Calvinism and Arminianism, being two different sides of the same coin, have single-handedly destroyed the faith of many well-meaning sincere Christians. This thesis statement, my opening sentence, is something that I have personal knowledge of, both directly and indirectly. In other words, the following thoughts are just some things I have observed in the most real ways one could suppose.
Why would I make such a devastating statement like I have above? Because I personally know people who have internalized the implications of both of those systems above (actually the same system); and I have seen the fall-out it has produced for these folks when they try to apply and take seriously its implications. This isn’t intended to be some sort of polemical reflection, on my part; instead, this reflection flows from a heart that is deeply grieved tonight over someone I deeply love, who in part has been affected negatively, by taking seriously the Calvinist/Arminian system. Here are some reasons why this system (also known as Classical Theism) can have the destructive impact that it does:
- Because it has the wrong view of God. It emphasizes a God who is plain and simple, the Lawgiver. What this means is that it does not start with the frame or presupposition that God is love (a personal/relational union of interpenetrating koinonial love); instead, it views God as someone who is primarily One in substance who says: “do this” (keep the “Law”), or else.
- Because it has the wrong view of the atonement. In light of its view of God, it frames the whole of the atonement through forensic/legal lenses. What this means is that Christ strictly dealt with the consequences of “Law-breaking” at the cross (he paid the “penalty,” which is death). The problem with this view (as THE theory of the atonement) is that if true, the atonement never really dealt with humanity’s real problem, and that is man’s heart-problem (read the Sermon on the Mount Mt. 5–7). If what Jesus did was only deal with the “external” problem (the symptoms) of sin; then He didn’t ever really deal with the real issue (we needed to be recreated, completely). The alternative and correct view of the atonement is to frame it ontologically, and that is to see the incarnation itself as part and parcel with the atonement. This view takes II Cor. 5:21 seriously and believes that when Jesus assumed humanity in the incarnation, sinful humanity that is (the only kind available), that the “atoning process” began. This view believes that union with Christ is the all-important key to thinking about the atonement, since without humanities’ union with Christ (objectively) in the incarnation our hearts could never be put to death, never recreated and changed. [there is more to be said on this, I will be devoting a whole series of posts attendant to dealing with articulating this issue with more depth and development]
- Because classical theism focuses salvation on man, instead of Christ. A few examples: it speaks of “election” as if it primarily has to do with us, and thus does not center it upon how it actually has everything to do with Christ in the incarnation; it speaks of the extent of the atonement as if it has to do with us; instead of having to do, more precisely, with how great the love of Christ is (its as far reaching as His life, viz. life itself).
These are just a few problems that Calvinist/Arminian theology present many sincere believing Christians with. The touchstone problem which is common to all of the points I mention above; is that classical theism speaks of salvation for humanity before it speaks of Christ. The practical fall-out this can produce (and has and does), is that well-meaning Christians start their thinking about salvation by looking at themselves “first,” before they look at Christ! If people sincerely think this way, and if they struggle with issues of assurance (and they will if they aren’t cock-sure self-assured arrogant people), or if they are faced with terrible destructive life circumstances that become overwhelming; and their first step is to look at themselves instead of Christ, they most certainly will despair of any hope — because they will never get past themselves. They will wonder if God really loves them, because their lives are such a blasted disaster; and their first instinct will be to look at themselves, not Christ (which then becomes a vicious circle).
Do you see the problem here? I have no patience for that incredulous system of theology known as Calvinism/Arminianism! The Gospel is “God’s life in action!” If you think “keeping-the-Law” is the barometer of salvation; think again! It is Christ’s life, it is God’s life which is the Gospel; if you’re in Him, then you are completely saved! And if you’re not completely saved, you’re not in Him!
The problem with this view (as THE theory of the atonement) is that if true, the atonement never really dealt with humanitiesβ real problem, and that is manβs heart-problem (read the Sermon on the Mount Mt. 5β7).
The Sermon’s my current study π While building a reference point, I noticed that the Lord actually addressed the heart issue in the Ten Commandments as well.
I know what you’re saying,here, Bobby. One system keeps you working to prove you’re elect and the other one keeps you working to ensure you don’t lose your salvation. That load is back-breakingly heavy no matter which way you hoist it.
Will be praying for your loved one who is hurting.
Thanks, Heather.
You see how the ‘view of God’ has so much to do with what EC is on about vs. what Classic Calvinism/Arminianism is talking about. The Bible speaks in Trinitarian terms, very relationally oriented; while Classic C.’s/A.’s want to speak that way, and try to, but their ‘system’ and ‘doctrine of God’ makes it very hard for them to do so. I’m glad you see this, Heather; I don’t know why others have such a hard time with this . . . it seems like pretty intuitive stuff to me.
Thanks for this, Bobby – I don’t know that ‘classical theism’ or ‘Calvinism vs. Arminianism’ are necessarily quite the proper targets of this critique, but the points are well taken.
My own issue with the dichotomy set up between Calvinism and Arminianism — quite personal, as well as theological — regards the relationship of my will and God’s will to my salvation. One side suggests that God makes it possible but gives me the deciding vote; the other that God does it all and so, at least by implication, my decision to turn my life over to Jesus Christ is hollow.
This is why I love Karl Barth. His doctrine of election doesn’t parse a path between these options, as does EVERY other attempt at theology I’ve ever seen. Barth blows the dilemma out of the water by overturning the idea of an ‘absolute decree’ by God, and centering the question of election and reprobation, sin and salvation, judgment and justification on Christ instead of on me.
Hey Darren,
Yeah I realize what’s going on with the Calvinism/Arminian debate. I just think that if the Barthian/Torrancean view on election etc. is taken seriously that that debate becomes a non-sequitur.
So I suppose I’m trying to marginalize such questions/debates, in an applied way; in order to highlight the fact that scripture speaks from a totally different set of assumptions than typically forward by ‘said debate’ (anthropologically, or whatever). And given the fact that the metaphysics that classical theism flows from leads to the anthropological questions that Calvinism/ARm. struggle with; I think there is some room for attempting to reframe these issues for these folks in a Barth/Torrance kind of direction.
I’m kind of engaging in theo-apologetics, trying to reach some of my bros and sis’ in Christ who caught up in the Classical debates fostered by Calv/Arm. π .
Good to hear from you!
I donβt know why others have such a hard time with this . . . it seems like pretty intuitive stuff to me.
I wouldn’t see it either if God hadn’t allowed me to nearly drown in my own attempts to figure things out.
Heather,
Why does learning have to hurt so much π ! The Lord is good!
Tough shelled eggs don’t crack easily. Some of us need to get smacked a little harder than others, I guess.
The Lord is good!
Yessir, He most definitely is.
And I’d rather be hurting in the palm of His hand than smoothly sailing my way to destruction.
Amen, Heather! Sounds like you’re a ‘theologian of the cross’!
I see what you mean, Darren. Christ’s vicariousness would be even more apropos to this “critique” (more of a reflection off the top); which is why in the body of the post I do link to another post on the ontological view of the atonement. I struggled between these two options for along time (until I read some Barth and now more Torrance and even some ‘Scots’) too.
This is just an awesome, awesome post π
God bless Bobby!
I’m good with that. π
Thanks, Glen.
wow.. that is really good
and thanks for the comments too…
especially this one Heather:
“One system keeps you working to prove youβre elect and the other one keeps you working to ensure you donβt lose your salvation. That load is back-breakingly heavy no matter which way you hoist it.”
Hi Dev,
Glad to see you here!
I think you’re right, Heather sums it all up very nicely!
Eastern rather than Western, then? I mean, it seems that the questions by which the West framed its theology led us in this direction, and the questions by which the East framed its theology (far more ontology, union with the Godhead, deification, etc.) are what you favour. I was brought up with a warm-blooded reformed theology, and am enjoying adding an Eastern flavour at present. But then, the ‘Calvinism’ I was brought up with was strong on union with Christ – as was Calvin. (Who was strong on patristics, so it would be expected.) It often seems that our issues with bad trends and pastoral disasters are issues with ‘popular theology’, which has reduced and caricatured the original thought and lost much along the way – it would be well addressed by reading those whose thought we purport to follow – e.g., in this case for some, Calvin. Thoughts?
Just trying to grapple with your post Bobby. I have become a fan of Calvin’s writing over the last few years and would have said that ‘calvinism’ (though I dislike using the term, because I feel it allows one to disagree with it, and thus opt out of the Bible’s teaching) gave much assurance to the believer, whereas a traditional arminian theology robbed the believer of assurance, confidence, certain hope. I however would therefore gauge my salvation on Christ, which seems to be what you are encouraging.
Just to help me engage with what you are saying, what are you opposing? Could you clarify what you are saying, particularly how it is different from calvinism.
Many thanks indeed!
This isn’t a criticism – but you realise that a lot of your formulations end up sounding very Lutheran
I, too, have long thought both sides of this debate are often saying the same thing but in different ways. For example, we can argue all day over whether an apostate was ever truly saved or was saved and fell from grace; it won’t change the fact that one who professed faith has now repudiated the faith.
I’ve thought about this in relation to the warning passages in Hebrews. The difficulty of interpreting these passages in terms of Arminianism vs. Calvinism (especially the now infamous Heb. 6:4-6) results either in a distortion of the simple and plain meaning of the passage in favor of one’s systematics or a failure to reconcile this passage with some other equally important passages. Both do injustice to the Scriptures.
