The Calvinism/Arminianism Debate
"In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; and in all else charity."
In my previous post, I relayed a question from a young man regarding the fall (expulsion) of Lucifer from Heaven. One person's response to him centered on election. It said, "Lucifer was not one of the elect angles. [sic] Only the elect will persevere." So I felt compelled to give my two cents on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. I'm sure I will address this many more times in my lifetime and probably in more detail, but here is a passing treatment of the issue.
The Calvinism/Arminianism debate is one that will never be fully resolved on this side of eternity. And since it is a secondary doctrine, we must be careful about becoming dogmatic about it. I tend to lean toward Arminianism, yet I attend a church pastored by a Calvinist and many of the congregation tend that way as well (although I don't believe they consciously think about it). It's just not important, certainly not compared to finding an actual Bible-believing church that doesn't shy away from the truth of the gospel. The Bible is replete with verses that seem to support both views, and often they are within just a few verses of one another. I once heard it likened to standing between railroad tracks and looking down their length. They are parallel lines that appear to converge in the distance, but they never do. Like I said, it is a mystery we will never understand on this side of eternity. Many great theologians (certainly greater than I) have come to understand all of these verses (and yes, that includes Romans) differently, and each of them has been a devout follower of Christ trying his best to discern Christian truth. One of the best treatments I've heard recently is from Ravi Zacharias. Until recently, I had no idea that he had addressed the issue, but I just so happened to come across it a few days before the discussion came up. It can be found here. Try to get past the title and the fact the author is looking to support his non-Calvinist viewpoint and just listen to or read RZ's words. Zacharias takes no official position on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. In a nutshell, he emphasizes that we find these verses scattered throughout Scripture that emphasize the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, and the Christian has to be able to hold these seemingly opposing views in tension. In one part he says, "I think you should view the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as a kind of a precious stone with two facets to it. When it catches the light from one direction, you see one color; when it catches the light from the other direction you see the other color. Our propensity in the Western world to put God into a box and to systematize everything sometimes violates a fundamental precept in philoso-phy. It is not possible for a finite person to infinitely understand the infinite. If a finite person can fully understand the infinite, the very category of infinity is destroyed. So my proposal to you is to see both of these perspectives and hold them in balance."
You know, it's okay to be a Calvinist. And it's okay to be an Arminianist. And believe it or not, it's okay to not be devoted entirely to either camp. The Calvinism/Arminianism debate is non-essential (aka secondary) doctrine. What is not okay is to shut down or dismiss anyone just because he or she holds contrary views on secondary issues. Let's not forget how I opened this piece: In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; and in all else charity.