I’m not sold on a pure Armininist outlook, finding a few problems with; neither too with Calvinism. Nor Calmanian, either…
At its core, Reformed theology is intellectual and focuses on theological structures which build on each other, which is important—yet the spirit, devotional, and emotional passion of the Wesleyan tradition is an essential part of a complete faith experience too. (read the rest here)
I see, somewhat, his point, but I don’t know if we should mesh them so easily. The ‘one is intellectual, one is spiritual’ seems to me to dismiss much of what is true about the two, which is much more than those two statements. Further, it dismisses the spirituality of Calvnism and the intellectualism of the Wesleyans.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The Indelible Image— an Interview with Nijay Gupta (beliefnet.com)
- The Wesleyan Quadrilateral Step by Step (by T) 3 (beliefnet.com)
- The Political Impact of Calvin’s Institutes of The Christian Religion (socyberty.com)
Like you, I don’t believe that the two views mesh so easily, if at all. Although I believe that we should not dismiss our Calvinist brothers out of hand nor should we look at them as somehow or another “lesser” Christians, the gulf between Calvinist and Wesleyan thought is much broader and deeper than Hunter alludes to.
Additionally, I also have a problem with the view that Wesleyanism is somehow or another less intellectual than Calvinism. If anything, I believe that the opposite is true. Whereas Calvinism is absolutely rigid in it’s approach to biblical interpretation, still clinging to the Augustinian theology developed over fifteen centuries ago, Wesleyanism and Arminianism thought is constantly looking for ways to reconcile biblical interpretation with God’s sovereignty and human free will.
Coupled with the insinuation that Wesleyans are also somehow or another more spiritual than Calvinists, I find the interview to be insulting to Calvinist’s and Wesleyan’s alike.
Dr. Hunter’s arguments, lately, have been too middle of the road, and lacking in substance, in my opinion. This latest entry is poor in theological speculation, and does an injustice to the dialogue.
I’m definitely not a Calvinist, but I also don’t go fully down the Arminian road. I’m sure the truth is somewhere between the two…
Peter, my view is of corporate election/predestination but individual free will