Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, and the Fall; A Fallen Hermeneutic
This post is strictly theological in nature, without overt points regarding culture.
A Brief History
Throughout the course of history, one doctrine that has come into question in circles is the doctrine of “inherited sin,” or “original sin.” The most memorable case was in the 5th century with Pelagius, who outright denied the doctrine in its entirety. Pelagius taught that man did not inherit Adam’s default sinful nature, but inherited temptation, and had to live and walk accordingly. The ultimate implication of this belief was that man, in his semi/non-Fallen state, had the capacity and capability to contribute his own faith and belief to Jesus’ work of redemption on the cross. Salvation was attained by man utilizing his free, non-corrupt mind and heart, and giving them over to Christ.
This drew sharp criticism from Augustine (a man who you did 
not want to draw sharp criticism from). He fought vehemently against Pelagius’ teachings, arguing that man not only has an inherited sinful nature, but that this has made him entirely corrupt, not capable of pleasing or following God. So persuasive and strong were Augustine’s arguments, the Council of Carthage adopted them as orthodox and discounted Pelagius as a heretic.
Next, Semi-Pelagianism arrives. This line of thought differs from Pelagianism in its presuppositional rejection of inherited sin. However, the practical implications are carbon-copied from its predecessor, arguing that in spite of the Fall, man is still capable of pleasing or following God, so long as he gives over his life to Christ.
Fast forward to the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others ignited the explosive movement, and Protestant Christianity was steadily progressing. A minority of thinkers, followers of the deceased leader Jacobus Arminius, were unhappy with the official doctrines of the newly established church (read: Calvinism). They submitted for review the “Five Articles of Remonstrance,” which argued for what is now called Arminianism. These five articles proposed ideas bequeathed from Semi-Pelagianism, and mirrored it upon scrutiny.
In order to review the five articles, the church assembled the Synod of Dort. The synod was composed of significantly over one hundred leaders (154) 102 leaders, gathered from across Europe, even including a small number of non-Christians. The agenda was to scour the scriptures in light of the views held by Arminians, and see if their views reflected the teachings of scripture. This process was not hurried, and a prolonged seven months were dedicated to this task. (EDIT: The Synod met for 154 sessions during this 7 months [not 154 members, as I had mixed up my numbers].)
The result was that the Synod was not able to reconcile the teachings of the Arminians with the Bible. As a result, the Synod drafted up five rebuttal points against the five Arminian points, now known as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” However, as has been pointed out in the past, theologizing in a reactionary manner is not always the most appropriate; beginning with scripture would be more suitable. (As a noteworthy aside, many nominal Calvinists are “four point” Calvinists, most often struggling with Limited Atonement. Perhaps this strong consensual hesitation on this point can be attributed to this “reactive” method of developing the doctrine, and it needs to be reconsidered. On the other hand, perhaps students of Reformed theology simply need to take the study further on the subject.)
Preface
Let me preface these thoughts with an interjection. Many people insist that the soteriological debate over Calvinism/Arminianism is fruitless. To a certain degree, I think this is true. Most people, when discussing polarizing issues, simply become more polarized. However, when discussing other related issues into which these are interwoven, more productive discussion can result. There are important implications for the everyday life of the Christian that are involved with these two camps. Arminians rightly contend that Calvinism, in its unbridled form, can degenerate into a slothful fatalism. However, biblical Calvinism is irreconcilable with this, and does not encourage this type of ultimate end.
Likewise, Arminianism teaches that Christians are capable of losing their salvation. Salvation is dependent on the effort of the believer, not on the sustaining work of God. This has vast, dangerous implications for everyday life. It is noteworthy that not all Arminians hold to this point.
As another foreword, I do not intend for this to become a polarizing, Calvinism/Arminianism debate. To deal this directly with the issue will not yield fruitful discussion. Rather, my intended audience are those who already subscribe to the Reformed tradition, or open-minded Arminians who are interested in these thoughts.
An Hypothesis
J. I. Packer made the point that Calvinism is not so much five points, but one thesis expressed in five facets; the sovereignty of God, even within the innermost workings of salvation. I would likewise contend that Arminianism ultimately argues for the sovereignty of man, which is a fundamental point for my further developments.
Here are my thoughts in a progressive, bulleted format.
1) In the Fall of man, sin tainted humanity to its very essence and core. Every facet and element of man was tarnished by the effects of sin. This includes not only the morality of man, with a new disposition toward evil rather than good, but also in the rationale of man; man does not have the power to rationalize to the truth. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). One of the by-products of sin is self-focused, man-centred thought- in contrast to God-centered and God-focused thought, as intended in creation.
2) Even in the New Testament era, education was highly esteemed and elevated. Greek education found its beginning and end in focusing on man, whilst Hebrew education found its source and fulfillment in God (Marvin Wilson, “The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith,” p.291). The entirety of Western civilization is built on the foundations of the Greeks, finding its roots in Hellenistic philosophy, thought, and society. This is manifested in modern period movements such as Rationalism, Humanism, Naturalism, and Darwinism.
3) In biblical study and theologizing, man applies this same human rationale to the study of the scriptures. This fallen, man-centered worldview is the lens through which man applies himself to God’s Word. Without careful deliberation, this unintentionally develops into a man-centred, man-focused theology, whereby man is the fulcrum and crux of salvation.
4) Therefore, Arminianism is the fruit of a Fallen hermeneutic and man-centered worldview. It selfishly argues for the sovereignty of man, over and against the sovereignty of God. This can be seen by each of the Five Points of Remonstrance, summarized as the inverse of Calvinism’s “T.U.L.I.P.”
***
I realize that this isn’t a popular topic of discussion, and even less popular will be this assertion. There is a degree of credibility to a dialectical approach, whereby one upholds simultaneously the paradoxical truths of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. While this has its attractiveness, and is always at least a possibility, Christian exegesis all the way back through Luther to Augustine has yielded the former proposition; that God is sovereign, and salvation is an undeserved gift of grace.
Arminianism is a result of the Fall, and is an interpretive lens applied to scripture that is unintentionally man-focused. This develops into a man-centered soteriology that is ultimately outside of the holistic picture of scripture.
