It didn’t take me long after researching the question to conclude that I’ve always been Calvinist. Calvinism and Arminianism both provide equally logical frameworks of description, and both are orthodox reform Christianity. Neither explanation is flawless, but both are as good as can be expected. I don’t expect humans to ever come up with anything better this side of heaven. If forced to choose between the two explanations, I choose Calvinist, while flatly denying any possibility that God is the author of sin. Although I agree that Arminians are saved, the core of the Arminian argument makes me uncomfortable.
On the other hand, I’ve become increasingly appalled at the behavior of “Calvinists” on the web. It’s hard to believe that these people believe what they claim to believe.
In researching the history of the split, I found that Calvin and his supporters accused Arminius of siding with the Roman Catholics. The fear was that Arminius’s interpretation would start a slippery slope to ecumenicalism and rapprochement with Rome, and it was this fear in part which led to Calvin taking such a hard position on predestination. Ironically, it is this same mentality that underlies certain fundamentalists who want to elevate Young Earth Creationism to the status of “essential doctrine”. These fundamentalists express dismay that conservative evangelicals have adopted most of the historical fundamentalist agenda, and the fundamentalists are terrified that ecumenicalism will triumph over militant separation – so they grasp at new doctrines to reinforce separation and defeat ecumenicalism.
Regardless of what threat Arminius posed to early Protestantism, I think it’s clear that modern Calvinist bloggers are out to discredit Protestantism. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that many of these strident bloggers and comment trolls are bankrolled by some anti-Protestant conspiracy. At a minimum, these borderline-autistic idiots discredit Calvinism, which contributes to the slippery slope of ecumenicalism and makes the universalists look downright reasonable. That is no small feat.
(Of course, there are exceptions. For example, Dan Phillips at TeamPyro has a series titled “communicating better”, which presents Calvinist ideas in a common-sense format that is not gratuitously offensive or autistic. Contrast Dan’s irenic style with the relatively disgusting treatment of Calvinism from speakers at Piper’s upcoming “Desiring God” conference, and you’ll see why Phillips is the exception that proves the rule.)
“In researching the history of the split, I found that Calvin and his supporters accused Arminius of siding with the Roman Catholics…and it was this fear in part which led to Calvin taking such a hard position on predestination.”
i’m not sure what history you are looking at – calvin died when jacobus arminius was 3 years old. i’m fairly confident that calvin did not accuse him of anything nor did arminius affect any of calvin’s theological positions.
there are unpleasant people on both sides. i hope you don’t become one of them even after many years of being told by arminians (such as the one you linked to) that you “naturally” believe that “God is the ‘author of sin,’ and that your God is “indistinguishable from the devil”…
http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46486
@chalee – Thanks for stopping by. You’re completely right. In fact, the “Romanist” accusations I was thinking of occured after Arminius’s death as well. I’ve seen the insinuation on a lot in message boards, and Wikipedia says:
“Behind the theological debate lay a political one between Prince Maurice, a strong military leader, and his former mentor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Grand Pensionary of Holland and personification of civil power. Maurice, who had Calvinist leanings, desired war with Holland’s enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace. In the years after Arminius’ death, Maurice became convinced that Oldenbarnevelt (and by association, Arminians) had strong Catholic sympathies and were working to deliver Holland to Spain. As insurance, Maurice and his militia systematically and forcibly replaced Remonstrant magistrates with Calvinist ones. Thus, when the State General called for a synod in 1618, its outcome was predetermined. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius were arrested, and the synod, held at Dordrecht, convened.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate
And yes, although I really like Olson’s book, I was pretty turned off by his attitude in the article I linked to. When even the standard-bearer of irenic Arminianism makes comments like that, I suppose we can expect the friction to continue.