Ecumenism at an impasse

A friend drew my attention to this site:

http://www.calvinistsandarminians.com/

I’ll do a running commentary:

I have seen friendships lost, organizations wrecked, and the name of Christ mocked because of fighting between Calvinists and Arminians.

i) Let’s begin by distinguishing between two different kinds of friendship. On the one hand there’s what I’d call unilateral friendship In a unilateral friendship, I befriend someone because I think he needs a friend. It’s not based on affection or rapport. I may even dislike him. Rather, it’s based on compassion or duty.

This is disinterested friendship. Friendship without reciprocity. Not what we do for each other, but solely what I can do for him. Not what I get out of it, but what I give.

That’s a very Christian type of friendship. In its finite, imperfect way, this exemplifies the mercy of God.

Of course, it’s possible that by befriending someone, he will response in kind. But that’s not the motivation.

ii) On the other hand there’s what I’d call bilateral friendship. These are people we spend time with because we like them, because we enjoy their companionship. It’s friendship based on mutual affinity, affection, respect, trust, concern, and loyalty.

Both parties give something and get something in return, not in a calculated sense, but because we enjoy doing things for people we like. And they, in turn, complete us in certain ways. Fill in things that are missing in our own life and heart.

Suppose someone tells me he hates the God I live for and long for. The God who saved me when I was still his enemy. The God who awakened me when I was lost in a dream. The God who’s kept me all these years. The God who’s guided me and guarded me every step of the way. Yet to him, my God is worse than Satan.

Can we still be friends? Well, I can be a friend to him, but he can’t be a friend to me.

A common love is a common bond. Conversely, if somebody despises the one thing that makes everything worthwhile, then there’s nothing to build on.

I’m just speaking for myself. Others may see it differently.

So over the course of the years, through friendships with some of the most brilliant and well-known minds from both camps, I have been searching to find the elusive, undisputed "essentials." Below are the fruits of that project: two ecumenical statements.

The problem with searching for common “essentials” is that distinctives can also be essentials. For instance, double predestination is both a Reformed distinctive as well as a Reformed essential.

So essentials are not synonymous with commonalities. Indeed, essentials can differential one theological tradition from another. At best, Ben is looking for a subset of “essentials.”

The novel thing about the statements is that they present the truth in a way which both Calvinists and Arminians can agree on. You may read through and find them agreeable though not innovative.

Unfortunately for Ben, that’s an illusion. Both sides can agree with these statements when the same statements mean different things to each side. Although both sides can agree to the same statements, they don’t agree with each other, for each side puts a different construction on the same statement.

If each side is going to place a different set of qualifications on the same statement, then they don’t really affirm the same statement, for their asset includes their mental reservations.

But their goal is not to say something new. It's to unite old enemies.

“Enemies” is a strong term. Is the Arminian my “enemy”?

i) To say someone is not my friend doesn’t make him my enemy. It may just mean there’s a lack of rapport. We don’t connect at a fundamental level.

ii) I do think some Arminians make themselves God’s enemy by what they think and say about God. Whether that makes God their enemy is a different question.

iii) That doesn’t make them my enemy, because I have a different role to play. But it makes them theological opponents. 

iv) There’s also a difference between people who don’t happen share your beliefs, and people who are implacably hostile to your beliefs. Someone may not share your beliefs, but it’s not a big deal to him. Or he may have no firm opinion one way or the other.

We may need to say more than these statements say, and affirm more than they affirm, but it is misguided for us to argue about our differences without having a set of foundational assumptions.

I think Arminians and Calvinists can share some basic assumptions, although I don’t think Ben has succeeded in isolating them. And I don’t think there’s enough in common to lay much of a foundation.

There are also ambiguities in the term “Arminian.”

The first statement deals with what we can all affirm. And instead of simply stating what we can affirm in “thinking,” it also states what we must affirm in “action.” This dual focus captures the tension which permeates Scripture and, in so doing, makes it more difficult to take the affirmations out of their proper context: the Christian life.

I’m not clear on what he means by the tension between thinking and action in Scripture.