-ACR
ooh ek!! let me put my cards on the table then. Not having studied in depth Arminius or Pelagius but having studied the early Church fathers and the Scriptures, I have come to the conclsion that @calvinism; as popularly described is not a natural fit for all the biblical material. Much of what I have come to believe would perhaps be ‘Pelagian’ or even ‘arminian’. Augustine who paradoxically is the ‘father’ of Roman Catholic and ‘reformed’ theology did I believe get it wrong big time and produced a theological shadow which has coloured so much of what we do and think.
I cannot contribute more at this point but will return to the blog in a day or so. I probably would reject 4 or even all 5 of the TULIP points….. although I just think I’ve opened a can of worms!!!
Quote from article above - “Next, Semi-Pelagianism arrives. This line of thought differs from Pelagianism in its presuppositional rejection of inherited sin. However, the practical implications are carbon-copied from its predecessor, arguing that in spite of the Fall, man is still capable of pleasing or following God, so long as he gives over his life to Christ.”
I don’t think a semi-Palagianist or Arminiast would say that man is “capable of pleasing God” in and of himself as a sinner before coming into Christ. I think that is what you meant by ending the sentence with “so long as he gives over his life to Christ”.
In Christ, we do please God, don’t we? Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God”. So, the opposite would be true right? - “with faith it IS possible to please God”.
Anyways, my point is that I would understand any semi-Palagianist (or Arminiast) to say that man cannot truly please God as an unregenerate sinner. What I believe they would argue is that humanity is not so corrupt as to not be able to turn to God ourselves in faith. It is our faith that brings repentance and leads God, if you will, to co-operate in regenerating our hearts.
This would be in contrast to the first point of Calvanism (T = total depravity), which teaches humanity is corrupt to the point of not being able to please God with our own deeds OR come to Him in ourselves and stir about our own faith. Rather faith is a gift of God by His Spirit in the first place, which leads to a softening of the heart, belief in Christ, and repentance from sin. This is also distinct from utter depravity, which a hyper-Calvanist would tend to hold, which teaches that humanity is so corrupt that we cannot do anything “good” and “helpful” and “charitable” at all; everything is done with an evil intent, from being a good student by doing our assignments, to giving to a charity, to intimacy with our spouse. All of these things are not done from a “good” heart but from a selfish heart.
Personally, I have always leaned towards a more reformed theology in most of my own beliefs. Systematic theology can be harmful by boxing everything in. But it can be helpful for finite minds to somewhat understand many things that are not fully understandable.
I had a professor of soteriology that always pointed to the fact that there are 3 main mystery doctrines in Christendom:
1) The Trinity - how God can be one in essence but also three in person at the same time. We cannot fully grasp this.
2) The Incarnation - how God can become a man; how Jesus can be both fully man and fully God. Scripture teaches both. We cannot fully grasp this.
3) God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility - Scripture teaches both - God is sovereign over all things (John Piper has some good thoughts in Desiring God and The Pleasure of God) and man is responsible for every single choice. We cannot fully grasp their intertwining.
Of course, I would lean towards man’s responsibility (though it is true) does somehow ultimately fit into and come under God’s authority and rule and sovereignty.
You are right to recognize the division this debate has caused. I’ve seen things firsthand, and heard about so much more. Personally, I stopped even focusing on these doctrines when I found out a greater teaching to speak of - the kingdom of God. (And I don’t say this piously, just words about my own journey). Most people don’t understand the foundations about the kingdom rule of God and therefore get caught up in intellectually debating Calvanism, Arminianism, and everything in between.
I think it shows immaturity when there is division. I would hope we could learn to be mature and discuss these things. I do like discussing them, and will never divide over them ultimately. But, in the end, I am now much more passionate about the power of the kingdom than the power of Calvin and Arminius. :)
As someone who would consider himself more ‘Reformed’ than not (I came out as ‘very reformed’ in the Facebook quiz, but that’s beside the point), I have a few points of contention with this particular argument. Before voicing these, however, I would to applaud Chachi for making this proposal - it is always a lot easier to critique an argument than to formulate one, and that latter takes a great deal more courage. Thanks for putting your cards on the table!
First, I think we need to make a distinction between the two great themes of Scripture - creation (evidenced in the Gen. 1:26-28 [and repeated in Gen. 9] to steward the earth, fill it and create culture), and salvation (evidenced in the Great Commission mandate in Matt. 28). Many ‘reformed’ theologians would emphasise both of these equally - hence someone like Abraham Kuyper worked not only as a Christian minister, but was a politician and founded a University. The Reformed affirmation of God’s sovereignty over ‘all of life’ (cf. Kuyper) necessitates an emphasis on both the creation and salvation mandates - humans are not just disembodied spirits in a fleshy shell, but whole people. Funnily, dispensational thought would contradict this, and is more Arminian.
In regard to salvation, then, I would agree that humans can only be saved by the grace through faith. I this sense, we cannot ‘please God’ outside of salvation, or Christ’s redeeming work. In regard to creation, however, I believe firmly that even those outside of Christ can glorify and please God through their obedience (intentionally or unintentionally) to the creation mandate. Thus, the non-human creation itself, which like humanity suffers the effects of the fall and is not yet redeemed, is said to glorify God and praise him (cf. Ps. 19:1). As part of this wider creation, I believe humanity as a whole, saved or unsaved can glorify God, particularly by reflecting his own characteristics (note the close connection between the creation mandate and human identity as image-bearers of God in Gen. 1:26-28). As such, I see many human works of art - musical, written, painted etc., as bringing glory to God in fulfillment of the call to create culture, no matter whether they were created by a Christian or not. Similarly, surely responsible human behavior (care for creation, care for the poor, etc.) brings glory to God, as it reflects his own merciful nature. If this does not, then what it is the point of Christians being salt and light in society to influence people towards these good things.
You see, if we forget humanity’s part of the wider creation, and the call of the creation mandate (and their subsequent ability to please God outside of Christ), then we assert an unconscious (and unreformed) dualism between salvation and creation. As such, Christian mission, should solely be evangelism, not social action (I think we would all disagree with that). However, if we balance creation and salvation, we come to a much more holistic understanding of human life. We cannot be ’saved’ (or please God in that narrow sense) through our own work, but as created beings we can please God in a wider sense by reflecting his nature and following the creation mandate (again, intentionally or not). This does not negate the need for salvation, as what good is it if we gain the whole world, but lose out soul? But salvation does not negate the other, if we believe the Bible is a cohesive whole.
