Malcolm L. Lavender, author of Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism, self-published by Crisis Publications, 2007, in his Introduction, regarding Calvinism, states, “I have long been aware of the evils of this system. . . . Calvinism is . . . the most evil doctrine in Protestantism. TULIP may well be summed up as the acronym of hell. It is the most incongruous, man belittling, God dishonoring system in Christendom. The god of Five Point Calvinism is the Devil.”1 Dr. Lavender would have us believe that Calvinism is a damnable heresy in Christianity, such as the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. He is not suggesting that Calvinism merely has errors in its theology. He is insisting that Calvinism’s teachings lead people to hell, and hence, Calvinists are inadvertently worshipers of Satan. Someone such as Dr. Lavender would be denied membership in the Society of Evangelical Arminians, which openly confesses that Calvinists are brothers and sisters to Arminians in the Christian faith, for God has chosen to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21), not merely those with a certain theological bent (whether Calvinist or Arminian or otherwise).
Dr. Lavender, in his introductory remarks, continues, “This demonic force has theologically destroyed the message of John 3:14-17, made its way into conservative Christianity and is accepted as evangelical. Arminianism and Wesleyanism essentially stand by in silence as this giant of apostasy works against New Testament Christianity.”2 His outlandish remarks against Calvinism remind me of the asinine charges against the alleged “heresy” of Arminianism by C. Matthew McMahon at A Puritan’s Mind. Zealous Calvinists like McMahon are merely taking their cue from historic Calvinists like John Owen and Augustus Toplady. In all candor, I find it difficult to take men like Malcolm Lavender and Matthew McMahon seriously. Their careless and drastic charges are entirely unwarranted. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are merely, in the words of one of my Church History professors, the packaging of the gospel. Both are biblical, in a broad sense, and both speak the core truths of the gospel in a very narrow sense.
THE CALVINISTIC HERMENEUTIC
The more we all confess honestly and openly that we operate and interpret Scripture from different presuppositions the better we can communicate with and genuinely appreciate one another. Hermeneutics (Greek hermēneuō) is the discipline that “studies the theory, principles, and methods used to interpret texts. . . . Traditional hermeneutics focuses primarily on the discovery of the historical meaning as intended by the author and understood by the original audience.”3 When we admit that Calvinists and Arminians (and others) have a hermeneutical grid by which they interpret Scripture, we mean that they possess “a particular system of interpretation organized around an established frame of reference having an acknowledged set of presuppositions, values, or beliefs, which guides or controls the interpretation of texts.”4 I have come to learn that the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is one solely of hermeneutics, and little else.
The guiding hermeneutic by which Calvinists, including John Calvin himself, interpret all of Scripture is, according to Calvinist Moisés Silva, “its stress on divine sovereignty, particularly as expressed in the concept of election.”5 Not only is God sovereign, as defined by Calvinists (i.e., He has decreed and brings to pass whatever happens6), but mankind is fallen, so much so that he cannot do, nor does he desire to do, anything regarding his sinful and fallen condition. God’s creatures have rebelled against Him, and they have no interest, having become His enemy, in repairing the relationship.
THE CALVINISTIC CONCLUSION
Because this hermeneutic is the guiding principle of interpreting the tenor of Scripture, in a brief, simplistic sense, the only conclusion left for the Calvinist is a Calvinistic system. Because man is fallen and does not desire salvation, God, in His infinite grace and love for His fallen creatures, has unconditionally decided to save some of them — though they do not desire saving — in order to demonstrate “the riches of His glory” (Rom. 9:23) and grace, as well as leaving others to what they desire — independence from God — because He is “willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known” in them (Rom. 9:22). Since God is not obligated to save anyone, and His justice demands that those who rebel against His authority, holiness and law receive the penalty due, then God is blameless in saving whomsoever He chooses to save.
Let us briefly examine TULIP theology. Because man is Totally depraved and unable in and of himself to seek God and His salvation, nor does he even desire such because he is fallen and an enemy of God, out His immense grace, God as Unconditionally elected to save some, leaving the rest to their own depraved desires. He thus sent His Son Christ Jesus to, in a Limited sense, atone for their sins alone. He will draw His unconditionally elected ones alone to Christ through an Irresistible grace, thus guaranteeing or securing their salvation through regeneration. Granted His eternal purpose for those whom He elected, He will Preserve them to the end by His Holy Spirit, whom He caused to dwell within His elect. This system is anything but incongruous (lacking in harmony), as is alleged by Dr. Lavender. Given its hermeneutical grid, TULIP theology, i.e., Calvinism, makes logical, philosophical, and biblical sense.
THE CALVINISTIC GOSPEL
At face value, Dr. Lavender’s remarks regarding Calvinism would lead one to think that its gospel is completely contrary to what is found in Scripture. Calvinist John Piper states that the gospel is “the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.” Comparing Piper’s confession with Scripture, we discover that his confession is derived directly from the scriptures themselves: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16 NKJV); “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4 NKJV); “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1 NASB).
One may (and should, in my opinion) oppose Calvinism, but not for the reasons given by Dr. Malcolm L. Lavender. Calvinism is a Christian theology, adhered to by some of the most godly men and women I have had the privilege of calling brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. The rhetoric and polemics of some Arminians and “non-Calvinists,” as well as some Calvinists and theological hyper-Calvinists, is not just excessive but is contemptible. In order for Calvinism to be considered a false gospel or damnable heresy, it would have to deny a core tenet of the Christian faith. But Calvinism affirms every core tenet of the faith. Hence it is not heresy. The same can also be said of Arminianism. It affirms every core tenet of the Christian faith, and hence, is not heresy. Calvinists and Arminians may (and should, in my opinion) debate theology because theology matters. But our disagreements need not ipso facto lead us to adopt a God-complex, whereby we, as Supreme Judge, assign our opponents to hell. I think that dishonors God more than does what we perceive to be our opponent’s errors.
__________
1 Malcolm L. Lavender, Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism (Port Huron: Crisis Publications, 2007), xi. Some Calvinists will, no doubt, remind me that Arminian scholar Roger E. Olson has noted that at times it is difficult to distinguish between the Calvinist’s God of the Bible and Satan, due to some brands of Calvinistic thought. In context, Dr. Olson is trying to communicate that the errors of exhaustive divine determinism tend to imply that God is the Author of sin and evil. Hence, if God decrees evil, and Satan also seeks to manifest evil, then we are bewildered as to how to distinguish between the two. In fairness to Dr. Olson, Dr. Wayne Grudem, himself a five-point Calvinist, agrees that exhaustive determinism is a theological error. See Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 145-49.
2 Ibid.
3 James D. Hernando, Dictionary of Hermeneutics: A Concise Guide to Terms, Names, Methods, and Expressions (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 2005), 23.
4 Ibid.
5 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, revised and expanded edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 307.
6 Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter III Of God’s Eternal Decree:
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, ed. Richard L. Pratt (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 2176.
While Calvinists themselves do preach the gospel accurately, I think they do so inconsistently. They derive the gospel from scripture, but not from Calvinism.
Logically, if Total Inability is true, then nothing at all is “necessary”, whether preaching the gospel, exercising faith, or heeding any scripture at all. If all was decreed from eternity past, and if God necessarily causes all that happens, then nothing had to happen for any reason but that God desired it. And if everything God desires necessarily comes to pass, then we cannot do otherwise than his will. Therefore, the preaching of the gospel, saving, faith, or trying to live to please God are either illusions or a farce.
In other words, that Calvinists themselves preach and believe the gospel has no bearing on whether Calvinism itself is heretical, because they are not living and acting in accordance with the logical conclusions of their system.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen far too many atheists cite Calvinism’s caricature of God as the reason for their atheism. Most of them believe, as Calvinism teaches, that God is a harsh, cold, evil monster who throws babies into the flames of hell “for his good pleasure”. Such a teaching, then, is responsible for driving people away from salvation, and therefore is false, i.e. heresy. This is not to be confused or equated with the offense of the cross, but with a false representation of God.
Calvinism’s gospel, if it were consistent with the TULIP, would be to answer the Philippian jailer thusly: “You can do nothing to be saved. If God has not elected you from eternity past, you are doomed. But if he has chosen you, you MUST be saved and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. He will MAKE you love him!” It’s quite obvious why the gospel Calvinists preach is not what logically flows from their system, for it is not “good news” at all but a gamble, a lottery.
Paula,
In a general sense, I agree with most of what you’ve stated. What we are arguing against most of the time are the implications of Calvinistic thought (though certainly we argue against more than mere implications as well).
But I think Calvinists avoid the charge of inconsistency regarding the spread of the gospel message in admitting that God has ordained the means of reaching His unconditionally elect, which is through the gospel. We may not agree with them in these particulars, but they at least confess, consistently so, that God does not just regenerate a person as he’s walking down the beach, for example, without hearing the message of the gospel.
However, I will admit that some Calvinists do in fact believe this, R. C. Sproul being one of them. He believes, for example, that God could regenerate an infant, and that infant grow up believing in Christ as a result (The Reformation Study Bible, 37). Of course, he has no Scripture to support such a theory, and I think he is being inconsistent with Calvinism — at least the Calvinism which insists that God uses the gospel as the means of bringing His unconditionally elect to faith in Christ.
My main point in this post is that Calvinism ipso facto is not damnable heresy, as some Arminians and “non-Calvinists” insist. For Dr. Lavender to call the “god” of Calvinism Satan is reprehensible, and I, Lord help me, will always oppose people who make such statements. If the god of Calvinists is Satan, then that fallen fool is my god as well — and I’m being outlandish to prove a point — for Calvinists and Arminians are brothers and sisters in the same faith.
William,
Yes, implications are the key. And if God has ordained the preaching of the gospel as the means, then this is part of the illusion, since failure to preach the gospel cannot thwart the election of God. But technically, according to their system, God saves/regenerates BEFORE a person hears the gospel, because that is the only way they can respond positively to it. That is, the ordo salutis mandates that regeneration precedes faith, because one must be regenerated in order to accept the gospel, whereupon even their faith is not their own but is imposed by God. So God does every step, and does most of it before the gospel is even heard. So I see the inconsistency as between the belief/teaching that God does it all, and the necessity of hearing the gospel. It seems logical to say that since God does it all, then we need do nothing, and God will cause “the rocks to cry out” if people don’t.
On a slight tangent, there is a statistical issue: if God’s election is for “all sorts of people” to be saved, then we should expect a random distribution pattern in the world’s population regarding the percentage of Christians. That is, there should be a net equilibrium for saved people from all nations. But that isn’t what we see; we see that some populations have a disproportionate percentage of Christians.
Which all leads to the conclusion that Calvinism is begging the question: since salvation depends upon hearing the gospel, then claiming the ones who accept it were the elect is merely an assertion. That is, since both sides agree that salvation follows hearing the gospel, then Calvinism cannot simply claim that these responders must have been elect. It’s the same fallacy as “survival of the fittest”: did the fittest survive, or are they called the fittest because they survived? Likewise, “the salvation of the elect” is a self-affirming statement.
But I do believe that Calvinism paints a picture of God that is most Satanic: anyone who causes even babies to be thrown into eternal hell, and that his sovereignty is threatened if he allows free will, is the most wicked and hateful deity imaginable. If we are born to sin, then for God to hold us accountable is a gross miscarriage of justice, like beating a paraplegic for not getting out for walks. This illustration is outrageous to Calvinists but it accurately describes what they believe:
http://www.fether.net/2009/08/06/theory-vs-reality/
Paula,
Again, I agree mostly with what you’re suggesting, and I also agree with your post. That adoption analogy was spot on. However, you state, “And if God has ordained the preaching of the gospel as the means, then this is part of the illusion, since failure to preach the gospel cannot thwart the election of God.” But in Calvinism, there can be no such thing as a “failure to preach the gospel,” since God has also made sure that His children will reach who He intends to save (via regeneration) by means of the gospel.
I think Calvinists have that ground covered. Again, we may disagree and we may not like what they’re implying, but since God has determined every little action that every creature does or does not do, He has also determined (predetermined) that His children will not fail to preach the gospel to those who He has unconditionally elected to save. I get what you’re suggesting, but I don’t think Calvinists see it that way. When they insist that God has ordained the means as well as the end, they’re insisting every minutiae of the means, including fulfillment of preaching the gospel.
I wrote a piece once on how Calvinists are not consistent in their theology in that they share the gospel with the lost (for example) and even make statements such as “God loves you” which is not entirely true if they have not be predestined by God to believe. My post brought wrath from Calvinists as they said that hyper-Calvinism is not consistent (I made the point that the HC is more consistent that most non-hyper Calvinists). Spurgeon was a Calvinist and yet he preached very much like an Arminian in many ways. Hypers of Spurgeon’s day called him to be consistent with his Calvinism whereas Spurgeon felt he was consistent.
On another note, I find it ironic that so many Calvinists such as J.I. Packer and John MacArthur and even John Piper believe we Arminians are saved but barely. Packer believes that Arminianism is borderline heresy. I suppose many other Calvinists share his view. After all, we are “man-centered” theology but Calvinism is “God-centered theology.”
William, I know we disagree on this, but I just see the need to preach the gospel (even if decreed by God) as inconsistent with the belief that God must regenerate people first anyway. I can’t make what I see as nonsense qualify as consistent. But that’s just me.
Seeking, I agree that HC is really the most consistent C, because they take their beliefs to their logical conclusions: why bother with anything? Why even argue about C vs. A when God has decreed all the A’s to be such? They cannot become C’s by choice, and there’s nothing in scripture to say that they must spread C to all the world (re. their claim that the only reason they spread the gospel to all is because God commanded it).
Though I agree that Lavender’s rhetoric is particularly harsh, I can’t disagree that Calvinism is a heresy. I obviously don’t think one is ‘damned’ for holding to TULIP–I too know some godly (and otherwise orthodox) Calvinists–but I do think TULIP besmirches God’s character, to say the least. It is hard seeing at times how the ‘god’ implied by five-point Calvinism (whose secret will so many times seemingly contradicts his revealed will) can be the same as the one revealed in the Scriptures. However, I don’t think many moderate Calvinists consider such implications.
WWB,
I agree and disagree with you.
I do see Calvinism as heretical in its implications, which are actually callously embraced by the more strident among them. It is a blasphemous system in that it makes God the author (that is the inventor and the implementer of sin and evil), and it is idolatrous in that it carves in stone the character of God in a fashion that is other than God has revealed himself to be (i.e. that he wills that some people not be saved and takes pleasure, that is finds glory, in their loss). It is, in short, a slap to the face of the Almighty.
There are many Calvinists, who do not embrace these implications or accept that they are so. Many of them sound as Arminian as you. They are indeed brothers and sisters, and should be treated as such. They are, however, in error, and that of a nature which is more than a trifle. I’m glad for them that God has big shoulders.
Roy,
And how can anyone be “barely saved” anyway? That doesn’t even make sense. Am I “barely” regenerated? Has God “barely” justified me? Am I “barely” sanctified in Christ? Is God “barely” working in me to will and to do for His good pleasure? Such a statement, made explicitly by R. C. Sproul in his Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, 25, is not only unbiblical but it is not logical either. And IMO, there are far more Matthew McMahons and R. C. Sprouls in Christian circles than there are Malcolm Lavenders.
I think if we see heresy as not only false teaching but literally divisive, then C surely qualifies. If both sides preach the same gospel to the same people, and both sides aim to honor God and hold to his Word, then what exactly is the point of putting the method of salvation under a microscope? What good is it to understand Calvinism, complex as it is (hence the frequent claim that it is misunderstood)? Why is it so vigorously defended? Why do many Calvinists get so upset about non-C teachings/teachers? It is a needlessly divisive force in the Body of Christ.
Roy/WWB: Agree of course. It’s as logical as being somewhat pregnant.
D.T. and SLW,
I only meant “heresy” in the sense of “damnable heresy.” If I’m not mistaken, the manner in which the word is used in Scripture is “divisive” — αἱρετικός — (cf. Titus 3:10), though the word can also refer to a follower of false doctrine. I try to make a sharp distinction between first-tier, second-tier and third-tier issues doctrinally. I think we wrestle with Calvinism’s second- and third-tier issues rather than the first-tier issues, upon which all Christians should agree (i.e., the virgin birth, the trinity, the eternality of God, etc.).
I think Lavender’s remark that the “god” of Calvinism is actually Satan is inexcusable. I certainly won’t tolerate that statement. He didn’t just say that at times the Calvinistic view of God presents a problem in one being able to distinguish between the actions of God and Satan. He insists that the Calvinist’s “god” is actually Satan.
Again, I agree with all of you about Calvinism’s implications. Calvinism should most definitely be avoided, and we will continue to argue against its hermeneutic. But when Calvinists are attacked by the likes of Malcolm Lavender (and others), we need to come alongside our Calvinist brothers and sisters and defend them — even though we disagree with many things to which they adhere.
ALL:
BTW, I was really hoping today that the majority of you would support my main thesis against the likes of Malcolm Lavender. The statements he has made against Calvinism and Calvinists demand a response: either you agree with him or you do not. I am in no wise trying to advocate Calvinism — you all should know that by now
But we need to genuinely demonstrate to our Calvinist brothers and sisters that we will not tolerate a hyper-Arminian version of the hyper-Calvinist Fred Phelps (Godhatesfags.com). Am I getting an Amen from you all or what?
WWB,
Do you take the RC obsession with Mary as actually having Mary in focus? That may seem off track, but it is germane. I see the Mariology of the RCC as putting Christian clothing on the substance of Ashtoreth. All the protestations to the contrary are not persuasive to me. Lavender may have gone too far, but is it possible that he is merely trying to make the kind of point as I just made about Mary in the RCC?
SLW,
I’ve read a couple of RC theologians who insist that their emphasis upon or devotion to Mary is merely an avenue to Jesus Christ, her Son. They swear that they do not worship Mary, for worship belongs only to God through Jesus Christ. Please, do not think that I am trying to defend the RCC. I just want to be fair with what they actually confess to believe. Are you saying that Roman Catholicism is actually another religion, anti-Christian, or a paganized pseudo-Christian-but-not-really-Christian religion? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know what you believe about them.
Lavender is either right or wrong. Which is it? You say he “went too far,” but what does that mean? Is he right or wrong? I see this issue as either black or white. Either Calvinists worship the same God as do we or they do not. Which do you see it? And I’m not talking about any sort of philosophical implications of their teachings. Do they worship the same God and the same Christ as do we or do they not, as Lavender insists?
William,
I see what you’re saying, but when I read the post again I still think it’s saying only that Calvinism, not the gospel that Calvinism teaches in spite of itself, is damnable heresy. That Calvinists believe the true gospel and worship the one true God through the only Savior Jesus is agreed by all, I’m sure. But contrary to what Calvinists may say, their system is not the gospel itself; that’s why I see it as inconsistent. Their system leads to one view of God while they practice another. I might liken Calvinism and the gospel as a lump of concrete with cream cheese frosting on top.
Paula,
Would you mind if I press this issue a bit further? If Calvinism, and not the gospel that Calvinism teaches in spite of itself, is damnable heresy, then would those who adhere to Calvinism, i.e., Calvinists, be preaches of damnable heresy? I’m finding these distinctions too strained in keeping Calvinists in the orthodox faith. Moreover, if the “god” of Calvinism is Satan, then how do we possibly avoid insisting that the “god” of Calvinists is also Satan, since Calvinists hold to the damnable heresy of Calvinism?
WWB,
Am I getting an Amen from you all or what?
So far, it looks mostly like an “or what.” Let me give you a qualified amen.
For those Calvinists who do not acknowledge the implications and callously embrace them, I think you’re absolutely on the mark, therefore, “Amen!” For those strident hyper-Calvinists, who relish turning God into a capricious monster, I’m not quite so sure.
As for the RCC: I don’t want to take this too far off track, but I do see the bulk of RC as pseudo-Christian wrappings for pagan idolatry. The Whore of Babylon walks the halls of the Vatican in my estimation. There is still enough of the gospel in what they promote that a sincere believer in Christ is a possibility among them, but I don’t think its a probability.
Mr. Birch:
Someone’s going to kick you out of some club with subject lines like this one.
SLW,
I like your qualified Amen, because I did not have in mind theological hyper-Calvinists, who “relish turning God into a capricious monster.” I am referring to the everyday Calvinist: the Wayne Grudems, the Millard Ericksons, the John MacArthurs, etc. I do think, however, that theological hyper-Calvinism is heresy, and thus those who hold to it are heretics (e.g. R. C. Sproul Jr. — not senior).
Jeff,
Lol . . . I certainly hope not
But there’s too much mud-slinging and caricaturing and misrepresenting and misunderstanding and talking past one another, that someone has got to say something: something like, Stop the madness! Help me, Lord.
William, I don’t mind at all.
First let me explain further why I think it’s inconsistent, and then use that as a foundation for whether those who teach it are sinning.
While the “damnable” part may be debatable, I think the heresy part is valid, esp. if we use the definition of “divisive”. Just as I hold “Lordship Salvation” as heresy because it adds to the gospel, I hold Calvinism as heresy because it subtracts from it– by turning a gift into an imposition or conquest. If Paul could harshly condemn those who sought to add law to grace (they knew the gospel but wanted to add works), then what would he say to those who teach that God is a trickster or a cold-blooded tyrant who decrees that people can do nothing but sin and then punishes them for it? I see a parallel here with the claim Paul refuted, “Why don’t we sin more so that grace may abound?” Calvinism says “People can’t help but sin because God made them to be born that way”, which means we might as well sin since we can’t help it! And then what is the point of all the exhortations in the NT, if God does it all? In other words, Calvinism leads to a fatalistic view which simply gives up personal responsibility, though some Calvinists see no contradiction in making people unable but responsible.
So like the Judaizers of Paul’s day, today’s Calvinists teach things that hinder rather than enable spiritual growth. When they do teach personal responsibility, they teach it in spite of Calvinism, which leads to the question of whether Calvinism helps or hinders. And it hinders because it has to spend a lot of time and effort to explain why we are personally responsible even though God does it all, why we spread the gospel though God has already chosen his elect and will undeniably save them, and why we should have more compassion for the lost than God apparently does. It entangles and sidetracks because of the contradictions it causes with scripture. This is divisive and counter-productive, and thus heresy; those who teach such things are by definition teachers of heresy. Though they themselves believe the gospel, they teach what is harmful to the Body.
It is their contradiction that causes the “strain”; they believe things that can’t be true at the same time. They are in the orthodox faith by personal profession, but then deny that faith in their complex and confusing teachings. They love God and strive to honor him, but make him to be like Molech throwing babies into the flames “for his good pleasure”. They deny clear verses such as John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 and instead teach that God wants most to perish and few to come to repentance. Can we say that the Judaizers were not as sincere in their desire to honor God, yet every bit as wrong?
Equating Calvinism with the Judaizers may be a bit much, isn’t it? The analogy seems to fall apart in that the Judaizer taught a different basis for justification – the Calvinist, as the Arminain, would (I hope(!)) affirm Paul’s statement of Romans 5:1 in that faith (alone) is how one has peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The Judaizer was not teaching something to inhibit the spiritual growth of one who is within the family of faith – they were teaching another basis for entry (for lack of a better word) into the family of faith.
With MacArthur being the point man for the Lordship issue – since I don’t know, I’m just asking – how is his view on the subject different from that of the Arminian? Does not he Arminian hold that personal holiness is a necessary fruit of justification? That James’s statements on “dead faith” ring true? All my Arminian friends insist on personal holiness and a desire to please God – as do I and all my Calvinist brethren, by wrestling with their own sin – are they wrong?
Thanks.
Paula,
There are both statements with which I agree and disagree, and I don’t want to keep going back and forth and back and forth on this issue. There are some issues here that we will just have to agree to disagree with. But the main argument of my post stands: I will not ever tolerate any believer who insists that Calvinists worship a different god — no matter what Calvinistic implications that individual brings about. There are Calvinists who do the same with us. They begin with implication after implication, and before one knows it, Arminians believe a different gospel and a different god. But the problem is that we believe in the same exact God: we just believe that Scripture reveals different aspects of God than they do.
And I don’t think that Calvinists add, strictly taken, anything to the gospel, as did the Judaizers. Calvinists may not reveal the intricacies of how a person comes to faith to the one they are delivering the gospel, but they certainly do not add any burden to the gospel itself. They preach the bare-bones gospel just like we do.
I’ll give a ‘qualified Amen’ as well. I can’t imagine stating that someone like John MacArthur is NOT a brother in Christ. (Ironically, MacArthur’s writings were instrumental as part of my faith journey from a formerly life-long ‘easy believism’, pre-trib Southern Baptist to a classical Anglican). However, the implications of TULIP regarding the character of God are heretical, as many have alluded to above.
Regarding the RCC’s views on Mary, I do see a disconnect between the official teaching and the popular practice. Despite the official disclaimers, much popular devotion (particularly in traditionally RC countries) seems idolatrous in that it appears to treat Mary as a goddess. I am all for giving the BVM her due, and think many Protestants perhaps don’t honor her as they should (ie as GOD honored her). HOWEVER, many EOC and (especially) RCC folks seem to go too far in the other direction and sometimes make statements which at worse seem to imply she might as well be the fourth person in the Trinity.
Jeff, I wasn’t equating the two but drawing a parallel of contrast, the difference being that one adds to the gospel while the other subtracts from it. Calvinism is not to be equated with the gospel, such that when I compare Calvinist teachings to works teachings I’m comparing the damage they do to the already saved. That is, at least some of the Judaizers were telling Gentiles who were already believers that they had to observe certain “days and months and years”, while the Calvinists tell believers that they should believe one thing and do another (e.g., though scripture says God wants everyone to be saved, C. teaches the opposite). Both legalism and Calvinism trip up believers and obfuscate the simple gospel.
FWIW, I do believe the average Calvinist is saved and sincerely lives to please God. But the teachers of Calvinism must bear responsibility for the division they cause, often to the point of making their system equated with the gospel itself. They put heavy emphasis on making sure that the prospective convert admits to being a vile, despicable, loathsome piece of dirt– and I’m not exaggerating. They teach that this is necessary before a person will or can accept salvation; i.e., “You have to know how bad you are before you can see your need for a savior”, and this is a direct result of the teaching of Total Inability. In contrast, the gospel of the NT is simply that we must change our minds (repent) about God/Jesus and turn to follow him by placing faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Nowhere in scripture are we told to first dangle the sinner over the flames of hell, but instead to spread GOOD news that Jesus is God in the flesh and that we can be reconciled with God by faith alone. (A good example of a non-guilt-ridden evangelistic message is when Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch.)
I disagree with Malcom Lavender that Calvinism is damnable heresy.
@Doubting Thomas and William,
What I’m saying is that the God of the Bible and the god Calvinism describes are not the same, but that most Calvinists do believe in the former in spite of their teachings. So I can agree that most of them are believers, but I also believe that their teachings directly contradict the character of God as shown in scripture. We can try to presume that they just don’t see the implications of their teachings, but some show by their attempts to reconcile C. with the NT that they do see them. I can’t blend “God wants all to be saved” with “God wants few to be saved”. Which God does Calvinism teach? That’s the problem. But I’ll leave it there.
Billy,
I want to thank you for your integrity in this matter. We have agreed upon the fact that no one in this world is neutral in his/her approach to Scripture. Everyone by nature has a view of God (if he believes there is a God) and how He has to be, according to “our common sence”. Ask at random persons on the street and he will give you an answer of how he “sees” God, whether he read a Bible before or not. Most people have read or heard some isolated texts. Probably the most popular one is “God is love”. For many superficial people that is enough and they derive from that single text their whole theology, assuming to know what love is (read Roger Olsen’s blog for today about the meaning of love).
One of the great things of the Reformation is that -among others- Calvin brought about the Sola’s. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, but also TOTA Scriptura (often forgotten today!) Everyone who sincerely desires to know who God is MUST go to ALL the Scriptures, in where every true christian knows that He has revealed Himself as far as is necessary for our salvation, NOT to satisfy our curiosity or our sence of logic (many texts come to mind, but you can find them yourself). I think that no one, whether Calvinist or Arminian will come across many texts in Scripture that seem to contradict other places and make us feel uncomfortable from the point of our (developed) theology. Many texts in the Bible we simply don’t like and if we want to listen to Him, they keep “nagging” us. Very interestingly, there are sincere Calvinistic theologians like the Dutch Herman Bavinck, who, after studying Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism in the light of all Scripture places came to the conclusion that we should not try to describe God’s decrees because the Scriptures do not give us all the answers that we would like to know to make our theology logic. We have to be reminded time and again that there are mysteries -as Paul says- that we only will see when we will be united with Him. I am sure that we all -Calvinists and Arminians- will be ashamed of what we have thought, said and done. We should all be more humble and anyone who thinks to know all the ins and outs of Gods eternal councel, has another thought coming. Lately we read the whole book of Job. I would recommend all the commenters of your blog today to read the beginning and the end of this book and then try to “implify” this to the God you have in mind. It will give you as Arminians a hard time, as it gave me, a Calvinist. What matters in the end is that we acknowledge and proclaim that He is, Who He says He is. All the rest is deceiving ourselves and we are warned for that over and over throughout His infallible and inerrant Word.
God Bless
Paula said…
What I’m saying is that the God of the Bible and the god Calvinism describes are not the same, but that most Calvinists do believe in the former in spite of their teachings. So I can agree that most of them are believers, but I also believe that their teachings directly contradict the character of God as shown in scripture.
I tend to agree with this.
I can’t blend “God wants all to be saved” with “God wants few to be saved”. Which God does Calvinism teach? That’s the problem. But I’ll leave it there..
Good point. I can’t reconcile those claims either.
I Know it’s not worth much to you all but I’ll give an amen. William is right. When I gave the reference of Thomas Talbott’s polemic on Election in his debate with Piper, Williams response was along the lines of calling it garbage. Talbott agrees with such responses as Williams and actually states that he was immature. I agree. It does not dismiss his philosophical arguments against Calvinism (which are biblically based) but it has taught me one thing. To tell someone “you’re god is the devil” is only words for those whose eyes who pierce the heart; namely God. The debates must continue and since they’re debates, everyone should be respectful. Of course this is for those who fall under “tier 1″. But each system does deal with the difficulties in their own way and yet do so without derailing itself off the tracks (it’s the tier 1 that keeps it on the tracks). So I agree with William yet my sympathies are for Calvinists who (as Roger Olson is posting) seem to define love as so ambiguous we can’t make out a good God from a bad God – but these are concerning difficult issues [free will and predestination].
Paula: Thanks for your comment.
Stating that Calvinist preaching/evangelism focuses on the sinful state of man is not exclusively a Calvinist issue. There are certainly many hell-fire and brimstone types who would recoil at being labeled “Calvinist.” The Ethiopian eunuch is not a good example for your point because said eunuch was already searching the Scriptures (…he was reading the prophet Isaiah..”) and asked for Philip to teach him what Isaiah 53 meant. When Philip told him “the good news about Jesus,” we don’t know exactly what the content of that good news was (could it have included a mention of man’s sin? Possibly, but we just don’t know).
A problem arises when one uses a cookie-cutter approach to evangelism. As much as I appreciate Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master,” such an approach is not the way to approach each evangelistic opportunity – we don’t see every such opportunity in the Scripture handled by using the same script, as WOTM does. To say that we must use Jesus’ approach with the rich young man in every evangelistic opportunity (as WOTM implies) is not being faithful to the different methods shown in the Scriptures.
Jesus’ evangelism in Luke 13 may thus seem a little harsh – people looking for a sympathetic shoulder in the midst of Pilate’s butchery of worshipers are confronted with Jesus’ harsh words demanding self-examination followed by “Repent or you too will perish.” See how THAT flies the next time injustice occurs in our society, eh?
