"Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?"

"Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?"
by Motte Brown on 06/28/2007 at 12:16 PM

Apparently, the emerging church isn't the only movement attracting young adults. According to Mark Dever, this demographic is also flocking to reformed doctrine. And on his new blog Church Matters, he attempts to answer why.

In short, Mark says it's because of oft recommended writings of Charles Spurgeon. He continues, "And friends, if you keep being told to buy Spurgeon, eventually you'll probably read Spurgeon. And if you read Spurgeon, you'll never be able to believe the charge that all Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists, and that Calvinists can't do missions and evangelism."

Mark says that even pastors who wrote books against Calvinism, praised Spurgeon. And he believes "all these young Calvinists" are a direct result from it.

Keep in mind that this is only part one of Mark's 10 part series titled "Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?" For the rest, keep tabs on Mark's newly launched Church Matters from 9 Marks Ministries.

Faith | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Carrie said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 28:

I came to faith in a PCA church. I was part of a Reformed church before I even knew what "Reformed" meant. I work with two people who are Christians, but not Reformed. The way we study and know God is very, very different. I think Reformed modes of thinking are catching on because everyone is so disillusioned with the mega-church mentality. I don't know of any Reformed churches that house more than a 1,000 congregants at once. They are much more prone to spawn daughter churches due to their theology.

2. Cath said the following at 1:14 PM on Jun 28:

Hmmmm, a divisive issue has been raised. The number of Calvinists may be rising, but I am surely not one of them.
A few quotes from the blog of Mark Dever, who is quoting Spurgeon:
1. "I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works."

2. "nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed."

For 1. - what do Calvinists say to James 3: 14-26, especially verse 24? It doesn't sound like God's word is meant to be interpreted figuratively here.

As for point number 2, I just don't agree. Yes, God's grace is powerful, but if someone chooses to turn their back on God after having a real conversion experience, then what? Is Spurgeon saying that this is simply impossible?

On another related point, I see Calvinism in Christian music especially bands like Caedmon's Call. With lyrics like, "I am thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own..." I think I see a pretty strong example of Calvin's idea of "total depravity".

But then just change cd's and listen to a lyric of Rich Mullins, "It's about as useless as a screen-door on a submarine. Faith without works, it just ain't happening..." and you get a different kind of theology! [Refer back to James!]

3. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:34 PM on Jun 28:

Cath: it is important to remember when discussing Calvinsim that total depravity isn't just a Calvinist concept. In fact, Arminius agreed with total depravity; it was the other four points with which he disagreed. To quote Arminius:

"In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

Or, to quote another famous Arminian, John Wesley:

"No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree."

So while Calvinists and Arminians disagree on several things, total depravity is not among them.

4. Carrie said the following at 1:43 PM on Jun 28:

This is going to get me just as fired up as the "Attraction" discussion.

". "I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works."

2. "nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed."

For 1. - what do Calvinists say to James 3: 14-26, especially verse 24? It doesn't sound like God's word is meant to be interpreted figuratively here.

You meant James 2:14-26
"14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

What do Calvinists do with v. 24? They embrace and praise God for it. Faith without works is DEAD. In other words, if you claim to love Christ you must be able to back it up. I have strong doubts that someone can love Christ and never
(1) Care for the sick
(2) Care for the poor
(3) Care for the widows
(4) Care for the children
(5) Care for others more than themselves.

If you love Christ, then you are no longer the point of your life -- He is. And if He tells you to do something, you'll do it. You won't always do it perfectly, but you will complete the tasks He gives you with His help.

As far as point 2:
If someone turns their back on the faith, then they weren't chosen to begin with. God does not let His people go, period. This is comfort. This gives us freedom within the boundaries. Yes, someone can have an amazing transformation for awhile. They can begin doing all the right things and saying the right things and hang with all the right people, but we still can't know their heart. We can think we are able to judge their heart by their works (they are doing all the right things), but that is the awful thing about sin and darkness -- it can be hidden so well. This is why, I think, the Reformed theology is catching on so well: it admits, wholeheartedly, that evil exists and its everywhere.
You can't lose your salvation because its not yours salvation to lose -- its His to give.

5. Michael said the following at 2:13 PM on Jun 28:

Whoa whoa whoa! Calvinists have not turned their backs on the text in James! Calvinism does not say works don't matter. It simply says that these works are not enough to save you, and that fits into the Bible perfectly. We are told in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves. It's a gift from God. We're also told that our works are like filthy rags before a holy God. Nothing we can do or try to do is enough for salvation. We were dead in our trespasses and sin. That is why we are incapable of doing any good relative to God on our own. It is only through Christ that we can be saved, because before salvation, we were dead. Not dying, not sick, dead. We need to understand that our separation of God was more than just a cross-shaped caver or a hole in our hearts. We were completely cut off. And yet while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, so that we might be adopted as sons and daughters of God.

But of course, as James makes clear, true faith is accompanied by works. Faith without works is nothing, because therefore it is false faith. Calvinists believe that. Spurgeon is not discrediting works as important, nor is he saying faith and works should not be linked. He is simply making clear that those works do not save us. They are not NECESSARY for salvation. Faith is. But faith is EVIDENCED by these works, like it says in James. They are fruits of the Spirit, just like Jesus explains the good tree that bears good fruit. But works do not save us, especially because we are dead in sin. Calvinism is not being eaten up by the youth because Spurgeon said it was true or because it's exciting and revolutionary in this post-modern world. They are simply being directed by writers and teachers like Spurgeon to be convinced by Scripture of the massive amounts of biblical support for belief in predestination, election, and the total depravity of man.

6. Cath said the following at 2:22 PM on Jun 28:

Carrie,
cool! I liked what you said about my point number one, it sounds like we agree. When you listed the 5 charitable acts it sounds like you are paraphrasing Matthew 25 [sheep and goats part] and I definitely agree with that.
But I still think you've lost me and other non-Calvinists on point number two. You see, you first have to prove that God has in fact chosen people to be saved from the beginning. Of course God knows all things but we have free will and it's a delicate interplay that is quite mysterious. So unless I first agree with you that God has already decided to save particular, select people, then I can't agree that these other ones who 'fall away' were never, in fact, saved. I hope that makes sense.

7. Shannon said the following at 3:53 PM on Jun 28:

I'm Reformed because at the end of the day it made sense. I read my Bible and there it was. I was edging out towards being liberal before I ran smack dab into a PCA church that challenged me. I now attend Bethlehem Baptist Church in Mpls, MN - which is a reformed church - one church, three campuses, and probably has a total of 4000-5000 attendees, so reformed churches maybe very well be "mega" at times :) And what about Driscoll's church in Seattle? Pretty sure they're "mega" too.

8. Scott said the following at 4:11 PM on Jun 28:

Speaking as someone who strict-subscribes to the Westminster confession (coming from a liberal Methodist background) and who fits the mold of a "young calvinist", I'd like to address a few things here. My Calvinism came from reading Romans and from Monergism.com, not Spurgeon, but that's another story

Anyway, the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism of the Continental Reformed is very helpful as to how Calvinists address the issues of faith and works. It is structured via Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. Those who have been truly saved will do their works out of gratitude for opened eyes and a renewed heart.

The Arminian perspective inherently includes fear, when works done out of fear are grudging and aren't done out of a glad heart. The Calvinist perspective, as properly developed within Confessionalism, produces a less frenzied piety than Arminianism, but it is a richer and deeper care. Because we are still sinners, gratitude is a harder motivation to muster than the frenzied response to fear, but the works it produces are done out of love and strengthen our faith as we see God's working through us.

Trusting in God's sovereignty means we make ourselves far more vulnerable in doing good deeds, knowing that even as sin is mixed with everything we do, God accomplishes transformations of people out of our care for them. For a good illustration of this, read Paul David Tripp's 'In the Redeemer's Hands', a wonderful illustration of the power of the sovereignty of God in helping others through our good works.

9. Jason W said the following at 5:36 PM on Jun 28:

Carrie,

I fail to see how you can be once saved always saved - how is it then that you know that you are saved - wouldn't it be some colossal cosmic joke to allow someone to 'experience a transformation' for a while to have them turn their backs because they weren't chosen?

Freedom within boundaries? Well it's some freedom if you don't even have the choice.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life"

it doesn't say:

"For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son that whoever was chosen by God to believe in him shall have eternal life"

It is troubling to me. If you aren't 'chosen' then why even bother with faith - might as well try to have as much fun as you can possibly have while on the earth. Imagine what this opens up the world to becoming like?

10. Claire said the following at 5:48 PM on Jun 28:

Carrie, I know several Calvinist churches with over 1,000 in attendance every week. I grew up going to one with over 2,000 there every week. I'm not sure the mega church issue has a lot to do with it.

For the record, I'm not Calvinist, but I'm not exactly Arminian either.

11. Katie said the following at 6:11 PM on Jun 28:

Cath said: "...I still think you've lost me and other non-Calvinists on point number two. You see, you first have to prove that God has in fact chosen people to be saved from the beginning. Of course God knows all things..."

The difficulty with this statement is the logic that must exist behind a statement that God knows all things. If the statement is really intended to mean "all things" it must include the future. If the statement is really intended to use the word "knowledge" then it must carry an implication of certainty. One can only know something that is an undeniable fact.

There is only one way for someone to be certain of the facts surrounding an incident which has not yet occured: the incident must have been carefully planned out ahead of time and each prerequisite for the incident to happen as planned must have been set in motion.

In other words, foreknowledge of an event cannot stand on its own, but must be preceded by some form of foreordination. Logically speaking, one must either believe that God knows the future because the future is preordained or believe that God knows nothing of the future.

I totally agree that there is a very mysterious interplay between freewill and God's foreknowledge!

12. Jacob said the following at 7:58 PM on Jun 28:

I am also a Calvinist. My view is that Armenians are interpreting theology from the wrong side.

Now, I will assume that Armenians accept the follow of God's attributes:
- Omnipotence, being able to do anything, and always accomplish His means.
- Omniscience, knowing everything, including the will of every person.
- Omnipresence, being aware of and able to act at any time or place.

If these are true then it would follow:
1. He knew exactly how history would happen. You cannot say that He did not know, without denying His omniscience.
2. He could not have allowed history to go in a way that was not intended, being omnipotent.
3. If he knew exactly what would happen, and planned everything so that it would happen, then there is no opportunity for His "script" to fail.

My position is that there is only an appearance of free will. The "choices" that we make are simply the response to the situations that God predetermined. If people were not to make the choices that God elected them to make, then you must deny His omnipotence, as we was unable to cause it to happen, or His omniscience, as He did not know what the given person would choose.

13. Jess said the following at 8:19 PM on Jun 28:

I have indeed flocked to the reformed faith! And I'm amazed at the depth of His Grace to chose to save me when I was truly dead in sin and an object of His wrath!! It also opened my foggy eyes to original sin & clarified my understand so much!! Grace & Peace to you, my brothers & sisters as we deepen our knowledge and love of our Savior!!

