Category Archives: 5 Point Calvinism

The non-Purity of the Calvinist ‘Gospel’

Posted on by

Does the Bible ever demand that someone become a Calvinist or an Arminian? Does the scope and focus of Scripture, Jesus Christ and God’s life (John 5.39), require that Christians in the pew or the pulpit read it through the lenses developed from the medieval era of the church? For large, large swaths of Christians, in America, this is exactly the scenario. Either we must read Scripture through the five points of Calvinism (in general), or we must read it through the five points of the Arminians. My question with all of this has always been, and continues to be; why?

Just because Scripture has passages of in it that seem to suggest that Jesus died for his sheep, or his church, etc. Or just because Scripture has passages in it that say that Jesus is the Savior of all men, or that he died for all. Does this then require that because Calvinism and Arminianism have constructed grammar that sounds similar to what these passages purport to teach, at “face value,” then the next step is to assume that we must go with either/or Calvinism or Arminianism? This continues to be the bane of the conservative Evangelical church’s existence. That is, this false dilemma.

The issue, ultimately isn’t if Calvinism or Arminianism have grammar that “sounds” like what Scripture says on issues like limited atonement, election, etc. But instead the focus should be on discerning whether or not Scripture’s apparent pronouncements and those made by Calvinists and Arminians are actually correlative. This discernment process entails spending time evaluating the philosophical and theological implications of what is in fact informing the formation of Calvinism and Arminianism. And this presupposes that, in fact, there is a distinction to be made between Calvinist/Arminian exegetical conclusions, and the conceptual matter that in fact, a priori, informs said exegesis.

This is a set-up post for another one that will be shortly forthcoming. My next post on this will be to post and respond to some questions one of my best friends has sent me via email. He is seriously entertaining 5 point Calvinism; in fact he is pretty much persuaded of it. I have my hands full in trying to constructively dissuade, and I will be inviting you, my humble readers, to help me do that πŸ™‚ .

A ‘Round’ Calvin a la Torrance a la Heron

Posted on by

Here is a quote from TF Torrance on how he believed John Calvin contributed to the theological world, and thus how he would think of how “Calvinists” have used Calvin in the wrong ways, and for wrong ends; essentially muting the seismic Calvin into the tremor Calvin that is only allowed to shake to rhythms presented by classic Calvinism of today and even yesterday. True, Richard Muller and other post-Reformed orthodox Calvinists like David Steinmetz have placed Calvin in Context, but whose context? You should read the whole essay that I pilfer this quote from, from Heron; he might provide you with a more round understanding of Calvin, and then of course Torrance’s appropriation of Calvin.

It belongs to the great merit of John Calvin that he worked out the difficult transition from the mediaeval mode of thinking in theology to the modern mode, and placed the theology of the Reform on a scientific basis in such a way that the logic inherent in the substance of the Faith was brought to light and allowed to assume the mastery in human formulation of it. Calvin has not always been interpreted like this, yet if he has been misunderstood, perhaps it was his own greatness that was to blame. Calvin made such a forward advance in theological thinking that he outstripped his contemporaries by centuries, with the result that they tended to fall back upon an old Aristotelian framework, modified by Renaissance humanism, in order to interpret him. Thus there was produced what history has called β€˜Calvinism’, the rigid strait-jacket within which Calvin’s teaching has been presented regularly to succeeding generations.” (Theology in Reconstruction, 76.) (Alasdair Heron quoting TFT in his essay at “Participaito” Vol. 2, p.46 fn. 2)

‘American Revolutionary spirit‘: Should You Repent?

Posted on by

I was just reading the book The Search For Christian America (which is an excellent book, if you haven’t read it, and you suffer from grandeurs of delusion about Americana’s genesis as a “Christian nation;” then you must read this book, it will cure you of such flights of fancy), and wouldn’t you know it; but I came across a few paragraphs that touch upon the impact that the American Revolution had upon attitudes towards five point Calvinism, in particular, and Theology in general. It notes that after the American Revolution, how people’s attitudes in general took on an individualistic bravado that sought to sluff off any kind of theological shackles that might stand in the way of self realization; an attitude by the way that would make our own Glenn Beck very proud today. Let me quote at length (you will catch something else in the quote which I will comment on briefly afterwords):

[I]n this period one finds evidence of a similar revolt against each of the so-called five points of Calvinism, a revolt that had implications far beyond the importance of Calvinism itself. For it was directed against the entire belief that the heritage of the church could be an important aid for the present. Calvinism, which was the dominant theological tradition in colonial America, merely happened to be the first to get in the way.

Just as notions of total depravity did not stand up well to the belief that individuals were capable of shaping their own destiny, so “unconditional election” seemed to deny that men were fully capable of determining the course of their own lives. The antidemocratic tendency of the doctrine of election emerged even more clearly in the idea of a “limited atonement,” that Christ’s death was somehow restricted to those whom God elected to salvation. Similarly, the concept of “irresistable grace” seemed to make God a tyrant of uncontrollable power, just that from which Americans had fought to free themselves. Finally, the focus on volitional commitment as the primary human obligation made the idea of the “perseverance of the saints,” that we are sustained by the choice of another, irrelevant, if not contradictory.

In short, Calvinism was being dropped not in response to theological arguments but because it violated the spirit of Revolutionary liberty. During the early history of the United States self-evident principles of democracy persuaded any number of former Calvinists to strike out for a new faith. One who did so was the Free-Will Baptist minister William Smyth Babcock, who found Calvinism antithetical to democractic common sense. He spoke of its “senseless jargon of election and reprobation” and concluded that it had covered salvation “with a mist of absurdities.” “Its doctrine is denied in the Practice of every converted soul in the first exercises of the mind after receiving liberty.”

This revolt meant not just the replacement of an older Calvinist system with a newer Arminian one. It was rather a revolt against theological systems in general, the whole creedal and confessional structure of the church, and the idea of God’s truth being mediated by educated theologians. “We are not personally acquainted with the writings of John Calvin,” two colleagues of Barton Stone, founder of the Church of Christ, admitted, “nor are we certain how nearly we agree with his views of divine truth; neither do we care.” Stone himself not only rejected traditional formulation about the Trinity, but also dismissed the whole subject as irrelevant: “I have not spent, perhaps, an hour in ten years thinking about the trinity.”

In the early republic, popular theologies, claiming to be based exclusively on the Bible, refused to grant any value to the theological work of those who had gone before. Theological systems of any stripe became suspect, and common people came to think that one could in fact be biblical without being theological. . . . [Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search For Christian America, (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1989), 118-19]

It seems that the “Revolutionary spirit” is still alive and well for many American Evangelicals. Surely five point Calvinism can be taken to task on theological grounds, but it is interesting to see how the socio can impact postures and attitudes for the populace towards particular theological traditions. What stands out to me the most, from above, is the last paragraph; this seems to stamp large swaths of American Evangelical Christians. That is, the idea that they can be a good biblical Christian without also “confusing” themselves with the theological intracacies that would seem to stand in the way of them realizing their personal best and actualized American Christian selves. I often wonder why there seems to be such a lack of value placed upon theological education, or even those of us who are theologian types, within the Evangelical ghetto; so what is sketched above provides some perspective on the kind of psycho-social that gives rise to this kind of disdain for thinking deeply upon the contours of what it means to be a Christian. Unfortunately this is commentary on my own Evangelical tradition and sub-culture.

Americans are interesting people. American Christians even more so. I wonder how Revolutionary you are this 4th of July; do you think you might need to repent?