At Parchment and Pen C. Michael Patton asks whether Calvinism or Arminianism is the more rationally consistent Theological system. Surprisingly to me, he concludes that Arminianism is more rationally consistent and harmonious, but (unsurprising to me) that Calvinism is more Biblically faithful.
What do you think?
I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of intelligibility and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to remain for the sake of Biblical fidelity.Now that I think about it, his position makes sense. Biblical fidelity with mystery sound both more right and better than a forced logical consistency that ignores difficult Scripture passages that do not fit the system.I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think that it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human intelligibility.
What do you think?
This is a strange conclusion because most of the dedicated Calvinists I know have a terrible time with mystery. To claim that Calvinism is willing to embrace mystery seems like one of the most oxymoronic statements I've heard in a long time.
ReplyDeleteCase in point, just do some quick blogosphere checking on what emerging church writers have written about mystery and witness the whipping they received for doing so by those who identify as Calvinist bloggers.
If Patton's argument is true, I certainly have seen not one shred of evidence for it in practical experience.
On the other hand, if you want logical inconsistency, press an Arminian on sovereignty issues!
Interesting thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI feel both positions stray into the area of finding something that is biblically "true", then expanding something that must be true if the other is true, then what must be true if that is true, and suddenly things become a bit more removed from the original biblical "truth".
I also dislike defensive theology. The 5 points of Calvinism were designed to show the 5 points of Arminianism were not true. They did not start on square one and so I think go further than scripture does in some areas.
I consider myself a calvinist because I think it is more God than us, but don't see the issue as sown up and systematic as many do.
I thought this topic might stir up some response!
ReplyDeleteI agree about "more God than us." Also agree about pressing Arminians on God's sovereignty.
If I have to choose between on the one hand a fully consistent and logical theological system that has to leave a few Scripture passages out in order to stay consistent, or on the other hand holding to all the Scriptures even in the face of seeming inconsistency, I'll take the later. I'd rather take all the Bible along with some mystery.
I'll put emphasis on the "seeming" in the paragraph above. It all makes complete sense to God, jut not to us sometimes.