Part Two of Book Interlude

After reading Michael Horton's book For Calvinism I should probably admit that I am now for Calvinism.  But I can't make that statement. What is interesting is that both Olson and Horton have the same essential purpose, namely to argue against hyper-Calvinism or what is sometimes called the "new Calvinism".  Horton provides a discussion of the five points of grace, erroneously known in his opinion as TULIP, and the Reformed perspective.  While mention is made frequently of other traditions from the root of Geneva, most of his "For Calvinism" comments are directed at "For Reformed" positions.  Horton provides a remarkably "moderate" position and explicates the various history, roots, and stances behind the often maligned or caricatured flower acronym.

Part of the reading is definitely pre-modern.  According to my understanding of Horton, the Reformed tradition continues to draw inspiration from a variety of patristic sources, who somehow got it right before "Rome" got it wrong.  In a sense, the Reformed Calvinism espoused is reflective of the tradition among many evangelicals to move back in time and join a tradition with older and perhaps deeper roots in their practice of liturgy.

I am bothered by the argument Horton makes because some paragraphs are merely a string of quotations of biblical passages strung together.  The method of using scriptural words to back up doctrinal statements simply because the words are agreeable, is not the same as seeking to understand scripture.  It appears that the best method for winning a doctrinal debate is to have the most pieces of evidence!

For one example that was especially perturbing to my train of thought, Horton makes the statement that Paul is discussing individual salvation in Romans nine and "(t)hat are in view is indisputable, they have names [he lists the names]." Anyone with half a minor prophets class (the last half) recognizes that with regard to (not with regards to!) Jacob and Esau, Paul is quoting Malachi and Malachi is not discussing a single individual but the corporate "family".  Throughout the minor prophets "names" are used to refer to the group of people.

A second problem I have with the entire Calvinism/Arminianism discussion is that it seems to be a case of potato/potato. For instance, in discussing election Horton makes a statement (and I will admit I am confused from the paragraph if this is his take or what he is arguing about) "Salvation may be provided by the Lord, but it is up to us to choose ourselves for this gift and to make and to make Christ's redeeming work effective by our decision." The italics make me think that he is arguing against the previous sentence, but the context is unclear.  To my knowledge, (limited to my experience) no one in Christianity argues with the first part of the statement, Salvation is indeed from the Lord.  The argument appears to lie in terms of the perspective of looking at the salvific event.  Does one attempt feebly to describe the event as God sees it or to describe the event as humans experience it?  There is the potato/potato paradigm.

Horton provides three chapters at the end that are a delight to read."Calvinism and Christian Life", "Calvinism and Christian Missions", and "Calvinism Today".  These are historical and somewhat personal reflections on the role of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the practical element.  In the Afterword Horton shows his dealt hand and shares that Romans and John are two of the key NT books that have shaped his thinking.  Go figure!!!

A Brief Book Interlude

I just finished reading Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson and have started the twin sister For Calvinism by Michael Horton.  Olson writes from the Arminian perspective and discusses in particular high Calvinism and its Five Points, Five Doctrines of Grace, or TULIP specifically (There are a variety of names for these five positions but he only discusses 4, the book is not that long).  Olson makes a point of holding this manner of Reformation theology to the logical standards it so stringently enforces of others. While many of the examples do not resonate strongly, they are merely examples to illustrate various issues.

My concern as a non-professional theologian and as a professional biblical interpreter is the use by both positions of Scriptural passages. I understand the nearly 500 year history of these positions and their birth in the 'scholastic' era, but my concern is the continued (mis)use of biblical interpretation.  Both positions appear to prefer a prooftext approach to their theological positions. As a baptist who follows the Arminian track fervently and avows the free church position fervently, I find it interesting that both positions appear to take modern corrections, not to mention post-modern corrections, to scholastic biblical interpretation so lightly. While Olson gives frequent signs of the larger approach and I am not opposed to any particular Arminians or Calvinists, it is the Arminian and Calvinist use of Scripture that I abhor. If the avowed position is sola Scriptura, then why do both hold so dogmatically to, dare I say the word, "tradition"?

It appears that both positions are birthed from modernity and the adherents are content to argue their doctrines from the modern position with little recognition of the post-modern world.  We'll see how the book fur it reads!!!