Tag Archives: Calvinism

Theology Thoughts

Is There a Theodicy Built into Kingdom Theology?

2 Comments

The above question was recently posed to me by a friend and it made me stop and think for a bit. Is there something inherent in Kingdom Theology that accounts for the problem of evil (i.e. theodicy)? And if so, what is it? It was – and is – a very good question.

(For those unfamiliar with the term ‘theodicy,’ I’ve included a brief overview at the bottom of this post)

If we are talking about generic kingdom of God theology (i.e. inaugurated eschatology), then I would have to say that there isn’t any one theodicy inherit to that theological system. This is because inaugurated eschatology is primary focused on answering the question of when the end-time promises of God will be fulfilled (i.e. is God’s rule and reign here today? Is it delayed? When is it coming, etc.?).

Accordingly, it is possible to add inaugurated eschatology onto whatever theological and/or theodicy worldview you might already have. This is how you get people as diverse as N.T. Wright, Wayne Grudem, Scott McKnight, Derek Morphew, Bill Johnson, Greg Boyd, and R. Alan Street all promoting different views on inaugurated eschatology while using kingdom language.

The definition of Kingdom Theology promoted by myself and others within the Vineyard worldwide movement (e.g. John Wimber, Derek Morphew, Don Williams, Bill Jackson, etc.) is one of ‘enacted inaugurated eschatology.’ This is a theological worldview that starts with the life and ministry of historical Jesus before building out other theological concepts. Meaning that everything is seen through a lens of the here and not yet of the ages. Being ‘enacted’, it is a worldview that requiring one to live out the inaugurated eschatology of the kingdom in every area of life rather than intellectual belief.

Under this definition of Kingdom Theology, I would say that there is a cosmic conflict (or warfare) theodicy presupposition that sees the age to come breaking into this evil age through Jesus’ defeat of sin, evil and death at the cross. As such, the followers of Jesus living in-between the ages are engaged in a war between God and Satan with suffering happening as a result of sin, death, and evil.

With that said, it is possible to layer theodicies on top of one another. For example, one could say that the cosmic conflict seen throughout the ages is part of God’s perfect plan or is exacerbated by free will. Greg Boyd, one of the top openness of God (i.e. Open Theism) proponents, combines the cosmic conflict with the openness of the future to the point they seem inseparable. The Vineyard being the Vineyard, you can find folks within the movement who hold to any of these theodicies along with a few others.

On a personal level, I combine the cosmic conflict theodicy with the consent and participation (i.e. God consents to free will and natural laws while staying personally involved in the world), suffering of God (i.e. Jesus suffers and weeps with us), and faith and trust (i.e. it’s a mystery so just trust Jesus) theodicies.

 

Theodicy Overview

For those who are unfamiliar with the term ‘theodicy’, here is a quick primer of some of the more famous answers to the problem of evil. Note that are lots of others theodicies and a TON of philosophical presuppositions behind the question of evil that I cannot get into here. Some of these overlap each other with folks (like myself) holding to a new of different theodicies at the same time.

 

  • Perfect Plan – Suffering and evil is all part of God’s perfect plan though he is not directly causing any of it. This theodicy is largely held by Calvinist which places a huge emphasis on the complete sovereignty of God (i.e. every action in the world was determined by God before the beginning of the world). However some branches of Arminianism will hold to this theodicy as they see suffering as part as a bigger, larger plan that only God can see.
  • Free Will – This view sees suffering as the result of the free will of humanity though God is still in control of the future. Largely held by Arminian believers who places an emphasis on the free choices of humanity.
  • Cosmic Conflict – There is a war happening in the cosmic realm that affects the physical world in which we live. Also called the “Warfare Theodicy”, this view sees suffering and evil as the result of the battle between Satan and God. As in, bad things happen because of Satan and his demons actively seeking to hurt people.
  • Soul Making – Suffering is seen as a way to grow one’s soul. As in, God allows suffering so that humanity overcome obstacles and improve our souls (e.g. endurance, courage, compassion, etc.). Some version will include the purging of sin from our lives within this theodicy.
  • Openness of God – The future is open with God allowing things to develop according to the actions of created beings. Since the future is open, suffering and evil is the result of free agents interacting with the world. Open Theists would be the primary proponents of this view.
  • Consent and Participation – God consents to free will and natural laws while staying personally involved in the world. I don’t know if “consent and participation” is the scholarly term for this view…but it is the one I’m using. =) The core of this theodicy comes from the Eastern Orthodox Church which has a different view of the fall, original sin, free will and divine omnipotence.
  • Suffering of God – The view that God suffers and weeps with us rather than standing above pain and suffering.
  • Faith and Trust – Suffering in the world is a mystery with no real answer so we are just to trust Jesus. I see the book of Job as a backdrop to this view in that at the very end of the book, God tells Job to trust in him and not to all the other theodicies proposed by his friends. (Granted, the book of Job can also be used to support other theodicies like the cosmic conflict view).
Theology Thoughts

