Category Archives: Cultural Calvinism

Why I Still Reject the Flower

Posted on by

I was just thinking, it’s not like me to not post on why I reject TULIP theology; and yet, I haven’t really posted any kind of provocative post in that vein for quite awhile — it’s like I’m almost going soft or something ๐Ÿ˜‰ .

Let me just re-affirm for those of you whom may be starting to think that Bobby is in fact going soft on popular TULIP soteriology; I AM NOT! I still think the TULIP presents serious and terrible consequences for anyone who internalizes it, and understands its theological implications. One of my primary pastoral concerns about the TULIP, is that it fosters an introspective navel-gazing spirituality (historically known as experimental predestinarianism). This is the practice wherein a totally depraved, unconditionally ย elected person seeks to verify that he/she has actually beenย limitedly atoned for, and thus a recipient of irressitable grace by discerning through their good works that they indeed are a persevering saint. If they reach a certain threshold, and sense that indeed they have met their perceived good works quota; then they can finally rest assured that they are of those who have truly believed, and have the assurance that they didn’t just receive a temporary faith, but a real and saving faith (practical syllogism). This is one of the main reasons, pastorally, that I believe that TULIP Calvinism is a blight on Christian theology. I know too many thinking, introspective Christians — who aren’t cock-sure types about their election — who have suffered psychological woes over the problem that this TULIP (and the Arminian FACTS) system has created. In fact, the fact that folks were having these psychological woes over this issue, because of the classical theistic paradigm, made me pause for a long time and take a good look at the heritage that this TULIP theology has handed to us. The reality is clear, there are pastoral problems, because there are dogmatic problems. TULIP theology suffers from a radically wrong doctrine of God, and since all subsequent theology flows from a respective doctrine of God; TULIP soteriology and thus spirituality is also heteropraxic. This is why I still reject the Flower. What about you, do you still like the smell of the tulip?

Here’s how a Purtian layman named Humphrey Mills felt once he found release from the TULIP theology taught to him by TULIP theologian par exellence, William Perkins (he found this release through the teaching of the Puritan, Richard Sibbes who taught a non-TULIP soteriology known as “Free Grace” or “Affective Theology”):

I was for three years together wounded for sins, and under a sense of my corruptions, which were many; and I followed sermons, pursuing the means, and was constant in duties and doing: looking for Heaven that way. And then I was so precise for outward formalities, that I censured all to be reprobates, that wore their hair anything long, and not short above the ears; or that wore great ruffs, and gorgets, or fashions, and follies. But yet I was distracted in my mind, wounded in conscience, and wept often and bitterly, and prayed earnestly, but yet had no comfort, till I heard that sweet saint . . . Doctor Sibbs, by whose means and ministry I was brought to peace and joy in my spirit. His sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons won my heart and refreshed me much, for by him I saw and had muchof God and was confident in Christ, and could overlook the world . . . My heart held firm and resolved and my desires all heaven-ward. (Ron Frost. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, eds., โ€œThe Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics,โ€ Frost is quoting from: John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tabernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653)

Caveat: To be very clear, I’m not attacking good Calvinist or Arminian people; I know there are sincere Christ loving people who are genuinely committed to TULIP Calvinism. In fact, my motivation and passion for this,ย is because I love these people, and I want to jolt them out of the slumberous spirituality that TULIP Calvinism leads someone into. Obviously, I’m very convinced that there is something really wrong with TULIP Calvinism; I think it fails on exegetical grounds as well as dogmatic/theological grounds, and thus impinges on people’s daily walks with Jesus Christ! TULIP Calvinism is much too popular in America for my liking, its over-communicated and under-communicated — just the fact that it’s communicated at all is a problem. My hope with posts like this, as snarky and punky as it is; is intended to provoke and pick a fight with anyone who endorses TULIP Calvinism. I want to fight over your doctrine of God and your subsequent view of salvation; I think it’s wacky, and (seriously) has real life consequences for folks that are not good (yet, it’s not the “consequences of belief” that shape my beef with TULIP Calvinism, it is TULIP Calvinism itself that is problematic). One more point: I am obviously not a pluralist or normative relativist (which qualifies my type of “Evangelicalism” ๐Ÿ˜‰ ); I actually believe that there is a more right view and a more wrong view, guess which side of those that I think I am on ๐Ÿ˜‰ ? I’m convinced of something, are you . . . ? [yet, I don’t also think I have it all figured out either]

