3-Dimensional Understanding of Paul
This morning at 5:15, a bus full of teens and sponsors pulled out of our parking lot for a mission trip to New Orleans.
Even after four years (since THE WRECK), it’s still hard not to hold my breath.
- – - -
From N. T. Wright (on Rom. 8:28-30):
Is Paul after all a determinist, believing in a blind plan that determines everything, so that human freedom, responsibility, obedience, and love itself are after all a sham?
One can easily imagine Paul’s own reaction . . . “Certainly not!” What we have here, rather, is an expression, as in 1:1, of God’s action in setting people apart for a particular purpose, a purpose in which their cooperation, their loving response to love, their obedient response to the personal call, is itself all-important. This is not to deny the mystery of grace, the free initiative of God, and the clear divine sovereignty that is after all the major theme of this entire passage, here brought to a glorious climax. But it is to deny the common misconception, based on a two-dimensional rather than a three-dimensional understanding of how God’s actions and human actions relate to each other, that sees something done by God as something not done by humans, and vice versa.
3 dimensional versus 2. I like that way of putting
If they haven’t already, preachers and teachers should restudy the question of double-predestination. Most all of my best Bible students at Amarillo College are card-carrying Calvinists.
Once again we have an example of an otherwise intelligent and conscientious person presenting a false dichotomy. I have never met a Calvinist that believes that Paul was “a determinist, believing in a blind plan that determines everything, so that human freedom, responsibility, obedience, and love itself are after all a sham?” I wonder why it is only the non-Calvinists that tetach that Calvinists believe such nonsense. Anyone is capable of building a straw man and then blowing him down but responsible people make an effort to avoid such behavior.
Calvinists, like their Arminian brohters and sisters do believe “the mystery of grace, the free initiative of God, and the clear divine sovereignty that is after all the major theme of this entire passage, here brought to a glorious climax.”
Regrettably, “the common misconception, based on a two-dimensional rather than a three-dimensional understanding of how God’s actions and human actions relate to each other, that sees something done by God as something not done by humans, and vice versa” is part of the caricature Arminians and semi-Pelagians like to tell themselves others believe.
I would have thought NT Wright (and others) were capable of better.
Hey Geez-babes, qb didn’t even see the word “Calvinist” in the original excerpt. Am I missing something? Maybe so…by definition, an excerpt leaves things out.
By the same measure, maybe we should cane Paul for setting up a straw man of his own in 6:1. qb doesn’t know anyone who really thinks that we should “sin more so that grace might abound,” but there it is in black and white.
To sum up…Unless the surrounding context of the excerpt is clearly a careless polemic against Calvinists and Calvinism, qb wonders if perhaps Wright deserves a bit more generous reading than you appear to have offered him. qb’d be more inclined to a rhetorical-critical reading here, in which Wright is simply establishing the limiting cases within which the discussion that follows will take place. That’s not such a bad thing, and in fact is pretty characteristic of NTW, based on my limited exposure to him.
But maybe you’re right, and maybe he’s got a blind spot here. Mike, without typing the whole section, can you tell us precisely where this excerpt arises?
qb
Must be his commentary on Romans, given Mike’s current status…
Surely we’ve got to give NTW the room to prepare the battlefield and set some boundaries in place.
qb
Thanks, qb. Yes, it’s from Wright’s commentary on Romans 8.
Father God, when it comes to rearranged schedules in our days, it is easy to embrace Paul’s words. When it comes to sending kids off, and entrusting risks to You that embrace the core of our beings….well, not so much. Please protect these kids and adults. Our family. Anoint their hands and words, protect them from the evil one. Bring them safely home. Amen
I’m wondering: Why the John Piper tag on this post?
RE: Boudro’s on the riverwalk:
In a large mortar muddle together:
Juice of 1/2 orange and 1/2 lime
Pinch of sea salt
Add:
One large avocado, diced
Roasted Roma tomatoes, chopped
Roasted Serrano chiles, chopped
Fresh cilantro, chopped
Toss and serve immediately…to yourself, without sharing!
Helpfully,
qb
QB,
As always I appreciate your comments. Please understand that “theology” has been a dirty word in CofC circles for more decades than I have been alive – and that is a long time. (I’m older that Mike for crying out loud!) Therefore, you can be forgiven for not recognizing a swipe at Calvinism even when Calvin isn’t referred to by name.
For those who do love theology it is more than evident that the reference to determinism (”a plan that determines everything”) and human freedom and responsibility can refer only to Calvinism. The age old criticisms of Calvinism always focus on these issues and they come from Arminians and Pelagians so they have to be pointed at the Calvinists – no one else is left.
As to Paul setting up a “straw man” – yeah that is one way of expressing what he does in Romans and to a lesser extent in Galations. Stan Stowers (an ACC grad about 1971 who went on to do a doctorate with oversight from Abraham Malherbe – Malherbe taught at ACC circa 1968 before moving on) wrote his dissertation on Paul’s use of the diatribe in Romans. He suggests that Romans (at a minimum) resembles a diatribe (and FF Bruce cites him in his commentary on Romans – Tydnale commentary series available in paperback.) In a diatribe the writer has an imaginary debating partner (interlocutor) and the writer puts the logical objections to his arguments in the mouth of his interlocutor so he can then answer the “logical” objections to his arguments. So I guess you could call the imaginary interlocutor a “straw man.”
In Romans the interlocutor says things exactly like “Shall we sin all the more that grace may abound?” and the answer to the interlocutor is always something like “God forbid” or “May it never be” – a translation of the Greek phrase “mei genoito” – those who actually read and write Greek pleased forgive my sloppy transliteration. So yeah, the interlocutor is almost like a straw man except he presents logical arguments and a straw man is intentionally set up as a dumb bunny that says stupid things so the one making the argument can blow him down.
If “Wright is simply establishing the limiting cases within which the discussion that follows will take place” then I apologize now. However, there have been previous posts in which a false dichotomy was presented and this appears to be just one more example. It is a frequent (and I think valid) criticism of NTW as well as several “emergent” writers.
If Mike didn’t recognize this as a swipe at Calvinism I would be most surprised, but I’ll allow Mike to speak for himself.
I hope that many of my sisters and brothers come to love theology more than has been typical in our tradition.
Peace,
Geezer
Jr,
You were wondering why the John Piper tag on this post. Perhaps it is because Piper is a well know Calvinist and NT Wright is known for disagreeing with him – among other things.
Peace,
Geezer
Geezer: That is what I had thought. I was using the question to answer qb’s inquiry as to why you addressed Calivinism even though it wasn’t in the post. I believe Mike referenced Piper because of Piper’s connection to Calvinism in these days. The disciples of Wright know this and Wright’s entry here was a straw man dig at predestination. As Wright would say to others; I’ll call that “lame.”
I’m in full agreement with you, by the way. The CoC, a fellowship which I have been a part of all my life and will be a part of moving forward – is brutally entrenched in semi-Pelagianism. This is not unlike other denominations as well. Man-centered theology rules the day. We love teaching and believing that we have control over our salvation. We can get it, we can lose it, we can get it again … kind of like playing hokey-pokey with eternity. The Cross is ineffectual to those who believe and find faith in the pride and power of man.
But as I have stated before – changes are coming. I am 29 years old and I see that more and more youth are falling in love with the Scriptures and the Sovereignty of God. Therefore the semi-Pelagian scales are falling from the eyes to reveal the realities of Reformed doctrine (theologically speaking – the 5-points). I am so grateful for this and pray the Spirit continues to open the eyes of the world to the Father’s Sovereign power.
I have a few questions. I have thus far not received from a Calvinist a satisfactory, biblical answer to these questions. Maybe you guys can help.
When grace is “irresistible” does that mean it is impossible to say “no” to salvation when God draws us to himself?
What does it mean that God wants everyone to be saved?
What does sovereignty mean? When I affirm that God is sovereign, does it mean I am affirming that God is controlling everything?
How do you reconcile the idea that if God is determining everything, it does not seem like his is? Is this life an illusion? I have yet to meet a Calvinist that lives as though everything is determined. Spurgeon (a good Calvinist) wrote:
“Who, except God himself, ordained that the Sahara Desert would be brown and sterile, and that the tropical island should laugh in the midst of the sea with joy over her greenness? Who, I say, ordained this, except God? You see running all through creation, from the tiniest molecule up to the tallest archangel who stands before the throne, this working out of God’s own will.”
To me a Calvinist has to live an irrational life: believing everything is determined while acting as if it were not.
I don’t mean to attack anyone with these questions, and I know that my own understanding of scripture might be wrong. I think we can have a civil discussion about these things while not questioning one another’s standing before God. I don’t think that salvation rests on our ability to figure out a very difficult book.
Jonathan,
Thanks for your honest inquiry. You have a lot of questions and it would require at least a small book to get started on the answers. A good place to consider looking is a small book by R.c. Sproul titled Chosen by God. I think Sproul will even provide you a copy of the book free.
