Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Is There an Echo in Here?

One of the biggest problems in theological discussion is the straw-man fallacy. This fallacy is when someone takes a caricature of their opponent's position and attacks that caricature rather than their opponent's actual position. It's hard to find theological discussion today that doesn't engage in this wrong-headed and unchristian logical error. 

    Calvinists are often fond of accusing their opponents of straw-manning their position. And many times, said Calvinists are right. Many people misrepresent what Calvinists believe and such misrepresentation needs to stop. Calvinists do not believe in a monstrous god who plays people like puppets. They do not (for the most part) believe that God actively keeps people from believing. So don't say that they do! 

    But Calvinists are often just as guilty of misrepresenting Arminians. I'm not speaking just of keyboard warrior Calvinists, but of well-known, reputable Calvinist teachers. For example, they often teach that Arminians believe they can work up faith on their own without help from God. No true Arminian believes any such thing. We believe that faith is a gift of God as surely as the Calvinists do. The question is not if faith is a gift but if said gift is resistible or not. That's the difference in the Calvinist and Arminian views. 

    Furthermore, despite what Calvinists often argue, Paul does not see faith as a work. So, by saying that we must "exercise" faith in Christ to be saved is not saying that we must be saved by works! Many Scriptures could be cited here, but see Romans 4:5, for example: "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (NKJV). Ephesians 2:8–9 shows clearly that faith is both a gift of God and not a work. 

    Now at this point, many Calvinists will claim that I do not understand the point they're making because, under Arminianism, faith is still something you "do." I can grant that, but Calvinism does not escape this problem. Because, under Calvinism, God does not do the believing for you. It is still "your faith." It might be irresistible, but it is still something you "do." So, if faith is a work under Arminianism, it is also a work under Calvinism.

    Furthermore, please don't just quote Calvinist (or Arminian) talking points. Go to the Scripture and exegete it! The Word of God is the common ground upon which this discussion must take place if any edification is to be had from it. 

    I close with a plea to those on both sides: please do not insulate yourself in an echo chamber. Read scholars from the other side. When I was a Calvinist I pretty much only read and listened to other Calvinists. I know many Calvinists are the same. I also know many non-Calvinists avoid listening to and reading Calvinists like the plague. But these unchristian representations will continue until we get out of our echo chambers and read those who disagree! You might not agree with the other side, and that's fine, but you should at least know what they actually believe. Trust me, you will be a better Calvinist or Arminian if you leave the echo chamber. Study to show yourself approved and let iron sharpen iron. 

soli Deo gloria 

3 comments:

  1. Curtis, do you self-identify (Ha, ha, modern woke joke!) as an Arminian? I'm still partial to the missionary movt/fundamentalist view of divine mystery, while recognizing that molinism could be used as a philosophical explanation of said mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have started pretty consistently referring to myself as a "tensionist." I think there is mystery/tension in how all these concepts work together in Scripture and I'm ok with that. Now I want to be clear that tension does not mean contradiction. I don't think God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are in contradiction with each other, but I do think there is mystery and tension here. This subject isn't the only time tension arises in Scripture. Think of the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction by any means, but there is mystery there.
      I like Molinism. I think it is a plausible account of how these things come together. But I cannot dogmatically claim to be a Molinist because at its core it's a philosophical grid (as is determinism, of course).

      Delete
  2. I like that alot. I think it's very close (or identical) to what I call mystery; oh, I even called it "tension"!

    I'm with you on this. If we want unity in the church--and thus be a witness of God's love to the world--we have to be very careful not to be dogmatic when we theorize past or outside of Scripture.

    Thanks Curtis.

    ReplyDelete