Now, I'm basing much of my dealings with Calvinism on specific forms of Calvinism. I know that Calvinism has its own spectrum, just like any other Christian doctrine. After all, orthodox Arminianism affirms predestination, and yet professing Arminians often deny predestination. It's all a gradual fade. For most people, I don't think it's a matter of which doctrine you'll adhere to 100%, but rather which doctrinal system your system most resembles. That way, when doctrines have a family reunion, you don't end up at a Turkish festival instead of a Scandinavian one, so to speak.
What's up with Calvinism? I'm sure some of you are wondering why I'm bringing it up - not that you'd be offended per se, but maybe just curious as to how and what I think about this touchy subject. I affirm that Calvinism's tenets can be rather touchy, but I don't think that should stop us from dealing with them.
On the front end, I think it's only fair to let you guys know that I'm not a Calvinist. Frankly, I don't know what I am, doctrinally speaking. It's not that I don't have specific beliefs about stuff: it's just that I don't know that I want to put a label on my beliefs just yet, so I haven't looked very hard to find out if there's a name for my beliefs or what that name might be.
Many Christians I know personally are Calvinists. I love them to death. I think they're wrong about a few things, but I love them dearly. I enjoy their company greatly, and we have a lot of fun together.
No, I'm not an Arminian. That tends to surprise everyone. I'm neither - I'm not a Calvinist, and I'm not an Arminian. I'm not a Calvinist because I don't like the picture it paints of God's character and man's nature. I'm not an Arminian because modern Arminianism denies Biblical doctrines like predestination. Frankly, I believe in predestination - I think the Calvinist model is a bit wonky, but I believe in predestination nonetheless.
So why am I not a Calvinist? There are four basic reasons: Fourthly, and least importantly, though by far not insignificantly, Calvinism drives unbelievers away from the Gospel. It's one of the things I've read more than once in atheist or agnostic testimonies about why they're not Christians – because God has already prearranged everything that's important about life. “So, why bother?” is their question. Thirdly, despite Calvinists' denials and protests, Calvinism doesn't really allow any good reasons for Christians to fulfill the most important mandate we have ever been given: evangelism. Secondly, Calvinism negates (what I perceive to be) the very core purpose for the existence of mankind, and that is to love, cherish and worship God and be loved by him. And firstly, and by far most importantly, Calvinism does radical violence to the character and nature of God himself. (I'll be talking about all of this in greater depth, in subsequent postings.)
There's a lot to be said about Calvinism, and it's all been said before. But I think that people are all different, and there's a good possibility that someone will read this unique explanation of Calvinism and see something they haven't seen anywhere else - maybe it'll help someone. But mainly, I can't know there's something like Calvinism out there and not say something.
Before we get started, I want to make something clear. There's something I call the Assertion-Essence Gap. It's the chasm that sometimes exists between a doctrine's claims (Assertion) and the doctrine's core meaning, value and/or nature (Essence). For example, Islam asserts that Mohammed is a greater prophet than Jesus. It also teaches in the Koran that Jesus did miracles, healings, created a live animal from mud, spoke prophetic messages at only two days old, and never died, ascending to Paradise bodily, because Allah couldn't watch him die - and Jesus, even in Islam, will return one day to reign as king over the whole world. And guess what? Even in Islam, Mohammed is illiterate, never did any miracles, and died by premeditated assassination. So Islam makes the assertion: "Mohammed is a greater prophet than Jesus," but the essence of what Islam teaches says: "Jesus is the greatest prophet ever." That's a great example.
Calvinism has many such gaps, which I'll address in turn. But what I wanted to make clear is this: most of Calvinism's assertions are noble, admirable and positive. People who only believe what Calvinism teaches on the surface (which is most Calvinists) are probably just fine - not great, but just fine. On the other hand, people who bother with Calvinism enough to know its true essence treat it very differently.
Something Calvinists underestimate is the outsider's ability to discern essence. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses experience this often when outsiders discern that both of those religions are really occult organizations, and Muslims when outsiders take all of ten seconds to figure out that Islam isn't really a religion of peace. Similarly, Calvinism's essence is fairly obvious to outsiders. Ironically enough, the insiders to Calvinism seem often to know the least about its essence.
So let's start with the first, most obvious gap: evangelism.
Calvinism's assertions affirm evangelism. I don't doubt that
Calvinism encourages evangelism, and I certainly don't doubt that
most Calvinists have a passion for winning lost souls for the Gospel
of Christ. What I deny is that the essence of Calvinism actually
allows for evangelism at all. In other words, it seems to me that in
order to believe most of Calvinism's core teachings, one has to
effectively abandon evangelism. And if one affirms evangelism as we
know it, then we have to seriously rethink Calvinism to the point
that it no longer bears any resemblance to “Reformed Theology.”
Let's have an analogy. Bear with me.
Inevitable Eventuality – “a future state or event that can neither be averted nor prevented.” If I am alone on the salt flats of Utah, and I wake up three feet above the ground, traveling toward the ground at critical velocity, my collision with the ground is an inevitable eventuality. In order to avert or prevent this event, someone or something has to help me in under .005 seconds or less, traveling across hundreds of miles and stopping me slowly enough to not disrupt my internal organs. This is impossible – therefore, my collision is inevitable. I cannot avoid or prevent my fate.
In order for Event C to occur, Event B must occur first. Event B
does not cause Event C – it merely makes Event C possible. Event B
can't occur on its own either – Event A must occur, making Event B
possible. Event A is necessary in order for Event B to occur, and
Event B is necessary in order for Event C to occur. “Necessary”
is here defined as describing something that is needed absolutely. In
other words, if Event A is “necessary” in order for Event B to
occur, then if Event A never occurs, then Event B becomes absolutely
impossible. The same is true of Event B's relationship with Event C.
If Event A is deemed inevitable, this has almost no effect at
all upon Events B and C. All we know now is that Event B is
definitely, certainly, absolutely possible. Now Event B can
occur, but that's just about it.
If Event B is deemed inevitable, this produces little change in
Event C, and yet has a profound effect upon Event A. Because, if
Event A is necessary in order to bring about Event B, and Event B can
neither be avoided nor prevented by any means, then in order for
Event B to be truly inevitable, Event A must also be inevitable. If
it's impossible to avoid or prevent Event B, then it's also
impossible to avoid or prevent anything that is necessary for Event B
to occur, including and especially Event A.
If Event C is deemed inevitable, this has an even more profound
effect. Because if Event B is necessary in order to Event C to even
be possible, and Event A is necessary in order for Event B to be
possible, then the two preceding, necessary events must also be
inevitable. Otherwise, Event C is preventable, and therefore not
truly inevitable – or else the preceding events are not really
necessary.
In
Romans 10, Paul outlines five steps that are necessary in order for
people to accept the Gospel. “How
then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they
be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that
preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”
1) Preacher sent, 2) Preacher preaches, 3) Hearer hears, 4) Hearer
believes, *5) Hearer calls upon the name of the Lord and is saved
(Rom.10:13).
Calvinism claims that Step 5* is inevitable, unable to be averted or
prevented, and yet it also claims that Christians must pursue
evangelism with a passion. This is logically inconsistent.
If the Elect calling on the name of the Lord is inevitable, then all
of the preceding necessary steps are also inevitable. Paul seems to
think that the four preceding steps in this system are necessary. So
my conclusion is correct, according to Paul's understanding in
Romans.
So why bother?
That question sends a grievously melancholy chill down my spine, and
it tilts the heads of Calvinists, but it is the next logical
consideration. If I am to evangelize, and my evangelism is
inevitable, why am I pursuing it? If I can't avoid or prevent
something, why am I chasing it down? This is akin to being asked to
touch the ground when I'm already careening toward the pavement. I
can't stop it, you can't stop it. Why bother? Why should I try to do
something that I can't not do?
So if Calvinism is true, then Step Five is inevitable, so the
adherents of this doctrine have no right to ask anyone to preach the
Gospel to the lost. And they have no right to do it themselves.
The
reason for this is because the only reliable way to know who you're
supposed to evangelize and who you're not is to stop trying.
Calvinism teaches that the lost are supposed to go to hell because
God hates them, and that God is right to hate them. If he hates them,
then we shouldn't insult him by offering his grace to those for whom
it was never intended. And the right evangelistic actions are
inevitable – we can't stop them. So the only ones whose evangelism
we can
prevent are those who were never supposed to be evangelized anyway.
So the rational thing to do is to stop trying.
I know this all sounds depressing and borderline blasphemous. But
let me remind you that these are not my own convictions – these are
merely the proper logical responses to what Calvinism teaches about
salvation.
It is my firm conviction that we as Christians, all of us, are
supposed to evangelize our little tushies off. Nothing should stand
in our way, especially not the wobbly scribbles of some bearded guy
from the Renaissance. Calvinism only affirms evangelism because no
true Christian would accept it otherwise. In order to make Calvinism
tolerable to anybody, evangelism is a necessary ingredient in this
bitter stew. But the doctrine leaves no real room for it.
Yes,
Calvinism will still say: “Christ commanded that we should
evangelize, so we must evangelize. It doesn't matter if it makes
sense to us – he wants us to do it.” But you can't disobey –
you are literally incapable of disobeying this command. So why try
to obey it, if it's simply impossible to disobey?
The
depressing reply I get from many Calvinists is that every Christian
should evangelize, no matter how ridiculous the command, because we
will receive a reward for doing so. So, Calvinism tells us that we
should evangelize for our own
benefit? My motivation
for telling people about the love of Christ should be myself?
Self-gain is to be my focus in the Gospel? I spit upon such concepts.
The Gospel was never meant for me,
at least not in that
way. It was meant for me to receive, but then it was meant for me to
give, so many more times than I received.
In summation, Calvinism makes the assertion that evangelism is to be
pursued with passion and zeal, but its essence leaves evangelism
completely insupportable.