Another thins to consider is that we all grew up in a culture that taught us certain philosophical concepts w/o our even realizing it. thus some of us bow down and worship at the altar of Freewill and hardly recognize that is what we are doing. consider questioning some of your presuppositions.
Lastly, consider some of NT Wrights own words form the except above:
” What we have here, rather, is an expression, as in 1:1, of God’s action in setting people apart for a particular purpose, a purpose in which their cooperation, their loving response to love, their obedient response to the personal call, is itself all-important (Randall adds that it is at least very important as I am not sure exactly what he means by all-important). This is not to deny the mystery of grace, the free initiative of God, and the clear divine sovereignty that is after all the major theme of this entire passage, here brought to a glorious climax. But it is to deny the common misconception, based on a two-dimensional rather than a three-dimensional understanding of how God’s actions and human actions relate to each other, that sees something done by God as something not done by humans, and vice versa.”
Peace,
Randall
Geez, just so you know: qb had no difficulty recognizing the *possibility* that the isolated excerpt was a gratuitous polemic against Calvinism. By now, though I’m certainly no biblical scholar, I have read enough of Wright’s work to know (a) that he would take the accusations of “gratuitous polemic” and “false dichotomy” very seriously indeed and (b) that his writing style, though direct and unapologetic, is unfailingly generous, even to those with whom he stridently disagrees (e. g., Crossan, Wrede, and Schweitzer, just to name a few that come to mind). I would therefore be pretty surprised to find that your objections to the excerpt worry him all that much, except to the extent that you have misunderstood his intent in the larger context of his work. Such are the dangers of excerpts, I suppose.
It is also worth observing that the caricatures of Calvinism that you so deplore are, alas, widely adopted by many of our fellow lay-evangelicals, perhaps without their being conscious of it. Calvinism, no more than any other Christian “ism,” is self-policing as to how it finds expression in the political and social praxis of its adherents. It is thus well within the range of contemporary interest to set out a theological perimeter, as implausible as its components might be to the charming, theological cognoscenti. The rest of us rank laymen appreciate seeing some recognizable horizons – limiting cases, if you will – established to define the field of play.
Cheerfully,
qb
I remain unconvinced of the doctrine of double predestination.
Teachings about the two wills of God, “temporary faith” (a Calvin phrase designed to explain passages of Scripture and experiences where someone, for a time, appeared to be one of the elect), and highly-nuanced definitions of “the world” (ala John 3:16), etc., invariably come into the discussion.
I don’t like to think that my rejection of these indicates that I’ve rejected the Scriptures and the sovereignty of God. May it never be!
I am perfectly willing to be wrong about any and all of this. For now, I just don’t see it. But when folks like Al Mohler say, “If you really start reading the Bible, your conclusions will be those of Calvin,” it seems to me like he’s moved beyond conviction.
That said, I don’t recall hearing much of anything about the greatness of God and living for his glory in all of those Church of Christ sermons I’ve heard (and many that I’ve preached). To this day, John Piper’s book “The Supremacy of God in Preaching” hits me like a lightning bolt. Why did I never hear anything quite like that before? Because my group collapsed theology under ecclesiology, searching to identify the one true church, and neglected God. That’s not “of Christ.”
Jonathan: First, I agree. We can have this conversation without questioning one’s salvation. It is neither I nor you who judge; but the Almighty God. Therefore, grace to you, brother.
This conversation should probably be taken to email for a lengthier discussion and I am more than willing to engage you in such an endeavor for mutual edification if you wish; but I will do my best in a very, very short space to respond to your inquiries in order as in introduction. This is in no way a complete argument to your multiple questions.
“Can God’s grace be resisted?”
Yes, grace can be resisted but only up until God wills to overcome that resistance (which He must do to save anybody; since we are dead, rebellious people incapable of giving ourselves life). When God wants somebody, He gets them. As the Scriptures say in regards to the new covenant, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes,” (Eze 36:26-27) Notice who is “doing” it. It isn’t man; it is God. We are born-again, “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)
The Father draws (John 6:44), the Father gives Jesus who He wills (John 6:37), the Father gives the Spirit as He wills, as Jesus told Nicodemus, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit … The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:6,8)
The problem comes when we think we receive the Spirit (are born-again) by some human-will-enduced intellectual or spiritually-superior decision as opposed to the irresistible Sovereign will of God. If one believes in such a thing; they may boast – for in some way they were more advanced to understand over that other person who remained in unbelief. It is no longer “by grace I have been saved,” but “by grace … plus my intellectually advanced decision I have been saved.” (for faith also something given by God see Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3, 2 Tim 24-26, Acts 11:18 and 16:14, for just a few)
“What does it mean that God wants everyone to be saved?”
Deut 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever,” (see also Rom 11:33-36). I will propose to you that God has two wills; a revealed will and a secret will. James 4:15 (for just one example) says, “Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.’”
We affirm a “will of precept” which is God’s declared will to us on what we should do (His commands). On the other hand, we have a secret will of God which includes hidden decrees that govern the universe. God does not reveal these things to us. These decrees are the eternal plans of God whereby before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that happens. (Ps 139:16, Job 14:5, Acts 2:23, Eph 1:4, 2:10, Jude 4, etc). Even those who murdered Christ were predestined to do so (Acts 4:27-28).
Take a look at Genesis 50:20. God’s revealed will to Joseph’s bros was the same revealed will to everyone else: that they obey His commands (love their brother, care for him, not trade him into slavery or lie to their father but treat him – well, like a brother). But God’s secret will was that Joseph was brought to Egypt to obtain authority and save his family. God didn’t react to what Joseph’s brothers did; he ordained it – and He even used sin to make it happen – while remaining Holy and sinless. The Scripture says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good,” – notice it does not say “but God turned it into good,” it says God “meant” it for good.
To end: This is all a benefit to our humility in destroying our pride and increasing our reverence for God when we realize God does not make up plans as he goes and He knows the end from the beginning and He will, without any doubt at all, accomplish his good purposes. God does not take risks and this should increase our trust in our God who has promised us as much. “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) If one does not believe that God ordains all things – how can one have faith in this promise?
“When I affirm that God is sovereign, does it mean I am affirming that God is controlling everything?”
It should because He is. If He isn’t; than who is? Is God merely a reactionary? Or did He spin a top called creation and let it go?
Finally, I am not sure I understand your last statement about “believing everything is determined while acting as if it were not.” I’m assuming you mean (though I may be wrong) “why do anything at all if He’s got it all worked out?” For example – why evangelize or preach … or why pray? To which I would answer 1) Because we are commanded to and we are to obey; and 2) Because God not only predestined all things that come to pass (the ends) but he also predestined how all things will come to pass (the means). Take Matt 9:37-38 for example. Why pray that the Lord send out laborers into the harvest? Because we have been, “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10) God predestined the ends and the means to those ends. God wills that nails be in boards; but we still have to swing the hammer.
And Frank: While I disagree with you on the matters of predestination, I’m with you on the CoC’s sermons and teachings. We would all do well to read and listen to a lot of Piper in these days (among others) and an intense study in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
I highly recommend “The Pleasures of God,” by Piper, and “Holiness of God” by RC Sproul. To your point: I feel like our theology was able to collapse under ecclesiology because of that theology. The Glory of God and the Supremacy of Christ must be our focus; which means leaving behind our idols of tradition, religion, and exalted man.
QB: Re your most recent comment I’ll respond with a phrase I’ve seen you write here: Well Struck!
Jr: Thanks for taking the time to write all that. I am twice your age (and twice as tired) and I’ve done it so many times that now I simply refer people to books. Also, as this is Mike’s blog we want to be carfeful so that we don’t hijack it as our own.
Frank: Thanks very much for your comments. They contribute a lot to the conversation. The double predestination issue is hard for many (most?) to understand, especially in the light of some other passages of scripture. Bottom line is all of us place more emphasis on some passages of scripture than others. My personal feeling about Calvinism is that it is the worst understanding of the sovereignty of God and his plan for the world that was ever put forth, except for all the other notions I am familiar with – with apologies to Winston Churchill for the theft of his words about democracy.
I’m on vacation so I’m off line for a at least a little while.
Peace to all y’all,
Geezer
I have no attraction to Calvinism. It’s foundation is at odds with the first story of the Bible, which states that God shares his power.
It starts, properly, in a relational mode, but it gets the relationship wrong. It then moves recklessly on to ontology and camps out there until it gets double predestination. It is a grave modern disability that so many of our theologians are obsessed with ontology and find it the only proper arena for theology. Some of us young folk have given this up in the face of modernity’s failure and, from that perspective, judge the doctrine of sovereignty to be wanting, unscriptural, and often nothing more than an ontological sledgehammer.
Jr., thanks for the lengthy reply. I will say just a couple of things to hopefully challenge your thinking, as you have challenged mine.
First, the Ephesians passage you quoted does not mean what you think it means. The quote “…saved through faith – and this not from yourselves…” is often quoted by the Calvinist, but the “this” in “this not from yourselves” refers to salvation, not faith. It is so plain in the Greek that the NASB explains it in a footnote. There are some scriptures that mention God giving faith, but always in the context of a spiritual gift, not salvation. Faith comes from us, and in fact we are commanded to have faith, and God looks for those who will have faith. That the believer has faith does not mean he can boast about it any more than the Calvinist can boast about being chosen and another person not being chosen. A person does not earn salvation, but receives it by faith. The believer didn’t do anything, he simply had faith. The letter to the Romans is very explicit that faith is not a work. You write that we are dead and can’t do anything, including have faith. I will also point out that a dead person can’t sin, either.
Second, I would like you to consider that being chosen and predestined is not something that refers to individuals, but to a corporate entity, the church. In fact, I think that Christ is the chosen one, and we are also chosen when we are joined with him. Just like righteousness and many other attributes that Jesus has and we do not have except in him. We are not righteous, but found to be righteous in Christ. Similarly, we are chosen in Christ, not individually. Read Eph 1:4, and delete the “in him.” If we see being chosen as being chosen individually (from the creation of the universe) by God, the “in him” makes no difference in the meaning of the passage. However, if we see our chosen-ness as a result of Christ being the chosen one, the “in him” makes all the difference.
Third, in your use of the Joseph narrative above, you are affirming that God authored sin. If he causes everything to happen, then he caused the brothers to sell Joseph into slavery in Egypt. That involved the brothers sinning, so God must have caused the sin. We know from scripture that this cannot be true. Your use of the “secret things” above seems to me to be used as an unassailable trump card when things become irrational, as they are in this case (God does not cause anyone to sin, but caused the brothers to sin). I think there is a better explanation. Was having Joseph sold into slavery the only way God could have gotten Joseph to Egypt? Of course not. God worked with the acts of the brothers to accomplish his purpose, which resulted in a great salvation. He did not ordain the sin, he ordained the result, and worked to accomplish it. He does the same thing now to accomplish his purpose, which is bringing all things together under the authority of Jesus Christ.
Finally, on sovereignty: I asked about this because to be sovereign does not mean to be all-controlling. When we say a nation is sovereign, it does not mean that the government is all-controlling, it means that the government is the entity beyond which one may not appeal. It is the final authority, if it is in fact sovereign. That definition does not change when we apply it to God. To say that God is sovereign does not mean that God is all-controlling, it means that God is the final authority, that there is nobody to appeal to who is greater than he is. If one wants to argue that God is all-controlling, this word cannot be used to buttress that argument.
grace and peace to you.
p.s. If you want to take this off-line, I’m happy to.
Thank you Jonathan and Jeff W. for your last entries. It took me a long time to recognize the theological reasons I had for refusing to stay within the Campbell-Stone movement (after leaving the CofC).
However, I finally realized that the DNA of the movement (i.e. Calvinism) is inescapable, even if barely recognizable. Its roots are still there. Like someone mentioned above, theology like many other subjects (i.e. Hermeneutics) has been reviled as unbiblical in the CofC. As a result, only a few in the CofC even recognize the theologies that influence them.
One thing that I would like to mention, regarding free will and grace, is that these terms need not be mutually exclusive. “Arminians” as the term has been negatively referenced in comments above, do not “worship” at the altar of free will. John Wesley taught that God pursues humanity with the grace “that goes before” or what is traditionally referred to as ‘prevenient grace’. God acts through the Holy Spirit to draw individuals to God-self. It is God’s gracious and unending desire that all persons should be re-united in relationship with the Godhead. However, God does not force anyone or “predestine” any person in particular to submit themselves (as in irresistible grace). God chose us for relationship, but it is a relationship that embraces us for choosing God in love through our own freewill.
And I for one am happy to embrace a theology whereby God pursues me and seeks to embrace me like the father in the parable of the Prodigal . . . and I am able to respond freely with gratitude for God’s unfailing love. KB
Jonathan: Though we disagree, I appreciate your spirit and hope my comments are reflective of the same spirit. My passion rests in Jesus Christ and I doubt this differs with your own. I hope we can all be intoxicated with Christ first and foremost. In this cause, we can be missional brothers and make His Word known so that sinners will repent and turn to God. Calvinist or non-Calvinist – we are God’s spokesmen to a dark world. For that cause, I’m happy to call you brother.
