Calvinists Sometimes Make the Worst Calvinists

[file13]

Original post here

by C Michael Patton November 10th, 2011

Labels are a postmodern taboo. This is understandable. Once you are labeled something, you live under the presumptions of the system that has been typified by others. This representation may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, the inaccuracies inevitably rule the label.

Republican: War lover. Does not care about the environment. Apathetic to social issues.
Democrat: Liberal. Godless. Weak. Immoral. Baby-killers.
Roman Catholic: Worships Mary. Drones. Ignorant.
Evangelical: Fundamentalist. Gay hater. Supports the killing of abortion doctors. Republican (see above).
Baptist: Can’t drink, dance, or smoke. Prideful.
Dispensationalist: Believes in two ways of salvation, one for the Old Testament and one for the new. Cares only about eschatology.
DTS Grads: Dispensationalist (see above).

OU Sooners: The best ever. Supernatural. Incredible. (Oh, wait . . . this is all true)
Emerging Christianity: Cursing. Compromise doctrine. Nose rings. Disrespectful.
Arminian: Humanistic. Denies God’s sovereignty. Pelagian.
Calvinist: Follower of a man. Believes God hates the non-elect. Denies free will. Denies responsibility. Believes God created evil.

Unfortunately, there are reasons why people have these stereotypical assumptions about systems, and these reasons are often valid. Not because the system itself demands it (although this is sometimes the case), but because of two things: 1) There will always be those radical outspoken representatives who live for the spotlight and focus upon non-essentials within the system, thereby giving outsiders a skewed perspective of what they system is all about. 2) There are those outside the system who seek to distort the “opponent” by creating straw-men arguments.

It is this first about which I would like to speak. Specifically, I would like to speak on it with regards to Calvinism (since I am a Calvinist). There are many out there who call themselves Calvinists who make very bad Calvinists. In other words, the way they portray their own system lacks understanding and perspective concerning the system.

When I am around some Calvinists, I often want to become an Arminian! There are many reasons I say this, but first and foremost is that many Calvinists lack balance. They act as if the doctrines of grace are the only issues in theology. It does not matter what you are talking about, with these people it somehow always turns into a discussion about the importance of Calvinism. Further, they will strongly demean any who disagrees with Calvinism to the point where they deny them the grace that is so irresistible in their own system. In other words, there are many Calvinists who act like Calvinism is the central core of the Gospel. With this attitude of smugness, arrogence, and disrespect represented by so many, who would want to be a Calvinist?

I will be the first to admit that there are many who are not Calvinists who love the Lord more, are smarter, and who live the Christian life better than myself (none of which is a great feat

). Who can deny the scholarship of the likes of men like Roger Olson, Thomas Oden, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Gregory Boyd, I. Howard Marshall, and Scott McKnight? I can personally attest to the Christian character of Paul Copan and J.P. Moreland. They demand my respect even if we disagree.

Unfortunately, in some Calvinists’ zeal to proclaim the sovereignty of God, they present a very unbalanced portrayal of Calvinism. They often fail to give proper credence to the love of God and the responsibility of man. Now, to be fair, I don’t know of many respected Calvinist scholars who do so, but I have found this tendency continually among the laity and lay teachers. Progressing mightily in the triumph of the glory of God, they often make God so sovereign that He must, by virtue of their definition of sovereignty, be the author of all things, including evil. Now, I do recognize that Zwingli and Beza, who are part of magisterial Calvinism, did go this direction, but this certainly not a necessary belief of Calvinists. In fact, some Calvinists, such as myself, would say that making God directly responsible for evil is such a way does not dignify His sovereignty, but, frankly, boarders on blasphemy.

Further, there are many Calvinists who will deny the title Calvinism to any who don’t believe as they do on the non-essential elements of Calvinism. These non-essential elements of Calvinism include double predestination (retrobutionism), an affirmation of meticulous sovereignty, the absolute and unqualified denial of man’s free will and responsibility, a belief that God hates the non-elect, a demand to see the atonement as limited in the way that they believe it to be limited, and a firm adherence to supralapsarianism. Some even deny that we have the responsibility to share the Gospel. Their circle becomes so thin that it is no wonder that pride abounds. They become the elect within the elect!

I remember a Calvinist who owned a local bookstore where I used to study. Every time I entered the door, he would start nagging me about some non-essential issues of Calvinism. His primary argument was that I was not really a Calvinist because I believed that God, in spite of His unconditional election, still loved the non-elect. This was the discussion every time. I came to the point where I thought that he was not going to welcome me in the doors any longer because I did not agree that God hated the non-elect. The last words I remember saying to him were “What does God want us to do with our enemies?” He said, “Love them.” I said, “Do you think God would expect us to do something that He Himself cannot do?” He did not respond.

I am a Calvinist. I am a five point Calvinist. I don’t mind being labeled as such. But sadly, I have to greatly qualify what I mean by this so that people don’t label me according to the massive misrepresentation of Calvinism by some Calvinists.

In short, it is sad to say, but I would rather go to a party with a humble Arminian than some passionate Calvinists. While I don’t know how someone can be “against Calvinism” I do know how they can be against Calvinists. Calvinists sometimes make the worse Calvinists.

 

[JM]

Baptist: Can’t drink, dance, or smoke. Prideful.

I guess I'm a bad Baptist...one out of four is pretty bad.

 

[file13]

I guess I'm a bad Baptist...one out of four is pretty bad.

 

[nill]

The last words I remember saying to him were “What does God want us to do with our enemies?” He said, “Love them.” I said, “Do you think God would expect us to do something that He Himself cannot do?” He did not respond.

...like repent? I think that argument is invalid.

 

[JM]

I did the "Intro to Theology" he had on his site and was not impressed. Being a good student I made LOTS of notes and found inconsistencies throughout his presentations.

 

[file13]

I did the "Intro to Theology" he had on his site and was not impressed. Being a good student I made LOTS of notes and found inconsistencies throughout his presentations.

That dosen't surprise me. Folks who have read and studied systematic theology will not likely find much new. It's more for non-denominational "just winging it" theological folks I recommend the programs or even the RCC or EO folks who have never studied theology, but simply believe what they're taught without considering other POVs.

But yes, I've found plenty of minor errors in many of the presentations. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm he's likely corrected them on the updated versions of the programs for sale, but I don't know for sure. So I agree brother that they're not perfect, but I think excellent for folks who have never studied it at all...and the price is right and dosen't require them to read anything.

 

[file13]

...like repent? I think that argument is invalid.

Are you saying that you believe that repentance can proceed grace?

 

[nill]

Are you saying that you believe that repentance can proceed grace?

I'm saying that the argument that God would not require us to do something that He is incapable of doing is, in my opinion, invalid, since He commands repentance of us, but is incapable of repentance Himself, since He cannot sin.

 

[file13]

I'm saying that the argument that God would not require us to do something that He is incapable of doing is, in my opinion, invalid, since He commands repentance of us, but is incapable of repentance Himself, since He cannot sin.

I gotcha and your point is valid in a general sense. However in the context of love, it's not, because we have precedent from Christ where He commanded we love our enemies and also put this love into practice. So I think Patton's point is still sound in the context of love of enemies.

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
(Luke 6:27-31 ESV)

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
(Luke 23:34 ESV)
​

 

[tripletiger1200]

In the end I think it is a much more fruitful endeavor to study the scriptures in a manner that helps us to better understand the character of God and how to live in a manner that glorifies Him rather than to study them with intent to bring ammunition into a theological argument. I think this is one of the main problems with a lot of Calvinists today.
I still struggle with pride in this area, especially considering that a lot of my friends are from the emergent church. It is easy to put myself on a pedestal and take pride in the knowledge that I could blow many of them away in a theological debate, but in the end I can't really say I've lived out God's word to the extent that many of them have. And if my interpretation of scripture is correct, is there really any reason to be prideful? The main idea of most reformed theology in my mind is to focus on the grace of God and his greatness to give us these things despite how unworthy and lowly we are, so wouldn't a correct interperation of scripture just be another manifestation of his grace in our lives that has really nothing at all to do with what "wonderful" people we are? Shouldn't Calvinism really humble us rather than puff us up with unwarranted pride and self importance?

 

[file13]

In the end I think it is a much more fruitful endeavor to study the scriptures in a manner that helps us to better understand the character of God and how to live in a manner that glorifies Him rather than to study them with intent to bring ammunition into a theological argument. I think this is one of the main problems with a lot of Calvinists today.
I still struggle with pride in this area, especially considering that a lot of my friends are from the emergent church. It is easy to put myself on a pedestal and take pride in the knowledge that I could blow many of them away in a theological debate, but in the end I can't really say I've lived out God's word to the extent that many of them have. And if my interpretation of scripture is correct, is there really any reason to be prideful? The main idea of most reformed theology in my mind is to focus on the grace of God and his greatness to give us these things despite how unworthy and lowly we are, so wouldn't a correct interperation of scripture just be another manifestation of his grace in our lives that has really nothing at all to do with what "wonderful" people we are? Shouldn't Calvinism really humble us rather than puff us up with unwarranted pride and self importance?

and well said!

Yeah, I think we sometimes forget that Reformed spirituality is all about God's grace which saves us. But of course, God first leads us to the horrid condition we're in and basically knocks us to the floor. I think that sometimes in our desire to help our brothers and sisters who may have some pretty awful theology come to see their wretched state that we forget that we ourselves are not on the pedestal we're trying to push them off. We're all laid low and there's nothing to brag about here. There is the greatest comfort that comes from being laid low in the dust by God and simply trusting in Him. But we can't forget that we wouldn't be there if not for His grace to begin with.

So yes, when we engage in apologetics (and I speak of myself here), we have to remember that we're not trying to be higher then others, but bring them down to where we all are. Naked, wretched, sinful, but saved, by the grace of God alone through the love of Jesus Christ who gave His life for His friends. We have nothing to brag about and in a moment He could take our assurance, our material blessings, our friends and family, or even faith away. Then we'll be like Job and know what it means to trust God. Then perhaps we can sing:

It is well (the story behind the famous hymn) performed by Colin Battersby - YouTube

 

[JustAsIam77]

In the end I think it is a much more fruitful endeavor to study the scriptures in a manner that helps us to better understand the character of God and how to live in a manner that glorifies Him rather than to study them with intent to bring ammunition into a theological argument. I think this is one of the main problems with a lot of Calvinists today.
I still struggle with pride in this area, especially considering that a lot of my friends are from the emergent church. It is easy to put myself on a pedestal and take pride in the knowledge that I could blow many of them away in a theological debate, but in the end I can't really say I've lived out God's word to the extent that many of them have. And if my interpretation of scripture is correct, is there really any reason to be prideful? The main idea of most reformed theology in my mind is to focus on the grace of God and his greatness to give us these things despite how unworthy and lowly we are, so wouldn't a correct interperation of scripture just be another manifestation of his grace in our lives that has really nothing at all to do with what "wonderful" people we are? Shouldn't Calvinism really humble us rather than puff us up with unwarranted pride and self importance?

We could sit on our hands and not engage others of faith, that wouldn't be helpful in planting a seed toward more theological understanding of the Word. There's a fine line between being humble and sharing the Doctrines of Grace with another believer. Good post tripletiger and food for thought.

 

[Rick Otto]

Balance as you said, is critical.
Mostly between humor & sobriety.
WE tend to take ourselves too seriously & loose our sense of humor.
That's when the ugly parts of us start coming out.

But help me out for a moment if you will. My weak point is articulating how we are still held responsible for our actions in the face of predestination.

I have the pieces, but putting them together is still awkward for me.

There is the first cause & secondary causes thing, the jurisdiction thing is probably most important... help me out here.
I'd like to be able to reduce it to what can fit on a bumper sticker because that seems to be the average depth of conversation.

 

[file13]

Balance as you said, is critical.
Mostly between humor & sobriety.
WE tend to take ourselves too seriously & loose our sense of humor.
That's when the ugly parts of us start coming out.

But help me out for a moment if you will. My weak point is articulating how we are still held responsible for our actions in the face of predestination.

I have the pieces, but putting them together is still awkward for me.

There is the first cause & secondary causes thing, the jurisdiction thing is probably most important... help me out here.
I'd like to be able to reduce it to what can fit on a bumper sticker because that seems to be the average depth of conversation.

Balance as you said, is critical.
Mostly between humor & sobriety.
WE tend to take ourselves too seriously & loose our sense of humor.
That's when the ugly parts of us start coming out.

But help me out for a moment if you will. My weak point is articulating how we are still held responsible for our actions in the face of predestination.

I have the pieces, but putting them together is still awkward for me.

There is the first cause & secondary causes thing, the jurisdiction thing is probably most important... help me out here.
I'd like to be able to reduce it to what can fit on a bumper sticker because that seems to be the average depth of conversation.

I hear ya brother! Sadly, the only way I can think of to stick it on a bumper sticker would be to have one that says:

COMPATABILISM
We freely choose to do what God wills.
confused: Deut 29:29)

That's about as concise as I think you can do it without getting into the nuanced views of God's will and providence which are ultimately necessary to have a handle on how compatibilism might work behind the scenes. But ultimately, like the Trinity, the best you can do is to show how it's possible and not contradictory. But ultimately, we simply don't have enough information about what's going on behind the scenes and thus, simply can't construct a solid analogy as for how we will freely and willing choose to do what God has decreed. It will remain a mystery, like the Trinity or the natures of Christ, and to try to avoid appeals to mystery is to possibly make the mistake of Clark (if he indeed went too far, I'm no expert on the subject and could be wrong that he may have gone too far) and elevate logic above special revelation because you're uncomfortable with mystery. We simply can't penetrate into God's mysteries with human reason and logic if He has not willed it (note the verse in our bumper sticker), and clearly He has not willed to explain to us how His sovereignty and our human choices work together. So like there being nothing logically contradictory about One God and Three persons (though we can't comprehend such a being since we don't have any created examples which exhibit the same type of being), we must be content to show that there's nothing contradictory with us freely choosing to do God's will. We just don't know how this works out because we're not told how. We're shown that this is the case. But the "how" is a mystery.

• How can people be free if God wills everything?
• You freely choose to do His will.
• But how can I choose to do my will against His will?
• You can't. If you did it, He willed it.
• But isn't He then forcing my will?
• How is it forced if you freely and willingly chose it?
• So God willed I come here today?
• If you freely chose to come here today, which you did, then yes, God willed it. But you didn't come at gun point. You did it of your own volition.
• But, but, but, how does that work!?
• God hasn't told us how this works. So, ya know, enjoy a beer.
• 

 

[Rick Otto]

COMPATABILISM:
God Willing, We Freely Choose

​

Ok, thats "soft determinism". If I rememnber my own thought process correctly, I think I favor hard determinism.
Wiki sorts it out a little:
​

Determinism is often taken to mean simply Causal determinism: an idea known in physics as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states. This can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below. Other debates often concern the scope of determined systems, with some maintaining that the entire universe (or multiverse) is a single determinate system and others identifying other more limited determinate systems. Within numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical positions on the subject of determinism exist. This includes debates concerning human action and free will, where opinions might be sorted as compatibilistic and incompatibilistic.

 

[file13]

COMPATABILISM:
God Willing, We Freely Choose

​

Ok, thats "soft determinism". If I rememnber my own thought process correctly, I think I favor hard determinism.​

Philosophically speaking, the problem with hard determinism is how to reconcile the fact that we're morally accountable for moral crimes. In hard determinism, how can one say that one is morally culpable for anything if they're not even making a free choice based on a limited number of options? I.e. in hard determinism, there is really not even the binary choice to rape or not rape. You're forced to do one of the other because there are no free agents, only agents who act out God's decrees. But if there's no free agents, how can one justly hold someone responsible for a moral crime? For that matter, why would anything be a crime since they have no choice about anything and simply do whatever they're programmed to do? Why punish the puppet for doing what you made it do? If God decreed that you will rape someone, you don't have a choice in the matter. God is the author of everything, including sin, because everything that happens is the result of God's decretive will (which is the only kind of will).

With compatibilism, you still have choice and free agents (though they're not free in a libertarian sense). It's a limited choice, but you still have choice. So even if God exercises His permissive will to allow you to rape someone (knowing the outcome and likely with some greater long term good coming out of the act which we can never fathom and which may effect people far removed from the action), it's still your volition to perform the rape and you're still accountable. God still wills that it be done in the sense that He permits it (and of course we'd also infer that He's not exactly thrilled about the idea of you causing such suffering to someone else--will of disposition), but you still make the decision to carry out what God has willed. He does not force you to do it because you're a free agent making a decision, and even though your decision is a part of God's mysterious plan, the decision, the action, and the accountability are all yours.

Of course, the other problem with hard determinism (and when you get down to it, the more serious problem) is theological. How do you reconcile the numerous verses where people said clearly shown to act out of their own decisions? This is why I think (as does the mainstream Reformed world) compatibilism is the best explanation for what's revealed in Scripture and which also can satisfactorily answer the philosophical questions of how a someone who's not a free agent can be held accountable for moral crimes.

So frankly, I think folks that reject compatibilism unwittingly do so out of a misguided sense of values which focuses more on logic, philosophy, and even apologetics (or at least winning arguments), then on God's revealed will in Scripture. They seem to be uncomfortable with mystery and paradox, which leads them down a very dangerous road which will undermine the orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity.
​

 

[Rick Otto]

Philosophically speaking, the problem with hard determinism is how to reconcile the fact that we're morally accountable for moral crimes. In hard determinism, how can one say that one is morally culpable for anything if they're not even making a free choice based on a limited number of options? I.e. in hard determinism, there is really not even the binary choice to rape or not rape. You're forced to do one of the other because there are no free agents, only agents who act out God's decrees. But if there's no free agents, how can one justly hold someone responsible for a moral crime? For that matter, why would anything be a crime since they have no choice about anything and simply do whatever they're programmed to do? Why punish the puppet for doing what you made it do? If God decreed that you will rape someone, you don't have a choice in the matter. God is the author of everything, including sin, because everything that happens is the result of God's decretive will (which is the only kind of will).​

With compatibilism, you still have choice and free agents (though they're not free in a libertarian sense). It's a limited choice, but you still have choice. So even if God exercises His permissive will to allow you to rape someone (knowing the outcome and likely with some greater long term good coming out of the act which we can never fathom and which may effect people far removed from the action), it's still your volition to perform the rape and you're still accountable. God still wills that it be done in the sense that He permits it (and of course we'd also infer that He's not exactly thrilled about the idea of you causing such suffering to someone else--will of disposition), but you still make the decision to carry out what God has willed. He does not force you to do it because you're a free agent making a decision, and even though your decision is a part of God's mysterious plan, the decision, the action, and the accountability are all yours.​

Of course, the other problem with hard determinism (and when you get down to it, the more serious problem) is theological. How do you reconcile the numerous verses where people said clearly shown to act out of their own decisions? This is why I think (as does the mainstream Reformed world) compatibilism is the best explanation for what's revealed in Scripture and which also can satisfactorily answer the philosophical questions of how a someone who's not a free agent can be held accountable for moral crimes.​

So frankly, I think folks that reject compatibilism unwittingly do so out of a misguided sense of values which focuses more on logic, philosophy, and even apologetics (or at least winning arguments), then on God's revealed will in Scripture. They seem to be uncomfortable with mystery and paradox, which leads them down a very dangerous road which will undermine the orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity.​

Well that describes me to "t" except I don't think my Trinity stance is vulnerable.
The reason I can dismiss the idea of free agency being essential to moral responsibility is because it is like Paul says, a matter of jurisdiction.
I think the romance of mystery might center itself on an area of our own identity that we can't force ourselves to accept, that being the opposite side of the coin of self worth. Not the presious uniqueness that makes us ourselves, but the stark & humbling fact that we are one of literaly billions.
Gotta run, but I feel like there's more to say here.
Save my seat.

 

[file13]

Well that describes me to "t" except I don't think my Trinity stance is vulnerable.
The reason I can dismiss the idea of free agency being essential to moral responsibility is because it is like Paul says, a matter of jurisdiction.
I think the romance of mystery might center itself on an area of our own identity that we can't force ourselves to accept, that being the opposite side of the coin of self worth. Not the presious uniqueness that makes us ourselves, but the stark & humbling fact that we are one of literaly billions.
Gotta run, but I feel like there's more to say here.
Save my seat.

That's cool brother. There are, of course, Calvinistic folks who do embrace hard determinism (I believe brother JM does, for example). Keep in mind though that all Calvinists are determinists. It's just that compatibilism says that God's certain providence is compatible with human volition. It's not that God's will is any less certain with free agents, it's just the notion that we can and do freely choose to do what He's determined. Our ability to make decisions is compatible with God will. Again, there's nothing mysterious about this as I mentioned above. It's just that we're not privy to how exactly all this plays out behind the scenes or given any knowledge about which acts are the result of God actively decreeing something or passively permitting something. So the mystery, like that of the Trinity, is not that it's illogical. We just don't understand how this all works in reality because we can't peek behind the curtain and God has not willed it that we know. So we just stop talking there and when pressed to offer explanations, offer possibilities, but insist that we don't know for sure because it's ultimately a mystery. But we do know God's will will certainly be done, even if He relies on free agents freely choosing to do His will.

But what happens with hard determinism that denies there are free agents? God actively decrees everything, but you're still held accountable because you were the last agent on the causal chain. "I didn't kill him officer, the bullet did."

Does this sound like the God of the Bible? "I didn't author sin. I made Adam sin without him having any choice in the matter, but since he was the last causal agent, he's still guilty. I did it for greater good though, so in the end, it's not really evil."

Of course the last quip does not excuse the fact that He still holds people guilty for what they had no decision in, and thus, solves nothing. It makes for cool lyrical content though.

Laibach - Abuse and Confession - YouTube

 

[file13]

'If a man is predestined and born reprobate. Totally Depraved, totally unable to respond because God decreed it that way. Then How can God hold man responsible for what God himself did"?

Do you know any non-Christians who want to be Christians but are unable to? I for the life of me can't think of any. Why do you think this is?

 

[Rick Otto]

But what happens with hard determinism that denies there are free agents? God actively decrees everything, but you're still held accountable because you were the last agent on the causal chain. "I didn't kill him officer, the bullet did."

It almost sounds unfair!

Does this sound like the God of the Bible? "I didn't author sin. I made Adam sin without him having any choice in the matter, but since he was the last causal agent, he's still guilty. I did it for greater good though, so in the end, it's not really evil."

Correction: "I predestined failure as teaching method." Success means nothing if the successful have no appreciation of failure. Mercy is meaningless without justice.
Only one had any choice in there being matter at all.
Only one had choice in what matters would matter.
His purpose as stated in Romans 9:22 isn't dependant upon us being "free" agents, does it?