I've heard some Reformed Christians refer to Libertarians (Free Will dudes like me), Arminians, Molinists, and others, as "semi-Pelagian" because we think that Man has the capacity to accomplish morally right acts before being repenting to God in faith. The famous heretic Pelagius also taught that Man has this capacity. Does this give Christians the right to call us semi-Pelagian?
Only if Reformed Christians are Semi-Muslim. Hear me out. I'll be brief.
Surah 11:118 - "Had thy Lord pleased, he would have made mankind of one religion: but those only to whom thy Lord hath granted his mercy will cease to differ. And unto this hath He created them: for the word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled, 'I will wholly fill Hell with demons and men.' "
Reformed Christians teach that God, in his 'sovereignty,' could indeed have made everyone Christian, and every Christian Reformed, but in God's secret plan, He preferred that not all be saved and not all be Reformed.
Surah 9:51 - "Nothing can befall us but what Allah hath destined for us."
Reformed Christians teach that nothing happens except that God first decreed, ordained and determined (i.e. destined) it.
Surah 14:4 - "God misleadeth whom he will, and whom he will he guideth: and he is the Mighty, the Wise."
This sounds remarkably like the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9:18.
[I completely acknowledge that some of my own beliefs as well are found in the Koran. I don't want to be called semi-Muslim any more than the next Christian, but I'll acknowledge facts here.]
So my point, in the end, is not that we ought to call Reformed Christians semi-Muslim because some of their teachings are found in the Koran - but that we should not call Arminians semi-Pelagian simply because some of their teachings sound like Pelagius', either. We shouldn't attach "semi-" names to either group. If we were to attach "semi-" to the front of anything that contained any nugget of similarity with the person we're referring to, then we could add a great many names to a great many groups. We could even call Creationists semi-Atheistic because they both teach that the Earth is round, or we could call naturalistic evolutionists semi-Creationist because they agree that organisms have DNA. You could call me semi-Piper and semi-Sproul and semi-Calvin and semi-Luther because I agree with all these men that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, holy and eternal. I could go on.
But again - in the end, these "semi-" terms are not very helpful at all, and seem to tend more to divide than unite. It's an ineffective tactic, and I think it needs to end, for the good of the Church.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
If It Doesn't Apply to You...
Whenever addressing the views of a vast group of people, whatever their views, it must always be remembered, and respected, that views are not blocks - they are spectra. One can't simply walk along the 'path of belief systems,' and point to one boulder and say, "that's Atheism," or to another and say, "that's Islam," or to another and say, "that's Christianity."
Anyone who sees worldviews like this is certain to be ignored. When one approaches these boulders and looks closely, one finds that these boulders are not in one piece. One approaches the Islamic boulder, and one finds that there are many facets. One with an inscription that reads "Sunni," and another that reads "Shia," with many others. One might pass the Atheist boulder and find many facets as well, or any other.
When one is addressing the values and beliefs from any of these great boulders, one must be sensitive and open to the many reflective facets that are there. It would be nearly impossible to address every single facet, especially with so sophisticated a thing as an ancient and advanced religion.
I have been writing about Reformed Christians for some time now, and I wanted them (or you, I suppose) to know that from where I stand, I can see that there are many facets on the Christian boulder, and also that upon these facets are more facets, and so forth. Particularities between these different Christian views can be numerous and nuanced.
I suppose this post amounts to an apology and not-an-apology. I apologize that I am unable to address every facet of a given belief system when I address the system as a whole. My effort has been, and will continue to be, to address these belief systems' most basic and most widely-held teachings (within that given boulder or facet), in order to make my answer as brief, simple and widespread as I can. I understand that this will not satisfy or even apply to some people, and I am sorry that I am unable to do more.
The not-an-apology comes in now: I do not apologize for being general. If I were to address every facet or sub-facet in turn, I could spend a lifetime at this keyboard and accomplish very little. The ultimate purpose for these arguments is not necessarily to convince anyone, but essentially to demonstrate weakness where and how I perceive it. I stress 'perceive' because as my logical process evolves and my knowledge increases and my understanding develops, I have come to change my views more than once - and I expect I will change them again when the need arises. But every change has been deliberate and hard-fought. Beliefs are not to be taken or discarded lightly, particularly in religion. Our views on which carpet is healthiest for our children are important as well, but we are literally discussing our views of gods, divinity and the dichotomy of eternal bliss and eternal torment. Therefore, these portions of our beliefs are of considerably graver moment.
What I'm basically trying to say is this: It (usually) is not my goal to address a particularly specific sub-sub-facet (Molinism, for example, as a sub-set of Arminianism, which is itself a sub-set of Christianity) or sub-sub-sub-facet. This gets very, very particular, and I'm not interested in that sort of detail - mainly because it's largely a waste of time (IMO). As an example, if I'm debating with (say) eight different denominations of Islam, I can likely cover the vast majority of their denominations by concentrating on proving the Bible over the Koran - or with different sorts of atheists, my focus will be on proving the existence of a higher, conscious power, because that's where they agree.
I freely acknowledge that not everything I say about any given group will apply soundly to all members of that group, because beliefs systems are not units - they are a spectrum. As red fades into orange, there are regions of the spectrum where the description of a fuller red no longer fully apply - and yet it is still red and not orange... yet. So as in color, there is some nuance to belief.
All of this to say: I'm sorry if what I say about your belief system sounds inaccurate to your region of the spectrum, but I'm trying to cover as much of that region as possible with basic descriptions and generally held (or not held) teachings. If anything I say about you doesn't apply, then feel free to discard it - it doesn't apply to you. I must be talking about someone else.
I mean no offense to anyone, truly. But it's nearly impossible for me to speak absolutely in so broad and delicate a spectrum. I'm bound to speak "a few shades off" at times. Try to bear with me, and don't be afraid to comment.
I'm always looking to learn more.
Grace and peace.
Anyone who sees worldviews like this is certain to be ignored. When one approaches these boulders and looks closely, one finds that these boulders are not in one piece. One approaches the Islamic boulder, and one finds that there are many facets. One with an inscription that reads "Sunni," and another that reads "Shia," with many others. One might pass the Atheist boulder and find many facets as well, or any other.
When one is addressing the values and beliefs from any of these great boulders, one must be sensitive and open to the many reflective facets that are there. It would be nearly impossible to address every single facet, especially with so sophisticated a thing as an ancient and advanced religion.
I have been writing about Reformed Christians for some time now, and I wanted them (or you, I suppose) to know that from where I stand, I can see that there are many facets on the Christian boulder, and also that upon these facets are more facets, and so forth. Particularities between these different Christian views can be numerous and nuanced.
I suppose this post amounts to an apology and not-an-apology. I apologize that I am unable to address every facet of a given belief system when I address the system as a whole. My effort has been, and will continue to be, to address these belief systems' most basic and most widely-held teachings (within that given boulder or facet), in order to make my answer as brief, simple and widespread as I can. I understand that this will not satisfy or even apply to some people, and I am sorry that I am unable to do more.
The not-an-apology comes in now: I do not apologize for being general. If I were to address every facet or sub-facet in turn, I could spend a lifetime at this keyboard and accomplish very little. The ultimate purpose for these arguments is not necessarily to convince anyone, but essentially to demonstrate weakness where and how I perceive it. I stress 'perceive' because as my logical process evolves and my knowledge increases and my understanding develops, I have come to change my views more than once - and I expect I will change them again when the need arises. But every change has been deliberate and hard-fought. Beliefs are not to be taken or discarded lightly, particularly in religion. Our views on which carpet is healthiest for our children are important as well, but we are literally discussing our views of gods, divinity and the dichotomy of eternal bliss and eternal torment. Therefore, these portions of our beliefs are of considerably graver moment.
What I'm basically trying to say is this: It (usually) is not my goal to address a particularly specific sub-sub-facet (Molinism, for example, as a sub-set of Arminianism, which is itself a sub-set of Christianity) or sub-sub-sub-facet. This gets very, very particular, and I'm not interested in that sort of detail - mainly because it's largely a waste of time (IMO). As an example, if I'm debating with (say) eight different denominations of Islam, I can likely cover the vast majority of their denominations by concentrating on proving the Bible over the Koran - or with different sorts of atheists, my focus will be on proving the existence of a higher, conscious power, because that's where they agree.
I freely acknowledge that not everything I say about any given group will apply soundly to all members of that group, because beliefs systems are not units - they are a spectrum. As red fades into orange, there are regions of the spectrum where the description of a fuller red no longer fully apply - and yet it is still red and not orange... yet. So as in color, there is some nuance to belief.
All of this to say: I'm sorry if what I say about your belief system sounds inaccurate to your region of the spectrum, but I'm trying to cover as much of that region as possible with basic descriptions and generally held (or not held) teachings. If anything I say about you doesn't apply, then feel free to discard it - it doesn't apply to you. I must be talking about someone else.
I mean no offense to anyone, truly. But it's nearly impossible for me to speak absolutely in so broad and delicate a spectrum. I'm bound to speak "a few shades off" at times. Try to bear with me, and don't be afraid to comment.
I'm always looking to learn more.
Grace and peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)