SDB said, “Calvin brought about the Sola’s.” Maybe I am understanding church history wrong but weren’t the five solas from the Protestant Reformation, way before Calvin? Also, my understanding of Arminian theology is that Arminians, affirm the Reformation and the Five Solas. I am reluctant to agree that Calvin is responsible for the Five Solas.
Jeff,
While it’s true Calvinists don’t own hellfire and brimstone evangelism, only their system demands it. Otherwise the sinner might entertain the thought of coming to God merely to be reconciled.
And it certainly is required after salvation if not before, since it is the foundation of the TULIP. As for the Ethiopian, where is the hellfire sermon? Why was he searching the scriptures? In fact, aside from Peter’s sermon to the Jewish crowd at Pentecost, I can’t think of a single example of anyone insisting that people must know what vile sinners they are before they can accept the gospel. So no, we can prove that Philip DIDN’T dangle the Ethiopian over the flames of hell, but neither can we find anyone who was.
Agree about Ray Comfort’s approach; every person is different. But as a Calvinist he certainly does exemplify the inconsistency I spoke of: passionately debating and evangelizing even though in the end he believes God is going to regenerate who He will and impose “faith” upon them before they respond to any gospel message.
Is Ray Comfort a Calvinist?
http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2010/10/ray-comfort-on-conversion.html
Some say he is, some say not. But then, some Calvinists say anyone is an Arminian who isn’t a 5-pointer. Most of them criticize his evangelistic methods for their being gimmicky, not because they don’t believe in evangelism.
In regard to your post, I appreciate your stand to affirm Calvinists as fellow believers even while disagreeing with differences of theology. May we Calvinists do the same!
Thank you, pastor Galyon. I appreciate that.
For calvinist like Charles Stanley to say that a Man can be in a whore house when the Lord come back and if he was ever really saved he will go to heaven is APOSTASY of the true faith ! The trouble with the professing church is it doesn’t understand the doctrine of the atonement ..see doffun.com
Jeremiah,
Charles Stanley is an interesting case. He is not a Calvinist — he rejects Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace — but he holds to a perverted form of “once saved always saved:” a form which even orthodox Calvinists reject.
For Stanley, and others such as Zane Hodges, if a person ever “made a decision for Christ,” then these men feel that such a person is saved and will be saved no matter what because a person cannot lose his salvation. Stanley remarks that even if a person who once “made a decision for Christ” ends up rejecting Christ, he will still be saved.
Calvinists typically reject any such notion, as do Arminians. I certainly agree with you that the Church does not understand the atonement! Further, I think men like Charles Stanley only prove that you are right! God bless.
Thanks for your response, Mr. Birch. Stanley’s “Eternal Security” is an interesting, if scary, read. He believes that the place of “outer darkness” is a place in HEAVEN(!) where the Christian who did not persevere in faith dwells eternally. Of course, a Christian who does not persevere in faith is in the end no Christian at all.
Jeff,
I did not know that, and I am utterly amazed! Do you think most people just do not know of some of the man’s wacky beliefs? I know so many older, Baptist folks who look up to him as a sort of Protestant Baptist Pope. How can there be a place in heaven with “outer darkness” when God and the Lamb are its Light (cf. Rev. 21:11, 23), and where shadows do not exist (James 1:17)? Unbelievable (literally)!
Mr. Birch:
Check your email.
Thanks.
JNC
I am a Calvinist in my soteriology. Allow me to say I appreciate the thoughtful post and replies I have read. I am not what Charles Haddon Spurgeon would have called a “high Calvinist”. Spurgeon did not believe in a God that throws babies into hell. Likewise, I believe those babies are safe, not saved. Babies that die in utero or in infancy, even young children (whom Christ said we must become likened unto), they are safe until God opens their eyes to their lost, sinful condition.
I do believe in total inability as a result of total depravity. Dead is dead is dead. No more can a dead body respond to the call of its friend who pleads for him to awake, likewise a spiritually dead person respond to God’s call unless God enable him, because that person is dead.
Also, the doctrine of double-predestination is an erroneous and common misunderstanding of what we Calvinists believe regarding election. God did not simultaneously choose some people to hell and some to heaven. Instead, the as Paul said, he has concluded that all are under sin. Jesus said he that does’t believe is condemned already. If that is the case, then all of us are condemned already (John 3). So we can rightly see that in his mercy, though all were lost and damned, God chose to save some. Charles Spurgeon said that because he cannot turn up the shirt tails of men to see if there is an “E” sewn in to determine their elect status, let me preach the gospel to all men.
The will never be universal unity and agreement on the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, at least on this side of Heaven. However, I do appreciate the SPirit of fellowship and love presented in the writings here, and I look forward to meeting those who are saved, but disagree with me, when we get to Heaven.
My apologies for the typos- I am typing in the dark so I do not wake up my child who is asleep beside me.