Why? Why? Why do I disdain classic Calvinism and Arminianism so much? Do I think it’s a game, and I just like to play “I’ll joust you games on the internet;” does this make my world go round? NO! I disdain classic Calvinism and Arminianism (classical theism for short, and through the rest of the post labeled CT) because it places people in bondage; people I love, YOU! My close family members! My family members in the church (even our local church, and we attend a Calvary Chapel of all places)! Some people must think I have a vendetta against CT; I do! Why? Am I disgruntled with it? Yes! Why? Because there are people I love (both known and unknown) who are trying to live through the strictures that the God of CT (Calvinism & Arminianism) has placed them in; a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1), and they’ve been conditioned to think that this is God’s freedom. These people I love live in a matrix that has conditioned them to think that their Calvinist-Arminian God (or maybe just their ‘Evangelical’ God) is a God who is defined by his ‘power’ and by his ‘Law’; and further, they have been cajoled into thinking that God is a navel gazer, or more explicitly that ‘God is for God’—or that God is inward curved, and that this inward curvature (or inward fixation) defines God’s glory. People I love and care for deeply have submitted themselves to this God, and, for some it is costing them their lives, their sanity, their hope. This is why I disdain Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s because I love YOU!
Athanasian Reformed
๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ท๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ข๐. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ.
I will be following this post with what classical theism is more fully; this is common knowledge in the theological literature, but not so much amongst the regular Christians (and they’re the ones being impacted the most by it).
There is also a word in order for the title of this post; it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I am playing love off of hate (which is probably a little stronger than what is the reality … disdain, as I use through the body of the post is more apropos—but my disdain is very high!). I should also say that I also still respect many many Calvinists; and have many friends (well I did ๐ ) who are Calvinists (and some Arminian), of the classic flavor. But this post is my heart.
So, how much of your disdain is driven by experience?
Bondage? People don’t often latch onto movements in such large numbers if they perceive bondage. The typical conversion testimony to Reformed theology (and I’ve heard a lot of them) is marked by freedom and joy, not bondage. Maybe they are too naive to really perceive the underlying bondage! It’s really unfortunate that you’ve had such negative experiences…maybe it’s something in the Pacific water or something! I live in (and was raised in) the mother city of Southern Presbyterianism — Charlotte, NC — and my experiences are quite different, and (yes) that shapes my perception as well. We’ve had this discussion before, Bobby, but I thought I would register a dissenting opinion for any other readers. I have my complaints about Thomist theology as well, because I’m more of a Kantian than I care to admit, not because I think there’s a foreign god of bondage at work in classic theism. The difficulties relating to God’s works, will, and desire still remain in Torrance, even if they are (rightly) better articulated in fully Trinitarian categories. As I see it, both Barth and Torrance mark a decisive improvement, to be sure, but not as if they were able to “solve” the mystery of particularity. Of course, Barth himself had to get as close to contradicting himself as possible! That shows how insurmountable these difficulties are, so we can be a little more gracious to Matt Chandler and the rest of the YRR crowd.
Hi Bobby,
Rest assured, we love you too!
I like this confession or testimony. I have said before that a person typically will dance with the one who brung ya. So an Arminian will most likely so remain, and a Classic Calvinist and so-forth. As a free-gracer born of the the Florida Bible College subspecies, I have felt bound to defend salvation free of works above all else. second, I have felt driven to defend both the not yet saved against a god who picks people without any known criterion, for destruction, and moreover to defend the true God against defamatory speech that He could be such a God.
A final motivation is still in the shadows: to know how I am to understand union with Christ impacts my walk with and growth in Him. As I have been chronically disappointed and disilusioned with my own performance, or faithfulness (fidelity) and faithlessness (unbelief), I wonder how better understanding of His life in me and my life in His can either improve my faith and walk, or maybe refocus it (if looking at my own work at all “each one examine himself” is wrong).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that with which you are disgruntled addresses all that disgruntles me. Eh?
