5 Dumb Reasons to Reject Calvinism

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.

Pastor Jeremy Lee

Twining Baptist Church

Theology Is Relevant

After reading Morris Chapman's caricature of Calvinism at the SBC annual meeting, I decided to repost this blog as a response. There is more I would like to say, and maybe, in the future, I will add more. Until then, this blog will suffice. Read Morris Chapman's speech here. In addition, read the following response.

Relevance is a popular buzzword today in Christianity. So important is relevance, we are taught that the cardinal sin in preaching today is being irrelevant. It no longer matters if a sermon is biblically or theologically accurate. Relevancy is the sole standard for measuring the quality of a sermon. Nothing is thought by our contemporary world to be more irrelevant than theology.

This is why it was no surprise to read Charles Swindoll say that debating the meaning of grace is an alternative for “[t]hose who aren’t comfortable denying it.” Moreover, he states, “Grace was meant to be received and lived out to the fullest, not dissected and analyzed by those who would rather argue than eat…It’s time for grace to be awakened and released…to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated. ”[1] He even implies that the Protestant Reformation made this same mistake debating grace and not living it out. The bottom line it seems for Swindoll and too many others is theology engenders debate, and it keeps believers from living out their faith making theology irrelevant because it is impractical.

The problem with this idea that theology is irrelevant because it is impractical is that one’s practice must be built on a solid theological foundation, or he will go astray in his practice. For example, if one has a theologically low view of sin, he will tolerate sin in his practical life. Another example, if one is a theological universalist, he will not practice evangelism. (Why go through all the trouble if every one will be saved in the end regardless of what you do?) The examples could be multiplied endlessly, but these should suffice to prove the point that practical living must be based on solid theological thinking.

Kistler understands the practical relevance of theology. He argues, “We will not live any better than our theology; we may not live as well as our theology, but we will never live any better."[2] If Kistler is correct, then theology is more relevant than the practical aspects of Christianity because in order to practice correctly we have to think correctly about God, which is in reality that with which theology is concerned. Correct theology is the foundation for correct living. Consequently, one must give every effort to make certain that his theology is correct.

Unfortunately, as fallible humans, we often fail to see the fallacies in our own thinking. One way to refine one’s thinking and uncover blind spots in thinking is debate. “Monologues seldom produce refined thought,” argues Geisler in his evaluation of atheism. He continues, “Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God.”[3] Debate or dialogue is an important tool for a theologian to sharpen his thinking. If believers rule out debate altogether, theological thinking will lack clarity and practically living out one’s faith will suffer as a result.

I am not suggesting that theological debate should be a Christian’s only concern, for truth must be lived out. I am suggesting, however, a balance. Believers should concern themselves with both theology and practical Christian living. Both are relevant, and these are not mutually exclusive concepts. Far from it, they are actually dependant on each other. Let us make every effort to pursue both correct thinking and correct living.

Pastor Jeremy Lee
Twining Baptist Church

[1] Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening Devotional A Thirty- Day Walk in the Freedom of Grace. (W Publishing Group 2003) pgs 1-2.
[2] www.donkistler.org
[3] Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Baker 1999) p. 58.

Calvin's Evangelism

One of the constant charges against Calvinism is that it hinders evangelism and missions. This is not true as can be demonstrated by Calvin's own ministry as you will discover from this link.

Labels

I don’t like labels. One of the most notable labels in the Protestant church is Arminanism and Calvinism.But I don’t like labels many say; well that’s not the point. What we like or want is not what it’s all about. Whether we like it or not we all take a position doctrinally if we read Scripture. We become labeled. Protestants whether we like it or not live with the attachment of the two words above Arminian or Calvinist.

One of the most popular arguments for not being a Calvinist is "I don’t follow man". My doctrine is not man made. Following Calvin makes me a Calvinist. I am Bible that’s all. That’s it. This is a nonsensical statement. Interestingly, Arminians never claim to follow man but do in fact follow the doctrines of Arminius, James Arminius.

Also, it is more spiritual to be Arminian than Calvinistic. The reason is, it is more spiritual to choose God, to fight for God, and to keep following God on our own by our will. Calvinists who are less spiritual actually believe man cannot come to God of his own will, cannot follow God on his own, and that God helps man by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit giving man the power to do the will of God. And, Calvinists believe God preserves man until the end of his life. That it is by the power of God that man is brought into eternal life. This is considered by Arminians to be less than spiritual. Can it be imagined?

I have often heard the remark, I wouldn’t consider myself a Calvinist. I am just a Christian. There seems to be an embarrassment calling oneself a Calvinist. In the end, one cannot escape the fact that protestants are one or the other, Arminian or Calvinist(By the way, there are no 4-point Calvinists).

Now here is what it’s all about. In the year of 1618 the remonstrants (a strong expression of protest, a formal statement of grievances) were made by James Arminius a Dutch seminary professor and his followers. They insisted that the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism be changed to conform to the the Remonstrants. Now here it is, the five points of Arminiansm. This is how the five points of Calvinism originated.

The five points of Arminians are as follows:

1. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief
2. Christ died for all men and for every man although only believers are saved.
3. Man is not so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.
4. Grace may be resisted
5. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. (Some Arminians believe in eternal security)

The Synod of Dort in 1618 rejected the five points of the Armenians as heretical teaching. The remonstrants were rejected. The Synod of Dort reaffirmed a system of theology in response to the five points of Arminius submitted by the remonstrants and has been since known as the five points of Calvinism. John Calvin did not write the five points of Calvinism (John Calvin 1509-1564 note his date of birth and death). Fifty-four years after the death of John Calvin the five points of Calvinism come on the scene. So, don’t blame John Calvin for the five points of Calvinism. Usually this long after the death of a person, he is long forgotten. Evidently, a standard was set by the teaching of John Calvin among those refuting the remonstrants of Joseph Arminius.

The five points of Calvinism issued by the Synod of Dort in 1618 are as follows

1. Total depravity - The Sinner is spiritually dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free but is in bondage to his sinful nature.
2. Unconditional Election - God chose individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world. The complete choice was based upon God’s own sovereign will. The choice was not based upon foreseen faith or repentance but was a gift to those whom He selected. This glorious election was determined not by any condition or virtue in man but entirely upon the good pleasure of God’s grace.
3. Limited Atonement - Christ’s redeeming work was intended for the elect alone. The substitutionary work of Christ upon the cross endured the penalty for our sin.
4. Irresistible Grace - The Holy Spirit extends the call to the elect, a special work of grace that brings salvation. The Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ to be saved. The spirit is not dependent upon man’s response or cooperation at all.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - All those who are redeemed by Christ have been given faith by the power of God and thus preserve to the end.

J.I. Packer clarifies, "The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves, and the other speaks of God who enables man to save himself. Calvinism presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind. Election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly."

Packer continues, "It is very important not to equate Calvinism with merely five points because it tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. Although the five points are really inseparable, they stand together. If you reject one you are really rejecting them all. The major point of Calvinistic soteriology is concerned with the fact that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all. To God be the glory; Amen."

I wish for all reading this to really look at the five points of Calvinism and ask are these arguable points in my life? I believe after giving careful thought each Christian would say yes they are. Who can truly say, I saved my self by my decision, and I keep my self by my merit. Who is good enough? Who truly seeks God? Scripture teaches there is none righteousness no one seeks after God.

I am not saying I want people to become Calvinists. I am saying if anyone wishes Bible doctrine that is tight and beautiful and holy and God centered then check the two five point systems out. Do you want a God that saves by His power or a God that is dependant on man?

This is the God that saves to the uttermost.

And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom,And we would have been made like Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:29)
Meaning, He is the Lord of the hosts of armies of the heavens. He rules the world and He will reign. He alone saves by His power, by God the father, by God the Son, and by God the Spirit. Thus the doctrine of the Arminians were labeled as heretical and rightly so.

Ken Clouse
Lay leader
North East Michigan
Reformation Society

Considering Converting to Arminianism

Embedded video from CNN Video

I found this at the following link. One of the comments provides an explanation for this very odd statement. http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/02/bill_clinton_the_calvinist.php

John Calvin

This year 2009 is the 500th birthday of John Calvin. Calvinism seems the rage of today. Maybe it’s because of Calvin‘s 500th birthday. A birthday gift I guess, an honorable mention maybe, this year we all will be Calvinists! Let me warn everyone though not all Calvinists are Calvinists!

I have read remarks by newspaper columnists “this pastor has taken the doctrinal position of Calvinism, he is preaching Total Depravity.”Another TV preacher openly claims, "I am a Calvinist." Total depravity is his total description of Calvinism “I am a Calvinist” he is void however of Calvin‘s convictions in his ministry.

To be an adherent of Calvinism some believe it is essential to subscribe to the following acrostic T.U.L.I.P: total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. When thinking of Calvinism men stumble at these five points. They loose their footing at the very beginning of Calvinism. Wow, do they have problems with the 5 points above, especially with limited atonement. Going through these five points is like a runner jumping the hurdles. On one or more of the five points it’s easy to catch your foot on the obstacle of humanism (human based morality).

In my opinion, there is no Calvinism with out "all" the five points above. But even so, this is still just a small beginning (part) of Calvinism, believe me the five points of Calvinism is not Calvinism totally. One must read the Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin‘s Commentaries of the Holy Scripture. Calvinism is a total love for God breathed Scripture. Calvinism is a total lack of fear of Scripture. Calvinism is holiness toward God. Calvinism is "God Supreme."

Read Calvin's commentaries on the Scriptures, read his Harmony of the Law. Read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Read his Of Prayer-A perpetual Exercise of Faith. Calvinism is more than the five points. Read it all. You will love Calvinism i.e Bible Theology. You can find Calvin's writings at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/?show=works.


Ken Clouse

A New Response to Dr. Malcolm Hester

I want to share a letter with everyone that I wrote to the Dr. Fox and the CCCBBC administration today. I realized that the way I said things in my initial letter was wrong. Since I posted that letter for everyone to read, I want everyone to see my apology.

Dear Dr. Fox and CCBBC administration,

Because of the Conference on the Challenge of Calvinism, I sent a response to you requesting that you be more considerate of others with different opinions. Since I sent that response I have been involved in discussion online about the conference with others including Dr. Hester, He pointed out in one blog that accusing CCBBC of unfaithfulness to its confession was offensive; consequently, I went back to read what I wrote and realized how harsh the wording of my critique was.

Just as I was quick to respond to the conference initially, I want to apologize to the administration, faculty, and specifically, Dr. Hester for those remarks. Unfortunately, I did not realize at the time how harsh this section of my letter was. I had often wondered why CCBBC was so averse to Calvinism, yet held to a moderately Calvinistic confession. Instead of asking about what seems to me like an inconsistency to be cleared up, I accused and was not slow in passing judgment. I look forward to further discussion on the New Hampshire Confession with Dr. Hester online to clear this matter up.

Again, I am sorry for calling into question the integrity of the administration and faculty at CCBBC. I cannot expect tolerance for myself when I use such accusatory language.


To those who may not be familiar with the New Hampshire Confession a link to it is provided: http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1833newh.htm.

For background on the confession see: http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/abcon.htm

Also, consider Mark Dever's article on this confession: http://www.founders.org/journal/fj61/article1.html.

Read the original story: http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/09/concerns-about-challenge-of-calvinism.html, http://nemireformationsoc.blogspot.com/2008/09/disturbing-news-from-my-alma-mater.html

Pastor Jeremy Lee
Twining Baptist Church

Disturbing News from My Alma Mater

I discovered a conference at my alma mater, Clear Creek Baptist Bible College, on Founders Ministry website(http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/09/concerns-about-challenge-of-calvinism.html) and sent the following letter to the president in response.

Dear Dr. Donnie Fox,

I am a 2005 graduate of Clear Creek. I became concerned when I recently saw an article in the Western Recorder advertising a conference at Clear Creek entitled: The Challenge of Calvinism. A conference to address the problem of Calvinism.

I have been disturbed since my time at CCBBC at its response to Calvinism. When I came to CCBBC in 2000, I had no idea what Calvinism was, but I was shortly introduced to the beliefs of Calvinism. However, for most of my time at CCBBC, I was not a Calvinist. I was still bothered at how Clear Creek responded to Calvinism (the firing of Dr. Castleton, especially and falsely accusing Calvinist students of proselytizing). My feeling at the time was that rather than attacking Calvinists as the enemy we should embrace them as fellow believers with whom we disagree.

In my experience, the students of CCBBC were ignorant of Calvinism; consequently, the rejection of it was a rejection of the caricature and not the actual theology. Because of the schools response to Calvinism, students remain ignorant of both Calvinism and Arminianism; therefore, they cannot adequately wrestle with the challenges of God’s sovereignty and humanity’s free will. I feel a conference that would facilitate a dialogue between Calvinism and Arminianism would better benefit students. Rather than, a one sided diatribe against Calvinism.

Clear Creek’s reaction is also bothersome because it is denial of its confession of faith: the New Hampshire Confession. According to Lumpkin (this is the book I used for Baptist Doctrine class at CCBBC), “The New Hampshire confession…sought to restate its Calvinism in very moderate tones.”[1] The New Hampshire Confession asserts both monergistic regeneration and unconditional election, which as far as I know no professor at CCBBC affirms even though they sign this statement of faith when hired. In addition, it is my understanding that at least some of the founders of CCBBC were Calvinists.

Why is CCBBC so concerned that some of its students or faculty might embrace the doctrines that brought about the Protestant Reformation? Would CCBBC have a conference to keep these men from being pastors and missionaries: Adoniram Judson, Charles Spurgeon, BH Carroll, John Broadus, James P. Boyce, and WA Criswell all of whom claimed to be Calvinists?

My problem really is not that CCBBC is not Calvinistic as much as its hostility towards those who are. It is a sad day when my alma mater is holding conferences condemning the beliefs I hold dear.

Pastor Jeremy Lee
Twining Baptist Church


[1] Lumpkin, William L. Baptist Confessions of Faith (Judson 1969) pg. 360

The Insurmountable Dilemma of Arminianism

The Scriptures teach that God predestines persons to salvation. This is an inarguable fact with which all Christians agree. However, Christians have not agreed over how God predestines persons to salvation. There are two basic theological positions on predestination one called Calvinism and the other Arminianism.

Calvinists answer the how of predestination by arguing that God predestines persons to salvation according to his gracious plan without any foreseen merit or faith in the person. In the Calvinistic view, all are men are at the mercy of God’s grace for their salvation.

Arminians answer this dilemma in one of two ways. Most Arminians argue that God predestines those persons whom he knows will choose him. The other answer some extreme Arminians have adopted is Open Theism. Open Theists argue that God does not know the future; therefore, he does not know who makes up the elect. Consequently, they adopt a corporate view of election whereby God elects Christ and all those who believe being in Christ are also predestined. Most Arminians reject Open Theism as unbiblical. But, does predestination according to foreseen faith fair any better than Open Theism?

While most Arminians agree with Calvinists that God is omniscient, they thereby avoid the problem of limiting God’s knowledge. However, their system still limits God. Instead of limiting God’s knowledge, they limit his power to implement his plan. This is because in Arminianism God only forms his plans after he foresees man’s actions. Thus, God’s is unable to act; he can only react to man’s decisions. Therefore, God and his plan are at the mercy of mankind’s choices.

Take for example the Apostle Paul’s conversion: God’s plan for the early church was for Saul to be converted and be his instrument to spread the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. Certainly, someone else could have been God’s chosen instrument, but in the Arminian system there can be no guarantee that someone will be willing. So, God’s plan is ultimately dependent not on himself but Saul. The inevitable conclusion of the Arminian view is that God and his plan are limited by man’s will.

An Arminian may rejoin: granted God’s plan is limited by man’s will, but the sovereign God chose to limit himself so that man would freely choose him. A self-impose limit is still a limit, and the effect is the same whether the limit is self-imposed or not. Man’s free will limits God and his plan.

The insurmountable dilemma of Arminianism is that their God is limited either in knowledge or power. To be fair, the Calvinist position is not free from difficulties. But, the difficulties are not as fundamental as God’s omnipotence and omniscience. Calvinism affirms that God is both almighty and all-knowing; consequently, his plan is certain. Furthermore, men are at the mercy of a gracious God.

Pastor Jeremy Lee
Twining Baptist Church