For Non-Calvinists: Of Which I Am One

The beginning of thought is in disagreement – not only with others but also with ourselves.-Eric Hoffer 

old-books-11281939505Msrn-1Old Books

Today I am addressing a post to non-Calvinists and will do the same for Calvinists on Monday. The purpose of these posts is to build understanding, if that is at all possible. Why the pessimism? It comes from the experience of writing a blog for a long time and hearing the same old, same old. Until these last five years, I had thought it possible for everyone to get along, even attend the same church. Old Pollyannas die hard.

Let me backtrack. I became a Christian at the age of 17, having been raised in Salem, Massachusetts, in what was essentially a non Christian home. My dad was Russian Orthodox, primarily because it was a cultural expectation for him. I was drawn to the faith for several years due to my reading as well as viewing Billy Graham on the television. Eventually I became a Christian during an episode of Star Trek while reading  a Life Magazine article about "The Groovy Christians of Rye, New York." I recently found the article online here and it made me cry as I thought about the journey of my life since that night.

If you read it, you will most likely have a heart attack. The theology is weak. The promises are over the top. The assuredness of the approach is arrogant. Yet, somewhere after the third paragraph, this young, rudderless teen stopped reading, glanced over at Star Trek on the television, began to cry, whispered, "I believe" and crossed that final frontier from unbelief into belief. 

I didn't quite understand the sin stuff. I am sure that I didn't pray correctly. But, within the week, I opened my Bible and read 1John1 and knew it was speaking about me. I had found the light. This was no emotional, short term thing. I read CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and many others. I have never doubted the existence and presence of Jesus in my life. I have gone through some crisis of the faith in which I was unsure of what I understood but I never, ever stopped believing in Jesus. 

Going to church in the north during those days was different. We didn't worry so much about exacting doctrine. We were just grateful to be around other Christians. Many of us had grown up in non-Christian households and did not know many Christians. We didn't care if we were charismatic, Baptist or coffee house hippies. We were just glad that others understood where we were coming from.

Yes, some would slip away. But, as I look back, I am gratified by the number of friends who have stayed the course through the years. I was blessed to be in some wonderful, intellectually stimulating churches. These include Park Street Church in Boston with Paul Toms as pastor; Chapel Hill Bible Church in North Carolina with Jim Abrahamson as pastor and Bent Tree Bible Fellowship in Dallas with Pete Briscoe as pastor. I was challenged to think, to serve, to teach and to grow. I was aware of Reformed theology and had friends in each of those churches who tipped that way. But never, ever did it raise anything except a good discussion. However, for those who believe that evangelical churches are theologically light, my church experiences would challenge their assumption.

As I was leaving Dallas, a man I did not know well approached me in church and said he wanted to correct something I had said. Apparently I made some remark that all infants who die go to heaven. He said I was wrong. He "knew" that only the infants of covenantal believers go to heaven. I noted that this man often appeared angry to me and blew him off, deciding he was dealing with something in his life. Until about 6 years ago, I never, once, had any conflict with those who are Reformed. But something has changed in the last number of years. There appears to be a loss of respect for those who are not Calvinist in their thinking.

There is a new evangelism taking place. The fervor of this movement reminds me of the early, heady days of the Jesus movement. I hear the person, "Calvin," discussed more than "Jesus." I hear the word "gospel" placed in front of all primary and secondary issues. The word "Gospel" which meant so much to me as a new Christian, now seems a bit foreign. It is used to define gender roles, the age of the earth, eschatology, and election. I always thought of it as the Good News of the death and Resurrection of Jesus which resulted in the forgiveness of sins for those of us who believe. 

At first, I thought I had missed something in my Christian walk. I took to reading Calvin, Sproul, Edwards, Grudem, Piper, et al. I kept a notebook, carefully writing all of the arguments in favor of Calvinism. I had no reason not to believe. I was open. Yet, no matter how hard I tried to understand, I just couldn't get there. Unfortunately, to some, that means I may not even be a Christian. Yet why do I still love Jesus, the Bible and read so many Christian authors? 

I always get a smile on my face when I get an email which calls me out on my pitiful understanding of the faith. Do you know how many people want to prove to me that they are correct? It usually starts out with something like this. "I want to have a discussion with you. You can only use Bible verses." I used try but I have given up. You see, dedicated, intelligent theologians have gone down this road for centuries and still disagree with one another. What makes anyone think that we are going to solve it in a Bible verse war?

Did you notice that I used the word "non-Calvinist" as opposed to Arminian? We are not monolithic. Arminianism answers some of questions for me, not all of them. Therefore, I wanted to keep the door open in this discussion.

What is my bottom line?

I want us non-Calvinists to figure out how to get along with our Calvinist brothers and sisters.

I am currently reading Roger Olson's book, Against Calvinism. Here is a quick bio on Olson from Wikipedia.

Roger E. Olson (born 1952) is Professor of Theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA.[1][2]

He is also an ordained Baptist minister. He is married with two children.

He is noted for a broad view of what constitutes Protestant "orthodoxy." For example on annihilationism he commented that some evangelical theologians have "resurrected the old polemical labels of heresy and aberrational teaching" in order to marginalize other evangelicals holding the view (The mosaic of Christian belief, 2002). Olsen is one of the writers who sees two "loose coalitions" developing in evangelical theology.

Olson coined the label "Pannenberg's Principle" for Wolfhart Pannenberg's argument (1969) that God's deity is his rule – "The divinity of God and the reign of God in the world are inseparable."[6]

Michael Horton, a Calvinist, did the forward to the book. I liked that. Olson made the point that it was his goal to represent Calvinism in a way that Calvinists would agree with his characterizations, if not with his conclusions. Horton made it clear that he did not agree with all of Olson's assertions. However, he presented Olson as a man of good will. That also struck me and started me thinking. 

Olson has occasionally been accused of heresy for not adhering to the current YRR view of doctrine. In his opening chapter, he discussed an incident (this has happened more than once) in which a Baylor student, who had attended the church of a well known northern Calvinist, informed Olson that Olson was not a Christian. Why? Because he did not adhere to the beliefs of his well-known pastor. Once again, I was struck by Olson's response. Although occasionally hurt by these accusations of heresy, he responds like a gentleman. His attitude impresses me. He does not back down on what he believes, yet responds to such denunciations with a gentle manner. He is a loving man in spite of the baloney flung his way.

So, in that manner, I have some suggestion on how to view Calvinists as a non-Calvinist.

Accept that they believe in a God of love even if you do not know how they get there.

It is a goal of this blog to extend the dialog to include Calvinists and even find areas with which we can agree. I also want to learn to be a bit more like Olson, showing kindness in the midst of disagreement. That means doing it even when the other person does not reciprocate. Recently, Julie Anne Smith, of the Spiritual Sounding Board, had a bit of a crisis in dealing with Calvinism. She discussed the abuse that she has been subjected to in her life. It caused her great pain to contemplate the Calvinist belief that God had ordained for her to be abused in such a manner.

She called me and we had a good talk. I told her that I disagree with John Piper's take on this situation. I told her that we, as non-Calvinists, have to move beyond what we believe is the logical conclusion of their argument (God orchestrating evil and pain) and try to understand that somehow Calvinists, who suggest a God who allows for abuse, is actually a God of love. I know. I can't get there either on the basis of the argument (I have heard it all and tried). Instead we have to accept that we don't understand their paradigm and choose to believe that they love God and believe that they are faithfully serving Him.

Accept that Calvinists find peace in trusting that God has orchestrated even the specific tragedies in life.

They do not understand why this brings others great pain. They find it sustaining. John Piper truly had no idea why his tweet from Job 1 caused an uproar. He said he found comfort from it. In response to the devastation of a hurricane:

@JohnPiper: “Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead.” Job 1:19
@JohnPiper: “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.” Job 1:20

Tell others that such thinking hurts you but do not expect them to understand. This is a corollary to Julie Anne Smith's story above.

Accept that many Calvinists have never experienced a doctrinally rigorous, non-Calvinist church.

I have come to understand that my experience in some great non-Calvinist churches is not the norm. I got a taste of this by spending a couple of years in Ed Young Jr.'s church. Ed was not so big on doctrine. Both my husband and I knew the difference at this point and began to look for another church in Dallas which we found in Bent Tree Bible Church. We bumped into a former leader from Ed's church at Bent Tree. He referred to our mutual, former experience as Bible light. That was not the case with Pete Briscoe as pastor.

So, when some folks finally get into a Calvinist church that teaches sound doctrine, they believe that they have found a system that has answers for many questions that had troubled them. They do not understand that there are alternative answers by good non-Calvinist theologians as well. There is a reason there has been a debate for centuries.

Understand that they think we are as illogical as we think they are illogical.

TWW received a comment from one of our nice Calvinist readers. He remarked that our theology was illogical. Why did I smile? He beat me to the punch. I had planned to say the same thing to him. I don't get him and he doesn't get me but we can still try to love and respect one another.

Turn the other cheek when your salvation gets called into question.

When you get called a heretic, "barely a Christian" or whatever, think of it this way. The person who said this will one day stand before God and have to explain why he pronounced you, a child of God who is now standing with the throngs of heaven with a crown on your head, a non-Christian. Would you want to answer that one? Pray for him. Tell him how much you love the Lord and live out your Christian life. Tell him you love him anyway. That should be enough to cause him to squirm. 

Do not expect to win the argument, no matter how logical and "winsome" you are.

Instead of debating, try to learn from the other person. Ask a lot of questions. Study some good books that present the non-Calvinist point of view. It is perfectly fine to disagree and to contend for our view of Scripture.  

In spite of the current emphasis on Neo-Calvinism, it is still a minority position.

In other words, there are plenty of people who are not part of this movement. That means you should be able to find other believers who view the faith as you do. You do not have to stay in a church that does not respect your point of view. 

Unity is possible in many areas.

Many problems in churches and society should transcend doctrinal biases. These would include pedophilia, domestic violence, poverty, natural disasters, racial strife, etc. These are things that we can work on together, no matter our view on election. For example, we should never, ever turn our backs on child sex abuse because the pastor in the church where it happened is one of our good buddies. If we do, we must hang our heads in shame.

Unity where possible

Finally, we must work together whenever possible. Deb and are are well aware of the criticism we are receiving from some non-Calvinists because we feature sermons by Wade Burleson. We had the opportunity to spend the weekend with Wade and his family. Wade is one of the most loving pastors that we have ever had the joy to meet. 

We have a question for you? How many blogs do you know that feature writers or pastors who have significant differences in soteriology from the blog owners? It must start somewhere and with those who are willing to give up their cherished arguments for the sake of something better. We know that some of you disagree with us. We are glad that you do. It means you are thinking for yourself and we encourage you to continue to be the loyal opposition. All we ask is that you pray for us when you get mad at us. We really, really need it.

Lydia's Corner: Ezra 3:1-4:23 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:4 Psalm 28:1-9 Proverbs 20:24-25

Comments

For Non-Calvinists: Of Which I Am One — 208 Comments

  1. Thank you so much for this posting. I am a new Methodist pastor, a woman who has a great deal of respect for people who love the Lord and are serious about their study. There are days I really have to remind myself that God still very much loves people who have little love or respect for me or other Arminian Christians. And that I need to keep praying that God will teach me to love them the way he wants me to.
    (Okay, back into lurk…..later, y’all!)

  2. Dee – blast from the past! I was a “Jesus Movement” convert, too – in 1972. And I *know* that I sounded every bit as naive as those kids in the article.

    *Thank you* for this post, as well as for your use of the term “non-Calvinist.” I guess a lot of folks don’t really know that it’s possible to be non-Calvinist but emphatically not Arminian. However, there are a lot of us (from Liturgical Protestant churches, as well as the RCC, Orthodox churches, the German/Dutch anabaptist churches etc.) whose beliefs have little to do with either Calvin or Arminius.

  3. Dee, your post brought back child hood memories of Boston. John DeBrine and “Youthtime” wad usually held at Tremont Temple but occasionally at Park St. Church. Had childhood friends who were Nazarene and Presbyterian and myself., Plymouth Brethren. We all went to Boston’s Youthtime……no mention of Calvinism, Armininism or in between like me. Wasn’t that we didn’t know we had differences but we were “Christians ” who were in it together. I am sorry those times seemed to have been exchanged for dogma over Christian friendship.

    I too have read Olson ‘s book as well and appreciate his gentle spirit. Of late it has been a struggle not yo become angry at some YRR who belittle my longtime walk with the Lord because I am not a Calvinist.

    Good to be reminded we are not at war with fellow believers and it’s never wrong to be kind.

  4. The non Christian world will know there is a God by our love for other Christians. When we don’t like what someone teaches we try to make them a non Christian so we don’t have to love them. So Sad.

  5. numo wrote:

    I guess a lot of folks don’t really know that it’s possible to be non-Calvinist but emphatically not Arminian.

    I knew you would get this.

  6. Lin wrote:

    held at Tremont Temple but occasionally at Park St. Church.

    I met my husband when he wandered over to Park Street after he attended a service at Tremont Temple. How wonderful to remember those days! It is nice to meet someone who remembers.If you don’t mind me prying, where did you grow up? Was your family Christian?

  7. Good post Dee (If I’m allowed to comment on this one!)

    The thread on JA’s blog really threw me off kilter. It bothered me a whole lot (and she and I talked about it via email), but it also crystallized some things for me. I won’t go into all of them.

    But the main thing is that I’ve been a Calvinist for a long time- probably 15 years. I’ve never spent much time self-identifying as a “Calvinist”. In fact, I’ve probably used that word less in the previous 14 years than I have this last year interacting online. And the reason I identify that way is not because I want to “convert” people, but because I just didn’t like all the hatred spewed out at the belief system. I figured (maybe arrogantly, but I prefer to think of it as optimism) that I could correct a few misconceptions I saw and then the whole discussion could just go away. It turns out it wasn’t that easy.

    And here’s something I realized: I HATE the word “Calvinist”. In fact, I would go so far as to say I think it’s unbiblical. I never minded using it in the past because it was just a shorthand for my views on what it means to be saved by grace; I wasn’t really arguing with anyone, and I figured as shorthand, it was alright. But when I start debating it, it looks a lot like “I follow Paul!” “I follow Apollos!”, which the scripture CLEARLY condemns.

    In that thread on JA’s site, even when I tried to pull out, it felt like I was getting pulled back in. It was like the only choices I had were to swear allegiance to Calvin or give up my beliefs that align with what he taught about grace. I don’t want to do either of those things, and I don’t want to argue about it any more.

    My only reason for defending Calvinism here is because I want the focus not to be on Soteriology, but on fighting abuse. I don’t see Calvinism as the issue, though I know some do. I guess there will always be that tension there. Maybe I need to learn how to live with it better. But I really, truly want to be done with the “Paul! Apollos!” discussions. We’ll see how well I execute on that.

    There is one more point that I do want to make, though. When there is someone who has been really, REALLY busted up by a Calvinist, I completely get where the anger comes from. I DO think that Calvinism is misconstrued a lot by people in this position, but either way it’s not a good time or place to try and correct them. A person who has been abused should get A LOT of leeway in airing their feelings, because for a time (maybe a LONG time), the value of their free expression is more important than trying to protect a viewpoint. I’ve done better with some on TWW than others, many times because of my own insensitivity.

    Anyway, as far as it depends on me, I really do want to be peaceful and avoid even the appearance of allegiance to anyone other than Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior.

  8. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff S,
    from what I’ve seen here, you’ve always been a gentleman and tolerant of others who do not believe as you do. You should see another ‘Christian’ blog where the wars are almost as bad (hatred-wise) as the different Muslim sects slaughtering each other in Iraq & Syria.

  9. As a Catholic, I learned that if someone told me they were Christian, I accepted their word. Now.as to the flavor of Christian, I’ll probably have you explain, if you mention something I’m not familiar with or don’t understand. But for the most part, until I started studying apologetics, I didn’t really care about the supposed differences and still don’t except to understand but not as a means of division.

    And I would especially like to thank Jeff S for demonstrating how to explain and defend in great charity Calvinism and why he holds to those beliefs. He sets a great example and I appreciate his ability to charitable in discussing beliefs that others don’t believe or accept. So thank you Jeff S.

  10. I have read John Pipers paper on why he believes what he does and have seen many debates both for and against Calvinism.

    Some of the resources that have helped me to be a non calvinist are

    What Love is this by Dave Hunt, and

    Why God did not elect the Calvinist.

    by Doug Hamp

    I may post a little bit of my testimony and how I came to by position of being a non calvinist but for now just wanted to say thanks for this post and for all that you 2 do and for Wade as well and e-church!

  11. I am a non-Calvinist (not quite an Arminian either) who lives and moves and has my being amongst Calvinists, the overwhelmingly dominant ‘brand’ in my neck of the woods. There are many bite marks on my tongue. Sydney Anglicans are Calvinist, Moore College is strongly Calvinist, as of course are the Presbyterians and some Baptists. I used to think I was too till I went to Bible College and studied it in more depth. Then I discovered I was not, and it was like a moment of deliverance from a mighty weight that had been pressing me down. I was allowed to believe in God’s love in terms that made sense to me.

    As some of you know, I have been through my share of abuse, not nearly as graphic and terrible as some, but enough to leave its scars. I could not get past the point of believing that God had ordained my abuse until I discovered there was another way of putting the jigsaw together. I actually believe that part of our problem lies in the human drive to tie up our theology into a logically consistent package, thus filling in, with human reason, places where the Scripture leaves spaces.

    I ended up writing my final essay for my theology degree on the extent of the atonement.

  12. dee wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    held at Tremont Temple but occasionally at Park St. Church.
    I met my husband when he wandered over to Park Street after he attended a service at Tremont Temple. How wonderful to remember those days! It is nice to meet someone who remembers.If you don’t mind me prying, where did you grow up? Was your family Christian?

    Grew up in Arlington….Christian (immigrant) family.

  13. Darcyjo wrote:

    There are days I really have to remind myself that God still very much loves people who have little love or respect for me or other Arminian Christians.

    And it’s complicated by the same problem that David came up against (and I quote the Psalm not because I’m trying to educated everyone but because it puts it so well):

    If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were rising against me, I could hide. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship at the house of God, as we walked about among the worshippers.

    The people you refer to are not hard-bitten Marxists or Dawkinsists; they ardently profess Christian faith and judge you in Jesus’ own name. And on occasion they’ll even claim to love you, and to be rebuking you for your own good in order to bring you back to a “more Biblical” perspective. There are few things harder to deal with than “love” that is condescending and devoid of respect.

    For what it’s worth, Darcyjo, you have my respect as is deserved by a soldier in the front line of what Patricia King calls “the Love War”. As a woman in ministry you represent the focus of much of the “Neo-Calvinist” YRR contempt, and when you overcome that evil with good, then Jesus is visible.

  14. And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34, ESV)

  15. Jeff S wrote:

    A person who has been abused should get A LOT of leeway in airing their feelings, because for a time (maybe a LONG time), the value of their free expression is more important than trying to protect a viewpoint.

    A stupendously important point, Jeff. Might we call what you’re describing “love”?

  16. Lin wrote:

    Grew up in Arlington….Christian (immigrant) family.

    Wow-at least you got the Christian part. I did not but I definitely got the immigrant part and am proud of m Russian heritage. Glad to have someone who gets my background!

  17. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were rising against me, I could hide. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship at the house of God, as we walked about among the worshippers.

    I had overlooked this. Thank you.

  18. dee wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    Grew up in Arlington….Christian (immigrant) family.
    Wow-at least you got the Christian part. I did not but I definitely got the immigrant part and am proud of m Russian heritage. Glad to have someone who gets my background!

    Off topic but growing up and even today my enduring friendships are with folks who had at least one immigrant parent….. one each from Greece, Italy and Albania. As my parents were from Scotland, NIreland….we all related to bring a wee bit different. 🙂

  19. Jeff S wrote:

    Good post Dee (If I’m allowed to comment on this one!)

    Of course you are. Did you see my comment in the post about a nice Calvinist? It was you! It was your comment about illogic that got me to thinking. It helped me to understand that both sides of this argument believe that their point of view is “logical.” When two sides have good arguments, it leads me to believe that there is a third or different way that encompasses both. Again, living in a 3 dimensional world, that makes little sense. However, Jesus entered our dimension and exists now outside of our dimension.

    I think that our doctrinal systems are man’s attempt to understand based on what God has presented to us. However, they are limited, just as we are. God is bigger than us and is beyond our understanding except for some basics.

    I have found peace in accepting that I will not fully understand in this life, and maybe not even in the life to come. For there, we will still be the created and He will still be the Creator. Much is mystery and humans so want to solve the mystery.

  20. If you read it, you will most likely have a heart attack. The theology is weak. The promises are over the top. The assuredness of the approach is arrogant. Yet, somewhere after the third paragraph, this young, rudderless teen stopped reading, glanced over at Star Trek on the television, began to cry, whispered, “I believe” and crossed that final frontier from unbelief into belief.

    1) That article. That article… Early Jesus Freak Movement… Hollywood Free Paper country… As Sixties(TM) as Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In and then some. Groovy, man.

    2) Dee, all this proves is you are a weirdness magnet. Probably about 0.27 Pinkie Pies worth. And I kind of doubt you’re on call to give your Testimony in church; it just doesn’t jibe with the Conventional Christianese Testimony. (I mean, Star Trek?)

  21. But something has changed in the last number of years. There appears to be a loss of respect for those who are not Calvinist in their thinking.

    Purity of Ideology, Dee.
    “HERE AHURA-MAZDA, THERE AHRIMAN!”

    There is a new evangelism taking place. The fervor of this movement reminds me of the early, heady days of the Jesus movement. I hear the person, “Calvin,” discussed more than “Jesus.” I hear the word “gospel” placed in front of all primary and secondary issues. The word “Gospel” which meant so much to me as a new Christian, now seems a bit foreign.

    Reformed(TM): Christ is thrown under the bus and there is only “CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN!”

    The Bible? Only a source of proof-texts for Calvin’s Institutes. “CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN! CALVIN!”

    Does this sound like a CULT(TM) to you?
    With a long-dead Calvin as Cult Leader?

  22. Understand that they think we are as illogical as we think they are illogical.

    Paging Mr. Spock…

    (Hmmm. Was Calvin a Vulcan?)

  23. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    If you read it, you will most likely have a heart attack. The theology is weak. The promises are over the top. The assuredness of the approach is arrogant. Yet, somewhere after the third paragraph, this young, rudderless teen stopped reading, glanced over at Star Trek on the television, began to cry, whispered, “I believe” and crossed that final frontier from unbelief into belief.
    1) That article. That article… Early Jesus Freak Movement… Hollywood Free Paper country… As Sixties(TM) as Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In and then some. Groovy, man.
    2) Dee, all this proves is you are a weirdness magnet. Probably about 0.27 Pinkie Pies worth. And I kind of doubt you’re on call to give your Testimony in church; it just doesn’t jibe with the Conventional Christianese Testimony. (I mean, Star Trek?)

    LOL……God works in mysterious and wonderful ways! My hubby got his first spiritual stirrings while watching a live performance of,’ Jesus Christ Superstar’. He also read the Gospel of John for the first time, (it was given to him), while smoking pot. None the less and in spite of his ignorance in all things spiritual, he came to trust the Savior in 1973.

  24. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    all this proves is you are a weirdness magnet. Probably about 0.27 Pinkie Pies worth. And I kind of doubt you’re on call to give your Testimony in church; it just doesn’t jibe with the Conventional Christianese Testimony. (I mean, Star Trek?)

    Which also prove that God does not fit into our nice, neat packages. BTW-Wade Burleson told his church my conversion story which generated a few laughs.

  25. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The Bible? Only a source of proof-texts for Calvin’s Institutes.

    I have to admit-this made me giggle. Westboro Baptist uses the Bible for a proof text for hatred. Ham- as a proof text for poor science. In some respects we all do that.

  26. Lin wrote:

    My hubby got his first spiritual stirrings while watching a live performance of,’ Jesus Christ Superstar’

    Right after I became a Christian, I purchased Jesus Christ Superstar! There were many songs that resonated with me, especially I Don’t Know How to Love Him.” for me that meant there was much i had to learn about loving Jesus.

    Lin wrote:

    ’. He also read the Gospel of John for the first time, (it was given to him), while smoking pot

    Best laugh of the day.

  27. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:YOu should see my Christmas tree. Along with the traditional stuff, I have the definitive collectio of Star Trek ornaments including the Borg Cube which says (when turned on) “We are the Borg. Happy Holidays. Resistance is futile.”

    Each Christmas, I am thankful that God works in mysterious ways.

  28. dee wrote:

    I think that our doctrinal systems are man’s attempt to understand based on what God has presented to us. However, they are limited, just as we are. God is bigger than us and is beyond our understanding except for some basics.

    I think that desiring a nice complete and in itself non-contradictory theological system is our undoing. It’s also what attracts many people to Calvinism – nice boxes for everything, and rules connecting those boxes. Yet Calvin (and Luther – I’m Lutheran) were fallible and – sometimes very – sinful men. Many of their sayings and actions cannot stand the test of time, the test of logic, and – most important – the test of “loving your neighbour”.

    We often find it difficult to tolerate uncertainty, so we do anything to avoid that. Hence the terrible attitude of many evangelicals towards science. I don’t like people spewing proof texts, but let me give yo a verse anyway: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”

    Life is full of uncertainties, and we will never be able to rid our lives of uncertainties, of doubts, of questions. They are part of what it means to be human.

  29. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    A person who has been abused should get A LOT of leeway in airing their feelings, because for a time (maybe a LONG time), the value of their free expression is more important than trying to protect a viewpoint.
    A stupendously important point, Jeff. Might we call what you’re describing “love”?

    This is an absolutely beautiful statement! It’s like taking someone who’s been caged and respecting that they might not feel comfortable in small rooms, or inside buildings at all. So many have been through one form of abuse or another and have needs that we should allow for, beyond social norms. God, help us to love.

  30. dee wrote:

    @ Darcyjo:I wish I could hear you preach.

    Thank you! If we get to where we can podcast, I’ll drop you a link. Or if I make it to the Board of Ordained Ministry in February, I’ll share my recording. 🙂

  31. gus wrote:

    I think that desiring a nice complete and in itself non-contradictory theological system is our undoing.

    I think this is true. In fact, I recently wrote a song about it- some of the lyrics (this song could be titled “ode to John Piper and his views on Divorce and Remarriage”, but I did not quite go that far):

    “So many people with big ideas who have it all figured out
    Every puzzle piece in its perfect place, no room for any doubt
    But it doesn’t quite fit the way they think and there’s cracks that they don’t see
    And those who have been left behind when they’ve fallen in between”

    ….

    “On the altar of the simple road is the blood of the messy gray
    Those who fell outside the box and had to be pushed away
    If the answer sometimes doesn’t work then we’ve got more work to do
    Because truth that doesn’t work in the grey isn’t really truth”

    My frustration when I’ve discussed Calvinism online has been that it’s others who want to push me into “make it all fit” boxes. There are lot of things that I don’t see how it fits. The farther away from direct, clear scripture I get, the more loosely I hold to ideas. Any small error can lead us on to some very large mistakes if we aren’t careful. So when people try to argue logical conclusions of my beliefs, I tend to get upset if they aren’t conclusions that I arrive at.

    For example, I will admit that I do not see how a good, all powerful God can exist while evil also exists. I think this is a bigger issue than Calvinism- it’s one fundamental to Christianity. I don’t have an answer, but I don’t like the other alternatives either (that God doesn’t exist, is not all powerful, or is evil). I can’t make it all fit so I go with what I honestly believe and hold loosely to the conclusions.

    I think of it as humility and respecting my limitations, but I understand the line between “humility” and “doublethink” is quite thin. All I can say is that I do the best I have with the mind I’ve been given.

  32. dee wrote:

    Did you see my comment in the post about a nice Calvinist? It was you! It was your comment about illogic that got me to thinking. It helped me to understand that both sides of this argument believe that their point of view is “logical.” When two sides have good arguments, it leads me to believe that there is a third or different way that encompasses both. Again, living in a 3 dimensional world, that makes little sense. However, Jesus entered our dimension and exists now outside of our dimension.

    Ah, I didn’t catch that. I do hope when I sad that comment, I said “illogical TO ME”, as in general I hesitate to call other people views illogical. I am not the smartest person in the world and I know that what seems logical to me can, in fact, be wrong 🙂

    Regarding the 3rd view- well, I don’t know if I’ve stated this clearly before, but I’ll give it a go just to be clear. When I look at myself, I think of my own salvation from a TULIP perspective. I view myself as rescued by God and dependent on his grace. But when I look at others, I take a view that is closer to Arminian: that they have a responsibility to respond to the Gospel that is before them. This may sound like it’s contradictory, but I don’t think it is.

    Put more simply, I view others as if I were an Arminian and myself as if I were a Calvinist.

    Ultimately I think TULIP is the “science” behind how salvation operates, and knowing that should breed thankfulness and humility in me. But when I look at the “attitude” of evangelism presented in scripture, it seems a lot closer to how an Arminian would frame it: a call of hope to those who would repent and turn to God. I think the scripture uses the language of both perspectives, so it is not a view without merit.

    And honestly, whether they admit it or not, it appears to me most of the good Calvinist I know operate that way anyway. And it seems the Neo-Cals operate the opposite way: they view everyone else from a Calvinist lens and themselves through an Arminian one.

  33. @ Katie:
    This has something that has really been important when writing, commenting, and moderating on ACFJ. On a site that deals with domestic abuse, it can very easily for discussion to descend into “man hating”. We are very clear that we do not see men as the only abusers nor abuse inherently a gender issue. However, when a woman has been abused for years by the men in her life, it’s going to be natural that she lashes out at men and not feel safe around them. We have to balance very carefully allowing some women to blow off steam vs being vitriolic in their hatred of all things male.

    There are some statements I’ve thought were wrong that we’ve let go through, because we think sometimes it is better to give a voice than stifle a hurting person because she doesn’t get every last thing correct. It’s a tough line to walk, though.

  34. Jeff S wrote:

    And honestly, whether they admit it or not, it appears to me most of the good Calvinist I know operate that way anyway. And it seems the Neo-Cals operate the opposite way: they view everyone else from a Calvinist lens and themselves through an Arminian one.

    I think that is why it is good that Dee/Deb use the term Cavinista. I have worked with you and at least a handful of other Calvinists who truly defend the abused/oppressed and I am glad to call you friend. You are not a Cavinista. I don’t see you behaving as a bully. You may be sad that we all don’t get what you get about Calvinism (and I’m sad that you don’t see it my way – lol), but we don’t need to dwell there. We don’t have to dwell on our differences. We can connect on our shared faith and heart for the abused. There is too much work to be done.

  35. @ Jeff S:

    Yes, Jeff S. It is important to try and balance the need to have a voice and going too vitriolic. I admit, I tend to just let people rant any way they want to and hold them (so to speak) when they are done. I worked in a women’s shelter and was surprised at the number of pastor’s wives (well-known ones, too) who were regulars in the shelter. You’d be shocked! That’s not counting all the wives of elders, deacons, and Christian men in general. I know this sounds like a broad brush, but I think people need to know this dirty little secret.

    I grew up with a no talk policy and then experienced the same restrictions in church later on when I experienced abuse. I err on the side of allowing too much now, just because the value of finally being able to have a voice is so huge! People need to practice their voice till they can mature in how they use it.

  36. Good Post Dee,

    I do think though, there is a difference between a Calvinist and a Calvinista. My husband’s extended family are Calvinists, his lovely aunt’s family goes to a Reformed (Calvinist) church in an area considered a “Bible Belt” in Canada (these are very small geographic regions, unlike the US, where it spans states, it spans about a county), the church is large, evangelical and allows women in all church leadership positions. This is a huge difference from the Calvinistas who don’t. Yet, their theology is reformed. My Aunt-in-law is one of the best living examples of Christ I know, I don’t find her obsessed with doctrine, but she completely loves her neighbour. The few times we have joined her at her church the pastor has focused on being examples of love and doing good in the community.

    Anyways, just to say, Calvinism is a much larger group than the current T4G/TGC and followers.

    Also, not all Calvinists are believe in particular pre-destination – that is, not all Calvinists believe God causes everything, there are degrees – from some just view salvation as pre-destined, to others believing you are reading this because God ordained it from the beginning, so Piper’s view of tornadoes is not universally agreed on by Calvinists.

    That said, I am in the Non-Calvinist-non-Arminian camp (currently in a Mennonite church, but not an ethnic Mennonite), so I label myself “Anabaptist” to describe my neither-or in terms of Arminian/Calvinist. Mennonite churches are great in Canada, evangelical, women allowed in all roles, and not really on one side or the other, but are focused on outreach, missions and allow many different people to preach in their pulpits (including some who would call themselves “Reformed”). It is entirely congregationally driven, so the church votes on pastors, and votes on board members (elders), not the other way around. Anyway, just a plug for the traditional anabaptists if someone is looking for an evangelical experience that is not Calvinist or pastor-ruled (you have to check each Mennonite church out, some can be very old-school with head coverings, but the modern ones aren’t at all).

  37. I’m so glad that God rescued me from my foray into Calvinism a couple of years ago. My young son-in-law has just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I don’t think my faith would have survived such a horrible doctrine. Calvinism may be cool right now, but it doesn’t reflect the God I have known and loved for over 40 years.

  38. Kathy wrote:

    My young son-in-law has just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer.

    I shall ask our readers to ray for him at the top of the home page.

  39. Kathy wrote:

    I’m so glad that God rescued me from my foray into Calvinism a couple of years ago. My young son-in-law has just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I don’t think my faith would have survived such a horrible doctrine. Calvinism may be cool right now, but it doesn’t reflect the God I have known and loved for over 40 years.

    Am very sorry to read of your sil’s diagnosis. Have prayed for him, his family and physicians.

  40. My jaw dropped open when I read the first paragraph of your post. I became involved in ” the Way” my freshman year in college here in N.C. (Greensboro). Although I had been churched, I had rarely opened my Bible. It wasn’t until they tried to recruit me to take an $85.00 course to “learn” to speak in tongues that I actually started studying my Bible. (It had seemed strange to pay for a “gift”. Plus I had never heard of “tongues). However, because of this experience, I was soon led to Christ by a “mainstream” believer. My experience with this cult gave me a starting point to question my need for God in my life and showed me how to trust God rather than blindly follow a man-led cult. I guess God can use bad things to lead us to a true knowledge of Him. Ann

  41. Dee, thank you so much for asking for prayers for my son-in-law!

    I actually returned here wondering if you would even let my comment stand, considering you are being so charitable and I called Calvinism a “horrible” doctrine! As you can imagine, though, I am still reeling from the Aug. 4 diagnosis.

