Third Way Thursday: Calvinism or Free Will

After breathing a sigh of relief that maybe the war
between Calvinism and (Free Will) Arminianism was over here goes TIME magazine
naming "The
New Calvinism" one of the top 10 ideas changing the world right now.

Within the Protestant Christianity so many of us are a
part of, this is one of those Black and White, He Said She Said, Good versus
Evil kind of theological wars.  Much like
dispensational versus covenant theologians, the war ends up leaving almost everyone
bitter, angry, vengeful, or apathetic; not to mention the many good-natured and
harmless Christians and congregations caught in the crossfire of a war fought
in the realm of intellectual snobbery and fifteen syllable words.

I digress.

As my brother is quick to say, Calvin never defined
Calvinism, it was defined after he was dead and gone.  These theological systems are constructed as cultural products during times of crisis within the church, and what is "Reformed"
or "Calvinistic" today doesn’t necessarily carry the same cultural meaning as
it does now.  Theological systems are all systems of response. Without having to do a
museum tour of Protestantism, it is easier to look at what is current now, the
ideas of John Piper and Greg Boyd.

First John Piper, as clarified by the Desiring God
Ministries:

Just as God doesn’t choose to save certain people because
they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose
not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional
reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no
one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this
mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others. ("What
does Piper mean when he says he’s a seven-point Calvinist?")

Then on the flip side is Greg Boyd, who wrote for Christus Victor Ministries:

It is clear that the worldview of Scripture, unlike the
Hellenistic philosophical blueprint worldview, does not permit the assumption
that the present contingent reality (including sin and evil) can ultimately be
explained by referring to a single divine will or mind. While the world as a
whole has been created by God, the world as it is at any given moment is the
result not only of God’s will, but also the willing of many other creatures who
possess the God-given ability to freely determine themselves, and thus to some
extent determine the flow of world history. The final explanation for "the way
things are" does not rest in one omni-controlling dictatorial will, but in the
myriad of wills of this society of free creatures. ("What
is the biblical basis for ‘free will’?")

The question comes down to the exercise of power in the
determination of God’s will.  Is God the unmovable
mover who shapes every jot and title of the universe as Piper supposes or the
God who created, much like Dr. Frankenstein, beings who have such immense
freedom they can revel in beauty or rejoice in evil and destruction.  Both can be dangerous propositions.  Both say they are right.  But which one?