How Would Jesus Rule If He Was King?

1 Comment

41-jesus-blesses-the-children-detailAs noted before (most recently here and here) I have been thinking a lot about the Sovereignty of God/Free Will dilemma and the different worldviews that grow out of our understanding of this mystery. Today I want to explore what Sovereignty of God would look like if seen through Jesus.

Or to rephrase the topic, what kind of king is Jesus and how would he rule?

Before we start, I must admit to a strong presumption that colors everything I see. Namely I believe that Jesus is the most clear picture we have of the Creator King. To see Jesus is to see the Creator (John 14:9). Or has St. Paul wrote, Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

Practically this means that when I seek to know what God the Creator is like, I will look to Jesus as revealed through the four Gospels rather than looking toward the Old Testament or the letters of the New Testament. I know that this method of theology is frown upon by some people…but at this point in my life, this is where I fall. 🙂

Returning to the topic at hand, let us chat a bit about how Jesus would rule. To do this, let us create two lists with words that we would associate with how we would think Jesus would rule and how we would think we humans would rule.

human vs jesus rule

While we could add more words to each list, I think the pattern has been established. Namely the way in which we humans try to rule is vastly different than the way in which Jesus would rule. Knowing this we can now shift our thinking to the way in which we see the Sovereignty of God as typically promoted by evangelical church in the USA. (Sovereignty, by the way, is just another way of saying Kingdom – as in, how one would rule?)

Sovereignty of God (i.e. the typical view of how God rules within the world)

  • Control – God is in control of everything; nothing happens within the universe that he doesn’t allow
  • Coercion – Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by user force and/or threats. Under the typical view of the Sovereignty of God, we see a God who threatens humanity with eternal damnation if they don’t follow his rules. Furthermore, humanity and creation doesn’t really have a choice in the matter as God controls every detail of life, including whether or not someone choices to obey or not.
  • Intervention – Under this view, supernatural events (i.e. healings, miracles, etc.) are typically seen as interventions by God within the world to make sure things continue to go the way he wants it wants it to.

Sovereignty of Jesus (i.e. the rule of the Creator seen through the person of Jesus)

  • Consent – To consent to something means giving permission for something to happen. It is the opposite of having control, for rather than trying to micro-manage everything one gives away one’s power and authority to others. This attribute can be further broken down into two sub-groups:
    • Natural Law – Gravity, weather patterns, atoms, plant life, etc… The typical Sovereignty of God view states that since God has complete control over everything, then the weather patterns we are see are directed by God as is the movement of the smallest ant or bacteria. Under the Consent view, the Creator has granted power and authority to the forces of nature to act according to set parameters. For example, gravity always pulls smaller items of mass towards those of greater mass (i.e. things fall downward). Rain, as Jesus said, falls on the just and the injustice (Matthew 5:45) and towers will fall, sometimes killing people and sometimes not (Luke 13:1-5).
    • Human Freedom (Free Will) – To have love, one must be willing to face rejection. A view of God who has absolute control does not allows for true love, which is one of that view’s greatest weakness. The Sovereignty of Jesus is a rule that consents to give away the power of choices to humanity and creation. The ant can make a decision about where to go just like a human can choice to love Jesus or not. The four Gospels shows this consent beautifully when you see Jesus gave up control over his mission to 12 guys who, at times, truly screwed up. Yet rather jumping in and taking back control, Jesus work with them and taught them a better way to live.
  • Participation – This is one of the most powerful attribute of a kingdom ruled by Jesus. We know from multiple sources that Jesus was the Creator God who entered into this world as a human. This shows us a ruler who didn’t just set up the universe and then walk away. Rather, we have a Creator who enters into this crazy, screwed up world to show us the way forward. He didn’t give up on us and take back control over every detailed (a fear based action, btw). Rather he joined himself to us in an act of love.
  • Mediation – Mediation by definition is the act of stepping into a dispute in order to resolve it. Jesus is like this. There are times when he steps in mediate the actions of humanity and the laws of nature. This is what miracles are – mediations by the grace of God in which he in, through, and around the laws of nature and the consent of humanity to resolve the issue at hand.

If I’m completely honest with myself, I can see the draw of having a God who is in complete control over the good and bad things of this crazy world. I can also see the benefits of having a God who controls and coerce me into doing what I do – not to mention having a God who will step in and fix things when the details get a bit off. Under this view, I – Josh Hopping – really don’t have much to do outside of living. If something goes great, awesome! I’m glad God was there. If things go haywire, great! It’s not my fault so talk to God.

thornsI know that this may be a bit critical of the typical Sovereignty of God worldview…yet I believe it captures the essence of that view. Yes, the control and coercion bits can be dampened down a bit with Scripture verses talking about humanity’s choices and actions. This is what Arminianism tries to do in reaction to Calvinism. There is also a neo-Calvinism movement within the USA that tries to dampen things down a bit while staying true to the five-points. However, I would argue that all these sub-movements are nothing more than, to use a common phrase, lipstick on a pig. They try to make the best of a bad foundation rather than solving the underlining issue.

I fully recognize that embracing a consenting, participating and mediating Creator is scary. Living in a world in which bad things happen for no reason – where we have an enemy who is trying to destroy us (i.e. satan and the forces of evil) can be daunting. It can mess your mind and make you wonder how anything could ever happen….

This is why we have the Scriptures and why we have Jesus. The Scriptures give us a story into which we can join; a story that has a beginning, middle and an end. A story of the Creator participating in and among his creation where he does NOT leave his children alone. Rather he binds himself to humanity with promises that he will and has kept. We don’t have to be scared because we know the end of the story even though we may not know all the details.

Jesus. We can never forget or have enough focus on Jesus. He is the reason we can keep walking. He is the Creator God who enter into our world so that we would know that we serve a Creator King who understands the pain, heartache and troubles of this screwed up world. Jesus is our High Priest to whom we can go when times are hard – when our children is in pain, when our life is out of control, when evil seems to have won – and he will receive us with mercy, grace and love (Hebrew 4:14-16).

Jesus, a consenting, participating and mediating Creator who loves and understands each of us individually. Powerful stuff.

[box]For those who are curious, a lot of the material in this post was pulled from my class notes with Dr. Brad Jersak at St Stephen’s University. His book, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel, also explores this topic a bit. From what I can tell, the view of a consenting, participating and mediating Creator is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church who did not embrace the view of St. Augustine like the Western church did. (St. Augustine laid the foundation for the controlling, coercing, and intervening view of God that has dominated Christianity within Europe.) [/box]

Book Reviews, Theology Thoughts

Is God to Blame?

2 Comments

is god to blame greg boydCalvinism versus Arminianism is one of the biggest debates within the Protestant world with gallons of ink and blood being spilled over the past five-hundred years. While I tend to be on the Arminianism side of that debate, I have also come to the conclusion that the debate itself has outlived its usefulness and should be put to rest. In my last post, I summarized a bit of the Eastern Orthodox approach to the issue as seen through the writings of Brad Jersak. Today I would like to talk about open theism as seen through Greg Boyd’s book “Is God To Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering.” 

Greg Boyd is a Mennonite pastor at the Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN and a leading proponent of the Christus Victor view of the atonement. He is also a major proponent of open theism which challenges Calvinism and variations of Arminianism. While I know Greg has other books about open theism, I decided to read his “Is God to Blame?” for two reasons. First and foremost was the fact that I found the book on sale for a dollar and, well, who can pass up a deal like that?!  🙂  Secondly, this book deals with the application of open theism rather than just focusing on the theoretical. Being an applied theologian, I quite like books that seek to put into practice the theories proposed by theological studies.  As Elder Paisios the Athonite once said, “The goal of reading is the application, in our lives, of what we read.” 🙂

As the title suggests, the focus of Greg’s book “Is God to Blame?” is providing an alternative to the problem of suffering normally proposed by theologians and pastors. Namely, a lot of well-meaning folks in the world today hold to a view of God which states that he knows and controls every little thing in the universe. This “blueprint” view of God states that God, as the sovereign King of Kings, knows, controls and/or predestines what I’m going to type before I type it. This is a God who is not only concerned with spiritual salvation, but with every action done by each person on earth throughout history – not to mention all the animals, plants, weather, etc. Accordingly, everything that happens in life – including hurtful actions such as rape, war, murder, etc. – happens for a reason with God either allowing or controlling the events.

Traditionally this view of the sovereignty of God has held by proponents of Calvinism. However there are also Arminian theologians and pastors who agree with this blueprint worldview – the main difference between the two groups being on the extent of freedom granted by God to humanity (i.e. a little bit or none). Some Arminians, I must note, hold to a view that God foreknows the future, but does not orchestrate the future.  Accordingly, these folks would not fall into the blueprint worldview challenged by Greg’s book.

In lieu of the blueprint worldview, Greg proposes a view in which God grants freedom to humanity to make choices and act contrary to that which God would prefer. After all, how could there be love if the lover has no choice but to love? Love is only love if the lover has a choice to walk away but doesn’t choose do to so.

While people will typically agree that love requires a choice, they also get nervous about a world in which everything is possible. Deep inside we want to know that someone or something has control as we want to believe that everything that happens has a reason. If things just happened with no reason, then life would be meaningless with no hope of redemption. (this is one of the problems with atheism, but that’s a different topic). In order to keep things in order, we must create a God who has everything under control.

I say “create a God” because the Scriptures allow for another view of God that falls outside the blueprint world. Namely the Scriptures allows for a God who intimately involved with his creation on a personal level and allows his creation to change his mind. Just look at God’s interactions with Abraham and Moses. Both of these forefathers of the faith wrestled with God and challenged his actions. Rather than telling them to shut up, God encouraged the debate and even agreed to change his plans.

Now before you quote Malachi 3:6 at me (i.e. “For I the Lord do not change…”) and burn me at the stake, allow me to explain. God himself doesn’t change – nor does he give up on his promises. He is always the same God today, yesterday and tomorrow. However just because he is the same God, it doesn’t mean that his actions within history can’t change. After all, he was the one who broke into history and changed everything (i.e. Jesus).

forest pathIn his book, Greg explores the concept of how we came to see God as a God who never changes (i.e. the view has its roots in Greek philosophy). And then sets forth a view of God who is like a great chess player who knows every possible move on the board and can foresee what his proponent is going to do. And, just like in a chess game, the moves which God makes are in direct reaction to the moves that we humans, as free agents, make. Only God, being infinitely smarter than us, can take into account every possible variable in all of creation – the movement of a butterfly in that country, a human choice here, the solar actions of a star over there, etc. – before making a move.

In other words, God’s overall desire and goal will come to pass. We humans may derail or slow down the process, but it will happen. The forces of evil, something Greg does talk about as well, may also try to stop God’s plans – and perhaps may even slow them down – but in the end God will win. Period.

This view of God has the potential to change how we view our lives and comfort people who are struggling. Rather than blaming God for the crap of the world, we can recognize that there is an evil being out there trying to destroy humanity and that we humans all have the choice on whether or not we are going to follow good or evil. We also don’t go around telling people whose young son was murder or raped or stolen that everything happens for a reason. Rather we cry with them. We mourn with them.

We know that God himself entered into the pain of this world and suffered with us. He didn’t stay away, hidden safely away in his castle in the sky. Rather he came into our broken, crappy world so that we would have a savior/friend/God who knew what it is like. And we also know that God will win with pain, evil, sin and death being destroyed.

Some people might not like this view of life. And that’s ok. For me, though, I think there is something of value in Greg’s view of open theism. It fits well with my view take on the atonement and the Kingdom of God as well as with my typical pastoral approach to life. Don’t get me wrong, I still have questions about open theism. At the moment, if you pushed it, I would have to say that I typically see God as being outside of time which allows for him to foresee what is going to happen without having to control every detail. Open theism, as I understand it, still places God within time rather than outside of time – which is a major issue to me since I see time as being something created… but that is another post for another time. 😀

In conclusion, I would definitely recommend reading Greg Boyd’s book  “Is God To Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering.”  At 197 pages, it isn’t that long – but, do be warned, it is a heavy read as it is dealing with a complex issue. As the title says, it is a book that goes “beyond pat answers” into the deep waters of the mystery of life.

