I was having a conversation with a friend who is a United Methodist pastor a few years back. He was a well educated man with a doctoral degree and Arminian to the core. We got onto the subject of predestination vs free will, and he quoted the following to me (though not in my own translation, which I present here):
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often have I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you did not want to! — Matthew 23:37
“It’s really very simple,” he said to me. “When Jesus said that he would have, but didn’t because they wouldn’t, he was either lying, or he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, they had free will, they had a choice. I choose to believe that Jesus was telling the truth!”
Good for him!
On another occasion, I was talking to a convinced Calvinist who was a Hebrew student. I had commented that I didn’t really find the doctrine of predestination very attractive. Of course, that isn’t necessarily a good argument against it. He said that he didn’t find it very attractive either, but he thought it was scriptural, so he believed it. He too had a text to quote:
28 We know that all things work together for goodu for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30 (NRSV)
“That’s what the Bible says,” he told me, “And I believe it!” Good for him too!
Now I’m aware of the many arguments that can swirl around these texts, and of many ways of reconciling the various positions, but I simply want to comment briefly on each person’s approach. Each of these men was a pastor. Each was determined to follow the teachings of scripture as fully as possible, each of them would have agreed on the broad outlines and most of the details of how to interpret the Bible, and yet they held essentially opposite views on this point.
Arminians, of course, claim to believe in predestination–they just interpret it differently. To a Calvinist, it appears that they don’t really believe in it at all. Calvininsts claim to believe in freewill, and even have an article on it in the Westminster Confessions (it’s Article IX). But Arminians read that article and find that it isn’t adequate to the texts that teach human responsibility and free will.
At another time I was organizing a youth event in which we would have pastors and teachers from several churches and denominations get together to teach high school age young people to defend their faith. There were enormous differences in many areas of theology, from creation and evolution, to church standards. Our staff included United Methodists, Presbyterian Church in America, and Assemblies of God along with a couple of independents. But one issue was brought up to me as one that required guidance on how to answer–Calvinism vs. Arminianism. And indeed students did ask.
My guidance at the time was simply to say that there are texts in the Bible that appear to teach predestination and other texts that appear to teach freewill, and all our disagreements result from the way we combine those texts. The various teachers were quite willing to go with that.
And I think that’s a very good answer. There are substantial investments both of personality and theology in each of these positions. What we hear with each of these texts is impacted heavily by what we bring to it. I believe that the scriptures do not settle this issue, but rather simply assert both divine sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. But that’s very hard for us to live with, so we each feel the need to explain how they work together, and I’m no different from the rest on this point. I’m such a convinced Arminian that I’m no more than a step or so from being Pelagian. Of course, a “proper” Arminian might object to the idea that I could be a convinced Arminian and nonetheless stray into Pelagianism, but I’ll have to leave that for another discussion. Perhaps I’m not as Arminian as I suppose.
But still when I look at it practically, I see a great deal of similarity in how Calvinists and Arminians view the Christian life, even if our theological structure is so different. In exploring with my Calvinist Hebrew student, whom I taught one-on-one for a year, I found that when we went to apply things to real life, we reached very similar conclusions. Discipleship, evangelism, preaching of salvation, even social action were areas on which we could very often agree. We did have some differences on social action that were not the result of the Calvinist Arminian divide, but that is also another topic. Our underlying doctrinal structure had less impact on how we lived and how we did ministry than anyone could expect.
I recall attending a lecture by John Blanchard, a Presbyterian evangelist. Now many Arminians have told me that they are shocked that there are such things as Presbyterian evangelists, though Blanchard is hardly alone. Someone asked him a question during the question and answer time. “How can you believe in predestination and also be an evangelist?” I suspect the questioner was a mischiveous Presbyterian rather than a Methodist interloper such as myself. He said this: “Predestination is a doctrine, and I believe it. Evangelism is a command and I obey it.” (Quoted from memory.) In practical terms, how can I argue with that?
I have two points right now. First, how we develop our doctrinal structure on this and many other points depends on what text(s) we make the key to our theological structure. Each side can find proof-texts, and each can find whole proof chapters. One of my favorites is Jeremiah 18, and it’s also a favorite of many of my Calvinist brethren. We just look at different parts of the chapter! Second, our theological framework is not necessarily the most decisive factor in our diligence and effectiveness as disciples. If we can overlook some theological disagreements, we can often find common ground in obeying the commands of Jesus. I would suggest that a great deal of Christian division could be quieted by emphasizing those two points.