Understanding

 

Constant Pursuit

 

God is the hound of heaven. He does the pursuing, and it’s His victory, not ours, when we receive His grace and come to Christ.

I don’t view grace as something we receive; rather, grace is something that makes us receptive.

Unnecessary Election

 

No saved person can claim any right to their forgiveness, regardless of how man’s response and responsibility are factored in.

As a Calvinist, I agree. But when Arminians impugn God’s character unless he makes provision for everyone, then they are treating forgiveness as their entitlement.

Prohibitive Depravity

 

Our sin runs deep enough, and affects our constitution comprehensively enough, that it prevents us from seeking God on our own.

Both Arminians and Calvinists agree, although that’s superficial. For Arminians think prevenient grace is resistible.

Salvation of the Repentant

 

Whatever the place of the warning passages and the unpardonable sin, if someone dies with a repentant spirit, they will be saved.

Agreed.

i) Before commenting on the second half of his statement, I’d like to make a general observation. Things like “total depravity” and “unconditional” election are beyond our control, so in one respect what we believe about them, or not, doesn’t make much practical difference. If you deny unconditional election, that has no effect on unconditional election. By definition, unconditional election isn’t contingent on what you think of it.

ii) In that respect, a Reformed evangelist doesn’t have to preach on total depravity or double predestination to do evangelism, anymore than you have to give a course on electronics to show someone how to operate a light-switch.

iii) On the other hand, there’s a difference between passing over certain truths in silence because they’re irrelevant to immediate objective, and openly opposing certain truths. For falsehood can be an impediment to conversion and sanctification.

Reacting

 

Beg for a Response

 

Although God alone is the author of salvation, NT Christians begged others to turn from their sins and convert. Go and do likewise.

True, but Ben seems to be insinuating a logical tension which we simply ignore in practice. I don’t see the tension. It’s not just something God does at the outset. It’s something that has a chain-reaction. If God is the author of salvation, then God is the author of Christians who share the Gospel, while God is also the author of converts who respond favorably to the Gospel. God is the match, we are the fuse.

Answer When You’re Called

 

Even though we are “prohibitively depraved,” when Jesus told his disciples to “follow him,” he expected them (somehow) to do so.

i) True, but there’s no tension here. God regenerates the elect. Grace counteracts depravity.

ii) Perhaps by “somehow,” Ben means that Arminians and Calvinists have different ways of explicating the how-to. But in that event they don’t really affirm the same thing. It’s just a cipher.

Give Them an Opportunity

 

Salvation begins with an eternal plan, but it is applied in a moment of conversion. Offer them a chance to have that moment.

Does the Arminian God have an eternal plan? Or does he see the future coming at him, and move aside? Is foresight a plan? Or is foresight resignation to what will be? 

Five Apophatic Articles

 

I. No person may legitimately claim a role in the initial move of their hearts towards God.

True, but the opening move has no ultimate significance apart from checkmate. It doesn’t matter how things begin unless that has a bearing on how they end.

II. No one has a greater desire and passion to see every human being saved than God.

i) As a Calvinist, I disagree.

ii) Moreover, the world we inhabit is by no means a level playing field. Even the Arminian God places some people in far more spiritually advantageous situations than he does for less favored individuals. Why are spiritual opportunities so inequitably distributed if God is passionate to see every human being saved? 

III. No Christian has objective, rational grounds to take pride in their salvation.

But in Arminianism, salvation is contingent on your libertarian consent.

IV. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

i) I think Arminians quote that passage out of context, as I’ve argued elsewhere:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-take-no-pleasure-in-death-of-wicked.html

ii) The question is whether Arminians believe that statement consistent with some other things they believe. If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then do to they die? Indeed, why are they wicked?

If the wicked have the freedom to do otherwise, then there are possible worlds in which they don’t die. Possible worlds in which they refrain from wickedness. If God takes no pleasure in their death, why not instantiate a world which is more pleasing to God?

V. No human should expect to be able to exhaustively sum up the mysteries of God’s providence along strictly positive lines.

I don’t know what he means by “strictly positive lines.”