Editor: Mike is away from his computer – I don’t think its fatal, but perhaps we should pray for him? – and gave me permission to post this. I’m planning to, after this post, return to my commitment, which I wish I had not strayed from, to avoid any discussions of Calvinism! This post was originally published at Mike’s site, Borrowed Light. If it is not in your feed, put it in immediately! Because I said so!
Earlier this week I explained why this discussion on Calvinism matters. Now I’m going to explain in what way this discussion doesn’t matter and why I wish we’d spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently 5 points are really helpful for discussion…so in honor of all the problems those five points have caused…here are 5 reasons why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter.
Truth is the Spirit’s job
I don’t need to be the truth police. I cannot change someone’s heart and make them embrace the truth. All I can do is present the truth as I see it in Scripture and leave it up to the work of the Spirit. It’s not my job to beat truth into someone’s head. Besides there is a decent chance that I’m wrong myself. There are likely doctrines of which I hold (yes even important ones) of which I’ll need to repent of no more than 5 minutes after entering into heaven.
If I really believe that leading brothers and sisters into all truth is the Spirit’s job it changes the way that I interact with them. John Newton is instructive here. When explaining his position on election and perseverance he said, “If you should accede to my opinions upon my persuasion only, you would be little benefited by the exchange”. Newton knew that what really mattered was the Spirit’s work upon the man to whom he was speaking. And it made him humbly present his position, love the man, and leave the results of the discussion up to the Lord.
Unity and love are more important
I love doctrine as much as the next guy. But I’m becoming increasingly convinced that love and unity are more important. Yes I believe that the fuel for love is doctrine. But I also believe that when Jesus was praying for us his central concern was that we be united and show love for one another. And this not merely in talk but in actually loving sinners like ourselves.
These discussions serve as a great barometer of our hearts. I agree with Newton that there is a “principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God”. If in the midst of our differences love and unity flow out, then we know that gospel is gaining ground over self.
Lengthy debates are seldom helpful
Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Even if a few people are won to a right position a good number of people are slain in the crossfire. I do see Jesus and Paul reasoning with people and even engaging in debate. Yet I never see them drawn out. (Perhaps because they entrusted the work to the Spirit).
Again I turn to Newton:
We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favor of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful persual of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.
I like to share my position from Scripture and maybe stick around for a few questions. But I’ve never found great fruit come from lengthy debates on an issue. If it gets overly heated I can’t just chalk it up to a “I’m just really passionate about this”. I know that it’s the flesh that’s warring (no matter what side of the aisle) and I know that this zeal isn’t from the Lord.
Implications matter but aren’t central
I like what Charles Simeon said to John Wesley. After outlining the things of which they agreed Simeon said this to Wesley:
Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.
Yes, Calvinism will have certain implications for ministry and living the Christian life that those of a different persuasion will not approve of. The same is true vice versa. These matter. See my post on why Calvinism discussions matter. Yet at the end of the day the implications are not central.
Usually after a couple salient points these conversations degenerate into ridiculous but/if scenarios. Most of the discussion is on implications. “If we embrace this, then…” While some of these might even be true they aren’t central nor is it helpful to any sort of discussion.
Points of which we contend aren’t what the church needs
As I see it the major points of contention are not central to the gospel. Yes there are HUGE implications that come from what you believe on these issues. But they aren’t central and in many instances they aren’t even secondary matters.
Here are some of the major issues that I see:
- Can I tell a lost person that Jesus died for them? While I understand this question and what is behind it, I don’t see why it matters. The scriptural accounts of someone sharing the good news of the risen Christ are pretty simple. They share the claims of Jesus and then say therefore, repent and believe the gospel. “For whom did Christ die?” doesn’t matter when it comes to sharing the gospel.
- What did we inherit from Adam? Again this has quite a few implications. But allow me to ask a couple of questions. Are all men guilty now? So why does it matter so much to debate this? What about babies? Let’s be honest at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy. The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right. That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know that God is good.
- Which came first regeneration or faith? Once again several implications from this. But does it really matter? Are there scores of people walking out there that aren’t regenerate but who have faith? Nope. Are there scores of people that don’t have faith but might be regenerate? Even if a Calvinist says yes, won’t this person then have faith? So, why does it matter? Aren’t these really inseparable graces? Are we really going to divide or debate over which inseparable grace came first?