Tim Warner on the origins of Calvinism and the Analogy of Being (sort of)

Posted on by

Watch this video by Pastor Tim Warner. I was made aware of Warner because a younger Christianย  I meet with has been listening to him lately; so I did a Youtube search for him, and came across this teaching that he is doing. Most of the video he discusses Calvinism and why he thinks it is basically of Pagan origins. And then interestingly he gets into a discussion on “General Revelation” and “History;” what I found curious, and disconcerting is the answer he gives to his question: (my paraphrase) “how can we best know God?” One student responds to him and says through “natural revelation” (and he says, basically that is right); but Warner’s primary mode for knowing who God is is by studying “history” (Biblical/OT). I was hoping that he was going to say by looking at Jesus, but he didn’t ๐Ÿ™ . Anyway, watch the video and let me know what you think. Let me know if you agree with what he says about Calvinism. [Also just notice, he assumes that the only ways, theologically, for thinking about sovereignty and human responsibility is somewhere in between the “only” real poles of classical Calvinism and Arminianism]

Jamie Smith on Calvinism as Christianity

Posted on by

Is Calvinism synonymous with Christianity? Or maybe Augustinian is actually what encapsulates what ‘Christianity’ actuall is? I think the language of ‘Calvinism’ helps to identify a particular tradition within Christianity, but I am not willing to go so far as to say that ‘Calvinism’ constitutes what Christianity is. It appears that Jamie Smith demurs here as well, at least with ‘Calvinism’; he though seems to make the same error by believing that we can reduce Christianity to the language of ‘Augustinian’ in lieu of ‘Calvinist’. Here’s what he says (he is commenting on how Kuyper approached this, and then Smith nods his head at Kuyper, in general):

I came to appreciate this rich, comprehensive understanding of Calvinism from its Dutch stream, and from Abraham Kuyper in particular. Indeed, Kuyper’s 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary — published simply under the title Calvinism — should be an essential part of your library. In his opening lecture, on Calvinism as a “life-system,” Kuyper cautions against reducing Calvinism to a specifically doctrinal matter, and to a specific doctrine in particular. “In this sense,” he notes, “a Calvinist is represented exclusively as the outspoken subscriber to the dogma of fore-ordination” (13). But as he points out, even ardent defenders of predestination such as Charles Hodge resisted the reduction of Calvinism to this one point, and thus preferred to describe themselves as “Augustinians” (as do I). In contrast, throughout these lectures Kuyper articulates Calvinism as, variously, a “complex,” a “life-system,” a “general tendency,” a “general system of life,” and, finally, a “world- and life-view.” As such, he doesn’t think Calvinism’s competitor is something like Arminianism, but radically different, comprehensive life-systems like Islam, Buddhism, and modernism. Every life-system, according to Kuyper, not only spells out how “I” can be saved but spells out an entire vision of and for the totality of human life, ultimately articulating an understanding of three “fundamental relations of all human life”: our relation to God, our relation to other persons (and human flourishing in general), and humanity’s relation to the natural world. And Calvinism, Kuyper claims, is nothing less than such a “complex,” such a “life-system.” Indeed, he thinks Calvinism was, in its own sense, revolutionary . . . . (James K. A. Smith, “Letters To A Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition,” 97-98)

There is much to be commended in what Smith (through briefly sketching Kuyper) has to say; especially in regards to reducing “Calvinism” to the ‘competitor’ of Arminianism as its sole offering to the theological world. Indeed, Smith even states that he can be critical of Kuyper in certain details; yet relative to Kuyper’s general thesis — about Calvinism (or Augustinianism) as “life-system” — Jamie Smith is in full agreement. I would want to demur at this point. While I believe that Evangelical Calvinism, for example, has something very significant and substantial to offer to Christendom; at the same time, I do not think that ‘EC’ is Christianity. Which for all intents and purposes, it does appear that Smith believes that ‘Calvinism’ is in fact Christianity (or that Christianity in its best form can be reduced to ‘Calvinism’); something in line withย sentiment thatย Charles Spurgeon preached:

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. (HT: TCC)

I agree with the idea of “life-system,” but I think we shouldn’t use ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Augustinian’ to capture this; instead we should replace that, in contradistinction fromย Smith’s accounting, with Christianity. In other words, ‘Christianity’ and ‘Calvinism’ are not synonymous, in my estimation. Yet, this seems to be the implication of what Smith is getting at. This kind of thought, in the end, only has the potential to bottom out in that ugly ditch called Sectarianism.

I think Smith’s devotion is laudable, for sure; I just think that in his zeal he overstates on the reach that ‘Calvinism’ provides relative to its ‘role’ (maybe as a corrective in its ‘Evangelical Calvinist’ form ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) in the broader river known as Christendom!

Is Bobby "Reformed", are you?

Posted on by

From what you know of me, or what you know of “Evangelical Calvinism;” would you say that I am “Reformed?”

I’m not going to define “Reformed,” I’ll leave that to you. I would really like to know what you think on this; be completely honest and open with me (be nice though ๐Ÿ˜‰ ). Maybe you consider yourself truly Reformed, or maybe you consider yourself truly Arminian, or maybe somewhere in between; so I would like to know where you would place me, maybe you think “EC” is actually more Arminian. Tell me what you think, and also tell me where you line up; I want you commit to something too (it’s much too easy to critique and not commit . . . you know what I mean?).

Of course, part of answering this question will depend upon how you/we define “Reformed;” that’s why I’m not going to define that for you (from my perspective), there is more than one way to skin that cat (well, for some).

This is one of those posts where I’m inviting all you lurkers to “un-lurk;” let your hair down, kick back, and come out of the closet ๐Ÿ˜‰ (so to speak).

PS. I just get this feeling that I have quite a few lurkers who either: (a) are totally confused about what EC actually entails, (b) are totally clear on what EC entails and believe that it is sub-par “Calvinism” (to be nice), (c) are up in the air on what EC and Reformed theology is in the first place, or (d) you fill in the blank . . .

PPS. This is not a trick post, I don’t have a theological hammer I’m waiting to swing; I’m sincerely interested in what you think about “EC”, and where it fits in the matrix of “Reformed” theology (or not).

Evangelizing Through the 'Decrees'

Posted on by

Lets talk about ‘evangelism’ for a second. Have you ever thought out of the lense that says: Jesus died for a, b, and c; but not x, y, and z? What practical effect does this have upon the way you approach people in your daily life (if you think this much, that is ๐Ÿ˜‰ )? Do you walk by people on the street and think: hmm, I know Jesus’ death was sufficient for every person I pass; but in fact unfortunately, I’m sure that I’m walking by people who it’s not efficient for (or do you think this much ๐Ÿ™‚ ).

My questions are honest here. One time I tried to appropriate the distinctions I mention above, and I actually tried to look at all the people I worked with through this lense. From a psychological perspective, the effect this had on me was seriously problematic. It zapped any confidence in sharing the Gospel with people in a free way. It made me think that the person I was sharing the Gospel with may only be one for whom the Gospel was only ‘sufficient’ for. Clearly, we would never know how this breaks down (which is the typical response to my queries); nevertheless, I think the emotional effect can be one that detracts from fulfilling the ‘Great Commision’. I wonder what you think . . .

All Kinds of Calvinists . . . save at least one

Posted on by

I found the following chart interesting. This is taken from The Contemporary Calvinist blog, who took it from Jason Robertson’s (Fide-0) wherein he attempts to outline the various strands of “Calvinism.” This is a typical mis-representation, and in fact revision (unconscious) of the history of Calvinism. It totally ignores the categories and trajectory set by Evangelical Calvinism; it pays no attention to the more popular Englishย version of Calvinism that Janice Knight in her book: Orthodoxies in Massachuesetts: Rereading American Puritanism calls The Spiritual Brethren [Richard Sibbes et al.] (vs. The Intellectual Fathers — Perkins, Aames, the ‘Westminsters’, et al.). Take a look at the chart for yourself, and let me know what you think; do you think it is under-representative of the broader swath that we know as Calvinism?:

Amyraldism
“Low” Calvinism		 Infralapsarianism
“Moderate” Calvinism		 Supralapsarianism
“High” Calvinism
Decree to Create Man Decree to Create Man Decree Election and Reprobation
Decree to Allow Fall Decree to Allow Fall Decree to Allow Fall
Decree Atonement for all men Decree Election and Reprobation Decree Atonement for Elect
Decree Election and Reprobation Decree Atonement for Elect Decree to Create Man

You see, this is one of the major problems Evangelical Calvinism is seeking to correct within ‘Calvinisms’ own self-understanding. Some people might wonder why this matters so much; why does it matter if Evangelical Calvinism gets a “place at the table,” so to speak? Why not finally admit that Evangelical Calvinism is really the invention of Thomas Torrance, and a superimposition of certain dogmatic categories that in the end are actually foreign to the actual history of Calvinism, itself? In other words, I would imagine that most “Calvinists” would simply assume that all of this talk here about “EC” is in fact just an invention; in fact, itself, an historical revision. Ultimately, and firstly, the reason this stuff matters is because the “truth matters” (even if itย hurts sometimes); and as people of the “truth” we want to make sure that we “shout it from the roof-tops!” But even so, even if we couldn’t ground Evangelical Calvinism within the variegated history of “Calvinism;” what it communicates isย  of that much more importance. In other words, the thoughts and teachings of “EC” are just Biblically and christocentrically and Trinitarianly and Evangelically faithful; and thus “EC” must be heard! It just so happens, though, that in fact all of these thoughts and doctrines and teachings have a pedigree — a geneology, if you will. These “ideas” didn’t just fall out of thin air, in fact they have “mind[s]” behind them (and not just Torrance’s ๐Ÿ˜‰ ).

Anywho, I thought Jason Robertson’s chart was interesting; in fact, sadly typical, but that’s why I wanted to show it to you — it’s one of the problems.

"Hard Teaching" Where'd it Go? More on Temporary Faith, Reprobation, and the Practical Syllogism

Posted on by

As we read further with R. T. Kendall he answers my question in my last post on where “Temporary Faith” went. Let’s follow along as Kendall describes the unfolding of this doctrine and how the pastoral implications of this teaching became the “hard teaching” of what we now commonly refer to as Calvinism:

The doctrine of temporary faith became the embarrassment, if not the scandal, of English Calvinism. The followers of Perkins claimed less and less for it so that it eventually presented no threat at all to the believer; William Ames gave its virtual demise a systematic sanction. This teaching seems to have begun with Calvin himself and to have been perpetuated especially by Perkins. Neither Calvin nor Perkins apologizes for a teaching that may seem to some as pastorally insensitive. This teaching depicts God as giving the reprobate, whom He never intends to draw effectually, but a ‘taste’ of His grace. Indeed, in the preface to Whether a Man Perkins claims that this temporary faith ‘proceedeth from the holy Ghost, but yet it is not sufficient to make them sound professor’. These men teach this doctrine simply because they find it in Scripture; to them it explains such passages as Matthew 7:21-3, Hebrews 6: 4-6, and the Parable of the Sower.

The thesis in Whether a Man is that a man may think himself regenerate when he is not, but a truly regenerate man ‘maie discerne’ that he is. In this connection Perkins employs 2 Peter I: 10 (‘Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall’), a verse he sees as the chief mandate for preaching generally as well as the formula by which Christians particularly may prove to themselves that they have the object of an effectual calling. The verse 2 Peter I: 10 may be safely called the biblical banner for the Perkins tradition; it stands out in bold relief on the title-page of Whether a Man and heads the list of Scriptures printed on the title-pages of his other works.

It is Perkins’s conviction, then, that the regenerate man may discern that he has the knowledge of saving faith, or assurance of election. Such knowledge Perkins calls ‘experimental’. The testimony of the Spirit is given by ‘an experiment’ that is not conjectural but ‘an infallible certenty of the pardon of sinne’. Perkins believes that 2 Peter I: 10 is to be related to one’s conscience. The conscience itself, he believes, takes effect in a man’s mind by a process of syllogistic reasoning. Conscience pronounces judgement ‘by a kinde of reasoning or disputing, called a practical syllogisme’. By the ‘practical syllogisme of the holy Ghost’ one may not only have ‘experimental certentie of the truth of the Bible’ but know ‘hee is in the number of the elect’. (R. T. Kendall, “Calvin And English Calvinism To 1649,” 7-8)

Again, I am struck by the lack of this kind of language and thinking amongst those who claim to be the heirs of folks like William Perkins and William Ames. I have interacted with plenty of contemporary Calvinists today, and read many of their writings (even their blogs); and I can honestly say that I have never heard the grammar that we are hearing described here. In other words, I don’t hear the language of temporary faith, experimental predestinarian, practical syllogism; and beyond that I don’t hear contemporary Calvinists stressing over whether they may or may not be one of the elect. I don’t see them trying to discern if they have a ‘real faith’ or a ‘temporary faith’; instead most typically assume the “positive side” of this equation, and just assume that they indeed are one of the elect — the negative piece, articulated by folks like Perkins, that they in fact could only “appear” to have a saving faith is really never engaged (I would suggest, at least with the Western psyche, that contemporary Calvinists are more socio/culturally “liberated” and “individualized” so that the notion of their “election” simply becomes an “understood reality” for them).

