I recently preached a two part series entitled, Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The purpose of the series was to show the differences between major groups/traditions/denominations/teams (or however you prefer to label it) within Christianity, but also to look at what varying groups hold in common, including how we can work/worship together based on our commonalities.
This, of course, returned me to a previous study of the theology known as Calvinism (usually associated with Baptists, Presbyterians, Independent Bible churches, Reformed churches, etc.) When looking at contrasting systems of belief, I usually look to find that core of the differences, and not just any difference. Calvinism is usually best known for the doctrines of eternal security ("once saved, always saved") and/or predestination. But I don't believe either of these are the core. Eternal Security, in fact, is the necessary conclusion of the system (which is really untenable without the entire system) But the real foundation of the system, or the "root of the TULIP" if you will, is the doctrine of divine sovereignty. That is, that God is fully and absolutely in charge of everything in the universe. In my own words, God micromanages every movement in the universe. This, of course, does not allow for any free-will. Not only the philosophical and often atheistic version of free-will, but also the Wesleyan, God-given and limited freedom kind.
Then I found this quote- the best I have seen- that really sums up our differences:
This truly is the core of the core of the debate between
Calvinism and Arminianism. And we must
note and acknowledge that this sentence, and its converse, are philosophical
constructs, and are a priori in
nature. That is, one makes a decision
regarding this issue, and then selectively reads and conveniently interprets
all of Scripture through this construct, or filer. Note that the source
for this is a book on the necessity of systematic theology, which, as a formal
discipline, co-mingles biblical AND philosophical theology. The word systematic
implies it. If not, then it is merely
biblical theology, which results in mixed bag of both human freedom and
absolute divine sovereignty, without a clear explanation between the two.
The Calvinist reasons as he reads Scripture, and lands at the above
conclusion. The Arminian reasons as he
reads, and concludes that God, in his undeniable sovereignty, creates and
allows for “chance” which is really managed freedom, and that this managed
freedom in no way denies God’s sovereignty but only upholds and indeed
magnifies it!
This, then is the separating point between the two systems of theology. The real core, I believe, for both. Every other difference, I would argue, stems from here.
