Causal vs Social CenteredPart I: Glory

• Part I: Glory
• Part II: Election
• Part III: Atonement
• Part IV: Depravity
• Part V: Grace
• Part VI: Security

What Is Centeredness

I have often heard it said by Calvinists that they are God centered while we are man centered. Now as far as I have seen, they've never really given a definition about what it means for a theology to be "centered" on something. This has left us to guess what it is that they mean, which makes it very difficult to counter the accusation.¹ Now I have attempted to guess what they mean by this in the past, but after much analysis I think I now have a really good idea what they mean, and how the two theologies are truly centered.

I think my first mistake was that centering involved a central doctrine; that is some kind of central belief. However, I think that Calvinists mean more of a central theme. Also I don't think that centeredness necessarily has to be something that is consciously at the heart of someone's theology. Rather, I think it has to do with how a theology is developed or constructed. So let me give this basic definition:

Centeredness refers to the controlling theme or idea that shapes the way someone thinks about a particular topic.

So, what do they mean by God-centered and man-centered? Well here I think they are intentionally vague because I doubt that they are really that consistent on it. I do think that by "God-centered" they basically mean Soli Deo Gloria: that every aspect of their theology is designed to give God glory. Likewise, "man-centered" must mean the opposite.

However, if this is true, both of us are God-centered. This is because I think one of the central differences between us is what we think gives God glory. Both of us are equally focused on Soli Deo Gloria. After all, Calvinists are most concerned with God's sovereignty while we are most concerned with God's character. But both traits have God as their subject.² So I think this scheme is seriously lacking.

I propose then a different scheme: causal centered vs socially centered.

What is Causally-centered?

To be causally centered is to be concerned with questions of causation and power. By 'power' I don't mean anything pejorative: I don't mean power hungry or anything else like that. Rather power is simply defined as the ability to get things done. Calvinists, in my estimation, are principally focused on how things in salvation are caused. Therefore we can think of power or causal-centeredness as when someone defines terms or weighs doctrine on questions of cause and effect.

Therefore it is little wonder that the Calvinist would understand 'glory' in terms of sovereignty and determinism. If their greatest concern is how things are accomplished, then it stands to reason that giving God the credit for everything that happens would give Him the most glory.

It also makes some sense that they would think that LFW gives human's glory. We don't think about it in that way, but to the Calvinist LFW means that you get to be the cause of what happens in the world. That is a little taste of glory to them. Therefore since humans have more power in Arminianism than they do in Calvinism, Arminianism would be more "man-centered". However, this is a causally-centered analysis, and has nothing to do with how Arminians think or even develop their theology. Because it doesn't represent how Arminians actually think, it can't be accurate. Rather it is Calvinists reading their own interests into Arminian theology.

What is Socially-centered?

By social, what I mean is that we ask questions about how God has relationships with other things. This also includes Himself within the Trinity. Having relationships is what defines a being as being personal. So it is more these personal ideas that drives our thinking. This is why our core ideas are God's personal attributes such as love and goodness.

Therefore, it is of little wonder that we would understand 'glory' in terms of goodness. To us, it is declaring God as good which gives him the most honor and glory. Indeed, power based glory strikes me as cheap and human. When the Jews expected to see the glory of the Messiah, they expected Him to come in power and defeat Rome. Rather He died on the cross out of love for the world. (I Corinthians 1:18-31)

In fact, determinism strikes me as dishonoring to God. I think that humans do tend to define glory in terms of power, and us expecting God to do the same is thinking of God like He's a human. Now I wouldn't call this "man-centered", but I do think that it dishonors Him, making Him more like us, rather than us trying to be more like His Son.

Subsequent posts

My next few posts will be taking us through the 5 points in the order of the Articles to see how my theory may help clarify our differences. While I will be arguing for Arminianism in these posts though, I don't really think of this as exposing the underbelly of Calvinism. Calvinists can embrace this distinction and argue that we should be more causal-centered. My actual hope is to develop a more helpful distinction that will facilitate communication between. A foghorn so we don't merely pass each other in the night.

So Calvinists, please don't take this distinction as criticism, but an attempt at understanding each other. We are brothers, and it is my greatest hope that this sibling rivalry would stop distracting us with the mission for the kingdom.
________________________________________________
¹Note how it isn't difficult to counter due to any merits of the argument. It is simply ambiguous.

²A Calvinist may argue that being focused on God's character is still man-centered because it has to do with how God treats man. Man is the object of God's love ("God loves man": God-subject; love-verb; man-object). However, the same can be said about sovereignty since it is man that God is sovereign over ("God rules man": God-subject; rule-verb; man-object). And as an Arminian, I'm not just concerned with His love for us, but also about His love for Himself within the Godhead. Now it is true that this doesn't come up that much within soteriology, but that is because man is the object of salvation ("God saves man": God-subject; save-verb; man-object).This really makes it impossible to avoid.

Atheist Rhetoric: The Series

This is the index page of a new series that I am planning on doing. As the series progresses, I'll be adding links here to each installment. Like my series on Calvinist rhetoric, its length is not planned. I'll include new installments as I come up with them. The first installment will be up next week.

This series will be engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics (or in this case polemics) where the underlying assumptions of a position are considered as opposed to looking at evidence or surface level arguments. While I will be talking about some arguments in particular, that will not be my objective. Instead, I will be trying to assess why Atheists argue what they argue (even when it comes to decent arguments) based off of how Atheists tend to argue.