    A brain tumor has already been successfully removed, which gives us hope for the next surgery (lung, rib, chest area) and the radiation/chemo to follow.

    This website helped me tremendously as a recovering Piperite, and I’m so grateful that I don’t have to believe that God CAUSED this illness for some mysterious “glory.” Yes, God WILL receive glory somehow from it, but that’s not his grand purpose. I’m glad I know that now. I trust him because I understand his loving nature.

  42. dee –

    Since Jeff S is a nice Calvinist, may I continue to be a mean one? If for no other reason than to keep it easier to tell us apart?

  43. Wow. There are a lot of avenues going on here. I have a couple key thoughts (key to me anyway) which have taken form as I have extricated myself from reformed theology over the past year:

    1. The fundamental “non-negotiables” of our faith, those that if not agreed upon prevent us from calling each other brothers or sisters are found in 4 ancient creeds. The 5 pillars of calvinism are not found in these creeds. However, I have repeatedly heard calvinists call other believers heretics and blasphemers because they disagree with a pillar of calvinism (eg, they have a different definition of God’s sovereignity, or they believe Christ died for the sins of all). These accusations are often followed by the fact that although they can’t explain away the opposing verses, nonetheless they know their view is the truth.

    2. I have been given books and literature from
    my reformed acquaintances pushing the calvinist pillars. Yet not one of them will read “Is God to Blame” by Greg Boyd, let alone sit and discuss the verses in question (Exploring what God’s sovereignity really means, based on scripture).

    The reformed assume the posture that they alone safeguard God’s honor. My humble opinion…yet supported by scripture, is that the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and meticulous sovereignity (the last is not a pillar) villify and slander the name and character of Christ.

    And I am fully expecting at least one learned, reformed MAN to give me a tongue lashing. Before you do, let me ask: would you take the same tone with another man, and do you believe your words honor God?

  44. @ JeffB: I even like some mean Calvinists. Please continue to dialog. I need it. Besides, you have a long way to go to be considered mean.

  45. Kathy wrote:

    considering you are being so charitable and I called Calvinism a “horrible” doctrine

    There are some who would consider me non charitable. Please, please, please, keep us posted on your son in law. I will pray for him a lot in the coming days!

  46. Lin wrote:

    LOL……God works in mysterious and wonderful ways! My hubby got his first spiritual stirrings while watching a live performance of,’ Jesus Christ Superstar’. He also read the Gospel of John for the first time, (it was given to him), while smoking pot.

    Ah yes, those were the days… A friend of mine came to the Lord while living in the hills above Santa Barbara in a teepee and smoking a lot of pot… He and his wife were some of the most sane, grounded people I knew in the ’80s. Wife (whose abusive first husband was one of the biggest drug dealers in the Midwest before she divorced him) was my Lamaze coach. God does indeed work in mysterious and wonderful ways…

    @dee,
    Calvin as a Ferengi… LOL!!!

  47. dainca wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    LOL……God works in mysterious and wonderful ways! My hubby got his first spiritual stirrings while watching a live performance of,’ Jesus Christ Superstar’. He also read the Gospel of John for the first time, (it was given to him), while smoking pot.
    Ah yes, those were the days… A friend of mine came to the Lord while living in the hills above Santa Barbara in a teepee and smoking a lot of pot… He and his wife were some of the most sane, grounded people I knew in the ’80s. Wife (whose abusive first husband was one of the biggest drug dealers in the Midwest before she divorced him) was my Lamaze coach. God does indeed work in mysterious and wonderful ways…
    @dee,
    Calvin as a Ferengi… LOL!!!

    And when hubby realized he was a sinner in need of forgiveness, he knew nothing about Calvinism or Arminism…he just called himself a believer.

  48. janet wrote:

    However, I have repeatedly heard calvinists call other believers heretics and blasphemers because they disagree with a pillar of calvinism (eg, they have a different definition of God’s sovereignity, or they believe Christ died for the sins of all). These accusations are often followed by the fact that although they can’t explain away the opposing verses, nonetheless they know their view is the truth.

    This really frustrates me a lot. I recently engaged the discussion on Denny Burk’s website regarding the PC(USA) rejecting the song “In Christ Alone” because of the line “The wrath of God was satisfied”.

    Now here’s the thing, “In Christ Alone” is one of my favorite songs. I think it is sad that the PC(USA) rejected the song because of a line that is part of their doctrinal heritage. I believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, Burk made the comment that the wrath of God was “at the center of the Gospel”, and later on a commentor stated that to not understand PSA is to believe “a different Gospel”. This is a big issue for me, because there’s a difference in believing in PSA and believing it is “central to the Gospel” or that believing a different atonement theology is “a different Gospel”. And yes, I said so on Denny’s blog. I also was not the only one who reacted to this.

    I pointed out in the comments that the church at large didn’t even HAVE a concept of PSA for the first 1,000 years, and it wasn’t really popularized until the Reformers. Now I believe it and I think it’s what scripture teaches, but how in the world can it be necessary and central to the Gospel if the church didn’t even think about it in earnest for 1500 years?

    I don’t even think PSA is limited to Calvinists- Lutherans believe it too, right? Maybe I’m wrong on that. At any rate, the point is that I agree with you (even though I disagree that TULIP is slanderous) that when we start elevating these doctrines to first tier issues, we are causing division within the body.

  49. @ Jeff S.:

    Per PSA, I am pretty sure that that is the official stance of the Lutheran end of things…but I really shouldn’t be talking about theories of the atonement because I haven’t studied them worth a hoot. I looked them up just long enough to figure out that Christus Victor is not necessarily the same as the ransom theory (I do kinda wish I knew more about this, since it gets lobbed at C. S. Lewis a lot because of LWW). I know theories of the atonement impact stuff, but I just can’t get into that whole debate for some reason. Though it’s not nearly as esoteric and egghead as supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism…

  50. Glad you’re mentioning Roger Olson, Dee. I have read at his site just a little bit and so far have found many of his thoughts very satisfying on all levels. Would really like to read Against Calvinism, as I’m still sorting through the havoc that Calvinism caused in my own spiritual life (or, at least, the version of it I latched on to). Calvinism stopped making sense to me when I was grieving the loss of my son last year. It stopped making sense when God began to show me in many profound ways that He loves me. Everything just fell apart. I will never go back to Calvinism because I can’t recall a single moment that I felt any certainty of God’s love for me in that system. I didn’t really love Him then, either, He always seemed so distant. Dark times. 🙁 So thankful to be free, now. My theology’s still up-in-the-air, and I don’t care if it never comes down. So done with neat little systems with all the ends tucked in, that’s not where my hope is anymore. Just happy to be able to trust that God really is good again.

  51. Hester, I am eagerly waiting for you to do your next blog post! Your blog has been extremely helpful to me as well, in sorting many things out.

  52. numo wrote:

    I guess a lot of folks don’t really know that it’s possible to be non-Calvinist but emphatically not Arminian.

    I am neither. I follow Christ. I am a Christian.

  53. @ Looking for You:

    “My theology’s still up-in-the-air, and I don’t care if it never comes down. So done with neat little systems with all the ends tucked in”
    ++++++++++++

    who needs it. & why should it.

    Yes, God loves you. Thinks you’re cute. Thinks you’re the bees’ knees. Is proud of you. Takes great delight in you living your life, the ups and the downs. Cheers you on. Grabs your hand and raises your arm & enthusiastically shows you off as “The winner and still the champ!” Feels your joy with you. Feels your pain with you. Weeps with you. Holds you and strokes the back of your head. Shares words of wisdom & advice with you. Breathes words of consolation deep inside you. Makes available his super-ability where your ability comes to an end. Where we end, he begins.

    We can learn to receive it all. To breath it. To derive strength from and grow like a shoot from a huge old oak tree. Learning as we go, making mistakes but so what, & learning from them. In time, becoming a stronger branch.

    what’s so complicated about that? who needs systems & neat little boxes? what’s wrong with mess anyway?

    I’m a musician in a band — the skill level I have now is directly proportional to how many times I’ve absolutely made a total fool of myself in front of people. To how many times I felt unsure and afraid & indeed crashed and burned big time in front of people. Learn as I go, mistakes & big mess. But so what. I’ve become a more capable musician as a result. And I get better at flying (so to speak).

    This can apply to spiritual things, to living life with God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Not that I’m really doing this all that whole-heartedly. But I know the principles are the same. System- & neat-little-box-free.

  54. Ah, elastigirl, I have missed you and your wonderful thoughts. (though in truth, I probably still get to read most of your comments from my lurking place, even though I rarely get to comment anymore…)

  55. elastigirl wrote:

    what’s so complicated about that? who needs systems & neat little boxes? what’s wrong with mess anyway?

    elatigirl — I’m with you here, which is why I don’t post much on these theological threads… It seems useless to me to try to figure out God especially as Scripture makes it clear that he has many attributes on either end of the spectrum.

  56. The Calvinist thought process is: “God has foreordained every word I say, therefore, I cannot be wrong. So if you disagree with me, you must be doomed to hell as a heretic, since you contradict what God has put in my mind to say.”

    Does not compute. What about what God foreordained someone else to say that is different.

  57. @ LFY:

    I’m eagerly awaiting my next blog post, too… The blog kind of fell off the wayside due to some personal stuff that ate up most of my time. Hopefully that will be winding down soon and I’ll be able to get back on track this week or next.

  58. Arce wrote:

    The Calvinist thought process is: “God has foreordained every word I say, therefore, I cannot be wrong. So if you disagree with me, you must be doomed to hell as a heretic, since you contradict what God has put in my mind to say.”
    Does not compute. What about what God foreordained someone else to say that is different.

    In my mind it’s all about power. Our sinful human nature craves it. The Calvinistas have just put a new spin on how to usurp God’s authority (the Holy Spirit) over the individual believer.

  59. Arce wrote:

    The Calvinist thought process is: “God has foreordained every word I say, therefore, I cannot be wrong. So if you disagree with me, you must be doomed to hell as a heretic, since you contradict what God has put in my mind to say.”

    This is not the Calvinist thought process. This way of thinking goes against what Calvin said about freewill, the Westminster Confession of Faith says about freewill, and what every Calvinist I’ve ever met says about freewill. In fact, I doubt any of the “Cavlinistas” would even agree with that thought process.

    The idea that we are mindless automatons going through God’s motions is not what Calvinists, now or historically, have ever believed.

    If you define Calvinism that way, then I am certainly not a Calvinist, but neither is my church, the PCA, nor even was Calvin himself.

  60. Hester wrote:

    I know theories of the atonement impact stuff, but I just can’t get into that whole debate for some reason. Though it’s not nearly as esoteric and egghead as supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism…

    As I think you’re hinting here, a certain amount of theology (what proportion, I don’t know) is in reality nothing more than a minority social science. Though it purports otherwise, it’s every bit as secular as the rest of them, as it has nothing to do with knowing the Father, and everything to do creating a theoretical specification for one’s own ideal God.

    When theology is inaccessible, it is not because God himself is inaccessible, but because it is expressed using made-up words whose meaning is known only to the in-crowd. With no disrespect to the contributor who mentioned them in a recent thread here, knowing “the four positions on divorce” (if indeed one accepts there are four) cannot make me a good husband, any more than knowing the flashpoint and auto-ignition temperature of diesel makes me a better driver.

    I guess I’m not explaining myself very well here, because all this is not to say I think theology is a bad thing. But Jesus – and he should know – praised his Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned, revealing them instead to little weans. There’s nothing wrong with pondering and wondering at the truths Jesus represents. But when our theories about how god works become more beloved to us than God himself, they’re just idols. And unless I misunderstand Jesus’ diatribes against the teachers of the law, there’s no filthier or more deceitful idolatry.

  61. Jeff –

    You might want to read The Institutes some time. It is very easy to proof text Calvin to prove any point you want to make about what he believed or didn’t believe. Be prepared though, reading The Institutes is a difficult undertaking. I much prefer interacting with the Holy Spirit and reading Scripture. I’m not trying to imply that you have never done the later. But I think you have said that you have never read The Institutes. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

    I might also note that TWC is not the same as Calvinism. As you know, it was not written by Calvin. The writers did claim to believe much the same, though, even that church and state should work together with the church ruling and the state enforcing church rule. A very messy prospect, to say the least, and it hadn’t worked in centuries past.

    I don’t believe that this is the scenario that Jesus presented to his disciples. His Kingdom and Church were to be completely separate from civil governance. This is why I don’t like to appeal to the belief systems of RCC, reformers, or Charlemagne. We can learn ‘some’ from them, but much of what they proposed brought bondage to systems, pain, and even death to some earnestly seeking God. I don’t find that these scenarios were what Jesus intended. They certainly didn’t bring freedom in Christ.

  62. I found an interweb site a while back that had a downloadable version of Calvin’s Pentateuch (as I call it, by analogy rather than because it contains five of anything in particular). Conceding, of course, that this was an English translation, not Latin or French. I opened it in Pages, then assiduously pruned out many, many pages of endnotes and bibliography, and numerous prefaces etc that weren’t Calvin’s.

    Then I checked the remaining word-count: well over 600,000.

    Calvin’s instituted Christian Religion is very much a place for the wise and learned, and hidden from little children. If you’ll forgive my expressing it so poorly – meaning no disrespect to either of the TWW Jeff’s nor to any other person who considers that Calvin’s conclusions were much the same as theirs would be – it’s extraordinary how quickly the worldly order re-asserted itself.

  63. @ Bridget:
    I might get around to it, at some point. As I’ve said, I don’t even like the word “Calvinist”. I wish we didn’t even have to talk about it.

    But my point wasn’t to proof text Calvin. My point was this idea that “God has foreordained every word I say, therefore, I cannot be wrong”. is far removed from anything I, or any other Calvinist I know, believes. I’m sure no one here would like someone to denounce their beliefs by stating them in a way that they don’t accept. I’m not saying that’s being done intentionally- that is why I’m seeking to clarify what I (and other’s with similar beliefs) believe.

    As far as the WCF- sure it isn’t exactly what Calvin taught. Neither is TULIP.

    Like you, I only care about what scripture says. But that doesn’t mean I ignore what others have looked at in scripture and believed about it. Which of us sat down in total ignorance, started at Genesis, and came up with a belief system? We’ve all been taught by people with various frameworks- that isn’t bad. We do better together than we do on our own.

    And when I talk of “Calvinism”, I’m not talking about the way he viewed the authority of the church. I’m talking about TULIP.

    As I’ve said, I’d prefer not to discuss Calvinism at all. I’d prefer not to use the word to describe myself. But it’s brought up a lot, so what am I supposed to do?

  64. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I found an interweb site a while back that had a downloadable version of Calvin’s Pentateuch (as I call it, by analogy rather than because it contains five of anything in particular). Conceding, of course, that this was an English translation, not Latin or French. I opened it in Pages, then assiduously pruned out many, many pages of endnotes and bibliography, and numerous prefaces etc that weren’t Calvin’s.

    Then I checked the remaining word-count: well over 600,000.

    To give a sense of scale for “word count well over 600,000”:

    Rule of thumb for both manuscript format and mass-market paperback is 250 words/page. Under that, Calvin’s page count is over 2400 pages of theological system, over TEN TIMES the length of a typical genre novel of the Seventies, over FIVE TIMES the length of a typical paperback today, and at least 2/3 the length of the Lord of the Rings.

    And all of it written by a lawyer.

    Need I say that an airtight perfect system spanning 2400+ pages and written by a young lawyer smacks of “know-it-all” with a bit of “OCD”? As in “I Got It Right! And here’s 2400+ pages of PROOF!” And would appeal to organization freaks with OCD who crave To Be Absolutely Right? Aslan completely domesticated and caged within those 2400 pages of Perfect Doctrine and Parsed Theology?

    Never mind those 2400+ pages of Perfectly-Parsed Theology also stem from the same base assumptions about God as Mohammed — that God’s Omnipotent Will overrides everything else about God, never mind physical reality. And with a similar base assumption as Islam would resemble Islam as time goes on and Entropy sets in — the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

  65. Jeff S wrote:

    The idea that we are mindless automatons going through God’s motions is not what Calvinists, now or historically, have ever believed.

    Then why do the Calvinistas act on it?

    Entropy setting in over time? The same dynamic that caused Charles Darwin to say “I am not a Darwinist” and Karl Marx to say “I am not a Marxist”?

  66. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    The “Calvinistas” act on a lot of things. If I had to pick one thing about them that signals danger to me, though, it would be what they don’t act on, which is all those chickified wishy-washy decaffy gay things Jesus (and subsequently the apostles) said about love being The Main Thing.

    I sympathise with Jeff about all the tar spattered in his direction. If a megachurch pastor somewhere announced that as a Calvinist he was now going to start killing and eating babies, I would not hold this against small-c calvinists in general. I never met Calvin myself, and – as my History of Science supervisor at uni said – nobody has ever devised a means to psychoanalyse the dead, so I can only guess at what went on in Calvin’s head. Some of the things he did/wrote/said kind of raise alarms, if I’m honest – the whole Servetus Thing, for instance, doesn’t make anybody look good however you spin it.

    I don’t want to speak out of turn here, but I wonder if the word “calvinist” should be banned, like the word b–itter, due to the frequency with which it is taken out of context and/or the extent to which it means different things to different people. We might refer instead to TULIP as a doctrinal stance. If Calvin hadn’t written up on it, someone else may well have done subsequently.

  67. Jeff S (and B for that matter), you sound like a good and kind man and a thoughtful speaker. I would love to sit down with you over coffee and discuss reformed theology, because it sounds like we could do it without emotion and angst, and I think I could learn a lot.

    Can I ask you what your views are on RC Sproul and the Ligonier contingent? Do they represent your brand of reformed thought? When RC said their are no rogue molecules in the universe, that implies to me that God directs even the smallest action, including the tongue. Do you share these thoughts?

  68. Also, I use calvinist interchangeably with TULIP believer. Since I have never read Instititues, I can’t be more specific. And to be honest, using the TULIP definition of calvinist, I’d have to say I’m a 2 point calvinist (I believe in the perseverence of the saints, and total depravity if it means every aspect of our nature has been marred by sin.) Maybe I need to be corrected here: I have made the assumption that meticulous sovereignty (God has ordained every word that leaves my mouth, for example) is a tenet of calvinism because I hear it preached and defended vociferously from the reformed camp. If I’ve erred here, please forgive me for speaking out of turn .

  69. @ dee:

    Thanks. I went through what Calvinists themselves call the “cage stage,” meaning that young or new Calvinists belong in one. I grew out of it, something I hope the YRR does.

    Michael Horton, in “For Calvinism,” w/ an intro by Roger Olson (a book I will probably keep mentioning, if you don’t mind, because it deals with the issues discussed here and on other blogs) even has a chapter on the obnoxious ways of some Calvinists, and how to get past it. I hope that alone will entice some to read it.

    Very good points on suggestions for non-Cs on how to view Cs. They are charitable and give us the benefit of the doubt. I’d like to comment on one:

    “Accept that Calvinists find peace in trusting that God has orchestrated even the specific tragedies in life.” Your next sentence is “They do not understand why this brings others great pain.”

    I’m sure you didn’t mean every single one. I, for one, *do* understand. One reason is because I have gone through periods where I questioned God’s goodness because of certain events in my life and in those of others. I still have those moments, though they are less prolonged than they used to be.

    Besides the fact that I believe that the Bible says that God is all-knowing and all-powerful (and I hope to get into details about that later), the idea that suffering is *meaningless* is worse to me than the idea of God, as you put it well, “[orchestrating] even the specific tragedies of life.” If it’s within God’s orchestration, I can be assured that there is a reason for them.

    I want to say here that I don’t think that God takes pleasure in these events and I don’t think that God forces people to sin, even in their thoughts. Somehow He organizes His Will and human free will in accomplishing His ends.

    I realize that, even with these qualifications, there are those who find such a God abhorrent, and that there are some who will be upset by the notion of such a God, probably because of some terrible thing they went through. I understand that, and I certainly don’t look down on you. I ask that you likewise don’t look down on me and others who hold this view of God.

    Much longer than I had planned, so I’ll stop here.

  70. @ janet:
    In general, my beliefs do align with RC Sproul. There are some big ones where I do not agree (for example, he is quite patriarchal, even though he doesn’t make as big a deal about it as some of the more outspoken complementarians).

    Regarding the idea of God controlling every molecule, Sproul (and the Westminster Confession of Faith) asserts that God is in control of everything, but never in such a way to do violence to the will of man or make God responsible for evil. So how does it work that God is in control of every molecule without circumventing the free will of man? I do not know. This is the place where all the puzzle pieces do not fit for me, and I am OK with that. I accept with humility that there are things that I cannot understand. Philosophers (not necessarily Christian ones) have wrestled with these questions for thousands of years without any real answers. People have come up with ideas of primary and secondary sources of action, but really all of that is outside of direct Biblical teaching.

    Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve tried to suss out how a good, all powerful God can exist at the same time as evil, and I just don’t have an answer. I’ve tried to suss out how God can create everything that exists and still give us free will, and I don’t get that either; but because God is bigger and more powerful than me, I believe that he did.

    But whatever I believe about the sovereignty of God, it is MORE important to me to believe that God does not author evil and he does not desire for those he loves to suffer. But I don’t think I have to pick. I chose to believe in the sovereignty of God and the goodness of God, even though I don’t understand how those two things can co-exist.

    Or to say it differently, I loosely hold to the idea that God is in control of every molecule. It’s really beyond my comprehension, so I don’t think about it too much. I let the philosophers consider those questions. What I DO think is clear is that God can use evil for good and he works all things for good of those with faith in him.

  71. @ janet:

    Thanks for the kind words; I can only hope that they are at least partially true.

    “and total depravity if it means every aspect of our nature has been marred by sin.”

    Thank you, thank you, for getting it right! I’ve lost track of the number of times in blog comments where it has been insisted that it means that we are as bad as we can be.

    TULIP was formed many years after Calvin’s death to counter five points made by followers of Arminius, though the concepts are in Calvin’s writings. Actually, Luther wrote more about election and predestination than did Calvin. And, yes, there is much more to Calvinism than TULIP, though the two are thought of as interchangeable. “Calvinism” is merely the attempt by one man to interpret the Bible; there are scores of others, men and women, who have attempted the same. Admittedly, Calvin also had a lot of temporal power, which he did not always use wisely. (Okay, Calvin-haters, have at me for this unforgivable understatement.)

    “Maybe I need to be corrected here: I have made the assumption that meticulous sovereignty (God has ordained every word that leaves my mouth, for example) is a tenet of calvinism because I hear it preached and defended vociferously from the reformed camp.”

    Another thank you, this time for writing “tenet” instead of “tenant.” Anyway, if this means that God made you say the words, and made you think the thoughts that led to them, this is not what Calvin believed, though I think Hyper-Calvinists believe this. If you heard this preached, it might be from a Hyper-Calvinist church. This is close to – or maybe is – fatalism, the idea that man has no free will. (Also, it would mean that God forced people to sin, since some of our thoughts, words, and deeds, are sinful. I think the biblical examples might sometimes be God “working” with someone’s sin; for example, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and that might still be happening today in some cases, and not always involving sin, such as God giving us the words as we witness to someone.) I believe that Calvin – and, more importantly, Scripture – says that nothing we think, say, or do comes as a surprise to God. As I wrote above, He uses His will and our wills to accomplish His ends.

    R.C. Sproul – I’ve learned much from him, though I don’t always agree. I’m aware of his “molecule” statement. I think it means that God is aware of every molecule (which He created, of course), and that none of them escapes His will. On some He will act directly; others He will be aware of and use for His purposes.

    Of course, this is an attempt of a finite mind to describe the infinite, so it can’t be perfectly accurate. God ordains everything and man has a degree of free will – how can these both be true? The Bible says they are. I know there are some whose solution is that God limits Himself so that He is not all-knowing; I don’t see this in Scripture.

  72. @ JeffB: Luther also wrote a great deal about Romans 8 and similar passages. (for the record.)

    As for being Lutheran, I think people get this confused sometimes – as if all Lutherans follow everything Luther wrote. By no means is this true, and I’m willing to bet it never really has been.

  73. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Does it help that the Institutes that we have today began with a normal-sized book that Calvin added to over about a 24-year period, and was not the case of a mad obsessive locking himself in a room for a year or two?

    In any case, though, you’re right. How dare he write such a long work! Who did he think he was? Why did he care so much about what the Bible said? Why didn’t he write a short book on a more important subject, like Robert Burton’s “The Anatomy Of Melancholy,” written after Calvin’s death?

    And, for that matter, why is his style so difficult? Why isn’t it simple, like the works of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards? Yes, they too wrote thousands of pages, but at least they weren’t lawyers! However, their first names do arouse my suspicions.

    And don’t get me started on Proust!

  74. Someone on another blog (I think it was another blog, unless I saw it here earlier) posted a link to this video.

    I’ve seen only the first 15 minutes so far, and what he says makes sense to me:

    Is God the AUTHOR OF SIN? – Calvinism – Jesse Morrell

    In this video, Jesse Morrell refutes the Calvinist doctrine that God is the author of sin.

    I am not familiar with the guy in the video or the people behind that You Tube channel, nor have I investigated who they are and what they believe, so I may not be in agreement with all their views.

  75. @ Daisy:

    From the WCF, Chapter 3:

    “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.”

    The WCF clearly states that God is not the author of sin. It is disingenuous for anyone to rebut the “Calvinist doctrine that God is the author of sin” unless this was a point where the WCF and Calvin disagreed (and I don’t think it was).

  76. I am going to quote liberally from Sproul’s book “Truths We Confess, Vol 1” about this section of WCF. The larger discussion is one I think those who wish to explore this issue would find interesting, but I simply cannot quote all of it (and I hope it’s OK to quote as much as I do here- if this will create legal issues for the blog, please strike the comment).

    Pg 75
    “…First of all we have to understand that what is affirmed- that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass from all eternity- is not unique to Reformed theology. Rather, it is a doctrine that expresses classical Jewish orthodoxy, Muslim orthodoxy, and Christian orthodoxy with respect to the nature of God. All this does is affirm theism itself. It affirms that God is sovereign.”

    Pg 79:
    “To help clarify this, theologians for centuries have distinguished between primary and secondary causality. If I threw a piece of chalk at you, in one very real sense I would be the cause of that chalk flying through the air, having exercised the strength of my right arm. I was the outside force that acted on the chalk by throwing it at you.
    “Paul teaches that it is in God that “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)”

    Page 80:
    “…I really did exercise power when I tossed that piece of chalk; God did not throw it for me. But I could not have thrown it were it not for my moment-by-moment dependence on the being and power of God. Whatever power is exhibited in this world is not due to an independent machine with its own source of power and energy. What scientists call the laws of nature we call normal operations of the sovereign God. They are his laws; they are not independent in nature. They simply describe the regular, normal way in which God manages or governs his universe. He is the primary cause of everything that comes to pass, the power supply for all force; secondary causes are always dependent for their power on the primary source of power.”

    Pg 81
    “God is not the only worker in the universe, however. We are also workers. We are actively involved in making choices and exercising real power. Energy is really transferred from one thing to another. But these things do not happen independently of God. He exercises his power and sovereignty over all created things”.

    I don’t know if that helps or confuses- I wish I could have quoted more. And of course, that is just RC Sproul, though I do know this idea of primary and secondary causes has been around for a while and is not primarily a Calvinist idea.

  77. @ Numo & JeffB:

    Actually, Luther wrote more about election and predestination than did Calvin.

    …which is really funny because in my experience, the Lutheran church never ever mentions either of those things. Ever.

  78. @ Hester: Likewise, Hester, likewise! (My experience, from childhood on.)

    I have certainly never heard anything about either topic in Lutheran circles, though I *have* heard much about God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and grace.

  79. @ Hester: Which is also one of the reasons I mentioned (a bit upthread) that “Lutheran” does not equal having to believe in every daggoned thing that Luther wrote. (Putting it mildly!!!)

  80. One more point- there have been those on this board who have argued before (in fact, I think Dee was one) that there is a difference between God causing something and God allowing something. In fact, as Sproul describes what he sees as the sovereignty if God, his view is the latter- that God exercises his sovereignty by choosing what he allows and what he does not.

    He discusses the “rogue molecule” that people bring up here a lot and says that if a single molecule where outside of God’s power, then it could thwart his will. But it is not- God has power over every molecule and can prevent it from messing up his redemptive plan. But he’s not saying that God is actively driving every aspect of that molecule’s behavior. It’s more that the molecule is not outside of his authority.

  81. Hi guys, great posts, esp (from a personal point of view) from Jeff S, TW, Nick Bulbeck and others – it’s been such a long thread I can’t remember them all 🙂

    Dee, thank you for sharing that testimony, and article. “Their scholarship seems smug and oddly ineffectual…” (quoted by one mother) and yes, it later became apparent that “The Way” was actually doctrinally aberrant – and yet through this article you were drawn to Jesus, so maybe this suggests God sometimes uses unlikely means to create new believers? I’m sure many of us can point out similar starts in our own Christian lives where we later realised that some of the things we were taught were not quite Scriptural, and yet through certain people we came to Christ.

    Re Calvinism, part of the problem (and approach) is defining just what Calvinism is. In practice it’s a bit like saying Catholicism – in the latter you’ve got everything from evangelical Catholics through liberation theologians and the very conservative ones who want to go back to Latin masses and pre-Vatican II. And as someone suggested, what is sometimes passed off as Calvinism is actually so-called hyper-Calvinism – and my theological dictionary suggests it’s hard sometimes to tell the difference in some hyper-Calvinist writers.

    In addition to Dee’s remarks on unity, I’d also like to add the following: we all accept the historic Christian creeds of the early church (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian) and the church councils, which means we all accept the most important teachings on Christ’s Person, His Deity and resurrection, and the teachings on the Trinity. And many if not most Protestant mainline denominations accept the idea of penal substitionary atonement, though I am aware not everyone accepts this belief.

    Wesley and Whitefield came from opposite sides of the argument and yet I understand were able to have tolerable, if not friendly, relationships – surely an encouragement to everyone else?

  82. Kathy wrote:

    I’m so glad that God rescued me from my foray into Calvinism a couple of years ago. My young son-in-law has just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I don’t think my faith would have survived such a horrible doctrine. Calvinism may be cool right now, but it doesn’t reflect the God I have known and loved for over 40 years.

    Kathy,

    Just want you to know that I’m keeping your son-in-law in my prayers.

  83. @ Jeff S:
    @ JeffB: I appreciate the dialog. Here is my retort to everything you both said. If Calvinism sounds so much like Arminianism, why is there such a problem?

    I have read extensively within the Calvinist system by “approved” authors including Calvin, himself, Grudem, Sproul, Piper, etc. I know of Horton’s book and I shall read that after I finish Olson.

    Here is the question. What do you think I see within Calvinism that might make it hard for me to accept that system? Keep in mind, until the last 7 years, I had no reason to view Calvinism with any sort of negativity. Prior to learning of the YRR thing, I actually tried to force my self to accept the thinking as presented by these men. I could not.

    I get where you are coming from within your paradigm. But what I am hoping is that you, as well as me, can instead understand the objections so well that you can begin to understand why a few quotes from Calvin, along with a few Bible verses, do not answer the deeper questions.

    What bothers me is that your leaders disregard my objections, calling me “barely a Christian” or saying that Olson is not a Christian. Never, once, have I ever entertained such a suggestions about my Calvinist brothers and sisters. In spite of the fact that Sproul and Piper have said such things, i still consider them Christians.

    Once we start playing the salvation game, the battle becomes nasty. Recently, I had a Calvinist who knowns me say that i was not a Christian by very fact that I write this blog and call out some of the people that he admires.

    9Marks is another group which promotes the fact that they, the local church, get to decide who is saved and not saved. Of course, they mean the local church that thinks like them. Never once, have I ever thought that these folks were not saved. This sort of stuff is bad and will cause an increase in problems within the church universal. That is why we are doing our darndest to look at these issues and try to find a bridge.

  84. JeffB wrote:

    Does it help that the Institutes that we have today began with a normal-sized book that Calvin added to over about a 24-year period, and was not the case of a mad obsessive locking himself in a room for a year or two?

    Okay, that makes it a little less OCD. (Cue Calvinists crowing in predestined triumph…) If the Institutes were a life’s work, I’d expect a little length.

    But the guy still strikes me as the “I have Everything figured out! Look at my Perfect System!” I’ve seen the attitude too often in fandom, and for some reason political or theological fanboys are a lot more respectable than furry or otaku or gamer fanboys, though the underlying dynamic is similar.

  85. @ dee:

    Dee,

    How can a bridge be built when the side you are attempting to reach constantly moves its shoreline back and forth in an effort to maintain its monolithic sovereignty as THE only standard of true Christian thought?

    With all due respect to the Jeffs, look at their root assumption, and the glaring contradiction: they constantly maintain that TRUTH as a function of God can by no means be apprehended by finite humans, and yet resolutely declare in the same breath that this is the very proof of the soundness of their doctrine. This contradictory appeal to both mystery and sound orthodoxy allows then to move the doctrinal yardstick back and forth on any whim or fancy because all they have to do is remind us all that there isn’t any real way we can ever know for sure, so we might as well simply agree with them so as not to cause an unpleasant ruckus and create “division” or risk hurting feelings or whatever other obstacle to real debate they can think up.

    Even if we say we agree in the “fundamentals/indisputables” Calvinism makes it clear, and both Jeffs have admitted, that there is no human agency capable of understanding truth fully. If we can’t really “know” the fundamentals, then, who are we to disagree with Calvinists on the “secondaries”? In both cases, man’s mind is wholly incapable of real understanding. This being the case, there is no rations basis for saying that YOU as a person can agree to the first and disagree on the second. YOU are never in a position to disagree or agree with their “orthodoxy”. What you believe is irrelevant. They alone have truth in ALL things, by God’s special revelation. The only real knowledge is surrendering your mind to their interpretive assumptions on anything.

  86. Thank you, Deb. Prayers are sustaining me right now.

    Tthe book recommend by someone on this thread, “Is God to Blame?” Is helping me shake off the residual effects of hyper-Calvinism, too. It feels good to be in a healthy spiritual state again.

    @ Deb:

  87. @ dee:
    For my part, I DO understand why people look at Calvinism and reject it. And honestly, it doesn’t upset me when they do.

    What DOES bother me is when people reject something on the basis of misinformation. When people reject Calvinism because they think it makes us mindless automatons, that bothers me because that isn’t what it is about. Or if they reject it because they think it teaches that God loves to abuse his children. Yes, Nouthetic Counseling and a lot of teachers have given this impression, but they are wrong. They should not get to define theology that has been around much longer than them. I can completely understand why people would want to flee from that garbage- I want to flee from it too. But in doing so, I fear that people who might get a lot of benefit from Calvinism might be rejecting it for the wrong reasons. And those who might still reject it, might also be rejecting it for the wrong reasons and miss out on some important wrestling that could help them grow.

    So, for example, we just did this study of the WCF with a a group at my church. There is a prominent member in our church who is also in our study group. He started out not sure where he stood. At the end of the class, he was VERY sure where he stood- a non-Calvinist. We studied together, looked at what I think is a really good representation of what I (and my church) believes, and he rejects it. He does not reject the Gospel, but he does reject predestination as presented by Calvin.

    Fine- no one is calling him out. He is still in a leadership position within the church. No one is trying to convince him otherwise. I’m sure we will have our playful little jabs, and he doesn’t mind dishing it. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. This is as it should be, imo.

    These “leaders” are not MY leader, and they are not the leaders of the men and women at my church. No one at my church answers to RC Sproul or John Piper, even though their materials are used sometimes.

    So MY goals when I talk about Calvinism here on the forum are to a) clear up misconceptions that would cause people to unnecessarily reject the theology so that they can know for real what it is they are rejecting. It might not make people any more interested in Calvinism, but it just bothers me to see a doctrine rejected for the wrong reasons. And if you reject the doctrine as it has been historically understood (like the guy at my church), then at least you are wrestling with a time tested theology, not a new fad, and wrestling with time tested theology can only help you grow as a Christian. After all, there are reasons lots of men and women have bought into it over the last few hundred years. Even if they are wrong, there are probably some good issues that are worth being explored.

    b) I want to distance myself and the Calvinists I know from the abusive people who mis-represent the theology. If I remain silent, then Piper gets to define what it means to be Reformed, even though he denies a lot of Reformed theology and veers into hyper-Calvinism at times.

    c) I want to move conversations about abuse beyond the Calvinism discussion because I think it’s a massive red herring. I think people are blaming a theology when the real evil is in the hearts of men.

  88. “Thank you, thank you, for getting it right! I’ve lost track of the number of times in blog comments where it has been insisted that it means that we are as bad as we can be.” Jeff B.

    This is what has been preached to many people over and over. This is what some people have heard their entire life. This is what many people come away with when they read Piper, and the Pyromaniac blog, and encounter the Jarred Wilson’s, Doug Wilson’s, and others of the blogging world.

    When you say that people are misrepresenting the Reformed view, or Calvin, or Tulip, you seem to not understand that many of the people commenting have been taught that total depravity is “Truth” (along with other teachings that have done much harm) and if they believe otherwise, they may not even be believers. These same people are ‘taken to task’ for twisting the Calvin/Tulip/Reformed beliefs on blogs. They can’t seem to express their experience and pain without having a conversation with some ‘authentic’ Calvinist/Reformer/Tulip believer (Whatever that means. I honestly don’t know.) about how wrong they are about what they have been taught (and therefore believe) about Calvinism/Reform/Tulip.

    I can see why many walk away . . . their humanity is often put on a shelf in defense of a system of belief. They are harmed by the teachings they ‘sat under’ and then accused of misrepresentation when they blog about it.

    Considering the amount of people we are seeing who have had these experiences, I wish the accusations about ‘misrepresenting’ the Reformed/Calvin/Tulip systems would take a back seat. It simply makes it harder for people who are trying to recover from abuse, and continue to believe that God is good and loves them, to want to engage in a search for Truth.

    The correct understanding of any belief system shouldn’t be of importance when Jesus says to come to him as a child. He didn’t say to have faith in the Reformation, or Tulip, or Keller, or your pastor/elder, husband, or Mary. Jesus said to believe in him as a child.

  89. JeffS — we were writing at the same time. I know it bothers you when you feel a belief is misrepresented. But there are reasons not to make it an issue. I ‘think’ I stated why above.

  90. Southwestern:

    The article you listed included the following quote from Mohler:”Mohler says the seminary’s current prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing on an institution that rejected liberal trends in society and returned to more conservative social ideas”

    IMO he has helped destroy the Southern Baptist Convention, but no one dare tell him this.

  91. Jeff S wrote:

    He is still in a leadership position within the church. No one is trying to convince him otherwise. I’m sure we will have our playful little jabs, and he doesn’t mind dishing it. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. This is as it should be, imo.

    Jeff – as the saying goes: may all your tribes increase.

  92. mot wrote:

    ”Mohler says the seminary’s current prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing on an institution that rejected liberal trends in society and returned to more conservative social ideas”

    Indeed. God sends rain on the just and the unjust. To claim “We’re doing well so we must be righteous” is banal theological incompetence.

    And even if God has blessed them, more often that not, God’s blessing is a resource, not a reward.

  93. @ Bridget:
    As I have stated, I do try to be sensitive and let people vent. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong.

    But I can tell you this, there are times in the past where I would have characterized the tone of TWW as anti-Calvinist. In fact, I would have said that TWW was more anti-Calvinist than it was anti-Abuse. I saw this is a problem, and I do think Deb and Dee have addressed it.

    If you think I should be silent whenever I see Calvinism misrepresnted, then that isn’t right. If you think I should be sensitive and hold my tongue at times, then I agree.

  94. Bridget wrote:

    Considering the amount of people we are seeing who have had these experiences, I wish the accusations about ‘misrepresenting’ the Reformed/Calvin/Tulip systems would take a back seat. It simply makes it harder for people who are trying to recover from abuse, and continue to believe that God is good and loves them, to want to engage in a search for Truth.

    I am sorry that you feel this way, because it does sound like you just want an open field assault on Calvinism and for Calvinists to hold their tongue. That is, the non-Calvinist can say whatever he or she wants and the Calvinist just has to take it. This is not the way toward peace.

    I don’t think that is what TWW is for, and if it were then I wouldn’t be here. I would be some place where I could state my beliefs openly.

  95. @ Jeff S: No offense, Jeff, but a bit upthread you mentioned the concept of God choosing what kinds of evil he allows – I find that deeply troubling.

    I think I would rather not go the route of trying to figure things out in that way; it leads to some very painful things.

  96. Kolya wrote:

    In addition to Dee’s remarks on unity, I’d also like to add the following: we all accept the historic Christian creeds of the early church (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian)…

    Hmm… Apostles’ and Nicene, indeedy-do. Athanasian… nope, that seems to’ve been written by someone (probably not Athanasius, by all accounts) barking up entirely the wrong end of the stick. The seeds of justification by doctrine were sown a long time ago.

  97. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Indeed. God sends rain on the just and the unjust. To claim “We’re doing well so we must be righteous” is banal theological incompetence.

    “We’re doing well so We must be Righteous” is Prosperity Gospel crap.

    Probably originated with Calvinists during the Reformation Wars or their descendants the Puritans; as an answer to the question “Am I One of The Elect?” Using “I’m Rich! So I Must Be!” as the indicator.

  98. Bridget wrote:

    Considering the amount of people we are seeing who have had these experiences, I wish the accusations about ‘misrepresenting’ the Reformed/Calvin/Tulip systems would take a back seat. It simply makes it harder for people who are trying to recover from abuse, and continue to believe that God is good and loves them, to want to engage in a search for Truth.

    As well as giving off a strong aroma of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

  99. numo wrote:

    No offense, Jeff, but a bit upthread you mentioned the concept of God choosing what kinds of evil he allows – I find that deeply troubling.

    I find it troubling too. I mentioned the concept as one that was coming from a non-Calvinist contingent (but is also the view of Sproul).

    As I’ve said, the idea that evil exists at all with an all powerful and good God troubles me, and I do not have an answer for it. But this is not a problem of Calvinism only, it’s a problem that all who believe in an all powerful, good God have to contend with.

    I DO struggle that when a woman is raped, that God chose not to prevent it. Almost all theists (Calvinists, Arminian, other) agree that God could have- so why didn’t he? I don’t know. To me, that question is the greatest challenge to Christianity there is.

  100. numo wrote:

    I think I would rather not go the route of trying to figure things out in that way; it leads to some very painful things.

    And I agree with this. I really don’t dwell on that because it is so difficult. We are only talking about it in this thread because someone brought it up as a challenge to Reformed theology. I was pointing out that this is an issue that goes beyond Reformed theology.

    When I struggle with this, my answer is always to look at the Cross- it seems all theists must deal with a God who allows evil. At least in Christianity, we have a God who did not allow us to suffer alone, but participated in experiencing the effects of evil. That is where I focus when it comes to the existence of evil and suffering.

  101. @ Jeff S:

    For my part, I honestly don’t understand a need to ‘defend’ Calvinism, or Luther, or the RCC, or Baptists, etc., etc. I’m sure there are believers in every venue. I don’t know that any of the venues get one closer to God than the others. We each probably believe that the venue we hold to is the best and most accurate. My experience has been that someone who adheres to Calvinism always shows up on a blog to defend it/him when they happen upon someone they feel is misrepresenting him/it. They tend to carry on for a long time about it and end up calling people ‘heretic’ (I’ve seen this done on both sides of the debate though 🙄 ) as the conversation ensues. I don’t experience this extreme attitude from you at all. I want people to love God and love their neighbors. I don’t want to convince anyone of a certain brand of Christianity. I do believe that some brands have harmful elements that bring extra despair — as if every day life doesn’t bring enough.

  102. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    20 years since Al Mohler took over SBTS.

    There was a reason we (the US) put in a Constitutional Amendment to term limit the president. They tend to become kings when in power too long. Or at least they start to think they have the powers and rights (divine?) of one.

  103. Bridget wrote:

    Considering the amount of people we are seeing who have had these experiences, I wish the accusations about ‘misrepresenting’ the Reformed/Calvin/Tulip systems would take a back seat.

    As I’ve said on older threads, back when I was considering becoming a Calvinist and began lurking at their forums and perusing their sites, and I began e mailing them asking them if they could explain Calvinism for me and clear up some confusion I had, this happened a lot.

    Even just lurking at blogs or forums and watching people debate the topic, I’d see this come up a lot, where most Calvinists would claim that the one criticizing, or questioning, Calvinism doesn’t understand Calvinism.

    I used to have the same problem talking with, or debating Roman Catholics, online. Both groups will say you don’t understand their views/religion, or they say you are misrepresenting them (even if you really are not and have read lots of books by ex, or current, members of their groups who explain what the group believes).

    It’s very difficult and exhausting having a conversation with people who claim you never, ever get their views correct.

    Lots of the Calvinists I have come across on the internet the past 13 – 15 years think you have to have advanced college degrees, spend ten years in school, be fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek, have an exhaustive knowledge of the patristic writings, etc., to not only truly grasp Calvinism, but in their eyes, to be permitted to even begin to criticize it.

    Otherwise, you get dismissed as a hayseed rube who is barely literate and not qualified to question Calvinism.

    One forum in particular, no matter what web site or book title I threw out that pointed out flaws in Calvinism (TULIP/ Reformed same thing to me), the Calvinists would scoff and say each author I brought up could be dismissed because “he doesn’t understand Calvinism” or “presents a strawman of Calvinism.” – even when said authors quoted directly from the books of famous Calvinists.

  104. Bridget wrote:

    @ Jeff S:

    For my part, I honestly don’t understand a need to ‘defend’ Calvinism, or Luther, or the RCC, or Baptists, etc., etc. I’m sure there are believers in every venue. I don’t know that any of the venues get one closer to God than the others. We each probably believe that the venue we hold to is the best and most accurate. My experience has been that someone who adheres to Calvinism always shows up on a blog to defend it/him when they happen upon someone they feel is misrepresenting him/it. They tend to carry on for a long time about it and end up calling people ‘heretic’ (I’ve seen this done on both sides of the debate though ) as the conversation ensues. I don’t experience this extreme attitude from you at all. I want people to love God and love their neighbors. I don’t want to convince anyone of a certain brand of Christianity. I do believe that some brands have harmful elements that bring extra despair — as if every day life doesn’t bring enough.

    The need to “defend” comes when a closely held belief is blamed for atrocities.

    When I, a Calvinist (as much as would prefer not to wear the title), hear someone say “Calvinism is evil”, yes I want to defend it. If you read “non-Calvinism is evil” you’d probably feel a desire to defend your viewpoint too.

    Or maybe a better example would be if someone said “The practice of withholding baptism from infants is evil”, I’m sure people would rush to defend their position. No one likes to see (what they think is) a good doctrine maligned, especially if it leaves the real culprit at large.

  105. @ dee:

    Here is a link to a chart comparing Calvinism to Arminianism. I think you will see that there are real differences: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

    “What do you think I see within Calvinism that might make it hard for me to accept that system?” I think you may have answered that in your post: “I told her that we, as non-Calvinists, have to move beyond what we believe is the logical conclusion of their argument (God orchestrating evil and pain) and try to understand that somehow Calvinists, who suggest a God who allows for abuse, is actually a God of love. I know. I can’t get there either on the basis of the argument (I have heard it all and tried).”

    “I get where you are coming from within your paradigm. But what I am hoping is that you, as well as me, can instead understand the objections so well that you can begin to understand why a few quotes from Calvin, along with a few Bible verses, do not answer the deeper questions.”

    But, dee, how can any of us answer the deeper questions without Scripture? No, not a few verses, and not Calvin, but what Scripture says consistently about election, predestination, God’s omniscience and omnipotence, God’s love, etc.? If the Bible is God’s Word, and we are capable of understanding it, where else can we go to answer the deeper questions except to ourselves? And if we go to ourselves, we’re going to get something like what elastigirl wrote above. (Sorry, elastigirl, but you were so honest about the kind of God we all want that I have to use your example.) I’m not saying that her description is completely off, but it’s far from the God of Scripture.

    I really think that we have to go to Scripture with the intent of honestly, to the best of our ability, seeing what it says and submitting to its truth, instead of wanting it to confirm our beliefs. I believe Sproul when he says that he knows of no Calvinist who, without any difficulty, welcomed what the Bible said about election, etc. It doesn’t conform to our sense of fairness and love. But are *we* the measure of truth? Can we not make allowance for God’s ways to be different from ours? *If we disagree, let us disagree on what we see in Scripture, not on our own sense of right and wrong.* Okay, end of sermon.

    “What bothers me is that your leaders disregard my objections, calling me “barely a Christian” or saying that Olson is not a Christian.”

    First of all, I agree with what Jeff S wrote about the word “leaders.” Also, even if I considered someone a leader, I don’t march in lockstep with him/her. I disagree on some points with everyone I respect.

    I’m not doubting what you say, but PLEASE (and this goes for everyone) try to document this type of thing. Maybe I don’t get out enough, but I can’t remember the last time I heard or read a Calvinist leader saying these kinds of things, unless they were referring to someone like Brian McLaren. FWIW, I don’t consider any Arminian (see link to chart above) a non-believer.

    “Recently, I had a Calvinist who knowns me say that i was not a Christian by very fact that I write this blog and call out some of the people that he admires.” Oy. He shouldn’t be let out of his cage yet.

  106. @ Daisy:
    This is why I tend to fall back to the WCF. People can make Reformed theology or Calvinism whatever they want, but the WCF is a clear historical document that does a good job of giving a baseline for discussion.

  107. @ Jeff S:

    Did you watch the guy’s video?

    I watched past the first 15 minutes to watch the whole thing, and the video host quotes Calvinists at many times (showing their quotes typed up on the screen), and some of the Cal’s he quoted do believe God is the author of evil.

    One of the problems in these conversatiosn is that some Calvinists will say, “Cal does not teach X!,” and maybe it does not(?), but if taken to its logical outcomes, yes, at the end of the day, Cal really does teach ‘X’.

    As I was saying in my post above, not only is it difficult communicating with Cals because they usually insist “you just don’t understand Cal!,” but they can’t agree with each other.

    You personally may not think Cal teaches ‘X,’ but there are plenty of other Cals who do.

    At the Spiritual Sounding Board blog, in the threads about Calvinism, I saw Cals on occasion contradicting each other.

    Like one Cal would say, “Cals do not believe Z, stop saying Cals believe in Z,” but then five posts later, another Cal would sit there – in the same thread – and defend Z, say Cals were right and proper to believe in Z, and Z has lots of Scriptural support.

    That Cals portray Cal in so many ways, even on the same points, adds another layer of confusion to the conversation for me.

  108. @ Jeff S:

    The guy in the video I linked to above (or the host of the channel, I forget which – after I watched the first video, I watched about five more by the bearded guy who owns the channel) mentioned WCF, too, and pointed out what he considered to be flaws with WCF’s statements, which he seemed to think are in agreement with some Calvinistic views about God decreeing stuff/ predestination.

  109. dee wrote:

    Once we start playing the salvation game, the battle becomes nasty. Recently, I had a Calvinist who knowns me say that i was not a Christian by very fact that I write this blog and call out some of the people that he admires.

    This reminds me of what the guy in the videos (Refuting Calvinism video series) was saying in one video.

    Since so many Calvinists believe everything in this life is decreed, it would mean that God decreed you to write/create this blog from before the foundations of the world, so how can they object to you doing so? 🙂

  110. Jeff S wrote:

    I DO struggle that when a woman is raped, that God chose not to prevent it. Almost all theists (Calvinists, Arminian, other) agree that God could have- so why didn’t he? I don’t know. To me, that question is the greatest challenge to Christianity there is.

    Here is where I part company with much of Christian ideology, and here’s why:

    Earthquakes, tsunamis, category five tornadoes, decrepitude and death are all beyond our pay-grades to decide upon, much less get resolution from. But the rest of the bad stuff? God is NOT in control. We are. I believe that I am endowed by my Creator with the power to put an end to the vast majority of human misery and suffering in this life It begins with me as a single drop in a vast ocean. And what is an ocean but a multitude of single drops? Every kindness & every meanness I do sends ripples outward and I birth the future by my words and deeds.

  111. @ Jeff S: I understand, and realize that you *do* wrestle with this – as do we all, to a greater or lesser degree.

    We are human, after all… and I think all humans, from the beginning of time, have asked these questions, not just monotheists. (Well, maybe those who are committed to doing evil to others aren’t asking those questions, but…)

    It is, imo, impossible to pin any of this down in some sort of neat and easy formula, but the Lord knows, we (humans) keep trying!

  112. @ Daisy: Online discussions of religion and politics usually end by going up in flames, with a lot of nastiness to boot.

    This is one of the few places where that doesn’t happen on a regular basis!

  113. numo wrote:

    This is one of the few places where that doesn’t happen on a regular basis!

    A hearty AMEN numo. You should see some of the other ixtian blogs. They’re like rival sects of Muslims in Iraq & Syria. If they’re not slaughtering each other, they’re blowing up each other’s Mosques so to speak.

  114. @ Daisy:
    I understand its maddening to shoot at a moving target. I would say its better to address individual issues anyway rather than decided if you can accept the tag.

    There are definitely some clearly Calvinist ideas that I disagree with. I think these are minor issues, but it is what it is. Does that make me not a Calvinist? If it does, then I’m find with that.

    But I do believe in TULIP and the majority of the WCF- what label should I use to communicate that when people are interested?

    And if the term is ambiguous, then I it’s wise to be careful and specific in criticism.

    We can all agree that “automaton” doctrine is evil. We can also agree that “God is the author of evil” doctrine is evil.

    Now I don’t see either of those reflected in what I know of historic Calvinism (and both are directly addressed in the WCF), but if some people want to say they believe those things, then those people are in error for believing them because they are unbiblical, not because they are unCalvinistic.

  115. Muff Potter wrote:

    Earthquakes, tsunamis, category five tornadoes, decrepitude and death are all beyond our pay-grades to decide upon, much less get resolution from. But the rest of the bad stuff? God is NOT in control. We are. I believe that I am endowed by my Creator with the power to put an end to the vast majority of human misery and suffering in this life It begins with me as a single drop in a vast ocean. And what is an ocean but a multitude of single drops? Every kindness & every meanness I do sends ripples outward and I birth the future by my words and deeds.

    Do you believe that God could not stop you if he wished?

  116. Daisy wrote:

    Did you watch the guy’s video?

    And no, I did not. The title suggests he’s going to argue that something I don’t agree with and Cavlinists historically do not believe is false. He’s already won me to his side.

  117. @ Daisy:
    I’m not saying I agree with everything in the WCF, but it’s a really large hurdle to overcome to show that something it directly states is misrepresentative of Reformed thology/Calvinism without a mountain of evidence to support it.

  118. Jeff S wrote:

    I don’t know. To me, that question is the greatest challenge to Christianity there is.

    The guy wearing glasses in the video gave an interesting explanation, though he chose to use the Fall in the Garden, rather than a more contemporary example.

    A lot of people (hostile atheists especially) like to frame the whole ordeal as in, “How mean or wrong it was of God to make that forbidden fruit tree when he knew Adam and Eve would eat from it,” but the guy pointed out that’s the not the way to look at it.

    He got into this thing about to truly let someone have free will, not only do you have to permit them to disobey / do evil, but there has to be an opportunity to do good, too.

    The rule about not eating the fruit was just as much an opportunity for Adam/Eve to choose good as it was to choose evil.

    If God had not give Adam and Eve a test and just stuck them there in the Garden with no choices, or had God forced them to be good, that itself is not an act of good, and God would have had two robots on his hands.

    I’m not sure if I’m doing justice to the guy’s views in how I’m explaining it, so watching his video may be better.

    I don’t know how else God can allow his creation to be truly free, if he steps in each and every time somebody decides to hurt somebody else, or if He removes all evil from society all the time.

    This might be where Romans 8:28 comes in, or the story of Joseph in the Old Testament.

  119. Daisy wrote:

    Since so many Calvinists believe everything in this life is decreed, it would mean that God decreed you to write/create this blog from before the foundations of the world, so how can they object to you doing so?

    Again, this idea that humans had no will to act is not something that the WCF, RC Sproul, or any Calvinist I know believes.

    I know the moving target frustrates you, but when you say “so many” and this is directly in contrast to both my personal experience and the most important historical confession of the faith, I get frustrated.

  120. @ Jeff S:

    I think a better question would be: Why should He want to stop me? If I am doing good by sowing good wheat kernels and not tares, why would the Almighty want to stop me? If it’s only might that makes right, right can be abused by caprice.

  121. @ Bridget:

    “Thank you, thank you, for getting it right! I’ve lost track of the number of times in blog comments where it has been insisted that it means that we are as bad as we can be.” Jeff B.

    This is what has been preached to many people over and over. This is what some people have heard their entire life. This is what many people come away with when they read Piper, and the Pyromaniac blog, and encounter the Jarred Wilson’s, Doug Wilson’s, and others of the blogging world.”

    Bridget, would you mind documenting instances of this, if it’s not too much trouble, because I would be very interested in knowing if any of these people would make such a basic mistake about the concept of Total Depravity. I’m not saying that they are incapable of making the mistake, but, since you say that “this is what many people come away with,” it could be that they communicated it poorly. I would more readily believe it of idiots like Mahaney, but, again, no one is infallible.

    The accurate view of TD can be found in the chart that I linked to in my reply to dee. By “accurate,” I mean that it’s the definition of the term when it came into being.

    As far as truth is concerned, I believe that it reflects what the Bible says is the result of Adam’s sin.

    I’m sorry about the experiences you’ve had with Calvinists. If they use their beliefs to beat people over the head, they are obviously jerks. But that doesn’t mean that the beliefs are necessarily untrue.

    “The correct understanding of any belief system shouldn’t be of importance when Jesus says to come to him as a child.”

    I think Jesus meant “childlike,” not “childish.” Childlike faith and trust are good, but faith has content, and, as it says in Hebrews, we should not be satisfied all our lives with the “milk” of the word, but should graduate to “solid food.”

  122. @ JeffB:

    There are anti-Calvinists with websites who have examples, quotes taken from books by pro-Calvinists where the pro-C equates Cal to the Gospel itself, their point being to hint that anyone not embracing Cal is not a Christian, then you have the Cals who come right out and say it.

    You can find this sort of material by googling for it.

    Some Calvinists will argue that being Non-Cal always means automatically being a universalist, denying the Scriptures, believing in a works-based salvation, or not believing in God’s sovereignty, etc.

    There are Cal’s who admonish other Cals to stop behaving this way, sometimes in their in-house squabbles such as,
    A Word to My Calvinist Friends

    From that page:

    And when you [Calvinists whom he is addressing] quote Charles Spurgeon’s words equating Calvinism and the gospel (a place where I believe the great Spurgeon got it wrong), you are not saying that those of us who do not subscribe to all the points of Calvinism fail to believe the gospel. Instead, you consider this shorthand for biblical Christianity.

    I get what you’re saying. But please consider what it sounds like to those of us who disagree. It sounds like you are making a systematic presentation of theology the gospel.

    A person can be a conservative Christian without being Reformed or believing in Calvinism.

    There are Christians who remain Christian, who believe in Christ, without seeing Calvinism supported in the Bible.

    I looked into becoming a Calvinist years ago but did not see it in the Scripture, and I tried hard to do so. Even though I rejected Calvinism, I was not (nor have I ever been) a universalist, I still believed in God’s sovereignty, etc.

  123. This is such a profound conversation and so close to my heart! Having left my few year’s of Calvinism through a Lutheran rescue :), I cannot express the relief and renewal- or perhaps, first real taste- of the joy of my salvation.

    I was taught for years that my salvation was only a happy side effect of God’s bringing glory to Himself- and after years of trying to rationalize how horrible things that happen are scripted for us by God- and after years of listening to systematic theology that seeks to cram all the unexplainable nature and mystery of God into a neat, cut and dried smugness with a pat answer to everything- I am like a kid in a candy store.

    I am not promoting Lutheranism as the only place to go. It is the place for me, but maybe not for you. What I am saying is that there is such a thing as finding joy in salvation, thanking God for His grace, but accepting that there is peace to be found in paradoxes. NOT throwing out common sense and reasoning, but understanding that there are limitations to this. Being able to truly believe that God predestined us for salvation, but never for damnation. How is that? I can’t explain it, but the very thought of it is a testimony to His love for us ALL.

    Anyway, I am not talking doctrine here. Rather, I am encouraging those that may be suffering under a “Calvinista” doctrine that it is OK sometimes to say “I don’t know”. There are sound Christian people out there who are willing to admit this. Look for them.

    I’ll never forget a while back in our city when two young Christian college kids were killed, execution style, in a terrible, senseless crime. I will never forget hearing so many Christians actually try to reason that we have to accept, even rejoice, that this must have been “God’s plan” for these precious young people. That was pretty much the last straw for me. Can God repair things? Bring them to heaven? Heal their parent’s broken hearts and lives? He can- but there will be scars and pain that will not go away in this life. I don’t think God wanted this to happen- any more than he plans for children to be abused or any other of the litany of horrors that go on in this world.

    Jesus wept. He wept at sin and cruelty and brutality.He died for sin, he doesn’t stage it.Why would He plan the same terrible things that He died for? I do believe that He allows these things-for unexplainable reasons- but do I believe that He sits there and plans for a mother’s only child to die in a crime? For a village to be wiped out? For a son to commit suicide? God forbid. There is something that has been horribly misinterpreted in the verse about “All things work together for good..etc…” It has almost created a cult of catastrophe. Like who can find God’s plan in the most horrible tragedy?

    Far better, in my opinion, to grieve openly and honestly, and know that the God of all compassion weeps with us. He is NOT against us, but thank God, He is for us!!

  124. @ Muff Potter:
    OK, but if you choose to do evil instead of good, I mean.

    If a man chooses to rape a woman, does God have the power to stop him?

    I think almost all theists answer “yes”, but it’s a hard thing to hear for that woman. And yes, theology would say that God permitting evil gives us a chance to to good, but that’s a hollow thing to tell a rape victim.

  125. Jeff S wrote:

    Again, this idea that humans had no will to act is not something that the WCF, RC Sproul, or any Calvinist I know believes.

    That has been my experience in dealing with Calvinists online, or lurking at their forums or blogs, yes.

  126. @ JeffB:
    FWIW, I’ve run across many Calvinists (not teachers) who misunderstand Total Depravity. And it’s a big enough issue that RC Sproul re-badges it to “Radical Corruption”.

    All of the people I’ve met who have TAUGHT about Calvinism are clear on the definition, though.

  127. @ JeffB:

    I didn’t say ‘childish.’ Thank you for letting me know what you think Jesus meant. I didn’t say we should be satisfied with the milk of the word. I’ll have to look that one up. Does it say “milk of the word?” That sounds contradictory to the importance that many place on the word. Is some parts of the word more important than other parts? What “content” does your faith have?

  128. @ Daisy:

    It sounds to me like a generation of bloggers has mainstreamed hyper-Calvinism.

    We wouldn’t be having any of these conversations if that doctrine was being labeled as “hyper-Calinvism”, which is what it has been called in the past.

  129. Bridget wrote:

    Considering the amount of people we are seeing who have had these experiences, I wish the accusations about ‘misrepresenting’ the Reformed/Calvin/Tulip systems would take a back seat. It simply makes it harder for people who are trying to recover from abuse, and continue to believe that God is good and loves them, to want to engage in a search for Truth.

    You are exactly right, Bridget!

    Jeff S, you said this: “If you think I should be silent whenever I see Calvinism misrepresnted, then that isn’t right.”

    Maybe it isn’t. But I urge you to be careful in trying to correct what you see as a misunderstanding – especially if the person you are correcting has dealt with abuse. Does there need to be a correction? Can they wrestle with it on their own? God can do that. He’s big enough.

    Jeff, whether it was my misperceptions or real perceptions of the doctrine that you hold dear to your heart, someone trying to correct my “faulty” ideas of Calvinism isn’t going to benefit me whatsoever if I am at the emotional/spiritual end of my rope. Arguing these issues sends me down the crazy cycle of shame, pain, abandonment, God not hearing me, etc. It is counterproductive. The crazy cycle can lead to suicide or walking away from God entirely. That is how important this is and why I posted my article in the first place. Loving hurting people in real ways (listening/caring/supporting) can help SAVE lives, emotionally, spiritually, and even physically. I know you know how to do that because I’ve seen you do it at ACFJ.

    I have the utmost respect for my long-time regular reader and pastor who happens to be Calvinist, Craig Vick, who posted the following comment on my blog article where I was struggling with the doctrinal/abuse confusion:

    “For what it’s worth, from now on I’ll make sure I think of your story and the stories of others before I express my theology. I’m very glad that I can call you a sister in our Lord and a friend.”

    Theology needs to take the back seat when it comes to comforting the abused. Craig’s got it right.

  130. @ Muff Potter:

    “It begins with me as a single drop in a vast ocean. And what is an ocean but a multitude of single drops? Every kindness & every meanness I do sends ripples outward and I birth the future by my words and deeds.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    LOVE, this comment at a whole, Muff. So very reasonable. Especially the statements above.

    Brings to mind the documentary “This Emotional Life” I saw on PBS. One section was exploring happiness. A person who is happy (if that word lacks depth for anyone, you could substitute hopeful, optimistic, joyful, grateful) can affect others with it, 3 generations’ worth (ie- someone with happiness holds a door for someone carrying a heavy load, that person is then affected positively and they in turn affect someone else with their bolstered happiness). Something like that.

    (an extremely brief synopsis:)
    http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/happiness/helping-others

    I sure love the practical side of things.

  131. @ Julie Anne:
    I always try to be sensitive, and I’ve communicated before that I agree that theology should take a backseat.

    When I “correct” someone, mostly my goal is to show them that the ones who taught them this horrible doctrine are the outsiders with fringe beliefs, not them.

    But I do think it is very important to not shut people down if they don’t tow the party line. The response to an authoritarian and oppressive environment is not to create another one where Calvinism is not tolerated.

    I’m not saying you or TWW do that, but I have felt in the past that I was really not allowed to be a Calvinist in some commenters minds.

    I DO know of Calvinists who stay away from these blogs excuse they feel they are unwelcome, even though they very much wish to fight against abuse.

    I think this post was a great step toward making those folks feel more welcome.

  132. I would disagree that anyone on TWW–and I have been reading here a long time–has misrepresented Calvinism. In fact, with respect and not intending to hurt feelings, it is the Calvinists who are misrepresenting their own doctrine by refusing to acknowledge the contradictions (which…they do this by arguing that truth really can’t be known). Many of us come from heavy Calvinist backgrounds, have studied the confessions and the institutes, and can find no basis for a distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. For example, the word “total” in Total Depravity is an absolute…there is no such rational idea as “partly total”, which is what some Calvinists want to say when they declare that humans are “not as bad as they could be”…as if this matters in the dualistic Calvinist paradigm: God is Good, and you…are not. This, of course, is totally irrelevant. The ideas of “bad” and “good” are meaningless in Calvinist doctrine. The simple interpretation of total depravity is this: because you are human (totally), you are perpetually and inexorably morally corrupt, and the only way you can understand any truth is if God functionally does it for you via the doctrine of arbitrary “election”. People like RC Sproul understand that he can woo you all day long with heady notions of “secondary causes” because he understands that it will appeal to your false, but emotionally necessary urge for “feeling loved” and your “sense of justice”, without actually conceding his utterly deterministic assumptions. A secondary cause is always subservient to the primary cause, which is God. Hence, your “free will” is categorically subject to God’s absolute control (meaning, God “allowing” is functionally the exact same thing as Him “not allowing”; anything that happens happens as a direct function of his will, either via that positive (allowing) or the negative (not allowing)…in either case, your “free will” is utterly under God’s sovereign control. In light of this, RC understands that “free will” cannot possibly be free, by definition. But RC, as a neo-Cal intellectual, is, I think, trying to avoid what so many Calvinists do with regularity, and have no problem with it: concede that at the root of what they believe are ideas that simply cannot be reconciled.

    Some Calvinists who want to make a distinction between “hyper calvinism” and “proper Calvinism” will gravitate to these equivocations in an effort to convince you–and I suspect themselves–that God in their construct is not some despotic puppet master who controls all things including abuse, rape, etc (e.g. by “allowing” them). But those of us who are labeled as “misconstrue-ers” of Calvinism are simply pointing out the logical flaws in their arguments. I am not trying to hurt or be cruel…I am trying to say that ideas must have basis, and one does not get to declare an idea and then refuse to defend it rationally by appealing to humanity’s inherent inability to understand it, and THEN proceed to give examples of why what is a contradiction in the doctrine really isn’t a contradiction.

  133. I’ve been lurking through out this discussion. I will be honest JeffS and JeffB , I am often confused by the “moving target” that you described before. There’s sort of a flip saying that goes get 10 Calvinists in a room and you’ll get 30 different opinions on what Calvinism is> Okay, that saying applies in many circumstances :).
    In between cleaning out my car and doing other various jobs around the house, it came to me.

    My bet would be that some (many?) people who call themselves Calvinist have never really read Calvin. They probably have read other books about Calvin’ doctrines, but never the original. Sort of like reading Cliff Notes instead of the book. In that case they are probably reading an interpretation of what Calvin actually wrote. This would definitely color their opinion. Ultimately, they could be reading an interpretation of an interpretation, adding their own along the way.

    For non-Calvinists, this can get very confusing since each claims that theirs is the “real” interpretation of Calvin. I am not faulting anyone or saying that Calvinists are lazy. Calvin is a little deep to get through, not to mention that the language structure is about 500 years old and not written in English. Just an observation,

  134. Steve D wrote:

    My bet would be that some (many?) people who call themselves Calvinist have never really read Calvin.

    To be honest most of the people who I’ve bumped into that come across as dogmatic Calvinist are really regurgitating talking points. Not really thinking things though. They’ve boarded a bus and decided to ride it to the end of the line. They are letting someone else handle driving.

  135. Argo wrote:

    and can find no basis for a distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

    Actually I’ve always thought of the “hyper” crowd in any area as the ones who want to get in your face and tell everyone how if they are not with them they are against them.

    I.E. more of an approach to others than a nuance of their own philosophy.

  136. I would be happy, however, to never use the label “Calvinist” again, out of respect for Jeff and Jeff. I have no problem with that…no one likes to be labeled. I get called an Arminian routinely…LOL, I don’t even know anything about Arminianism. How one can be labeled an Arminian after a decade and a half as an SGM bobblehead is beyond me. But I do…and I understand where Jeff S is coming from here.

    Anyway…that’s fine. We can just debate doctrine. Or the ideological roots of abuse.

    Buuuuuut the problem with this is that trying to pin a Calvinist down on what doctrines they actually believe is like trying to hold a wriggling cat using hands stuck in oven mitts (not that we’d be putting the cat in the over…gross, and, uh, cruel). Because their first and most precious assumption is that truth is forever beyond any human agency. Thus, just when you think you’ve got them pinned with the logical plumb line, they slip deftly away with a declaration of “no…you don’t understand; I don’t BELIEVE that”. By which they really mean: God hasn’t given you the “grace to perceive”; or, as my mother in law likes to say to end all discussion “I just know that I know that I know”.

    Uh huh.

    This is merely a nice way of saying that God hasn’t enlightened you to the “truth”. You are still lost in your finite mind. And thus, we are left with the only real “proof” that anyone has been given the truth: by agreeing with THEM.

    But, no…they will say, you don’t have to agree with me! That’s misrepresenting my heart, Argo! Yet again!

    I disagree. They MUST insist you agree with them…it is implied in the very protest to my assertion: You don’t understand me; you can’t understand me; thus, your only response is to AGREE that you could be wrong. In other words, the Calvinists want you to agree that YOU have a FINITE mind and “could be wrong”. Agree that you can’t really know, truth, and as such you can have NO basis for denying their doctrine. After all, you could be wrong.

    No. I am not wrong. And I will not say I could be…because many of us understand that once we concede that men and women cannot know truth, then there is only one thing left to decide who gets to wield God’s “authority” on earth, because reason and logically reconcilable ideas have no place in “truth”: violence. He or she who has the bigger gun or knife or bomb–he or she who has the juggernaut of “platform” or Church Leadership “seniority”–is the one who gets to compel others to their point of view. Once we agree that all ideas have the exact same chance of being wrong…we have merely held the door open for ANOTHER, and even more sinister and vicious, arbiter of truth to be released: the power of the “keys”, which is nothing more than the power of DESTRUCTION…and with this, the powers that be continue to be the powers that be. And those of us who see the logical cause and effect of Calvinism-to-abuse are against Calvinism because we don’t WANT the powers that be to be the power any more.

  137. @ NC Now:

    NC,

    Yes…that could very well be what they mean. I have not had that experience. In SGM, most of us were pretty demure. There wasn’t so much “in your face” going on. The bullying was behind the scenes. Those of us who were vocally opposed to the leadership during the days of the Brent Detwiler “Wiki Wars” were quietly asked to leave, and they held open the door for me and my family with dulcet platitudes and smiling faces.

    What I mean is doctrinally I can’t find the distinction. Behaviorally…yes, I would concede that Jeff S and Jeff B are NOT hyper. LOL…I am much more hyper in my comments than they are. I will say they are much more composed personalities. 🙂

  138. @ Muff Potter: I know this all too well, I’m afraid, but it goes for *anything* – even art, music, theater, etc. which many people hold as dear as religion and political beliefs.

    Been there, done that, have the scars (healing, but still…) to prove it!

  139. @ Argo:
    What you describe is nothing like what I believe nor anyone I know believes.

    I’m tired of this. Really tired.

    I’ve not tried to convince anyone to be a Calvinist. I’ve not tried to convince anyone that they are sinful or wrong for not believing what I believe.

    But that isn’t enough. Unless I either stop believing what I think is true or shut up about it, it seems I will forever put in a box of this nonsense, unloving idea that God is the author of evil and we are mindless automatons. This is the reason I stopped reading JA’s thread on Calvinism, and it’s the reason I will my best to stop reading this one.

    I’ve not asked anyone to agree with me. I just want an equal seat at the table. That’s what I think the intention of this blog post was. But maybe there is just too much pain and hurt for that to be possible.

  140. Jeff S wrote:

    I just want an equal seat at the table.

    You’re more than welcome at my table, Jeff. 🙂 You can even put your feet up – I don’t mind!

    But maybe there is just too much pain and hurt for that to be possible.

    This is also (imo) true for many, many people.

  141. Jeff S wrote:

    I’ve not asked anyone to agree with me. I just want an equal seat at the table. That’s what I think the intention of this blog post was. But maybe there is just too much pain and hurt for that to be possible.

    I think the way to achieve this is to leave Calvin/theology out entirely and instead actively love/listen/show compassion.

  142. NC Now wrote:

    To be honest most of the people who I’ve bumped into that come across as dogmatic Calvinist are really regurgitating talking points. Not really thinking things though. They’ve boarded a bus and decided to ride it to the end of the line. They are letting someone else handle driving.

    I think that this is the reason why, in some cases (not including anyone in the present discussion), that a robust discussion is not possible. If all that they know are talking points, then it is hard to back them up.

  143. Jeff S,

    I will not monopolize the conversation..I apologize for my run on posts. Just a few thoughts for you.

    Jeff S…with respect, I have never asked anyone to “shut up”. If I did that, I would lose the single greatest tool I have for refining my ideas: discussion, debate, disagreement (three d’s). I had Wade Burelson come to my little rinky-dink blog and debate me on my turf. We pulled no punches, but I believe we came away with a greater respect for each other and, dare I say, love. Wade is never too tired to defend what he believes, and he will not eschew the opposition’s venue. He should be a great example to you. He is to me, and that in spite of my categorical rejection of most of what he believes. But I respect that he does what he does for the same reason I do: we believe that people are at stake, and suffering is the penalty for losing the debate.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is: No one forces any of us to comment; but once we do we are obligated to defend our ideas. I want you to try to make the distinction between disagreeing strongly with what you say and believe, and disagreeing strongly with YOU. To me, there is a huge difference. I just hope and pray that you can see this.

  144. @ Argo:

    I’m obliged to agree with you here 😉

    “I am much more hyper in my comments than they are. I will say they are much more composed personalities.” Argo

  145. @ the Jeffs:

    The way total depravity was explained to me (via a G. I. Williamson commentary on one of the Westminster Catechisms, can’t remember if it was longer or shorter) was with the example of a glass of water. All the water in the glass was tainted with a bit of black dye, but it was not pure black and saturated with the dye. This never seemed hard to understand to me.

  146. @ Laura Smith:

    Having left my few year’s of Calvinism through a Lutheran rescue

    I just pictured a bunch of Germans and Norwegians riding in on cavalry horses, flying a Lutheran rose and singing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God…

  147. Jeff S wrote:

    FWIW, I’ve run across many Calvinists (not teachers) who misunderstand Total Depravity. And it’s a big enough issue that RC Sproul re-badges it to “Radical Corruption”.

    Granted, some assume Total Depravity to mean human beings to be totally depraved. But if you think about it, that’s not all that surprising. That is what “total” and “depravity” mean these days, after all. Inevitably, then, you’ll sometimes find restless young men who want to make a name for themselves (and who hasn’t been there) (other than restless young women) will take the idea and make it a point of honour to run as far as they can with it. Even if they do end up with Pythonesque theology that embarrasses more thoughtful calvin sympathisers.

  148. Jeff S wrote:

    I just want an equal seat at the table.

    I gotta second numo’s motion. You’d be welcome at the table in my wigwam too Jeff.

  149. What is the positional difference of man before God between a little TOTAL depravity and total total depravity?

    Think of it like this:

    Would you drink a glass of water with just a little flesh eating bacteria in it? You might argue that with only a little bacteria, you might only get sick, but not die. So…is that what we are saying? That if we are only a little totally depraved we might only get a little condemned by God, and not die? Does not a little yeast leaven the whole batch? Is not the whole batch totally leavened regardless of the amount of yeast? If the plumb line for perfection is NO yeast, then of what relevance is the statement: The bread is not as yeast-y as it could be. It is only partly totally contaminated with leaven.

    So, does God elect people who are only a little totally depraved as opposed to those who are totally totally depraved? if man does NOT get to decided the level of his depravity (by knowing good from evil and choosing it) then God must decide FOR him…which means, again, that not being as bad as you could be is irrelevant. It buys you nothing in light of God’s absolute control. It’s all up to God. You have nothing to do with it. Enter fatalistic determinism.

    The whole idea of total depravity is simply to say that you must be elect in spite of yourself, regardless of how “good” or “bad” you are because “good” and “bad” don’t really mean anything to God as far as WHY He saves some and not others.

    And this is the crux of the problem. How can man decry evil and embrace good when neither one really matters or means anything to God? But even more enigmatic is how man, being inexorably morally corrupt compared to God is never in a position to even KNOW the difference, since KNOWING good from evil implies that man can actually, of himself, wholly apart from God, freely embrace by his WILL the TRUTH of what is good, or reject it. And further, since Calvinism declares that God elects never based on any acts or will of man, of what use is it even to distinguish between good and evil, even if man could know them?

  150. @ JeffB:

    “I really think that we have to go to Scripture with the intent of honestly, to the best of our ability, seeing what it says and submitting to its truth, instead of wanting it to confirm our beliefs. I believe Sproul when he says that he knows of no Calvinist who, without any difficulty, welcomed what the Bible said about election, etc. It doesn’t conform to our sense of fairness and love. But are *we* the measure of truth? Can we not make allowance for God’s ways to be different from ours? *If we disagree, let us disagree on what we see in Scripture, not on our own sense of right and wrong.* Okay, end of sermon.

    Jeff, above is one of my major objections to Calvinism as presented by adherents is the notion (however sincerely believed) that non Calvinists read the scriptures to suit their own fancy.
    Do you not understand non Calvinists read the scriptures “with the intent of honesty”…”seeing what it says instead of wanting it to conform to our beliefs” yet reading the very same scriptures with due diligence, do not come to a believe (amongst other things)in double predestination. And it’s not because we can’t or are unwilling (as in errant school children who just need some tutoring) to accept, “God’s ways to be different from ours.”

    Many of us, view double predestination to be in great conflict with the character of God as He presents Himself in scripture. And speaking for myself, I take that conflict ( as an adult, as a student of scripture, having read many books on Calvinism) very seriously.

  151. @ Lin:

    I’m sorry that I was not clear. I had no intention of saying “that non Calvinists read the scriptures to suit their own fancy.” I intended to contrast believers (Cal and non-Cal) who base their opinions on their reading of Scripture, and believers (Cal and non-Cal) who base their opinions on their own counsel, on what they *feel* is true. That’s why I wrote “If we disagree, let us disagree on what we see in Scripture, not on our own sense of right and wrong.”

    Concerning double predestination: If by it you mean that God makes people sin so that he can judge them and send them to hell – no, I don’t think the Bible says that. I’m pretty sure that Calvin doesn’t either, but I’ll check on it. I know the WCF does not say it.

    If you mean that those that God does not elect to save will definitely be condemned – yes, since there is no other way they can be saved, they, in a sense, are elected to be condemned for their sins. I think that is biblical.

  152. @ Bridget:

    “I didn’t say ‘childish.’ Thank you for letting me know what you think Jesus meant. I didn’t say we should be satisfied with the milk of the word. I’ll have to look that one up. Does it say “milk of the word?” That sounds contradictory to the importance that many place on the word. Is some parts of the word more important than other parts? What “content” does your faith have?”

    I inferred, from the context in which you placed it, that by “child” you meant someone innocent of knowledge, using the examples you gave as metaphors, since, of course, Jesus didn’t tell us to believe in those things. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

    I think Heb. 5:11-14 (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-2) is saying that their are parts of the Word that are more elementary than others, not that those parts are any less important. As for my content, I think the Nicene Creed covers a lot of it.

  153. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with that perspective as well.
    As for the double predestination, I wouldn’t agree with either position you’ve posted but that is no surprise, as I’m a non Calvinist.

    @ JeffB:

  154. @ Julie Anne:

    You wrote: “Jeff [S], whether it was my misperceptions or real perceptions of the doctrine that you hold dear to your heart, someone trying to correct my “faulty” ideas of Calvinism isn’t going to benefit me whatsoever if I am at the emotional/spiritual end of my rope. Arguing these issues sends me down the crazy cycle of shame, pain, abandonment, God not hearing me, etc. It is counterproductive.”

    I don’t understand, then, why, on your blog, you allowed a Calvinism “Free For All.” I didn’t notice any Calvinists telling people that “God wanted you to be raped,” or something like that. People, including you, got upset from Calvinists just stating their views. I am not saying that you or anyone else *shouldn’t* feel that way – that would be absurd. But, knowing that this type of discussion triggers upsetting thoughts, why did you encourage it? I know that it started spontaneously on another thread, but you could have said “enough.”

    Actually, I admire you for letting it go on, but it would certainly be understandable if you had called a halt to it.

    I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you don’t want Calvinists to be completely honest about what they believe in the current discussion, because someone may be hurt. Again, if it were a matter of someone, as I put it earlier, “beating someone over the head with their beliefs,” that would be different. But disagreeing with someone is not the same thing. And, let’s face it, which side was harsher on your blog?

    I hold you in high esteem. I’m just genuinely puzzled about this.

  155. JeffB wrote:

    I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you don’t want Calvinists to be completely honest about what they believe in the current discussion, because someone may be hurt. Again, if it were a matter of someone, as I put it earlier, “beating someone over the head with their beliefs,” that would be different. But disagreeing with someone is not the same thing. And, let’s face it, which side was harsher on your blog?

    “Push back” is not the same thing as not wanting people to be honest. It means that someone thinks someone else is presenting an incorrect opinion/idea and will present disagreement in as many ways as he/she can think will work. So far, we both agree.

    There is nothing wrong with being emotional about it, either, except that we need to not use it to demean the other. Demeaning can also occur by passive-aggression, which is the preferred method of the more academic among us. We may diverge a bit here.

    If, however, a viewpoint *in itself*, genuinely hurts someone, it is wrong. In what way it is wrong needs to be determined. Maybe only a part of it is wrong, maybe the whole thing. It is an incontrovertible fact that some parts of Calvinism have been used to hurt people. It seems to me that JeffS and Craig (over at SSB) understand that point and are processing it beautifully.

    Of course Calvinism is not the only theological construct that has been used to hurt people. It is the ideas that underlie what Calvinism discusses that are problematic for all humans. It is how Calvinism discusses those underlying ideas that causes existential damage and thus, pain. And any idea that causes people existential damage is wrong. That is biblical. That is what Jesus spoke against over and over in his short life.

    This is what Calvinists need to come to terms with. Whatever part of the stream a Calvinist has adopted (and there are several streams), calling one’s self a Calvinist means taking responsibility for the parts of the broader construct that are damaging. He/She needs to be able to clearly understand why it is damaging and to openly explain how he/she does not hold to those ideas, which have been so awful as to cause some among us to become suicidal.

  156. @ JeffB:
    One more thing. When people have been hurt by something they have come to realize was wrong, they will present their disagreements with fervor. They will tend to use hyperbole to make their point. Which is fine! Even the Bible uses hyperbole to make points—a lot!

    When people are discussing a theological point over which they have never been hurt, they will present more matter-of-factly. This is fine too, and actually more pleasant for everyone. But it will, by that, also have less life in it because it stays in the realm of ideas.

    This is simply human and not related to social faux pas. It is only required that we do not demean each other while in argument.

  157. Though I love discussing theology, I am a total lightweight compared to most (or all) of the participants in this conversation.Someday I hope to focus more on the study of how all the different denominations developed their “spin”….and the various characters who poured their lives into our Christian history.

    I will say that as a fairly new Lutheran, I have REALLY been blessed by the attitude that as a woman, I am relating directly to Christ and am responsible for my own theology. I am sure that there are other places that approach things this way…I just hadn’t found them. So this is a goal for myself, as my family is growing up and I am finding a bit more time.

    Here is my point as a non-theology major. Much of what I am reading here involves debating or defining what Calvin wrote, etc. This is very important to get a true and not twisted idea of what Calvinism, in its purest form, is.

    HOWEVER- as is often the case, what we deal with in real life can be quite unlike what the experts say it is. A group, rightly or wrongly, is defined by the fruit that we see (often the problem with Christianity in general, right?)

    I spent quite a while in these “neo-Calvinist”, Piper, hipster fundamentalist, etc. etc. circles, and here are the things that were primary messages:

    1) God predestines some for salvation, and some for hell. We are to not worry about that; rather, be glad that any are saved.

    2) Everything that happens is scripted by God and is good for us. Everything. (But I always wondered why, if it was not His desire that any man should perish, that He also would create someone specifically for hell??)

    3) The reason for a woman to study scripture is to better serve her husband, father, children. Questions should be addressed to the male authority in one’s life.

    4) Christ died NOT for us, but to bring glory to the Father. Any benefit we get from His death (i.e., salvation) is great, but if we act like we are too focused on salvation, we are selfish and may not even be saved.

    5) Likewise, everything we do for others should NOT be because we love them, but to bring glory to God. If we are acting primarily out of love, this becomes good works and is worthless. I witnessed a weird detachment with this thinking, and people almost having to downplay love or relationship with others.

    I am not trying to argue doctrine, because that is not my or anyone else’s business here. I am spelling out what is being taught, at least to my untrained ear, under the name of Calvinism, in hopes that we can all learn to: a)recognize where we are coming from, and b) respect those with very different takes on these things as brothers, sisters, and seekers. There is much we have in common, but I honestly have to say that I have encountered more of a critical attitude toward other denominations while I was in the neo-Calvinist camp.

  158. JeffB wrote:

    I don’t understand, then, why, on your blog, you allowed a Calvinism “Free For All.” I didn’t notice any Calvinists telling people that “God wanted you to be raped,” or something like that. People, including you, got upset from Calvinists just stating their views. I am not saying that you or anyone else *shouldn’t* feel that way – that would be absurd. But, knowing that this type of discussion triggers upsetting thoughts, why did you encourage it? I know that it started spontaneously on another thread, but you could have said “enough.”

    JeffB – Great question and I’m glad you asked. Last year when I was sued, I had heard of Calvinism, but didn’t really know what and how it had affected/influenced me personally. It was “their” belief and in my mind, their belief only affects “them.” I’ve learned a lot since then.

    I try to keep debates in check on the blog and steer away from them as my blog is supposed to be a safe place. However, Brian (a Calvinist) brought up a new topic and I decided since there was so much dialogue, I could easily keep the debate to one thread. I don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier. Now I have a place to “send” the Calvin debates and can keep the other threads relatively Calvin debate-free.

    But you are right. The Calvinism Free-For-All (nearly 1,100 comments this morning) post definitely triggered me. I immediately connected with reader Oasis and it left me sobbing. It was so strong that I knew I had to write what was going on inside of me in connection with my childhood abuse. Even though I have now separated myself from that belief system, connecting with those words brought me right back to those intense feelings of “God was right there watching me get abused and didn’t do a darn thing about it.” So I posted my abuse story/Calvin connection and have tried to keep that thread “safe.” The Calvinism debate thread is a great place to really get into the nitty gritty of those tough issues.

    I’m glad you brought this up, though, I probably need to put a disclaimer on the Calvin Free-For-All post.

  159. JeffB wrote:

    I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you don’t want Calvinists to be completely honest about what they believe in the current discussion, because someone may be hurt. Again, if it were a matter of someone, as I put it earlier, “beating someone over the head with their beliefs,” that would be different. But disagreeing with someone is not the same thing. And, let’s face it, which side was harsher on your blog?

    You are free to jump back in and “even things out,” Jeff 🙂

    I think I’m saying a couple of things:

    I’m concerned with the preoccupation of defending Calvin when someone is hurting. Why is Calvin even part of the discussion, period? Let’s get this person through their crisis and love on them. It is not love to push Calvin.

    Based on my experience, the experience of Oasis – both of us who have had very difficult childhood abuse experiences and other stories I’ve been reading, especially of teens abandoning their faith, having emotional breakdowns and even suicide, why do we need to focus on Calvin’s system? Why can we not focus on God and Jesus and what He did for us?

    Pushing Calvin on a hurting individual is like pushing steak on an infant. An infant does not want, nor desire steak. They want pure milk – easy to digest, soothing, warms their tummy, meets their needs, gives comfort, nourishes them and helps them grow.

  160. for what it’s worth, i’m the product of many generations of energetic, committed Christian people, several career missionaries to asia, and church since day 1. Never once did I hear the word “Calvin”.

    Or reformed, predestined, predestination, sovereignty,…

  161. Julie Anne wrote:

    Pushing Calvin on a hurting individual is like pushing steak on an infant. An infant does not want, nor desire steak. They want pure milk – easy to digest, soothing, warms their tummy, meets their needs, gives comfort, nourishes them and helps them grow.

    Hmmm… all I can say is, it depends on the individual and in what way they’re hurting. Some, myself included, who spent years in controlling and abusive churches would say that to be infantilised is the last thing we need. Jesus’ statement that “my food is to do the will of him who sent me” applies in our context. We need robust physiotherapy (which invariably hurts, but in a good way – not least because at least in part you do it yourself rather than just being done to). And our needs are met by taking ground and accomplishing; because we were robbed of our inheritance and starved of purpose and significance. It’s sobering that these are the very things that will be withheld from me in many church settings because doing is reflexively conflated with “striving” and I need to “learn to rest in Daddy/Mummy God’s unconditional love”.

    I don’t have experience of dealing with, or helping someone else deal with, child sex abuse; and of course I don’t have experience of being someone else. So in other contexts your Calvinism/steak analogy is right as far as I know. To me, being fed pat answers is more analogous to being fed sawdust because fibre is good for you.

  162. @ Julie Anne:

    Thanks for taking my comment in the way I intended. With the Internet, you never know. And thanks for your honest answers.

    “I’m concerned with the preoccupation of defending Calvin when someone is hurting. Why is Calvin even part of the discussion, period? Let’s get this person through their crisis and love on them. It is not love to push Calvin.”

    If I were there when a Calvinist or any other professing believer (or atheist or whatever) told someone who was suffering or grieving something that was sure to make the person feel worse, I can practically guarantee that I would shut that person up and have words with him/her. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of thing. And it wouldn’t matter to me if what the person said was true or not.

    Online, of course, it’s much harder to gauge – actually, impossible, since you have no idea who is reading what you’re writing. But, if, during an online conversation about Calvinism, someone writes that the discussion is disturbing to him/her, certain questions arise beyond the obvious point that it’s wrong to attack that person:

    Should the conversation be halted? Could the person have simply avoided it and gone to someplace else without even making the comment? If the person makes the comment because he/she believes it’s important that others should know that there are people who can be hurt by that conversation in “real life,” how should that affect the online discussion?

  163. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Hmmm… all I can say is, it depends on the individual and in what way they’re hurting. Some, myself included, who spent years in controlling and abusive churches would say that to be is the last thing we need.

    Ok, see I was looking at this in a totally different way. Pardon me if I show my bias toward breastfeeding and please indulge me a bit. When a baby is born, mama’s milk comes out as colostrum – a very thick yellow substance perfectly designed to meet babies need exactly at the newborn stage of life. Breastmilk is the perfect food for babies and formula can’t touch this aspect of it – – -scientists have analyzed the composition of the milk weeks/months and have found that the structure changes to meet babies need at each stage of development. I find that to be an amazing God thing. Breastmilk tested at 1 year postpartum is different than breastmilk at 6 months postpartum, etc. So, I disagree with your choice of word “infantilised” because in my example I’m talking about giving someone hurting exactly what they need (emotionally/spiritually) at the precise time they need it – – – just like breastmilk. Off my nursing soapbox 🙂

  164. JeffB wrote:

    If I were there when a Calvinist or any other professing believer (or atheist or whatever) told someone who was suffering or grieving something that was sure to make the person feel worse, I can practically guarantee that I would shut that person up and have words with him/her. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of thing. And it wouldn’t matter to me if what the person said was true or not.

    The hard part about this is I don’t think these folks even realize what they are doing. They think they are helping and by knowing what they believe about Calvinism, it will be of comfort to them. And in their zeal, they often miss obvious signs that are bringing the hurt person even deeper into pain.

    Should the conversation be halted? Could the person have simply avoided it and gone to someplace else without even making the comment? If the person makes the comment because he/she believes it’s important that others should know that there are people who can be hurt by that conversation in “real life,” how should that affect the online discussion?

    As a moderator at my blog, yes, I’d shut it down and recommend that they take it to the Calvinism debate thread if they want to discuss it further.

  165. On the other thread, I commented about the issue of sovereignty and the misunderstanding a lot of people have about the concept of sovereignty. I believe that this misunderstanding puts the m FAS sis on the wrong sil LA ble, on the misunderstood sovereignty as misunderstood, instead of on the love that God, as our creator “father” (“dada”), has for us, enough love to experience the indignities of life in the first century in the middle East, to be persecuted, and to die a horribly painful and disgraceful death by torture in public, all for our benefit. That is a love that does not send babies or the mentally unable to hell, nor is it a love that creates people predestined to hell, but rather gives them a choice and only when repeatedly rejected, judges people for their rejection of him.

    When I read the Bible, I find a lot more there about God’s love (and forgiveness — a symptom of his love) and our responsibility to share that love (e.g., in the OT prophets writings we have) than I do about his glory or his sovereignty.

  166. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    @ Julie Anne:
    Julie Anne: “They want pure milk – easy to digest, soothing, warms their tummy, meets their needs, gives comfort, nourishes them and helps them grow.” And later, “mama’s milk…exactly what they need at the precise time they need it.”

    Nick: “Some, myself included, who spent years in controlling and abusive churches would say that to be infantilised is the last thing we need.”

    I’d like to agree with both, if that’s ok. We need exactly the right kind of nutrition at exactly the right kind, but maybe not the milky kind because we emerge from trauma both far too old and still too young. We need well-rounded meals, small and frequent, in a quiet warm kitchen with loads of kindness.

    And as you say, Nick, as soon as we have settled out of shock, we need robust physiotherapy which is psychotherapy or intensive spiritual counseling, and that’s hard long work; not a job for babies. And requires even more general kindness and that continued diet in that warm kitchen.

    ISTM, that the fundamental issue in abuse is betrayal. It needs to be dealt with directly and honestly, a complicated complex mature topic. And so, I also agree with Nick on this: “To me, being fed pat answers is more analogous to being fed sawdust because fibre is good for you.”

  167. @ Arce:
    Yes! In a faith that is centered on love, (“What greater love is this?”) it is hard for me to understand why abused people are so often further destroyed by that faith as presented by others.

    Of course the bewildered question of “why didn’t God…?” will inevitably come up. But I do not understand why discussions of sovereignty do not always point to love, to the simple fact that while we do not have enough information yet, on this side of life, we can be confident that love and fairness/justice is and always will be the answer and we will someday understand how it looks

  168. @ Patrice:

    “And any idea that causes people existential damage is wrong. That is biblical. That is what Jesus spoke against over and over in his short life.”

    By “wrong,” do you mean untrue? Also, Jesus talked a lot about hell. Some of his hearers might have been scared as, uh, heck.

  169. @ Laura Smith:

    2) “Everything that happens is scripted by God and is good for us. Everything. (But I always wondered why, if it was not His desire that any man should perish, that He also would create someone specifically for hell??)”

    The best treatment of this question I’ve read is by John Piper, so I’m not sure you’d want to read it. Anyway, it’s an article called “Are There Two Wills In God?”

    3) “The reason for a woman to study scripture is to better serve her husband, father, children. Questions should be addressed to the male authority in one’s life.”

    Neo-Calvinist nonsense.

    4) “Christ died NOT for us, but to bring glory to the Father. Any benefit we get from His death (i.e., salvation) is great, but if we act like we are too focused on salvation, we are selfish and may not even be saved.”

    There is some truth in this, but to bring thought control into it turns it into legalism.

    5) “Likewise, everything we do for others should NOT be because we love them, but to bring glory to God. If we are acting primarily out of love, this becomes good works and is worthless. I witnessed a weird detachment with this thinking, and people almost having to downplay love or relationship with others.”

    Oy. Yes, I believe that what we’re on earth mainly to do is bring glory to God, and our salvation and love for others is a part of that. But to have to constantly think, “Must remember it’s for God’s glory” is sheer legalism and bondage.

  170. @ Hester:

    Thanks for the link to the article on Sproul, Jr. As many are probably thinking, what would Sproul, Sr. have to say about this? Some of the former’s non- above-board activities may be partly an outgrowth of his beliefs.

    “(Keep in mind Sproul Jr.’s insistence that God always acts according to his strongest desire.)”

    If this is so, it’s really astounding. He’s describing man, not God. God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point. It’s like asking the old question: Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to throw? He isn’t at cross-purposes with Himself, so the question is silly. He’s what theologians call a “simple Being.” Not simple = not complex, but meaning that there is a Unity in whatever he does.

  171. JeffB wrote:

    By “wrong,” do you mean untrue?

    I think so, but I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. When we hold to a law or principle that we think makes us better Christians but instead, causes existential damage to others, then something about that law/principle is awry and needs thorough reconstruction. So perhaps it carries untruth?

    I can know that such a rule/principle is wrong because Jesus said the two central commands are to love God above all and neighbor as self, and then he called the rest of the Bible, all the laws and principles to be an addendum to those central two laws.

    When we say, during the inevitable discussion of God’s sovereignty with a traumatized person, that even wrongs are ordained because God ordains all, we cause existential damage. It doesn’t cause comfort, which might be expected, but revulsion because of the nature of evil.

    To insist on it is to cling to an inadequate, incorrect understanding of God, IMO. God would never have deliberately planned that my Calvinist pastor-father would sexually abuse me for years and years. I’m sure God knew about it going in, and I know He/She wept even though at the time I felt abandoned by all the universe. And God obviously held back from rescuing me for reasons that I do not yet understand. But I can say, knowing what I now know about God, that God would never ever ever have set the evil I suffered in place intentionally.

    The greatness of God must be understood in a different way because this construct caused harm so deep that it tore into the core of me and made me wish for eternal death. Those wishes are not uncommon.

    Does that make my stance clearer? I’m not always that good at explaining things well. God is immense beyond our comprehension and because of that, I do not believe the Calvinist ideas of Sovereignty (or the related principles of TULIP). I understand the desire for them, I respect the way that they are conceived, and there are parts of them that I think very useful, but as a whole, they are too small for the God I now know.

    And really, in the end, if a doctrine about the majesty and greatness of God doesn’t comfort traumatized people (among all the needy humans out there), then of what real use is it?

  172. @ JeffB:

    “Oy. Yes, I believe that what we’re on earth mainly to do is bring glory to God”
    ++++++++++++++++

    what, exactly, is this thing called “glory” that we bring to God?

    As for it being our purpose in life, it’s about as inspiring as a plate of lima beans for breakfast.

  173. @ elastigirl:

    Notice the implicit point: only THEY really bring glory to God. Because only THEY have the right interpretive assumptions. God has chosen THEM as the sole recipients of His TRUTH.

    They never want to explain just what this “glory” is, as you said. They never want to explain why what they believe brings God more glory than what you believe. They always enter the discussion with the premises well defined; and the cornerstone premise is that you are wrong and they are right. That they are the sole divine recipients of truth, again.

    Why does a house wife bring more glory to God than a female scientist who wins a Nobel prize for her work? Because the complementarian doctrine is God’s will. That’s why. That is the only argument they have. And since they realize that their belief is based on purely subjective interpretations of scripture that require severe qualification…well, much easier to get you to just concede their premises by couching them in theologically nebulous, but emotionally attractive (and manipulative), platitudes.

    So if you say “oh yes, bringing God glory is the sole reason for mankind” without ever pushing back like you did, elastigirl, their tacit assumption is that you have just conceded the “soundness” of their doctrine.

    But you didn’t fall for it, elastigirl. Excellent work!

    Deny their premises, no matter how altruistic they may sound. Demand they defend their ideas. NEVER allow them an unchallenged presumption.

  174. @ JeffB:

    If this is so, it’s really astounding. He’s describing man, not God. God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point. … He isn’t at cross-purposes with Himself, so the question is silly.

    Good point. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

  175. @ JeffB:

    “God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point.”

    Why would the Bible portray God in such a way (that isn’t true) just to make a point? How do you know that this, in fact, is what the Bible did and is not what God IS like? You seem to know the internal workings of God — which amazes me. I would really like to understand this assertion you made.

  176. Comments moving to the “To Calvinist” posts from this point.

    Could we continue this discussion under the more recent Calvinist post, For Calvinists? I am having trouble keeping up with all the comments between the two.

    Please feel free to cut and paste comments to which you are responding over at that other post. Thank you for helping me out. I am loving this discussion!!!!!!