Now, this does not mitigate a spirited and good-faith discussion on theology!
But to follow Geezer’s advice and not completely hijack the thread; just a couple tidbits in short …
1) Being dead is being in sin; that was the point I was making; we are naturally children of Adam and we are all born that way with the wrath of God upon us. We are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”(Eph 2:3, cf. John 3:36) I have yet to hear an argument as to how man can come to faith prior to regeneration (the giving of a new heart by God). That view places faith by dead-men prior to regeneration (that is, with a heart of stone). Dead is dead. Fallen. An enemy of God. “No one seeks God, no not one.” To come to faith on our own prior to regeneration is to seek God while dead; which Scripture says not one person is able to do (nor even wants to do).
2) You wrote: “He did not ordain the sin, he ordained the result”
Now let me be clear to say that God willing that sin exists in the world is not the same as sinning. To call God a sinner would be, as Jonathan Edwards said, “a reproach and blasphemy.” Yet in regards to the passage, it says God “meant” it for good. The same past-tense verb is used in both cases. God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as they were doing it. Take a look at Gen 45:5-8 where Joseph repeatedly says that God sent Him; particularly v.8 “So it was not you who sent me here, but God.” I’m not sure it can be clearer. And how did He send him? Via Joseph’s brothers and their sinful actions. And again, Acts 4:27-28 – the greatest sin ever to take place, the murder of the Son of God, was predestined to occur by God before the foundation of the world by particular people; at a particular time; through particular (sinful) actions.
“He works all things after the counsel of His will.” (Eph 1:11)
I’ll leave it there. You can follow my link and drop me an email through it.
Grace be with you.
K. Beck,
I don’t understand your comment about Calvinism, though unrecognized, being in the DNA of the Churches of Christ. This made me go back and look for something I’d noted years ago:
. . . to sinners there is no gospel in the Calvinsitic system, as it stands in the creeds of those sects who embrace it. It is no gospel to proclaim, that “God from all eternity elected a few individuals to everlasting life; that these few of Adam’s progeny are all that he loved; the rest he doomed permissively to everlasting death; for these few elect ones, and for these only, his Son was born, lived and died. These only he effectually calls, these he quickens by his Holy Spirit, and the shall, in spite of all opposition, persevere to the end and be saved.” I say this honest front of Calvinism, howsoever true in metaphysics, is not the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord, and all those texts which are brought to prove it are either wrested, perverted, or misapplied.
–Alexander Campbell, in the “Christian Baptist” 1826.
Clarification: I realize that Calvinism (i.e. TULIP) was never completely embraced within the Stone/Campbell movement (though its most prolific voice was a former Presbyterian Pastor), and that “yes” the emphasis has traditionally been on “what must I do to be saved?”
However, the ‘Total Depravity of man’ has been a recurring theme within the CofC. Even the traditional Catholic understanding of Original Sin doesn’t go as far as Calvinism in desecrating the value of humanity to God and dismissing the ‘image of God’ within humanity as in some ways meaningless.
‘Unconditional Election’, ‘Limited Atonement’ and ‘Predestination’ can also be surmised as having been expressed within the CofC. Our CofC slant on these Calvinist teachings might be expressed as “Not all are ‘chosen’ by God, and Christ’s sacrifice was only for those so chosen, which makes us ‘predestined’ – SO make sure God chooses you!”
Perhaps what I recognize as remnants of Calvinism within the Stone/Campbell movement will be dismissed as a distorted understanding of Calvinism. But that’s part of my point – the Stone/Campbell movement may have been an intentional “correction” to Calvinism, but its DNA still originated from within Calvinism.
Within the Stone/Campbell movement the Reformed Tradition remains the ’starting point’ and with it an extreme emphasis on reading the Bible for answers rather than allowing God to mediate relationship through its pages. IMHO this is the most glaring ‘transgression’ of Calvinism and its theological progeny – the Word made flesh at some point only became the written word. KB
At the end of the day if the Calvinist contends that God wills and predestines the great majority of humanity to be horrifically tormented in hell so that he can show is great love to humanity by saving an elect few, well, I guess you can keep that God. That God might be Sovereign, but he’s not worthy of worship. The Calvinist God is wicked and evil. A monster by any reckoning.
If that’s how God is send me to hell with humanity. I’d rather be there than “praise” a God who picked me over my neighbor.
mmm.
Gotta love some N.T. Wright