Calvinism
An Open Letter To Calvinist Friends
I'm no theologian but I've done a bit of hobby writing on the Calvinism-Arminian debate so I get lots of letters. Most of them are
from "Black Coffee Calvinists" who copy and paste their 89 slam-dunk
proof texts for Calvinism into their Email expecting me to read them and
instantaneously repent of my Arminian error and
embrace true orthodoxy (i.e. Calvinism). I get tired of these letters. They
seldom are open to dialogue but are more interesting in lobbin
Dear Calvinist friend,
I truly thank you for holding down the "right end" of our united
front as the
1. You and I agree on most everything.
You and I are in 90% agreement, maybe even 99% agreement on orthodox doctrine. The Arminian view is not really a complete theological ecosystem I can lay out neatly as a complex alternative theological system to yours. Rather, Arminianism is an objection to Calvinism. As you know, that’s where the TULIP came from—not from Calvin himself, but from Arminians—these were the five elements of Calvin’s doctrine to which we object. Most everything else we agree on. So when I claim to be "Arminian" I am really saying I am an a not-quite-Calvinist. I’m saying, "I agree with Calvin on almost everything—except these five TULIP notions. Thus, I am a "reformed Calvinist"—I buy almost everything Augustine and Calvin said—except these five points where I object. This is why one of the most well-known Arminians, John Wesley claimed he was only a "hair’s breadth" from Calvin. Take the Apostle’s Creed, for instance. Is there any disagreement we have here? Or the Nicene Creed for that matter—any disagreement? Nope. You and I and the Roman Catholic church all come out pretty much the same place on orthodox doctrine. We agree. So, I must say right off the bat that I agree with you on almost everything.
2. Quit making me feel like an unbeliever.
Since my position is not really a parallel position but some objections of your position, when we argue you keep making me feel like an unbeliever—an unbeliever in your five points. Sometimes you assault me as if I am an unregenerate guy that needs converted. I hope you don’t witness to real unbelievers this way—assaulting a person with your memorized verses is no way to get them to convert—to Christ or Calvinism. We can have a frank discussion, but quit talking down to me. Sure I seem like a skeptic to you—I am, I just don’t buy five of your 1000 points of "orthodoxy." I’m happy to have a sensible discussion if you’ll quit treating me as a "prospect" or a person with sub-orthodox beliefs. So, back off! Quit talking down to me and be a bit more humble!
3. Sorry I don’t do the proof-text thing.
I appreciate your desire to be Biblical and root your doctrine in Scripture. But, I just don’t buy your beloved proof-texting method. I get lists of verses all the time from Calvinists that are supposed to "settle the issue" for me. They send me cut and paste verses that have been wrenched out of their Biblical and cultural (and even theological) first century context as if reading the list would at once cause me to fall to my knees and immediately repent of my Arminianism. But it doesn’t work for me. I can proof text my way through the Bible and prove all kinds of crazy stuff—that’s how we got a David Koresh. A hermeneutic that hop scotches all over the Bible to construct an elaborate system of thought from snippets just doesn’t fly with me. Arminians can do that too, but we don’t. (OK a few have, but they’ve done so poorly). We are more likely to think through our doctrine from a "Total Bible approach" which means we go upstream from the proof texts to things like a "character of God hermeneutic." And we are more likely to construct our thinking based on the essential definition of God’s relationship with humans—which we see as not primarily legal but a bilateral relationship between two beings.
You know what you sometimes remind me of? Those "end times folk" with all their complicated charts and systems. They’ve got it all figured out. They’ve got an eschatological God-in-a-box. They have every obscure passage of Scripture already figured out and worked into their "spreadsheet approach" to Scripture. They claim to be Scriptural but what they really have done is undermined the Scriptures by placing their own system over it. That’s what some of my Calvinists friend remind me of. I just don‘t think it is that neat. And if it is that neat, I don’t think we can comprehend that neatness—"these are the things of God."
So your tidy proof-text arguments don’t get far with me—we’re just not on the same wavelength. You fire verses my way and I return a whole-Bible or character-of-God argument. Our arguments are like ships passing in the night. You say I am not biblical. I say you are too narrow in your interpretation of Scripture. Your proof-texts work only to convince you of what you are already convinced. They do not convince me.
