Excerpts:
Q: What has the Calvinist-Arminian debate taught you about the importance of holding the distinctives doctrines of the Reformed faith while also maintaining an ecumenical spirit with non-Calvinist evangelicals?
A: We need to recognise that we are all pilgrims on the way, growing in the grace and knowledge of our Saviour. I have learned a lot from reading and interacting with brothers and sisters outside my own tradition. Even when I disagree, I come to understand a different position better and discover where I had assumed caricatures. As I say in this book and elsewhere, there is no Reformed faith. There is only the Christian faith and I affirm the Reformed confession and exposition of that one faith.
Q: Since becoming a Calvinist, have you considered Arminianism plausible or compelling?
A: No. I am so convinced that Scripture grounds all of our salvation in the unconditional grace of the Triune God that if I were to embrace universal election and atonement, I would embrace (at least in principle) universal salvation. The Bible simply doesn't speak of salvation being merely provided, enabled and offered. So I have sometimes found Karl Barth's view logically coherent and in a sense attractive, but without exegetical support.
Q: What do you think is the strongest argument for Arminianism or any of its distinctives?
A: Roger locates the Achilles heel of Calvinism: the problem of evil. However, that's a problem for all of us. Even if God foreknows sin and evil actions of human beings, these actions are eternally certain to come to pass. That's why open theists take the next step and deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge.
Interview with Roger Olson: Against Calvinism
Excerpts:
Q: What has your involvement in the Calvinist-Arminian debate taught you about distinguishing between people and their beliefs?
A: That it's not easy - especially for those on the receiving end of criticism of their theology. I work hard not to be offended by fair criticisms of Arminianism. I have no desire to insult or offend Calvinists even though I strongly disagree with key beliefs they hold dear. I think the main issue is fairness. We both need to state each others' beliefs fairly and then not take offence just because others disagree with our beliefs.
Q: You state that some Calvinists are among the best evangelical Christians you know. What has this debate taught you about the importance of maintaining an ecumenical spirit among evangelical Christians while holding to distinctive convictions?
A: That it's absolutely crucial but never easy. We (both Calvinists and Arminians) need to bend over backward to be generous and fair and loving in our disagreements. Words like "shallow" and "insipid" and "negotiated (Christianity)" and the like do nothing but break the ecumenical spirit. We need to assume the best about each other even as we strongly disagree about points of doctrine.
Q: In a nutshell, what are some of the ways that you think Calvinism does not cohere with Jesus' person and character?
A: Jesus wept over Jerusalem and lamented that He wanted to gather them to Him, but they would not (Matthew 23:36-39). Jesus' genuine compassion for those suffering from the evil of others or their own hardness of heart reveals God's heart of love and desire for all to experience the shalom of His love and peace. Jesus' willing substitutionary death for all people (1 John 2:2) reveals His loving character.
Q: What do you think is the strongest argument for Calvinism or any of its distinctives?
A: God's absolute, infallible, comprehensive foreknowledge might seem to imply foreordination of everything. In the end, however, I don't think it does.
Q: Since tulips [from the Calvinist acronym TULIP - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints] are clearly out of the question, what kind of flowers do you purchase for your wife?
A: Always roses!
*****
The Middle (Knowledge) Way: Molinism
Incidentally, in Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, the author argues for a ROSES [as opposed to TULIP] model of salvation, seen through the lens of Molinism. ROSES is an acronym that stands for Radical Depravity, Overcoming Grace, Sovereign Election, Eternal Life and Singular Redemption. Molinism, simply put, argues that God is able to perfectly accomplish His sovereign will through genuinely free creatures by means of His omniscience.
According to Horton, 'the Achilles heel of Calvinism is the problem of evil'. Calvinism holds that God causes our actions. The problem with Calvinism is that it appears to hold God responsible for our evil actions.
According to Olson, 'the strongest argument for Calvinism is that God's absolute, infallible, comprehensive foreknowledge might seem to imply foreordination of everything. In the end, however, I don't think it does.' Arminianism holds that we cause our own actions. The problem with Arminianism is that it appears to deny God's sovereignty over our actions.
According to Molinism, God weaves His infallible foreknowledge of our actions into a grand tapestry which is predestined (before the foundation of the world) to come to pass in due time. God is sovereign over our actions (in contrast to Arminianism) but is not responsible for our evil actions (in contrast to Calvinism).
God sovereignly works (not causes) our actions for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment