Thanks for sharing your personal perspective – I resonate with this statement: “If I don’t believe this, then ‘God’s love’ has a hollow ring to it. If God’s love for me really amounts to dumb luck – having been born in the right place at the right time – then it is not love at all. I can’t handle the thought of a world without a personally involved God of love. Life is pointless without a belief in Someone good and right out there, Someone that can make sense out of all the craziness and pain.”

Yes, exclusivism is a terrible doctrine, with terrible consequences, which is why I’ve addressed it several times on my blog. However, I would point-out that Reformed theology does not require exclusivism. There are a number of prominent Reformed theologians, in the conservative evangelical community, who hold to a moderate form of inclusivism (a speculative inclusivism): Michael Horton (Westminster California) and Douglas Kelly (Reformed Theological Seminary), for example. At the ground level, I know some very strong, faithful Presbyterians who also reject exclusivism; they’re not theologians, but they represent the assumptions and concerns of a typical conservative Presbyterian. In my experience, the worst offenders are Baptists of a decidedly non-Calvinist persuasion: those Baptists (and similar nondenominational “Bible” sorts) are the ones who put the blame for lost souls on the “soul-winner,” you and me. Since God is not ultimately in control of who and how a person is saved, then the contingencies of our own willing and doing are decisive. If I’m too lazy or merely too incompetent to adequately share the Gospel, then people will go to hell. Regardless of what you think about Reformed theology, at least they don’t put that burden and guilt on us.

By the way, those Calvinists who are most adamant about strict exclusivism — John Piper and Al Mohler, for example — are also usually Baptists. Reformed theology is best done in its native home: Presbyterian and Reformed churches, not Baptist or independent.

Great article! It’s pure arogance to think we’ve got this whole thing figured out. That’s a lesson our Calvinista (credit to Dee and Deb), Young Earth, inerrant scripture and fundamentalist whatever else crowd could stand to learn. I’ve learned one very important thing over the past few years. God’s ways are not my ways. Given that fact how on earth could a speck like me ever pretend to think that I understand God and guess what, I don’t have to understand him to believe. Thousands of people every day get on an airplane and trust that it won’t fall out of the sky without having the first clue of what makes it stay up there.

I unfortunately see a lot of Calvinist bashing in this and other blogs. It is the topic of the year. As someone said, Jonathan Edwards had a problem with the Bible’s teaching of eternity in hell, but he did believe it. His desire and probably every Christians desire. At least it should be. The doctrine of hell is real. God is love, but he is also a Holy God and has provided a way through Jesus Christ who is the only way to heaven. Many have a problem with that also and believe it to be narrow but it is what the Bible teaches.

I am Calvinist and believe strongly by reading this and other blogs on the subject there is a vast misunderstanding of the Calvinist doctrine although I believe it has been explained over and over again.

The main thing is this, I disagree with non-Calvinists but can easily work with them and believe that they are born again Christians, I hope someday the same can be said for non-Calvinists. We are both passionate about the Gospel, both preach and teach that Jesus is the only way. Both further doctrine in the Calvinist and non-Calvinist level is taught in the discipling phase of Christianity. There is more to Calvinism than predestination or depravity or any of the other five points, but the five points are something I believe the Bible teaches. I teach it when I do teach. But….I am fortunate to have gone to a church where both doctrines are taught. Even side by side. We have both Calvinist and non-Calvinist in our church. Both get along and love each other, no arguments, but both doctrines are taught. Both treated with respect. No splits in our church the whole time I have been going there which is twenty years this September. It can be done. But an understanding of both doctrines is a must. Someday this silly bickering has got to stop. Now is a good time.

Kevin

Thank you for your comment. It helps to differentiate some differences. To be truthful, I had not observed the differences between reformed Baptists and conservative Presbyterianism. I have more reading to do.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend to all..enjoy the nice weather!

(Dee, did you like the Voltaire Star Trek Songs?)

Debbie & Dee,
There’s plenty of snarkiness going around from people of all theological stripes towards those of others. From Kevin’s remarks, apparently the only folks who are really any good at being Calvinists are Presbyterians, and Baptist Cavinists are just Reformed wanna-bes. Good grief!

Dee, Muff is only considered heretic in some circles, not all. The comment was again, nothing more than hyperbolic humor.

I do think it’s important however, that we all remember to treat the belief systems of others with the same respect we would want our own treated. When we stop doing this, we start to lose our humanity and can be coaxed into just about anything; from burning women herbalists as witches to passing laws which enforce church attendance on the Sabbath.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe TWW has upheld this standard of tolerance. Where else could guys like myself and Karlton go without being censored or held up for ridicule and caricature?

Muff

I read a good book a couple of years ago called Broken Angel. It was written by a Christian. It described an area that was set aside for Christians to live. The rest of the world was run by a secular government. However, the tory was about a person trying to escape the extreme legalism of the “Christian” sector. In spite of the problems of the secular world, it was a far better place to live for both Christians and non-Christians.

As for a world the enforces church attendance, it would be the particular church that those in the majority would deem “correct.” So it could be Lutheran, for example and it would be off with the heads of those who want to be Anglican, etc. One only need to study the “oh so in vogue” Puritans to see just how it was done. I think if I hear one more “leader” who claims to be “reading the Puritans” I think I will scream. One must study their writings and also study how their writings were applied to see the inherent problems. Everything looks good on paper but practice is where the real rubber meets the road and there were serious problems in that society as well.

Dee,
Like you, I intensely dislike theological elitism. Perhaps your only or primary exposure to it has been from Calvinistas, Young Earthers, and fundamentalists. If that’s your experience, you are more likely to consider those folks more of a problem than others. But I’ve been around people of a very broad range of perspectives, and I assure you I have seen just as much invective and hubris from Arminians, Old Earthers, and moderates/progressives (both theological and political) as from their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.

My first exposure to spiritual elitism was in my early Christian days in college, from charismatic/pentecostal types (who thought all Christians who hadn’t had their experiences were less “spiritual”) and from churches of Christ (who thought all groups but their own were not true Christians). I disliked the attitude then, and I’ve grown to dislike it even more over the years, all the while seeing it evidenced in all sorts of groups/denominations/theological systems.

So I have no quarrel with the assertion that some folks are spiritual snobs and/or authoritarian bullies whose attitudes, words, and actions are hurtful to their brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t care if the elitism is coming from Calvinists or Arminians or Pretribs or Amils or Feet Washers or Head Anointers, it’s all the same to me — it just isn’t the way I think Christians ought to behave.

I, too, enjoy a good discussion or debate on doctrinal differences, if conducted respectfully. But if it’s wrong for Piper or Molher to treat others as if only those to hold to their Calvinist views are truly spiritual or truly smart, it’s also wrong to call someone a moron or a heretic because they are a Calvinist.

I can sympathize with the emotion and negative personal experience that leads people to think and feel and say certain things. But that doesn’t make it right, and I don’t mind saying so, for the benefit of all. If, in my zeal for a particular doctrine I believe or in my emotional response to a doctrine I don’t believe, I should speak (write) or act in a way that another finds insulting or distasteful, I would prefer to know how they feel, so I can examine myself to see if I have crossed any lines and adjust my attitudes or behaviors if needed. God knows I need the correction of other believers, as I am prone to think too highly of my own opinions and how I communicate them. I might not always agree with another’s conclusion about what I’ve said or how I’ve said it, but I’d still prefer to know how they feel, so I can at least be mindful of their feelings and attempt in the future to take extra care to convey respect for them as a person even if I disagree with their position.

I appreciate this blog and the opportunity for all to express their views, even when expressed in ways I don’t care for. I also appreciate the opportunity to express my own thoughts and say when something bothers me.

Junkster

There are many who call themselves Calvinists who are not of the extreme view that Mohler and others have. That extreme view is so strongly predestinarian that God’s plan is a detailed script that we all live out, with some being saved at the exact moment in time that God’s plan sets forth, and others predestined to hell for the sins they commit according to God’s plan. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, the Holocaust, all become part of God’s plan for humanity. To me that makes God a clockmaker, and it is heresy.

Arce

I liked your comment on God being sovereign over His sovereignty. I actually brought it up with some folks for discussion at lunch today. In fact, I agree with you. There is absolutely no reason why God could give men the means to choose for Him or against Him. He could program men with this ability which means that it is His sovereign desire that men freely make the choice and are given the faculties to do so. Sovereignty means “being in control” and being in control could mean that one allows men a choice.

One of my friends also believe that there is paradox in many aspects of the faith. In the paradox one might see truth that is complex. So predestination and free choice may, when we understand clearly, may actually align into a bigger truth.

It is the YE folks, the Calvinistas, the charismatics who have insisted that there is only one way to be a real Christian and that is their. way. I say that there is great flexibility in the faith with certain nonnegotiables such as the Resurrection. When we allow this to divide us over communion, we are wrong. Really wrong and show that we do not truly understand the concept of unity.

Good article. This is one of reasons I left the Southern Baptist church. They “made” me feel that it was my fault if people in my community went to hell because I did not talk to them about Jesus. Not only that, but they would say things like imagine being in heaven and you look down and see people in hell that you did not share the gospel with. Well, that does not sound like heaven to me, if I’m going to have an eternal guilt trip, that sounds like they are turning heaven into a kind of purgatory! It just made me depressed, and then I read my Bible and prayed less and less, until I rarely went to church. I think that’s why I was later attracted to Calvinism. If someone in my community ends up in hell, I don’t have to suffer an extremely burdensome guilt-trip. It also helped when I heard an evangelical on the radio say that God does not send people to hell for not hearing about the Gospel, but for rejecting it. I like to think that if a missionary fails to make it to a tribe in a foreign country, God still knows which people of the tribe would have accepted the Gospel and judges accordingly.

My hope in writing this article was to highlight that there are problems with BOTH camps. In the “God soveringly chooses” camp we have to grapple with the insecurity of knowing that we could have just as easily been one of the non-chosen. What does that do to your sense of God’s love for you? In the “it is up to man to spread the gospel” camp we have to grapple with the eternal destiny of those who have not heard the gospel resting on our shoulders. What does THAT do to your sense of God’s love for you?

I don’t have the answers.

Is it possible to hold onto a sense of God’s love for us without having all the theological/sin/salvation answers? Is it possible to have love and compassion for those who think they have the answers? (I remember that I used to be one of them!)

Arce, Karlton’s point about God not being able to violate his own nature is a pretty important one. Would you agree that it’s true? The question I’ve usually heard along those lines is “Could God make a square circle?” By definition a circle cannot be square and still be a circle, it would violate the laws of nature to violate it’s definition and Christians say that God is nature’s God and its rules come from him…so what do you say?

As for baptists being Calvinist, I know a lot of Presbyterians like to reserve Calvinist and Reformed for paedo-baptists, both historically and today. Baptists who hold to a Calvinist soteriology were historically called “particular Baptists.” Personally I think if the terms have changed in meaning to only refer to your views on salvation than we might as well apply them to credo-baptists (like me!), but I’m somewhat sympathetic to the language stickler’s points of view.

Karlton, thanks for serving.