TIPTOE-ING THROUGH (AND AROUND AND ON RARE OCCASSIONS ON) THE TULIPS, PART 2 OF 3 - BECOMING A "NOTA"

 

"Wesley/Watts Concert, Oct. 4, 1738" On that day, pastors/hymn writers Calvinist Isaac Watts and Arminians Charles and John Wesley conversed for an hour, then walked, sang, and conversed for another hour.

 

One unforgettable moment on-line was when on one post in a group one person stated, "Free will is a false gospel!" and another responded, "The Five Points of Calvinism are a false gospel!" So what did I do? I stood up to both bullies, because those two bozos were attacking my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of which are Calvinists, some are Arminians, and some don't identify as either, such as...

Actually, that leads me back to the student apartment I was in with Tom Cousins (in those days, my alma mater's men's dorm was one bedroom apartments with four occupants each). I told you he handed me the list of the five points of Arminianism and Calvinism, but I never told where I stood. (Review - the Arminian points were written first, and both sets following the death of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.)

At that moment, I considered myself a 2.5 point Calvinist. I agreed completely with points 1 and 5 (respectively Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints). Like most of the faculty of the school, which I'm guessing were 4 point Calvinists, I did not agree with point 3 (Limited Atonement). However, I considered point 4 (Irresistible Grace) to be saying the same thing in different ways. Point 2 (Unconditional Election) was one I struggled with. I agreed with the concept of election: after all, that is clearly in Scripture. But the wording of that view made me uncomfortable, and I couldn't articulate why. 

As I stated in the previous installment, that was not a major part of my Christian life for years, until I moved into Indianapolis. True, I dealt with the related subject of the security of the believer, but the issue of how free-will and God's Sovereignty relate. However, since moving to the home of the 500, I've had several things influence my thinking. Here is a list of books and radio programs that caught my attention:

1. Listening to Grace To You (John MacArthur) and Renewing Your Mind (R.C. Sproul. I was familiar with MacArthur, though not in soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and had read some of his books. I had never heard of Sproul before. While these did not make a major impact, it got my mind thinking on the subject.
   
2. God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware. Open Theism is a belief that denies true omni-science on God's part. While the main topic is theology, Ware introduced me to two concepts in the spectrum of soteriology: compatible free-will and Molina's middle knowledge. Again, this is more mind-expanding than mind-changing.
3. C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time by Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls. This book compared the theology and apologetics of Arminian Lewis and Schaeffer. Both authors lectured on Lewis and seemed to be more in agreement with him, and yet this book made me more of a Schaeffer fan. (Note - I had the honor of hearing Schaeffer speak.)
4. Four Views On Eternal Security (Zondervan's Counterpoint series). This book had four authors represent different views on eternal security - identified as Classic Calvinism (Michael Horton), Moderate Calvinism (Norman Geisler), Reformed Arminianism (Stephen Ashby) and Wesleyan Arminianism (J. Steven Harper) - with the proponents presenting the view and the other three responding. Before reading this book, I considered the views to fit neatly in a line with the two ends being the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism and everything else being in between. This one-dimensional view was shattered - I see the debate now in a plain, not a line.
   
5. What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God by David Hunt. Hunt wrote this book when people mentioned Sunday School teachers who tried to convince everybody Calvinism was the true gospel. I told you that I had thought the second point was Unmerited Favor; this book corrected that mistake. Now, I do not consider this book to say Calvinism is a false gospel like the person I mentioned above. He mentioned he had Calvinist  While I would not call myself Arminian, this book moved me to temporarily considering myself a non-Calvinist rather than a 2.5 pointer.
6. On-line Pages and groups "Reformed Thug Life", "Depraved Wretch", and "Arminian Memes Daily." I discovered and was blessed by the former two groups, but I realized I was getting just one side of theology, so I joined the third. I learned it would have better been called "Anti-Calvinist Memes Daily." Not what I needed. 
7. Arminian Theology: Realities and Myths by Roger Olsen. At this point, most of my knowledge of what Arminianism was came from Calvinists. So I decided to try to learn how Arminians describe themselves. This book was a big help. It seems he wrote it not to convert Calvinists into being Arminian, but rather to show that Arminianism belongs in the sphere of orthodox Christian thought as Calvinists do. He considered the views of Charles Finney and the latter Remonstrants not to be the classic Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley, and the early Remonstrants but more semi-Pelagianism. Olsen states classic Arminianism agreed with Calvinists on Total Depravity and that originally there was no definite position on security of the believer (meaning you can be a pro-eternal security Arminian). Finally, he also stated that while both Calvinists and Arminians are believers, they are different enough in belief that you can't be a hybrid (e.g. a Calminian); he allowed for a "neither" or not knowing what you are.
8. Jacob Arminius: The Man From Oudewater by Rustin Brian. A continuation of knowing what Arminianism really is. Did you know that Arminius lost his father early in life and a friend mentored him and sent him to school under Theodore Beza? How about that while he was at school Oudewater declared itself a Protestant town and thus Catholic mercenaries attacked, raping and killing the inhabitants (including Arminius' mother and siblings)? Was that evil carnage predestined by God or the depraved free will of evil men? That was the foundation of Arminianism.

