Simon Shull Foust from TheGodBloggers.com and ThinkingDeeply.com has asked me these questions:
On another note, I notice from your site that you’re a Calvinist. You’ll notice from mine, that I’m not.
I’m planning a blog post about unity in the body of Christ, and I would like to have your input on a few things if you have time. If not, no worries. Here are some questions I’m asking fellow bloggers:
(1) Regarding Calvinists and Arminians, do you think the theological agreements between the two are more important than the disagreements?
(2) What are the 3 most important areas of agreement between the two sides?
(3) Is it important to show unbelievers our unity despite our disagreements, and why?
(4) Do we succeed or fail at this “online”?
(5) How can we improve?
Please feel free to include any other thoughts.
These are excellent questions. Before I answer these, the reader should note that Simon is not a postmodern, mushy-mushy evangelical who thinks that the Calvinism/Arminianism debate “doesn’t matter.” If fact, when asked if it “really matters whether one is a Calvanist, Arminian, or Molinist,” Simon replied, “Absolutely. I think Calvinists are dead wrong about a lot of things, including salvation .. and that’s one of the most important things of all.” I believe, Scripturally speaking, there is a place where we can consider our differences to be that severe and yet at the same time desire Biblical unity:
(1) Regarding Calvinists and Arminians, do you think the theological agreements between the two are more important than the disagreements?
Well, this would certainly depend upon what the agreements are. If the agreements concern an accurate gospel, the centrality of Christ, the centrality of the church, and a high respect for the sufficiency of the Scriptures and a desire to honor them, then I would certainly say that these central agreements are more important than the disagreement. I say this not to undermine the difference between monergism and synergism, or the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. As a Calvinist, I consider this to be an important distinction. In fact, I consider how man perceives God’s revelation of his glory and how man views the sufficiency of grace to be at stake here.
But we would simply be mistaken to neglect the central doctrines as the primary means of binding Christians together. I do not have fellowship with a Mormon. His gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. But I do have fellowship with an Arminian. I think the commonality that we are both believers outweighs, if you will, our soteriological differences. At the same time, I do believe our soteriological differences affect how we view the gospel, how we view grace, and how we view God’s means of revealing his glory.
(2) What are the 3 most important areas of agreement between the two sides?
As I stated before, I believe that the most important areas of agreement are 1) an accurate gospel, 2) the centrality of Christ, and 3) a balanced emphasis between the sufficiency of Scripture and the centrality of the local church.
Some essential subpoints would be a) a Biblical emphasis on prayer, b) a Biblical emphasis on evangelism, c) a Biblical emphasis on sanctification and personal growth, d) a Biblical emphasis on revealing the glory of God, e) a Biblical emphasis on serving the local church, etc.
(3) Is it important to show unbelievers our unity despite our disagreements, and why?
A common argument that unbelievers use against Christianity is the “There are so many disagreements in your church, who knows what the Bible says!” argument. This argument, of course, assumes that everyone who disagrees has equally studied these issues, has equally applied consistent exegesis to the text of Scripture, and has equally brought fairness and honesty to the issue. I would say that the majority of disagreements between believers lies in unbalanced sides: one side has done its homework, and the other one has not.
However, we must also remind these unbelievers that many of these disagreements are secondary issues that simply cannot compare to the central issues of the gospel, etc. Christians who disagree have one major thing in common that unbelievers do not posses: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
(4) Do we succeed or fail at this “online”?
The internet gives us unique opportunities. It can also be a very dangerous place. Practically anyone can sign up at Blogger and instantly have a platform for debate. This can often be abused. Some people might be willing to act in certain ways behind the practically anonymous vehicle of a Blogger Login name that they would never consider doing face to face or in the context of the local church.
But something we also must recognize is that the internet is not the church, and striving for unity between personal web logs or internet sites is not the same thing as striving for unity within the local church. Posting a comment at a website is not fellowship. Talking on AIM is not fellowship. Rather, edifying the body in and through the local church is fellowship.
How does this relate to how believers interact with each other online? Well, they certainly should not broadcast sinfulness, hatred, or disunity online. But I do not believe there is any Biblical requirement that prohibits believers from expressing strong disagreements, especially in a context that is so foreign to the local church.
(5) How can we improve?
For some people, this means getting offline.
For some, it means toning down the nature of their interaction with believers a bit.
For some, it means a reality check concerning the local church. Perhaps someone really thinks that it is his responsibility to correct everyone’s doctrinal error through the context of the internet. That is simply mistaken. If this person is qualified as a teacher in his local church, that should be his platform for pastoring the church, not internet blogs. If this person is not qualified as a teacher in his local church, then what makes him think he is any more qualified to teach others outside of his flock through the context of binary?
For some, it simply means to continue to express strong disagreements, but expressing them in proper perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment