Why Calvin Is Cool; An Infomercial for Calvinism

The Internet Monk ^ | Michael Spencer

[Gamecock]

  Why Calvin Is Cool 

An Infomercial for Calvinism

by Michael Spencer

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.

So how can I say it's cool to be a Calvinist?

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.

[ears_to_hear]

I am the new Religion Moderator, Little Sheba.

Did the old one quit or was he fired?

Is there only 1 religion mod at a time?

[blue-duncan]

Hey people, check this site out. A Calvinist site that has an A.W. Tozer article, and it's not criticizing him. I think our prayers for light for them are bearing fruit. Don't be discouraged in well doing. Keep praying and they might start reading Andrew Murray. Thanks AG.

http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/

[murdoog]

What Church fathers do you draw on (besides Augustine)

This is a little like asking "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

[pravknight]

Spurgeon is a heretic.

[Alex Murphy]

Spurgeon is a heretic.

By your definition (you are Catholic, as far as I can tell from your posting history), virtually every one of us who have posted on this thread are heretics, too.

Seems to me you're lobbing ad homs to start a flamewar, rather than demonstrate an ability to discuss the topic on it's merits.

[pravknight]

Nope. Both Calvin and Wahhab declared war on those who opposed them, destroyed tombs of their respective saints, suppressed secular music, murdered their opponents and imposed a puritannical ethic.

One only needs to see what the Wahhibis have done to the beautiful Ottoman mosques in the Balkans to see a correlation with the Calvinist whitewashing of formerly Catholic Churches in England and the Netherlands during the 17th century.

Both take dour views of the world.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/6157.html
... Today, it is common to hear Westerners, who have read a few polemical articles and imagine themselves great experts on Islam, calling for "an Islamic Reformation," and an "Islamic Luther." Other such are horrified to hear the argument, which is quite widespread among informed non-Muslim scholars as well as Muslims, that Islam already has a movement comparable to the Reformation, and had its Luther, or better, its John Calvin, in the form of Wahhabism and its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. That is, the Islamic Reformation exists in the ultraextremist cult that is the state sect in Saudi Arabia and the inspirer of al-Qaida. Wahhabis themselves are quite pleased by the comparison. Is this really so difficult to understand?

Calvin believed that a community of the elect had been chosen by God and made up the Calvinist congregation. Before the arrival of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the Hanafi-Sunni Muslims of the Ottoman empire believed (as Hanafi-Sunnis still believe) that Allah would judge individuals on their faith, and that salvation could not be claimed in this life. Is Calvinism, with its insistence on its adherents' election, so easily distinguished from Wahhabism, with exactly the same fanatical belief in its acolytes' own goodness? Both produced iconoclasm and theocracy. Is it not fascinating that the followers of Calvin and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab both fostered the rejection of pleasure, song and dance, decoration of sacred buildings, and spiritual culture beyond simple prayer?

We are told incessantly that without "our Protestant heritage" Americans would not be free. Have Americans really become so thoroughly indoctrinated in this simplistic and bigoted a view of our history, according to which every liberty is due to the influence of "Anglo-Saxonism" and "the Protestant ethic," as to have forgotten that decades before Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was slaying Sufis in Arabia, Puritan Massachusetts hanged a Catholic woman as a witch? (Look up the case of Ann "Goody" Glover on google, if you don't believe me.)

Or that Roger Williams had to flee Puritan Massachusetts to shelter among the Narragansett Indians, on his way to found an oasis of religious liberty in Rhode Island? Or that Catholics were deprived of rights in nearly all the early Anglo-American colonies, except for Maryland? Can we today imagine Boston without a Catholic archdiocese? Yet there was no Catholic bishop in Boston until 1808. Early America happened to be a place where adherents of the Roman Catholic church, libeled for generations as subservient to the Pope -- a slander whose echo we hear subtly repeated today, in discussions about the suitability of Catholic political candidates -- were in truth courageous heroes of religious liberty.

In New England, with the exception of Rhode Island, the Congregational Churches long enjoyed an absolute monopoly on faith, and in most of the southern colonies, the Church of England had the same status. New Hampshire permitted nobody but Protestants to hold office or teach school until 1877, 14 years after the Emancipation Proclamation ended the slavery of Blacks! The Carolinas, by contrast, have the honor of proclaiming freedom of religion to "Jews, heathen, and dissenters," beginning in 1669, under the original colonial charter written by John Locke, although it was not ratified. England itself, worshipped as the mother of our liberties, denied full rights to Catholics until 1829!

Americans have lately been perturbed by the arguments of Samuel Huntington, according to whom, "There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society," a dream that can be shared only by those who "dream in English." No place in this scheme for the Catholics of Maryland, to begin with. But how does this impend on the question of the future of Islam?

[Alamo-Girl]

Great news! Thanks for the ping!

[Frumanchu]

I'm sure you're proud of the pseudo-scholarship in which you've wrapped your hateful invective.

Go back to your rants about Roger Mahoney. Shoo! Go on...

[Religion Moderator]

Please rephrase without the reference to a disallowed word.

[ears_to_hear]

Wow I did not know Crap would be a forbidden word on FR.

Craps are dice as in crap shoots

[Religion Moderator]

A few rules-of-thumb to keep in mind: (a) the demeanor of the poster counts as much or more than the substance of the post to most passers-by, (b) we cannot read the mind of another poster and thus should never attribute motive to him/her, (c) contentious personal remarks may be treated the same as a direct personal attack at the discretion of the moderator.

[ears_to_hear]

One wonders why those Calvinists that penned the constitution bothered to include religious freedom as a corner stone.

[ears_to_hear]

Is there a clear list of rules for posting on the religion forum now ? How does one know the rules that will be enforced if they are hidden or if they are solely subject to the subjective reading of the mods on one particular post? How will we know if they are being fairly enforced and not with a bias against a certain religious doctrine?

[Religion Moderator]

I am being very strict - but for a reason, which is to avoid flame wars in the Religion Forum.

[ears_to_hear]

I do not mind a site having posting guidelines, but how does function in an environment when the rules are fluid and subject to the whim or inclination or friendships of the mod?

A list of posting rules would be helpful and also help keep the staff honest :)

[Frumanchu]

I agree, and in fact I've asked for that very thing several times over the past couple years and have yet to see one.

[Frumanchu]

wha? we can't say "crap" on FR? you've got to be kidding me!

[Religion Moderator]

All moderators have authority on the Religion Forum - and we have individual tastes. Therefore, what is tolerable to one may not be tolerable to another.

I do however have general responsibility and authority for the Religion Forum and yes, I hold the posters here to a higher standard. And yes, within a few days I will draft an article to explain all of this, the standard and the reason for it.