On the one hand:
I often have the impression that these authors, all members of something called The Gospel Coalition, have a fundamentalist mentality. That is, they approach and exposit doctrine from within a fundamentalist ethos. In varying degrees they treat truth as black and white (absolutistic). Beliefs are either “gospel truth” or heresy.
In this atmosphere of absolutism and fear the traditional evangelical middle, what I call moderate evangelicalism, is disappearing…So what is the disappearing middle ground I talk about and seek?
On the other hand:
I believe that someone needs to finally stand up and in love firmly say “No!” to egregious statements about God’s sovereignty often made by Calvinists. Taken to their logical conclusion, that even hell and all who will suffer there eternally are foreordained by God, God is thereby rendered orally ambiguous at best and a moral monster at worst. I've gone so far as to say that this kind of Calvinism, which attributes everything to Good’s will and control, makes it difficult (at least for me) to see the difference between God and the devil. R. Olson, Against Calvinism, 23.
Hmm. I don’t see much middle ground in Olson’s view of Calvinism. Seems pretty black and white, if you ask me. Olson’s view of Calvinism reflects a “fundamentalist mentality.”
Can’t he moderate his rhetoric just a tad? Split the difference? Meet us halfway?
Why the devil? Why not a demidevil, like Hellboy? Why a monster? Why not a werewolf like Oz, who’s only monstrous once a month?
Many people have asked my opinion about an attempt to identify an “Arminocalvinist spectrum”… The question Warnock seems to be attempting to answer is whether there are versions of Calvinism and Arminianism that are closer to each other than to other versions of their own views of God’s sovereignty. I think that assumes some measure of commensurability of real Calvinism (not “Calminianism!”) with real Arminianism.
My concern with the attempt to place Calvinism and Arminianism on a shared spectrum is that some people will take this as permission to be “a little bit Calvinist” and “a little bit Arminian” as if that were possible. It isn’t.
I think Geisler’s account of grace and free will is simply inconsistent. It’s an attempt to bridge Calvinism and Arminianism, but I think that is always unsuccessful (with regard to the key points of TULIP–namely, U, L and I.
Once again, it doesn’t seem like Olson is trying very hard to find middle ground. Roger’s definition of middle ground seems to be synonymous with the Democrat’s definition of bipartisanship: Do it my way!
No comments:
Post a Comment