Showing posts with label Arminianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arminianism. Show all posts

Friday, November 04, 2011

Around the Horn

At first base, the Gospel Coalition has a good article today about Calvinism and the gospel. I warn you, however, don’t read it. It was ruin all your arguments against Calvinism.

I am convinced that most people reject Calvinism, not because of overwhelming biblical arguments, but because (1) they listen to what the opponents of Calvinism say about Calvinism (they are usually wrong), and (2) they watch how Calvinists live (which isn’t all that different than how Arminians non-Calvinists live. We both tend towards disobedience.). Neither is a particularly good way to learn about Calvinism. If someone asks me how they should learn about Calvinism and the gospel, I say just read the Bible. It has all you need to know.
 
At second base, speaking of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, one of the common refrains from people is “I am neither.” A couple of interesting articles by admitted Arminian Roger Olson dispels that notion. He says,
I wish the Baptist Arminians would quit running from the word.  Frank Page claims he’s neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.  I heard that all the time among Baptists in the South especially.  And the only reason for it is a wrong impression of what it means to be Arminian.  As I have demonstrated in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, one can be fully and authentically Arminian and believe in inamissable grace (so-called “eternal security”).
Here’s an self-professed Arminian saying, “You believe what I do.” So quit running from the label. It won’t change what you are.
 
Rounding third base, Todd Rhoades posts this letter on church discipline. He calls it a nightmare and says it is a tad bit off edge, though he doesn’t say why. Perhaps it is because, as the first commenter says, this church is saying that the man is not a Christian. I wouldn’t say a person isn’t a Christian. I would say, and have said, that a person has no reason to have assurance that he or she is one so long as they continue in this pattern of unrepentant sin. After all, isn’t that what church discipline is? Church discipline is saying that a person is not acting like a Christian and in fact, those whom he covenanted with have no valid reason to consider him as a Christian. Men with more heft than me, like Mark Dever and Dave Doran, have said essentially the same thing. Perhaps it is a wording thing. The church is for people who carry the marks of Christianity to at least some degree in their lives. No one expects you to be perfect. As I often say, I have no problem with people who struggle. It’s the people who don’t struggle that I worry about.
 
The home run today is the new 9 Marks E Journal on Church Revitalization. I am interested in this since I have lived this life for about thirteen years. As I told someone recently, thirteen years ago I had no real direction or idea about what I was getting into. I didn’t know people who had done it. I wasn’t familiar with books or e-journals on it. I am not even sure I recognized how great the problem was. I sure didn’t know what to do. I had the “Field of Dreams” approach to church. If you preach it, they will come. They didn’t. So I have learned a lot on the fly, and perhaps some day I will write my own thoughts about it here at Stuff Out Loud. But for now I will read this with interest.
 
And today, a curtain call for John Acuff at Stuff Christians Like who reminds us that “you don’t need a plane ticket to be distant from your family.”

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Calvinism and Arminianism for Seekers

Who says Willow Creek is all fluff and cotton candy?

Bill Hybels, in the weekend services at Willow Creek on October 17-18, took on Ephesians 1 and the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. This is an interesting topic for a seeker-driven church, but hard to avoid if you are going to preach from Ephesians 1. In fact, Willow is doing a series on Ephesians, and I imagine they concluded it would look pretty funny to skip chapter 1.

So what does he say? Here’s a quick summary, without direct transcriptions, though some are pretty close.

Hybels’ explanations are pretty simplistic (which is okay, particularly for his audience), though I don’t think they are as clear as they could be on either side. It is likely that many on both sides would disagree with the characterization he gives. For this reason (among others), I would not recommend this talk to those who do not know much about the issues. I think it is not clear enough to be helpful.

At one point, he sounds very much like he is arguing for corporate election (that we are chosen by being part of a group that is chosen), but he seems to stop short of actually affirming this.

He ultimately concludes that there is some “both/and” using the example of a business recruiting employers. A startup might put out a general call for applicants, and accept those, but when they see that particular positions of need that aren’t being met through the process, they do some direct recruiting to recruit individuals to fill those positions. He uses the example of Paul on the Damascus road for this.

He says that he has never seen anyone kept out of the kingdom because they weren’t elect. “Honest seekers who want to join the family of God end up in the family of God.” Of course, virtually every Calvinist would agree with this, as well as Arminians (or the “biblicists”). In other words, no one except the most radical hardcore Calvinists would disagree. What he does not interact with is why “honest seekers” are “honest seekers.”

He ends with his personal testimony of being chosen mid-step while walking across a camp in Wisconsin. This is key part of his conclusion that God does choose people. Here, he explicitly speaks of cooperating with the work of God in our lives, which is often called “synergism” (as opposed to monergism).

He ultimately concludes that when we look back we can see the work of God around us. However, he stops short of being clear that the work of God is also going on within us.

My conclusion on this message: Hybels has an intentional ambiguity on the details. He says, “I worship as a Calvinist. I spread my faith out in the world as an Arminian. … It’s my job to do what Jesus did. … Leave the results up to God” (quotes are very close, drawn from a paragraph near the end).

I am not sure what it means to evangelize like an Arminian, unless it means assuring people that their eternal destiny is entirely up to them. I have never quite understood how an Arminian evangelizes different than a Calvinist. Regardless of your position on this matter, the gospel is the same and all must repent and believe for salvation.

I think Hybels’ spent too little time in the text itself though he clearly referenced many biblical passages and ideas.

I personally am not troubled by his position, though it’s not mine. While I affirm one of the options, I do not get bent out of shape when people disagree with me.

I challenged again by Hybels’ heartbeat to reach people. I appreciate his passion to see people come to know God through Jesus.

(I remind you that while I don’t have a full disclaimer here, I am troubled by many things that Hybels’ does in order to try to see people come to know God through Jesus.)

As an added bonus, you can view Willow Creek’s Membership Study Guide.