@Kevin,
Yes, we have had this convo more than once before. And yes my experience is certainly involved; I would say at this point that it would be strange if it wasn’t. But that’s somewhat the point of this, Kevin. It’s that experiences have beliefs and practice behind them or in them; which gives rise to the experience. Ultimately, I think there is a substantial difference, though between T. F. Torrance, Barth, and classic Calvinists. Barth follows an actualistic metaphysic, TFT an onto-relational, and the classics a substance metaphysics. I know McCormack still thinks that TFT basically is a Thomist, simply because TFT has a ‘metaphysics’ at play in his doctrine of God etc. But I think that that is overwrought, and I disagree with that. I don’t think these are tangential issues to a Christian spirituality, and thus my disdain for Westminster Calvinism. I have a whole history, Kevin, to point to in regards to an actual outworking of real Westminster Calvinist doctrine; the Puritans. True we no longer live in an ecclesiopolitical situation as they did (which can explain, to me, why so many Calvinists simply don’t feel the fall out or weight of their own system of thought–but some do! I’ve heard from them over the years), but, the doctrine, with ‘some’ development is still there. Are you telling me, Kevin, that a God who is shaped by power and Law is not going to have a substantial life altering impact on the way that folk experience and walk with God? Versus a God who is by ‘being’ and ‘persons’ triune Love and personal? This is the cross-roads that I am at in this, and I do see a black and white difference; how do you not, if indeed you don’t?
PS. I also don’t see, at this point, how I’ve been ungracious to Chandler. If I believe he is in error that is not good for his Christian walk—and I do—then the gracious thing for me to do, from my angle, is to call him and others out. I don’t see how I’ve been ungracious in what I’ve said thus far, though.
@Duane,
Yes,absolutely … all of this has to do with real life Christians and not just academic articulation all the time. That’s what this post recognizes, and why I felt compelled to write it. Also, because I am pressed up against this issue once again in my own life for personal reasons—which to me is not a strange thing to say; I know many academics want to keep things more sterile than this, but that’s not my mode—my mode is way more pastoral than that at the end of the day!
I changed the title, because I’m afraid that folk who stumble across my blog and don’t know me that well won’t understand what I’m really after here; so I’ve now made the title as specific and clear as I know how to.
And plus hate is very strong; I used it originally to contrast it with the other modifier in the title of the post ‘love’.
Bobby,
I just did a string of readings through the Puritans for a class, and I’m really not seeing a “God who is shaped by power and Law,” except insofar as the Law underscores the beauty and utter graciousness of the Cross as the fulfillment (not abolition) of the Law on our behalf. I’m going to do a post on the Puritans, but for now here is a snippet from Samuel Rutherford, a letter he wrote on assurance:
“What if Christ had such tottering thoughts of the bargain of the new covenant, betwixt you and him, as you have? Your heart is not the compass Christ saileth by. …Faith hath not a vote beside Christโs merits: blood, blood, dear blood, that came from your Suretyโs holy body, maketh that sure work.” (The Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 87)
For spiritual counsel, Rutherford points outward, to Christ and his work, for assurance, not inward. “Your heart is not the compass Christ saileth by”…Amen!
@Kevin,
Have you read William Perkins? Other than TFT and Barth, now, I have spent the most time with the Puritans since my former prof and mentor Ron Frost (in seminary) was/is a Puritan expert. I don’t think Puritan history is monolith (of course that’s the usual gloss provided by someone like Perry Miller’s influential reading of the history; one that Janice Knight takes to task successfully in my mind, and then Ron Frost does also in his PhD disseration out of King’s University of London). Rutherford has some good things to say (which TFT even notes in his “Scottish Theology”); but then there is always Perkins and Ames and others in what Knight labels The Intellectual Fathers Calvinists/Puritans V. her The Spiritual Brethren (like Sibbes Cotton et al). There are different trajectories, Kevin; I see EC hearkening back to a trajectory in Scottish Theology that would fit better with Knight’s ‘Spiritual Brethren’ label. I am somewhat surprised that my understanding of a God of power/law is lost on you; this seems to be a pretty common perception (and I think for good reason).
Sounds like a little conflation of evangelical with Cal/Arm.
Sounds like a little conflation of evangelical with evangelicalism as it currently is in the US (in which case, I agree with you).
Sounds like a misunderstanding of Arm, imho.
Sounds like we are of one mind re Cal. The doctrine course of my MA was taught by an Augustinian-Calvinist (theologian and lawyer – bad combo, but understandable as to why he is a dedicated Cal), and used Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology as the sole text. I have never had a more difficult year – I came to hate Calvinism with a new passion, and I find it very difficult to be irenic when it comes to discussing Cal. It prizes being highly systematized, but maligns the name and character of God and many reject him for what he is not rather than what he is. Sorry all.
Which, Bobby, is what makes me surprised you are EC, for in that you are either lying about your disdain, or you are not Calvinist. Which is it? I am finishing up TFT’s Mediation of Christ (? – at work; book is not in front of me) and it was interesting to hit the point where his precommitment to Cal came in to play and, imho, he made some unfounded assumptions and went askew.
Interesting thread!, but which is it?
@Trin,
I think I’ve been around these here woods for long enough to understand both classical Arminianism and Calvinism; the reason you might think that I misunderstand Arm. might be because I often lump classic Calvinists and Arminians together because of their common link with classical theism and substance metaphysics. There might be a material difference between the two tribes, but there is a common formal relationship at the very point I just noted. The material difference would come in at the level of emphasizing particular loci within the disparate internal systems themselves; but again, they have way more in common (i.e. their substance/monad God), than different (at the formal level). So no, I don’t misunderstand Arm. And this would be a response to your charge of conflation as well. Yes and No, based upon what I just said.
As far as the charge of lying … Wow! Have you checked our roster of authors for the book? Have you checked their credentials (which actually do mean something)? I think you’re reading of all of this i.e. ‘EC’ is way too premature! I can understand the confusion, but it is really really important to understand, Trin, that Calvinism has a variegated history and pedigree. A prof who mentored me in school and out of school (during seminary), Dr. Ron Frost, did his PhD at King’s College, London University; he is a historical theologian, and in particular, a Puritan scholar/expert. His dissertation (which I can send you if interested) was on what he called the Divided House of English Puritanism, and he juxtaposed the two sides (Richard Sibbes and ‘The Spiritual Brethren’ and William Perkins and ‘The Intellectual Fathers’—see Janice Knight who originally makes this distinction—the latter would be the current day 5 pointers, the former not. The former were the orthodox Calvinists at one time, the latter were not). In other words, Trin, it is a big mistake (but understandable, given our context today) to presume that to be a Calvinist is necessarily tied down to the 5 points, or even the Westminster Standards (to the chagrin of the post-Reformed orthodox today). Calvinism’s history is much deeper than you seem to give it credit. Note what Hesselink says on this point:
All this not withstanding, we are also children of the Reformation with its recovery of certain evangelical themes: the Word alone, by grace alone, and by faith alone. More particularly, we are a part of a specific Reformation tradition known as Reformed or Presbyterian. Although many in this tradition call themselves โCalvinists,โ others do not rally around the five points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints (often referred to by the acronym TULIP). These so-called points do not come from Calvin but from the Canons of Dort, which were composed in the Netherlands over fifty years after Calvinโs death. The Reformed tradition does not stem from Calvin alone. Before him there were other Reformed reformersโZwingli, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Farel, to name only a fewโand there were others who worked with him or were indebted to him such as Bullinger, Knox, and Beza. [I. John Hesselink, On Being Reformed, 89] See this post here.
I have much more to add, Trin. But this should suffice. Noone is lying here; we are all very serious, and in fact the usage of EC moniker is taken from TFT (I’ll do a post with his usage of that from his book Scottish Theology later). In fact, Scottish Theology, or what we have called it with TFT Evangelical Calvinism, is another thread of the Calvinist history. And so again, you are premature in your judgment; there is simply much more to this. I have some other books for you to take a look at that will broaden this out for you, the history; and then you’ll have to wait for our book and see how we discuss the definitional aspects of EC in our introduction.
