I am a lazy blogger so I am going to roll two post in to one about my current reading.
After my last review of the book Unchristian I was challenged with a few things that I want to put out. I made a statement that the things posed in the book as problems aren't anything people don't already know. I was challenged in that that the problems wouldn't be problems if people knew them. The truth of the manner I think is we have our heads in the ground(me included) to the problems facing the church today and that is why this book was so shattering for so many people. It made people take their head out of the ground and see that the church does have a problem with addressing our views concerning Homosexuality and our Political involvement.
Since that last review I have finished reading a book my brother-in-law challenged me to read called "Calvinism:A Southern Baptist Dialog". I was unsure about reading this book but I am glad I did. A few points of interest I would put out about this book.
- I really appreciated the general tone of this book. It was very cooperative in nature and really seemed to try bridge the gap in regards to the issue of Calvinism in the SBC. With exception of two authors(one on each side of the debate) This was the general tone.
- The two articles that spoke to the heart of the problem are the two I just referenced in the previous point. They are heated, conflicting, and seemed to be down right un-cooperative in nature. Both articles carried the tone of "I am right, Our church is right, everyone else is wrong". It isn't as simple a issue as these two chapters made it to be which was quite disappointing
- Nothing in the book really shifted my feelings about Calvinism really. It was good to understand that history and context of the issue. I would say the most shattering thing to me was the number of strands of Calvinism and the fact that most SBC Calvinist aren't true John Calvin Calvinist. One illustrations of this is Calvin's belief that Evil could have had no other source that God, and Calvin's belief of salvation was also deeply rooted in his belief about infant baptism. Neither of these things SBC Calvinist believe(if you want the paragraph that this is spoke too I will be happy to find page numbers to give to you).
- Moleism is quite interesting. Im not saying I am believe it but since one article of the book was about it I am going to study more about it at a later time. My brother-in-law basically said it is a form of Armenian-ism. I will study this eventually.
- The two points I got hung up on in the book are these. 1) if SBC calvinist believe God is sovereign over EVERYTHING then explain the fall. Did God cause Adam to fall? 2) How can one believe that God selects who is saved how is that not selecting who isn't(ie double predestination as many referred too). Hyper-calvinist believe in double predestination but most SBC calvinist do not. I simply don't understand that.(that is not me asking for a 5 page dissertation on it but I welcome a short comment).
- I LIKED THIS BOOK AND WOULD RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE. I know that is worth about 2cents and a cup of coffee but from someone who would not affirm all 5 points of SBC calvinism I think that is a good thing. Everyone on both sides so work to cooperate better without letting this become a dividing issue.
Ok to wrap up this post I am going to say that due to some changes in life I am going to have to put my reading plan on hold. I have been given an opportunity to further myself professionally and that is going to require alot of reading and study which means no time for outside reading that I had be doing. I would be happy to post about my studies in IT but I figure discussing Network security combined with VLAN's and MS server 2003 would be boring so this will be my last book review of this year more than likely.
**disclaimer - I have not read calvin's institutes so I cannot speak to ANYTHING in them. I am only speaking to the book and the things wrote about it in the book. If you have a problem with something I wrote then you will need to take it up with the author of the particular article in the book because that is where I got my information from and at this time it is all I have and probably will have to go on for the foreseeable future.**
1 comment:
"How can one believe that God selects who is saved how is that not selecting who isn't?"
This is a point of logic, whether it was first intended as such or not. Choosing one item does not necessarily mean you are not choosing the other item. This is because once you examine the reasoning behind the choice, you are no longer examining the choice itself but a different entity that would include a different set of criteria for consideration.
For Calvinists, I would believe, the choice to save the elect only is God's. In theory there should be a decision making process behind this decision, but since we cannot know/understand this decision making process, it would be futile to attempt it. All one can do is recognize that has indeed made a decision to choose some.
This does not imply that He did not choose others, or choose for them a different fate. After all we are all deserving of hell in the first place. That is our fate based upon our sinful nature. Allowing some to continue in this path is not necessarily a choice that God's makes; He might as well never consider, or never be able to consider, the option of saving those from their justified fate. One just can't say since we do not know the mind of God.
Now I don't agree with it, but that's the way Calvinists should explain it. I take serious issue with some of their terminology, such as "elect" and "sovereignty." Your other question about God being sovereign over the Fall is nonsensical unless we can first agree upon the definition of "sovereign." What I believe most Calvinists mean when they say "sovereign" at this intersection is "omnipotent," that is, God controlled or willed the Fall to happen. (A point I again disagree with.) Anyways, hopes that helps. Glad you enjoyed the book.
Post a Comment