Sigh...
- If you have been involved in the soteriological debate over the past few years, you have heard among the academic and scholarly discussion "Calvinism has some foundational doctrines that originated in Manichean Gnosticism" I admit I say that, and believe it to be true. Though, neither I, or any apologist worth their salt call our Calvinist brothers "Manichean Gnostics" That would be uncharitable and not true. There are some folks who are vitriolic heresy hunters outright saying "Calvinism is Gnosticism" I have no interest in such irresponsible language. And those who align themselves with Provisionistic soteriology have not got that from our teaching, or mannerism. As a matter of fact they desparage any such behavior.
In recent years
Provisionists, like myself, have been called straight "Pelagian" and
that Provisionistic Soteriology is "blatantly Pelagian" not the lesser evil: "Provisionism has some Pelagian over tones" or "Provisionism has
some of its roots in Pelagainism" though better language, still untrue on
all fronts. Our offence, and strong language, towards the Calvinistic and
Lutheran scholars who say these things is immediately challenged with "you
call Calvinists: Manichean Gnostics". And it seems that we have a double
standard with quite a bit of special pleading.
Now this would be a
heavy blow and a exposition of our hypocrisy if the "you do it too"
fallacy, had equal scales. Equal scales meaning:
Left side of the scale:
Is
accusing Calvinists of being Manichean Gnostics because some of the Manichean
philosophy agrees with some portions of Manicheanism.
Right side of the scale:
Lutherans and Calvinists are calling Provisionists Pelagian because some of
Pelagain teaching about the nature of man agrees with Provisionist doctrine.
Though seeming
childish, atleast the scale measures even.
Now, if the premise of this contention was
true, then we would equally be ignorant and Provisionists especially would be
extra hypocritical for being offended and calling people dishonest who say
"we are Pelagian".
The problem is the
premise is not the same, the scales are not equal, and one side is correct, in
their argumentation, while the other is actually hypocritical for calling the
other hypocritical.
- No Provisionist scholar engaging in this says "Calvinism is Manichean Gnosticism" or "Calvinists are Gnostic" We maintain Calvinists as brothers, while we objectively prove; through peer reviewed scholarship; deterministic philosophy of Calvinism is rooted in Manichean Gnostic teaching. And not within the Church fathers for the first 400 years of Christendom.
- The academic information brought forth about the philosophical deterministic Manichean teaching, finding it's way into Christianity, then defining Calvinisms basis (the sovereign decree; All things are predetermined; You have no free will; Your fate is sealed before your birth ect ect..) All are foundational in Calvinism, and all find their origin in Augustine who was a Manichean Gnostic for 10 years prior to being converted to Christ. These things are factual.
- Our statements are rooted in actual data, thoroughly respected Reformed scholars affirm. Prior to this debate. We do not attribute to Calvinism nor Calvinistic scholars anything they do not teach, and have not taught with intentional documentation. Sources sited, sermons played, Confessions read out loud, debates time stamped.
This is contrasted
with:
- Calvinists and Lutherans have called Provisionism out right "Pelegain"; have called our scholars Pelagians; have used the term "Pelagian" to discredit and gaslight Provisionist scholars without any appeals to history, nor even a low level authority or the topic of Pelagianism.
- Calvinists and Lutherans give no factual data on how Provisionistic understanding of Soteriology correlates with anything historically defined as Pelagian, nor any quotations from the names sake Pelagius. Because by definition; demonstrably; there is no Pelagain doctrine within our soteriology. They have simply just said Provisionism is Pelagain. While admitting no knowledge of Provisionism; and or: "I do not listen or read your scholars" in regards to Provisionism.
- Calvinists and Lutherans are saying that we teach specific Pelagian doctrines that we do not, have not, and even have rejected. These things are being said either ignorantly, or willfully, which either or is not responsible, nor even Christian apologetics. They have said we reject doctrines, or do not believe doctrine essential to Christian orthodoxy. Specifically that we deny grace is needed prior to faith. That is and has been demonstrated to be a false testimony against Provisionistic Soteriology.
Right now I know one of my young
Calvinistic brethren are objecting or thinking we are lying. Not heaven or hell
could change your mind on that. Though, I am not lying. As a matter of fact I
wish I was lying, so I could clear this up simply by saying "I am so sorry
for misrepresenting your theology and calling you heretics, I was just
passionate, and I did not know what I was talking about. I repent and apologize
for any misrepresentation I put forth" I absolutely wish it was that easy.
Because among Christians IT REALLY IS THAT EASY. I would hop on my repentance
soap box so quickly to show I am a Christian who confesses, and asks for
forgiveness when I speak in damaging ignorance.
But alas I can not
do that for my Calvinistic brethren. Though I would do it for myself, for I
know I can be wrong often.
Provisionist Apologist
Kevin Kdot/Kevlar Henderson
Student at Trintiy College of the Bible and Theological Seminary
No comments:
Post a Comment