My current posts in this series are:

• Ridicule
• Equivocation

Each post has three sections: What I Mean By _____(where I explain the rhetorical phenomenon I'm talking about), ____ In Action (where I discuss briefly some Atheists arguments that use the rhetoric), and The End Result (where I talk about my analysis of rhetoric's effectiveness with Christians). You may also notice that each post has two titles: one which is silly and one which is serious. This is because I enjoy torturing people with my bad sense of humor. Please indulge me.

This series is meant to be neither comprehensive in terms of discussing all aspects of Atheist rhetoric, nor to be comprehensive in terms of each post applying to every single Atheist. Instead, this series is indicative of my experience interacting with Atheists and is meant to be representative of how, in general, Atheism is being presented.

Why I Am An ArminianThe Series

Back in 2008, I started a series as to why I am an Arminian and not a Calvinist. However, while working on the third post, I ended up expanding the series, and then expanding it, until I realized that I wouldn't be able to publish it immediately. Now, 5 years later, I finished, including revamping the two original posts a bit.

Now, I haven't been working dilligently on this for all that time. I've dropped the project and picked it back up a couple of times now. However, I have put a lot of work into this, and I am hoping to get some feedback. So please invite people to view this particular series. I have attempted to cover the full range of the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, though not with a great depth (it is only 6 posts). After all, you couple probably write a book on this subject. Maybe two.

The 6 posts that are going to be published every Monday starting next week will be:

1. Testimony
2. Calvinists
3. History
4. Theology
5. Unconvinced by Proof-Texts
6. Convinced by Scripture

As each post, the link to that post will be added to this one in the above list. I might also add that there is an intentional pattern to the order of the posts. It moves from the most subjective to the most objective arguements. Therefore, the arguements that I believe are the most compelling are in the latter posts. This is why I treat Scripture last (which I devote two posts to). I might also add that the posts move from the lightest to the heaviest.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy, and invite your theologically minded friend. I think it is some of my best work.

Calvinist Rhetoric: The Series

This is the index page of a new series that I am planning on doing. As the series progresses, I'll be adding links here to each installment. What distinguishes this series from most of my other ones is that its length is not planned. I'll include new installments as I come up with them. The first installment will be up tomorrow, and will probably be the most philosophically based one.

This series will be engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics (or in this case polemics) where the underlying assumptions of a position are considered as opposed to looking at evidence or surface level arguments. While I will be talking about some arguments in particular, that will not be my objective. Instead, I will be trying to assess why Calvinists argue what they argue (even when it comes to decent arguments) based off of how Calvinists tend to argue.

My current posts in this series are:

• Idealistic Abstractions
• Euphemism and Dysphemism
• The Stronghold
• Slipperly Slopes
• Consistancy
• Proof-Texting
• Strawman
• Jargon
• Piety

Each post has three sections: What I Mean By _____(where I explain the rhetorical phenomenon I'm talking about), ____ In Action (where I discuss briefly some Calvinist arguments that use the rhetoric), and The End Result (where I talk about my analysis of rhetoric's effectiveness with Arminians, other Calvinists, and those without soteriological commitments). You may also notice that each post has two titles: one which is silly and one which is serious. This is because I enjoy torturing people with my bad sense of humor. Please indulge me.

This series is meant to be neither comprehensive in terms of discussing all aspects of Calvinist rhetoric, nor to be comprehensive in terms of each post applying to every single Calvinist. Instead, this series is indicative of my experience interacting with Calvinists and is meant to be representative of how, in general, Calvinism is being presented.

UnchristianPart I: Introduction

• Introduction
• Hypocrisy
• Proselytizing
• Antihomosexual
• Sheltered
• Too Political
• Judgmental
• Conclusion

A friend of mine recently read Unchristian by David Kinnaman and it has so affected his thought that he asked me to read it, and talk to him about the content. So recently I took the book from the library and am currently reading it.

The gist of the book is simple. At the request of a friend, Mr. Kinnaman of the Barna Group began an investigation into how those who are not Christians view Christianity. I find it interesting that he doesn't use the word 'Nonchristian' to describe them, but instead chooses the word 'outsiders'. Means the same thing, but apparently he found that the word "Nonchristian' has some unnecessary baggage attached to it that he wanted to distance himself from. That's fine. In either case, he began a research project into what can essentially be called Christianity's public image.

Now, I haven't read through the book (I like to write about books as I read them since this blog is more a record of my thinking process than it is a catalog of my opinion), but I've finished the first two chapters and I am happy to say that he seems to be avoiding the mentality that I feared.

Personally, I do not think it is our responsibility as Christianity to be liked. The world isn't supposed to like us, Christ made that quite clear. The early church's reputation was replete with false accusations and misunderstandings. So the fact that such things are happening now, it doesn't mean that we are being bad. Mr. Kinnaman seems to agree:

"As Christians, we have to avoid being defensive about the culture's push to remove Christianity's power in society. This book never advocates that we try to become more popular. Our task is to be effective agents of spiritual transformation in people's lives, whatever that may cost in time, comfort, or image." -pp. 19

The issue isn't so much whether the culture likes us or not. It is: Are these the things that we want them to be made at us for? Are these the big issues?

Kinnaman 6 different issues which seem to be at the forefront of our PR. As I go through the book, I intend to address Kinnaman's thoughts as well as bringing up my own. You may notice that up top I have a list of the various parts to this series. They will eventually be links that I'll be updating as the series progresses so that each post links to each post.

I hope to get through this in the next two weeks. I look forward to your thoughts.

Copyright for all references to the book in this series: David Kinnaman,UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity... And Why It Matters, (Grand Rapids, Mishigan: Baker Books, 2007).

Devotional index

Ephesians:

• Chapter 1
• Verses 1-2
• Verses 3-6
• Verses 7-10
• Verses 7-8
• Verses 9-10
• Verses 11-12
• Verses 13-14