An argument with John - 23 September 2010 |
|
Ian Hamilton’s account of the so-called “atonement controversy” in 19th-century Scottish church (ch. 3 of The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy) is most instructive.
The dispute centred on the extent of Christ’s atoning work, which in turn has implications for the primacy (or otherwise) of God’s decree of election. As Hamilton points out, the view that Christ atoned for all men implies that “election [is] a secondary consideration having reference to the application of redemption not to its provision” (p. 46).
As so often in theological debate, therefore, the argument over a specific theological issue was intensified by what that position was thought by its critics to imply. “You guys assert X, which isn’t great; however, what’s worse is that X surely implies Y and Z, which are much more serious errors.”
This kind of dispute arises often in contemporary discussion, and it’s important to recognise the complications that can result. Not only must we make sure that we’re understood X rightly and appraised it biblically, we have to do the same for Y and Z, and what’s more we must assess the claim that Y and Z do indeed necessarily follow from X, especially if the holder of X denies Y and Z.
To take an example (moving away from Hamilton’s book momentarily), imagine you’re talking to someone (let’s call him John) who says, “We feed on Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” Let’s call that X. You might disagree, not only because you don’t like the sound of X itself, but also because you feel that it implies something approaching the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (Y) and a Roman Catholic version of the ex opere operato efficacy of the sacraments (Z), both of which are really bad news.
But John replies that he doesn’t believe Y or Z, and moreover insists that neither Y nor Z follow from his understanding of X, which goes to show that you’ve misunderstood X too. Suddenly you’ve got a whole bunch more things to talk about, and lots more potential (if you’re not careful) for unpleasantness.
Returning to Hamilton’s book, it is regrettable that the Scottish church seemed unable to avoid this slide into acrimony. Hamilton speaks of the “ill feeling and bitterness” that attended the synod’s final decision, which “was more a rebuke … than an exercise in Christian charity” (p. 79). Let today’s church hear and understand this and the other lessons that Ian has in store.
It might interest you, by the way, to learn that John’s surname is – yup, you guessed it – Calvin.
Get more here on 2 October 2010.
 |
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Minister's Blog