As with any debate, some arguments against a position are better than others. The following are five dumb arguments against Calvinism. Please, feel free to share more if you have them. Note, I am not calling any person dumb only their arguments.
1. Calvinism is divisive.
Yes, Calvinism is divisive, but one should not reject something simply because it is divisive. Quite a few things are divisive precisely because they are true, and anyone who disagrees with the truth is by default divided against it.
The gospel’s exclusivistic claims divide persons into believers and unbelievers. Are Christians willing to embrace other faiths as alternative routes to the same God because to insist otherwise is divisive? The church is divided over the mode and meaning of baptism, church government, eschatology, etc. Is each of us willing to give up our traditions in these areas to avoid division?
Truth by its nature is divisive; however, this is not an excuse for a party or divisive spirit. Christians should realize that some theological issues are quite complex and answers do not come easily. Consequently, we should strive together with love and humility towards one another to come to an understanding of our great God and Savior.
2. If Calvinism is true, evangelism is unnecessary or meaningless.
How many examples that contradict this argument are non-Calvinists going to have to hear to finally stop suggesting this as a reason to reject Calvinism? The Southern Baptist Convention was founded primarily by Calvinists, many of the early Baptist missionaries were Calvinistic (Carey, Brainerd, and Judson), D. James Kennedy (a 5 point Calvinist) created Evangelism Explosion to teach lay people how to evangelize lost people, Calvin’s own missionary enterprises refute this, Charles Spurgeon (a 5 point Calvinist) is considered by both Calvinists and Arminians to be a great evangelist. The list could go on and on. Calvinism in no way minimizes the importance of evangelism or missions.
3. Just because the Southern Baptist Convention used to be Calvinistic does not we should be Calvinists today.
This argument makes those involved in the Founders ministry sound like a bunch of idiots. Does anybody really believe that these guys just want the SBC to be Calvinistic for tradition’s sake?
4. All this arguing hinders the church from fulfilling the great commission.
There are two problems with this argument. First, I have heard this argument used any time a serious discussion of doctrinal issues begins no matter what the theological issue is. Some use this as an excuse because they have an aversion to theology. God has gifted the church with teachers and evangelists so that we can be both theologically accurate and practice evangelism. Theological reflection does not take away from evangelism; rather, it enhances it.
Second, the great commission commands the church to make disciples by doing two things baptizing them and teaching them all things that Jesus commanded. Certainly, all things would include teaching the total depravity of man, God’s gracious election, and the meaning of the atonement.
5. You follow a man (John Calvin); I follow Christ/the Bible.
No one is a Calvinist because they treat John Calvin as a Christian celebrity. Calvinists follow Calvin because they believe that Calvin articulates the biblical view of God and salvation. It is Christ and the Scriptures which Calvin and those like minded with him follow not the man himself.
In addition, whether a person realizes it or not, he is a follower of someone else’s theology. Since there can only be a limited number of viewpoints concerning the depravity of man and God’s grace in salvation and most of those have been named after its originator or major proponents, every Christian follows James Arminius, Moses Amyraut, Luis de Molina, John Wesley, Pelagius, John Calvin, or Augustine to some degree or another. At least, Calvinists know the major proponent of their theology.
Yes, Calvinism is divisive, but one should not reject something simply because it is divisive. Quite a few things are divisive precisely because they are true, and anyone who disagrees with the truth is by default divided against it.
The gospel’s exclusivistic claims divide persons into believers and unbelievers. Are Christians willing to embrace other faiths as alternative routes to the same God because to insist otherwise is divisive? The church is divided over the mode and meaning of baptism, church government, eschatology, etc. Is each of us willing to give up our traditions in these areas to avoid division?
Truth by its nature is divisive; however, this is not an excuse for a party or divisive spirit. Christians should realize that some theological issues are quite complex and answers do not come easily. Consequently, we should strive together with love and humility towards one another to come to an understanding of our great God and Savior.
2. If Calvinism is true, evangelism is unnecessary or meaningless.
How many examples that contradict this argument are non-Calvinists going to have to hear to finally stop suggesting this as a reason to reject Calvinism? The Southern Baptist Convention was founded primarily by Calvinists, many of the early Baptist missionaries were Calvinistic (Carey, Brainerd, and Judson), D. James Kennedy (a 5 point Calvinist) created Evangelism Explosion to teach lay people how to evangelize lost people, Calvin’s own missionary enterprises refute this, Charles Spurgeon (a 5 point Calvinist) is considered by both Calvinists and Arminians to be a great evangelist. The list could go on and on. Calvinism in no way minimizes the importance of evangelism or missions.
3. Just because the Southern Baptist Convention used to be Calvinistic does not we should be Calvinists today.
This argument makes those involved in the Founders ministry sound like a bunch of idiots. Does anybody really believe that these guys just want the SBC to be Calvinistic for tradition’s sake?
4. All this arguing hinders the church from fulfilling the great commission.
There are two problems with this argument. First, I have heard this argument used any time a serious discussion of doctrinal issues begins no matter what the theological issue is. Some use this as an excuse because they have an aversion to theology. God has gifted the church with teachers and evangelists so that we can be both theologically accurate and practice evangelism. Theological reflection does not take away from evangelism; rather, it enhances it.
Second, the great commission commands the church to make disciples by doing two things baptizing them and teaching them all things that Jesus commanded. Certainly, all things would include teaching the total depravity of man, God’s gracious election, and the meaning of the atonement.
5. You follow a man (John Calvin); I follow Christ/the Bible.
No one is a Calvinist because they treat John Calvin as a Christian celebrity. Calvinists follow Calvin because they believe that Calvin articulates the biblical view of God and salvation. It is Christ and the Scriptures which Calvin and those like minded with him follow not the man himself.
In addition, whether a person realizes it or not, he is a follower of someone else’s theology. Since there can only be a limited number of viewpoints concerning the depravity of man and God’s grace in salvation and most of those have been named after its originator or major proponents, every Christian follows James Arminius, Moses Amyraut, Luis de Molina, John Wesley, Pelagius, John Calvin, or Augustine to some degree or another. At least, Calvinists know the major proponent of their theology.
Pastor Jeremy Lee
Twining Baptist Church
2 comments:
The term used "5 point Calvinist" seems to sum up Calvinism, most often. Some who love the Calvinistic approach to Scripture i.e. the Biblical Approach but don't want to be defined "As Calvinist" will say. I know the doctrines of calvinism is most Biblical, as for me though, I am a 4 pointer, I have heard some say they are a three pointer. When this is said to me I am kind, I don't say what's on my mind. If I said what's on my mind this is what I would say "there are no 4 or 3 point Calvinists" "you don't understand Calvinistic theology" "you don't know what you believe". A person who claims to be a 4 pointer doesn't do the presentation of his intelligence any good i.e. he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Ken Clouse
2. If Calvinism is true, evangelism is unnecessary or meaningless.
How many examples that contradict this argument are non-Calvinists going to have to hear to finally stop suggesting this as a reason to reject Calvinism? The Southern Baptist Convention was founded primarily by Calvinists, many of the early Baptist missionaries were Calvinistic (Carey, Brainerd, and Judson), D. James Kennedy (a 5 point Calvinist) created Evangelism Explosion to teach lay people how to evangelize lost people, Calvin’s own missionary enterprises refute this, Charles Spurgeon (a 5 point Calvinist) is considered by both Calvinists and Arminians to be a great evangelist. The list could go on and on. Calvinism in no way minimizes the importance of evangelism or missions.
This is a horrifically bad argument. You state "If Calvinism is true, evangelism is unnecessary or meaningless." Then go on to just give examples of Calvinists that are evangelists. This does nothing to strengthen your argument as your justification is just these people do it therefore it must not be meaningless.
This argument would be similar to if I said Christianity is silly and as a justification I said look at Charles Templeton, Bart Ehrman, and Dan Barker.
If you want to criticize other view points fine, but please at least make a real argument not one that is self fulfilling and back it up with scripture! I recently have struggled with the 5 point approach and it was silly arguments like this that kept me struggling and wrestling with it for a long time. So I am probably more sensitive to this than others may be. I just really don't think this is helpful or appropriate. I don't think anyone will be convinced to struggle and wrestle with this issue more by saying look at D James Kennedy he proves that if Calvinism is true evangelism is still necessary. You give no scriptural justification and if I had read this a month ago I would have completely dismissed this as more Calvinist garbage that doesn't do anything to explain a contradicting position. (I don't believe it is a contradiction, but it took a lot of struggling and prayer to come to that conclusion.)
A much better thing to say would be that we are commanded to evangelize Matthew 28. Ultimately we are on earth to glorify God and if this is the manner God uses to bring people to himself we should be honored to participate. Further, we do not know why God picks who he picks. Romans 10:14-15 says how can they believe in the one whom they have not heard? While God has chosen some and not chosen others so he has also chosen the manner in which they would come to himself. We do not know God's reasons or those who he has selected and can therefore proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to all people.
Obviously there is a lot more that goes into this than just this small piece, but please use scripture to back up your points.
Post a Comment