So where does that leave me? Well, I never identified as an Arminian, though there was a time my theology would have made me Arminian. I'm probably still a 2.5 pointer. But I do feel God's Sovereignty is an important issue.

Another fact is that I believe most Calvinists and most Arminians are men who love God, believe the Bible is His Word, search the Scriptures, but still see through a glass dimly and as imperfect people this side of heaven are not perfect in theology. Same with any other debate between Christians. 

So now I consider myself a NOTA - None Of The Above. That absolves me of having to figure it all out - God never asked me to. Psalm 131 says, "Neither do I concern myself with great matters Nor with things to profound for me;" the free will/predestination debate falls into that category. In addition, it leaves me free to defend my fellow believers who are attacked, as mentioned above.

This does not prevent me from having thoughts on the subject. So there will be a part 3 of this series.

 

TIPTOE-ING THROUGH (AND AROUND AND ON RARE OCCASSIONS ON) THE TULIPS, PART 1 OF 3 - BACKGROUND

 

At Cool Creek Park, Westfield, IN

My hunch is the best known "family squabble" in Christianity is the Calvinist (Predestination)/Arminian (Free Will) debate. Of course, there are some in both camps who disown the other camp. 😭

If you asked me when I started Bible College my thoughts about Calvin, I'd reply that I'm not familiar with his presidency, but I knew he had a wry sense of humor. Yes, I had heard of Calvin Coolidge, but had no knowledge of John Calvin, or of Calvin Klein jeans or Calvin and Hobbes (the latter for good reason, since this was seven years before that comic started).

Two events that occurred in a day or two which introduced me to the subject. First, one of my professors teaching Old Testament Survey commented about a book and said it was a little too Calvinistic for the students. Shortly afterwards, one of my fellow students  said the teacher had no right to say that, and he handed me a booklet with the five points of Calvinism and the five points of Arminianism. (A little history - the Arminians came up with their points first, and the Calvinists' points were in response.) This friend, Tom Cousins, mentioned most of the college teachers were four point Calvinists, disagreeing with the concept of Limited Atonement. I'll tell you about my reaction in the next installment.

At this point, I'll ask you to fasten your seat belts, because this paragraph will travel from talking with my fellow student on a fall 1978 afternoon in Phoenix to mornings in Indianapolis in the late '90's. Here are the few developments in that theological tussle:

• In spring/summer '79, I learned Evie's song "Say I Do" contained some Calvinistic theology in it ("I guess Jesus didn't die for you.")
• In fall '79, I read the chapter on Calvin in Fox's Book Of Martyrs, which didn't deal much with the theology.
• During Christmas break, '80/'81, I spent part of the holiday with some friends whose father was a pastor who did not agree with Calvinism, saying Jesus didn't pick some to rescue while letting others drown.
• In Church History I in the fall of '85, I learned what Pelagianism was and thought it was similar to Arminianism. I also learned about Gnostic theology, and had the opinion that the "sparks of divinity" and dual pre-destination resembled Calvinism. Okay, please drop the stones - just my opinion back then.
• Same semester, another professor told us that he considered himself a four-and-a-half point Calvinist. I forgot what word he used to imply what was limited rather than atonement.
  
• In '95, I read a pamphlet about Calvinism from Calvary Chapel (I'm guessing it's written by Chuck Smith, but I'm not sure). One thing is the author thought the "u" in the TULIP acronym stood for "Unmerited Favor" instead of "Unconditional Election." (At that time, I would have made the same mistake without having read that pamphlet.)

I'll deal with the last 27 years in Indianapolis and how my views developed in the next two installments, but I'll give you a quick summary of my knowledge of this issue at that time:

1. I had no idea how Calvinistic most of my pastors at this point were - none dealt with the subject (or if they did, it went over my head). I did attend a couple of churches in predominately Arminian denominations, but even there it wasn't a major issue.
   
2. Due to a three year break from college and the revamping of the curriculum, I managed to escape college without taking either Romans or Soteriology (under the title "Doctrine of Salvation and the Church before I left and "Theology III" which also dealt with man, sin, and angels after I returned). As mentioned above, I took Church History I, which was pre-Reformation, but I didn't take the second semester.
3. Yes, this was the age before the internet, but I never heard anybody imply this was more than a family squabble. My belief was then (and still is) that both camps were true Christians.

It's at this point where I got introduced to this Civil Holy War.