This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I've just recently offered a critique of Calvinism too. Calvinism Explains Everything...and Nothing. I'd appreciate any comments there.
One of the dangers inherent in referencing "Calvinism" is that it can easily be misrpresented and become a straw man. I don't think it is fair to idenfify Calvinism with an omni-sovereign God. The primary question that classic Calvinism seeks to define is the action of God's election in reference to salvation. The focus is on the biblical term, "election."Even in reference to salvation, few will agree that God has predestined anyone to Hell. This is sometimes called "double predestination" and associated with supralapsarianism. It is a minority view.There are few who will agree with a definition of sovereignty as "God has predetermined everything that comes to pass." Although there seems to be greater tendency toward this than even during the reformation when debates on the issues were raging.John's title, "Calvinism Explains Everything...and Nothing" is great. Often, modern reformation theology (espcially in its popular forms) offers explanation for everything but fails to maintain a credible biblical basis. Classic Calvinism retains a biblical basis and avoids extravegant definitions of sovereigty.I tried to find some website to collaborate these assertions but there is too much out there and little of it addresses these fundamental issues.
What I find interesting is that no one has even raised the problems confronting non-Calvinistic theodicies as argued by the leading Calvinistic philosopher--The late Gordon Clark. Shouldn't we at least go to the defenders in the field that argue for the position being attacked?
Post a Comment