Posted on 07/12/2013 8:38:23 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Today is the 504th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin (July 10, 1509) — and the 497th anniversary of misunderstanding Calvinists.
To commemorate the event, let’s look at a recent notable example provided by The Economist. The article is out-datedly titled, “Dippers divided” and the subhead is “Where evangelicals disagree.” Where evangelicals disagree, apparently, is on whether to maintain,
the “theocon” alliance in American politics between Catholics and evangelicals, who have set aside their doctrinal differences (over the Virgin Mary, for example) to take a joint stand against abortion and in favour of the traditional family.
What could be causing the rift between Catholics and evangelicals. According to The Economist, the alleged culprit is Calvinists in the Southern Baptist denomination.
. . . the effectiveness of the Catholic-evangelical axis may be compromised by a deepening ideological fissure within the evangelical camp; or more specifically within America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which has about 16m members.
Broadly speaking, the difference is over whether Jesus Christ died to save mankind as a whole, or sacrificed himself only for a particular group of human beings, the elect, whom God had chosen in advance. The latter view is associated with John Calvin, the French reformer of the 16th century; critics find it too fatalistic, and inconsistent with the idea of a loving God. Taken to its logical extreme, some say, Calvinism can lead to an introverted, exclusive mindset: if most of humanity is irrevocably damned, what’s the point of engaging with the world?
Who is this “some” who “say?” Probably the same “some” who claim that premillennial dispensationalists (who are rarely, if ever, Calvinists) also believe that if most of humanity is irrevocably damned (see: the Left Behind novels), there is no point of engaging with the world. Of course, these same groups — Calvinists and dispensationalists — are frequently portrayed as also wanting to create a theocracy in America, so who knows what to believe. The “some” have a tendency to “say” contradictory things.
The Economist adds,
The perceived leader of the Calvinist camp is Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has helped to ensure that many of the young Baptist ministers now starting their careers have a Calvinist way of thinking. In many cases they are out of their step with their flock, and that can lead to stormy pastoral situations.
Change the opening “The” to an “A” and that paragraph is mostly right — predicated on the “Calvinist way of thinking” being actual way Calvinists think and not the caricature presented earlier. A few more paragraphs detail some of the controversy over Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. The reporting on the controversy is rather uncontroversial, until they slip in the F-word:
Neither party will have the slightest truck with liberal ideas. But even among fundamentalists, there can be hard arguments over what the fundamentals are.
So now the opposite of theologicaly liberal is “fundamentalist” rather than, say, theologically conservative? Ugh. You already know what we at GetReligion think of that term so I’ll let that slide without further comment. Now back to the Calvinism:
Will the outcome of this argument make a difference to anybody outside the world of Baptist theology? Yes, because as well as being hard-line over salvation, the Calvinists oppose any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations. So there are limits to their willingness to co-operate with higher-church Christians. “The Calvinists have a very anti-Catholic theological stand,” I was told by David Key, director of Baptist studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology.
Mr Mohler, for example, responded to the general excitement over the election of Pope Francis by recalling that evangelicals utterly rejected the Catholic idea that the pope was Christ’s vicar on earth. In another statement, he said that Catholics and evangelicals might still agree on sexual and reproductive issues, but he also stressed that evangelicals could not accept the validity of the pope’s office.
Let’s examine some of the many confusions in those two short paragraphs. First, Calvinists do not oppose “any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations” because Calvinism is not a denomination. Calvinism is a theological system that crosses numerous denominational boundaries; you can be a Calvinist and be a member of a “low-church” denomination (e.g., Southern Baptist) or you can be a Calvinist and a “higher-church Christian” (e.g., Anglicans). Second, the limits to Calvinists willingness to co-operate with Catholics is almost purely on a theological level. But this is a trait shared by all Protestants. That’s why we’re called Protestants.
The Economist assumes that disagreements about theological matters (e.g., the validity of the pope’s office) will cause conservative Calvinist evangelicals to refuse to work with conservative Catholics on social and political issues. Obviously, they are unaware that this is the exact opposite of what most Calvinist evangelicals believe.
Within evangelicalism, the use of the term ‘co-belligerence’ was popularized by the Calvinist intellectual Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, whose influence on evangelical politics is incalculable, emphasized the importance of activism that leads neither to compromise nor separatism because of theological differences. As Schaeffer once wrote, “A co-belligerent is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice.”
Indeed, this view is not only shared by many evangelicals, it is the exact same position taken by Dr. Mohler. Here is Mohler’s own words:
. . . with the cultural challenges now before us, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox should stand without embarrassment as co-belligerents in the culture war. The last persons on earth to have an honest disagreement may also be the last on earth to recognize transcendent truth and moral principles—even the sanctity of human life itself.
This quote is from an essay Mohler published in the the ecumenical(!) journal Touchstone titled “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise.” The date: July 2003.
Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the Religious Right, wrote about co-belligerence 33 years. Albert Mohler, the “perceived leader of the Calvinist camp”, wrote about co-belligerence 10 years ago. For Calvinists, the concept of working together with Catholics goes back more than 400 years (Calvin himself worked with the French Catholic Inquisition on the Michael Servetus heresy trial). In other words, Calvinism is likely to have the exact opposite effect that The Economist seems to think it will have.
This is an embarrassing unforced error by one of the world’s most esteemed newspapers.* But other journalists can learn from their mistake and can avoid such shame-inducing gaffes by using a technique that has worked for four centuries: When you want to know what Calvinists think, ask them.
*For historical reasons The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper. Since Carter’s Rule of Religious Labels states that “Use a religious label a person would use to describe themselves and avoid using ones they would not,” I figure a similar principles should apply to publications.
James White always talks about “cage-stage Calvinist,” those new to Calvinism who are over-zealous and looking for a debate. Well, I’m long past that, but even so I encounter many who misunderstand and misstate what we believe that I am always wary and ready to try to set the record straight. Over time I’ve discovered that most who bash us have no understanding of what we actually believe. Most are so wedded to their tradition they refuse to even try to learn anything new and the truth angers them mightily. It’s quite frustrating.
However, I got involved in some Bible debate here a year or two ago and gave a heavily Calvinistic analysis. Later an older lady emailed me and said that what I had said really shook her. She was a lifelong Southern Baptist and she said no one had ever explained the Bible as I had. She asked a variety of questions about grace and asked me to point her to some resources. The last time I heard from her she was steadily studying. That lady, and others like her, are why I bother.
Not to mention were are still under the various anathemas of Trent.
That’s extremely well said, every word of it.
And there are many testimonies out there similar to the one of the lady who you inspired to study!!!
I hate my typos. I am just no good typing on an IPod.
I am a life-long SBC’er and am not Calvinist. The problem I’m seeing with this growing movement within the denomination is that it is splitting churches and causing all kinds of dissension.
It reminds me of the pentecostal “speaking in tongues” movement during the 1970’s and 80’s in it’s producing friction and division within the body.
I see Calvinism as having an extreme view of the doctrine of sovereignty - but that’s just me.
The underlying cause of the friction is this idea that God’s sovereignty means that He personally chooses who will be saved and who won’t. That Jesus only died for the “elect” and not the whole world.
Related to this “sovereignty” issue is the idea of the total inability of man to respond to God’s act of grace toward us - that we cannot respond without God personally intervening and “causing” us to believe - or, in popular terms, that man has no “free-will” to respond - only God can give man the faith to believe as he has no ability in himself, because of his total depravity, to respond/accept to the things of God. Calvinists seem to believe that if man can respond, on his own, to God’s offer of salvation that that somehow takes away from God’s sovereignty and God’s glory. I don’t get how our having the ability reach out and grab onto the life rope that God has thrown to us in anyway takes away from God’s glory and sovereignty. But, that’s just me.
In addition, there seems to be a new “militancy” for some Calvinists to force the issue of sovereignty, of total inability, and of no free-will.
I think most Christians are willing to work with other Christians who have differing views as long as either party doesn’t try to “evangelize” the other into their way of thinking. But, as I said, it seems like there is a new aggressiveness on the part of SOME Calvinists to convert everyone to their point of view.
In my own church we have had to deal with the issue somewhat. There are very dear and sincere Christian friends I have where we vehemently disagree on Calvinism. We’ve just had to let it go and not discuss it anymore. We just decided to serve Christ as best we can and reach out to the lost - THAT, after all, is our primary mission - right?
To be brutally honest, I've heard more gravely serious error coming from mainline Protestant pulpits than I have from Catholic sources. I'd feel much more comfortable with someone who thinks that Christ is physically present in the elements of communion and who prays to Mary than I would with someone who isn't willing to admit that Christ is anything more than a wonderful concept imagined by men and who prays to a "god conscienceness" within himself.
I’m sitting in a coffee shop waiting on my wife while she shops. She should be back any second so I can’t really respond. But I have a question for you. Did you know our denomination was founded by Calvinists? Did you know that 100 years ago Calvinism was the dominant Southern Baptist view? We lost it as liberalism and other issues rose within the ranks.
I took Baptist History in college ( Southern Baptist University) so I knew of our Calvinist history and it always bothered me. It was one of the reasons I finally decided to study for myself. I had a hard time reconciling what I was hearing from our pulpits with what I knew of our history. I felt like our preachers were bashing our ancestors, often in ignorance. Another thing, I grew up hearing Spurgeon quoted. He too was a Calvinist and a baptist.
Now, it doesn’t matter if mama, daddy, our founders, or Spurgeon believed it, if it doesn’t square with the a Bible I’m not believing it. Alas, once I studied Calvinism, what it really is, not the caricatures and strawmen I had heard from preachers, I was knocked out. It radically changed my life and the lives of my family.
Spurgeon said, “I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.”
re: “But I have a question for you. Did you know our denomination was founded by Calvinists? Did you know that 100 years ago Calvinism was the dominant Southern Baptist view? We lost it as liberalism and other issues rose within the ranks.”
To be honest, I did not not know, until recently, how Calvinistic our denomination was in its past. I can honestly say that I never heard the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, as enumerated by them, until I was in my teenage years (late 60’s). I also never heard the doctrine of total depravity and the total inability of man, as enumerated by Calvinists, until about 10 years ago.
I have discovered that I am not an Armenian either. My problem with Calvinism, or what some call “hyper-Calvinism”, is that I believe that it ultimately makes God responsible for evil. I cannot get around the idea that God would create people for eternal damnation. I cannot believe that everything I do, good or bad, is all pre-programed by God, that in essence, we are robots. I cannot get my mind around the idea that we have no ability to respond to God’s love and mercy.
Look, we are not going to change each other’s minds about this. We need to focus on serving Christ where He’s placed us and share His love as best we can. I don’t want to argue because that’s all it will accomplish - argument. The reason I even responded to this thread was because of my familiarity with the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’ve only seen dissension, arguing, and churches splitting over Calvinism in the last 15 years. And the sad part of it is that there are sincere, committed Christians on all sides of this issue. Why argue about it? Let’s just get on with reaching the lost. Why argue about how we all get there?
I believe God is sovereign, I believe that He works all things to His purpose. I believe that without His entering human history as God Incarnate in Jesus Christ, His life, death, burial, and resurrection from the dead to redeem us - without that we humans are lost for all eternity. I believe that we cannot, by our own merit or righteous acts, can save ourselves, we cannot remove the guilt of our sin.
I do believe that God has given us the ability to accept Him or reject Him. Adam had a choice, Eve had a choice, we all have a choice. Without free will the Bible, good, evil, love, service, sacrifice of oneself, cowardice - none of those things have any meaning without free will.
I believe when we accept God’s grace offered through Christ, we have nothing to brag or boast about - the salvation offered we could not produce ourselves - that was God’s unmerited mercy toward us. But, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just for a select few and that His mercy is available to all who will receive Him - that God desires that none be lost, He desires that all will come to a saving knowledge in Jesus Christ. I believe His Holy Spirit is working in the lives of all people, convicting them of their sin, and that His drawing and call to Himself is available to all - but, we must reject or receive. Therefore none will be without excuse.
I do not believe that there are some infants destined for hell or unborn children killed in the womb destined for hell by God. I just cannot believe that about God’s character.
Ok, that’s all. I didn’t mean to go on and meant to stop about ten paragraphs ago. I vented.
My question to you is, as a Calvinist, how do you KNOW that you are one of His? Maybe you just think you are because after all nothing you do, according to Calvinism, has anything to do with your salvation. Just because you think you believe in God and in His Son, in His offer of salvation - is that what saves you? No, because nothing you think about it has anything to do with your salvation - God alone decides who gets to be in the club - not your thoughts, not your words or what you say - no, it is God’s choice alone.
I had much the same view for years, but once I went through a course on Catholicism i understood that they preach another gospel, which is why the split that came from the Reformation was necessary. Yes, they believe many orthodox things, but they change the core of the gospel itself. And that’s what makes Roman Catholicism so pernicious. Any faith that denies we are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ alone does not teach the gospel. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Agreed on the horrors coming from the Mainlines.
I’ll respond more later, but Calvinism leads to assurance, real assurance.
Below is a little portion of a paper on evil. There is much more than this that can be said, but it gets you started. Once I understood sovereignty and Calvinism, evil was much less troubling to me than it was when I held to free will.
Last thing, I too swore I would never change my mind. I learned that if God wants to teach me something, I’m learning it : )
Clarifying the issue
There are two errors that must be avoided concerning the problem of evil. The first error would be to believe that God is the source of evil. This terrible error would blame God for evil and hold that evil was produced by God out of His own nature. The second error would be to believe that evil occurred apart from God’s sovereign plan. This position would hold that evil entered the universe because God was helpless to prevent it, and thus it overthrew the purposes of God. The position the Scriptures seem to teach is that mankind is to be blamed for and is the source of evil, while nonetheless the entrance of evil into the universe was ordained by God as part of God’s plan from the beginning. God could have prevented evil from entering into the universe had He desired to, but chose not to prevent it for wise and holy reasons.