As far as TFT being wrong in his ‘Mediation’ (which I’m glad you’re reading); you’ll have to let me know what you think that is, then I’ll let you know if it is actually wrong or not ๐ .
Bobby –
The charge was a bit tongue in cheek, kinda like your post – I just didn’t know how to add the winkey smiley. Forgive me.
I am obviously confused as to how you can be a Calvinist yet not hold to the five points. Perhaps you hold to some, just not all? Perhaps you would hold to Calvin’s doctrines more directly/purely? But these do not seem to conflict with the 5 points. And if this is the case, why be Calvinist at all?
Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of Godโs will-what later Calvinists have called Godโs decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)
I concur with Olson, “Calvinโs all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.” If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil (even as only absences and not substances) why not praise God for sin and evil? They are, after all, his will and necessary for his full glorification. In fact, why is anything considered truly evil in the Calvinist account of God and creation?
Central to Calvin is that God foreordains and renders certain everything without exception for his glory. So to hold that heresy (for example) diminishes or reduces Godโs glory by robbing God of some of his glory, the Calvinist falls into contradiction. Both beliefs cannot be held at the same time. Calvinist’s will say that some beliefs (e.g., panentheism) detract from Godโs glory and that is why they should be opposed. They diminish and detract from Godโs glory. They dishonor God. But they also believe that God foreordains everything without exception for his glory. So God foreordained panentheism – for his glory. That a panentheist is a panentheist was foreordained and rendered certain by God for his glory…a sheer logical contradiction.
There are many similar issues to consider, but I only mention these to try to determine what it is that makes you a Calvinist if it is not the 5 points? if it is not these things? What is it?
And again, apologies. I’ll try to figure out how to post the smilies. ๐ (attempt #1)
Ha! It worked! ๐ (attempt #2)
Hi Bobby and Trin!
Trin, I had the same stumbling block as you when I first began studying what Bobby was proposing (at Rose’s and Michelle’s and KC’s). I still have doubts about the real Calvin, not having read Institutes myself. Without a doubt, all present reject the god you describe above, in fact the description itself repulses me. I was not saved by a god who’s prime directive was personal glory, like so many little caesars. I too wonder why they (say going forward from Torrance) didn’t coin a different descriptive label. Bobby (not speaking past you Bobby, I’m aware you’re reading this as well) has even wrote that they are not proposing a new movement of Calvinism, just a different “mood”. To me, EC is more like the American Republic compared to King George’s England. I know that this isn’t smoke and mirrors, but there is still a corner of me reserved in case Myk Habets or somebody does a flanking move and ends up saying, “well, it isn’t explicit, but there is no way around personal election…” In fact, I remember one comment, where Myk said to Bobby something like “I believe in election, don’t you?”. I considered that maybe he was being coy, ironic or maybe he and Bobby were not exactly on the same page. I’m pretty certain now, that he was referring to the election of Christ.
I’ll give them this: They don’t shy from the name, even though it is repulsive on its face to most of us to whom their theology appeals. So they are not politically correct to those who might be otherwise attracted, and they are certainly not politically correct to those who assume that they themselves own title to the label “calvinist”.
First, I am very new to this discussion, so I am a little behind re EC. Thank you (all) for your patience. However, Bobby introduced me to TFT, for which I am grateful and now curious as to what this EC is about.
But there must be some resemblance to Calvin/Calvinism at some point to use that identifier. Otherwise, why use it? Words have meaning. If Calvin/Calvinism is not incorporated, why use it? Is there some academic legitimacy that is ascribed only by staying in that camp? Is it that we ‘need’ to remain ‘Calvinist’ for some reason, but what we really mean by Calvinist is not really Calvin/Calvinist? There are certain fundamentals that comprise Calvins thinking. To say you don’t accept Calvin’s statements, some of which I have mentioned, that you abhor them, then what makes you a Calvinist? If you reject those, what exactly is it you do accept? It would seem to be at that point one is no longer a Calvinist.
