Calvinism's roots go back to the 4th century with Augustine, who's theology was "Gentile and philosophical" in orientation. When Augustine converted to Christianity he began categorizing the Scriptures in philosophical ways. That is, he put a philosophical framework around the Bible and drew brand new conclusions about what it says or teaches. Thus, he came up with a system of theology that had not existed till that time.This is a question that is likely to please nobody, but it is triggered by some of Mr. Gregg's remarks during the second day of the dialogue with Dr. White. The background here is that I've only been a Christian for about six years and have not yet had the chance to dig deeply into the qustion of Calvinism.
The people who wrote the Bible were "Jewish and relational" in orientation. The Jews did not see or think about God with a pagan (Gentile) worldview, as they, obviously, were Jews! Their theology accepts as true what philosophy or a systematic theology sees as contradictory. In other words, to the Jewish mind (the authors of the Scriptures) God can and does predestine everything yet allows for free will and accountability on the part of humanity---both concepts are true in Jewish thought, though they seem juxtaposed against one another to a "Gentile philosophical mindset."
In the study of Calvinism and Arminianism we aren't examining what the writers of the Bible, themselves, taught: We're looking at later interpretations of their thought. To understand what the Jews believed we have to go past Arminius, Calvin, Augustine, and all (Gentile) post-apostolic thinkers and to the 1st century, to the Bible itself.I know this isn't an original question, but my big picture question is, could the right answer be that there just isn't enough information to know for sure whether Calvinism is right or wrong?
Arminianism is closer to how Jews saw things than Calvinism. But this doesn't make Arminianism right. It's simply much more proximal to the Jewish worldview, which can accept as true things the Gentile mind cannot.
While Arminianism did try to correct Calvinistic errors, and succeeded in large part; we have to keep in mind that Arminius and the Arminians who followed after him were merely pointing out flaws in Calvinism. In so doing they arrived at conclusions that were more compatible with how the Bible authors (the Jews and the very first Christians) thought about God, predestination, the human will, etc., etc.
We have to remember that Calvinism and Arminianism were not in the minds of the Bible authors and the very first Christians.
Whether some passages seem Calvinistic or Arminian is secondary at best in terms of what the authors originally intended. Once again, if the biblical authors had been Gentiles and predisposed to see God philosophically they would have written about it (in the Bible). But, of course, they weren't Gentiles nor philosophical in orientation. So when it comes to interpreting passages we must not allow the questions of Calvinism and Arminianism cloud our thinking! A high percentage of passages that are employed by both Arminians and Calvinists to prove their points often have little (and sometimes, nothing) to say about what these two schools debate!There are passages that look like they go both ways, and it's pretty clear that there are ways for each side to deal with the others. In light of that, why shouldn't the right approach be one of agnosticism about Calvinism rather than having a dogmatic view on it one way or the other?
As to "agnosticism" on what passages mean.
They mean what they originally meant. And this will never change. Certain texts may go along with what these two camps teach to greater and lesser degrees. So it's a matter of seeing which school of thought is the closest to how Jesus, the Apostles, and the very first Christians viewed God and how He relates to humanity, and how humanity relates to Him.
I found studying Church history very helpful along these lines. It helped me realize that Calvinism and Arminianism are later developments after the Bible was written. As such, one view is closer to what the Bible People believed, while neither view fully captures their thought.
Arminianism can't be defined apart from Calvinism: What the biblical writers believed is defined separately from these two: both in historical and worldview (Gentile Vs. Jewish) terms. Thanks.
