“Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.” This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
Concerning the question of eating food offered to idols, logically and theologically the “strong” Corinthians had this question nailed. They rightly believed that there is only one God, “an idol has no real existence” and correctly deduced from this that a “nothing cannot affect meat”[1] Yet, what they failed the most important test; namely, that of love. In other words the “strong” Corinthians had notions in the head but it had yet to trickle down and transform their hearts. Such a knowledge only puffs up the individual it never edifies the body.
Anthony Thiselton helps us to see that Paul subtly challenges the “strong” Corinthians’ view of knowledge:
Paul distinguishes between knowing (using the verb) as a process that is continuous and ever learning and knowledge(the noun gnosis) as denoting a static, completed state. The latter (but not the former) leads to a cast of mind that regards everything as “buttoned up,” mastered, and fully processed.
Herein, lies the root of angry and divisive Calvinism. Fundamentally, it is a problem of the heart and has little no bearing on the validity of the “ism” being distorted by its follower. The puffed up pride that comes from only have a notion in the head is what makes for an angry and a divisive Calvinist.
Really all of these posts is only backing up what Joe Thorn noted as the three reasons for angry and divisive Calvinists. In his interview with Ed Stetzer (which you should read all of including the comments, here) Thorn notes three principle reasons that I will summarize.
1. Over-zealous and excited about a new found truth. “Some of us, and I was one of them, would benefit from being locked up in a cage for a few years until our heart can catch up with our head.”
2. Anger at being denied this in the past. “They feel as if they’ve wasted years of their life, or the church has let them down. So, they’re angry about that…”
3. A short-circuit between the head and heart. “When we Calvinists are ungracious, unnecessarily combative, proud, and arrogant, we are not being true Calvinists. We are posers.”
So how do you disciple a young Calvinist whose either angry, over-zealous, or simply has a short-circuit between his head and heart? Apart from patient plodding and let the gospel take deeper roots one particular thing I do with young Calvinists (including myself) is introduce them to John Newton–and that will be what we do in Part Five and Part Six.
——
[1] Anthony Thiselton’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 124
I like your theory (if I am representing it correctly) that the problem is less the “ism” and more the problem of knowledge that puffs up.
The hard part is gaining a knowledge of truth while maintaining humility.
I don’t think the problem is ever the system, it’s usually those who put their identity and often their self-worth in the system. I am writing the “Woven” book, but I have to be careful that I am not just a proclaimed of “the system”. I am a follower of Christ, and my identity should be there, and that unites us. That tie that unites me to my non-Calvinist (or non-Wovenest) brothers is stronger than the separation of theological system. When we get our eyes off Jesus, we play right into the hands of the Devil, who seeks to divide… Read more »
“When we get our eyes off Jesus, we play right into the hands of the Devil, who seeks to divide us.” brings to mind: “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5) “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 55:8) All the more reason to keep focus on Jesus Christ Crucified and Risen From the Dead . . . and to return again and again to the Holy Gospels of Our Lord and learn from the One Who Spoke In the… Read more »
The only thing I would add is that somebody enabled Mark– taught him to act this way.
What if, instead, he was taught to be humble and gracious with what he perceived to be new truth. What if he learned to treasure, rather than scorn, the theological tradition from which he came?
My two cents…
Thanks,
Ed
I remember when a few people from my previous church got hooked up with an extreme Messianic group – one of those that did not just celebrate our OT heritage, but demanded a return to obedience to OT law – and they went through what we might call “cage phase” in that doctrine.
They had found a doctrine (I think false) that made them feel a step above everyone else.
I think it is sort of a gnostic (we have the secret knowledge that those others don’t have) kind of response.
I have run into this exact type of Messianic group here in my area. But of course, the analogy doesn’t stop there. This could also apply to those who have recently become Charismatic after an experience, or those who have just embraced the “purpose-driven” model. In the end, it is often those who are new to an ideology, theology, or philosophy that act out in an immature way. Of course, when it comes to Calvinism, many will not accept these other factors and analogies to adherents in other systems. For some Calvinism is always the main problem and never the… Read more »
I think we are missing something important here. We are being pretty quick to dismiss our young Calvinist as over-zealous, angry at past ignorance, and/or having a disjunction between head and heart. While some of these might indeed be problems, what about the “older,” “wiser,” and supposedly more mature Calvinists? I think they shoulder a LOT of blame. Let’s take a quick look. J. I. Packer slams Arminianism as something less than orthodox. (So did Edwards, Whitefield, Hodge, Warfield, Turretin, etc. etc.) John Piper calls it a deficient view of God’s grace. Al Mohler says that aside from Reformed thought… Read more »
Hi JIM G. it looks like the divisiveness (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) occurs across the board, both sides, old and young, experienced and inexperienced. What ‘authority’ in sacred Scripture can be called upon to silence the intra-denominational fighting? There must be some verses that will help give some thought to both sides. (I can think of several that might help, but it would be better for those involved directly to work on this together.) Does it impact the whole Body of Christ, this fighting. Yes. It does. It affects the ‘witness’ that all Christian people must take responsiblity for, in the… Read more »
That Rome could tell anyone to quit bickering over doctrine is a serious problem. Had Rome done the same thing to the Arians and Trinitarians, we’d be in quite a mess. Neither Rome, nor any other ecclesiastical authority, should have final authority over consciences of men – but especially a group that gave the world the ghastly indulgences that God used to free the true Church to return to a Gospel defined by Scripture alone which is based on grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone.
Jim, One could easily present the same sort of statements from the Arminian-leaning side. For example, should we not call Ben Witherington’s recent statements in Christianity Today divisive and then conclude based on his age and maturity along side of Roger Olson, Lawrence Vance, John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell, Jerry Vines, and Dave Hunt that “It would appear to me that there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of [Arminian]-leaning DNA”? There is always going to be argument and strong words about this topic. We shouldn’t expect there to be no divisiveness about it – from… Read more »
Hi D. R. I think we can disagree without being disagreeable, don’t you think? I (and I believe I am in the minority, but that is only my perception) think we can put such differences aside and still cooperate. But to somewhat answer your point, consider this. Combine the influence of Piper, Packer, Mohler, Edwards, Calvin, Hodge, and Driscoll and call the value of the influence they have on young Calvinists X. Now, combine the influence on young non-Calvinists of the men you listed: Witherington, Falwell, Vance, Vines, Rice, Olson, and Hunt, and call that Y. I would guess that… Read more »
So, Jim the level of divisiveness depends not on the actual comment made or the attitude by which it is made, but rather the amount of influence that the speaker has? So by that logic the Westboro Baptist Church folks would actually be less divisive than Charles Spurgeon, huh? After all Spurgeon is the one who made the comment that Calvinism is the Gospel – a statement that is probably much more influential throughout the decades on young Calvinists than Westboro’s statements to any reasonable group of people. Seriously, this is grasping at straws. I agree we can still cooperate,… Read more »
Pay closer attention to what I wrote, D. R. Where did I say that Calvinists are more divisive than non-Calvinists? I said that the Calvinist leaders I named are more influential on young Calvinists than the non-Calvinist men you spoke of are to non-Calvinists. These Calvinist leaders tend to make divisive statements concerning those who disagree with their Calvinism. Where you got “more divisive” is beyond me. Back to my original comment, I think a great deal of the blame for the angry, divisive young Calvinist of whom the OP spoke lies at the feet of past and present Calvinist… Read more »