14. Jacob said the following at 8:55 PM on Jun 28:

In regards to apostasy, and once saved-always saved: if God foreordained all of history, then anyone who is elect will return to Christ. If someone is not elect they will not return to faith. So in effect, Calvinism is trying to understand theology from God's view, which is why it is often hard to understand.

For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. -Isaiah 55:9

Armenianism tries to understand theology from the human viewpoint, but risks misunderstanding or overlooking the larger issues.

15. Zack said the following at 10:24 PM on Jun 28:

mmk, first: as a response to Cath saying, “You see, you first have to prove that God has in fact chosen people to be saved from the beginning." Well, ok, I'll try. First look at Ephesians 1:1-14 and first notice who Paul is talking to...he's talking to "the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus" obviously, the believers and the SAVED in Ephesus. Now, go on and read the rest of that passage! That whole section of the Bible talks explicitly on the predestination of believers.

"He chose us (Paul and the believers) in him before the foundations of the world."

"In love he predestined us (Paul and the believers) for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will"

We can also look at 1 Cor. 1:22-24 we can see that only those who are called by God understand the Gospel and consider it wisdom! Also, we can look at John 6:35-40 when Jesus speaks of saving all (or, as it is in the text - losing nothing) of all that the Father had GIVEN him, not those who cam to Him, but all those whom the Father has given Him.

You see, predestination is all over Paul's epistles and even Jesus' own word. There are more references to such that you may look up on your own such as Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Rom. 9:11-13, Rom. 11:7, 1 Thess. 1:4-5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 2 Tim. 1:9, Paul writes one of his epistles "To God's elect" (1 Peter 1:1) and later calls them "a chosen race" later in 1 Peter 2:9, and lastly (for this list) Rev. 13:7-8 declares that those whose name was not written in the Book of Life before the foundations of the earth was slain.

Now, secondly - the Once Saved Always Saved issue. Jason W said,

"wouldn't it be some colossal cosmic joke to allow someone to 'experience a transformation' for a while to have them turn their backs because they weren't chosen?"

mmk, first I'll admit the word choice of "experience a transformation" was not the best use of diction, however the point got across, and now your sort of twisting the words. The transformation in question was merely an emotional experience whose transformation on the person was skin deep. Only did they change their actions so that only the appearance of a true transformation was there, making that "transformation" unable to be equated to salvation.

But, ok some of the Biblical support for the Perseverance of the Saints.

Jesus says in John 6:38-40 that all those who believe in Him will have eternal life and then repeats himself (the Aramaic way of emphasizing a certain idea) saying, “I will raise him up on the last day.” This verse is pretty straightforward in saying that those who truly believe WILL BE raised up. Also, we can see in John 10:27-29 Jesus saying that all those whom the Father has given him will NEVER perish and that NO ONE is able to take them from Him. Some say that when Jesus says, “no one will snatch them out of my hand.” That even though no one else can take the believer out of His hand, the person in Christ’s hand may remove himself. This seems to be a pedantic quibbling over words though; does not “no one” also include the person in Christ’s hand. And if the later interpretation of this verse is true, the passage would give hardly the assurance and comfort Christ clearly intended it to.

Also, believers are said to have eternal life multiple times in Scripture (John 5:24; 6:47; 10:28; and 1 John 5:13) if this life is truly eternal it lasts forever, and if all true believers have this life, it will never end.

Ephesians 1:13-14 says, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” When someone becomes a true believer they are SEALED by the Holy Spirit as a GUARANTEE of their inheritance of eternal life.

And lastly Paul says to the Philippians, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”(Phil. 1:6) And also says in 1 Peter 1:3-5, that those who “(God) caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (faith)” are also those “who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Also, someone asked how a believer can know whether or not he/she is truly saved. I’d say to ask yourself these questions: Do I have a present and total trust in Christ for salvation? Is there evidence of a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in my heart? (Romans 8:14-16; 1 John 4:13) Do I see genuine fruits of that Spirits working in me? (Galatians 5:22-23) (Matt. 7: 16-20) Do I see a long-term pattern of growth in my Christian walk?

And thirdly (this is a short one… I think… I hope…) Jason W mentioned how John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life” and not “For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son that whoever was chosen by God to believe in him shall have eternal life”. I agree with him, I think that John 3:16 all by itself is plenty descriptive of salvation. However, for some reason he is assuming that everybody has the ability to believe in the first place, which when pressed with the descriptions of mankind’s nature in Ephesians 2 (dead in their trespasses and sin, sons of disobedience, following Satan, and children of wrath) and in Romans 3 (None is righteous, no one understands, NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD, and they have all turned aside and together have become worthless) the idea that man’s will and ability to do any good is unscathed by the fall, really holds no water…

16. Elizabeth said the following at 10:32 PM on Jun 28:

I have been pondering something for some time, and I was wondering if anyone has an answer for it. I have experienced, on a number of occasions, quite emotional and sometimes very angry reactions from people when they discover I am a Calvinist. However, I haven't seen many Calvinists of my acquantance who have reacted so emotionally to Arminians. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Why does Calvinism/Arminianism provoke people so much?
As well, I would like to add that I agree with Carrie's comment way at the top of this page when she said that she noticed Christians who were Arminian studied God very differently. I have found this difference to extend even further, perhaps. I think we might even differ on the level of how we view the world, although I hesitate to take it that far. One example is the different explanations that would be given in the wake of a natural disaster. Would it be explained as something that is sad and God didn't want to happen, but God will bring good things out of the results, or that it was part of God's plan (although we can't understand it at this point), He knew it was going to happen, and He will bring good out of the results. What do you think?

17. Rachael said the following at 12:53 AM on Jun 29:

Oh good, Calvinists! I've been wanting to talk to you. I've heard the basic arguments before, and find some of them convincing, and others not so. For some things, the evidence of Scripture seems about equally balanced - which is to say, on the surface it seems contradictory. And most of the responses by both sides to the verses that contradict them, involve stretching the evidence to the point of incredibility (example: I've heard it said that "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son" actually means that "God so loved the individuals that he elected that He gave...")

I have had a thought on the topic which seems to me might provide a key to resolving the conflicting verses - it's just a thought at the moment, not a developed theological position and not something that I've heard anyone else say, so I'm posting it here to see who can come up with arguments against it, to see if the idea is a durable one. But first, I want to address a few points made in previous posts, so that you understand the understanding that I am coming to this with.

Katie said: "foreknowledge of an event cannot stand on its own, but must be preceded by some form of foreordination. Logically speaking, one must either believe that God knows the future because the future is preordained or believe that God knows nothing of the future."

This is true only if you assume that God is bound by the present, that His perspective and relation with Time is the same as ours. I don't think that is the case; I think that God is eternal, meaning He is outside of time. From eternity He has always been able to see all points in time. This means that He could know of some event (from our perspective, "know something was going to happen") WITHOUT having actively caused it to occur either by intervening or by planning the circumstances that would cause it (although there's no reason He couldn't be the direct cause.)

This brings me to the next thing I wanted to address:
Jacob wrote: "1. He knew exactly how history would happen. You cannot say that He did not know, without denying His omniscience.
2. He could not have allowed history to go in a way that was not intended, being omnipotent.
3. If he knew exactly what would happen, and planned everything so that it would happen, then there is no opportunity for His "script" to fail."

With regards to #1: I agree.
Now #2. Am I the only one who sees the irony of a sentence that says, "Being omnipotent, [God] could not..."?! I don't think even hardcore Arminians argue that human free will can defeat God's will, only that God allows us free will within limits set by Himself. But it is at the very least yet to be proven, that God is incapable of allowing anyone to disobey Him or act against His intentions.
If it were to be proven, that leads us to the problem of #3: If God has "scripted" (as you say) everything that has or will ever happen, How does that not make God the ultimate author of every evil as well as every good thing? If there is no room for any other agent to act independently and against God's will, God must be the source of all evil, ugliness, sin, destruction, etc., and God therefore has a self-contradictory nature. I'll say it again, and if I'm wrong please explain it: If free will is nothing but an illusion, God is not wholly good.

Now with that very long preamble, here is my comparatively short idea. Discuss.

What if God predestined the Church like He predestined Israel? (Not a stretch, since gentiles are only "grafted on" to the Jewish root stock.) What do I mean? God chose Israel, no doubt about it, they didn't (as a people) choose to be God's people, they didn't start the deal and they didn't deserve it. And they couldn't get out of being the Chosen People, and they (full disclosure: I mean we, I'm Jewish) can't get out of it still because there are plenty of prophecies God still has to fulfil regarding the Jews. He made a covenant with them only, out of all the peoples of the earth. (Can you see I'm going through the whole TULIP here?) BUT, that covenant was with a PEOPLE. It still had to be chosen by individuals. Foreigners could (and many did) "join themselves" to the God of Israel and the people of Israel and were accepted as Jews. Those who were born Jews could disregard and dishonor the Law, the Covenant of God, and thus be "cut off from their people".

So, my question is, is it too farfetched to think that this is how God works with the Church? Are there any of the pro-predestination verses that unequivocally refer to those predestined as individuals, rather than as a people?

Thanks for your input.

18. Robert J Espe said the following at 6:43 AM on Jun 29:

I hope everyone realizes that you won't settle an issue this huge on a blog. Instead of arguing out the same old debates over and over, just point people to position papers by leading theologians, and let it rest.

For example, if anyone finds Calvinism or Arminianism to be too extreme, see what the AG's take on the subject is: the condensed paper is first, the full one is second.

"In the matter of the security of the believer, The General Council of the Assemblies of God stands between the extreme positions of Calvinism and Arminianism. It accepts the scriptural elements found in both teachings."

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4178_security.cfm
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing from people, do good works. Just like baptism, regardless of what they do, you need to do them.

19. NeedACatchyName said the following at 8:03 AM on Jun 29:

I'm (mostly) an Arminian but most of my friends are Calvinists, so I'm fairly familiar with both sides of the debate. It seems to me that Calvinists seem to have a few misconceptions about Arminians:

1) As I noted above, Arminians completely agree with Calvin on the subjects of original sin and total depravity. Salvation still occurs by grace alone and not of our own merit, it's just that Arminians believe everyone receives resistable grace (and we recognize our sinful state only through this grace, not of own ability--this is called "prevenient grace"), while Calvinists believe that the elect receive irresistable grace. The system that denies original sin and total depravity is called Pelagianism, and is different from Arminianism.

2) Most Arminians do not deny the omniscience of God. They believe that God has foreknowledge of all events, even if He did not foreordain all events. There is one branch of Arminianism that denies the omniscience of God called "open theism," but that is considered to be a more extreme minority viewpoint, much like hypercalvinism is considered to be a more extreme minority viewpoint of Calvinism.

3) As Rachael noted, Arminians do not believe that God lacks the power to foreordain all circumstances, but rather simply chooses not to exercise said power. In other words, we believe that God has the power to foreordain who's saved and who's not, but instead chooses to save those who believe through prevenient grace. And of course, this means that God most certainly can actively step in and foreordain certain circumstances to happen, when it is in accordance with His divine will.

Rachael: The idea to which you are refering is called "corporate election," and is the Arminian view on election.

Finally, are there any Lutherans here? I may be wrong, but as I understand, Lutherans have a third view on all of this that's different from both Arminianism and Calvinism, so I'd be curious to learn more about it.

20. nikki said the following at 8:53 AM on Jun 29:

Shoot. I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a tired regurgitation of the respective points of calvinism and arminianism. Boy was I disappointed.

This article has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about Calvinism so I'm not going to talk about them.

The article is about the massive numbers of young people flocking to churches teaching reformed doctrine. I too have noticed this current and have often wondered why. It's true, there is an increased longing for a return to doctrine. Someone mentioned that this trend is a backlash to the megachurches. I doubt it is to the churches so much as the watered-down message that often comes forth from them. I am very glad to see this "backlash" and I think it is a good commentary on our generation.

Anyways, what I don't understand about this trend is why everyone seems to think sound doctrine is only found in reformed theology. It's a little insulting, actually. Everything sound is doctrine, no matter if it was popularized by John Calvin/Spurgeon or not.

It is telling, though, that apparently the churches teaching the most doctrine -- those not catering to culture and not desperately trying to appear relevant and mainstream -- are the ones actually attracting the greatest number of young people (I mean something like the 18-35 crowd). I just don't understand why it happens to be almost solely the Reformed style of doctrine that is doing this. It's actually a really trendy, hip, cool thing to be "reformed." Weird. (Sometimes I think some people are reformed just because all their friends are.)

It does worry me that the PCA (the denomination Presbyterian Church of America), will gain too much credit. After all, a denomination is STILL just a denomination no matter how cool it is. I am concerned that reformed-doctrine adherents will develop a denominational bent, and be paralyzed from attending churches of other denominations, or nondenominational churches, who may teach doctrine that is just as sound, but who may not strictly adore -- er, I mean, adhere to -- the works of John Calvin and friends...in other words, be PCA.

I guess it's a little ruffling because my church (near 1,000 people) teaches sound, often difficult doctrine, all the way down to preschool-age kids. And somehow because we're not PCA we don't draw nearly as many "college kids." Just having PCA on your church sign is enough to attract a nice, hip group of young people who like to sing revamped hymns -- oh yeah, which just happen to come from a PCA music label. After all, the PCA DOES have a monopoly and both good teaching AND good music. Okay, so I get annoyed with the PCA sometimes. Well, this is turning into a rant, so I'll stop now.

21. Scott said the following at 10:43 AM on Jun 29:

Rachel, on the individual predestination question:

Romans 9:6-13

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Election, even in the context of the children of Issac (those of the promise) is still individualized - with Jacob and Esau being respectively predestined before any deeds.

22. Jacob said the following at 10:46 AM on Jun 29:

Robert:
Your idea is a good one. Anyone interested may like The Five Points of Calvinism, by David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. It covers the basics of Calvinism and their scriptural support.

Elizabeth:
I think that Calvinists consider Armenians to just be misunderstanding their salvation (my position at least), and try to bring the Armenian over.
I would guess that the Armenians do not think that you can really have salvation without "choosing" God. They may see Calvinists, who say that they have been saved, as apathic and not interested.

In regards to general questions about missions, our church (Reformed baptist) is very active. Predestination does not mean that the person is automatically saved. It means that they will hear the Gospel and believe, before their deaths or the second coming. (Please don't get into eschatology here.)

23. Jacob said the following at 10:54 AM on Jun 29:

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I meant that the elect person will hear the gospel, be it through a mission, family, or any other means. Since we do not know who is elect (going to accept Christ) we need to reach as many people as possible. It seems odd, but if someone does not hear the Gospel, then they were not elect. If they were elect, a mission will reach them. Election is foreordained, but based on the choices that everyone will automatically make, including the influence of knowing that.

God already knows and decided if a person will be saved. If so, then someone is going to evangelize them. It might be you, so get to work!

24. Scott said the following at 11:22 AM on Jun 29:

I happily qualify as one of those Young, Restless, Reformed folks! Robert J Espe hit it, we can't settle this here. If any of you have Facebook, find the group called "Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You". There's a lot of discussion that goes on there, and everyone is very charitable. You can ask any question you want and many people are eager to help you and discuss it with you.

I think someone asked about the Bible holding both sides: Calvinism and Arminianism. Basically, from our perspective we choose Christ, but from God's perspective He choose us. It's called an antinomy, 2 things which appear to be contradictory but are none the less held to be true. The Trinity is an antinomy. I can't do the subject enough justice here, but that's a basic idea.

25. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:05 PM on Jun 29:

To answer your question nikki, I think that reformed doctrine is growing in popularity much faster than other doctrines not so much because it is sound more sound than Arminianism, but rather because it is presented in a away that's consistent and easily grasped. I have to give credit where credit is due, Calvinists have done an outstanding job explaining their doctrine in a way that is logical, consistent, and understandable. If you ask your average Calvinist for an explanation of their beliefs, they'll easily be able to explain all five points of TULIP off the top of their heads. Furthermore, if you ask ten randomly picked Calvinists, they'll all give approximately the same explanation. Whereas the average Arminian only vaguely knows anything about their doctrine, so if you asked them to explain their doctrine, they'll probably say something like "um, I think we believe in free will, and Calvinists don't." I realize that there are some Arminians that are knowledgeable concerning their doctrine, but they seem to be few and far between. And if you ask ten randomly picked Arminians the same question, you'll get responses all over the place, because there are a ton of Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, open theists, and other branches of doctrine that like to masquerade under the title of "Arminian" even though they disagree with fundamental parts of Arminian doctrine.

