The Great Theological Debate of Calvinism vs Arminianism

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are completely “biblical”. Calvinism seems to be to me slightly more “biblical” than the alternative but I don’t consider myself a Calvinist for reasons I’ll now go into.

I’ve found that there are many passages in the Bible which are difficult if you try to map the mind of God like a puzzle, which is effectively what you’re doing if you choose one system over the other and say “without qualification, this is the correct system”. And this goes both ways. The Calvinists will talk about certain passages and they make perfect sense, yet when discussing other things in the bible they really are forced to make some quite implausible interpretations and create some difficult justifications to make them fit within their system. Similarly, there are some passages in the Bible which align perfectly with the Arminian understanding, and others where the Arminian theologians are forced to scratch their heads and come up with less-than-perfect interpretations. Also, this is a philosophically difficult issue. This point gradually dawned on me, especially when I read a book 18 months ago with four theologians/philosophers making their case for different understandings of God’s sovereignty and human free will.

How does a Calvinist account for God appearing to change his mind? How do we account for passages that seem to say contradictory things? Why do both systems have what appear to be inexplicable problems which weaken one aspect of God's character at the expense of another? Why are theologians and philosophers who study this issue forced to supply complicated explanations which leave the average person's head spinning in order to make sense of their own system? (For example the Calvinist idea that God has two seperate wills- his perfect or sovereign will and his permissive will? Somehow an all powerful being, who ordains all things needs to have two distinct wills, within himself. Somehow man has no power to overcome God's will, except in instances where it's convenient for Calvinists. OK slightly flippant, but my point is clear- this whole idea is simply a complicated, convuluted system created by man in order to understand God).

This problem led me in the direction of some conclusions on the matter. This post is an introduction to my views so I'll summarise them here. My conclusions also closely relate to my view of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and this is yet another topic which will receive attention on this blog in the future.

Firstly, perhaps the Bible isn’t completely inerrant in the word-for-word sense which is assumed when topics like these are debated. Perhaps Paul, and other biblical authors were simply writing down their understanding about the will and God’s control. Perhaps we need to give more dues to context, and I'd strongly suggest we also need to question whether the Bible was meant to be some kind of word to word dictation or whether there is a more sensible approach to take. Many Christians seem to hold that the Bible is a word for word dictation like the Koran, but I think this view looks silly once you look into debates such as Calvinism vs Arminianism, Faith vs Works and compare the various passages on these topics.

Secondly, perhaps there is this conflict in the Bible for a reason. Perhaps this is a mystery that God is leaving open. In the absence of clear answers, and considering the difficulties of fitting each and every passage into one system or the other, this seems a reasonable view to take. We see through a glass dimly.

Thirdly, it makes sense that finite beings who are constrained by time may not be able to effectively figure out how an infinite being (who is not constrained by time), relates to time. Rob Bell gives an illustration of how someone in a two dimensional world would have no idea what they were looking at if someone from a 3D world entered into their 2D situation. Something similar could be analogous here. This all makes me wonder whether it's acceptable and rational to plead mystery in some instances (this being one of them) rather than create complex systems which will inevitably leave us with more questions than answers.

New Atheists ripped to pieces

Vox Day rips some of the New Atheists arguments to shreds in a succint powerpoint display here.

Atheist Convention

Some of the media coverage of the recent convention in Melbourne:

Barney Schwartz of The Age and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun both seem to think that the ridicule of the New Atheists reduces their credibility.

Bolt's piece- Speakers' true love of hatred

Scwartz's Atheists' ridicule won't win friends and influence people

Sydney Anglicans posted an article with similar sentiments here.

Melanie Phillips article was called "Dawkins preaches to the deluded against the Divine" . She concludes by saying that Dawkins is "not the most enlightened thinker on the planet, as his acolytes regard him, but instead the Savonarola of scientism and an intolerant closer of minds."

Quote of the day

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)

I heard this quote a while ago, and it's stuck with me. I looked it up today and was surprised to find the exact wording. I'd remembered something or other about holding ideas in tension- perhaps the author quoting this was talking about that. So for mine, I'll reword to this: "The mark of an educated mind is having the ability to hold ideas in tension without accepting them".

I think this is true, simply because of the sheer bulk of ideas one will get exposed to as they journey through life. As one learns more, experiences more and becomes more educated they'll inevitably be exposed to a plethora of ideas, ideologies, arguments, philosophies and views. Yet, we don't always have the time or the willpower to form our own view on every one of them. Furthermore, there's a certain wisdom in having the ability to refrain from holding to an opinion- sitting on the fence is fine from time to time. Having the ability to hold two ideas in tension, whilst weighing up the possibilities can also bring a certain calm.