- Are people saved because God foreknew them or because God foreknew they would choose God? Several implications to this one. But at the end of the day do you say that God saves sinners? If you do then perhaps we’re just debating about an eternal decree.
Even if we solved each of these issues and came to an agreement on them I’m not certain that all of our churches would be transformed. What we really need are passionate worshippers of Jesus that obediently live out the truth that they do know. By and large we have an obedience problem far more than we have a doctrinal unity problem. And I believe the sinful way that this discussion is often carried out is evidence of that.
What will transform our churches is a robust gospel of a holy God that is wholly other that has purposed to save sinners. Obedience to that gospel will revolutionize our churches. Falling in love with this Jesus will cause us to boldly proclaim the gospel in the dark places of our world. This same thing will create in believers a heart that treasures Christ more than the lures of the world. And we’ll be about the business of making disciples as the Great Commission compels us AND loving God and others as the Great Commandment exhorts us.
This is what we need. Not another lengthy argument.
I would like to disagree with you on a few points if you do not mind. Would you mind writing another article that I could find an issue with because this one is spot on. Good work Mike.
Wow, I got some problems with this.
Unity and love are more important? Than what? Truth? Or which is better, Flounder or Redfish?
I would submit as long as there are false accusations on either side, the discussion matters for clarifications sake.
As long as there are hyper beliefs on either side, the discussion matters.
As long as people are trying to understand the range of the gospel, the scope of salvation, the hope of glory; the Discussion Matters.
I don’t need to be the truth police. Gee, I’m glad a Human told me the truth so I could be saved.
Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Nice opinion. Got data?
Here are some of the major issues that I see: Gosh, I see some other more weighty ones. Is God Sovereign in Salvation? Are we tailor our gospel to felt needs and seekers? etc. (More weighty-My opinion) 😉
Thanks
Clark: 1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Paul is speaking in the context of spiritual gifts here… If it is simply the emotion of love, we could just echo John Lennon, “All You Need is Love… All Together Now?”
But that is not the only place Paul stresses love. One particularly relevant one is I Cor 8:1: “Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up (or constructs)”. In the current Calvinist wrangle, I’ve seen a lot more puffed-up heads (on both sides) than I’ve seen love being constructive.
And what Paul is talking about in I Cor 13 isn’t just emotion. It’s practical. And while it occurs in the context of spiritual gifts, I don’t think it’s relevant only to spiritual gifts. Again, it’s not just the spiritual gifts that Paul compares love to, it’s knowledge. Our knowledge (including, among other things, our knowledge of soteriology) is partial and temporary. Love endures. In the Corinthians, Paul was dealing with a group of Christian who, like us, prided themselves on their knowledge. Paul was trying to move them from just knowledge to exercising that knowledge constructively in love. Love will produce more results from that knowledge than the puffed-head syndrome knowledge by itself produces. Without love, all of that knowledge of soteriology will produce nothing.
And if you’re going to go musical on us, I prefer Larry Norman: “Without Love, you ain’t nothin’ nothin’ nothin’, without Love you ain’t nothing without Love”.
I agree Ben, but we don’t love our children and allow inappropriate thoughts or actions to continue in their lives simply because we love them. That was my point; that proper theology is crucial and we simply can’t look the other way simply for the sake of love.
But love is going to affect the way we communicate that correction to them. I’m afraid that often it seems like we think that once we determine that someone is wrong and it’s the ‘loving’ thing to correct them, it no longer matters what attitude we take in administering that correction. That strikes me as neither loving nor scriptural.
“”” Got data?”””
Just Google any blog with the word, Calvinism. Then, pray for the poor dead horse that is so ruthlessly beaten.
“at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy.
The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right.
That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know
that God is good.”
AMEN, Mike
was said recently in my Church, this:
” . . . the prophet Joel addresses to the people of Israel,
“Thus says the Lord, return to me WITH ALL YOUR HEART,
with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning”
. . . . “with all your heart” . . . means from the very core of our thoughts and feelings, from the roots of our decisions, choices and actions, with a gesture of total and radical freedom.
But is this return to God possible?
Yes, because there is a force that does not reside in our hearts,
but that emanates from the heart of God and the power of His mercy.
The prophet says: “return to the Lord, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment.”
It is possible to return to the Lord,
it is a ‘grace’,
because it is the work of God and the fruit of faith that we entrust to His mercy.
But this return to God becomes a reality in our lives
only when the grace of God penetrates and moves our innermost core, gifting us the power that “rends the heart”. ”
We proclaim ‘Christ is risen’.
And we pray ‘Let the holy fire come’.
Excellent post! It makes so much sense that there’s nothing left to say. Nothing to debate. Kinda’ takes the fun out of it.
Well done, Mike!
I will say here what I’ve said to Mike. Since he’s not around he won’t get a big head. He’s gonna be one of the blogging biggies in a couple of years! (Of course, as a contributor here, he already is, right? – I wish I could use one of those horrid emoticons now).
I will “sacrifice” one for you Dave, Ole Buddy. I, as I have stated in another thread, believe in sacrifice and besides, I have millions of them.
So here, have one. 🙂
Naw, take two more 🙂 🙂 I am feeling very generous today and it is really true that it makes me cheerful 🙂 Ah, there’s another one.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
“scholar?” 🙂
Oh, here. I found this on another blog
🙂
But arguing is so much more fun than agreeing.
Now, if you guys would just agree to apply the same principles to those of us who, for a variety of reasons, are uncomfortable with the word “inerrant” but otherwise have a high view of Scripture. . . .
John
If you’re uncomfortable with the word inerrant then you do not have a high view of scripture, by definition.
I think a doctrine of inspiration is far more useful than one of inerrancy, though, Joe. Inerrancy carries a lot of baggage.
If you have a problem with the word, inerrant, then we should work through that.
If you have a problem with the inerrancy of the scripture, that is a bridge we cannot cross and maintain fidelity to God and his word.
Some fights are worth fighting!
I have gone through this quite few times on this blog. Sometimes you guys say I’m close (Joe’s comment notwithstanding) and sometimes you say I’m not.
In summary: first, “inerrant” became more of a statement of political conformity within the SBC than a significant theological statement. Consequently, it carries some baggage that is not theological at all, and I have some problems with that. Actually, I believe “infallible” is a theologically stronger word, and I am entirely comfortable with its use describing Scripture. Second, I have yet to meet an “inerrantist” who did not place limitations on the word “inerrant,” including the Chicago statement. The most common limitations are (a) that it applies only to the original manuscripts, none of which we possess, (b) it does not apply to any of the versions or translations we use, and (c) although not quite as common, to be meaningful, an inerrant Bible would logically require an inerrant interpreter to correctly disseminate what it contains, which is uncomfortably close to the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the pope speaking to matters of faith and practice. Sure, with such caveats I could call myself an “inerrantist,” but I would feel intellectually dishonest doing so, because the word, as commonly understood in the pews, does not admit limitations.
Joe, have fun. Dave & others, here I stand. You are welcome to tell me how close or distant you think I am.
John
Everyone,
I want to point out that I am a Eucalyptus Calvinist, I smell good but my doctrine stinks.
Don’t get upset, I was just kidding. You’ll have to admit that was funny.
A couple quick comments.
First, I’m not attempting to say there is NO place for reasoned and Christ-honoring discussion. Especially in the local church.
Secondly, I’m also not saying that truth doesn’t matter or that some amorphous love trumps it. But there are some hills that aren’t worth dying or dividing over. Not that it’s not important but perhaps not essential.
Now I’m going to go enjoy a night out in St. Louis with my lovely wife .
When you could be blogging with us? Where are your priorities?
Right where they should be.
Mike,
You live in the STL area? I do and was out with my wife last night too? If you live here I’d love to connect sometime.
Les
I live in Southern Indiana. But I am originally from NE MO. My wife’s family lives in STL. We are here for the weekend because her brother is getting baptized on Sunday.
Ah I see. I live in west STL county newr Chesterfield.
Well have a blessed time this weekend as your brother publicly testifies to the riches of God’s grace.