Theology Thoughts

Kingdom Theology vs. Covenant Theology

Within the Scriptures there are eight major covenants or contracts between the Creator King and humanity. Of these contracts, six of them are given to thirteen individuals: Adam, Eve, Noah and family, Abraham, Phinehas and David. The remaining two covenants were between God and the people of Israel.  Details about each of these covenants can be seen in the below chart. (This chart is a modified version of the one created by Bill Jackson in his book The Biblical Metanarrative.)

Covenant Type Parties in Covenant with the Creator First Scriptural Reference
Adamic Royal Grant Adam and Eve Genesis 1:26-30
Noahic Royal Grant Noah and every living creature Genesis 9:8-17
Abrahamic A Royal Grant Abraham Genesis 15:9-21
Abrahamic B Suzerain-vassal Abraham Genesis 17
Sinaitic Suzerain-vassal The people of Israel (including the non-Abrahamic descendants who left Egypt with the Israelites) Exodus 18-24
Phinehas Royal Grant Phinehas Numbers 25:10-13
Davidic Royal Grant David 2 Samuel 7:5-16
Messianic Royal Grant The people of Israel and Judah Jeremiah 31:31-34

The reason I’m mentioning these eight covenants is that I want to talk briefly about a theological lens that focuses solely on these covenants. This lens is called Covenant Theology and is practiced by a large portion of Protestants. It first gained popularity during the Protestant Reformation through the teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564) and continues under the Reform or Calvinist movements.

Covenant Theology in its simplest form is a theological lens that sees two overarching theological covenants throughout the Bible, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works basically states that if humanity obeys God, then God would give them the promised life of his Kingdom. If they did not obey, then humanity would receive punishment for disobedience. A lot of covenant theologians say that the covenant of works started with Adam and Eve and continued after the fall as the moral law engrained within humanity. The covenant of grace, on the other hand, states that humanity is to receive the promises of God through faith in Jesus the Messiah.

Both of these covenants are considered ‘theological’ in the sense that they are not explicitly outlined as such within the Bible. Within the Covenant Theology stream there are many, many variations as different groups seek to focus on certain parts of each covenant. There are also disagreements on how the eight covenants specially mentioned in Scriptures related to each other and/or either they fit within the two larger theological covenant systems. Some theologians will even add a third theological covenant called the covenant of redemption which states that God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit all agreed upon who they would rescue humanity from the bondage of sin, evil and death.

Contract_with-_Seal_XLIn contrast to Covenant Theology, Kingdom Theology is an enacted inaugurated eschatology lens with a focus on the Kingship of Jesus. Within this framework, the present time in which we live is caught between two ages – the Present Evil Age ruled by sin and death and the Age to Come, which is ruled by Jesus Christ into eternity. Through the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus (plus Pentecost) the Age to Come has broken into this Present Evil Age, existing together in a tension that will be removed at that last day when all is set right and God dwells among His people face-to-face.

The South African theologian Adrio König once said that Covenant Theology and Kingdom Theology are two sides of the same coin. And why that may be true from a purely theoretical theological viewpoint, I can’t help but think about how each system is applied to one’s life. With its emphasis on the covenants, it is easy for folks living under a Covenant Theology system to lose focus on the covenant Giver. Instead, people can (and have) become experts at knowing that rights and privileges are granted to them under one of the eight covenants outlined within Scriptures or the two overarching theological covenants. Covenant Theology also has a tendency to create a barrier between the Old and New Testament with the common church goer thinking that salvation in the Old Testament was based upon works (i.e. the covenant of works) while salvation in the New Testament was about grace (i.e. the covenant of grace).

Kingdom Theology, on the other hand, places the focus on the dynamic rule and reign of the Creator King and not so much on the covenant documents themselves. This shift in emphasis pushes one to know Jesus on a personal level rather than just knowing about the contract under which one lives. This personal relationship is, in fact, the core of the Messianic Covenant outlined by the prophet Jeremiah:

“It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” –Jeremiah 31:32-34

Through Jesus, we all have been given a royal grant of knowing the Creator King in an intimate manner. His laws or ways are now within our hearts and minds through the Holy Spirit and we are now his people and he is our God. This was the original goal when the Creator created Adam and Eve and it has continued to be the original goal. Through Jesus, we now have access to the end time reality of a passionate personal relationship with the King while waiting the day when we shall see the Creator face to face on the new earth when all is restored (i.e. the here and not yet of enacted inaugurated eschatology).

