“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 us.
A wise man once taught me about brick walls and picket fences. Oh wait, that was Dave Miller.
“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 Very Person of God.
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 sin of the individuals involved.
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 structures, there is no way to embrace biblical inerrancy. Going back a few centuries, Augustus Toplady (of “Rock of Ages” fame) was extremely vitriolic over anyone who was not a Calvinist. Lest we forget, ol’ Johnny C. himself would lash out with voluminous venom at anyone who dared disagree with him. It would seem to me that these “mature” Calvinists can be quite divisive in their spoken and written communication. It is no secret that all of the above (with the exception of Toplady) are very influential among young Calvinists. The youngsters are merely repeating what their mentors say.
Who calls Packer, Piper, and Mohler on the carpet for their divisive language? How many dismiss Calvin’s viciousness as just “the spirit of his age” when in reality it is blatantly unChristian behavior? (BTW – many of his contemporaries did not act like him – I’m thinking Hubmaier, Sattler, Grebel, and even Bullinger and Melanchthon) It’s easy to point fingers at the young, but aren’t they taking many of their cues from their mentors? It would appear to me that there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Reformed-leaning DNA. How can we expect young, zealous Calvinists to act otherwise? I think some real theological humility among the Calvinist leaders would be an ounce of prevention that would be much better than the pound of cure we now need.
Jim G.
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 face of the needs of non-Christian people who may be scandalized by the in-fighting.
Yes, it does affect not only the denomination, but the whole Church, and most importantly, those who need the witness of the Church, as Our Lord warned.
Rome told the Thomists and the Molinists to quit their bickering amongst themselves, and they did. So I know that it is possible for bitterly opposed sides to ‘stop’ the behavior and return to the ways prescribed for dialogue among Christian people. It is possible.
Does sacred Scripture offer an authoritative voice that can convince both sides that the in-fighting must cease?
I think it does.
What do others think ?
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 both sides. What Mike is describing here is not simply divisiveness. If so, then truly we are all guilty of that as soon as we argue for our position.
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 X is probably 10-25 times larger than Y, wouldn’t you?
Jim G.
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, but claiming that Calvinists are so much more divisive than non-Calvinists because of their particular soteriological position just doesn’t hold water. Instead of defending it with more logical fallacies, it might be better to just acknowledge that both sides have problems when it comes to making divisive statements and leave it at that.
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 leaders. Now, you are free to disagree with that statement, but don’t put words in my mouth. Before accusing me of logical fallacies, please understand I am not using deductive logic. I’m merely making an observation, one which has certainly struck a nerve.
Jim G.
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 actions by non-Calvinists in regard to their soteriology claiming that somehow their lack of influence excused (or at least mitigated) their behavior. You seem to be claiming that those Calvinists who you listed were in fact worse in some way (or at least their statements were) because of their influence. So I am not twisting your words, though perhaps you didn’t realize how problematic your position was until you were shown the logical implications of it.
So while you try to argue semantics here, it’s clear that what you were saying is that Calvinists by nature are more divisive than non-Calvinists because of their soteriology (see your quote above). But again, that fails the sniff test. Anyone who has read Dave Hunt, John R. Rice, Jerry Vines, or Bill Harrell can see pretty clearly that non-Calvinists can be just as divisive, if not more so. And that is not and cannot be mitigated by their lack of influence.
The reality is that I could tell you of experience after experience of non-Calvinists screaming at me or at close friends of mine because they rejected Reformed soteriology and wanted to make a personal issue out of it. For every sad tale I’ve read on the internet about how a Church was ruined by a Calvinist I can tell you of a Church who acted unChristlike and fired a pastor simply because a Church member found out the pastor was a Calvinist and used it to divide the Church and get the pastor fired. Divisiveness doesn’t just breed in Reformed theology – it flows out of the sinful nature of men and women. And if you can’t see that Jim, then it’s clear you’ve got your blinders on.
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 have seen in a while. Do I think Hunt and Vance are divisive? YES. Do I think others can be? YES. Do I doubt your experiences? NO. Do I think that Arminians have the capacity to think their position can be the end-all? YES. Do you want to know why I did not mention this above? Because the OP is about angry and divisive “Calvinists.” Sorry – I was sticking with the OP.
But that does not excuse the same behavior in the Calvinist thinkers. Please fairly address what I have written.
Jim G.
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 greater influence of the Calvinists who made that statements, you are in essence starting down a path that leads to the logical conclusion that the level of divisiveness and responsibility for it is directly derived from the amount of influence a person wields.
Now clearly you are saying you are not making that statement, and I say, “Fine, you aren’t trying to argue that”. But, whether you understand it or not, that’s is the logical conclusion of the argument you are making. That’s where it leads. You just simply aren’t seeing or aren’t willing to see this logical implication of your argument. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean I am misreading you or being unfair to your points. That’s where the argument eventually leads. And that’s a problem.
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 their divisiveness by the statements of their leaders. Therefore, I think leaders should be more sensitive to what they say. Again, this can go for both Cs and As. I really hope this clears up the misconception.
My main point, again, is that the Calvinist leadership should shoulder much of the blame for the divisiveness of its proteges. They do not deserve all of the blame, but a good bit of it.
Jim G.
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 premise you have so far not tried to defend, namely, “It would appear to me that there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Reformed-leaning DNA.”
This is an unfair characterization and based on similar statements made by non-Calvinists regarding soteriology, one that should be rejected. Do you still stand by this statement, or based on evidence in my first response, would you now like to distance yourself from it?
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 simplify this a great deal. I’m willing to grant that there is a strain of superiority in non-Calvinists that can be harmful to those who listen to them and take them seriously. Granted. Now, are you willing to do the same (acknowledge a divisive, superior strain) with Calvin, Edwards, Piper, Mohler, et. al.? If you answer yes, we’re on the same page generally. If you answer no, we never will see eye to eye. What say you?
Jim G.
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 won’t say that “there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Reformed-leaning DNA” any less than I would say that “there is an air of theological superiority woven into some strands of Arminian-leaning DNA” (both are incorrect). However I will say that: There is an air of theological superiority woven into all strands of human DNA.
And because of that we must continually fight against our desire to sin in how we speak about our brothers and sisters in Christ. On that, I do hope we can both agree.
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 fulness of time he turned to raising money for the replacement of the library at Harvard which had burned. Harvard had been one of the institutions which had attacked Whitefield for his outrageous remarks on the unconverted ministry. One of Edwards’ points was that Judas had never been truly converted. The transformation of Protestantism, especially of the calvinistic reformed variety, took place as a result of the First and Second Great Awakenings and led to the launching of the Great Century of Missions. One of the things that has not been taught in a century or more is the transformation of Sovereign Grace faith into a winsome, inviting, patient, attractive, evangelistic, drawing theology that works by paradox and opposites. A series of Sovereign Grace Bible Conferences devoted to good preaching of that theology as evangelistic, inviting, uniting, charming, designedly maturational in the spiritual realm.