Let’s probe this issue a little further. God is not the author of evil because He created the universe good. In its original state, there was nothing evil or sinful in the universe. Evil first entered God’s creation as a result of the disobedience of the angels who rebelled. Evil then entered the physical universe and human race as a result of mankind’s sin in Adam. God is not the source of evil or sin; evil is a result of the disobedience of God’s creatures. For these reasons, God cannot be blamed for the existence of evil—all responsibility for the presence of sin and evil in the human race falls upon mankind. All responsibility for the presence of evil in the spiritual realm falls upon the angels who rebelled.
But in order to have the full picture, we cannot stop here and conclude that God was powerless to prevent evil. Since God is sovereign and He “works out everything in conformity with the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11), none of His purposes can be thwarted (Job 42:2). Therefore we must conclude that evil did not occur apart from the purpose and plan of God. The ultimate reason that evil occurred is because God planned it, not because His creatures are able to overthrow His plans. These two truths we must hold together even if we cannot fully understand how they fit: man is responsible, yet God is absolutely sovereign and controls all things.
Last of all it is necessary to understand that evil is not permanent. It was defeated at the cross and will be quarantined in hell for eternity at the final judgement. Then God will create a new heavens and new earth where only righteousness and purity will dwell forever.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
re: “I’ll respond more later,. . .”
There is no need to .45 Long Colt. I will not ever see the Calvinist point of view. It makes no logical sense to me. I’ve heard the Calvinist response for responsibility for evil, but it doesn’t logically follow, at least to me. If God is totally sovereign, in the Calvinist view, then every act, whether good or bad, it was ordained by God first.
If there is no ability to act on one’s own volition, there is no way to “rebel” against God, either by angels or man, because every thought, every act, every single thing that happens was ordained by God (in the Calvinist view).
Therefore, God is the source of evil. I don’t believe that, but I see no other way around it and keep the Calvinist view of sovereignty.
Not me.
Both are equally pernicious IMO. The difference being that the dogma which has been issued by the Catholic church at large is heresy whereas that of the mainline churches still adheres to biblical truths albeit disobeyed by many who live under it.
And the "concept" and "God-consciousness" are found in plenty in the Catholic churches as well so there's really no difference there.
Actually, one's choice or volition will always be rebellion toward God. We do not have power to be righteous.
It's God's mercy that shines the light of truth and compels one to respond to His irresistible grace.
He does not.
All of us are under sin and it is of our own choosing. Our free choice mechanism will always choose rebellion. We are less than deity, so imperfect and, thus, hopeless sinners.
Adam had a choice, Eve had a choice, we all have a choice.
You must work through the story of Jacob and Esau. It is clear that it was all God's election...Jacob was a thorough scoundrel in himself. This is why Paul uses the story as an example in Romans...to show God's sovereignty. Also Abraham. Abraham in no way chose God. God elected him.
I’m not going to try to change your mind on the 5 points, but whether Arminian or Calvinist or somewhere In between you have to come to terms with the verse i quoted in my last post.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God is either fully sovereign over all things, including evil, as His word declares, or He’s not Sovereign and He’s not really God.
Last verses I will leave with, which state clearly we are not born again of our own will.
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” ( Romans 9:15-16)
Blessings to you!
It's not about only "thinking" you believe as though it's something you've conjured up.
It's about truly believing.
The same way you believe the sun will come up tomorrow...if you believe Jesus has taken your sins you have been blessed with salvation. Calvinism is in effect for mainly this purpose...assurance for the saved. Its primary purpose was never condemnation for the lost though it's often twisted out of shape to distort that.
And BTW it's not your belief that saves you. It is Christ. The belief (faith) in Him and what He has done is the proof that you are a child of God.
“That is demonstrably true.”
What part of the Reformation, all the way up to the Great Awakening’s Calvinist Preachers, is demonstratively “only a few are saved, so why bother doing anything?”
re: “Actually, one’s choice or volition will always be rebellion toward God. We do not have power to be righteous.”
Yes, in the Calvinist view - God ordained man to sin. Man has not free will to do anything other than what God ordained, so therefore God is the source of evil.
re: “All of us are under sin and it is of our own choosing. Our free choice mechanism will always choose rebellion.”
Yes because God has ordained our every action to be thus. We have no free choice to rebel, we rebel because God has sovereignly chosen us to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.