Though this may be too simple of a sketch of these two complex theological systems, I would like to suggest that the Kingdom Theology worldview does a better job at emphasizing and connecting people to the person of Jesus than Covenant Theology. This, please hear me, does not mean that folks who see the world through a Covenant Theology lens can’t or don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus. Far from it! It is just that Kingdom Theology places the emphasis on the relationship with Creator King rather than on the covenants as does Covenant Theology.

Book Reviews

“Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life” by John Calvin

john calvinBased in Geneva, Switzerland, John Calvin became one of the most influential Protestant theologian and pastor of the Reformation. Born in Noyon, France in 1509, Calvin joined the Reformation at an early age after studying to become a humanist lawyer. At twenty-six, he published the first edition of his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” which established him as a major player in the Reformation movement. The “Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life” booklet was published both separately and as part of later editions of the “Institutes of the Christian Religion.”

The booklet itself is divided into five chapters cover different areas of the Christian life. Chapter one talks about the humble obedience of a believer in submitting themselves to the Scriptures and seeking a life of holiness. This life is one that goes beyond external trapping of the faith and touches the inside of a believer. As Calvin puts it, “the gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life” (page 20). To this end, the believer is to always be pushing in and trying to move further along the journey of the faith.

Chapter two builds upon this humility by expounding upon the concept of self-denial, i.e. the life of a believer is no longer their own but belongs to God. To me, this was the best chapter within the booklet as it captured the concept of living for Jesus rather than trying to add Christianity on as just another activity. Instead Calvin tells us that if we are to follow God, then we must be willing to deny the inner most desires of our heart for that of the desires of Jesus. We are also to “voluntarily give up our rights for the sakes of others,” helping them whenever possible (page 35).

The third chapter looks at the concept of crossbearing and preparing oneself for a life that is “hard, difficult, laborious, and full of countless griefs” (page 47). While I disagree with Calvin’s premise that every hardship is ordinated by God (page 46), I do agree with his encouragement to persevere through hardship for the glory of God. All too often Christianity is presented as a way of life that is easy with no troubles. The opposite is true as the cross begs us to “partake of the sufferings of Christ” (page 48).

calvin picChapter four shifts gears a bit and encourages the believer to stay hopeful for the coming of Christ and the New Heaven and Earth. By focusing on the Age to Come, the believer may embrace the self-deny of the cross while overcoming the hardships of this world. “The cross of Christ triumphs only in the hearts of believers over the devil and the flesh, over sin and wickedness, when they life their eyes to behold the power of the resurrection” (page 81). Sadly enough, Calvin uses this chapter to despise the present world and age in which humanity lives in. At one point he even promotes a form of Gnosticism which sets up a dualism between the spirit and the body (page 75).

The last chapter of the booklet deals with practical life items in that Calvin seeks to promote the concept of moderation. In a lot of ways this chapter is counteracting potential extremes that readers may have picked up from the previous chapter. To counteract this, Calvin writes “even if this earth is only a vestibule, we ought undoubtedly to make such a use of its blessings that we are assisted rather than delayed in our journey” (page 84). In order to avoid the extremes of being held captive by the blessing of this life or by denying them totally, Calvin seeks to lay out some “general principles for the lawful use of earthly things” as seen in the Scriptures (page 85). These principles follow the basic outline that all things are gifts from God and are to be used in moderation to help the believer on their journey toward heaven.

Overall there are some great points and concepts within Calvin’s “Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life.” At the same time, there are some key items missing from the booklet. Namely Calvin doesn’t address the battle motifs of the Scripture, choosing instead to claim that all hardships are from God rather than from the evil one or as a result of sin in the world. This is a huge hole in the booklet as it sets God up to be the author or, at the very least, the promoter of evil. To me, there is a big difference between what is permitted and what is ordinated, which is why I do not agree with John Calvin or the Reform tradition he started.

Theology Thoughts

Arminianism FAQ 1 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)

roger olsonMention the word “Arminianism” and you are likely to get an ear full from folks who think it’s a heresy of the first order – that or you will hear about how they are somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism.

I myself used to describe myself as a Calminanism (i.e. a cross between Calvinism and Arminianism) based upon a class on Romans I took during my undergrad years. Yet, the more I learn about theology the more that I realize that

a)    There is a silent partner, Pelagianism, in the debate which changes the entire framework – as in instead of being an extreme, Arminianism itself is actually trying to take the middle ground between Calvinism and Pelagianism.

b)    The entire debate is centered around a 1500’s modern worldview that I think is dying out – as in, I don’t folks are asking the questions that this debate is trying to answer… instead folks are more concerned about getting out there and living like Jesus than trying to chart out all the mysteries of the faith.

With all that said, I do think it is important that people understand what Arminianism actually teaches as opposed to what it’s opponents are saying. To that end, I would like to point you all to a series of posts by Dr. Roger Olson called “Arminianism FAQ (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…).”

Below are some of the questions he addresses in the first two posts (1 and 2):

  • Why identify a theology with a man’s name? Why not just be “Christians?”
  • Why is there now a rising interest in Arminianism? Why have blogs and books about  “man-made theology?”
  • Isn’t there a “middle ground” between Calvinism and Arminianism?
  • Does Arminianism include belief in absolute free will? If so, how could God have inspired the authors of Scripture?

Hopefully you all will give these posts a read as it is good to know that the type “Arminianism” actually means. And yes, even if you are a die-hard Calvinist, give these a read as you need to know what your fellow Jesus follower means by the term.

Blessings.

[box] July 9th Update – Dr. Olson just released part three of his “Arminianism FAQ (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)” series. [/box]

[box] 2014-07-11 Update – Part four of the series has been published. [/box]

[box] 2014-07-16 Update – The fifth and final part of the series is now out. [/box]

Theology Thoughts

Calvinism and Arminianism

3 Comments

Calvin and Arminius One of the big debates among Protestants for the last four or five hundred years deals with the character of God. Is He a God who rescue individual humans by His will alone regardless of what the people do or think? Or is He an all-loving God who gives humans both the choice to follow Him and the grace to act upon such a choice?

In theological terms, those two views of God are called Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism, named after John Calvin, follows the concept of the first question listed above why Arminianism, named after Jacobus Arminius, follows the concept of last question. Both views came into prominence in Europe during the 1500’s while the views themselves date back further. Calvinism draws off of the teaching of St. Augustine in the fifth century while a lot of Arminianism back to the first century and Church Fathers.

It should be stated that neither viewpoint fully answers all the theological questions in a satisfactory manner.  There are holes, weak-points, and unknowns in both theological systems as well as every other theological system ever developed. The fact is that God is so amazing and huge that we, as created creatures, can never fully understand His ways (Isaiah 55:8). We can think about He and talk about Him as He Himself told us to “come and reason” with Him (Isaiah 1:18), but in the end all we can do is throw ourselves at His feet and cry “Father, Father, here I am.”

Sadly enough there is a growing number of evangelicals in the USA who are pushing Calvinism as the ONLY correct theological viewpoint out there. They have bad mouthed Arminianism, Open Theism and anybody who does not agree with their viewpoint. I myself have personal come under the gun a few times from folks like this who tried to persuade bagger me into believing the things they did.

cartoonWhen this happened, I typically fell back on a viewpoint taught to me by an old college professor. This viewpoint, typically called “Calminanism”, confirmed both Calvinism and Arminianism without fully making a decision. However the more I study and learn about the issue, the more I realize that this professor, while trying to be helpful, really didn’t help his students.

The reason I say that is because the idea of blending Calvinism and Arminianism lends itself to a very shallow and stereotypically view on the concepts behind Calvinism and Arminianism.  For example, if I were to ask you all to define Calvinism and Arminianism, most if not all of you would say that Calvinism is about the sovereignty of God (i.e. God is in control and choose who goes to heaven) while Arminianism is about free will (i.e. humans can choose to follow God or not). A “Calminanism” view would then be the view that confirms both the sovereignty of God and the free will of humanity.

Interesting enough, as I have recently discovered, this “sovereignty-of-God-and-the-free-will-Calminanism” view of theological is actually the view thing that Arminianism teachings. Yes, you heard that correctly. Arminianism confirms the sovereignty of God, teaching that no one comes to the Father except those called by Him, while also confirming the fire will of humans to reject the call of Jesus to follow Him. It IS the middle path!!

Continue reading Calvinism and Arminianism →