There
is such a rift in the Evangelical community over the differences
between the Reformed and Arminian views of election, that I am
compelled to devote an entire page to articles debating those
differences. The term "Calvinism" carries a lot of baggage because
of its historic confrontations with the Wesleyans. And Wesleyan
theology has gained enormous popularity and widespread acceptance
over the years, though perhaps unwarranted. The Wesleyans won the
theological war for the hearts and minds of American evangelicals, and
in my opinion, the American Church has been weakened by it. It
wasn't the strength of Arminian theology that overthrew the Reformed
churches, as much as the weakness of the Reformed churches.
Calvinists substituted aristocratic leadership for the universal
priesthood of believers, while Arminians emphasized the
commonality of all believers. Theirs was a simple
and anti-intellectual faith, while the Reformed
churches separated clergy and laity with an almost
gnostic approach to understanding the Scriptures. In egalitarian
America, that was theological suicide. These aberrations in the
structure and administration of the Reformed churches does nothing
to belie their doctrine, only their practice; nor
does the popularity of the Arminian churches prove their
doctrine, only their widespread acceptance. We need to determine
what the Scriptures teach, not what the churches teach. We must not
cater to what people want to hear. Instead, we must come to a
correct understanding of biblical doctrine and practice. The first
article below is an exchange between Charles Simeon, a 5-point
Calvinist, and John Wesley, an Arminian (technically, a 3-point
Calvinist). It maps out the common ground that exists between
them.
General
Against Arminianism
Favoring Arminianism
Arminianism vs Calvinism
|