Ken Hamrick
Active member
I'm a Centrist --in between two erroneous extremes (Arminianism & Calvinism) whose errors are repugnant to each other, but who each share part of the biblical truth. When fallen men are faced with truth, they have often veered to either side, causing unending division but obscuring the truth in between them. Most of us in the middle just call it Biblicism 
--like the myriad Baptist saints before me who, although not making a name for themselves in theological debates, held to the truths they found affirmed in Scripture regardless of what Calvinists or Arminians thought. I venture to say that there are probably more of us in the middle than there are C's and A's together. But I'm talking about people in the pews and pulpits, and not those in debate forums or seminaries. Like A. W. Tozer, for example, who was a C&MA preacher in the 50's & 60's, famous for his book, The Pursuit of God. Not holding regeneration prior to faith and not identifying with Calvinists, he beautifully wrote of God as being the "master of destinies" and how sinful man will often bow to God, acknowledging Him as God, but while having a crown upon their own head and wanting to master their own destiny.
He was right, of course. God is the Master of destinies and the Bible affirms that election is individual and unconditional. But there are very many of us who hold to that truth who also see--quite clearly--that the Bible affirms that the gospel has both a universal call and a universal warrant that all men can and should repent and would find salvation if they did. For such middlers, unconditional election is not some limiting factor on who or how many may be saved, but is instead, a mysterious correlate to how much labor we are willing to apply to the "fields white with harvest."
One of Calvinism's errors is taking what is literal and treating it as a figure, analogy or metaphor. Spiritual death is a literal condition, and not an analogy to an inanimate body in a grave. Spiritual death is not about being inanimate--it's about being separated from God. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." And a spirit without God is dead. There is also the condition of being "dead in sins," in which you are not only spiritually separated from God, but also a dead man walking, as it were, regarding the coming judgment. But neither way of expressing the condition of spiritual death contains within its meaning the idea of being inanimate.
Calvinists tend to object that the Bible says that sinners are deaf and blind, like dead bodies in a way. But if you consider the totality of texts that speak in this way, you can't avoid that the Bible deems men culpable for such inabilities. In other words, they are not blind like Bartimaeus, who wanted with all his heart to see; but rather, they are blind like rebellious children, holding their hands over their eyes so that they might not have to see. It's the same with stopping their ears. And this is confirmed by such things as their running from and hating the light that truly blind men cannot see.
In actuality, we as sinners sit in our dark tombs in "chains of bondage" that only Christ can break. His Spirit bears witness to the truth as it is preached, and if we respond by embracing Him, He will break the chains and pull us out of that place of darkness and death and into His light and love and life. Many will hear the truth, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to that truth. But only some will come. And in every case, it was God alone who decided whether to bring to bear enough gracious influences (internal and external) to bring that man to genuine, repentant faith in Christ, or to not bring to bear that level of influences that He knew would have resulted in successful conversion. It is all according to God's eternal plan, which has as its ultimate goal the glorification of Himself.
Calvinists will balk at how much the will of man is involved in such a scheme, but a fair assessment will acknowledge that the sovereignty of God and the interests of "by grace alone" are preserved. Arminians will balk at not having the so-called freedom to control their own destinies, but they must acknowledge that, in such a scheme, they have far less to balk at than the usual Calvinist scheme. Besides, the demand to control your own destiny is a demand to be equal to God--to be your own God, in effect. Only God is God, and man must bow to that.
So the next time someone here claims that this forum is not for any who disagree with both sides, inform them that the Arminianism & Calvinism Spectrum contains a lot of people in the middle who have a legitimate reason to critically discuss the perceived errors of both--and to do so in this forum.
Ken Hamrick
--like the myriad Baptist saints before me who, although not making a name for themselves in theological debates, held to the truths they found affirmed in Scripture regardless of what Calvinists or Arminians thought. I venture to say that there are probably more of us in the middle than there are C's and A's together. But I'm talking about people in the pews and pulpits, and not those in debate forums or seminaries. Like A. W. Tozer, for example, who was a C&MA preacher in the 50's & 60's, famous for his book, The Pursuit of God. Not holding regeneration prior to faith and not identifying with Calvinists, he beautifully wrote of God as being the "master of destinies" and how sinful man will often bow to God, acknowledging Him as God, but while having a crown upon their own head and wanting to master their own destiny. He was right, of course. God is the Master of destinies and the Bible affirms that election is individual and unconditional. But there are very many of us who hold to that truth who also see--quite clearly--that the Bible affirms that the gospel has both a universal call and a universal warrant that all men can and should repent and would find salvation if they did. For such middlers, unconditional election is not some limiting factor on who or how many may be saved, but is instead, a mysterious correlate to how much labor we are willing to apply to the "fields white with harvest."
One of Calvinism's errors is taking what is literal and treating it as a figure, analogy or metaphor. Spiritual death is a literal condition, and not an analogy to an inanimate body in a grave. Spiritual death is not about being inanimate--it's about being separated from God. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." And a spirit without God is dead. There is also the condition of being "dead in sins," in which you are not only spiritually separated from God, but also a dead man walking, as it were, regarding the coming judgment. But neither way of expressing the condition of spiritual death contains within its meaning the idea of being inanimate.
Calvinists tend to object that the Bible says that sinners are deaf and blind, like dead bodies in a way. But if you consider the totality of texts that speak in this way, you can't avoid that the Bible deems men culpable for such inabilities. In other words, they are not blind like Bartimaeus, who wanted with all his heart to see; but rather, they are blind like rebellious children, holding their hands over their eyes so that they might not have to see. It's the same with stopping their ears. And this is confirmed by such things as their running from and hating the light that truly blind men cannot see.
In actuality, we as sinners sit in our dark tombs in "chains of bondage" that only Christ can break. His Spirit bears witness to the truth as it is preached, and if we respond by embracing Him, He will break the chains and pull us out of that place of darkness and death and into His light and love and life. Many will hear the truth, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to that truth. But only some will come. And in every case, it was God alone who decided whether to bring to bear enough gracious influences (internal and external) to bring that man to genuine, repentant faith in Christ, or to not bring to bear that level of influences that He knew would have resulted in successful conversion. It is all according to God's eternal plan, which has as its ultimate goal the glorification of Himself.
Calvinists will balk at how much the will of man is involved in such a scheme, but a fair assessment will acknowledge that the sovereignty of God and the interests of "by grace alone" are preserved. Arminians will balk at not having the so-called freedom to control their own destinies, but they must acknowledge that, in such a scheme, they have far less to balk at than the usual Calvinist scheme. Besides, the demand to control your own destiny is a demand to be equal to God--to be your own God, in effect. Only God is God, and man must bow to that.
So the next time someone here claims that this forum is not for any who disagree with both sides, inform them that the Arminianism & Calvinism Spectrum contains a lot of people in the middle who have a legitimate reason to critically discuss the perceived errors of both--and to do so in this forum.
Ken Hamrick
