Oh, oh! I know this one! The answer is YES!
I'm not writing this to prove the answer. I've just seen this debate from time to time and cannot, for the life of me, figure it out. Well, okay, yes I can. But are we being reasonable?
Here's the thing. Calvinism is demonstrably biblical. I can show you all the verses that support all the points. I can weave together the necessary logic that makes it all reasonable. It isn't a stretch and it isn't a violation. So ... it is biblical. Does that mean that everyone must accept it and if you don't you're violating Scripture? Not necessarily. You see, I'm pretty sure that many (certainly not all) who disagree do so on biblical grounds. Therefore, if I was being reasonable, I'd have to say that their disagreement was ... biblical.
The point here isn't Calvinism. The point here is that so often in our debates and discussions we get so wrapped up in the argument that we forget to acknowledge the fact that sincere, genuine Christians can disagree on points of doctrine. Too often I hear, "That's not biblical!" It's a lie. Far too often I hear, "I'm not following man's doctrine" as if this is simply something that someone thought up on a whim. It's a lie. If you want to be accurate, try this: "That's now what I see in Scripture."
I've seen it on too many topics. I've seen the baptism debate, for instance, be far too dismissive. The concept of infant baptism isn't pulled out of the air. It's pulled out of Scripture. I don't conclude that it's true because of a variety of reasons, but I cannot say, "Your argument isn't biblical." That's not a fair statement. I think it's incorrect, but if it comes from the Bible, it's biblical.
Now, I don't want to be too generous here. Some things that some people see in some Scripture ... simply ain't there. I use "ain't" there because it's beyond reasonable and well into stupid. Not everything that everyone sees in Scripture is in there. The claim doesn't prove the claim. Nor does everything that is claimed to be biblical actually come from the Bible. A completely erroneous reading of a passage is not "biblical".
Still, can't we be more friendly, more gracious when we argue nuances? I'm not talking about the guy who says, "The Bible doesn't claim that Jesus was God" because that's too far out there. But when the differences are over details or quibbles, I think we should be willing to admit that it's in there even if we don't agree with it.
P.S. If anyone actually wants the biblical arguments for Calvinism, there are plenty available on request.
3 comments:
Nice post, Stan. We also tend to forget things like patience, mercy and self-control in such discussions too.
Brad
We are commanded to make a defense, and we are commanded to do so "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). I don't see how harsh, insulting, "two-guns-drawn" approaches (from any side) fall under those two terms. I agree with you.
Hi, I don't know much about Calvinism but I have a Bachelor Degree in Biblical Studies and Theology. I find it the nerve of many in the Church who don't like me now.
Anyway, I learned at Bay Cities Bible institute (now college) That Calvin and Luther came out of the Roman Catholic Church and began Protestantnism if that is what they called it. I don't think he wanted anyone to be a Calvinist but search the Scriptures digently with fear and trembling like he did.
The Pope did not want him to do so but because of is persistance he allowed him to do so saying, "You know they are just going to spread a lot of heresies (paraphrazed). Priest have a Phd. education, not to be compared to the worlds which is more like high school Schizoids making up Church doctrine or Evolution doctrine that evolves over time becoming more simplistics. Hey they said we are not ready yet so they came out with the NIV/N4 7th grade level book that we are still not ready to learn from.
Post a Comment