Everyone who wants to graduate with an MDiv from the seminary must write a somewhat lengthy paper on his or her theological beliefs, ranging the spectrum from describing God's revelation to humankind to interpreting God's Revelation specifically to John. Overall, many of the topics are relatively easy to understand, and the "orthodox" positions are obviously the correct ones. The hardest topic for me to wrap my mind around is soteriology (theology of salvation). The old Calvinism/Arminianism debate rears its ugly head once more.
I grew up in the Baptist church (first American, then Southern, then General), but I now attend and am on staff at a Wesleyan church. 99% of the doctrine is the same between these denominations, but of course one of the main differences is in this area of soteriology. My own view has been shaped in part by my denominational journey. Growing up, I was taught that five-point Calvinism (TULIP) was the way to go. As I grew in my knowledge of the scriptures, I concluded that this framework was not the best interpretation of key texts. I didn't want to go clear to the opposite end of the spectrum and embrace a full-fledged Arminianism for the same reasons. In fact, as I read the Bible (esp. the New Testament), I see that both sides have some things right and some things wrong. I attempted to create some type of mediating position in my paper, but the type I managed to create was...less than entirely coherent and a bit contradictory, shall we say? (Hey, it was a first try.)
In the next few weeks, I will be doing some more research on this and try to come up with a better mediating view (if I know one thing, I know that I fall in the middle somewhere). I'll do the best I can to explain the "mechanics" if you will of the salvation process (ordo salutis, for you Latin geeks) in a satisfactory manner. I can't help but feel, though, that this attempt to systematize God's salvific work in humankind, corporately and individually, is in effect putting God into a box. I am not sure that God works in the same way to bring people to Himself in all cases. I'm not sure he needs a specific process to do this, either. In fact, if I could use one phrase to describe my views on all of this, it would be, "I'm not sure." That doesn't mean that I may not become "sure" in the future, or that I will just write off the whole of soteriology to the category of mystery and be on my way. Nor do I deny that one's position in this area can greatly influence one's ideas on evangelism. It's just one area about which I have no good answers.
Here is what I do know: Followers of Christ are commanded and expected to spread the gospel. That much alone should keep me plenty busy until I can figure out the rest of it.
5 comments:
It's funny how we think we can understand anything about God. If we could then whats the point of worship? I applaud your insight. Your professors are foolish to think they know the "right" answer.
Phil, you said it well and I agree. Jon, I'll be very interested in your next paper and will pray the Lord guides you through your research.
Good luck.
My problem is that I could probably agree with most of TULIP. I just can't quite reconcile how they see election. Calvinists push the "two wills" to the point of two personalities (e.g. Luke 13:34). But I can't see the Arminian approach in scripture either.
Unfortunately, you have to commit to something. I can just call it a "mystery" and go on with my life.
To give the mysteries of God a name like Calvinism (the ways of God summed up by a man hahaha) is to place God in a box, which kills the awesomeness of God. When did seminary become the sole arbitrators of how we can experience God?
Sounds like we had a reformation only to need another one 400 years later. The power of God is far to incredible to be dissected and analyzed. It must be experienced. When it becomes a semantic game there is nothing.
The seminary does not have an official position in this area, so far as I know. In fact, of the three professors whose opinions I do know on the subject, one is an Arminian, one is a Calvinist, and one claims to be a "Calminian."
The issue wasn't that I held a mediating position in my paper; rather, the problem was that there were gaping holes in my position, which I freely admit. Furthermore, neither professor on my panel was the least bit concerned that I am still trying to figure things out in this area. Nor did they demand that I choose any position, "right" or "wrong." Their concern in this exercise is that I can take a position (i.e., the position that makes the most sense and has the fewest holes as far as I can determine at this present moment) and elucidate it clearly.
The seminary isn't trying to force me or anyone into a certain mold; they are just trying to determine that I achieved the objectives of the degree I am pursuing. I apologize if I vilified the school in any way; that was not my intent. Indeed, the whole of my seminary experience, including this present exercise, has been a catalyst for me spiritually.
Post a Comment