First Jim, it struck a nerve because it’s a false accusation. And I don’t like false accusations and neither should you. Second, regardless of your attempt to wiggle out of the logical implications of your original response to me, it’s clear that you are trying to make some sort of argument that non-Calvinistic divisiveness is not nearly as bad or is somehow “less divisive” than is that which comes from Calvinists. You plainly said that “It would appear to me that there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Reformed-leaning DNA”, yet ignored similar statements and… Read more »
D.R., No, it is not clear that is what I am trying to argue because it is not. I said – for the LAST time – that Calvinist leaders need to shoulder some of the blame for the divisiveness of their young proteges. I said that Calvinist leaders exert a great deal of influence over their young proteges, more, I believe, than non-Calvinists exert over theirs. The preceding sentence is my opinion based on observation. How you get out of those two points that I implied that Calvinists are way more divisive than non-Calvinists is the biggest non-sequitur leap I… Read more »
Jim, You too are missing what I am saying. I am not claiming you are directly saying that “influence determines divisiveness”, but rather I am pointing out that this is the natural implication of your statements – the logical end of your argument. Just because you aren’t saying it doesn’t mean it doesn’t lead to that conclusion. By claiming that “It would appear to me that there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Reformed-leaning DNA” and then countering claims that the same sort of divisiveness is prevalent in Arminian-leaning folks by pointing simply to the… Read more »
D. R.: I don’t think that is the logical conclusion to my statements. You might think I am taking it that far, but I am not. The missing link in the logical chain that WOULD take it that far is something that I do not affirm: namely that outside influence from mentors is the ONLY factor in divisiveness. It is A factor, but not the only one. If it were the only one, your argument would be correct. I believe that young Calvinists who are angry and divisive (Not all young Calvinists are angry or divisive!) gain some boldness in… Read more »
Jim, You said, “You might think I am taking it that far, but I am not.” Nope, never said YOU were taking it that far, but I do think it is a logical conclusion. As for influence not being the only factor, that may be true, but in the face of offering no other mitigating factors but that one alone, you placed your own argument in that precarious situation. Now that has been dealt with let’s get back to the greater issue I take with you, which is your main premise, which begins descent down this previous road – the… Read more »
D. R. I stand by what I said in all my posts. I think there can be an air of superiority on both sides. I didn’t address it at first because that was not what the OP was about. If you have ever interacted with me before, you know I am very aware of the log in my own eye, as well as the logs in the eyes of those who think similar to me. That said, just because I know my log is there does not dismiss the similar log from those who do not think like me. Let’s… Read more »
Jim, What I am saying is that there is a divisive strain in all of us – regardless of soteriological position. I don’t think it’s helpful to bring soteriological differences into this discussion. In fact, by doing so you seem to be doing the opposite of what Mike is trying to do, which is to show that there is a common thread in these angry, divisive Calvinists and it’s one they share with angry, divisive non-Calvinists, or even angry, divisive Purpose Driven advocates and angry, divisive contemporary worship cheerleaders – namely, his three reasons he listed above. So I actually… Read more »
I can agree with your last sentence. But I must admit I am disappointed that you will not admit that the divisive language used by leaders in soteriological contexts is part of why young, restless Cs and As use divisive comments themselves.
Jim G.
When I discovered (or God revealed it) how I was saved it was a transforming event. Salvation was a transforming event and we tell everyone of our experience. When we discover “how” we were saved and “why” we were saved we have the same zeal. After a while we discover that many have not received the knowledge. We understand how personal the salvation experience becomes when others are offended by how we know we were saved. We discover it really doesn’t matter how God saved us, it matters that we are saved and walk a saved lifestyle.
Calling a spade a spade is sometimes necessary, but that does not mean one has to act or continue to act in an atrocious manner. Remember that it was Whitefield who made the first efforts at some sort of ending of hostilities between him and john Wesley. I have often wondered if that did not grow out of the rebuke that Jonathan Edwards gave to Whitefield, when they rode together from the latter’s appointment at Edwards’ church to another appointment. That rebuke which involved Whitefield’s preaching against the unconverted ministry led the evangelist to cease and desist, and in the… Read more »