Theological Balance

As I prepare a lesson on AVL trees (a form of balanced BST), I notice the similarity of the imbalanced tree and the least God-honoring thing that occurs in theological discussions within many blogs. For example, many adhere to a Calvinist theology and in support of that they have read much of the standard corpus on the topic and can quite handily post quotes from these works on their blogs. Many times, the posts are without comment, I suppose to confer some finitude to the quote that is posted as if to say, here is a statement by John T. Ulip which says that Calvinism is right, all other theological constructs are wrong and no analysis is necessary.

While the pursuit of truth is noble, the true pursuit of truth requires the engagement of opposing viewpoints to the same degree as you pursue those you agree with. In other words, the Calvinist (or Arminian) library should be nearly equally filled with works representing both theological schools. This is far different from presenting a quote by Mr. Ulip who says Arminianism is false and heretical; you honor God in your pursuit of the truth by reading deeply from both schools before presenting something as fact. In matters of theology, it is not acceptable to believe something is wrong simply because someone else told you it is wrong. God gave you a mind and the ability to use it to discern truth, and you honor his gifts in you by coming to a decision from the fruits of your own labors.

Because, after all, the Arminian is also going to say “the Arminian view is correct because the bible teaches it.” How will this argument go? Is, is not! Is, is not! 

One thought on “Theological Balance”

  1. Thank you for your post. I couldn’t agree more. The necessity of using reason in the area of theology is extremely important.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: