Walls / Dongell Why I Am Not a Calvinist

1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-0-8308-9585-4
Verlag: InterVarsity Press LLC
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 232 Seiten

What's wrong with Calvinism?Since the Reformation, Calvinism has dominated much of evangelical thought. It has been so well established that many Christians simply assume it to be the truest expression of Christian doctrine. But Calvinism has some serious biblical and theological weaknesses that unsettle laypeople, pastors and scholars alike.God is sovereign. All evangelical Christians--whether Arminians or Calvinists--have no doubt about this fundamental truth. But how does God express his sovereignty? Is God a master puppeteer, pulling our strings? Or has he graciously given his children freedom to respond to his love?In this eminently readable book, Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell explore the flaws of Calvinist theology. Why I Am Not a Calvinist is a must-read for all who struggle with the limitations of this dominant perspective within evangelical theology.

Jerry L. Walls is professor of philosophy of religion at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. His annual C. S. Lewis seminar is one of the school's most popular offerings. He is also author of Hell: The Logic of Damnation.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Walls, Jerry L.

Dongell, Joseph R.

Leseproben

1

APPROACHING THE BIBLE

We can expect that when evangelicals need to define or clarify any matter of doctrine or practice, they will instinctively turn to the Bible for divine instruction. Whether they fly the flags of Calvinism or Arminianism, whether they call themselves charismatics or dispensationalists, whether they are found in mainline churches or in small denominations, evangelicals resonate deeply with the underlying conviction of Billy Graham, that whatever “the Bible says” settles it. In a book such as this, it should come as no surprise that what “the Bible says” should therefore be given first and controlling attention.

This lofty estimation of the Bible far surpasses a respect for religious literature in general or an appreciation for the Bible’s place in Western culture. Rather, we hold that the Bible stands beneath us, giving a foundation to our understanding; that it encircles us, marking boundaries for our speculation; that it resides within us, granting and confirming the true understanding of God and of ourselves; and that it ultimately stands over us, judging according to the very mind of God. The Bible for us, then, is not merely one religious resource among many, but an unrivaled touchstone for shaping all Christian belief and practice.

But despite our superlative declarations about the stature of the Bible, we evangelicals find ourselves in the slightly embarrassing position of acknowledging that we do not agree on just what the Bible teaches. Too often we assume that a high view of Scripture somehow ensures that our interpretations will be faithful to the intentions of the divine Author and edifying to the people of God. But as Robert K. Johnston has observed, several religious groups who clearly fail the basic tests of orthodoxy (The Way International, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God) were all inerrantists, holding to a strict, high view of Scripture.1 It is apparent that strong affirmations about the authority and truthfulness of Scripture do not guarantee a sound interpretation of it.

DIVERSITY AMONG US

Even within the evangelical fold, where classical orthodoxy and a high view of Scripture are prized, the flock is divided into dozens of interpretive camps. Even though most evangelicals agree that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant (or infallible, as variously defined and delimited) Word of God, sometimes groups among them arrive at contradictory doctrinal conclusions. If it were all a matter of differing over how many animals entered Noah’s ark or over what exact day and year Jesus began his public ministry, then I suppose we could sweep such differences under the carpet and move on.

But the differences among evangelicals are not trivial, and we doubt the judgment of Carl Henry when he suggested that our differences amount to “disagreement . . . over a limited number of passages.”2 We can point to numerous issues, spanning the entire scope of Scripture, that spark fervent debate and often separate us into distinct colonies of worship, ministry and witness. Consider these issues, for example:

• the eligibility of women for ordination in pastoral and teaching ministries without restriction, as well as the nature of a wife’s submission to her husband

• the relationship between church and state, and the viability of a specifically Christian legislative agenda for a (largely secular) modern democracy

• the moral status of state-sponsored violence, whether in the form of declared war, restricted peacekeeping military action or capital punishment

• the intersection between modern science and the Bible, with focus on the relationship between the creation accounts (Gen 1—2) and the prevailing theories of the big bang and biological evolution

• the fate of those who have never heard the gospel and of those who have heard or seen only a distorted presentation or modeling of it

• the theology of the sacraments, especially baptism—its proper mode (immersion only?), its proper subjects (infants or believers?) and the sense in which it imparts grace3

We can add to these the interests of this book—the questions that have defined the Calvinist-Arminian debate for centuries:

• Does God determine, solely according to his own unilaterally established will, exactly who will be saved and who will be lost?

