I have a theory sometimes there is a logical inconsistency in our theology. Often we place self-imposed "detours" around the logical conclusion(s) of our theology. Allow me to give two examples:
"Max" is Calvinist. He says all the right things about the sovereignty of God. He knows all the right verses and can quote the Synods of Dort and the London Baptist Confession of 1689 in his sleep. Yet Max views God's election and predestination as entrance into a special club. He does not believe in sharing his faith. He belongs to a church that has no outreach in the community. The gospel is never heard either from his mouth or from anyone in his church. Max believes that God will save the elect on His own and it is not his job to interfere. Max is a "hyper-Calvinist." His view is unbiblical.
"Ted" is Arminian. He goes to a vibrant soul-winning church that never ceases to share their faith in Christ. It seems that every weekend their is some soul-winning activity taking place. In fact the emphasis of Ted and his church is that of preaching the gospel to both the saved and unsaved. Many of the same people go up at the weekly altar calls. Ted's church teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation. He also believes it is possible to fall from grace and lose your salvation. Ted's view is also unbiblical.
Both of these views are the caricatures that are created of hyper-Calvinism and full Arminianism. The Calvinist's that post in here would disavow their caricature and so would the Arminian's. We would profess to operate to the left of these extreme positions. But here is my question:
Isn't that logically inconsistent?
If so, why? If not, why?
The logical conclusion of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. The logical conclusion of Arminianism is historical Arminianism. (Note: Historical Arminianism would be consistent with the beliefs held by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt. For a summary of what they believed click HERE). The truth is that there are few who would hold to either view today. IMHO we have sometimes stopped short of crossing the line into the more extreme views of our theologies by creating artifical detours or barricades. To make my point here are two more examples:
"Penny" is a modern day Arminian. She believes that God is sovereign but He will not force His will on anyone. Penny holds to the "foreknowledge view", that God looked down the corridor of time and elected those whom He knew whould choose Him. God does, indeed, bring the person to the lake but they have to decide to drink. She believes that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that He desires all to be saved, although not all will. She rejects the teaching of the Remonstrants on the issue of falling from grace. "Once saved, always saved" is her cry.
"Sally" is a Calvinist. She believes that the Reformation got it right and that God has chosen His elect before the foundation of the earth. Sally believes the elect are chosen by God after the counsel of His own will and that all who are chosen will come to faith in Christ. The universal call of salvation goes out to all, and should be preached to all, but only the elect will respond. Since God has chosen the foolishness of preaching as the means of calling the elect she has a fervent heart for evangelism. She agrees with Penny that, "Once saved, always saved."
As you can see in these two examples both Penny and Sally do not cross over to the extreme sides of Arminianism or Calvinism. One of two things has happened. 1. They have created boundaries that keep them from "crossing over" to their theology's extreme view. 2. They have solid biblical rationale that keeps them from "crossing over."
Why would someone create those detours or boundaries? Well for starters, some just don't know their theology. They have been taught a certain way but they honestly don't know how to defend it. Both sides "pass off" their doctrine as irrefutable fact and many (if not most) people in the pews take it for gospel. These people sound like broken records...constantly saying the same thing over and over again. They know a few passages but that is it. They cannot defend what they believe. Both sides have them.
How about the other group? These are the ones who have studied the scriptures. They have prayed and researched. They have invested "sweat equity" into their theology. When pressed about what they believe they are able to defend it biblically. They do not pull random passages out of thin air. They know what it means to remain in context. This group is not guilty of logical inconsistency (so far as their approach and commitment to uncover the truth). Both sides have some of these folks, but they are the minority in the church today.
It is amazing that most of us have not gone to the extremes of our theology. My only question is: have you not gone extreme because you do know what you believe or because you don't know what you believe?
[ April 28, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: doulous ]
"Max" is Calvinist. He says all the right things about the sovereignty of God. He knows all the right verses and can quote the Synods of Dort and the London Baptist Confession of 1689 in his sleep. Yet Max views God's election and predestination as entrance into a special club. He does not believe in sharing his faith. He belongs to a church that has no outreach in the community. The gospel is never heard either from his mouth or from anyone in his church. Max believes that God will save the elect on His own and it is not his job to interfere. Max is a "hyper-Calvinist." His view is unbiblical.
"Ted" is Arminian. He goes to a vibrant soul-winning church that never ceases to share their faith in Christ. It seems that every weekend their is some soul-winning activity taking place. In fact the emphasis of Ted and his church is that of preaching the gospel to both the saved and unsaved. Many of the same people go up at the weekly altar calls. Ted's church teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation. He also believes it is possible to fall from grace and lose your salvation. Ted's view is also unbiblical.
Both of these views are the caricatures that are created of hyper-Calvinism and full Arminianism. The Calvinist's that post in here would disavow their caricature and so would the Arminian's. We would profess to operate to the left of these extreme positions. But here is my question:
Isn't that logically inconsistent?
If so, why? If not, why?
The logical conclusion of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. The logical conclusion of Arminianism is historical Arminianism. (Note: Historical Arminianism would be consistent with the beliefs held by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt. For a summary of what they believed click HERE). The truth is that there are few who would hold to either view today. IMHO we have sometimes stopped short of crossing the line into the more extreme views of our theologies by creating artifical detours or barricades. To make my point here are two more examples:
"Penny" is a modern day Arminian. She believes that God is sovereign but He will not force His will on anyone. Penny holds to the "foreknowledge view", that God looked down the corridor of time and elected those whom He knew whould choose Him. God does, indeed, bring the person to the lake but they have to decide to drink. She believes that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that He desires all to be saved, although not all will. She rejects the teaching of the Remonstrants on the issue of falling from grace. "Once saved, always saved" is her cry.
"Sally" is a Calvinist. She believes that the Reformation got it right and that God has chosen His elect before the foundation of the earth. Sally believes the elect are chosen by God after the counsel of His own will and that all who are chosen will come to faith in Christ. The universal call of salvation goes out to all, and should be preached to all, but only the elect will respond. Since God has chosen the foolishness of preaching as the means of calling the elect she has a fervent heart for evangelism. She agrees with Penny that, "Once saved, always saved."
As you can see in these two examples both Penny and Sally do not cross over to the extreme sides of Arminianism or Calvinism. One of two things has happened. 1. They have created boundaries that keep them from "crossing over" to their theology's extreme view. 2. They have solid biblical rationale that keeps them from "crossing over."
Why would someone create those detours or boundaries? Well for starters, some just don't know their theology. They have been taught a certain way but they honestly don't know how to defend it. Both sides "pass off" their doctrine as irrefutable fact and many (if not most) people in the pews take it for gospel. These people sound like broken records...constantly saying the same thing over and over again. They know a few passages but that is it. They cannot defend what they believe. Both sides have them.
How about the other group? These are the ones who have studied the scriptures. They have prayed and researched. They have invested "sweat equity" into their theology. When pressed about what they believe they are able to defend it biblically. They do not pull random passages out of thin air. They know what it means to remain in context. This group is not guilty of logical inconsistency (so far as their approach and commitment to uncover the truth). Both sides have some of these folks, but they are the minority in the church today.
It is amazing that most of us have not gone to the extremes of our theology. My only question is: have you not gone extreme because you do know what you believe or because you don't know what you believe?
[ April 28, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: doulous ]
