desire to build any such fortress for myself. My image is the Exodus of the people, and I await theological Reed Sea miracles. For me theology is not church dogmatics, and not a doctrine of faith. It is i
magination for the kingdom of God in the world, and for the world in God's kingdom." (The Coming of God, xiv)
That kinds of sums up how I feel about learning and discussing theology. Far too many believers have built their theological forts and are settled in them and 'dialogue' consists of nothing more than shouting stereotypes and cliches across a loveless chasm to the neighbouring fortress in the hope that they will surrender and come into line. This is ruinous and destructive, and totally devoid of humility or openness.
This brings me to the most important point of all: I find it quite simply
staggering that theological debates can rumble on and on and on without even mentioning Christ.
Anything that calls itself Christian must begin with Christ. We cannot talk about theology until we first decide about the God we believe in. For Christians talk about God must always be in reference to Jesus Christ, and any theological statements must be preceded by truth about Christ. So is God sovereign? Yes. Does Christ call sinful human beings to respond to his message in faith? Yes. Is anything unknown to or hidden from God? No. Does he call us to pray about everything anyway? Yes, and so on. There are tensions in this position, but there is a great deal of mystery - and so there should be. I am weary of people who claim to have an answer to every question one could ever care to ask about God - as though they themselves have nothing more to learn, nothing for which they need to be corrected, and that they have somehow exhausted the rich mystery of God. This is impossible, and for this very reason theology can never be contained in one denominational box where there is nothing more to be said and where one has ceased to press on towards the knowledge of God and instead opted to build a fortified theological camp in the middle of a dry and barren desert.
I have to say I find a lot of dogmatism simply nothing more than bapstised arrogance and divisiveness, which has nothing to do with Jesus. I'm a bit bewildered by it all to be honest.
Hey, Good thoughts. As someone who’s been a sophomoric debater, and still can get peeved into saying, well, peevish things, I find these debates wearying, too. For some time, now, I’ve been attempting to find a way to state these matters which upholds the valid desiderata of Calvinism-God to be the Author and Finisher of our faith-while taking into account the reasonable questions that have been asked throughout history of that camp.
I’m persuaded that it’s possible, and have even nearly achieved it, at points, but am generally shouted down by those who insist that if I don’t speak of God’s sovereignty the way Augustine did, I must be a Pelagian or some such. The neo-Reformed movement can’t wither soon enough for my taste.
And, yes, I have read Calvin and Arminius, among others. Not really up on my Olevianus—secondaries only.
Cheers,
PGE
pgepps (email) (link) - 03 06 05 - 08:33 (Edit / Delete)
hmmmmm—I tried to use emdashes for an interruption, and instead seem to have written under erasure. Heidegger aside, that wasn’t my goal. 
pgepps (email) (link) - 03 06 05 - 08:34 (Edit / Delete)
“Or that the preaching of TULIP caused a pastoral crisis that threatened to cripple the faith of thousands of believers in Britain throughout the 1700s and 1800s because it is impossible for one to be assured about one’s salvation?”
This is odd to me, because without Calvinism I have no assurance whatsover that I will be a believer tomorrow. This is very to important to me, as I see in the scripture-clear as day-the given necessity of endurance in faith and repentance (see Galatians 6, etc).
I am fickle. My heart and will don’t have a sort of intrinsic continuity that help me trust that I will preserve myself in faith. Without the assurance that God can somehow graciously govern my faith, what is left?
Aaron Shafovaloff (email) (link) - 03 06 05 - 14:58 (Edit / Delete)
Hah, clear as day got crossed out for some reason… so I’ll just paste part of Galatians 6:
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”
Aaron Shafovaloff (email) (link) - 03 06 05 - 14:59 (Edit / Delete)
Hi Aaron, thanks for posting.
The pastoral crisis to which I refer was a particular series of events in Scotland during the 1700s and 1800s whereby the preaching of the TULIP model of Calvinism was causing people to lose their assurance of faith.
The problem of assurance in this form of Calvinism lies here: Christ did not die for all, he only died for the elect. The elect are partially revealed here and now by their response of repentance and faith to the preaching of the Gospel, but who the true elect are is not made manifest until the Last Day. In the meantime, the perseverance of faith marks out the true believers.
Herein lies the problem: there is still the possibility that you may fall away, in which case this would show that you had never truly been saved in the first place. This raises the question: how do I know I’m one of the elect? The only assurance that one is elect is continued righteous behaviour – but now the focus of assurance is no longer Christ’s work, but your own behaviour, since your own behaviour is the only way of showing that you are elect – but according to this particular doctrine of limited atonement, there is no way of being sure here and now that Christ died for you.
The Galatians quote may be used to highlight some of the problems. Most Christians would be guilty of both obeying and also disobeying God, of both pleasing the Spirit but also of pleasing the sinful nature on occasion too – so how can one’s behaviour truly give you assurance? Every sin you commit gives rise to doubt about one’s election – and this was the situation which the federal Calvinist system had caused in Scotland by the mid-1800s.
Christ died for all (contrary to limited atonement teaching) and Christ alone is the basis for our assurance and our election, because any sense of assurance that we derive from our own behaviour, experience and decision-making cannot truly be relied upon because even the greatest of the saints are fraught with inconsistency in their obedience.
Sven (email) (link) - 03 06 05 - 17:38 (Edit / Delete)
Trackbacks to this post
one trackback:
And ne'er the twain...
Sven has an excellent post on how we ought to carry out our theology – in discussion, not from fortresses.
Sent on 02 06 05 - 11:25 (Edit / Delete), via / musing / struggling / dreaming /
