**Comments back on, starting with this post**
What is it that draws Calvinists to Calvinism? I suppose there are an array of responses that could legitimately answer that question. This post is going to be a probing one, suggesting some hunches that I have towards 
answering this question — one word of clarification, the question is speaking of Calvinists who are Classic in orientation (you know, the “Westminster” Five-Point kind).
First off, and this is I am sure the response that these “kinds” of Calvinists would give, is that they are drawn to Calvinism (often out of other “theological traditions”) because it represents the “truth of God’s Word.” And I’ll just tip my hat to that one, and say, amen . . . I’m sure that’s the primary reason why any Christian follows any particular theological tradition (they believe it is true in best representing the teachings of scripture).
Now that we have cleared that one off the table, here is what I think “might” be a very strong force in drawing many folks into the labryinth known as Calvinism (and there is some overlap between the point I mention above and this one); what I think is that people are drawn to the culture of doctrinal stability that Calvinism has to offer. What I mean is that Classic Calvinism has scripture and doctrine hammered out; all a person has to do is read their particular confessions, canons, and catechisms. And it becomes very clear what we “believe” as Calvinists; in other words, it is all spelled out for easy consumption. This, beyond the naked fact that Calvinists simply believe what they believe because they believe it is biblical, is what I believe is so appealing — and thus endearing — to many folks in this regard.
So more than doctrine, although this is an inseparably related reality, I believe that many Calvinists are Classic Calvinists today because of the “culture” that it presents. There is a sense of historical continuity, and great Christian classics embedded within this tradition; thus for many who are looking for more substance (which is highly understandable given the state of “Evangelicalism”), Classic Calvinism offers a “stable-deep” way of being a Christian.
Unfortunately, I believe that the premises that this kind of Calvinism flows from, doctrinally (and thus culturally) is an illusion in many respects; and that the “biblicism” it appears to operate from, is actually a synthesis of an “metaphysic” that really does not serve the teachings of scriptures, but instead subsumes scripture with its own emphases and trajectories that lead many folks astray in regards to their daily spirituality. Here I am only hinting at some of the things I will be talking about further in the days to come . . .
Yes, I think there’s truth in that. However, I think the resurgence of Calvinism today allows for a little more leeway because many from the Charismatic side of things are embracing TULIP, leaving them with at least one area where they are breaking from tradition.
I think it fair to say, also, that you find the big teachers of Calvinism in evangelicalism today do not follow their Classic doctrine through to the conclusions that the more legalistic smaller teachers and church members do. For example, I’ve been suprised on more than one occassion by John Piper’s refusal to follow traditional Westminster Calvinistic thought because he believed the Bible teaches something else. Tim Keller teaches an approach to Christianity that is incredibly Christ-centred (though he weighs heavy on the cross and less so on the incarnation). And some younger teachers incorporate thinking from outside of traditional Calvinistic thought which combats some of the concerns you have raised.
Still, as a system of theology, it’s interesting to read your critique (now I’m beginning to understand it more), and a lot of what I’ve read seems justified. I believe you’ll find more people resonating with your critique without necessarily wanting to throw the whole system out the window.
As for me…I’m still exploring. Very interested in Jesus.
Ali,
Good points.
It is interesting, amongst some of the more pop. Calvinists today (like the ones you mention); there is more of an appropriation (pastoral) of the Puritan themes vs. a consistent following through of those themes. Although I’ve listened to Piper now and again, and he sounds very “experiemental predestinarian.” I.e. Very consistent with classic Puritan thought.
Ali, per your last paragraph, I hope you’re right. The biggest difference between EC and FC is a shift from centering everything on and in Christ vs. on dualisms like Christ and the “the elect.” EC wants to ground everything ‘in Christ’ (everything); and wants to press the homoousion and hypostatic union to their logical conclusions per the supremacy of Christ. So, indeed, alot of what EC is about is not to change the grammar or language, but to reframe it through a ‘Christ conditioned’ everything π .
The stability offered by Calvinist tradition can become an idol quite easily when I start to say “Well, Calvin taught this, so it must be true” or “Well, the interconnected TULIP points all mesh so well that I cannot bear to examine this possibly weak one because if it proves to be faulty, then I might actually have to study the Bible for myself to see what it really says…” (how’s that for a run-on sentence?).
To be honest, the lazy streak in me LOVES the idea of being able to just grab a pre-fab statement of faith and sign my name to the bottom. I do tend to feel more comfortable with my choice when I’m able to see that someone I highly respect also believes the same things.
But I had to learn the hard way that there’s really no such thing as second-hand faith, regardless of who’s it is. People make mistakes. True stability comes from abiding in Christ alone.
That cartoon cracks me up. π
I like this:
“True stability comes from abiding in Christ alone.”
Yeah, the cartoon is humurous π .