Let’s consider that Calvinism, in its practical sense, is fundamentally concerned with how people bring God glory. God is said to be orchestrating every instance of history to bring Himself glory and we have no actual say in our part of His sovereign plan. It is explained that any choice made by a person to serve God would violate His sovereignty, because all things are by His decree alone. Decree is actually a very accurate rendering for the word grace in the Calvinistic understanding that salvation is “by grace.” It is said the sinner is used to bring God glory through his/her judgment and subsequent eternal punishment while the saint is used through obedience and good works. Logically, since God is orchestrating every instance of history, it is said that one can evaluate which part of God’s program one is on through evaluating how one is bringing glory to God. Are you characterized by sin that will be judged and punished, or are you characterized by righteousness? This is how Calvinism is practically applied in the lives of those who are taught it: look at yourself and evaluate.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Calvinism, Religion and Worldliness
Lou has posted an article by Yours Truly over at his In Defense of the Gospel blog. Here's a short snippet from it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thanks Kevl for that great post at In Defense of The Gospel.
There are some amazingly informative comments by those who would embrace Calvinism in all its m=nuances.
Glad I found your blog.. another Grace-brother.. we are rare.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Kevl,
I took the liberty of quoting from your article on Lou's Blog and included a link to both web sites. Great stuff.
http://www.expreacherman.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/two-paragons-of-calvinism-tip-their-hand/
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Kev:
Thanks for the producing that article. It has raised a needy discussion. 50+ comments in one day. Your responses and that of Jan's to the many comments and criticisms were well done.
Lou
Thanks Jack & Lou,
I'm glad it is benefiting from a higher profile than expected!
Kev
I'm going to post my closing comments from the thread at Lou's blog here, because I think they complete the article.
Kev
All,
Lou would like me to wrap this up. So here goes!
There have only been a couple of consistant points used in rebuttal of my argument. I have to admit I am more than a little disappointed that there were not more. It is too bad that Dave decided not to interact in the thread. I had hoped the discussion would develop into topics that are deeper and more meaningful.
The first is of course "misrepresentation." In my article I cited that Google reports 225,000 (approx) returns for the search calvinism+misrepresent. I have had Calvinists (of the Piper falvour) tell me I'm misrepresenting them when I am quoting them word for word, and not even selectively. Once again in this thread we see charges of misrepresentation with no actual correction or clear indication of what I got wrong. In the few instances where what I am accused of being wrong about was even identified the people went on to assert the same as being valid in their own words. This is confusing behavior but it is exactly what I cited as one of my proofs.
The second most popular argument was that if we simply look at the progression toward worldliness that we can write similar articles about very many other systems.
My response to this has been along the lines of lying is still wrong if everyone is doing it. Further only Calvinism (out of it and the suggested alternatives) teaches that worldliness invalidates one's salvation. Since Calvinism either leads to worldliness as I suggest, or does not lead the masses who follow it away from worldliness it is a self-refuting system.
Tony suggests that I have not shown causality because I have not shown exclusivity. If everyone is worldly and everyone is not Calvinists then Calvinism is not the problem.
Everyone has the same evil sin nature that wants to work towards being acceptable, or even just at being acceptable. I demonstrated this from the Bible in the opening of the article. Any system can become an idol and lead people to worldliness.
I am not alone in being hesitant of saying I'm "Free Grace" or even that I'm a "Dispenstationalist" or a "Fundamentalist." Why? Because I don't actually follow those systems.... I don't own them.. .nor do I identify myself by them. I just use the Historial Gramatical Hermeneutic from cover to cover of the Bible. Because I do this I agree with the better Free Grace, Dispensational and Fundamentalist teachings. I do not agree with everyone in these "camps" because I don't follow men. I follow the Bible which points me to Christ.
That being said, I have never in all the years of my life, either prior to being saved or after, heard a Dispensationalist accuse anyone of "misrepresenting" Dispensationalism..... the idea of that happening is actually funny to me.
Are there proud worldly Dispensationalists... yes.. is this the character of the "camp"? No. I don't think even the greatest critics of Dispensationalism could say that it is with a straight face. I know many many more Calvinists, so my observations are not equal - but every Calvinist I know is proud of his theology, and I have yet to meet a Dispensationalist who is so. I have interacted briefly online with some Dispensationalists whom are unpleasant... but I have never met one in person.
I have to submit this and will finish in my next.
Thanks for reading!
Kev
Continuing from where I left off.
It's not that there is some amount worldliness in every system, it is that Calvinism is known for how it's followers behave.
We are all subject to our sin nature to whatever extent we allow it to drive our decisions - but Calvinism is unique in that it forces us to look at our sin nature all the time. What's worse is that while Calvinism claims that God supernaturally changes the behavior of Believers, Calvinism in practice tires people out because they don't feel like God is doing all the work.
Why? because their salvation depends on them being good people, and in very few cases does God actually deliver people from all their normal evils. God uses people in weakness, and draws them out of there old habits of sin. So they wrestle with what is left because if anyone sees that they are still doing this or that, well then.... maybe they aren't really saved.
The causality works like this. I look at myself, instead of looking solely at the Christ, so I actually tend to become more like what I am instead of more like what Christ is. Peter learned that he should never take his eyes off the Christ when he sank in the water. Calvinists ought to take a cue from this. The person standing above the waves of sin ought never look at anything eles but the One who saves.
Do we really need confirmation that He saves all who believe? Is His Word not enough confirmation? If you look at your own stance to make sure you are secure, instead of looking at the one who has been tasked with not loosing you.... well you're putting your faith in yourself or at least in the results of something you're not really sure happened, not in the One who faithfully saves. That is not the definition of saving faith.
Not only do we tend to go in the direction we look. When our eternity is on the line we have a vested interest in seeing what we want to see, and ensuring that others see it too. This is a breading ground for worldliness...
Systems that expose our worldliness to judgment, such as what 1st John really tells us to do with our sin, actually do the opposite.
The only time we look at ourselves is to expose what we are guilty of. To allow it to be judged as evil. To carry our cross, to crucify the old man - which is to walk and die as a guilty man. Not to run around doing works of obedience. It is to show that we do not make void the Law that declares our guilt but that we establish it as so.
We do not look for signs of life in ourselves to give us comfort. We get comfort from the Comforter. We don't look for signs of life in ourselves to get assurance, we get assurance from the faithfulness of the One who saves all who believe. We do not get, or offer righteousness through performance or even BEING anything - we get, and offer the perfect righteousness of Christ by faith alone.
Anything else will lead to a religious system that fosters worldliness - and that's what the Calvinism of Piper and those of likemindedness with him does.
Thank you all for reading and commenting! I hope this has helped, and that God will use it to continue to help.
Kev
I just decided to check search google for dispensationalism+misrepresent
It returns 51,900 results. Just slightly less than what it returns for calvinism+misrepresent (at 225,000 a few days ago and 215,000 today - why would it go down? pages falling off the interent? discussions deleted? who knows...)
Kev
Kev:
Sorry about not getting back to you on your comment to my question at Lou's. It's been super busy for me lately. I see the thread at Lou's is closed, so I'll tell you why I asked you that question:
Not only does TULIP's soteriology not contain God's plan of salvation, but every tenent of TULIP is pure religion. These facts bear greatly on your article:
The person (and I'm referring specifically to one who has never, at any time, placed his trust alone in Christ's finished cross-work alone) who is trying to get to heaven via TULIP's unbiblical soteriology is doing so without the guiding/leading of the Holy Spirit simply because God's plan of salvation is not in TULIP. For this person, TULIP is not leading him to "worldliness", it is merely keeping him where he already is--of the world (unregenerate). NOTE: This religious person may or may not be involved in activites which are generally considered "worldly", (think Puritans), so your thesis that Calvinism leads to worldliness (AS YOU'VE DEFINED THE WORD "WORLDLINESS") is untenable. Had you suggested that TULIP keeps an unsaved person in the category "of the world" (unsaved) you would be right.