• Did the atonement of Jesus make provision to save only the elect, or has actual provision been made for the salvation of the whole race of humankind?

• Are human beings so fallen that they must be saved exclusively through the unilateral and unconditional action of God?

• Is it possible for human beings to resist (successfully) the saving approaches of God’s grace?

• Does God enable all persons to respond positively to the available light?

• Can any who were once truly redeemed through faith in Christ fail to receive final salvation?

When considered together, the content and scope of these divides should be sobering. They range in their focus from the nature of God to the nature of human beings, from the time before creation to time beyond the final judgment, from the boundaries of salvation to those of damnation, from the contemplation of perplexing abstractions to the gritty business of daily life. If we admit that we haven’t been able to reach a consensus among ourselves on matters of such importance, just how meaningful is it for us to continue affirming with glowing terms the authority of the Bible? How useful is it to confess that the Bible “has the last word,” when we haven’t determined among ourselves just what that last word says? How much disagreement can we experience before we must admit that the Bible, like uninterpreted glossolalia, is a “trumpet [that] does not sound a clear call” (1 Cor 14:8)?

THE QUESTION OF CLARITY

In effect, we are inquiring about the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. Does the Bible speak clearly about all things, most things or only a few? Should we expect clear resolution when we bring to the Bible our questions about how we should live, to say nothing of the flurry of questions surrounding the Arminian and Calvinist debate? What should we say about the communicative effectiveness of Scripture, and how should we speak to each other whenever consensus over its teaching continues to elude us?

Most of us hesitate to admit that the Bible is not perfectly clear on all counts. Many of us worry that any hedging along these lines may weaken our witness in the world and open up floodgates of doubt for the weak, or that disagreement may tempt some of us to excuse sinful behavior by blaming an imagined defect in Scripture. These are worthy fears, but they can be effectively countered. And the mere presence of these fears is not sufficient ground for ignoring the troubling realities of diverse and incongruent interpretation.

Some may resist the direction of our discussion simply by declaring, “The Bible is plenty clear to me! How could the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 be anything other than twenty-four-hour solar days, since each has an evening and a morning?” Or “Obviously the temple (which was destroyed in A.D. 70) will soon be rebuilt, since we know that it must be destroyed in the coming tribulation” (see Mk 13). Or “It’s perfectly clear that the Bible considers any remarried person whose spouse is still living an adulterer” (see Rom 7:1-3).

But this confuses a subjective sense of clarity with the sort of clarity that might be externally demonstrated. Consider the scenario of a sinking ship, with the captain and a new crew trapped together in a lowlying compartment. Being unfamiliar with the layout of the ship, the crewmates are dependent on the captain’s instructions for finding their way around the maze of damaged bulkheads to the open air above. Seriously wounded and unable to lead his crew out, the captain describes the one pathway that will lead them to safety. As soon as he finishes his verbal instructions, the crewmates scramble for their lives—each in a different direction!

We can imagine that each crewmate was absolutely certain that he or she understood the captain clearly. But the internal certainty of each crewmate failed to match the instructions of the captain. It is possible that the one crewmate who felt most certain that she understood the captain was indeed the one who found her way out. But we can also imagine that the one crewmate who felt least certain was the one who succeeded. He may have strained to hear the captain’s voice, realizing that he missed a few words here and there. He may have been stunned to see his mates scattering in different directions and may have moved hesitantly in the direction his best sense of the captain’s words indicated.

What are we suggesting? That in matters of biblical interpretation our own sense of certainty about what the Bible says on a given matter can’t determine whether our particular understanding of the Bible is...