Les
Mike is going out with his wife in St. Louis. Hope he does not go to parts of that city where one’s life is on the line just by being in such locations. We are all reminded of how powerless we are these days, when we behold the terrible decline in our society. That is why I pray so much for a Third Great Awakening, for the power of Heaven to fall upon our cities, for the elect to be called forth in commitment to Christ Jesus, to people who willingly sacrifice themselves to advance His cause. In review the life of the Hyper Calvinist, Dr. John Thomas, the man who won the first convert in the modern missionary movement, whose convert had to be baptized by the five point Calvinist, William Carey, I noted that he was known among the Hindus for his compassion. He took most of his salary to support and help the starving poor, and the people of India expected such concern, the concern of compassion, on the part of Christians.
No politics… I love it!
I just wanted to point out that in his commentary on the Gospel of John,
John Calvin said that Faith precedes regeneration, and not the other way around.
Why then do Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith? John Calvin believes differently. How then can one say they are Calvinist?
Especially when they don’t follow Calvin’s teachings.
Sorry Mike Leake, I just wanted to put this question out there.
thing is:
something precedes something else . . .
why ?
what are the implications of ‘faith’ or ‘renatus’ happening first?
my take is that in Calvinism, there is no REAL free choice given to a person . . . that ‘response’ to faith is really non-existent because it is as though a person were pre-programmed and their life ‘unfolds’ like in a stage play where the actor is living the thoughts and emotions of the author and has no real free life of his own
as to which comes ‘first’ in such a case, does it matter? if the end is always predictable?
what is the thinking about the ‘why?’ of which one comes before the other?
Christiane,
Well, this is an in-house debate and should be able to be a friendly one. I hold to the Reformed position that regeneration (the new birth Jesus spoke of) must necessarily come before a person exercises faith. i.e. since we are all dead in our trespasses and sins, dead men (spiritually dead) cannot believe. We’re dead after all spiritually. So we must be awakened (born again) and the scales must fall from our eyes (we were blind but now we see sort of thinking) and then we exercise real faith. We believe.
But as I said, it’s an in-house debate. Sort of like a football team having discussions about the blocking and tackling and play schemes in the team meetings. Then on the field, all being on the same team, they execute the plays. In some ways and probably in most cases, regeneration and faith are essentially simultaneous. We can’t really know since we can’t visibly see how the Spirit works. We see the after effects…a sinner declaring their faith in Christ.
And at the end of the day, we all, on both sides of this in-house debate, believe that sinners are saved by grace alone in Christ alone by faith alone to the glory og God alone. SDG!
Les
LES, thank you for that explanation. I appreciate the time you took to respond.
Jess,
Which part of his commentary. For he says regarding John 1.8:
Calvin goes on to say,
Perhaps you Googled someone who is wanting you to think that Calvin has faith preceding regeneration. A non-Calvinist perhaos trying to undermine Calvinists. IDK.
But I’ve just posted his words for you to see.
Makes no sense, Faith has to come first according to Calvin.
Makes no sense? Brother with all due respect you’re just refusing to see the plain words of Calvin.
Jess Alford,
Les is right. You are refusing to see the plain words of Calvin.
However, you are right also. It makes no sense.
Thanks cb.
Jess ans cb,
See just above where I replied to Christiane. Where do you think I have it wrong?
Les,
I did not state you had anything wrong. Why do you ask that question?
Oh, sorry brother cb. I misunderstood. Nevermind.
Les,
I was giving props to you and Jess Alford both; You for having Calvin’s position on regeneration proceeding faith correct and Jess Alford for stating it makes no sense.
Cb,
Thanks. I misunderstood. No problem here.
You are welcome. BTW, I recently saw a picture of you without the Auburn cap. Any chance you lost it or burned it up and will be getting you a new and better cap, maybe a cap of Crimson in color?
“I recently saw a picture of you without the Auburn cap.”
What?! How did that happen? Kidding aside, I’ve been to Haiti about 18 times in the last 2 1/2 years and had it on almost every time. It got pretty nasty after all that dirt/dust/sweating. So I switched to a North Dakota pheasant hat.
About the Tide. Growing up in Monroeville, AL many years ago the divide between Tide and Tigers fans was and still is pretty intense. I was part of that. I was a Tide hater. Then went and graduated from Auburn. Still a big fan. But I’ve been away from the state since 1984. Tennessee and Missouri mostly. Missouri the last 25 years. Not much SEC coverage up here until the last year when Mizzou came into the SEC.
The intensity of hatred waned. So now I’m still a big AU fan but not a Tide hater. I love to see the Tide succeed, except one game a year. And, we’ve had some neices go there. They’re sweet Christian girls and had a good experience.
Tell you what, you send me a Tide hat and I’ll wear it in Haiti and even get a pic and post it on my FB page.
Email your mailing address to Dave Miller and he will send it to me or email him and ask for my email address and/or cell phone.
I am always glad to help in the conversion experience of any person.
cb,
My office for HOPE is public:
HOPE
Les Prouty
135 West Adams Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122
I’ll gladly wear it. We have supporters from many SEC and Big 12 schools and a few others.
BTW, are you still in God’s country? Alabama?
Les,
May I encourage you to turn from your wicked ways and not give SEC CB any reason to glory in the downward spiral of anyone into the perdition that is the Crimson Tide? Please, avoid the evil that is even now like a roaring elephant, seeking someone to devour.
Your very concerned brother,
Duckman Dale
Dale,
Do you think I am being sucked in by an evil, swirling, crimson whirlpool that will take me to the deep underworld of college football? Is the evil tusked one crouching at my door?
What shall I do? What would the apostle Paul tell me?
Turn or burn! Lol!
Les,
I googled, which comes first Faith or regeneration? There you will find it.
Les,
It’s article four.
I found it. He is indeed attempting to refute regeneration precedes faith. However, he only quotes one sentence. I quoted the fullness of where that commentary on John 1.13 came from. See above. One cannot get Calvin viewing faith preceding regeneration when one reads the totality of Calvin, even in the above passage.
One thing, I think, needs to be clear. The ultimate aim is not to make Calvinists but Christians, to bring or give honor and glory to God and good to souls. The theology of Sovereign Grace is seen as a means to the desired end, because it was what produced the same effect in the First and Second Great Awakenings and in the launching of the modern missionary movement. Hence, the doctrines of grace are the means to a Third Great Awakening. Just think about the fact that no one ever responds to my reiterated statement that “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage.” All of the doctrines of grace set forth by the acrostic, TULIP, along with reprobation are invitations to salvation. Mr. Spurgeon prayed for the conversion of the whole earth. I do the same, and I mean every last soul upon the earth right this very moment. There is a presupposition of an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a sense of the Divine presence, in and upon the people of God and even the whole earth, like the stone that becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth and like the earth being filled with the knowledge and glory of God as the waters cover the sea. Not just for a little while. Not even just for a 1000 years, but for a 1000 generations, in years that is anywhere from 20,000-900,000+ years and millions of planets. Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
James,
I agree, If you want to move the mouse you gotta move the cheese.
I think this is a ne@essary discussion to have. On the one hand we have people who would be glad to have plenty of ooey-gooey feelings toward one another while we flounder with only a rudimentary, or extremely flawed, understanding of God. On the other hand, in the process of urging each other on in our necessary struggle to grow in faith, we are often too proud to accept correction or instruction. The problem is that some of the correction is flawed.
Do you really think it is ne@essary?
Sorry, I’m in one of my moods.
He said some of the correction is flawed, Dave…
Wow. Well, seeing that, It may be ne@essary to not type on my phone during a break at church.
I have fat fingers. If I send a message from my phone, I invariably have typos.
I enjoy pointing them out in others, though.
The problem with understanding this particular theology is that we lack a perspective that is sufficient to view it objectively. We see bits and pieces, here and there, now and then, a kaleidoscopic vision of fascination, of promises breaking through at various points. However, we come to some place of viewing that lets us get a real insight or a panoramic vista that sets the teachings in a better, more attractive order, It is sort of like viewing the hill after which my first church was named, Pilot Knob. From the East, South, even from the West, that hill was not that prominent until you were up close. However, from the North, the way by which the settlers first came into the area, one could see why they called that hill, Pilot Knob. It was a guide for people traveling along the Gasconade River from the Missouri. So, too, these doctrines and what they can do need to be viewed for their over all impact on communities and families in the present and the future and in various aspects of life. Take the awakening of the family of Stevensons during the First Great Awakening under the preaching of Ev. George Whitefield. I have the family history which tells about the conversion of a mother and son one year under Whitefield and then the conversion of the second son the next year. The latter would become the ancestor of Adlai Stevenson and a family of Presbyterians. The first son mentioned above would have a descendant who just died about a year or so ago. He was a Baptist preacher. Some influence for the Awakening theology through the centuries. And then there is the reality that could lead to communities free of crime for the most part, awakenings that were furthered later on in the history of the South, for example. When these occurred, the result was no criminal cases to come before the country grand juries for 10 years. There are cities in the Raleigh-Durham, area where there had not been a murder in years (like sometimes never). Now they are beginning to have murders as our society declines. There is something about the fear of the Lord and the Sovereignty of God that restrains people from carrying out the savage impulses of their natures. There is also the effect of love to bring peace into families that have been troubled for years by drinking, abuse, immorality and etc. I have seen the effect in the latter instance and know there is something tot be said for the Gospel of Sovereign Grace that can bring peace and joy to a home that has come to a saving knowledge of Christ, that reads and is influenced by the Bible. We can handle the situation by the grace of God, and our prayers will be heard…sooner or later, one way or another, to a greater or lesser degree. Imagine the results of a 100 years of prayer, the results of a 1000 years of praying. Don’t you think they prayed for years on end in the Dark Ages. Concerning our Lord and the world and the fiery end, have you ever thought about the flames of fire on the Day of Pentecost and the possibility of another fiery blessing and rushing might wind that could take the whole earth or a flood of grace that would make the flood of Noah look like a rivulet? A thousand generations and how many souls, all to fulfill God’s remark in Rev.7:9?
Wow. That was sad, but rather indicative of the sorry state of the church and the Christian mind. I notice that the author did not feel any compulsion to base his opinions on the Word of God. “Unity and love are more important.” More important than what? Contending for the truth? Based upon what verse of Scripture? “Lengthy debates are seldome helpful.” What does that mean? How long is “lengthy”? Are two days too long for debate? Two years? How long did the Jerusalem Council take? How long for the Counsel of Nicea? If seldom, then when are they helpful? I can imagine what Athanasius would have to say about that. Thank God He made our church fathers of steerner stuff.
Let’s get down to the fruit of this message. It does not matter what you believe as long as you’re doing good things. What other conclusion would follow? After all, if someone wants to deny the Trinty then that’s up to the Spirit to guide them, isn’t it? If a Mormon wants to contend that Jesus was Lucifer’s brother then who am I to engage in lengthy debates especially since his love for Jesus is more important.
I rather think that the problem is exactly the kind of egoistic, man-centered theology that Arminianism (if not outright Pelagianism) fosters. It is possible to ernestly contend for the truth of the Bible and still love others. It’s still possible to tell my Arminian Baptistic brothers and sisters “You’re wrong” and not break communion with them. It’s still possible to accept correction and not feel so arrogant that I have to go out and start another denomination. Besides being the best exposition of God’s holy writ (based upon my studies), Calvinism is thoroughly God-centered enough to humble the believer, accept vigorous debate, and acknowledge that we can have truth AND love.
Just to be clear, while I didn’t cite Scripture for that second point it is bathed in it. I noted Jesus’ concern when praying for the disciples (and us) that we be united and love one another. (John 13-17) And then picked up in 1 John. Which is where the phrase “this not merely in talk” comes from.
Unity and love are more important than winning a theological debate on secondary or tertiary issues. Again as I noted to another comment earlier I am not talking about some sort of amorphous love and unity that is based on nothing. But I do believe that we can have very significant and meaningful unity and love without agreeing on the ordo salutis, foreknowledge, etc.
You are also correct that you can tell your Arminian Baptistic brothers and sisters “You’re wrong” and and not break communion with them. But you had better do it in gentleness and respect in a way that is fitting an ambassador of the risen Christ. I agree with your last sentence as well since I am a Calvinist.
But I’m not so certain that Calvinism itself is “sufficient to humble the believer, accept vigorours debate, and acknowledge that we can have truth AND love.” Yes it is sufficient armor as was Saul’s armor in fighting the Philistines. But when David puts it on it doesn’t do much for him. In the same way, Calvinism in the hands of the prideful and self-righteous men and women, that aren’t yet broken by the system they proclaim, doesn’t do much good for them or the church.
I agree! I’ve known many calvinists and I’ve found the attitudes of many of them off-putting. The system does not seem to have the effect of producing gracious Christians, at least not across the board.
I don’t know if I’d agree with that fully. I do think in our day and age there is something that happens akin to pride when young believers come to embrace the doctrines of grace. But in my opinion it’s less a product of Calvinism and more to do with underdog theology, feeling upset about having this not taught to you before, and being born into a climate of controversy. Often it’s notions in the head before embracing it in the heart.
Having said that I understand why one that is not a Calvinist would easily conclude the fault lies with Calvinism. But historically speaking and with a broad enough board I think it does lend itself to humility.
Mike, that’s as fair a comment as I’ve seen, and most perceptive at that. Thanks.
I had to struggle with my 16-year-old son through his cage stage a couple of years ago brought on when his Bible teacher at school, and the rest of his class, beat up on him verbally for being the only one with Reformed leanings in the class. I don’t think he was even completely settled on the issue until then. I think being the minority in that environment really helped push him over, but I never thought about it as being a formative pattern in the SBC in general.
I don’t think being the underdog produces pride, but it does produce passion that has yet to be tempered rightly. One thing that aggravates me is that in our day, any expression of passionate theological conviction often gets the response, “Stop being so [prideful/arrogant/divisive/whatever]!” when what we really should desire is to see more passion about theology, not less. We squelch this passion by treating it as almost divisive. This is not the right way to temper such passion.
Chris,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. What I mean by “underdog” is the non-majority position. What I have seen historically is that there is a type of pride that accompanies an underdog position. Usually an attitude that believes “we’ve got it right and the vast majority doesn’t, therefore we must be superior in some regard”. In the Calvinism of our era I see a type of intellectual elitism that can sometimes happen. When Calvinism was the assumed/majority position I believe the Wesleyan Methodist and others often displayed a pride in being “more spiritual” and not as cold as the majority position.
Mike,
Sure, that can happen, but I don’t think that’s what tends to happen in this debate. When we talk about “cage stage” we are not talking about people who are prideful but people who are passionate.
A passion that is out of balance, damaging, and divisive…
Could it be that some confuse being calvinistic with being Calvin?
Calvin, as a theologian, was brilliant. As a politician he was crafty and successful.
Attaching his name to one’s doctrine could indeed lead to a filling of pride it seems to me.
Dave,
Sure, which is why I say it needs to be properly tempered. This is not what we have done. We have instead acted as though theological confidence is a great sin to be squelched, an obstacle to unity. We have implicitly bought the postmodern (as in, not biblical) idea that humility requires an element of uncertainty. The Established Position loves this redefinition of humility because it means nothing will ever change. The result is that _both_ unity and truth suffer.
Chris,
My “cage stage” was marked by passion. But passion in the wrong thing and with the wrong heart. I was more passionate about the truth of grace than I was The Gracious One. Weird how that can happen.
Frank L., few Calvinists are actually students of Calvin. A good number haven’t even read his Institutes, much less studied his life.
“Unity and love are more important.” More important than what? Contending for the truth? ”
Yes. 1 Corinthians 13. If doctrine causes war and hate and a need to smear people in the process, what good is doctrine. You certainly aren’t living it out in order to play dirty. The ends justify the means which goes completely against anything in the Bible, so yes, I see the Bible saying unity and love are much more important as unity and love come from the Holy Spirit in us. No bloodshed needed for unity and love.
Truth and Love are not two different options but one in the same. Even in contending for the truth one should do it with love.
I agree that the “end justifies the means” finds no support in the Bible or model in the the Life of the Lord.
I think this is especially true when the debate is over a matter that has yet to be resolved in over 2000 years of debating.
Mike, I want to add a few thoughts to your 66 about pride in young Calvinists. We all struggle with pride regardless of age. I’m not convinced it is as much pride as it is immaturity. Add that immaturity to the point you stated about not having been taught the DoG before (or having them misrepresented) leaving one feeling slighted leadig to a bad combination.
What I think may be overlooked in when making observations about young cage stage Calvinists is the reaction of those whom they argue against. When the young Calvinist approaches an older, non-Calvinist Christian he is often not treated with grace. Not even with the grace the non-Calvinist calls the young Calvinist to. The older Christian who should be an example to the younger is not and an awful spiral of debate occurs.
