Blogging can be therapeutic. Over a period of several months I have had a chance to jot down thoughts on why Calvinism was first of all something nobody bothered to tell me about in my younger days as an evangelical, like an iceberg with just a bit of shape above the water and a massive edifice below the surface. I described how a fuller understanding of absolute sovereignty became a rude awakening in my short seminary stint, one that nearly crushed my spirit and faith, as if I had just discovered that Darth Vader was my father. I described some philosophical reasons why arguments in favor of absolute sovereignty seemed contrived and dealt with a couple of key Biblical passages that seem to support it. In all, it felt good.
But the time has come to take a step back. For all my frustrations with the way Calvinists understand sovereignty and free will, no universal church council has condemned them. Sure the Council of Orange says some Calvinist sounding things, stopping just short of the all out victory of predestination over free will. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was not particularly kind to Luther and Calvin's views on sovereignty and grace, but only Catholics would find that council to be binding.
In short, the debate over how free will fits with God's sovereign hand in the past, present and future is a family squabble. As much as some Calvinists have insisted that Arminians and Catholics are "semi-pelagian" heretics, most have been unable to completely cut defenders of free-will theism out of the family picture. And as strongly as Arminians argue against a sovereignty that redefines or excludes free-will, most readily admit Calvinists are otherwise orthodox.
What I admire about Calvinists like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer and others is their commitment to the authority of scripture. I gather Calvinists do not deny free will because they think it is a good idea. They assert absolute authority of God's will because they believe scripture requires it. They are willing to submit to scriptural teaching (knowing that this is a less than crystal clear issue) even if the conclusion is unpopular and seemingly unfathomable.
They are also deeply committed to the glorification of God above all else. Though I cannot agree that double predestination necessarily glorifies God in any fashion that humans can comprehend, they are willing to submit to the principle that only God is God.
And as a result, they are seemingly the last to compromise on issues of doctrine and morality. While Christians in virtually every denomination are waging battles over nearly every moral issue and wrestling with theological innovations too numerous to count, many committed Calvinists remain unmoved.
So I am grateful to many of these folks for their love of scripture, their humility before God and their steadfast refusal to follow new theological trends.
I will argue adamantly that limited atonement, irresistible grace and predestination of some to eternal judgment are neither necessary to orthodoxy or helpful to the faith. But I won't hesitate to share a cup of tea with most of those I argue with on this point.
And with that, my cartharsis is complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment