No Hill to Die On

I know I just referenced Tim Irvin’s blog last week, but his posts have a way of staying with me for a while and then coming to mind later when something comes up. He had a post a short while ago called Can Calvinism Be Taught? which asked many of the same questions I have had lately. The basic premise is that we DoG’s will read the same Bible as any Arminian, but see the sovereignty of God in the words while those who reject Calvinism for any reason they may have see something different. I didn’t understand what Calvinism was until I developed a better understanding of the Bible, but that is not to say that a non-Calvinist has a deficient understanding. Why is it that some accept this doctrine and others reject it?

With a few exceptions by vocal, extremist boneheads (may their feet forever stink!) those who do accept the Doctrine of Grace and those who do not refuse to allow this difference in opinion define who is saved and who is not. Each side believes that theirs is the correct interpretation and the other side has an incorrect difference of perception that does nothing to affect their accepted truth or their standing before God. And thus, the debate is waged, sometimes quite forcefully. I am on the Calvinist side of the debate, but I refuse to look upon an Arminian as my foe. I look at them as someone who doesn’t yet realize what it is that they have, and thus, their joy is incomplete. If I were to spew out hateful things at them, they would only solidify their opinion against my side. Debate does have its place, but there is no room for infighting.

The subject of what has caused individuals to embrace Calvinism also came up on a thread in ChristianForums.com. Many people remarked that they are more joyous than they had been before, but most stayed on topic and answered the question. You know what? I can’t think of a single person who had embraced this doctrine all of their life. Even those who had been raised in a reformed tradition, spoke the creeds, heard the preaching and all of that were saying that they didn’t accept this doctrine in their hearts until they were older. They had to study it, look at the counter points with an unfettered eye, meditate over scripture, and then come to their conclusion. It’s almost like an Amish boy spending a year among the English so they can make a more balanced decision.

To decide which set of doctrine you will accept, I believe it is wise to take a lesson from our technology-deprived friends. Your faith in God is certainly strong enough to give the other side an honest look, isn’t it? And certainly you are mature enough to give that side a full look without cursing it under your breath the entire time, right? And maybe, just maybe, you will find that your impression of the other side was not accurate. Most Amish boys return to the communities they grew up in, but not all. Some find opportunities (good and bad) that cause them to stay among those with horseless carriages and others return to what they have always known.

The point is, they made a decision after having seen both sides of the debate for themselves. Not only did they hear their family and friends tell them what they thought about those with light switches and Nintendo, they got some first-hand knowledge of that life and then made their own decision. Sure they had preconceived notions. Who doesn’t? Some people in the technological world like to poke fun at those who don’t have their own e-mail addresses, but how many have tried to go a year without checking their e-mail?

How many people have looked at the other side of the coin when it comes to sovereignty versus absolute freedom to all? How many have given the other view an honest look? People, this is not heresy! There are certain doctrinal hills where its OK to fight and worth dying on, such as the trinity or the divinity of Christ. There are also non-essentials, such as whether or not a guitar can be used for proper worship or who chose who first. One can be fought, the other should be debated. The debatables should be fully understood beforehand. Perhaps not embraced or even accepted. But misunderstood doctrine is no hill to die on.