Second (shorter) point, Aaron said: “The entirety of Western civilization is built on the foundations of the Greeks, finding its roots in Hellenistic philosophy, thought, and society. This is manifested in modern period movements such as Rationalism, Humanism, Naturalism, and Darwinism.” - Many would dispute this, and suggest that much of Western civilization was founded on a Judaeo-Christian ethic which brought Greek and Hebrew together (cf. ethicist Robert Singer). It is only since the enlightenment the Greek influenced rationalism and reason have been deified (e.g. Kant). But I see your point
Then, Aaron said: “In biblical study and theologizing, man applies this same human rationale to the study of the scriptures. This fallen, man-centered worldview is the lens through which man applies himself to God’s Word. Without careful deliberation, this unintentionally develops into a man-centred, man-focused theology, whereby man is the fulcrum and crux of salvation. Therefore, Arminianism is the fruit of a Fallen hermeneutic and man-centered worldview.” Again, I think is disputable.
Arminianiasm is not the only school which uses Greek rationalism and reason (man-centred rationale, apparently) for it’s understanding. There is no doubt that Reformed theology does this too, as evidenced in all the Systematic Theology’s we read. Just because Calvinist’s assert the sovereignty of God does mean they are any more submitted to it, or have anymore of an open mind. Indeed, the widespread rejection of charismatic gifts in conservative, reformed circles (cf. Erickson, Grudem) suggests that these guys have a problem take ANYTHING out of the domain of the rational or reasonable. Furthermore, the Reformation itself - a Christian ‘enlightenment’ - has contributed a lot to the rise of rationalistic modernism over the last 400 years. And has perhaps resulted in many of our churches being somewhat stuck in a modern way of thinking. Indeed, the sense of mystery embraced in (thoroughly unreformed pre-modern) Easter Orthodoxy is perhaps a lot closer to acknowledging the sovereignty of God in practice than many Reformed churches today.
Having said all that, I would still consider myself largely Reformed in my thinking.
A few grammatical errors there - I meant Easter Orthodoxy at the end, and meant the Gen. 1:26-28 ‘mandate’ at the top.
Nevertheless, well done for putting nudity on your blog Chachi :)
I am convinced that a biblical theology must of necessity recognize the fallen nature of humanity and human inability to please God apart from Christ. This is all that T in tulip means. (By the way TULIP is not Calvin but an English latter day acronym for the teachings of Dort). Forget the title “Reformed” or “Arminian” the issue is the scripture. John Calvin, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and others spent their lives studying the Bible. We cannot dismiss any of them easily without showing our arrogance. Jacobus Arminus was far more Calvinistic than most Arminians today. He too believed in Total depravity.
Without recognizing our utter helplessness before God we are in danger of not grasping the greatness of the act of salvation. There is an element of human pride that continues to demand we be given some credit for this. We can have none before God.
Here is a short piece I am working on for those in the church here in Lansing:
“The Gospel Straight Up, No Additives”
Gods word tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” This applies to everyone everywhere in every religious circumstance. For “all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.” None of us makes it to heaven by works. Not Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Ghandi, Jeffery Dahmer, you or I, we are all sinners and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. We are all responsible for the mess that this world has become because we have all sinned. We are all participants in the selfishness of sin and lost without hope apart from Christ. As the scripture tells us “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” “None is righteous, no, not one.”
But God has not left us in despair. The Bible reveals to us that God is good - always good. That God is love, that God is just, righteous and merciful. He, in his infinite wisdom, planned salvation for us from the very beginning. The Bible tells us “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
“Whoever believes” - here we see that faith is the key for everything. We can never be saved by our good works. We have been damaged by the fall and we have damaged ourselves too much through our own sin. No sin can exist in the perfect age to come. No sin can exist in the presence of a pure and Holy God. But we have a hope, we have good news. The just can live by faith. The scripture tells us “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” And the gospel of John says “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” If we reject that justification there is no promise held out to us in the scripture.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that this good news turned history on its ear. That it was the supreme power of God. That it allowed good to triumph in the face of bad. He nearly shouted with his pen “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ!” It is the power of God. “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.” Not just any faith - not faith in some good teaching - not faith in some better fallen human - but faith in Jesus Christ, alone.
When confronted by other religions and arguments about other roads to salvation. Roads that had been tried and found lacking. The first Apostles made it clear that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Yet this did not make them look down on others, or behave superior, or try to force men and women to go beyond their own hearts. They were so filled with God’s love for this dying world that they were willing to die themselves - not as killers of infidels - but as humble servants of Christ. Laying their lives down in the same way that their own Lord, Jesus, did for the dying world. The same way he did for them and has done for us. When the Jailer who had Paul and Silas in custody saw how differently they behaved when given the chance to escape. How deeply they loved those who were persecuting them he came to them in his own crisis of faith and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.”
This is not complicated. The gospel is clear. There is no salvation apart from Christ. That salvation is open to anyone who comes. Anyone. Vain speculation about those things that are in God’s hands can only rob us of our responsibility to obey Jesus, simply, humbly and by faith. We are warned of judgement if we reject Christ, we are promised life and life more than we can imagine if we come to him. We are only asked to trust and obey. For centuries this has been handed down to us by people who have lived it and found it true.
The Bible tells us that “we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” We are saved from wrath by faith in what Christ did when he justified us on the cross. The blood of Christ set us free from sin and the life of Christ allows us to live righteous. More than that we have the chance to live lives of hope. We can bring this hope to others while doing our part to overcome evil with good. “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, . . .” We preach this simple message as the power of God until this present evil age gives way to the one in which all is in Christ.
Just as in the first century there are other competing claims about Jesus. There are those who want us to believe that God does not judge, and thus that he is not just. There are those who wish us to water down the gospel, or others who want us to add other works to it. There are those who would like us to take up worldly power to enforce it or who say it is increasingly irrelevant. But we are the heirs of those simple first Jewish followers of Jesus who believed. No matter how complicated the world gets the gospel is simple. I was damned, now I am justified, I was dead, now I am alive, I was lost, now I am found, was blind but now I see. I owe it all to Jesus Christ - alone. The son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not understand this or many other things - but I believe him, do my best to obey him and live by faith.
Sorry for the extra long reply - I was working on the article while preparing my lectures on the counter culture of the 1960’s for class today. Kind of on a roll.
“Without recognizing our utter helplessness before God we are in danger of not grasping the greatness of the act of salvation. There is an element of human pride that continues to demand we be given some credit for this. We can have none before God.”
I vehemently disagree with this.
