Calminianism redux?!

I thought that James R. White’s popular book, The Potter’s Freedom, had already put the nail in the coffin on this one!

As a biblical studies student who also (thankfully) has a theological education, I am always floored when biblical scholars chime in on theological discussions from biblicistic and un-nuanced position.  One of the hallmarks of biblical studies is the willingness to wrestle with the various voices in scripture.  One of the hallmarks of theological studies is the ability to draw those voices together into a chorus – or coherent system – by showing which distinctions are necessary to make when viewing all the biblical voices in harmony as the one voice of God.  Thus I find that biblical studies often lacks the nuance and precision of theological studies when it comes to constructive approaches to doctrine.

A recent post on the Zondervan blog shows just that issue at work.  The writer has attempted – yet again – to stake their claim in the supposed “middle ground” between Calvinism and Arminianism.  How long will people keep looking for this “lost city of Atlantis?!”

Perhaps these people think of hyper-Calvinism when they hear the name of Calvin, causing them to flee to the “benefits” of Armianism.  Perhaps these people think open-theism when they hear the word “Arminianism,” causing them to flee to the “benefits” of Calvinism.  In my more sinister moments, I think that perhaps the Arminian voice desires to legitimate itself by attempting to lay claim to Calvin’s legacy; a legacy including such people as Beza, Owen, Whitfield, Edwards, etc. (and as regards predestination itself, Aquinas, Augustine, Luther. . . these lists could go on).

Arminianism is not Reformed.  The Synod of Dort made this clear.  Calvin was not a hyper-Cavinist.  Numerous writers have made this clear.  (See, for example, Richard A. Muller’s historical-theological work regarding God’s decree and reformed dogmatics in general).  Anyone who has actually read through Calvin will see that his writing is anything but hyper-Calvinistic!

The reformed churches aren’t so simpleminded that they are unaware of the standard Arminian proof-texts.  They aren’t so naive as to think that the Bible never commands people to “repent” and “believe.”  Rather they understand those passages as working within the system of scripture itself – a system that makes distinctions throughout.  Of course even the Arminian understands that they need to do something with texts that threaten their own position; they thereby make necessary distinctions of their own.  (“Well, of course Ephesians says that we’re predestined before the foundations of the world, but this is because God has made that choice based on man’s free will . . . this is what Paul really means!”)

A word of advice.  The next time you get the urge to purchase some land in the twilight zone that is “Calminianism,” take the time to read up on what Calvin and the Reformed really thought about issues like predestination, the decree of God, and the will man fallen man.  I think you’ll find their answers to be more intellectually satisfying than the hyper-Calvinistic answers of some “guy” who just learned about the “Five-points.”  Even if at the end of the day, you decide to side with Arminius and the Remonstrants, at least you’re staking a claim on territory that truly exists, unlike the liminal “Calminianian” landscape that simply cannot fit between the two sides it seeks to bridge!

____________
Andrew