In this article, The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists, author and professor Bruce Hindmarsh speaks to other professors of religion and religious historians on the topic of Calvinism from a historical and cultural viewpoint. Hindmarsh explores how the sublime sovereignty of God was portrayed in literature, art, and poetry of the enlightenment, romantic period, and First and Second Great Awakenings. Hindmarsh essentially uses these cultural artifacts as evidence to support his viewpoint on the Calvinist doctrine.
The most important parts of Hindmarsh’s work to me include a type of free-will called “agency”, which he claims is what “the [original] debate revolved around [when] discerning the relationship of divine and human…” (Hindmarsh 384) Hindmarsh claims that some early Calvinists described the process of some believers becoming saved and others experience reprobation as a garden which is made more beautiful when contrasted with an unadorned landscape (similarly, the failure of some to believe makes the faith of those who do believe stronger.) (Hindmarsh 384). From this, Hindmarsh begins to shed light on the Calvinist belief that God is “... utterly sublime in His sovereignty” (Hindmarsh 385). This is a pivotal piece of Hindmarsh’s work, and the rest of his article is important to me as it explains this viewpoint which was meant to drive believers to “contemplation whereby her or she views God[’s] sovereignty in a way that corresponds to the viewer feeling humbled, abased, and small by comparison” (Hindmarsh 385). Hindmarsh gives me important historical reference to these Calvinist views as he talks of how the sublime was portrayed in literature, art, poetry, etc. of that time period (Hindmarsh 385). According to Hindmarsh, the sublime sovereignty of God, “overwhelms us by its sheer vastness and power” (Hindmarsh 386). Hindmarsh gives great historical perspective again, mentioning the scientific discovery of a “new cosmology of vast interstellar space” which contributed to Calvinists believe that while God is sublime in His power and might, it remains “a very awful thing, to be in the immediate presence of God” (Hindmarsh 386-388). Ultimately, Hindmarsh concludes that the Calvinism practiced during the historical Great Awakening contributed greatly to the modern doctrine showing that God can have “sovereign grace without diminishing His sense of sovereign power,” and overlooking the controversies of predestination by requiring believers to become more dependant on God while creating a more “constant sense of his [a believer’s] own weakness” to not understand God’s plans. (Hindmarsh 389-391).
The passages and terms above are important because they answer several of my initial research questions and give a much greater historical perspective on Calvinism than my previous sources. Hindmarsh does a great job showing how Calvinism was influenced by European culture at that time, especially in relation to what kind of Science was being discovered and how this influenced believers’ faith. The idea of the sublime sovereignty of God, as brought up by Hindmarsh throughout the majority of the article, shows how culture at that time was reacting and changing as the industrial revolution started to develop and romantic ideals were still very embryonic in nature. Even so, the idea of the world and God being sublime above mankind dominated this new doctrine, and Hindmarsh not only shows how Calinism was influenced by this ideal of the changing European culture, but also how Calvinism began influencing European culture itself, again answering one of my most important questions of how the doctrine has changed/developed over time and how it has influenced the culture around it. Above all of the cultural information given by Hindmarsh, he ultimately continues to present the dominant Calvinist viewpoint that God is above all else powerful, and that mankind cannot know His ways.
When comparing Hindmarsh’s work on Calvinism to that of Habets’ view on Calvinism in The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism, both believe that the will of God is ultimately unknown, and use this as a basis for predestination, although Hindmarsh largely ignores the idea as a whole and focuses exclusively on God’s sovereignty (which, in a sense, is at the heart of the predestination debate) (Hindmarsh 384) (Habets 349). Both Hindmarsh and Habets also agree on the ultimate power and authority attributed to a Calvinist God, but Habets is more moderate and modern in his perspective, claiming that God’s election causes a personal relationship with a believer (Habets 337). Hindmarsh makes no such claim, instead portraying a much more violent God who searches and cleanses sinners in His act of election, rather than creating a relationship (Hindmarsh 386-388). In this way, Hindmarsh shows a Calvinist doctrine which aligns more closely to that of Van Wyk’s in his article Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison, who claims that God’s ultimate authority is the central tenet of Calvinism and supersedes any need God has for a personal relationship with those He has elected (Van Wyk 5). This showcases a large disagreement with the Arminian views of Olson and Rice (Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian, and Divine Knowledge and Free-Will Theism respectively), who both believe that God’s love and grace for mankind-- His want for a relationship with us-- is what drives God to give humans free-will in the first place (Olson 88) (Rice 123). Through these major differences, one begins to understand the true disagreements in the attributes of God that Calvinism and Arminianism have, especially when both doctrines are followed strictly.
Hindmarsh, Bruce. "The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists." Church History 83.02 (2014): 367-97. Print.