Friday, May 16, 2014

Calvinism poisons everything

While the title might sound like hyperbole, I'm coming to realize that Calvinism poisons everything important in Christianity. Even worse, this poison has spread even to those who would not self-identify as Calvinists. As I go through points, I'll offer some Scriptural support to direct your mind. However, my point here is not to refute various elements of Calvinism, only to show its poisonous effects. I am planning to soon write an article that is more of a direct refutation.

As you read, please think about the consequences of this doctrine that I'll be pointing out. Examine whether you might have some of this poison in your theological system in some way, however subtle. Even if you are not a Calvinist, I would be surprised if you aren't in some way affected by their theology. For those who claim Calvinism, look at the consequences of this theology. If it damages or contradicts things that are so obviously true from Scripture, doesn't that imply that your system is wrong? I'll show exactly how in an article in the near future.

God – To know God is surely the most important thing for everyone. Yet, Calvinism presents a heavily distorted view of the creator. The Calvinist's deity is arbitrary. Some he saves from the fires of Hell. Others, he declines to save, but takes pleasure in watching them burn. Calvinists then have the audacity to claim that this deity “loves all”, is “full of mercy” and “is no respecter of persons”, things that are indeed true of God, but not the arbitrary God of Calvinism. Their concepts stand in clear contrast to the God of the Bible who constantly stretches out his hands toward rebels and who weeps over the lost, offering forgiveness if only they repent (Isaiah 65:2, Matt. 23:37). Of Calvin's arbitrary God, Dave Hunt asks in the title of his book on Calvinism, “What love is this?”. One could ask the same of the other qualities of God that Calvinism corrupts – that God is longsuffering and full of mercy, to name a few.

Salvation – If you look at the teachings of Calvinism in a way that is logically consistent, you must conclude that the salvation of an individual does not hinge on them exercising repentance to God and faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, but upon an eternal decree of God. In other words, if you are elect, God will cause you to repent and believe. If you are not elect, you have no chance to repent and believe the Gospel. This is a severe corruption of the requirements of salvation. To the Calvinist, Christ died only for the elect and salvation will come whether you intend to respond or not. Biblically, Christ died for the sins of the world and God calls every individual to respond, with no indication that something might unconditionally hinder such a response. (Ezek. 18:4-32, 1 Tim. 4:10, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 9:13, and many more) Logically then, the Calvinist believes that someone may simply wait around for God to save them. However, the Bible calls for the individual to actively repent and believe. This contrast is shown most clearly in the life of Charles Finney. In his evangelistic efforts, he preached to people in Calvinistic churches who were just waiting around for God to regenerate them. Finney's revival earned him the ire of Calvinist leaders who lied and misrepresented him during his life, and even worse after his death. Misunderstanding of salvation can lead to gospel preaching with an open-ended response, which leads to false conversion and hell. In contrast, Scripture strictly calls men to repentance and faith.

Grace - Simply defined, grace is unmerited favor. In the context of the Gospel, this means that Christ died for our sins even though we didn't deserve it. God extends to us an offer of love, forgiveness, adoption, reward, and eternal life to his enemies. This is a beautiful thing. However, Calvinists are uncomfortable with the idea that man can even accept this offer through repentance and faith. Therefore, grace is not so much an kind attribute of God, but more of a mystic force that God irresistably zaps you with. To a monergist, grace is not only unmerited favor, but also unwanted compulsion. This is because, in their mind, you couldn't possibly desire God, so he has to force you to love him with this mystic force they call grace. Obviously, this is a strange way to use the word 'grace', and an even stranger way to talk about God.

Sin / repsonsibility – According to the Calvinist, all things have been ordained by God. Every single thing that happens was planned by God. Even sin. The most evil of Calvinists will flat out admit that God authored sin in some way. What a terrifying accusation! Sin was not intended by God in any way, but was allowed and thoroughly dealt with in God's big plan. A lesser manifestation of this is those who say “oh well, everything is in God's hands” when something happens. Now, I want to be careful here because it is true that everything is in God's hands, in the sense that he is watching with interest and can intervene at any moment. The Christian can indeed take great comfort that God is watching over their life. However, this does not mean that everything is caused by God. When something happens it might have been caused by any number of free moral agents – God, demons, or ourselves. For example, if you get fat and have health problems, it's probably because you ate too much ice cream, not because the devil is after you, nor because God thought it would be good for you to have heart disease. However, we can be sure that whatever happens, God is paying attention and can intervene whenever he feels necessary, though He often lets us experience the consequences of our sin (and even things we didn't bring upon ourselves) so that we can learn a lesson. To rephrase it succinctly, God is in control, but that in no way negates or diminishes your responsibility in any circumstance, and your actions certainly have consequences. If you've ever thought “Oh well, God has it under control, I don't really need to try hard.” then your concept of responsibility has been poisoned by Calvinism.


Sovereignty - Obviously this is very much related to my comments above on sin and responsibility. It's worth specifically pointing out though, that Calvinists throw the word sovereign around like a comma, but they don't use it correctly most of the time. Look in any English dictionary, sovereignty is a word that describes position or authority. However, Calvinists use the word to describe what is better called 'total active control' – the idea that God is not merely in control of the world, but is actually controlling everything, and we are little more than puppets on his strings. In discussing this issue, it's critical to understand there's a big difference between “God is in control” and “God is actively controlling everything”. If God is actively controlling everything, then sin must have been part of His plan too. This would imply that God is the author of sin, a terrible accusation. However, if you properly understand sovereignty, it's easy to see that a king may be "in control" of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean that he approves of everything that happens.

Inherited sin nature – This error in particular is not localized to Calvinists, but has infected most non-calvinists as well. Historically, this doctrine seems to start with Augustine, who was the first the systematize it into what would become the catholic church (Irenaeus possibly tended in this direction, but he didn't take it as far as Augustine). When the reformers separated from the catholic church, they kept the doctrine of original sin, along with infant baptism and other false doctrines of Rome. Sin nature has remained a part of evangelical “orthodoxy” ever since, despite a complete lack of Biblical support (unless you count an ambiguous line from a poem, or are intent to misread Romans 5). Of course, Calvinists take the game to a whole new level by developing a systematic theology that revolves around the idea of not only sin nature, but total depravity/inability which affects salvation as described above. Though many non-calvinists rightly reject the T in TULIP, they hold to “total depravity light”, a poison which has persisted mainly due to tradition and given many a sinner a great excuse for his sin.

Evangelism – If you believe that God has already chosen who he will save and who he won't and there's nothing anyone can do about it, how could that not effect evangelism? At the very least, it takes away the motivation. Historically, some Calvinists have recognized this and have completely rejected the idea of preaching to the lost. Modern Calvinists usually have some sort of token “missions” program in their church. However, each one that I've seen is not about finding lost people and preaching the gospel, but it's about finding “less educated” Christians to convert to Calvinism. I dare say that, to these, Calvin is more important than Christ. For non-Calvinists, I still can't help but wonder if the coldness toward evangelism exhibited by nearly all churches is due to some remnant of this poisonous thought that “If God wants to save the heathen, he'll do it without us”.

How did you do? Have you found any remnants of poison in your system? If so, try to identify the source of the poison. Perhaps a popular preacher that you listen to? Piper, MacArthur, Baucham, Mohler, Sproul, Washer, Driscoll, and many more carry this poison to varying degrees. Maybe you already knew that and thought you were listening with discernment, but if you've realized that it's affecting you, it's probably best to take a break altogether. Instead, fill yourself with pure living water that comes from the Scripture. Set aside the books and commentaries for a while, and just feast on the Bible directly. This is a good rememy for any theology that ails you.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Quiz - is your church about people or a building

The church is the people, not the building. (T/F)

Of course, this statement is true. I imagine that nearly everyone who reads this will agree. Indeed, this idea is preached from the pulpit in nearly all fundie and conservative gelly churches. I dare say that you would have to look hard to find anyone who disagrees with this statement. Well, we say this is true, but is it really practiced?

I want to propose a short and simple quiz that should be useful for some self-examination. Carefully consider the following questions.

1) If someone sat in your church service every Sunday and participated in several activities, but otherwise interacted with people only occasionally and never in any spiritually meaningful way, would they be considered an unfaithful member?

2) If someone came to a Sunday service only occasionally and participated in little/no programs, but was actively and consistently involved in the spiritual life of the people and regularly met with them outside the church services, would they be considered an integral part of the church?

3) If you answered 'no' to either question, please explain how you reconcile this with your claim that the church is the people, not the building.

I'm sorry, but if you had to answer 'no' to question 1 or 2, you failed the quiz. Number 3 is a trick question, these things can't be reconciled. What did you learn? The first step toward fixing a problem is recognizing that it exists. In practice, most churches value faithfulness to programs over faithfulness to people, even though they claim otherwise. If this describes your church, try to make others aware of the problem and attempt to fix it. If this fails, consider learning about Biblical house churches and starting one.