As those who know me or read this blog—all 3 of you!—know, Calvinism is something that I have wrestled with for several years. My position at this point is one that I call "tensionism," where I see both God's providence and mankind's responsibility as being in tension—but not contradiction—with one another. In other words, I see the tension here similar to how I see the Trinity. There is mystery here, there is tension here, but there is no contradiction. Hopefully I can follow these thoughts up later with another post.
My purpose in this post today might be somewhat controversial. I am writing as someone who has engaged with, and been a part of, the modern non-Calvinist movement for the past few years. I am writing as someone who appreciates many of the voices involved and as someone who thinks we need both Calvinist and non-Calvinist voices in theology to help us maintain a healthy balance. But I have seen some trends in contemporary non-Calvinism that concern me. I will not be talking here about those on the fringes, such as those who call Calvinists "demon-possessed" or any similar such foolishness. Rather, I will be addressing the mainstream of non-Calvinists. For the purposes of this post, I have identified 5 problematic tendencies, some of which I can speak to with more confidence than others, but all of which call for caution.
First, I am concerned about the move towards Pelagian theology. Now, I want to be careful here. I do not think classical Arminianism is in anyway pelagian or semi-pelagian. Nor do I think most of the scholarly non-Calvinists in organizations such as the SBC are pelagian or semi-pelagian. However, I have read statements that unfortunately do border on such a problematic theology. I don't use that label to demonize someone, but simply as a shorthand to represent a belief system. Such a view of mankind is unbiblical and should be rejected. Now many non-Calvinists would never go this far—certainly no classical Arminian would. But the view is out there and it's not necessarily obscure.
Second, I am concerned about the rise of open theism. Open theism as it is defined today has been around for a couple of decades or so, although its roots go back further into older heresies. Open theism teaches that God does not know the future free decisions of creatures, either because they do not exist for him to know or because he limits his foreknowledge. Such an understanding is contrary to orthodoxy and, more importantly, to Scripture. It is an aberrant doctrine that we should flee from. Many good books have been written responding to open theism, but I'll recommend one in particular: Millard Erickson's What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?* If the choice comes down to hard-line 5 point Calvinism or open theism, I'll take Calvinism every day of the week and twice on the Sabbath.
Third, I am troubled by the willingness to platform problematic teachers just because they are non-Calvinists. I have seen non-Calvinists whom I respect give a voice to open theists and pelagians simply because they agree on non-Calvinism. Brothers and sisters, we must have higher standards than that! Calvinists have lately been guilty of the same thing, in their case associating with heretics simply because they agree politically. But let's do better! We are—or should be!—far closer to our Calvinist brothers and sisters than to heretics or the heterodox! Let's unite over the essentials and not forget that Calvinism is not an essential doctrine, regardless of one's opinion on it!
Fourth, I fret over the division caused by non-Calvinists. Folks, Calvinists do not have exclusive rights to causing division among Christians. Some non-Calvinists have become so vitriolic and passionate in their opposition to Calvinism that they end up dividing over the same doctrines they lament the Calvinists dividing over. We need to have unity in the essentials! Let's critique one another, but let's do so with a view to unity. We must oppose heresy, as I mentioned above, but we should have unity around essential orthodoxy. And please, let's stop both attacking the person who holds a different view, and let's stop misrepresenting what others believe.
Fifth and finally, I am troubled by non-Calvinists embracing the New Perspective on Paul. Now I want to say at the outset that I am in no way an expert on the NPP. But from what I know, it causes me some serious concerns. I do not believe it is inherently heretical, but I do believe it is problematic. (Again, I am open to clarification on this issue, as the discussions are quite complex and it is quite possible I am mistaken at points). I do not think non-Calvinism needs to associate with this movement and, at this point, I believe it would be healthier if it did not.
These are just a few of my concerns about the current trajectory of non-Calvinism. Once again, my exhortation to all of us is to get in the Word and build our doctrine from there.
Grace and peace,
Curtis
*https://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Know-When-Foreknowledge-ebook/dp/B002SW8Y5Q/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=what+does+god+know+and+when+does+he+know+it&qid=1672871132&sprefix=what+does+God+know+and+%2Caps%2C748&sr=8-1