Even Kendall notes that teaching like this became a “scandal” for the Puritans and the implied pastoral concerns that this kind of teaching engendered; but instead of jettisoning this teaching these “divines,” like Perkins, came up with an elaborate system and procedure to counter the negative vacuum that things like “temporary faith” generated — so the creating of the mechanism known as the “practical syllogism.” I would like to see contemporary Calvinists truly embrace their heritage; consistently follow through on the logic of their “system;” and live out both the negative and positive sides of their teaching of double predestination. I doubt my humble “call” will produce anything, but hey, it’s worth a shot ๐Ÿ˜‰ . . .

Temporary Faith and the Reprobate, What Happened to It?

Posted on by

What has happened to the doctrine of temporary faith in the ‘Reformed Orthodoxy’ of today? I find it interesting that much of the ‘Reformed faith’ today really comes off much more sterile and modernized relative to the theology that they are supposedly carrying forward.

Below is a quote from R. T. Kendall describing the teaching of ‘temporary faith’ vis-a’-vis the reprobate. If what Kendall is describing is true, then again, I just wonder what has happened to the “Reformed faith?” Kendall is using William Perkins as the touchstone in regards to understanding how temporary faith was articulated by one of the Puritan’s best:

It is crucial to grasp Perkins’s doctrine of the temporary faith of the reprobate. While a rigid predestinarianism was not new to English theology, Perkins’s doctrine and use of the notion of temporary faith — the central idea in Whether a Man — was. Whether a Man actually begins with the assumption of the inalterable decree of reprobation. Its comprehensive title is given as a warning to professing Christians to examine themselves lest they happen to possess but a temporary faith — a lofty position to which the reprobate, though doomed from the start, may attain. In his preface Perkins cites the Parable of the Sower (Luke 8:4-15) and urges his readers to consider that a man ‘may seeme both unto himselfe and to the Church of God to bee a true professour of the Gospel, and yet indeede be none’. One may have the ‘certaine fruites’ that a true child of God has, be ‘perswaded in a generall and confused manner’, and still be unregenerate because of a definite number of such are so predestined from eternity. Whether a Man opens with ‘Certaine Propositions declaring how farre a man may goe in the profession of the Gospell, and yet be a wicked man and a Reprobate’. (R. T. Kendall, “Calvin And English Calvinism To 1649,” 6-7)

What has happened to this teaching today? What has happened to what once known as the Experimental Predestinarian faith? Is this teaching still alive and well amongst the ‘Orthodox Reformed’ today; or has this teaching been jettisoned for a more moderate and domestic form of this teaching — maybe these concepts are still alive, it’s just that the ‘OR’ have chosen to use a different vocabulary and grammar to articulate it?

I am really curious. If you are Classically Calvinist (or Federal in orientation), would you mind satisfying my curiousity on this issue?

Reading Calvin and some Ramblings on Calvinists

Posted on by

I am reading through Calvin’s Institutes right now, you would think that if I am going to write a chapter on Calvin I’d better have read Calvin’s “Institutes.” I have read large sectionsย of the Institutes, probably 2/3rds of it; but never read through the whole of it, from Book I to IV. I’ve also read many of his commentaries, little peeks into what in fact informed his thoughts in the Institutes.ย  And I’ve read his On Predestination; and then all kinds of secondary literature on him. So I’m notย totally naked when it comes to Calvin; nevertheless I still thought it would be important to actually read the “Institutes” through, and get the flow of his thought that way too.

Another quick point, I wonder how many people claim to be a Calvinist today; and yet have never read Calvin or at least good secondary stuff on him. I’ve found that many today, at a popular level, believe that their Calvinism is so congruent with Scripture, or vice versa; that reading Calvin or the history of how Calvinism developed turns out to be a waste of time. Are you one of these folks? So in other words these folks claim the points and doctrine and categories articulated by a whole continuum of development, i.e. Calvinist history (e.g. Post-Reformation stuff), that came to be known as Calvinism; but at the same timeย just end up saying that they came to the same conclusions that Calvin and the the Calvinists came to (if you follow the continuity arguement of Muller) by simply reading the Scriptures . . . huh? ๐Ÿ˜‰