Only kidding.
So, can the unredeemed bring any glory to God through their behaviour as created beings? Is there any possibility for good, even tainted ‘good’ (if that’s possible, which I’m not sure it is) in unredeemed humanity, given that we still bear the image of God (although that image is marred by sin)? I am not speaking here of good which merits salvation - biblically, the case is closed on this. In a soteriological sense we are all damned apart from Christ. I am speaking here of good which testifies to the good in our creator - not good which we show to God as some kind of badge of honour expecting to curry favour or earn salvific credit.
Let’s take the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. Now, in spite of the fact that the question Jesus is asked before he told this story relates to eternal life, and that Jesus clearly answered in terms of a ‘good work’ (helping the poor blighter who got beaten up), few of us would use this passage to suggest that ‘good works’ alone can ‘earn’ eternal life. Nevertheless, the work itself was good, and the implication is that it was pleasing to God. Regardless of who does it, therefore, can a good work such as this be pleasing to God, regardless of the personal motive, because it consequentially brings about a positive result, or is abstractly virtuous (’right’, ‘just’, ‘merciful’ etc.), OR is the work’s ‘goodness’, and God’s pleasure in view of it, actually dependent on the salvific status of the person who does it? Given that Jesus emphasis here is on the work itself, rather than the person who does it, I would suggest the first conclusion may fit better.
These are genuine questions. So any responses would be welcome.
And we need to get Gary Finkbeiner in on this discussion.
So, can the unredeemed bring any glory to God through their behaviour as created beings? Is there any possibility for good, even tainted ‘good’ (if that’s possible, which I’m not sure it is) in unredeemed humanity, given that we still bear the image of God (although that image is marred by sin)?
Of course - all creation brings glory to God. Total depravity merely means that all (our totality) is tainted by sin. Not that it is utterly different, or unrecognizable as God’s good creation. We are marred and need Christ to fix us - that is all. In our humanity made in the image of God we display God’s glory.
Right, so doesn’t this mean that humans can please God apart from Christ, by ‘imaging’ some of his qualities in their behavior, or is that different from glorifying him?
SORRY EVERYONE, I’M JUST A LITTLE CONFUUUUUUSSSSED!?
My clever looking picture to the right now seems ironic.
Okay, a lot of discussion has developed in my absence, so here goes…
[[deep breath]]
Quote JT: “I probably would reject 4 or even all 5 of the TULIP points….. although I just think I’ve opened a can of worms!!!”
Not a problem, just make sure we don’t start getting into the classic Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate (unless you think you have something really pertinent on it). I think most soteriological converts are Arminians converting to Calvinism, I’ve never heard of it the other way around ;-).
Quote Scott: “Anyways, my point is that I would understand any semi-Palagianist (or Arminiast) to say that man cannot truly please God as an unregenerate sinner. What I believe they would argue is that humanity is not so corrupt as to not be able to turn to God ourselves in faith. It is our faith that brings repentance and leads God, if you will, to co-operate in regenerating our hearts.”
Yes, that is what I meant. I apparently worded it poorly, but this clarifies my point I was trying to emphasize.
Quote Scott: “3) God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility - Scripture teaches both - God is sovereign over all things…and man is responsible for every single choice. We cannot fully grasp their intertwining.”
In my conclusion, I point out that this dialectical, paradoxical approach is a legitimate one. However, I think in the case of this and in point number two, while simultaneity of the two exist, I still maintain that God trumps man.
For example, in point number 2 of your post. Could Jesus sin? He was both fully man and fully God, human particularly in a non-inherited-sin manner. In his humanity, did he have the capacity to sin? Most would say yes, in order that he can be tempted as us and sympathize. However, in his deity, did he have the capacity to sin? Absolutely not. Therefore, while they are paradoxically intertwined, the deity still has sovereignty over the humanity. But Christ’s sinless life is important in the fact that he carried it out within the power and capacity of his humanity, not his trump-card of deity.
I would extend this same principle to the dialectical, paradoxical argument for point number 3. While scriptures simultaneously talk about man putting his faith in God, and scriptures talk about god electing and giving this faith and regeneration, I would argue that God still ultimately has sovereignty over humanity. I personally don’t hold this one too dogmatically, because I can see a reasonable case for it being true, but likewise I still holistically lean more to the Reformed position of God’s sovereignty. It sounds like you ultimately come to this similar position after point 3 as well.
Quote Simon: “In regard to creation, however, I believe firmly that even those outside of Christ can glorify and please God through their obedience (intentionally or unintentionally) to the creation mandate.”
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God.” To this end, man certainly can achieve this. Originally, man was meant to commune with and glorify God. I think it’s an interesting highlight to note that of the two great commissions in the OT (Gen 1:28) and NT (Mt 28), they emphasize together the sharing of the gospel “in both word and deed,” and likewise the spiritual and natural (not dualistically, but rather holistically).
I also think this is intertwined in the “General Revelation/Special Revelation” stream of thought. Justin Martyr developed the idea of the “logos spermatikos,” that elements of God’s truth and revelation are seeded in creation. It is therefore expected that unregenerate man can utilize these truths (which are inherently good, from God).
On my third point, I do not mean to assert that Arminianism uses Greek modes of thought and Reformed doesn’t, nor do I mean to assert that Greek thought itself is fallen or unusable. (I should have put more depth and clarity in my post, but tried to keep it concise.) Rather, what I assert is that Arminianism uses a *fallen* mode of thought (on soteriology), and Reformed doesn’t. I intended to highlight the Greek element only to say that this could also be a natural, cultural influence on the Arminianist theological development, as well.
However, this is why I personally love Biblical Theology so much in contrast to Systematic. While neither is more true to scripture, BT’s methods of operation tend to be more congruent with the method scripture has been transmitted to us.
Ultimately, I think all of my points are debatable to a degree, like anything else. However, anyone would contend that holistically, Arminianism contends for man’s ultimate ability to trump God, rather than God’s ultimate sovereignty over man. And even without my further thought developments, this alone could be attributed to a fallen worldview applied to scripture, rather than a transformed one (Rom 12:1).
RE: Nudity- I figured, since it’s Adam and Eve, it doesn’t count ;-). Hehe.
