The head of my church's seminary sends out a weekly letter, and this week's edition is a simple plea to those who will go into churches and Bible studies and divert the topic at hand to an argument of Calvin vs. Arminius:
"STOP IT."
Now this is a good plea, and my friend does well to note that we ought not be stirring up dissention in our own and other churches over this issue. Debate it, yes, but stir up problems, no.
We ought to go even further, though, in my (not humble enough?) opinion; we ought to challenge those who "know everything" on this subject with a simple question:
"Have you ever read anything by Calvin or Arminius?"
My hunch is that most haven't--not even in translation. As such, I've got a hunch that a potentially divisive argument can be transformed into a golden opportunity for growth with a simple reply:
"No? Then perhaps instead of debating these issues with me, you ought to pick up a copy of the Calvin's Institutes and read it."
To be sure, there will be those who simply enjoy strife, and they'll ignore you. But maybe, just maybe, 1% of those we confront in this manner will take us up on this challenge, and the Church will be the stronger (and perhaps more bulbous) for it.
Religious Radio
-
The worst part about last week’s news about long-time National Public Radio
(NPR) editor Uri Berliner’s tell all about the network’s, uh, systemic bias
tow...
19 hours ago
9 comments:
I don't think that you're wrong. Matter of fact, what you are saying makes a whole lot of sense. Seeking knowledge and understanding instead of grievance is a strategy that we should all use more.
It is very difficult (though not impossible) for Calvinist and Arminians to fellowship together. I have read works from both men and we must realize that Arminus split from Calvin over these issues. Jacob Arminus was a student of Calvin's and he disagreed with Calvin's theology. Actually, it was Arminus who came up with the 5 points of Calvinism, not Calvin.
Does your church, or seminary favor one view over the other?
I guess this depends on how much weight one is willing to give to the five points of Calvinism. To me, it's not worth splitting up on because we are on the same team. I look at it as God hasn't revealed certain things to other brothers and the same goes for me where they have a better understanding on certain things.
The things I will split over are like the Trinity, inherency of Scriptures, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.
Infant baptism and the Five Points are important to me but not worthy to split over.
The color of the pews is definitely NOT:o)
David, my church doesn't take a firm stand, but the tendency seems to be to go a bit more towards the Calvinistic side.
That said, maybe *I* shouldn't comment, as I've yet to pick up a copy of the Institutes and follow my own wisdom. :^)
In my ignorance, though, I wonder if it's really that Calvinists and Arminians who cannot worship together, or rather whether it's the people who *think* they're of that party without well understanding the issues involved. I tend to think the latter.
bubba,
That's hard to say. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding Calvinism, and I'm sure Arminianism as well. I believe there is a fundamental difference in their approach to biblical hermenutics, so that when it comes to interpreting and applying Scripture, they come to largely different conclusions.
David, you reveal yourself as more educated on this matter than most--if only most such "debates" even mentioned disparate hermeneutics and why they're important.
The two views begin with differing premises. Arminianism teaches that man is in need of spiritual "help" in order to come to Christ in salvation. But that man, in an unregenerate state can still cooporate (synergistically) with the Holy Spirit in bringing about saving faith.
Contrary to this is the Reformed, or Calvinistic view of man that teaches God works alone (monergistically) in regeneration. And that man, through the fall, has become spiritually dead (totally depraved), unable to cooporate with God in salvation. In other words, once God raises us from spiritual death to spiritual life, man responds with faith (which faith was a gift; Eph.2) and believes.
As a side note, these two men didn't invent this debate. Augustine (4 A.D.) debated another man, Pelagius, about the same issue. Pelagius was eventually condemned as a heretic and left the church. Later, others adapted a semi-pelagian view which is very similar to the modern Arminian teaching.
Well said, David.
I find that people that I would label as Arminian tend to have an over-developed sense of Self.
I admit to having an under-developed sense of the sovereignty of GOD, but will allow that He IS and I am not (sovereign).
To preach (not just argue or believe) otherwise is heresy. It misses the mark and is sin. Damnable. And worthy of burning.
There. It had to be said. (Well, at least, Bert expected me to say it... ;^)
Now, where's my copy of Institutes? Oh, they are still at addall.com <- bookseller information aggregator
Now let's get our copies of the Institutes and Arminius' work before we start the debate!
And burn, baby, burn!
Post a Comment