I have talked to some people that have been around many Calvinists in their lifetime that have obviously been bad examples. I recently had a conversation with someone about this issue. He said that he noticed that all Calvinists think that the doctrines of grace is the most important thing in the Christian faith - the cardinal doctrine by which all Christians should be judged. According to this guy, we think that what people believe about Calvinism is what is most important. Is that true? Do Calvinists think Calvinism is more important than it really is? Is Calvinism important? Does it affect a lot of other things in the Christian faith? He said that the Calvinistic people that he has known have exhibited arrogance, intellectualism, lack of joy, lack of love and lack of evangelism. Do they? I have many thoughts on this, but here are my questions for you guys:
-Tell me how important the doctrines of grace really are and why?
-What are the practical implications of these doctrines?
-Do they affect a lot of what the Christian faith is about?
-Why are there so many arrogant Calvinists?
-Give me some examples of Calvinists who are not / were not arrogant.
-Give me some examples of Calvinists that are not / were not unloving.
-Give me some examples of Calvinists that are / were evangelistic.
-What about joy and Calvinism? Should the two go together?
I think I have lobbed you guys some softballs here. You should have plenty to work with. You guys are going to write a booklet for me. Don't worry. I'll give you credit.
It really concerns me that this is the view (at least of one person I know) of Calvinism to which people hold. I love these doctrines, find them to be thoroughly Biblical, and think they are very important. If you believe the same, tell me why and help me defend these precious doctrines. If you don't, tell me why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
1. Vinnie, you might want to check on one of those security systems where you have to sign in and then acknowledge a set of random letters to publish. That will stop ye old anonymous spam.
First of all, let me state that there's a lot that could be said here. There are, in fact, two groups of people that say these kinds of things: non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. Usually, when I hear these questions they are coming from the latter, not the former.
1. How important are the doctrines of grace? Answer: They are as important as the Reformation, that's how important they are. This objection usually comes from the mistaken apprehension that these doctrines are really not that important because the person objecting thinks they are the ones who are the true Protestants. The objection is ultimately a-historical. The issue here isn't the doctrines. The issue is the difference between monergism and synergism, the difference is between Rome and Geneva, not Calvin and Wesley.
Also, keep in mind, there are many kinds of Arminianism. True Arminianism has a doctrine of prevenient grace and a doctrine of perseverance. The kind of dispensational anti-Calvinism that usually raises this objection in our circles, Vinnie, usually posseses neither and is completely outside of history. The followers of Dave Hunt are usually functional Pelagians. Even my Wesleyan friends see this, so this isn't a Calvinist evaluation.
2,3. Practical implications and do they affect a lot of what the Christian faith is about. To answer in reverse, Yes and a great deal. Many Calvinists ask this same question and, when I teach on this subject, I have to remind them that Calvinism can be defined two ways: the 5 Points or all of Reformed theology. The former is a small part of the latter.
In its broadest sense Calvinism is represented by the 5 Solas of Reformed theology. Together, they comprise a comprehensive worldview, so they do affect the way you perceive yourself, God, the Bible, the church, the lost, evangelism, missions, etc.
Here, I will quote from J.I. Packer here in the preface to The Death of Death by John Owen:
Calvinism in the words of J.I. Packer is a worldview, not just a soteriology. It shapes the way I perceive God, myself, the Bible, the church, and the entire world, especially in all honesty, if one immerses oneself in Reformed theological writing and biblical commentary for any length of time and actually turns it over and compares it with Scripture and what other folks have written over the years.
Packer writes: Calvinism is something much broader than the “five points” indicate. Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavour to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of His will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible—the God-centred outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church. The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that He is sovereign everywhere.
...The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
...the real nature of Calvinistic soteriology becomes plain. It is no artificial oddity, nor a product of over-bold logic. Its central confession, that God saves sinners, that Christ redeemed us by His blood, is the witness both of the Bible and of the believing heart. The Calvinist is the Christian who confesses before men in his theology just what he believes in his heart before God when he prays. He thinks and speaks at all times of the sovereign grace of God in the way that every Christian does when he pleads for the souls of others, or when he obeys the impulse of worship which rises unbidden within him, prompting him to deny himself all praise and to give all the glory of his salvation to his Saviour. Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh. Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says; that is the significance of the Patristic testimonies to the teaching of the “five points,” which can be quoted in abundance.....So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology “Calvinism” at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. “Calvinism” is one of the “odious names” by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel.
Since this is getting long, I'll answer the other questions in a separate entry.
4. Why are there so many arrogant Calvinists? Reply: When I hear this objection, I usually reply, "You said there are many, how many? And ask them, do you not believe doctors, nurses, etc. if they are arrogant?" Ultimately, this person is throwing this up as an exercise in the genetic fallacy. I know arrogant dispensationalists and anti-Calvinists too. I can even name a few in Winston-Salem by name, but the anti-Calvinists listen to them all the time, why the double standard?
Are there arrogant Calvinists? Yes, and most of us have been through that stage. However, I submit that a lot of that attitude comes from always having to be on the defensive. In the SBC, for example, we are under direct attack from our own leadership, and that frustration level increases over time, and people seem to forget that fact. There were a lot of arrogant inerrantists in the early days of the conservative resurgence, but you don't hear folks talking about them, do you?
As for "intellectualism," I always chuckle at bit at this when I hear it, because 9/10 of the people that raise that objection are anti-intellectual or are the ones inventing novel explanations for their own doctrines that nobody else has ever raised (Dave Hunt). Speaking of Dave Hunt, this is usually raised by folks who are repeating Dave Hunt themselves. I've heard people say that they don't believe in Calvinism because it's logical, as if logic is a bad thing. Frankly, if people knew their Bibles better, they wouldn't raise this objection. The farmers who followed Edwards sermons could read NT Greek. How far we have fallen. If churches, on the whole, did a better job of educating their rank and file people this objection would not be raised. I know non-Reformed churches in this city who teach their people biblical hermaneutics and church history and have less than 200 members, so this isn't the product of mega-church thinking or Calvinist thinking.
Examples of Calvinists who are not arrogant/not unloving.
Since we are dealing with objections here, I'm not going to do that, because of implication that the deportment of an individual affects the exegetical truth of the doctrines. Are these doctrines divisive? Yes, but 1 Cor.11:19 does not speak of division in a negative light, thus, if somebody says these doctrines are divisive, I say, "Yes, for the same reason they were divisive in the 16th century between Rome and Geneva." If somebody accuses Calvinists of arrogance, I remind them that is a subjective opinion, and that while that may be true of some, it does not invalidate the argument any more than the arrogance of an Arminian dispensationalists invalidates his own theology, the issue is what Scripture teaches, not the deportment of others. Why should I provide examples to this imaginary objector when all they will do is either say, "Okay, but..." or dismiss them altogether?
Evangelistic Calvinists: Nettleton, Spurgeon, Dever, the folks at Redeemer Presbyterian, Sproul, D.James Kennedy (writer of Evangelism Explosion), Boyce, Broadus, RBC Howell, the Founders of the SBC, Edwards, Whitefield, Kuper, Kuyper, Boice, Barnhouse, Piper, Grudem, MacArthur, Ascol and those of us in Founders, Nettles, Packer, Carey, Brainerd, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox.
In a paper on this I wrote awhile back I named: : Paul, John, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, John Bunyan Jonathan Edwards, Roger Williams, A.W. Pink (though he favored hyperism according to some),Samuel Davies, George Whitefield, John Broadus, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, John L. Dagg, James Pettigrew Boyce, Matthew Henry, Richard Furman, A.H. Strong, Louis Berkof, Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, David Livingston, Hudson Taylor, Basil Manly, James Mercer, Charles H. Spurgeon, all the Puritans, early Southern Baptists....In the modern era: D.A. Carson, Lorraine Boettner, Dr. .James White (Golden Gate Seminary), Dr. Maurice Robinson (SEBTS), Albert Mohler (President, SBTS), Dr. Tom Nettles, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Edwin Palmer, J.I. Packer, D. James Kennedy, Fred Malone (SBC), John Piper, Donald Grey Barnhouse, James Montgomery Boice, Dr. John MacArthur, Wayne Grudem, Dr. John Hendryx, RBC Howell, D. Martin Lloyd Jones, John and Ernest Reisinger, Tom Ascol (SBC), Timothy George (Beeson Divinity/SBTS), Jim Eliff (SBC Evangelist), Bill Ascol, Don Whitney (MWBTS), Roger Nicole (SBC) and me.
I recommend you look here: http://www.founders.org/FJ40/article1_fr.html
and here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/biographies.html
This all refutes the notion that Calvinism is bad for missions. The objection goes something like, "If only the elect are called, why evangelize?" Answer: Because God has decreed the end as well as the means, and that is our constant work.
The main objection I hear often is, "If Jesus died only for the elect, this kils evangelism." This objection is reversable on the Arminian, and this is how I respond: Logically speaking, the Arminian doctrine does this. According to Calvinism, the faithful preaching of the Gospel has a guaranteed success rate. Only God knows the percentages, but, according to Calvinism, a set number will be saved by the preaching of the Gospel. But, according to an Arminian theory of the will, far fewer people might respond to the Gospel or even none at all. Therefore, whose theology really strikes at evangelism? The Arminian's.
Finally, yes, especially when one approaches Calvinism not as a soteriology, but a worldview, and since this is getting long, I'll refer you to Piper, but I'd also refer you Boice and Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace.
At the end of the day, I think it is important to realize that Calvinism's danger, particularly in the young, seems to be an enamorment with the soteriology itself, usually because they have just learned to think in a new way and are often on the defensive. I remember what it was like being a conservative at a liberal school and feeling the need to be always on the defensive. It's a similar phenomenon. At the same time, the danger w/Calvinism is often that people become as enamored with it as dispensationalists do with dispensationalism. Everything they say from a pulpit or in a class speaks of Israel in a certain way or the dispensations, and it gets tiresome.
The more grounded we become, however, we do not see the “five points” everywhere. We do, however, see the Five Solas (since they form the whole of our theology), everywhere, thus, while you will not get TULIP in every sermon or lesson, you will hear of the mercy of God, the sovereignty of God, the primacy of Scripture, and the foreordination of a God that “works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11)” repeatedly and that the Lord Jesus literally sustains all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). Those broader things are on almost every page. I'm studying Numbers right now at home, and it's readily apparent that these broader concepts are all over Numbers. That is what Spurgeon meant when he said, "Calvinism is the gospel," e.g. that its broader expression are on every page, because Calvinism is a theocentric worldview that finds its form in the Scriptures themselves, and it overall structure (the 5 Solas) form the heart of the worldview the Bible itself teaches.
Why do we behave as we do? Do you remember the first time you learned the world was spinning in space as a kid, and you couldn't quite believe it because you looked at the world and everything was standing still? Well, Calvinists have simply read the Bible plainly and they can feel it and they, by God’s grace alone and not their own minds (for what mind would ever dream up such a worldview?) know who it is that is keeping us from flying off that spinning planet into oblivion. The world is turning at 1000 miles an hour and hurtling past the sun at 67,000 miles an hour, and we feel it. We see it, and we know that God is the one moving it. Jesus is the One who, "upholds all things by the word of His power," (Heb. 1:3), and it is this same Jesus, God the Son, who died for the sins of His people, who was at work from creation to the present day and will be tomorrow and is already there. It is He, Who the Father has appointed Heir of all things, Master of all things, and Lord of all things. It is we, believers, that, from all ages past and future, God has purposed to redeem to Himself and give this spinning planet as an inheritance, all to His glory, known by Him from before the foundation of the world, predestined to be His to be conformed to the image of His Son from that same time, not based on our foreseen faith and in spite of our foreseen wickedness, for some undisclosed reason, and that He infallibly draws us to Himself from every tribe, tongue, and nation, even if we refuse to acknowledge the truth of it. We are the recipients of God’s mercy, to the praise of His glory alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone, taught in Scripture alone.
Why do Calvinists behave as we do? Because that is who we are and we truly believe that not to see this is to impair your apprehension of God and your love of God for His mercy toward you. You do not have to believe it to be a Christian, but we submit it is integral and implicit in all you do as a Christian, even if you, because of the blinders of your tradition, reject it.