I might even charge the older non-Calvinist with pride since sometimes they point to how long they have been in ministry or something of the sort as if truth is predicated on their length of service.
But anyway. 🙂
Once I was saved from Arminian theology (Church of God of Prophecy), I was a cage-stage Non-Calvinist (Southern Baptist) for years. I used to post on Baptist Fire all the time. In my first full time youth pastor position, the interim pastor was on vacation, and I preached. I called the entire church to the altar to pray about the heresy that was sweeping through the SBC. This heresy was known as Calvinism.
There’s cage-stage of every stripe, regardless the theological system. I wish the Traditionalists would own up to the cage-stage folks in their own ranks. I’ve seen numerous non-Calvinist Southern Baptists split churches over issues they shouldn’t have been dogmatic about. Yet, I know better than to argue that their theology will inevitably lead to more division in the SBC. Stereotyping is foolish, regardless who’s doing it.
Dear Jared: What an enlightening statement of your experience. We all go through cage stages for whatever we are advocating. You should see how folks get all bent out of shape about the pre-mil, pre-trib. second coming. Even R.G. Lee could joke about it, saying, “When the Dentist said, ‘Open your mouth and say AWW,’ I answered, ‘I am not going to do it. I have never used that term in my life and I am not going to start now.'” That’s pretty much what I remember from Dr. Lee’s sermon on the Millenium from 50 years ago it will be this Summer. We all just roared with laughter then. Back in our local association, the pastor of the leading FBC took issue with Dr. Lee and delivered a sermon on Amillenialism. Probably every one of us preachers disagreed with him. Some years later I would throw in the towel on that eschatology and take up the post-mil view. My son is a Post Trib, pre-mil. My pastor is a pre-trib, pre-mil. None of us can be so dogmatic though we often are. Why? Because our feelings are related to our theological understandings, and it is hard to believe that how we see things might not represent what God wants us to understand, that it is going to take us time to change our outlooks, our practices, to develop an appropriate affectionate response that is more in accord with the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Gentlemen, there’s pride and arrogance in all of us to some degree. But I agree with Mark that usually the “cage stage” Calvinist is suffering more from theological immaturity…he’s a newbie and has discovered the truth, so he becomes a sometimes loud ambassador for Reformed theology.
And Jared is right too. There is the same thing on the other end of the spectrum.
I’ve been arrogant and prideful at times too. But more and more what I’ve seen among Reformed folks is a diminishing pride and an increasing humility. The doctrines of grace are humbling doctrines and that’s where it usually leads.
All that said, there’s plenty of pride and arrogance to go around. I don’t see it as much on this blog by either side. There are a few other blogs where pride and arrogance rear their ugly heads more than here.
The bottom line is that at the end of the day both Calvinists and non-Calvinists should be able to lay down the swords and join together in proclaiming the wonderful news that God saves sinners. See Mark’s post today on two people sharing the gospel form each perspective. It’s an excellent illustration of how both sides can and should unite in the gospel mission. We do all here preach the same gospel after all.
“”Gentlemen, there’s pride and arrogance in all of us to some degree.””
Perhaps that is true, but my pride is better than your pride.
“Perhaps that is true, but my pride is better than your pride.”
That’s a good one. 🙂
“You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,”
said Aslan.
“And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar,
and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”
? C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian
If the folks with pride and arrogance were not allowed to post comments. There wouldn’t be many of us left to talk about the issues.
Frank, FTW!
[clicks the invisible ‘like’ button]
I told my pastor one Sunday that he had a great message up until 11:50 a.m., when he began chasing a rabbit. He just laughed uproariously, for he knew what I meant. Then he said, “It is good to be able to differ and to laugh without rancor.” He had caught the humorous intent of my remark which kept the comment from being a cause of unhappiness.
Thanks for the discussion. I am in agreement that the “same thing happens on both sides”. And I also believe that some older non-C’s don’t love their cage-stagers well. But I’m also of the opinion that me calling out those that are not of my theological persuasion often sidetracks the discussion. I’d prefer to “call out my own”, especially online. Such attitudes are sin that is better dealt with by a loving shepherd or personal friend and not a distant name speaking over Al Gore’s internets.