Goals of this Blog

RGMPilgrim’s recent comments challenged me to think about the purpose of this blog.
Here’s the comment:

I think that Calvinism is as diabolical as it was for Calvin to have a man killed in the name of religious convictions.The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men was not Calvin's motto I do not think. On the other hand Jude made clear that there is something which we must "earnestly contend" for. It is the faith that JESUS Christ presented to us, and that faith did NOT include an option at thinking that God has not revealed whom he would elect, does it? Jesus is the revelation of the Father and Jesus was a first class gentleman, until he met up with the temple priest/businessmen.Further does not that faith for which we "agonizo" preclude that those who call God's wisdom arbitriness and God's justice, non-justice are to be viewed as "un-godly" and as servants of the Enemy?Perhaps you should beware being too "harmless?" This is war, albeit war in a spiritual theatre.Stay armed and stand my brother! :-) Roy

I never have put too much weight on Calvin's episode with Servitus, since it doesn't falsify Calvinism. Also, although killing Servitus goes against my understanding of the scriptures on the issue of church and state; I will admit I don't find the issue 100% clear, so I am not that dogmatic about it.

But it's the second part, viewing Calvinism as an enemy in a war that really got me thinking. The two main reason I strive to take a moderate approach to Calvinism are 1) I have always thought that Calvinism is inconsistent rather than blasphemous (i.e. it leads to God's authorship of sin, but they deny it) and 2) my past attempts of viewing Calvinism/Arminianism as a war lead me into great temptations to sin.

So if I am not trying to win a war, what is my goal? Reconciliation. I understand that hard-line Calvinists are unlikely to give up their Calvinism. And yet, while I am happy to provide information to those making up their minds about the issue; the rigorous fully thought out model of Calvinism of hard-line Calvinists provides for clearer discussion. So my goal of reconciliation seems impractical and may not be accomplished in my lifetime or even on this world. Still as a consolidation prise, I would like to at least lay out the foundations of a system that I think 'meets in the middle' that may be of some use in a time when reconciliation seems more likely. I think middle knowledge will be very useful in this regard.

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
I agree with you. I don't aim my arrows at Calvinist as enemies. I see them as brothers and sisters in Christ whom I disagree with. I do agree with Paul Washer that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is the issue but regeneration is the issue. We can debate about how we came to Christ but the most important principle is that we have been born again. This is what drives me and I agree with Washer, this is why I can pray and worship with Calvinists.
October 31, 2009 at 1:43 PM
drwayman said…
Can't agree more with the post and SD. Excellent thoughts.
November 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Odeliya said…
Amen, Dan, and you are doing a wonderful job, even though it will never be possible to find the middle ground to fully agree upon, basically due to the fact that Calvinism will never agree that God gave us free will to believe.

But you do present theological viewpoints that come as close as it gets to it :)

To me personally blog is an opportunity to learn, and ask questions of various people. Also i have to honestly admit that there are Calvinists that show much more fruit of the Spirit then I, convinced non-calvie, do.What makes us pleasing to God is not right or wrong theology but regeneration and that Christ is seen in us.
November 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks all for the encouraging thoughts.

God be with you,
Dan
November 4, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more