Start Wrong, End Wrong.

Theologically speaking, when a theology begins in a place it shouldn't, it ends up in a lot of trouble in the end.

Two great examples of this are the radical reformation theologies of Calvinism, taught in the Reformed Churches as well as Presbyterian and some Baptists; and Arminianism, taught by most Baptists, Wesleyans, and Charismatic churches.

A Synod was convened at Dort in 1618 in which the Remonstrants (Arminians) were challenging the traditional staunch predestinarian doctrines of the Reformed Church (Calvinists). The Remonstrants brought five objections to Reformed Theology, and the famous 5 points of Calvinism was the Reformed response.

Interestingly enough, the bickering that existed between these two schools of theological thought in the early 17th century is alive and well today. It is also quite common for proponents of these two systems to lump everything theological into one system or the other. Hence, any Christian church that believes in some sort of free will in the conversion of a sinner is "Arminian" and any church that believes that God elects people to salvation is "Calvinist."

The problem is that this caricature given by many evangelicals is just not true. No form of sacramental Christianity fits into either of these categories.

Ultimately, the problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism is that they begin their theology in the wrong spot. Arminianism starts with the free will of man. Some Arminians may object to this, but the objection is empty. This is precisely where Arminianism challenges Calvinism and thus begins its theology as an anti-Calvinism of sorts.

When you start with the free will of man, everything in the theological system ends up being read through that lens. Hence, you end up with logical deductions made into dogma. For instance, in many Baptist churches, there is a doctrine called the Age of Accountability. This is a direct result of elevating free will to a primary status. It is surmised that since an infant or young child is not capable of understanding the Gospel and thus unable to make a free will choice, they are then not held accountable by God until they are able to choose one way or the other. Of course, Scripture nowhere teaches this doctrine. It is an example of something completely foreign to Scripture being made a doctrine due to a starting place that is erroneous. Not to mention, many Arminian churches are Baptist, and one of the main arguments they make against infant baptism is that the infant is not able to choose to be baptized. Some Arminians have even proposed blasphemous absurdities like Open Theism, in which God doesn't know the future simply to keep our free will truly free.

Calvinism, on the other hand, has its own difficulties. Generally speaking, Calvinism starts their theology with the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. This idea manifests itself in different ways. One way is that Calvinists tend to get involved with abstract in-house debates about the logical ordering of God's decrees in eternity past. Scripture, however, really doesn't give enough information for one to hold to any of these logical orders. This is also something Luther would term a theology of glory. The Calvinist here is peering into the hidden God.

One outworking of this idea is that objectively speaking, the sacraments are stripped of their power. Ultimately, if a person is elect, the sacraments are effacious for them. But if they are not elect, the sacraments are useless. In this manner, the Spirit is divorced from the places He said He will be in grace. For this reason, Calvinists have to invent novel theories for retaining infant baptism. Calvinism and Infant Baptism Ultimately, infant baptism makes very little sense at all in a Calvinist Theology. It can't be to save them like Scripture says, because there is no correlation (or at the very least, it is unclear) between baptism and God's decree to elect specific individuals in eternity past.

Calvinism also relegates Christ's work to a status that must fit within God's logical order of decrees. Suffice it to say, Christ's work is always logically relegated to a position after God's decree of election. Hence, the Calvinist will argue that Christ only died for the elect and no one else. It is difficult for the Calvinist to say that "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) or "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14), because Christ is only for the elect in their scheme.

Some of the higher Calvinists even take their doctrine of sovereignty to a level where they are fully comfortable saying that God is the author of sin. Perish the thought!

The bottom line is that if a theology begins in the wrong place and reads their starting point into everything else, they end up contradicting Scripture and deviating from classic Christian theology all over the place once the doctrines are fleshed out. Both combatants of the radical Reformation do this repeatedly. As I have argued elsewhere, the Reformed Churches are not a Reformation (Reformed is a Misnomer) but rather a completely new thing. Not to mention the Arminian Remonstrance, which is even further off the rails.

The proper starting place in Christian theology is not philosophical debates about the human will or the hidden God in eternity past. It is Christ, revealed to us, crucified and risen. Only in Lutheranism is this the case.

+Pax+