Then it dawned on me: the writer isn’t speaking in those terms at all, he is writing/preaching to those who outwardly profess faith in Christ but whose profession may or may not be genuine (because only the Lord knows) and who are in danger of turning away from the faith (and thus failing to persevere) as a result of persecution. It is the same conundrum as I mentioned above.
This means that trying to slant the passage one way or the other to maintain one’s Calvinist or Arminian street cred is way off the mark and does injustice to the text itself.
A better way is simply to take this text (these texts) at face value and preach to one’s congregation of professing believers with a genuine warning not to forsake the faith and to do this without trying to prove one’s credentials one way or the other.
This won’t win you any street cred among your peers, but you will have done justice to the Scriptures. And on the Day of Accountability, you won’t answer to them, but to the Author.
I hope these thoughts are helpful though slightly more pastoral than theological or philosophical.
Welcome Etrangere,
I agree, Calvin is much different than what we know in Classic Calvinism today. He has a strong emphasis upon union with Christ, as Charles Partee’s book: “The Theology of John Calvin” demonstrates. I follow the Scottish development of Calvin through Knox, and contemporaneously through TF Torrance (see his book “Scottish Theology”). And you’re right, Calvin and many of these Scottish Calvinists appeal directly to the Patristics and the notiono of union with Christ (which I think best captures the emphases of scripture). I am trying to introduce Federal Calvinists, and everyone, throug this blog, to the reality that Calvinism reflects a broader “tradition” and development than what is popularly known (contra Richard Muller’s thesis).
Looks like we are in agreement, thank you for the feedback!
Hi Robin, welcome,
I am trying to alert folks to the fact that what “counts” as Orthodox Calvinism is not the only development of Calvinism in her long history. There is alot to this claim, which many of the posts here deal with in more depth. Let me just say I don’t think theframing of Classic Calvinism ends up pointing us to Christ, first (given the implications of the TULIP). Maybe I’ll do a post working through those implications; that would probably be helpful for some.
As I alluded to above, there are different developments within Calvinism that don’t reflect what is popularly known as Calvinism today (i.e. non-Tulip or reframed-TULIP versions).
Thanks for the points, I hope that helps a little more; be looking for a post on the TULIP in the near future.
WElcome Chris,
Are you Lutheran? Actually the themes I am hitting here come from Calvinist themes articulated by TF Torrance (who followed a ‘Reformed’ doctrine of Theosis, see my friends’ book “Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance”); and a Scotist doctrine of God (which was developed by folks like John Knox in the ‘Scots Confession’ and a whole tradition that has been shut off from the popular Calvinism of today).
I think that what you’re saying might hold more true if one follows the ‘Finnish’ interpretation of Luther — but that is highly controversial.
Thanks.
Welcome, Michael,
I think you’re right, we need to let the text speak or impose itself upon us; and not vice versa. Classic Calvinism/Arm. flow philosophically from a tradition, Thomism, that is at odds, I think with the Trinitarian categories of scripture; thus there is a muting or hybriding of sorts when it comes to their bib. interpretation, IMO. Evangelical Calvinism comes from the ‘Scotist Tradition’ which is Trinitarian at base and thus, I believe, rises out of scripture naturally.
When discussing the Hebrews passage, I think biblical theology and the “analogy of scripture” (the unity of scripture) needs to provide us with the categories we are working with. I don’t think Heb 6 is referring to “justification,” at all; instead that it is warning believers to return to the faith (much like Paul warns Peter of in Gal 2). But this is probably getting a little more applied than this post was intended to deal with π .
Thanks for the feedback, comment anytime!
There is yet another field beyond classical theism which could be equally guilty in this respect: the New Perspective on Paul. I spoke with Scot Mcknight in person when he was in town, and he said the scholars of this field don’t like to think in systems like Arminians or Calvinists. Yet I have come to realize that their “judgment according to works” program (which I think is a particularly heretical program) presents a very rigid soteriological system of itself. It’s called Double Justification. We are justified by faith alone in Christ in this life, and receive a final justification on the day of judgment based on how we have lived our lives in the Spirit.
It’s really the same old works righteousness, but given the flashy garb of modern scholarship (soon to be outdated along with the semi-pelagians, the scholastics, Cardinal Contarini of the 16th century, the holiness movement etc..). Oh! I would dare not entrust myself to this disastrous teaching were I to give pastoral council to a dying brother or sister in Christ! Luther called himself a beggar as he passed on from this life, and I suspect that I will have nothing much to claim for my life but a heap of filthy rags covered in menstrual blood (so Isaiah).