So I am trying to understand just what is the connection between EC and Calvin. Which part of this thinking that developed in Scotland at the same time as Calvinist thought is the same as Calvinist thought? Bobby says it is different; I’m just not understanding where/how.
Duane – as I’m sure you’re aware, Arminians also believe in election; they just mean something different by it than Calvinists, and to me that is a key difference between the two views. And…we’re back to the importance of definitions again, aren’t we! ๐
@Trin,
It seems like you almost didn’t read my comment on the historical development of Calvinism. And it’s almost like you didn’t catch what Calvinist scholar Hesselink wrote. You also seem to be assuming something that all Calvin and Calvinist scholars would reject to one degree or another; i.e. that Calvin and Calvinism or post-Reformed orthodoxy are one in the same (i.e. there is a difference between being Calvinian and Calvinist)—someone no less than Calvin scholar Richard Muller would reject the one to one correspondence that you see between Calvin and Calvinism (although he would certainly try to argue that there is no real discontinuity between Calvin and the Calvinists … he just argues that the distinction is one of method (i.e. Calvinists followed Ramist logic) V. Calvin’s more confessional style (which Partee does a great job of developing in his book on Calvin. Speaking of Partee, you ought to read his book on The Theology of JOhn Calvin; he makes an excellent case that one of Calvin’s central contributions to theology is his unio mystica union with Christ theology. This is the piece that Scottish Theology and us Evangelical Calvinists are emphasizing as what is central to our view of election and participationist theology; this is all over in Calvin! At the end, Calvin’s theology offers more than one trajectory to be developed; he offers a wax nose, since again, as Partee and even Muller would affirm, his theological method (like in the Institutes) is Confessional and not logico-deductive schemata like the post Reformed Calvinists that you seem to be collapsing back into Calvin (which I think is anachronistic).
Here’s a quote from John Crocco on Calvin’s multi-valence and thus capacity to be developed in various strains of Calvinism (EC presses one of the central pieces of Calvin’s thought ‘union with Christ’ and method ‘confessional’):
Although the usefulness of the Westminster Confession or Schleiermacher for modern theological work has been debated, it is hard to imagine a Reformed theologian not wanting to honor Calvin as the great thinker of the Protestant Reformation. The challenge for American theology comes into focus when Calvin is invoked as an important predecessor in the theological programs articulated by people as diverse as Joseph Haroutunian, William Pauck, Cornelius Van Til, James M. Gustafson, and Serene Jones. Whose Calvin? Which Calvinism? The cynical answer to both questions is: whichever Calvin I need! The more reasoned answer acknowledges that Calvin can and does support a variety of seemingly contradictory claims based on the theories of doctrinal development associated with his thought. That Calvin wrote on nearly every biblical, theological, and ethical topic has given later scholars plenty of opportunities to link their agendas to the Great Reformer. In that sense, in addition to having a wax nose, Calvin also is a mirror that reflects the particular beliefs and agendas of those who claim him for their own. In the twentieth century, Calvin was claimed for and against the inerrancy of scripture, the doctrine of limited atonement, double predestination, the ecumenical movement, democracy, natural theology, womenโs ordination, abortion rights, freedom of conscience, and many other things. When โproperly understood for our times,โ Calvin stood for just about anything. (Quoting from: Stephen D. Crocco in: โJohn Calvinโs American Legacy,โ ed. Thomas J. Davis from his chapter 7, โWhose Calvin, Which Calvinism? John Calvin and the Development of Twentieth-Century American Theology,โ p. 168-69)
I’ve written so much on this, Trin; you just need to take the time of going back and reading my posts. Just check my categories: Evangelical Calvinism, Critiquing Classic Calvinism, and John Calvin.
@Duane,
Yes, Myk would’ve been referring to Jesus’ election.