4. OK, OK, the apostle Paul does seem Calvinist.
I will grant you that. Paul seems to have been a Calvinist (out of season of
course). In fact, maybe there were even "denominations" of sort in
the first century church. Not denominations as we know them, but certainly
various doctrinal strains. At least there is a "
5. Perhaps we are both wrong.
Since it seems that both strains are in the Scriptures (and through
history) maybe neither of us understands these thing right.
How about that? Will you agree that your position may not be right? I will. Will
you agree with me that we see through the glass darkly now and that perhaps,
just perhaps our human theological systems are flawed and imperfect? That our systems may be human-created theological towers of
6. Which brings me to quantum physics.
If you are a good Calvinist you believe that all truth is God’s truth—there is no division between the secular and sacred, between revealed truth and Revealed Truth. OK, lets talk about quantum physics a while instead of your favorite proof texts. Lets explore the advance of science beyond Newtonian physics to quantum physics. Lets talk about the theological implications of the fact that an effect in the past can have a cause in the future. Lets talk together about how both our positions have Newtonian assumptions of time behind them--thus when we debate predestination we are seeing everything as lineal. How about joining me in exploring the theological implications of the latest discoveries of quantum physics. Will you? Or is the risk to our giant theological house of dominoes too great? I’m willing to explore these findings together with you to imagine a "third way" if you are. Are you willing to lay down your proof-text gun and join me in such a discussion? Are you willing to read up on quantum physics instead of memorizing more proof texts to fire at me?
7. Lets use reason, philosophy and theology too, OK?
Tossing our favorite proof texts back and forth really doesn’t get us anywhere. I am more interested in talking about philosophy and theology in a reasonable way. I know you don’t like that, you’d rather say "But, I’m Biblical" (implying that I’m not) but let's engage in a discussion on these higher levels. Let’s admit that our proof-text lists produce nothing more than a draw (given our own tinted glasses through which we read them). So lets talk about God’s nature, and His character. Let’s talk about natural revelation and have a good discussion on the justice, mercy and holiness of God. Let's extract our theology out of what we know of God, not just our two favorite lists of proof texts. I’m afraid that most of this discussion has been in knee deep water of favorite verses. Let’s go out into the deeper waters and talk of deeper things. Or will you complain that we are "leaving the Bible behind?"
8. And, one more thing: I wish you’d quit overlooking the church fathers.
I
know I know… you prefer to consider "serious thought" as having begun
with Augustine and everything in the few hundred years before was lightweight
and trivial. In your theological basketball game the Apostle Paul tosses the
ball in to Augustine who takes a long pass to Calvin who shoots from mid-court.
But don’t forget the church fathers in the first few hundred years of the
church’s history. You may dismiss them as featherweights—I don’t. Face it, we
choose which writers in history will be the "greats." You select
Augustine and dismiss like Ignatius, Clement, or Irenaeus
and others. I like some of those first few century fathers and don’t think they
were as far off as you do.
OK OK I know I didn’t get anywhere with you. This letter was largely wasted. It probably will just send you scrambling to get more powerful proof texts. But I wrote the letter anyway. It gave me something to do this rainy Tuesday afternoon. I don’t really care if you hold to a Calvinist position. In fact I have encouraged you to "hold down the right end of our line." Why can’t you let me hold down the left? Why do you feel compelled to convert me? I’m happy to engage you on the larger issue and with ground rules that allow for my approach as well as yours. But like those people always knocking on my front door who insist that the argument be framed within their own context, I just can’t debate a person who won’t meet me in the middle.
So go ahead and be a Calvinist—I think you are a fine Christian. Your theological strain is "in the family" of solid Christian orthodoxy. Just let my strain be in the family too. Because it just could be… it could be… that neither you nor I are right—there may be a new way to understand these matters of depravity, election, atonement, grace and security. But we'll have to do that together in true dialogue, not by launching our proof-text cruise missiles from a distance.
So what do you think?
To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu
November, 2001. Revision suggestions
invited. May be duplicated for free distribution provided
these lines are included.
Other "Thinking Drafts" and
writing by