This does not make Arminians wrong, or their doctrine any less sound, but it does show that they've largely failed in being able to present a clear, concise, understandable, and consistent portrait of their doctrine to people. This is a major failing of Arminian churches and denominations, and if they continue to fail in this regard, then Arminian doctrine will continue to fall in popularity compared to Calvinism.

Oh, and to answer your point about the PCA, the PCA is actually only showing modest gains in my area. Reformed Baptist churches, however, are just exploding in popularity, primarily due to the large number of Christians who like the idea of Calvinism but don't support infant baptism (which the PCA supports).

26. Mandi said the following at 2:44 PM on Jun 29:

Where, where do people get the idea that Christians are either Calvinists or Arminians? (At least that's the impression I get scanning through the comments!).

Also, there's a difference between Armenians and Arminians. One is a group of people from a particular part of the world, the others follow a heresy. (Not that I'm a Calvinist, as that's a heresy too....but no time for that now..)

27. Scott said the following at 5:43 PM on Jun 29:

I'm a huge fan of Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Michael Horton, because it presents the Reformed faith as far more than the 5-points. The sovereignty of God affects all that we do, and realizing this is quite a paradigm shift in our lives.

Here's a great quote from R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California via one of his course syllabi. This is a tough lesson I respect because it's so hard-hitting to my sinful approach to these.

Start your paper now. If you wait until late in the semester your hard drive will crash, your cat will get leukemia, or something equally dreadful will happen and you will come to me to ask for an extension and I will say "NO!" Be a Calvinist. Plan for trouble and hardship in this life.

Calvinism produces men and women of action, because we can be confident in the Word's commands to us and what we should do when approaching a risk in light of God's providence.

28. Scott said the following at 5:48 PM on Jun 29:

"Start your paper now. If you wait until late in the semester your hard drive will crash, your cat will get leukemia, or something equally dreadful will happen and you will come to me to ask for an extension and I will say "NO!" Be a Calvinist. Plan for trouble and hardship in this life."

This is Clark's actual quote (from here: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/ch602syllabus.php) - sorry for the double post.

29. Oxanna said the following at 7:00 PM on Jun 29:

I'm not going to rehash any Calvinist or Arminian (or in between) comments here, but here are two links which might be of use to the debate:

http://calvarychapel.com/?show=Resources.Ebooks.calvinismarminianismandth

http://www.thebereancall.org/frontpage/topics/Calvinism

30. BDB said the following at 10:01 PM on Jun 29:

Oxanna - thanks - I was so confused!

31. Alex Chediak said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 30:

A very spirited debate! If you are curious, I have a link on my blog to info about a videotaped debate (available on DVD) between two Calvinists (Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware) and two Arminians (Joe Dongell and Jerry Walls). It is a really good overview of the arguments on both sides.

http://www.alexchediak.com/blog/2006/07/calvinism_vs_arminianism.php

32. Christine said the following at 11:25 AM on Jun 30:

Mandi - I think that you have incorrectly used the word heresy in regards to both Arminians and Calvinists. Heresy is used to designate beliefs that differ from the standard dogma of a faith. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians fit this.

Though there are people who are staunchly on either side, I think that it's important to remember that these sides are NOT against each other in terms of the meaning of Christianity, the means of salvation, etc. The difference here is in an understanding of one element of Christianity - but neither is truly
heretical.

(Just to clear myself, yes, I do have a staunch position on this issue. I just don't think that those who disagree with me are heretics!)

33. Ashley Keen said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 30:

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not an Arminian. And I've been rejected by and argued with by members of both camps (though typically usually the former camp than the latter) But I think that anyone who clings to one and rejects the biblical basis of the other is only a few statements away from heresy.

34. Melissa said the following at 9:08 PM on Jun 30:

I agree with Christine--I think we're throwing the accusation of heresy around a tad too lightly. Neither strong Calvinists nor strong Arminians really qualify as heretics. Neither deny the Trinity, deity of Christ, etc...the issues is over the Sovereignty of God, particularly in relation to salvation.

35. Carrie said the following at 9:03 AM on Jul 2:

I find it a little humorous that the PCA is getting so much attention on this thread. Its a denomination that is roughly 30 years old and only has about 300,000 members. Whereas Reformed Baptists are probably much higher in number.

nikki wrote: "After all, a denomination is STILL just a denomination no matter how cool it is. I am concerned that reformed-doctrine adherents will develop a denominational bent, and be paralyzed from attending churches of other denominations, or nondenominational churches, who may teach doctrine that is just as sound, but who may not strictly adore -- er, I mean, adhere to -- the works of John Calvin and friends...in other words, be PCA."

"After all, the PCA DOES have a monopoly and both good teaching AND good music."

As a PCA member myself I kind of chuckle on the "good music" comment. I like many of RUF's (Reformed University Fellowship, the campus ministry of the PCA) "reformed" hymns. However, most of what I like about the music in the PCA is that we stick to hymns, old ones that are tried and true. The hymns that were written long before the PCA founders' grandparents were even born.
There is a growing realization in the PCA that doctrine isn't everything. In fact part of the sermon I heard yesterday morning focused on that very aspect -- you are Christ's first. If you are not in love Him and reveling in the mystery that is Christ's love, then you are missing something. Its not about having the right doctrine or awesome theological argument, its about making sure your heart and soul is bound up in Christ.

Now, the question is how do you make sure your heart and soul is bound up in Christ? (That's election, how do you know if you're elect?) You must have faith that His promises are true (go back to the John 3:16 discussion). He love the WORLD that WHOSOEVER believes . . . it doesn't say that everyone is going to believe. Even in the great evangelical verse, there is election being taught. Do you believe? Do you really believe that you are His? Do you want to be His? Are you as desperate as the woman who touched the robe of Jesus? That's faith. Faith is exercised in the repeated action of humbling yourself at the cross. If someone "falls away", then they stopped believing. Blaming God for some thing like that won't get you anywhere, except Hell.
That's what the Reformed way of thinking has to offer -- continual grace and mercy for those that continually seek the Giver of continual grace and mercy.
I've visited other churches (non-reformed sorts) and I see emotional manipulation and moralistic preaching. I don't want to be told that if I just sing the right notes, lift my hands in just the right way, and go to church every Sunday that I'll be saved. I want to hear the message "Come as you are, be washed in His blood, listen AND heed His voice, and be saved." The "heed" part is so often lost and not emphasized.
I'm saved by grace alone and not of my own merit.

36. Isaac McPheeters said the following at 9:38 AM on Jul 2:

A lot of people were surprised to find out that I was what many call a Calvinist because I am frequently walking the streets witnessing to many people. Yes, I believe God has ordained salvation for specific individuals, but he commands us to be his witnesses. Besides, he is greatly glorified by using his disciples as tools for spreading the word.

Even if you believe that God starts salvation, and people use their free will to receive or deny it, you still have a problem. If God wants someone to hear the gospel, isn't he powerful enough to give them a vision in a dream, and won't he do a better job than you? The issue however, is obedience to Christ and sharing his love to the world, whether they receive it or not.

37. Brynna said the following at 11:26 AM on Jul 2:

All,

To say that someone is able to do anything to lose their faith is to say that they did something to gain it in the first place.

38. nikki said the following at 11:31 AM on Jul 2:

It's true, the PCA has a "registered" list of members amounting to just over 300,000 nationwide. But I think because there is so much appeal among younger, more "transient" crowds (like college students), few of whom would take the time to go through the membership process, the number of those actually attending is probably far higher.

39. Mrs. B said the following at 1:32 PM on Jul 2:

I go to The Village Church, which is pretty much Reformed Baptist and I guess is a megachurch even though it definitely doesn't feel like one. If anyone wants to hear a really good sermon about how the Bible points to predestination, download the podcast by Matt Chandler of The Village Church called "Are There Two Wills in God?" (I think that's the title, anyway; just search for "two wills"). I haven't read Spurgeon or anything so this might be redundant those who have, but I think he explains his position very clearly and backs it up with TONS of Scripture. He also addresses the issue of how Calvinists should approach missions (they are not mutually exclusive as I originally thought). This sermon is what convinced me about Calvinism.

Also, am I the only one out of the loop that the PCA is the big Reformed denomination? I thought many denominations could be Calvinist or Armenian. Maybe it's just the region I live in since I've never heard of RUFs either. Or maybe I live under a rock :)

Oh, and in regards to this quote by Bryanna:

"To say that someone is able to do anything to lose their faith is to say that they did something to gain it in the first place."

Well said!

40. San Soo said the following at 4:57 PM on Jul 2:

No one is completely saved until they are in Heaven. The Bible talks about different tenses of being saved: I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved. It's the consensus belief of over a thousand years of Church History.

41. Scott said the following at 5:39 PM on Jul 2:

San Soo

You are muddling Justification with Sanctification.

It is important to distinguish between the one-time act and the increasing Spirit-wrought holiness completed upon our deaths or at Christ's return.

I am saved not because I am have become a better person following the Law of God. I am saved because God has declared that I inherit and partake of Christ's righteousness to cover my wretchedness. Salvation is entirely a work of God in my heart, and it started with a legal declaration some years ago.

42. Cal Oren said the following at 9:05 PM on Jul 2:

I'd like to offer an explanation to the original question posted, namely, "Why the surge of interest in hard-edged, theologically rigorous Calvinism?" The unspoken question that goes with this is, "Why aren't these people satisfied with the multitude of design-your-own-God-experiences currently offered by the megachurches (and the countless megachurch wannabes)?"

We in the Orthodox church have also experienced a similar surge of interest among the 20-something set, and the most recent innovation in our worship services dates from about the 14th Century.

I would submit that there exists in every generation a group of individuals who are driven to ask the big questions, and look for something true and solid and real. This tendency subsides as the idealism of youth gives way to the passivity of midlife, which explains the concentration in the under-30 age group.

These folks perceive that religion is not something you design to fit your whims, but something solid and often blunt that forces you to change your life; that confronts you with the uncomfortable truth and challenges you to be transformed by it.

In the Orthodox Church, our newest converts in this age group are invariably the most committed to the basic and difficult disciplines of the faith: regular prayer many times each day; attending services multiple times each week; confession; regular fasting; sacrificial giving of time, energy, and substance; and the constant struggle for control of the passions.

These are the methods the Church prescribes for the healing of our sick and wounded souls, and the under-30 converts are for the most part the ones most eager to drink the strong medicine. May God grant us all the boldness and single-mindedness of youth.

43. San Soo said the following at 4:47 AM on Jul 3:

I don't buy the legal declaration arguments. I am saved by many things, but in short it is me working with God. I don't believe in monergism. God made people, not puppets.

44. Lynne said the following at 9:12 AM on Jul 3:

Well, I've come to this discussion quite late, but I currently attend a PCA church and have struggled quite a bit with the theology. I grew up Southern Baptist, so some of this is quite a change.
First, I love Brianna's quote
"To say that someone is able to do anything to lose their faith is to say that they did something to gain it in the first place."

I'm a firm believer in the once-saved always saved, because if I can't earn salvation, then I also can't unearn it. To address the question of evidence of faith through works, the fact is I don't always know someones heart, I don't know their struggles, I don't know what their deepest communication with God is like. So while I can say "oh, I don't see evidence" that certainly doesn't mean there isn't any.

What has stood out to me, is that many of my Reformed friends characterize my upbringing (Southern Baptist, no drinking, no dancing, etc.) as overtly legalistic, and to some extent that is true. However, what I point out is that people in the reformed branch are simply legalistic about other things.

The fact is, God is so much beyond the conception of our limited human minds that no matter our doctrinal theology (which is important) there will always be short-cimings, and we need to be able to acknowledge and figure why (including the emotional and personal reasons why) a certain branch draws us...beyond the intellectual discussion of "it's right."

Always enjoy.

45. Bo said the following at 12:39 PM on Jul 3:

Wow, I am overwhelmed by everyone's expression of their opinions! What an exciting debate. I especially appreciated Bryanna's "once saved" comment and Carrie's chuckle about the PCA music.

I grew up Arminian and am a newbie in the Reformed faith. I was convinced of Calvinism when I read the Puritan John Owens' explanation about how God's predestining salvation is like how He predestines our breathing--we can't breathe without his ordaining each little breath, and we can't be saved unless He has also ordained it. It's not our choice. Since embracing this theology, I have found SO MUCH freedom in my faith. I feel like a new believer! :)

Thanks to everyone for the fun reading. :)

46. Leah said the following at 6:18 AM on Jul 5:

I only got interested in Calvinist theology when some Arminian friends found out I believed in predestination then started charging me with all these other beliefs that I knew next to nothing about. So, I went and read up on them... and agreed with the Calvinist opinion :P

A big problem is that the widely-held belief of what a doctrine is is often not exactly accurate with what the doctrine actually is. So then you get Arminians accusing you of believing X Y Z when if you look at the doctrine closely, Z doesn't even come into it. (Because if you look at "once saved always saved", the actual doctrine itself is not that cut-and-dry).

I also hate it when people call me arrogant for believing in predestination. It's so judgmental. Or that they think I'm stupid or silly for believing something that I don't understand. (ie. God choosing some people for salvation and not others.) I'm not going to ignore something I see in the scriptures simply because I don't understand why God does it!

Another horrible thing is when you get accused of following Calvin and not following Christ, or that you'd rather follow the lies spread by a man than the truth found in the gospel (as if Arminius alone identified the "truths in the gospel"). Poor John Calvin! He'd be rolling in his grave if he heard there was a belief-pattern named after him, let alone the very idea that people would follow him! He hated the idea of anything ever being named after him (hence why our church changed its name from John Calvin Presbyterian church to Willows Presbyterian church). I tell my friends that I don't "follow Calvin", I just agree with his ideas about the bible.

For the most part though, I don't call myself a Calvinist. I went through a phase last year when I would get into theological debates ALL the time with Arminian friends/acquaintances, and made it known that I was Calvinist and believed TULIP, and at the end of it, realised it's so not worth it. I get people asking me now "So, are you a five-point calvinist?" and I reply "I'm not a five-point anything, I'm a Christian."

As for Brianna's quote "To say that someone is able to do anything to lose their faith is to say that they did something to gain it in the first place."

I do love that quote and think that on the surface level it is true. I think though, there is one thing we do need to do to be saved- and that is repent. Yes? It has been pointed out to me that if we no longer repent- in fact, maybe completely fly in the face of God and reject him (blasphemy of the spirit, the unforgiveable sin)- we would then lose our salvation. But then there comes the question "was that person a true Christian in the first place?" I think it's something we will never completely 100% know for sure.

47. xeres said the following at 11:14 AM on Jul 5:

Calvinism....interesting. I have respect for the Reformed folks. I'll admit I'm influenced by the reformed theology. However, it is not my cup of tea. I'm an Semi-Augustinian with a Wesleyan theological worldview. Actually, John Wesley and his teachings are actually semi-augustinian in contrast to many comtemporary Wesleyans and their older church sister the Methodists. Their other church sister, Breathren in Christ, is more conservative and faithful in the teachings of John Wesley.

48. BXVI said the following at 10:28 AM on Jul 13:

Mandi- you go, girl!

When reading this debate, essentially do we choose God or does God choose us, I turned to my wife, and said "Did I choose you or did you choose me?"

"Salvation" is not a legalistic clause, and neither is justification. Rather, it is a matter of relationship. You cannot polarize a relationship to either extreme.

I think Mandi is right to declare both sides 'heretical'- but after all, who has the authority to declare something a heresy? It was argued that since neither side denies the Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc, then neither are heretical... says who?

The fundamentalists, by the by.

Isn't it odd that God seems to have given us an infallible collection of books and then left us to our own reason with no authority to interpret the said books, and thus Christians cannot agree even on what it means to be a Christian or to be in relationship with God?

I think if I had been God, I would have done a better job.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post