I would like to take some time to address a recent Facebook post I was sent. This is only to point out some of the common things mentioned against Calvinism, often when someone is trying to persuade others to not even consider if it is biblical. –Reject it and repeat what you have heard against it, even if you have not read, studied, or verified if what is being said about a certain belief is correct or biblical (or unbiblical). This is not helpful. Especially when it comes to doctrines that godly preachers and teachers have held, discussed, debated, and written about for decades upon decades.
The post begins with: “I truly believe Calvinism is a doctrine of demons.” The author goes on to explain: “Anything that fundamentally distorts the character of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, definitely belongs in that category.” However, those who disagree with the author’s views could likewise say they are teaching a doctrine of demons. This does not aid in the conversation. Especially if the author (and others) still quotes Calvinists such as Charles Spurgeon (and others) when convenient. Why quote “a doctrine of demons” pastor or teacher? Maybe they don’t. All this just makes the unfamiliar scared of any association.
The next point is related to the post being written “with love” and “not to win arguments.” However, the topic is already laced with strong (some very strong) emotions, opinions, but also countless theological debates and books. So, whether intended or not, any such post (especially on social media) will attract arguments, debates, and a host of who knows what. And because of human nature, often what we post is not as innocent as we believe or want it to be. It often comes down to “I am right” and “you are wrong” – “here’s why.”
After defining what they believe is “what Calvinism teaches” the author lays out a key to his real (or initial) problem with the -ism. “Now here is where everything shifted for me. It was not digging into these doctrines that first convinced me something was deeply wrong. It was examining the fruit of the life of the man who systematized them.” –So, one simple note about this thought. The teachings of Calvinism (which many prefer to call Particular Baptist, Reformed theology, Doctrines of Grace, etc.) do not rise and fall on Calvin. They existed before, during, and after Calvin’s time, and Calvin himself did not come up with the 5-points. Therefore, it would be better to examine beliefs and doctrines in light of (holy) scripture rather than (sinful) man.
A note about Michael Servetus. He was not “arrested, tried for heresy, and burned alive” merely for rejecting Calvinism or debating Calvin. He denied the Trinity and other orthodox Christian doctrines, which was considered a capitol offense at the time by Catholic and Protestant authorities. And the execution was carried out by Geneva’s civil government. I would recommend further reading of such an account to get the complete historical context, instead of trying to use it to vilify Calvin (alone) by a modern America viewpoint.
The author continues this thought, noting how can such a system market itself as “doctrines of grace” when I suppose Calvin showed no grace in (taking part) in Servetus’ burning. Even noting, “Can you imagine Christ ordering the arrest and execution of those who challenged His teaching?” Two points here: (1) The Jews were given laws and commandments on how to address heretics (those who denied, rejected, taught contrary to the revealed word of God). (2) Grace is and has been given, and at some point, those who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ will be burned in hell (the lake of fire) for all eternity. So, again, it is the individual’s viewpoint of whether these arguments (in modern America), when applied to Calvin and Jesus, prove their point or not. Stating what we think Jesus would, should do (from a modern American mindset) only proves how we think he should be or act. Jesus came as a savior (lamb) but returns as a judge (lion). We must be careful declaring WWJD (what would Jesus do) just to fit our narrative.
So, it is reiterated: “Once that becomes clear, Calvin’s theology can no longer be approached as neutral or trustworthy.” Therefore, it must be repeated. The Doctrines of Grace do not stand or fall with Calvin. His writings were products of his understandings of scripture. The same with any pastor, teacher, author who expounds on the word of God (whether biblically or unbiblically). Let God be true, but every man a liar.
Again, we are told: “Please hear my heart. I am not writing this to create division.” Yet the post began with a picture of someone burning at the stake with the caption: “Murderous Roots of Calvinism” – vilified Calvin – stated Calvinism is not trustworthy. What else was to be expected, unless one is only speaking within their own echo chamber? We must be honest with ourselves when/where/how we start such conversations (posts, etc.).
Then we are pointed to a (honest) non-Calvinist author. They acknowledge “He is not the final authority. Scripture is. But he is a clear and accessible teacher for those willing to look closely.” Others would no doubt argue that there are plenty of honest, clear, accessible teachers who teach the Doctrines of Grace.
The author ends with: “Be cautious of institutional dogma that demands loyalty before truth. Be a Berean and search the Scriptures for yourself. Trust the Holy Spirit within you to guide you as you submit to the Word. Do not be impressed by titles, platforms, eloquence, or credentials. These carry no spiritual weight.” But it has already been concluded that your search in Scripture should not, could not, will not lead you to believe anything of Calvin’s theology (i.e. Particular Baptists, Reformed theology, Doctrines of Grace, etc.) or it must not be of the Holy Spirit. Right?
So, what is so frightening for someone to read both, when both acknowledge it should all be tested against actual scripture? Do we not trust the Holy Spirit, the word of God to expound and expose the truth/errors –or is it really that we are afraid that the reader may vary from our perspective when all is said and done?
The author does eventually “make one long pinned comment to address what seems to be the biggest point of confusion for many people: God’s sovereignty versus man’s free will.” But there is no need to cover the common debate points here as they are found everywhere. The final analysis: “God is sovereign. Humans are responsible. Both are true.”
The point: use the Bible, not Calvin (or man) to prove or disprove your beliefs. Sometimes in our humility, our pride shines through and says, “You must see it my way.”
CnC.Today 