To Malcolm:
Well said re: Total Depravity. I think that while Arminians agree with Total Depravity to an extent, the real question that divides the two is *to what degree is man depraved, and to what degree is our image-bearing of God tainted?* Arminians argue that while man is depraved, he is still in the image of God, and has something to contribute to salvation (i.e., his freewill faith). However, Luther argued for the “Bondage of the Will,” that the natural man is indeed not free, but a “slave to sin.” I can see now why perhaps a hyper-Arminian would side with Pelagius and deny inherited sin outright, but then this goes against scripture.
That gospel write-up is ironic, in that I am literally doing a very similar project. I post on some computer-related forums, and I am the non-fundamentalist Christian of the bunch. I am formulating a post of basic Biblical principles, points, and the gospel, to share with the bunch.
Finally, to Simon’s latter post:
Re: Fallen Man glorifying God.
Creation itself (General Revelation, Common Grace), which is currently in a fallen state, still testifies to God. Could unregenerate man likewise testify to God in his imagebearingness? Perhaps this vocabulary of “testifies to God” may create less blur than “glorifies God,” with the implications of being redeemed to glorify God.
New official theological word- imagebearingness.
-ACR
Response to All - I appreciate Malcolm’s comments. Reasons- he is correct in stating that Tulip is an English word. The Synod of Dort was recored in the Dutch/Latin languages and therefore Tulip doesn’t work. Since I study with Dutch scholars they admitt the same. Further the divisions between “Systematic Theology” and “Biblical Theology” are not correct. The medieval scholars and the Reformers knew of no such divisions. If you had a meeting that could have Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Capito, Vermigli, and Calvin present for example, they would not bring their volumes of theology with them, they would bring their Bibles and honestly if we were in the meeting we would have our hands full. Both the medievals and the Reformers were first and foremost exegetes and men of the Scriptures. The division between “Systematic Theology” and “Biblical Theology” is an invention since the sixteenth-century. The men of that period would not understand your point in regsards to this.
Finally, to JT (?) what early fathers are you talking about? Could you produce the names?
Further to Aaron - did the Reformed at Dort reject all of the points made by the Remonstrants? What side did Arminius finally take?
- Gary Finkbeiner (GLF)
Quote of Simon - “In regard to creation, however, I believe firmly that even those outside of Christ can glorify and please God through their obedience (intentionally or unintentionally) to the creation mandate. Thus, the non-human creation itself, which like humanity suffers the effects of the fall and is not yet redeemed, is said to glorify God and praise him (cf. Ps. 19:1). As part of this wider creation, I believe humanity as a whole, saved or unsaved can glorify God, particularly by reflecting his own characteristics (note the close connection between the creation mandate and human identity as image-bearers of God in Gen. 1:26-28).”
It is true that the unredeemed can show the glory of God through their acts of beauty, art, being faithful with what they have been given, being a good friend to someone, etc. But to say they “please” God does get a bit hairy, at least for me. If you see the word “please” meaning “bringing God glory,” then I think it is ok. But you used the word “obedience” in your words above as well. The only “obedience” before God is that of a life of faith in Christ. Paul taught that he was called to bring about “the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Rom 1:5). And we know the Scripture that says, “And without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6) - the opposite we would assume would be true.
So I, personally, would steer clear of “please” and “obedience” in regards to the non-believer because of the connotations of the words (at least in my understanding of them above). But I would quite rightly refer to God getting “glory” and His goodness being shown through the acts of humanity in walking out the Gen 1:26-28 mandate.
In reference to the “non-redeemed non-human creation” - nature, the cosmos, etc. It is right to refer to them as non-redeemed. They do await their redemption in the future, as Paul states in Rom 8:19-22. But they also have not “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” like humanity (Rom 3:23). They have only been affected by the Fall because of the father and steward of all creation fell in the beginning and took all things with him as “ruler” over them. So, yes, non-human creation does glorify and praise God. It does “please” God when the sun rises (or the earth rotates), when the flowers bloom, when the lightning strikes, etc. But I still find it hard to say that non-redeemed humanity “please” God in their fulfillment of the creation mandate in the sense that non-redeemed non-human creation “pleases” God.
Thanks for your input Scott, it’s good to get your perspective. You seem right that these terms need to be defined better.
My reason for bringing up the understanding of humanity as part of the wider creation, is because I’ve just finished a 6,000 word paper on a Christian response to climate change. Regarding human care of the environment, I found two main positions - biocentrism // which sees humanity as morally equal and no more special than the rest of nature. Biocentrists subsequently emphasise that we should care for nature as ourselves, recognising an intrinsic good in both. But they reject that humans could even possibly take a ’stewardship’ role on the earth; as such, they reduce humanity to the moral level of grass. The other is anthropocentrism // which sees humanity as far above the rest of nature, and the creation existing primarily for human use (saying it has no intrinsic, but only instrumental value). In practice, this has resulted in many of the abuses/excessive uses of the environment that are being seen today, and that many would argue are causing climate change. Anthropocentrism also ties in with something of a technocratic humanism, which says humanity can dig themselves out of any hole they make with further development. As such, humanity is kind of deified.
There lies a middle ground between the two of these in Theocentrism. Which accepts humanity’s unique place in the creation as image-bearers of God, and stewards (and even primary-users) of creation // but also affirms the intrinsic (rather than merely instrumental) value of creation; the fact that the creation ultimately exists for, and belongs to, God (Col. 1 etc.); and a more HOLISTIC understanding of man’s part in creation. This latter point can be argued by the biblical evidence that redemption is ultimately for both human and non-human creation (Rom. 8), and that there are many, mostly poetic, references to a more holistic understanding of the human relationship to creation (e.g. coming from [in Adam esp.] and returning to dust]. Theocentrism also does away with the technocratic humanism of anthropocentric ethics by asserting that God is supreme, and we are fallen and finite.
Soooooooo, I was just bringing in the idea that, as part of the wider creation, humans can glorify God too. I think it’s important we have a holistic understanding of this, as well as an understanding of humanity’s uniqueness. I am currently on my first serious blog entry, which will turn my 6,000 word essay into something more easily digestable.
Sounds good, Simon. I was pretty sure I knew what you meant. Semantics and word usage is always important to me. If we define what we mean, we then can find easier ground to work with. But I know your heart and what you are communicating.
I do quite like your theocentrism perspective concerning the stewardship of creation. The “middle ground”; more like the ultimate and right ground. But a non-Christian wouldn’t necessarily like those words “ultimate” and “right”.
Quote Gary: did the Reformed at Dort reject all of the points made by the Remonstrants? What side did Arminius finally take?
Essentially, yes. The Remonstrants did have Total Depravity, but the other four points were all rejected. However, I believe although Total Depravity was held by Arminians, I think it essentially comes down to what I said to Malcolm: to what degree is man depraved, and to what degree is the image of God tainted? Calvinists say man is incapable of doing good on his own without God, Arminians say that man is capable of putting his faith in God without God’s first sending grace and election on that person.
Arminius himself was actually already deceased, it was his believers that had to account to Dort. He ultimately died still holding his views, but was not accepted.
To Scott:
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts to my recent post, re: your points 2 and 3, Jesus’ inability to sin, and God’s sovereignty.
-ACR
To ACR - Just testing your knowledge of history when it comes to Arminius - he actually died in 1609 and The Synod at Dordrecht was from Novemember 13th, 1618 - May 28th, 1619. Yes, it is true that the Synod “unanimously condemned” the 5 Arminian articles. This issue however does need some clarification. For example the Canons of Dort are actually not as harsh as some make them out to be. They are very pastoral in spots.
When it comes to “Tulip” many Reformed Christians are at this time seeking a better way to express what they believe are biblical truths. For example they have adopted the followin way of expressing the idea presented by Reformed Creeds and Confessions by replace Tulip with the word “Faith.”
F = Fallen humanity
A = Adopted by God
I = Intentional Atonement
T = Transformed by the Holy Spirit
H = Held by God
There are huge reasons for the change along with the fact that it actually teaches better. For example “perseverance” is better stated in the Cannons by “preservation” with its focus first on the faithfulness on God thus - Held by God, etc… . Limited atonement is replaced by - Intentional Atonement - becuase even Reformed doctrine teaches an application of the sacrifice of Christ that would be sufficient for all although not efficient for every single person. Things like this.
GLF
Chachi quote - “However, in his deity, did he have the capacity to sin? Absolutely not. Therefore, while they are paradoxically intertwined, the deity still has sovereignty over the humanity. But Christ’s sinless life is important in the fact that he carried it out within the power and capacity of his humanity, not his trump-card of deity.”
I pretty much agree with everything you posted above that you asked me to comment about, of which the quote right here is just a portion. I would always believe that God’s sovereignty overarches man’s responsibility. But I don’t like where many Calvinists (or hyper-Calvinists) negate man’s responsibility.
I quote the above statements because I possibly see a contradiction in there to consider. If Christ could absolutely not sin in His deity but could sin in His humanity, was it in the “power and capacity of his humanity” that he carried out the sinless life? Maybe His deity is not His trump card? Maybe His deity was His ability to live the sinless life, and He did it also in the midst of His human weaknesses. I think we can many times downplay Christ’s humanity as if He hovered a few inches above the ground unlike us (and I know you aren’t doing that). I like to recognize both humanity and deity (and sovereignty and responsibility). But for you to say in His deity He could not ever sin, but that He walked out the sinless life in the power and capacity of His humanity, do those 2 statements butt heads? Maybe not, and I am not trying to say they are. Just something to ponder. But the question is – Did Christ live His sinless life in the power of His deity, though human also, or in the power of His humanity, though divine as well?
Re: Gary’s post about new ways to describe reformed theology, in nice pretty acronyms :) I’ve heard of other phrases used outside of the usual TULIP acronym phrases, mainly concerning Limited Atonement, as that phrase scares people not of the reformed tradition. But unfortunately my mind draws a blank. Many times we need to reword our theological beliefs to communicate in the culture and age in which we live. Hmmm, makes me ask a question - when will they rewrite the Westminster Confession of Faith into modern English? :)
To Gary:
That’s fascinating. Who is developing these thoughts?
To Scott:
On the contrary, I am trying to emphasize his humanity more than his deity. To say that Christ carried out the sinless life with his deity in spite of his human weakness is to elevate the deified Jesus, and tone down the humanity.
Rather, I would propose this. Jesus was more human than you or I. This is because he did not have inherited sin. He was humanity as it was intended to be. He was the perfect human, the second Adam. And it was not human weakness, but human capability.
Therefore, this much more elevates his humanity (and indeed, full, perfect humanity), rather than elevating his deity.
One thing that I think Christians have lost today is the true *humanity* of Jesus. We worship him as the glorified Lord and King, but do we understand him as a fisherman and carpenter? This is why I so greatly emphasize his humanity, particularly in his sinless life.
This also has great implications for Christians in their everyday lives today. We are dead to the old self, and we are “born-again.” We are no longer born into and of the old Adam, but now the new Adam. Just as Romans 5 discusses- so through the one man came sin and death to all, so also do we receive life through the one man, Jesus.
In light of this, here are some questions I have been asking myself. In our being born-again, are we now like Christ without inherited sin any longer, but rather with a new nature, as a new creation? I would say yes. Therefore, does that mean we have access to this kind of capacity of life- that sin no longer has to be our default, but now is simply habitual and deliberate?
The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines sin as (1) an action, (2) an attitude, and (3) our nature. Our nature in Christ is transformed, and we now have a new, Christ-like nature. Therefore, does that mean sin for the believer is strictly actions and attitudes, which we technically have control over? Does this mean that Christians can *as a technicality,* strive for a sinless life?
Whether ultimately achievable or not, I think this rings in tune with the exhortation, “Be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.”
Everyone’s thoughts are welcome on this subject. I am still developing it, but these are questions I have been asking myself.
*****
Another, related question I have been playing with is this. If all of the above is true, it leads me to think Adam had the capacity to sin, but also the capacity not to. If this is the case, was it Adam’s “free will” to sin, or was it God’s pre-establishing it? Is “free will” a human trait in the image of God, that is tainted by the Fall, or is it man’s concoction? This delves into supralapsarian (pre-Fall) and infralapsarian (post-Fall) election/predestination. Finally, if “free will” is part of humanity in the image of God, is that recaptured in the new birth in Christ? Or rather, in the same way that we were “slaves to sin,” we are now “slaves to righteousness,” and free will is indeed man’s concoction?
Nobody has to play with any of these deeper thoughts if nobody wants to, I just throw it as a PS. But I would be more interested in peoples thoughts on the former conclusion, about striving for a (possible?) sinless life, and if in Christ this is an authentically achievable thing.
