In the last BLOG I compared theological and moral differences with two icebergs colliding. That parts that collide are not the tips of the iceberg, but the massive sheets of ice that cannot be seen from the top. I then used that to show how differing systems of thought and theology actually collide way below where the differences are actually expressed. The point of collision can always be traced back to a God-centered view of God or a man-centered view of man and God. Whenever the view is a man-centered view of man or of a God that is man-centered, it is pride in the hearts of man that is a real problem. Pride exalts man and wants to think of each discussion with man as the center even though the talk of God might be brought in. I then started a discussion on Arminianism and Calvinism.
“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)
The real problem with Arminianism is that it does not start with and breathe with a God-centered God at each point. Instead, it focuses on human ability and has a man-centered God. This may sound obnoxious to some, but let us be fair. Calvinism is a system of doctrine that has been developed from the God-centered view of God (my opinion). It was not developed by John Calvin, but is a system of thinking that is built on the solidity of a God-centered God. However, when someone claims to be a Calvinist because s/he believes the stated doctrines of Calvinism, clearly that is not enough to make the person a true Calvinist apart from the view of a God-centered God. It is also true that an Arminian in some way can argue for his doctrine from a God-centered view of God. Most likely the professing Arminian who argues for his doctrine from a God-centered view of God will not be a consistent Arminian. It is also true that those who claim to be Calvinists and yet have a man-centered view of God or a God that is man-centered will not be consistent Calvinists if we use the historical doctrines as our guideline.
If the real issue, then, is neither Arminianism as stated nor Calvinism as stated, how are we doing to get to the bottom of these issues? It will not be by continuing to shoot at each other from the tip of the iceberg toward the tip of the other iceberg. Agreement will not and cannot happen as long as the underlying issue of God is not settled. When people try to say that they can agree on these issues without going to the very root of the issues, then those people agree more than they realize on the issue of God which is below the surface. Most likely there are professing Arminians who love God and hate what is really Arminianism while there are most likely professing Calvinists who hate God and hate what is true Calvinism. These things are simply not as simple as the systems. The real battle is over a God-centered view of God or a God that is man-centered. The issue of pride is obvious.
When we think of the five-points of Calvinism versus the five-points of Arminianism, the real issue is not the five-points but the God of all points. Calvinism teaches unconditional election and Arminianism denies that. Where can we go to settle the debate? We can go to Scripture and both will find verses to prove their position. We can go to the nature of God and both sides will say that their view of God aligns with their view of election. So we say that we must agree to disagree. But there is another step in the matter. The next step is to ask ourselves how a God that is God-centered aligns with these things and then how a God that is man-centered aligns with these things. The real issue is over the real God. If we make the issue over man, then it is pride that inserts man as the supreme being.
We can take election as the example. Psa 115:3 says that God is in the heavens and does as He pleases. Do we believe that? Do we believe that God exists in love for Himself as triune and all good things given to man comes from His love for Himself which is grace to us? A God-centered God can’t be moved to act by a human being, but instead is moved to act because of His love for Himself and His own glory. Now we can ask which view of election is consistent with a God like that. The Arminian view has God being moved because a man chooses Him. Do we need to ask any more questions? Pride will always want to be the center, but that is the prerogative of God.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment