Run, Forrest, run!! The Calvinists are coming over the wall!! OK, not really. But seeing as how I’m one of those icky Calvinists that your mother warned you about, and seeing that I’m not the first one here at CRN.Info and Analysis, I think that this means that we now have twice as many Calvinists on “staff” as Apprising Ministries [sic].
Yeah, I’m the new kid on the block. Someone once (lovingly) labeled me as a “black sheep Calvinist” as I’m more interested in being a Christian and loving by Arminian brethren and sistren than fighting over TULIP. Similarly, though I probably wouldn’t consider myself to be emergent, I find much of the dogma against the EC to be nauseating. When I call out the “white sheep Calvinists” and/or anti-emergents for their lack of charity, I’m usually assumed to be the illegitimate love child of Jacobus Arminius and Brian McLaren. When I reveal that I’m not, they usually don’t know what to do with me. Not that anyone else does either. . .
Anyway, enough introduction and on with the post.
Charles Spurgeon was one smart cookie and often quite the theologian. But he missed the mark on this one, and the error is actually quite telling.
Over at TeamPyro (where Chuck gets the floor at least once a week), a Spurgeon quote was posted that — I guess — is meant to be the proof-text to defend their methodology and harsh tone when pointing out (but never seeming to get around to actually helping to correct) what they perceive to be error. A few things jump out at me on this:
1. What seems to be Spurgeon’s point from the quote — and what clearly is the poster’s point (given his choice of post title) — is that “defending” orthodoxy is better than “tearing it down”. One could quibble endlessly about the proper definitions of both of those terms in quotes, but taken at its face value, that is probably a true statement.
But since when are Christians called to seek what is “better”? I thought we were supposed to strive for the best?
2. Spurgeon decries those that soft-pedal truth, and to some extent he makes a good point, as certainly there are those who take epistemological humility to an illogical extreme and claim that we can’t definitively know even the things on which the Bible is quite clear.
There is an oddity here, though. While I can’t ascribe it to Spurgeon, it is quite easily ascribable to many who quote him. Spurgeon is well-respected in many Reformed/Calvinistic circles — among whom (unfortunately, in this case) I number myself. In the famed Calvinist TULIP, the “T” stands for the “Total Depravity” of man. It is quite odd that anyone who claims to believe in such a tenet would also look down upon all epistemological humility, as if to say that any man — even one saved by God’s grace — could grasp all that an infinite God is.
3. Here is the real crux of the quote, and the “telling” part that I alluded to before. Spurgeon decries “bring[ing] out your opinions cautiously” (emphasis mine). In other words, according to Spurgeon, one should always be bold and definitive regarding one’s opinions.
I keep thinking back to Billy Graham. Whenever he was being interviewed and was asked his opinion on a particular topic, his first four words were usually, “Well, the Bible says. . .” Graham recognized that his opinion didn’t amount to a single bean, let alone a hill of them. Certainly, he would clarify how he thought a particular Scripture should be interpreted or how he thought it was applicable to a given situation. But the Scripture always came first — it wasn’t “here’s my opinion and here’s my eisegetical proof-text to back it up”.
Spurgeon seems to be flirting with that viewpoint, so it’s of little wonder that he would be well-respected by those who are firmly entrenched in it.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
28 Comments(+Add)
For the record, I am not anti Calvinist though I see that there is some bad theology that comes out of Calvinism.
I respect those who humbly seek God and be the within a tradition, that is their choice.
It is when those who are not in that camp, become none persons… it is as if no one read the words of Peter in Acts where Peter states, “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts 10)
Funny how some seem to think they can call others less worthy when no one is worthy… if one is not a “Calvinist” then they are not “elect” so they are “vessels of wrath”.
That is the bad side of Calvinism… it is the side unfortunately i have seen the most, only with rare exception. I pray that in reality these men are the exception that attack others in the name of Calvin.
Blessings,
iggy
“here’s my opinion and here’s my eisegetical proof-text to back it upâ€.
Yeah, we’re all sick of guys like Rob Bell who constantly do this.
The bible is clear! So humans can have a true understanding of truth, not jus the shadows of the truth. God is able to communicate clearly with humans because we are made in His image therefore the bible is clear. Even a young child of the age of three can know for sure that Jesus died for thier sins! That is truth and clear known. As we grow in grace, wisdom and knowledge in the Lord will be able to understand more things. Jesus was not correct the leaders at three but at 12!! He to grew in wisdom and stature with both God and man and was able to clear define what the bible said. I don’t think CHS meant that if you say it with confidence then you must be correct but that the bible is clear enough to stand firm on when people say “No that is just the way you interpet it.” This is what most people do when they disagree about anything. Instead of praying and studying HARD they just ignore and go on living. There seems to be a lack of huger for objective truth(God’s truth) but rather that your truth is yours and mine is mine. CHS dealt with the samethigns we do along with the rest of chruch past. We just called the conterveries by differnt names. God did not hide Himself from us to send us into confusion about who He is but releaved Himself first in nature, then His word and the finally and greast revelation was Christ.
Great quote from the end of there quote. I think that this reflects both sides of the modern or pomo discussion.
“Let them speak, that we may know them; but let them not deny us the same freedom; neither let them denounce us for defending what they are so eager to assail.”
iggy, since you commented on the intro, I’ll respond.
1. Right on!
2. Numerically, I can’t say whether the contentious Calvinists are among the majority of Calvinists or not. To be honest, when I first became a Calvinist, I didn’t even know about the contention. Then I started facing some opposition from friends, and I was like, “What are you so upset about? It’s still me, for pete’s sake!” Only after that did I start running into the kind of Calvinists that you have largely experienced. I guess my friends were afraid I was going to transmogrify into one of those.
As soon as I figure out what I am, Brendt, I’ll get back to you on this.(grins)
If a person takes a heavy hardback Bible and comes and literally hits me on the head with it, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the Bible. It just means that the people using it are using it in an improper or sinful way.
Likewise, I’ve never had a beef with Calvinism itself, just the people who use it as a means to denigrate pastors and churches who are putting forth more effort than they are at winning the lost.
I once asked the commenters at Challies.com whether or not it would be considered hyper-Calvinism to USE Calvinism to discourage [insert creative evangelism method] to win the lost, provided the method was not prohibited in Scripture. They overwhelmingly said yes.
The problem, Brendt, is that you are a Calvinist. They are unequivocally hyper-Calvinist, but won’t admit it. Every one of them …
OldTruth
CRN
SoL
ExTh
ALitLe
The sad thing is that by insisting they are just regular old Calvinists, they insult those of you who really are Calvinists by their very association.
Sorry man. I hate that for you and all the other Calvinists out there.
iggy,
“Funny how some seem to think they can call others less worthy when no one is worthy… if one is not a “Calvinist†then they are not “elect†so they are “vessels of wrathâ€. ”
That is not what calvinist believe. I pretty sure you alreay know that though. If you are a christian, in the full sense of enduring for the faith until death or until Christ returns, then you are elect no matter what theological system or backgroud you have. That is what most calvinist would say. Although there are crazies that twist what the bible says and claim that salvation lies in a perfect knowledge of every doctrine. Like old earth ,young earth ,evolution. Some will say that is you are not young earth then you might not be a christian this is awful there have been great men of God like B.B. Warfield that where old earth in there views. So here is where we can see how a little leaven ruins the whole bunch!
nate
Those sites you listed and called hyper-calvinist are the truly that? Do they deny the free offer of the gospel? Do they deny that every man’s duty is to repent and believe?
Great, a Christian who desires fellowship around Jesus and not around a set of systematic doctrines which may or may not be true. It is your kind of Calvinists that I have come to know and love here in Florida, I have met a different brand on the internet.
Thank you.
Brendt – nicely written.
And for the rest of you – I’m a Calvinist, consider yourselves denigrated.
Hey … I’m kidding … I love you guys … well most of you anyway …
Hey I would like to be counted on the side of the nicey nice Calvinists!
“Do they deny the free offer of the gospel? Do they deny that every man’s duty is to repent and believe?”
1. They deny some the free offer of the gospel, because they’re not willing to do what it takes to reach certain demographics, and publicly ridicule those who are willing. So, yes. They don’t mind the free offer of the gospel, as long as it’s done their way.
2. In some respects they do. They’re position is varying though. Here’s what I’ve gathered so far. Man has no ability to repent and believe, yet he has the responsibility to do so. God elects some and gives them the ability to repent and believe, and does not do the same for others. Yet, amazingly, He still grieves when man chooses not to repent and believe.
So in essence, they believe that somehow there is free will (duty) but at the same time there isn’t. We are expected to do something (duty) that we have no ability to do.
So … you tell me. What the heck?
Just a side note I do believe, from holy scricpture, that calvinism is truth or biblical christiany as Spurgeon called it. But we must be generous with each other, rememberg as Spurgeon said that would should not assail each other for speaking the truth! But accept your views and then in gentleness and love admoish each other from the bible!
So does one choose to become a Calvinist, or is it predestined?
Seriously, I do appreciate the thoughts expressed in this post. I wonder sometimes if Charles Spurgeon wouldn’t shudder to hear his words used as ammunition in our blog-wars. If Christians can’t be loving and humble in their interactions with each other, it seems there is little hope for the rest of the world.
nate
point 2 in historic calvinism. Just because God commands it does not mean we can do it.
They are not denying that the gospel is for everyone, they deny that the methods empolyed are unbiblical. Also they do believe that it is every person duty to repent and believe.
Hyper-calvinsim mean that the deny the free offering of the gospel to everyone and that all mean are not required to repent and beleive. This caused what many people see, a stero type, that calvinist are not good at evanglism. Because if it is not the duty of the heathen to repent you should not offer him the gospel. That was the thinking in the hyper-calvinist circles of the 17th century.
Maybe you can come up with a new term! I do not speak for them but I think I can safely safe that they are not hyper calvinist. Maybe the “frozen chosen”
Amen Phil
Amen.
Kyle,
I am contrasting the hyper Calvinist view with reality… LOL!
Actually though Calvinists do believe that some are created to be the elect and some are created to be vessels of wrath… I ahve yet to find a Calvinist apologist who makes it all the way through Romans 9… most stop at verse 18 and the furtherst I have seen is James White who goes to verse 24… but the punchline is in the next verses…
I have sat through many debates and discussions iwth calvinsit and have found many do nto even know what Calvin taught…in fact many have a Gnostic view instead of Calvinist view as they claim they (the elect) existed before the creation in Christ… and that is not what Calvin taught at all and in fact is not biblical at all… only Jesus is immortal.
Rick I,
Rick you know that if it was not for you i would be a stark raving madman agaisnt all Calvinists… don’t you?
It could be that you are a bit of a hybrid in other ways… but still one of the nicest brothers I know. I ahve been very blessed by you and hope one day to actually sneak a cigar with you. LOL!
Blessed,
iggy
Iggy
The view of election is some what correct. Although it is what is normal called double predestination. God work both to give mercy and to give judgment. God is active in mercy and passive in judgment. I am He is active in conforming those whom He has given mercy to through His Spirit. While He is passive, not working sin in the person, by not giving them mercy instead judgment. God created all men. All men are sinners in Adam and by their own actions. God choose to give mercy to some and to pass over others and give them justice. No one receives injustice at the had of God. So receive mercy and grace others justice and judgment. I think by the last phrase you are referring to the way God elects people. God does not say during eternity past that these people that will be are saved because they are elect and I love them more than those. Instead He only elects people in light of Christ and His life, death and resurrection. I read on over your crazy articles about time. So it is not that we pre-existed but that God is not bound by space and time so He before the foundations of the world chose a people to give mercy to. If you have listened to J. White there is not much I can do to change your mind because he is way smarter than I.
I am stating that man did not exist before he was created… that is what one Calvinist claimed was taught… and it is anti biblical…
I am not sure which “crazy article” you are referring to but if you could reference it… it might help me figure out what you are considering crazy…LOL!
It was the eternal plan that those that come to faith in Jesus would be “in Christ”. The eternal Plan is eternal and it does not mean people existed somehow in Jesus before creation… Calvin never stated that.
