Why Calvin Is Cool; An Infomercial for Calvinism

I know that's Calvin Coolidge, but if I put a picture of John Calvin up there, most people won't read the column. The hostility towards Calvinism is growing here in Bibleland. Note the intrepid Dave Hunt's attempt to vanquish the Calvinistic dragon with his new book, What Love Is This?, perhaps more aptly titled, What Research Is This? Norman Geisler unsuccessfully sought to forge a via media in Chosen, But Free and Gregory Boyd and the Openness Boys (great name for a band) have been blasting away for several years now against the monstrosity of the Calvinistic God and and Augustinian theodicy. I recently attended a debate between Calvinist and Arminian seminary profs, and I have to say that Jerry Walls was vewy, vewy upset that God could save everyone and apparently isn't going to do so. He was also mad that John Piper said he would still love God even if one of his sons wasn't elect. And, of course, C.S. LEWIS WASN'T A CALVINIST! So I think silent Cal is a better choice than Geneva John. These are dangerous times. You could possibly get burned at the stake. (That's a joke.)

I've never been naive about what people thought about Calvinism. It's always been controversial, hence that little party called the Reformation and the counter-party called the Remonstrance and the rave known as Revivalism. In my kid's history textbooks, Calvinists and Puritans are witchburners. Period. When I began hanging out with Calvinistic Southern Baptists in the "Founders" movement, it had some of the trappings of a secret society. There were lots of people keeping their heads low and their mouths shut in order to survive in Southern Baptist land. And at my current assignment, rumors of my Calvinism have been my only real trouble in ten years, and that even though the founder of our school was an out and out card-carrying five-pointer with no shame about saying so.

A few years ago our state denominational newspaper discovered Southern Baptist Calvinism and went on a ten-year windmill tilt against it. It was enormous fun to read what Arminian revivalistic evangelists had to say about Calvinism, based upon their extensive experience and research. (I concluded the in-depth tape series of Jimmy Swaggart on Calvinism was behind it all.) I was surprised to discover that Southern Baptists had no Calvinistic roots or influences (which seemed odd given the overwhelming historical record of just exactly that fact.) I learned that Spurgeon was not really a Calvinist. (It seems particularly galling for Arminians to come to grips with this one.) I learned that despite all those years of preaching, I was against missions and evangelism, and that I could not preach the free offer of the Gospel or tell people that Jesus loved them. (The inability of these experts to differentiate between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism is basic to everything they say. What a heretic I'd been!) And I learned that despite my cheery outlook, I am really obsessed with predestination, and have no real good reason to get up in the morning. (Again, if one wants to discuss fatalism, go to the Muslims.) All this free education came to me week after week, courtesy of those who hated Calvinism and feared Calvinists. And all totally false.

Such misunderstandings continue today, though the articulate writings of people like Michael Horton, John Piper and James White are making a difference. I am now meeting people who say they are Calvinists, and really probably aren't, but they identify with or admire someone who is. Hey, you gotta start somewhere. Even so, I still know that I could lose my job over being a Calvinist, and I know that I will always have to answer ridiculous questions from Arminians who have no idea that they are Arminians or even have a theology. As long as they read Jabez and Left Behind and like Joyce Meyers and T.D. Jakes, they feel normal.

1) Calvinism is that rare and wonderful thing: classical, orthodox Christianity. Evangelicals are selling the theological store right and left. I am really grateful for orthodox non-Calvinists like Ravi Zacharias, because the trend on that side of the fence is to sell out the essentials. Omnipotence and omniscience are in trouble. The authority of scripture is in trouble. Biblical worship is in trouble. Postmodern Arminianism seems ready to jettison anything that stands in the way of intellectual acceptance by the cultural elites or the potential drawing of a crowd. Calvinists have their problems, but going the openness route or denying the authority of scripture are not dangers in the near future. That's cool.

2) Calvinism is fired up about missions. Contrary to the press releases, it is a bunch of Calvinists who are fueling the missions movement among the college age Christian community. The influence of John Piper is massive, and honest Arminians admit it (as they did in the debate I observed.). His book, The Supremacy of God in Missions, has become highly influential in frontier missions circles. Louie Giglio's Passion movement is God-centered and missions-centered and he has said Piper will always speak at those gatherings. The supreme optimism of Calvinism that God has a people to be called and saved in every nation, and that a sovereign God can move in the Muslim world, is winning the hearts and minds of many young missionaries. Check out www.frontiers.org and see what I mean. That is very cool.

3) Calvinism is the strongest resistance to the excesses and errors of the church growth movement. You could deny the Trinity in most pulpits today and not get the kind of reaction you will get if you question the tenets of seeker-sensitive church growth methods. These days Calvinists are less unified on questions of worship and church life than on other areas of theology, but the reformed camp is still the loudest source of resistance to the church growth pragmatism that has overwhelmed evangelicalism. Reformed writers are engaging in a solid examination of Biblical worship and the current crisis and offering a God-centered alternative to the man-centered carnival that is engulfing our churches. Especially see the cool work of Marva Dawn, John Macarthur, James Boice and Michael Horton.

4) Calvinism is contending for the Gospel. Now that will get a few tomatoes headed my way, but I am not saying that Calvinists are the only Christians, nor that Calvinists are the only ones contending for the Gospel. I know that is not the case. I am saying that Calvinists have a passion for the Gospel, particularly for soteriology. There is remarkable unity among Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, the primacy of the work of the Trinity in salvation, the effectiveness of the substitutionary work of Christ, the priority of regeneration over faith and the grace of God over all. On the Solas, Calvinists stand strong, even stronger than on the five-points, where there is considerable diversity on the extent of the atonement and the nature of perseverance. The sad fact is that many of our evangelical Arminian friends cannot say the Solas with certainty of an "amen" from their team. The Gospel is under attack on virtually every side within evangelicalism. Some of these are the same controversies that preceded and followed the Reformation, but many are the attacks of post-modernism, pragmatism, multi-culturalism, and liberalism, smuggled in through evangelicalism's fetish with popularity, publishing, and media. It is refreshing to hear a seminary president like Calvinist Al Mohler consistently contend for the Gospel on Larry King Live in this age of pluralism and tolerance. It's not an accident. In Calvinistic circles, it's cool to fight for what others are surrendering.

5) Calvinism is warmly God-centered. Again, hold the bottle throwing. I know, I know. I know there are many non-Calvinists who are God-centered, but I think you have to notice that Calvinism is God-centered by definition, and it simply makes a marvelous difference. Look at the music of Steve Green, the sermons of Al Martin or the books of Douglas Wilson, John Piper, Jerry Bridges or R.C. Sproul. Whether in evangelism, worship, or the Christian life, Calvinists have a suspicion of humanism that is healthy and helpful in retaining the God-centered nature of the Christian faith. It is a marvelous simplicity in Calvinism that says anything we do or contemplate or consider must first put the sovereign God of the Bible as the reference, goal, and center of everything. The vision of God that animated Luther and Calvin, Spurgeon and Edwards is the same vision that is animating Calvinism today. The impulse that is causing havoc in evangelical circles today is a dethroning of God, and the resulting mess seems to be headed down the path that leads to the generic, new age, feelings-centered spirituality that grows like kudzu in America. It's cool to be God-centered, and there is no area of contemporary Christianity where the air breathed in Piper's The Pleasures of God or Carson's The Gagging of God or Packer's Knowing God isn't badly needed.

There's lots more I could say. Calvinism is evangelistic, when practiced and not just debated. (Ask those Korean Presbyterians.) Calvinism has a wonderful reverence for history. Calvinism has the best approach to cultural issues. Calvinism isn't detoured into fads like Jabez, Experiencing God, or Left Behind. Calvinists have Spurgeon. Calvinists are great apologists. Calvinists aren't on television. Well, D. James Kennedy on TBN, but thank God for that. Calvinists have the best preachers. If Benny Hinn were a Calvinist, he'd have better hair. I think I should stop.

Are there negatives? Certainly, but this is an infomercial, so I am supposed to say all those really fast at the end so you won't hear them. They would include: Calvinists debate too much and do too little. Calvinists don't start enough churches. Calvinists fight about the stupidest things. Calvinists go overboard on anything they are right about. Calvinists have more than their share of loons. Calvinists spend too much on books. I'd better stop. Even with all this, trust me, it's cool to be a Calvinist.

Sometimes Calvinists spend too much time trying to argue their friends into Calvinism. That is a waste of time. I don't want to convert you. I just wanted to brag, and perhaps suggest that in this postmodern swamp we are living in, we might want to remember that all the criticism of Calvinism within evangelicalism is coming from a house that needs to get itself in order before it throws rocks at its own team.

Spurgeon: I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism.

Horsefeathers. (I'd use a stronger epithet, but the Religion Mod doesn't like scatological objections).

As a Calvinist, I certainly believe that it is accurate, but it is either mistaken or duplicitious to conflate Calvinism with the fundamentals of Christianity.

Spurgeon said that we can't preach the gospel without preaching particular redemption, unconditional election, et al? News to Paul, who preached Christ crucified. News to thousands of evangelists for whom Calvinism might influence what they do, but needs never be explicitly mentioned to accurately convey the Gospel - that God saves sinners by Christ's death and resurrection.

It's a silly argument - but one too many Calvinists make - to say "Calvinism is the gospel." I think this argument results from insecurity. The only explanation I can find for overstating one's case to that extent is that you're not fully convinced by Calvinism, so you feel you must be more strident to cover your concerns up.

God stated before hand that He would harden Pharaoh's heart - which He did AFTER Pharaoh hardened his own heart...

8:15 - Pharaoh
8:32 - Pharaoh
9:12 - God
9:34 - Pharaoh
10:1 - God

" So was the last sin you committed something which God was helpless to prevent?."

God could prevent all the evil in the world should He so choose. But the fact that He does not prevent something does not make Him the author of it. This is in contrast to your position, if I rightly understand it, which holds that all sin is God's will - for all things are foreordained by Him.

By the way... nice chart. (I notice that it seems to references the JEDP "source" theory. I hope you don't ascribe to that abomination.)

I've read the Spurgeon quote ad nauseum. It's been trotted out at least half a dozen times.

It's useful only to rebut the Dave Hunt argument that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist - as though I give a flying leap whether some 19th-century Baptist was or was not a Calvinist. Too frequetly, however, it's trotted out by Calvinists as an authority to prove "Calvinism-is-the-Gospel." Frankly, I find that argument offensive.

I want to protest. If the rules are such that "crap" or "ass" are forbidden, then the rules have gone too far.

I spend my time with people who argue for a living. There are times when the argument is so bad, the only rebuttal that needs to be said is a mild profanity. "Give the fool the answer his folly deserves."

We're adults here. No one's virigin ears will be harmed by a mild profanity like "crap" or "ass." None of us will be offended by use of one of those mild profanities. Frankly, I find the censorship to be much more offensive than any minor profanity. Now, JimRob's house, JimRob's rules - but if it is really one of his rules to ban "crap," I have to argue that rule is ill-advised.

"Do you or the Catholic Church as it now stands believe Augustine's statement-that faith is only given as a gift to a few?"

Howdie HD!

I have no idea what the RCC believes on this.

I know that "not all have faith". But I also know that God has made His eternal power and divine nature clear to all men via Creation.

Now back to the (non-Apostolic) Church fathers...

Do you have any? I'm not looking for a "gotcha" moment here, I've just come across several sources that state that strict predestination and the denial of free will was not known or believed in the post Apostolic Church till Calvin - Augustine being the possible one exception.

Spurgeon had faults and was not perfect. Mostly because, NO ONE IS PERFECT, EXCEPT GOD. So, if A PERSON chooses to believe onself to be perfect, then, you guessed it, they are gonna find fault in everybody's belief, except theirs...

Religious freedom only applied to Protestants. If you were a Catholic you had no place in society. Catholics in New Hampshire didn't even have the right to vote until after the Civil War.

Any Catholic priest who entered Calvinist Massachusetts during the 17th century was liable for death.

Perhaps I should clarify myself. Calvinism of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Calvinism was so abhorrent to its adherents that only the most zealous stayed. Areas of America and Europe that once had heavy Calvinist populations today are the most secular.

New England, France, Holland, Switzerland, Scotland, etc.

Besides Puritan Massachusetts all I need to do is look how tolerant Oliver Cromwell and his ultra-Calvinist Roundheads were to the Catholics in England, Scotland and Ireland.

Jansenism, aka Catholc Calvinism, in part, occasioned the French Revolution as a reaction to it.

Fundamentalist Calvinism is tolerant, just as long as you are a Calvinist.

"You are correct with the consequences of my logic."

Well, you just made God's job easier. Now He doesn't have to look at the hearts or minds of creation. All He has to do is look at the labels.

Interesting that Paul didn't label them counterfeits,

1Cr 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?

He was just happy that Christ was preached,

Phl 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. - Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints

Do you or the Catholic Church as it now stands believe Augustine's statement-that faith is only given as a gift to a few?

He didn't say that it was "only given as a gift to a few"; he just said that it wasn't given to everyone.

It's self-evident that not everyone receives the gift of faith, because not everyone has it.

We would differ with St. Augustine, in that we would hold that sufficient grace for salvation is offered to all men (but not always equally, and those who are reprobated are those who choose to resist it). Of course grace precedes faith and inspires it.

Do you now agree with Augustine's statement in the same work you quote that the OT Book of Wisdom is canonical scripture? ;-)

Fundamentalist Calvinism is tolerant, just as long as you are a Calvinist.

Fundamentalist Catholics aren't exactly friendly to non-Catholics. What was it that St. Cyprian said? Something like ex ecclesia nulla salus? Then there was Pope Bonifice, that there can be no salvation unless one is subject to the Pope who sits in the chair of St. Peter? Leaves all Protestants and Orthodox Christians in the cold.

Let's not pretend Calvinist fundamentalists have a corner on Christian intolerance. There are intolerant Calvinists, intolerant Baptists, intolerant Catholics, and intolerant Plymouth Brethren. Who gives a flying leap what the narrow-minded ignorants think?

The question is much more narrow - what role did God play in predestination. Whether Calvinists have been over-excited in the past is irrelevant to that question, but only serves to distract from a close read of the exegesis of the Scriptures.

"Fundamentalist Calvinism is tolerant, just as long as you are a Calvinist."

Bzzt! Bzzzzzttt!! BZZZZZZT!!!

You are automatically disqualified and forfeit the argument for appealing to...

"tolerance"

...that insipid non-word of the Left.

Be ashamed!

Be very ashamed!!!

See, I disagree. Tolerence is good. It's just been misdefined by our culture.

"Tolerence" doesn't mean I have to think your viewpoint is as good as mine. I can still be tolerent of your viewpoint, and think you're full of it. Tolerance requires, however, that I (accurately) understand why you think what you do and that I not force you to agree with me.

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.