I have written previously about the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. This month is the 405th anniversary of the Synod of Dort which settled the controversy in the Netherlands: the Arminians were evicted from their pulpits. This explains why the Dutch Reformed Church is staunchly Calvinist as well as the many other denominations that sprang from the same Reformation soil. Most Baptist-type churches are Calvinist to varying degrees. Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Seventh-day Adventists are Arminian.
The controversy which takes its name from the Swiss
reformer, John Calvin, and the Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, is actually
centuries older than these men. Augustine
debated with Pelagius over much the same subject in the Fifth century. As I
see it, the central issue of the dispute is whether humans can come to faith
and therefore salvation on their own, or whether God must do something first to
draw them to Himself. This leads to the question of whether people can come to
faith but later fall away and lose their salvation. This question is what most
people today think of as the Calvinist/Arminian debate.
In “Understanding
the TULIP Doctrine,” I briefly explained Calvinism. “The five basic tenets
of Calvinism have long been summarized as the TULIP doctrines, an acronym taken
from the major tenets: total depravity, unconditional election, limited
atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of saints. There are those who
consider themselves “five-point” Calvinists, meaning they hold firmly to each
of the TULIP principles. Others pick and choose among the tenets of Calvinism
to construct their own brand.” As I said, perseverance of the saints, commonly
known as “once saved, always saved,” is the item over which most people debate.
Unconditional election also bothers some people; I discussed this aspect of
Calvinism in some depth in “Election:
God’s Choice.”
It was election that bothered Arminius. It is possible to
read Calvin and come away thinking God predestines some people to salvation and
some to condemnation. Arminius couldn’t stomach that because he felt it made
God the author of sin – an obvious contradiction to Scripture. There are those
who do believe in what is called double predestination today and would have
Arminius turning over in his grave. Calvin’s teachings have been shaded and
shifted over the centuries since he lived making the term “Calvinism” almost
irrelevant. You need to dig into what people mean by the label to know what
they really believe.
If I haven’t bored you into scrolling on yet (bless your
heart), I am going to explain the value of this history lesson – WHAMM. I
believe with all my heart that there will be Calvinists and Arminians in
Heaven. Like all of us who make it to our eternal home with God, there will be
some adjustments and corrections to our theology. Perhaps some of the tears God
will wipe away will be from people discovering that, sadly, they were wrong all
their lives about some point of theology. The debate I have described that
began in the early centuries of the church and continues today is not one that
will keep anyone out of Heaven in my opinion. There are radicals in both camps
who may disagree with me on that, but I think I have the truth of Scripture on
my side.
The reason I plodded through all this is to make a point we
all need to understand: Jesus didn’t say the world would know we are His
because of our brilliant doctrine; He said our love for one another (and our
neighbors) would show that we belong to Christ. I made the point in Lead
a Horse to Water that Christians bickering over what seem to
unbelievers to be arcane theological issues might be one of the biggest
hinderances to faith. It also causes some to doubt our claim that the Word of
God is true and infallible. When we air our differences publicly, it appears to
outsiders that we are denying that claim.
As I have written previously,
sometimes fellow believers must agree to disagree. The final disposition of
that agreement must be to continue to behave in a loving manner toward those
with whom we disagree. I should clarify this by saying that I am not talking
about compromising on essentials. I will firmly disagree with anyone who says
God is not the sovereign creator or Jesus is not the co-equal, co-eternal God/Son/Savior,
or that the Word of God is not absolute truth, etc. Some things are beyond
debate and are essential and necessary to a proper understanding of God.
If you have read this far, you may be asking what I believe. Since I covered that in “Understanding the TULIP Doctrine,” I will leave it to my readers to seek an answer there. I will say this much: I will strive to love all people whether I agree with them or not. As I said in Loving Biblically. “Christian, biblical love must abound in knowledge and discernment if we aim to be sincere and blameless. To know how God loves, we have to dig deeply into the Bible and ferret out the true measure of divine love; it is a mix of caring, compassion and judgment. The most difficult thing to grasp is that God’s love involves discernment – judgment.” I am not God; I do not get to condemn (judge) people. However, if I am sincere in my faith, I must use discernment. That may mean I will disagree with some people. I will still love them – biblically – Calvinists or Arminians.
Related Posts: Election:
God’s Choice; Disagree
Agreeably; Understanding
the TULIP Doctrine; Loving
Biblically
No comments:
Post a Comment