-ACR
Le Chach said: “Our nature in Christ is transformed, and we now have a new, Christ-like nature. Therefore, does that mean sin for the believer is strictly actions and attitudes, which we technically have control over? Does this mean that Christians can *as a technicality,* strive for a sinless life?”
I believe we do have “control” ability to turn from sin and pursue righteousness in as much as we are in Christ (i.e. the new nature argument you posed). The ESV helpfully translates Philippians 2:5 thus: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” I believe it is correct to say that as a believer, if Jesus can do it, you can do it.
But this once again highlights a tensional truth: that we are to work out our own salvation…on the basis that God works in us, giving us the will and power to live a life that pleases Him (my own extremely loose paraphrase of Philippians 2:12-14 which is, incidentally, one of my favorite New Testament passages). So, yeah, we can strive for a righteous life, but only in the sense that we are in Christ who, Himself, is totally effective in existing and acting in perfect righteousness.
Highlighting the truth our position “in Christ” is also helpful with your prior point about the changing our our nature (I realize you did mention the phrase…I’m only reemphasizing). The sacrament of baptism is illustrative of the truth of our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection with the consequence that “we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). A fundamental change has occurred to the extent that Paul says we should consider ourselves to be “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
So, are we to expect/hope/believe that it is possible to now live a completely sinless life? I think yes…we are in Christ for crying out loud. Now, whether or not this is probably (or even has ever been done other than by Jesus Himself) is, I would argue, perhaps not worthy of focus. If our position is in Christ and our destination is Christ, then I suggest, along with the writer to the Hebrews, that we fix our eyes on Christ.
I believe this is by far the predominant notion of scripture. We are always pointed away from sin and toward righteousness on the basis of our new identity/nature/position/destination in Christ. In this process there is not much time to stop and ask about how much sin is expected/allowable for the growing believer. That is simply a non-issue it would seem.
Chachi - concerning the original thoughts about Christ and his humanity and divinity both being respected, I believe we are on the same page. I think sometimes different words/semantics are used. :)
Concerning whether or not we no longer have inherited sin since we are new creations…Again it is semantics. If we inherited it (original sin) from Adam, then we inherited it and we are stuck with it. We remain fallen. I am a huge advocate of our identity in Christ as saints and new creations with new hearts. The old man is dead and has been crucified with Christ. But we cannot deny that we are still fallen and we still have the flesh with us even as new creations. We have been given everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3) and we can, by the power of the Spirit, walk out the ways of Christ. But we still have the fallen flesh. It is the tension Daniel talked about - new creation with new nature and the sinful nature being dead, but we have the fallen flesh. This side of the age to come, we will sin unfortunately. As it says in 1 John 1:8, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And I believe this means post-salvation, not just pre-salvation. I don’t say any of this with a defeatest theology, but I recognize the tension that will always be in this age. It’s like the kingdom rule of God – it is here, but it is not yet fully here and we await it in the age to come.
Concerning free will - I believe Augustine broke it down like this:
- Pre-fall - humanity has the ability to not sin
- Post-fall - humanity does not have the ability to not sin
- In Christ - humanity has the ability to not sin
- Age to come - humanity does not have the ability to sin
Something like that.
One who is a slave to something cannot have a “free will”, can they? For one who is a slave to sin, Satan, and the world, they will choose sin. For one who is a slave to Christ will choose to live as Christ. But we live in a world where one outside of Christ might choose to do something “good” and someone in Christ might choose to do something “bad”. But we know that apart from the power working of the Spirit in our hearts, we will not “choose” to believe on Christ.
I don’t like the phrase “free will”, because of its connotation. I believe we have a will and choice, but is it intrinsically free? From our human point of view, sure. But in the sovereign since, no. I have choice and responsibility each day, even down to typing these words. I chose to. But I am not sovereign. So I have a will, but it is ultimately submissive to one greater. Therefore I don’t like saying we have “free” will, but I do recognize we have a will.
Concerning was it God’s will for Adam to sin…We know God cannot sin nor tempt another to sin (James 1:13). But somehow, a good reformed person knows that Adam’s choice of sin fits into the sovereign plans of God who is over all, not taking away from His goodness at all. God wasn’t caught off guard or taken by surprise with Adam’s sin, but it wasn’t God who caused it or chose it Himself. This is a great mystery. Piper talks about the 2 wills of God - what God commands and what God decrees. It’s interesting that God commands us not to murder, but God decreed (planned) that His Son be murdered (Acts 4:27-28). It is hard to comprehend how these 2 fit together, but somehow they do. God hates murder, but God planned that His Son be murdered at that specific time by that specific group – and I’m glad He did so I could be brought back into a love relationship with Him.
Ok, enough from me…
Those are fantastic thoughts, Scott.
The problem with the concept of a “free” will is the connotations of a libertarian sense of freedom. The Bible simply doesn’t teach it.
I found an article recently by Piper on the two wills of God, but I didn’t read it yet. I will take a peek =).
I appreciate the thoughts on each side though (Dan & Scott), it is helping me develop my thinking until I do a proper, personal study on the subject, and come to more galvanized convictions.
Interestingly, Piper calls himself a ‘7-point’ Calvinist. The additional two points he adds on himself - double predestination and ‘the best of all worlds’. If I were to think about it, I would likely find some contentions with this (although I quite like the seventh point on brief reading). Nevertheless, I don’t think he is being terribly unreasonable in his logic - it’s just interesting, even if seven point calvinism is not your ‘cup of tea’. Read about it here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/105/1418_What_does_John_Piper_mean_when_he_says_that_he_is_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/
Hehe, 7-points, that’s fun. I don’t know if double-predestination is noteworthy as a point, as it is simply “reprobation,” or the implication of point one, but that’s funny nonetheless. Although, in that article, it says “By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen.” While I think I agree with reprobation (cf. Rom. 9), I don’t think that election *necessarily* implies reprobation.
I think this falls into the “supralapsarian” and “infralapsarian” arguments, asking whether God elected believers before or after the Fall of man.
I haven’t worked out where I stand on this one yet, but am in the process. It has actual ramification for other parts of the doctrine of sin and soteriology, so while it appears a lofty issue, it has tangible effects.
I believe the double predestination “officially” goes back to Augustine. It is probably heavily based upon Romans 9:22-23, which speaks of “vessels of mercy” (the elect) and “vessels of wrath” (the non-elect). Keeping in context of the whole election principle Paul is laying out in Romans 9, it seems that God has chosen His elect as vessels of mercy to receive salvation (although they don’t deserve it or caught God’s eye for some reason over those not chosen). And, thus, the vessels of wrath are those “looked over,” if you will.