I would first question the one to whom you spoke, concerning his understanding of what "Calvinism" is. Those of us reading this blog are probably aware of the historical understanding of what John Calvin taught regarding the "Doctrines of Grace". It was substantially the same thing that the reformers taught, substantially the same thing the early church fathers believed, and for which some died, and it is in fact the accurate interpretation of the apostolic teachings. Of course I have given no proof, but only a declaration that I whole-heartedly believe. As for the importance of these teachings: If we are not depraved even in our will, then our unredeemed condition is not so severe, and a mere ascent to propositional truths would convert. If we are not chosen by God unconditionally, then the basis of our justification might be that degree of loveliness to which God looked in order to choose us, thereby giving the self-generation of our own faith a portion of boasting. If when the Spirit of God comes to us and merely attempts to regenerate us, then the autonomy of the human will is now and ever will frustrate the God of the universe, thereby rendering Him utterly passive regarding the salvation of men. If Christ made an actual satisfaction of the wrath of God for all men on the cross, and it is within the capacity of all men to ultimately reject that work, then retrospectively, God must tuck the gift of His satisfation back into His pocket, thereby rendering it (to whatever degree rejected) a failure, but not just a failure; but any of the texts announcing Christ's work of satisfaction are made meaningless because, for those who reject it there will have been no real satisfaction made. They will eventually have the wrath of God on them for eternity in Hell. Lastly, if we do not have the Spirit of God (not only keeping us secure in the hand of God but also) maintaining our faithfulness to the end, then it must be said that it is possible to either 1) to fall away completely by our self-determining will, choosing to walk away from God, or 2) to so outwardly reject the things of God that men would call us unbelievers, and because at one time we did accept Jesus as our Savior, we will enjoy an eternity with a God in whom we found no joy at all on this earth. Both of those conclusions are manefestly unbiblical. I believe the importance of these doctrines, and their right understanding are apparent in their definitions, because they are no less than the statement in the word of God, of who God and man are, and what God is doing in His creation. I am not sure there are "so many" arrogant "Calvinists" Perhaps rather, there are so many people confussed about the election and predestination of God, that some of those who may profess themselves as "Calvinist" are not actually. Furthermore, to think that one who counts himself among those who have been so graciously gifted with the blessing of God's salvation is an arrogant man, and on the other hand say that the one who cofesses that he heard the gospel of God, and believed those truths by his willingness to accept the "foolishness" of these things before his will, yes and his nature, had been acted upon by the resurecting power of God is not arrogant, is rediculous. The fact is, most of us to some degree, are arrogant and condecending to someone. As for "Calvinists" who were/are loving and evangelistic:
All the apostles, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, John Owen, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Sproul, Piper, James White...etc. Finally, I do not believe we can have joy in God if we do not see clearly the Bible's tesimony to the great chasm between us that is, by the grace of God, bridged by Christ.
jAsOn
For a practical guide in how to engage people in debate about Calvinism, see John Piper on "How to Teach and Preach Calvinism." Helpful stuff.
This one by Roger Nicole is good too:
http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article3.html
Hey, this is Jacob. I'm in class so this may get cut short. I think the doctrines of grace are very important. It's what makes the gospel the gospel. If we get any credit for Christ's work then it cancels everything out, our faith is in vain, and we have to rely on ourselves for our salvation. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a good plan to me. I think one of the reasons that Calvinist are kind of looked down upon is because, one, it goes against tradition. Humans are creatures of habit a lot of us don't like change. Some of us don't like it so much we fear it. For generations on end to believe something and then have someone say it's not right and they need to change it, you're not going to get a loving response. Probably another reason people may think we're arrogant or whatnot is because we are. At least I am. We talk down to people sometimes and don't even know it. Because we know the truth we may tend to talk down to people that are really set in their ways. That's all I can write in class maybe more later.
-Jacob
Gene,
Thanks for your comments...very thorough.
jAsOn
i think the deeper you look into the doctrines of grace, the more important they become to your faith.
for instance, a regenerate person knows they are saved by grace, but they may not understand all of that grace. they may, ignorantly assume that they were more "god sensitive" or the speaker was more accurate than others and that's why they got saved. they may take partial credit and not even realize it, thinking it not very important.
but as you begin to investigate the issues, you begin to see how little you provide. as i search, i start to see that if i believe i was "more god fearing, or more intelligent" than others i'm actually heading over to pelagianism or semi-pelagianism. if a person is willing to intelligently deny the doctrines of grace, then i see no other conclusion that works and self-righteousness have crept into their theology.
just as i've heard piper's testimony...a person should be cautious when investigating the doctrines of grace, because they have the power to radically transform the way you see God and yourself.
as for great calvinists...how about the apostle paul?
Hello. Alone on Valentine's Day? Adult Live Chat & movie pages Try to find partner in your area!
for fun
Post a Comment