At one time I was refuting what Calvinists were telling me they believed… then I went and read Calvin’s Institutes (which is quite a read) and found they had no idea what they were talking about! LOL! and they were attacking me for what I believed and claimed I denied predestination.
I do not deny predestination, I see it in a different context than the Calvinist as I see it more connected to the Abrahamic promise than to “some created as vessels of mercy and some as vessels of wrath”… in fact I often cringe when I here many Calvinists read that passage as they miss the very vessels created for wrath (the gentiles) became the vessels of mercy and the vessels of mercy (the Jew) became the vessels of wrath… this is what the last few verses state… most argue around “Nations and individuals” but it is both… not either/or.
My point is that some are “angry Calvinists” who have some weird view of God that makes him unjust and wrathful and takes away the Loving Kindness and compassion He states of Himself… of some are created as vessels of wrath, then there is no mercy or grace as they then cannot experience it and they would be the only ones who could as the ones created to be the “elect” have not real choice in that they will be saved.
be blessed,
iggy
Kyle,
I’m not just making this up, I’m just repeating what was told to me at Challies.com. If a person refuses to use a certain method or go a certain place, methods and places not prohibited by scripture, then he is denying them, by default, the opportunity to hear the gospel.
They called that hyper-Calvinism. Putting a million dollars on the moon and saying “come get it if you can” is not a free offer of the million dollars.
Does that make more sense?
“they deny that the methods empolyed are unbiblical.”
That’s what they claim … then they don’t prove it. Then they give you some crap about the “regulative principle”.
“Also they do believe that it is every person duty to repent and believe.”
I guess you could say that. They believe in responsibility without ability. But in many cases, you will hear some variation of the following sentences from the ODMs:
“But if God does the calling, then there’s no need to do [insert creative method of evangelism] in order to win them.”
“You can’t persuade anyone to become a Christian, only God can.”
“If you use [insert creative evangelism method] to try to win them, then you get the glory, not God.”
All 3 of thos limitations on evangelism come directly from Calvinistic theology. Limiting your effort because God does the calling anyway. If he wants them saved, then he doesn’t need you to do anything special for that to happen. You can scream through a bullhorn, and if God wants them saved, he’ll use that to save them. But heaven forbid you use rock music or “seeker” methods to win them.
Sure, they’re not saying “don’t witness to them”, but they are saying “don’t witness to them that way” when there’s nothing wrong with “that way”. They just see it as unnecessary and “man centered”. The only way “that way” could be considered wrong is if it was considered in light of Calvinistic theology.
hmm, hope that made sense. That’s been my experience anyway.
If a person believes that God chose who would be saved then that person is a Calvinist. That is the core distinctive. The “hyper’ and other terms are irrelevant.
Did Christ die for the entire world and offer it to all sinners thereby exhibiting the universality of God’s redemptive love, or was His redemptive love limited?
Note to self: Don’t post shortly before you have to leave for church.
Ken, maybe I’m misinterpreting, but it seems that you are excusing the error of one group because you perceive it in others. To paraphrase my mom, if all the other anti-emergents jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?
Kyle, is it your contention, then, that when Spurgeon spoke of opinions that he wasn’t actually speaking of opinions? I can’t buy that — I respect his intellect too much to assume that he would be that sloppy in his word choice.
Brendt,
No, we would deconstruct it first… so there would be no bridge… (just a little humor)
iggy
I wouldn’t consider that “little”.
“I don’t care who ya are — that’s funny right there.”
Brendt,
have you ever heard Brian McLaren’s “bridge to no where” teaching… he shows a bridge in south America that used to cross a river, but after the floods the river was redirected so it goes around the bridge… the bridge is useless and is nothing more than an oddity that tourists come to see… He states that is often how Christianity is perceived… I am thinking more that the bridge is Ken’s bridge to no where… it crosses nothing and offers no one anything as far as getting anywhere…
Just a thought out loud…
iggy
I quote Larry the Cable Guy and you respond by talking about a neat sermon illustration.
You’re making me look stupid, iggy.