I consider myself a “modified Calvinist” — modified in the sense that I don’t subscribe to all the main tenets of classical Calvinism. (I especially bristle at the notion that God destines some for damnation, that Christ died only for the elect, and, to a lesser degree, that grace cannot be resisted.) Lately, I’ve suspected that I’m probably not Reformed enough to even BE “modified.” Which is fine. I’ve no need to exactly fit into any one theological box.
But the more I’ve reflected upon my shaky relationship with Calvinism, the more I’ve come to realize my aversion to parts of the Reformed faith has less to do with the faith, than a belief about theological systems in general.
- No one human system perfectly codifies and articulates all Truth.
Calvinism is a “human system.”
This doesn’t mean Calvin didn’t isolate and systematize some essential “biblical” truths. It simply means that, at some point, defense of Calvinism becomes defense of a system more than defense of the Gospel.
Is it just me, or are proponents of Calvinism especially fervent about their system? Perhaps such fervency comes when you know you are chosen. I’m not sure. But I know of several churches that have split over this issue. I realize I musn’t base my opinion of Calvinism entirely on Calvinists. However, there is, in my experience, a type of rigid devotion to “the system”, as if it were almost equal to Scripture. We must remember that John Calvin was a man ( a young man, at that), who developed and refined his theology over time. While it may align itself on many fronts with God’s Word, to suggest Calvinism or Reformed Theology — or any other denomination or creed — perfectly codifies the essence of Scripture, is stupid.
All that to say, part of my problem with the Reformed faith is my problem with “systems” in general. I realize, this may be an unfair way to approach the subject. Nevertheless, I am suspicious of any system — or church or group or movement or book — that claims to have the corner of the market on something as big and mysterious and wild as God.
Am I wrong?
I echo your suspicions, but couldn’t have articulated those suspicions in such a clear way. Of course I haven’t met many Calvinists… but “rigid devotion” to a certain denomination is fairly widespread. And never fails to make me shudder.
I hear you. This is exactly why I always say I’m non-denominational, and get uncomfortable when various friends go all rah-rah about their denomination or pastor or something. Listening to some people, you’d think that Christianity was about following dudes who (used to) speak in pulpits, not about following Christ. Only God has the corner of the market on God. We’re all learning from him who he is and what that means about who we are.
It’s probably well-known that I’m no friend to Reformed doctrine, except in as much as it promulgates the gospel. So I’ll make it clear that I like this post because I agree with this: “I am suspicious of any system — or church or group or movement or book — that claims to have the corner of the market on something as big and mysterious and wild as God.”
My qualms with drifting from what many people disparagingly call “human systems” is that then they go running to some Bible version or other, spend time in deep prayer and emerge with a The Truth…and proceed to turn into a New Revelation From God. Codified, you have ANOTHER Calvin.
While I’m not saying Hus, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther or any of the other Reformers are more correct than Scripture — I AM saying that once Post-Moderns eschew “old-fashioned” “human systems” for ones that they form based “contemporary” or personal revelation. In “When Does Someone Become A Heretic?”, you point out: “My guess is, however, that we would disagree about where it should be drawn and what it should demarcate. Obviously, he believes the Atonement is a theological line we should have “liberty” to redraw. And this, to me, is scary.”
So you believe that God wouldn’t predestine people to damnation — what if I believe that that point is essential? My own reading of the Bible seems to indicate that — certainly there seemed no hope of salvation for Pharaoh. I’d be willing to discuss it — but on the internet, the foregone winner of the discussion would be the one who had the biggest platform. Would that mean that the larger the platform, the more correct the “system” is?
I don’t know, but I may be afraid to start cherry picking which pieces of which “human system” I like and which ones I don’t like.
Guy, I would agree with you about postmodernism’s dangerous affect on Truth and how it’s discerned. “Authority,” and where it lies, is one of the central issues for postmodernists. I think you’re speaking more to Authority and less to the fallibility of human systems. We agree on the ultimate authority of Scripture. This puts us leagues ahead of the postmodernist (who believes the only real authority is subjective to the individual). In that context, we have a basis to debate whether or not Calvinism is biblical or not. Whether or not any human system perfectly gathers all those correct interpretations is another story.
Not wrong at all, imo. I have a similar stance, and the problem I’ve had is explaining to some (definitely not all) of my Reformed friends that believing God is bigger than systems is not postmodern “what I feel God is” or some kind of mysticism, it’s basic epistemics.
Ha! And I just saw Guy’s comment. I wasn’t actually responding to that, as it wasn’t there yet when I loaded the page.
I’m afraid I’m one of these new fangled “faith people.” I believe in taking it by faith. I believe in handicapping the devil by faith. Well, the poor guy’s already handicapped, but further handicapping him…and doing it by faith. I guess I’m one of the grab it, blab it crowd. It works for me…though as I listen to the name it claim it preachers, a number of them have gone off the deep end, IMO. So, that system also has to be looked at under a microscope.
If I were to go for one of the dead white guy preachers…it would be John Wesley.
This, to both your post and all the comments so far. I was raised in a conservative Bible-teaching church which put a premium on careful and methodical examination of the Scriptures, and my own father was a full-time Bible teacher. But I had no clue what Calvinism even was until I was in my early twenties, because Calvinism as a system, with or without the name “Calvinism”, was simply not taught in any of the churches I attended over the years. (I’m sure there were individuals in the congregation and even in the pulpit who personally held to some or even most tenets of Calvinism, but they were not encouraged to promote or defend their beliefs as such. “Arminianism” was also a completely foreign term to me, for similar reasons.)
I later attended a Bible college in the US which taught four-point Calvinism and learned more about it there, but despite my favorite professors’ best efforts to convert me I remained unconvinced that Calvinism was any better or more Biblical than what I believed about God’s sovereignty and grace and man’s depravity apart from God already. Plus, there were several aspects of the concept that I simply did not see in Scripture at all, and which I even felt came dangerously close to impugning the righteousness of God. So I jokingly described myself to my classmates as a “two-and-a-half-point Calvinist”… but now that I know more about the “points” of TULIP and what they really mean, I think even that would be a stretch.
I believe a lot of the popular Calvinist “proof texts” reflect a misunderstanding of what God’s sovereign work in election actually means — that what is being spoken of is not individual salvation or damnation, but God choosing and using individuals and nations for his purpose and glory, whether they willingly submit to him or willfully rebel. He is the Grand Master and His strategy will always win the game, no matter how the Adversary (or even the chess pieces themselves) may try to play it.
And if we think we’ve come up with a system to explain what He’s doing and why, no matter how reverent we try to be about it — well, I think we’re very likely to get ourselves into trouble and end up making judgments which are really not ours to make.
(The first sentence of that post makes more sense if you realize that when I wrote it there were only three comments. 🙂
You, sir, are correct. 🙂
ALL of my beliefs and interpretations concerning Scripture are subject to revision due to simple human fallibility.
We would do well to remember that this humble observation applies to ALL humans and human institutions, and that Luther, Calvin, or even C.S. Lewis are no exception, unless we are prepared to argue that their writings were DIRECTLY inspired by God and form part of His canonical revelation.
Of course, each one of these great men would roll over in his grave at the barest *hint* of such a suggestion.
I have the same problem with Calvinism that you do, Mike. I was attending a Calvinist church and took a theology class. This is when I learned what Calvinism is all about, and it really through me for a loop. My pastor said that he once had the same objections I did, but after much prayer, he came to accept them.
The entire thing shook my faith, and then I realized that I was putting too much stock in a SYSTEM. I haven’t been back to church since, which bothers me, but it also bothers me that my pastor never took the time to communicate with me and ask how I was doing in wrestling with this question. But maybe he was too busy. I get that. But I am looking for another church.
Bullseye, Mike.
We live in four dimensions (length, width, height, time). In string theory, ten can be “demonstrated.” Beyond that is imagination.
I can’t imagine how many dimensions God inhabits. No one can fit Him into a theological box, no matter how great the mind. And no “system” can adequately describe how He interacts with His creation and creatures.
He is infinitely complex and interesting.
I agree with you 100%, Mike. I once had an argument with someone I won’t name who belonged to a certain church that I won’t name. I finally broke through to this person when I told them that if your church is focusing more on doctrine than on the Gospel then you need to get a new church. Jesus Chris died for our sins. That’s it. Stray from that and you begin to get into trouble.
Calvinism baffles the socks off me. To my thinking it puts God in the same category as Bela Lugosi’s puppeteer character in Ed Wood’s Glen or Glenda: “Pull ze string! Pull ze string!”
I dunno. The idea the King of the Universe damns people before He even creates them is the ultimate in nihilistic hopelessness; not much “good news” there.
If the churches who promote this soul-killing stuff were honest, they’d remove A Mighty Fortress is our God as their anthem, and replace it with Hank Williams’ Born to Lose.
Reformed theology does not hold that people are predestined to hell.
Guess it’s time to come out of the closet here and say that I am a teaching elder in a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention that is reformed, embraces contemporary music, vigorously opposes legalism, seldom mentions John Calvin, refuses to be politically involved as a church, will not now or ever officiate a same-sex marriage, actively seeks to witness to the lost, whole heatedly supports missions both local and foreign, anoints the sick with oil when they request it, practices Biblical church discipline, is multiracial, and even watched a movie one time on Sunday morning about Martin Luther before heading out to beach for a block party focusing on the neighborhood and not ourselves.
Needless to say we do no find many congregations of like mind nearby here on the Redneck Riviera but we continually have visitors that show up on Sunday morning saying they are starving for serious handling of the Word of God.
Since such weighty matters are not worthy of “proof-texting” I have found little value in on-line debates about Biblical truth that took years to percolate in my soul. A cup of really good coffee, two open minds and Bibles, and a couple of hours for family conversation – now that’s a different story.
“A cup of really good coffee, two open minds and Bibles, and a couple of hours for family conversation – now that’s a different story.”
Agreed…if I’m ever down your way, let’s do coffee. 🙂
Sounds great – we have a coffee shop that makes Starbucks seem like bush league, white sands that make Californians green with envy, Grits a Ya Ya, the Blue Angels, and the coolest little reformed church on the Red Neck Riviera.
And with all the snowbirds, transplants, and military here some of us even speak Canadian.
Greetings Mike,
Best wishes, man. This is one interesting blog.
“at some point, defense of Calvinism becomes defense of a system more than defense of the Gospel.”
We have to lock up newly converted Reformers for a probationary period of two years because of this before they’re allowed to argue. Sometimes one or two violate their probation 🙂
I’ll take the minority position here. You indicated the following in a recent post: “Notice that the Atonement — that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins — is considered an essential.”
I agree with you; however, I’d argue that the above is not a full description of the atonement. A fuller description of the atonement entails a sharp contrast between Reformed Theology and Non-Reformed Theologies. So, in light of the above, I’d ask which has to give: the sentiment of not arguing for RT* above, or the claim to the atonement as essential?
*Given that someone is not arguing RT for RT’s sake.
God bless you Tim George for this (and other things, I’m sure): “refuses to be politically involved as a church”
CD: parenthesis noted 🙂
“I’d ask which has to give: the sentiment of not arguing for RT* above, or the claim to the atonement as essential?
*Given that someone is not arguing RT for RT’s sake.”
Schooley, I’m going to call you on the mat for Scripture verses to more fully define the Atonement. Or will the 5 sola’s do? Make your proposed dichotomy clearer, good sir.
Hey CD,
I’m calling you on the mat for selective mat calling. 🙂 Mike’s mention of definite atonement in the first paragraph (that Christ died only for the elect) is a view of the atonement that discriminates between RT and Non-RT. So, I think he’ll agree that this is something “non-systematic” worth contending for, since he bristles at it. In fact, he’s contending against it in this post, apparently. In the main, I’m piggybacking onto your non-postmodern stance.
But don’t hear me wrong. He’s spot on about the potential for systems to become idols. One could imagine a Calvinist explaining to the devil that he’s not really in perdition because he’s chosen. We could develop scenarios for just about every system under the cross. Hmmm…reminds me a bit of The Great Divorce. Might be some good ground to dig there…
“I’m calling you on the mat for selective mat calling.”
Give me more to select from, then. 🙂
“Mike’s mention of definite atonement in the first paragraph (that Christ died only for the elect) is a view of the atonement that discriminates between RT and Non-RT. So, I think he’ll agree that this is something “non-systematic” worth contending for, since he bristles at it.”
I’ll leave that to Mike to answer, but from where I sit, what’s essential is a base recognition that not all are saved, as you and I have discussed at other times, and that no one is saved by their own works, whether before or after conversion.
While the Calvinist might call it logically inconsistent to frame those points in any way other than five, fortunately human beings have multiple mechanisms for the perception of truth. Otherwise logic would inevitably kill our sense of the transcendent. That, I think, is my primary beef with the insistence (not by you, but others at times) that soteriology must conform in all respects to non-paradox.
Agree with you Mike about the danger of our systems (and everyone has one BTW) becoming the focus rather than Christ. Labels are useful to some extent but should never become more important than what is inside the package.
I realize this was written several years ago. I wonder where you – the author – are now? I find myself wondering why you, and the majority of self-proclaimed ‘Calvinists’ or ‘Reformed’ apply these labels to themselves despite disagreeing with the main tenets of the theology behind such labels? If you do not believe that God died only for the elect, reprobating the rest for damnation, and that those chosen elect must irresistibly respond to the grace ‘offered’ them, why in heaven’s name would you call yourself Calvinist or Reformed? Sadly, this is how Calvinism, or RT, grows and spreads, as people reject the demands of its theology yet cling to the label. What gives with that? The very essence of Calvinism is the belief that God arbitrarily, deterministically chose those who would be saved, the rest of the world be damned – literally. It really is not optional. If you do not believe this – and I pray you do not – you are not a Calvinist, or Reformed. Perhaps your friends and community lie amongst a Reformed congregation, causing you to cling to an institution in spite of rejecting its foundational assertions. I believe this is frequently the cause of individuals calling themselves Reformed while not holding to the essential beliefs of Reformed Theology. This is the case with the vast majority of ‘Reformed’ individuals I know.