I always like explaining it this way. People raise the question, “So you are saying that God chooses for some to go to heaven and some to go to hell?” I would say - God didn’t choose hell for anyone. That was our choice by sin. But God, in His mercy, chooses a people to redeem. And God is glorified in both His justice and mercy in both situations.
But never heard of “the best of all worlds” principle. Want to elaborate simrav?
Oh - And if the vessels of mercy are predestined for redemption, then the vessels of wrath are those predestined for judgment. Hence double-predestination in looking at both sides of the coin.
Hehe, I think reprobation goes back further from Augustine, to Paul in Romans 9. But my friends don’t think it’s funny when I say that “Paul was a Calvinist,” hehe ;-D.
You can see “best of both worlds” at the link Simon put in his post. I would be interested to see how this doctrine interacts with quantum physics and theory, and the concept of the “multiverse.” But that is for another time =).
Similar to you Scott, I explain it this way. When the Arminian asks, “Why does God not save him? Or why not her?” I simply say, “Why does God save *ANY*?” We all deserve Hell, if God were perfectly just.
Calvin was not a Calvinist how could Paul be one? “If God were perfectly Just?” God is perfectly Just.
Amendment: if God were perfectly just, *and did not intervene with Jesus* (then we all would deserve Hell). ;-)
An important amendment, surely. Hopefully nobody thought I was saying otherwise, hehe.
For calling Paul a Calvinist, I guess it comes down to how you define Calvinist. If you define it as someone who ascribes the label to themself, neither Calvin nor Paul would be one. But if it is defined as their teachings falling in line with what “Calvinism” teaches, then you could be more liberal with applying the label to those such as Paul.
Reformed theology is drawn from the Bible itself, so it only makes sense that the Biblical authors taught the same ideas that Reformed theology promotes. I know that this argument could be stretched to apply to all kinds of crazy teachings that the proponents pull from scripture, but you follow what I mean (under proper exegetical context, etc).
Or perhaps would it be too bold to say that Jesus was Reformed? Hehe 0=).
This may be a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction (and I haven’t considered it much), but for some reason the statement ‘Jesus was Reformed’ doesn’t sit very nicely with me. First, I think his cultural context was somewhat different than ours. I also think that to Jesus, such labels were maybe part of the problem, rather than a solution to it. Jesus’ life testified to something far greater than any school of thought, label, box etc. could ever limit him to.
I understand, of course, that your statement was semi-serious :o) So, take these as random musings.
I still cannot agree with the “Calvinism” statement either of Paul or Calvin. I understand that you may be joking a little, however, not all Calvinist agree with one another so a blanket statement does not work. Further Calvinsim, even as a balnket statement, is developing its thought on theology and therefore is not in full agreement with Calvin on everything. If you want to get into this deeper than we will have to deal with each subject individually to see where the direction is going. I believe this line of discussion can mislead people and is misleading. You may be going in this direction for “shock” value and if this is the case it can start to become un-edifying. Your amended staement still presents God’s justice as being less than perfect. God is perfectly just and also merciful as well as loving. God does no violence to either his justice or mercy regardless of how many are saved or lost. I believe you understand this, but your answers seem to desire reaction?
That’s interesting to hear Calvinism’s developmental process. I know of some strands of it, but do you mind sharing more in this area? I find it very interesting, and would be happy to learn more.
For example, I really liked your comments about the “TULIP to FAITH” change. Are there any quarterly journals for this kind of stuff, where everyone is dialogging? I had been trying to remember what the “I” in “FAITH” stood for this week, hehe.
I particularly like the Kuyperian thread of Neocalvinism, but I understand that there are some elements that can use refining (spheres of sovereignty, etc). Actually, John Milbank argues that his Radical Orthodoxy can perhaps qualify Kuyper, arguing tha perhaps Kuyper’s understanding of theology was not wholly adequate. I, personally, am not familiar enough with this territory to make any personal comments, only to repeat what has been said.
I obviously jest in Jesus being “reformed,” but I am being constantly reminded that the medium of textual communication is not conducive to sarcasm, hehe. If I struck any nerves, I apologize- I think in typical conversation nothing would be made of it ;-).
Moreover, I think that much of this discussion boils down to semantics, and a lack of clearly understanding and communicating one another’s points (i.e., Scott and Simon re: unsaved man “glorifying” God, etc.) It is difficult to use textual communication for such precise dialogue, without being exceedingly meticulous about one’s vernacular. So, again, as we can see from this thread, most mistakes in understanding are simply redefining our terminology, clarifying our points, etc. But in most instances, this is unnecessary if we give one another the benefit of the doubt, and assume we understand what a person intends to say or mean (specifically regarding semantics).
But pushing ahead, I think we would all benefit from hearing more of Calvinisms developments from Gary, if you don’t mind telling us more on this, Gary =). I certainly am interested, anyway =).
As an aside, I am a convert to Reformed theology from Arminianism, about 4 or 5 years ago. I have never studied it with intentional depth, only alongside my other studies along the way. So I am still fresh clay being molded, theologically speaking, so I am greatly interested in any thoughts that anyone would like to share. That being said, I am certainly already a ways along the way, so I can’t be converted back to Arminianism, for example, hehe.
Concerning “reformed” Calvinism: It is interesting to note that in the past decade or two there has recently been developments in traditional dispensationalism in which they have reformed their beliefs into what is called progressive dispensationalism. Theological systems most times need reforming. And this is my guess why - theological systems are usually reactions to previous theological systems and beliefs. And many extremes are formulated such as the gifts and prophecy are no longer needed because we have the Scriptures, which this thinking developed out of fear to guard against heresy rather than out of a healthy and true understanding of what the gifts and prophecy are. Nothing should ever be formulated out of fear. I know that is a general statement about the reactionary development of theological systems, but it seems quite true. So any theological doctrine or system written on paper today needs reforming, hence my question about when will they re-write the Westminster Confession?
Concerning the use of communicating through writing/typing: Funny thing is that was the way of communication when the Scriptures were written (along with verbal). But you couldn’t call someone. So, sometimes we have to be careful with our semantics and word use in being as helpful in that written form of communication as possible. Won’t alleviate the problem for good, but it might help. And I know you know that Chachi.