Let's now take another person entirely, one who HAS in the past placed his trust in Christ alone, but who now finds himself trying to gain assurance of his salvation via TULIP philoshopy. He will indeed begin to look to self (i.e. works) for assurance rather than looking to Christ crucified and God's promises of assurance to believers (i.e. John 5:24; 1 John 5:10-13, etc.) This saved person is trying to gain assurance of his salvation by a means not simply not prescribed in Scripture. The Holy Spirit is not leading him to do so. The very act of thinking or doing without the prompting/guiding/leading of the Holy Spirit is carnal. NOTE: But, this person may or may not be participating in what is generally considered "worldly" behavior. Nonetheless, he is being carnal in his attempt to gain assurance in an unbiblical way, and for this believer, TULIP directly lead to it.
In summary, I thought your article was thought-provoking. If you ever attempt it again, I hope you will consider that no theology/system of theology leads necessarily to "worldliness" as you've defined it. TULIP does however, in it's soteriology, keep the unsaved, unsaved (i.e. of the world). In short, it keeps said folks in the category of "of the world".
For the BELIEVER who is trying to gain assurance of his salvation via TULIP, it does indeed lead to carnal thinking and carnal behavior.....carnal in the sense of thinking or doing something (even if it's a "good" something) without the guiding/leading of the Holy Spirit.
Yours in Christ,
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for your comment. I suspect I was not clear enough in my article that I was addressing the Calvinism of people like John Piper who is most adamant about TULIP, Lordship Salvation and the like.
John Calvin's version of Calvinism has it's own problems but is not as subject to the problems that I am talking about in the article.
Likewise with the Puritans - see my comment to Nate in the article tread.
I think more than a few people missed that I was discussing modern Calvinism espoused by TULIP.
Kev
Kev,
I've read through your thread at Lou's and now your reply to me here.
As it relates to the thesis of your article, help me understand why you are laboring to distinguish between the "Calvinism of Calvin" and what you've termed the "Modern Calvinism" of folks like Piper.
Jimmy
Kev,
Kev,
In case I wasn't signed in when I attempted to post a comment to your recent reply, here goes again:
Your reply to me suggests you believe your thesis (Calvinism leads to Worldliness) is proven correct if "Modern Calvinism", not "Calvin's Calvinism", is the "Calvinism" in question.
WHAT specific distinction(s) between so-called "Modern Calvinism" and so-called "Calvin's Calvinism" do you feel helps support/bolster your aformentioned thesis? Secondly, WHY exactly do these supposed distinctions do so in your mind?
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
Like I shared in the other thread, Calvin's definition of faith is much different than Piper's. Further Calvin didn't hold to TULIP.... or many of the other things that Piper speaks of.
The article was commissioned for Lou's blog and I really don't want to continue the discussion here.
I think you accurately showed how TULIP leads to worldliness. Modern Calvinism is defined by TULIP and amplified by Lordship Salvation theology.
That's why it leads where it does.
With that I'm going to close the discussion.
Thanks,
Kev
My concern is not winning some debate with you Kev, as it appears this may be your suspicion; my concern is with those you might have reached had you been willing to admit Calvinism does not lead to "worldliness" as you've defined it, and simply pointed out a) TULIP cannot lead to one being born-again and b) the person attempting to gain assurance of salvation via TULIP is thinking/acting carnally by doing so.
Secondly, you put words in my mouth when you state, "I think you accurately showed how TULIP leads to worldliness." Calvinism doesn't lead to worldly behaviour (as you've defined it), so please don't suggest I agree with your untenable position.
Lastly, your venture into attempting to distinguish between so-called "Modern" calvinism and so-called "Calvnin's" calvinism is not only futile for purposes of trying to prove your thesis at Lou's, but futile for purposes of trying to reach those trapped in Calvinism. Whoever got you on that rabbit trail did you, and those you might have reached with your article, a huge disservice.
Jimmy
P.S. Moreover, whomever gave you the faulty idea that TULIP does not represent Calvin's philosophy is deceitful at worst, misguided at best. Read Calvin's Institutes for YOURSELF. I have.
Post a Comment