It is Christ through and through. From first to last.
Emerson,
I don’t follow the NPPs, at all. But I do believe in the “believer’s judgment” (see I Cor. 3:12ff; II Cor 5:10; and Rom 14:10).
Itβs really the same old works righteousness, but given the flashy garb of modern scholarship
Oh my.
I think I came across something yesterday which was referencing this trend that Emerson describes. Apparently it is not an isolated thing, either, because the specific teacher in question is quite well known and, I believe is Calvinist.
Still not sure what to make of the accusations.
Interesting. Typically NPP folks aren’t Calvinist, per se. Although some of the NPP is popular in more liberal Reformed traditions.
I’m not sure if this guy is overtly “new perspective”. But the complaint is about an older book that apparently emphasizes the efforts of the believer in faithful perseverance. Not having read the book, I’m not sure if quotes were taken out of context or there is a legitimate problem.
What bothered me most is that the primary measurement of the teacher’s work seems to be Calvinism, rather than scripture.
It always causes me anxiety when folks pull out the heresy card on someone I’ve listened to and learned from. On one hand, I’ve had to learn that I need to weigh against scripture everything any man preaches. On the other hand, I know there has to be a point when the potential damage far outstrips any possible benefit.
dunno what this has to do with calvinist/arminian debates, but it reminds me of the article Lewis wrote for the Guardian newspaper in 1945, ‘the Grand Miracle’.
The story of the Incarnation is the story of a descent and resurrection. When I say ‘resurrection’ here, I am not referring simply to the first few hours, or the first few weeks of the Resurrection. I am talking of this whole huge pattern of descent, down, down, and then up again. What we ordinarily call the Resurrection being just, so to speak, the point at which it turns. Think what that descent is. The coming down, not only into humanity, but into those nine months which precede human birth, in which they tell us we all recapitulate strange pre-human, sub-human forms of life, and going lower still into being a corpse, a thing which, if this acending movement had not begun, would presently have passed out of the organic altgether, and have gone back into the inorganic, as all corpses do. One has a picture of someone going right down and dredging the sea bottom. One has a picture of a strong man trying to lift a very big, complicated burden. He stoops down and gets himself right under it so that he himself disappears; and then he straightens his back and moves off with the whole thing swaying on his shoulders. Or else one has the picture of a diver, stripping off garment after garment, making himself naked, then flashing for a moment in the air, and then down through the green, and warm, and sunlit water into the pitch black, cold, freezing water, down into the mud and slime, then up again, his lungs almost bursting, back again to the green and warm and sunlit water, and then at last out into the sunshine, holding in his hand the dripping thing he went down to get. This thing is human nature; but, associated with it, all nature, the new universe.
Wonderful. Again & again I’ve found myself coming back to the articulation of the gospel I had from very early on – I am so grateful that pretty much the only christian book I had for my first 2 years as a believer was a little selection of essays by Lewis. – his really was a mere christianity.
Lewis had an amazing gift, did he not?
The simplicity of the Gospel really is a beautiful thing.
People can do a fantastic job of wrecking up the picture of Christ alone, doing what none of us is able, making family out of His enemies and generously sharing His inheritance with filthy, undeserving beggars. Pride constantly sneaks in and suggests that “we” can somehow improve on His completed work. I’m thankful He’s patient.
Chris,
Thank you for sharing that quote! I’ve always appreciated Lewis, and here is a reason why. Mere Christianity is what it is about, really; it’s when secondary issues are lifted to essentials that this kind of perspective is lost — and sectarianism rues the day. Biblical Christianity is inclusiver for all those in Christ. Of course that doesn’t mean we don’t need to hold eachother accountable . . . π !
Hi Bobby –
Actually – I think some of what you are talking about is similiar to those statements by Luther on union with Christ which are – ironically – mis-represented by the Finnish school.
And no, I’m not a Lutheran π
Chris E,
Okay, I see what you’re getting at; esp. the marriage language Luther refers to, which I really really like.
I haven’t read much of the Finnish school, just know the way they go.
here’s a follow up for you:
what about a Christocentric doctrine of the foreknowledge of God, and another on the sovereignty of God?
after that could we push for ecclesiological implications for election? if we are elect in Him, then are we in Him also the ones who will elect?
Hi Dev,
Here’s a post that deals with that, its a bit academic, so let me know what you think:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/22/evangelical-calvinist-pre-destination-and-election/
Dev,
Here’s another post on this topic:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/10/carnal-and-spiritual-union/
I think you have the “order” exactly as scripture lays it out, elect in Him; then we reciprocate and ‘respond’ to Him by faith by the Holy Spirit.
Here’s a poem on the topic…
http://bibleandcoffee.blogspot.com/2009/02/election.html