Greetings, I recently listened to your presentation dealing with Calvinism. I am a reformed Christian, and I noticed a multitude of misconceptions, baseless assumptions, and non-sensical assertions about Calvinism during the dialogue. Should you wish, I would be please to clarify and articulate both the doctrines of Calvinism, and the worldview that is subsequent to the reformed tradition, should you be interested.

Regards

Hi Michael -

Sure - I would actually be interested in knowing how someone who proscribes to Calvinism understands his own theology.

I would note two things about my own description of Calvinism, however, that probably change my own interpretation in certain ways. First, at least in the broadcast you were listening to, if it was Number 23, I am talking there largely about sixteenth and seventeenth century historical Calvinism which, looks quite different in tone even from the Reformed churches that are popping up around today. I have read Calvin’s own writings, a few times now, as I teach the basics of predestination and his law code for Geneva for a course on Early Modern Europe. So my interpretation of the doctrine is, I suppose we could say, old-fashioned; and, the psychological consequences I describe are by no means inevitable. Many people can and do believe the exact same things - predestination for example - and are not self-loathing or even tend towards a serious disposition at all. I was talking about one consequence in an ocean of complexity. That said, I am also not responsible for originally noting them - as I talk about in the original essay, I rely largely on Weber’s description of the Calvinist mind and have read several other scholarly treatments touching on this question of theology and psychology. Perry Miller and his work on the Puritans is also another large influence I drew from, as well as R. Jay MagilI’s discussions of Protestantism in “Chic Ironic Bitterness.” I understand you might disagree, but I just wanted to make clear it is at least an ongoing, open question.

However, if I have fundamentally misunderstood predestination, for example, I would definitely like to know, since I have read Calvin’s work on it a few times and have always struggled to understand it.

And then secondly, we might disagree on the implications of doctrine which, cannot be avoided most likely. If I understand predestination correctly, for example, but misunderstand what that says, as far as you are concerned, about God or justice or work, this is where we’ve reached more a difference in personality and opinion than theology. Obviously, since I am an atheist, there is much in theology I am going to find repugnant or ridiculous, and you will not. Let’s not try to resolve that here. But, if you do want to lay out what you see as the central doctrines and their correct interpretation, I would be very interested in hearing it as I am always trying to understand how the religious conceive of their own faith.

Much thanks for your comment.

Hello,

Firstly, I would like to note that the link I used previously was incorrect. I was using a mobile device that put .com instead of .net. Secondly, I contend that Calvinism has not undergone somekind of evolutionary development since the Reformation. The faith and doctrinal position of “Reformed Churches” does not necessarily accurately reflect a truly Calvinistic church. Many denominations and singular churches have become rather liberal and from the Evangelical perspective, have apostatized. Such is the PCUSA for example. Thirdly, Calvinism is not a “Christian sect” as one of the dialogue participants repeatedly suggested. Instead, it is a soteriological theological position. Much like say, the difference between a Christian who holds to paedo baptism over and against credo baptism. Both Arminianism and Calvinism coexist within biblical Christianity.

Calvinism is simply this; an extremely high understanding of the soveriegnty of the Triune God in all things, including the salvation of sinners. The doctrine of predestination is but a small part of Calvinism, and it is by no means a doctrine that distinguishes Calvinism from Arminianism (or for that matter the Romanists too!). Both traditions hold to a form of predestination, as it is a subject explicitly and repeatedly spoken of in the text of Scripture.

If you want, I can write a basic didactic essay so that you might come to a more correct understanding of the doctrine.

I was likely the one who described it as a “Christian sect,” which I by no means meant to be especially offensive. If I am incorrect in labeling it such, I am not alone. In what way is Calvinism not a sect of Christianity? Admittedly, you worship the Triune God, an aspect of which is Christ and you do so in a way that is distinct from others who worship him, which I would say makes one a subset of that group (a sect). I can understand if you make a distinction between general Christian denominations and those of the more reformed groups, but in lay-speak shouldn’t ‘sect’ easily apply to any distinct worship of Christ?

As I stated before, Calvinism is a theological position. Calvinists are not a distinct group who are somehow separate from Arminians in Evangelicalism. It is entirely common to find both kinds of theological positions coexisting within one church body. Therefore, to catagorize Calvinism as a “sect” would be a catagorey error. Calvinist worship of the Lord Jesus does not presuppose a distinction from that of the Arminian. While some Calvinists prefer to worship with reformed brethren only, that preference is one of odiophra.

I think that one must understand that there are bounds to historic biblical Christianity. Within these bounds fits a vast quantity of denominations. Outside of these bounds fits everything else. For example, a person who holds to biblical Christianity would not consider a non-Trinitarian person to be a Christian. Nor would a biblical Christian accept a Romanist or a theological liberal into the fold. Calvinism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. It deals with secondary theological issues that, although massively important, do not prevent both the acknowledgment and fellowship of Christians who hold other positions. So, to answer your question, no. So long as the individual holds to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, that person’s worship may be somewhat different but they are understood and recognized as part of the “one body” (1Cor 12:12-30, Eph 4:4).

There were a number of other assertions made in your presentation that I would like to address. One participant suggested that it is somekind of forbidden heresy to suppose that they themselves are elected unto salvation. This is untrue. Both Calvinists and Arminians (there can be exceptions, as I am speaking in generalities) believe in the existence of the elect and that the individual Christian should know with certainty whether they are saved from the wrath to come. In fact, the Apostle who carries the authority of Christ commanded as much when he stated, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure (2Pet 2:10).” So too the Evangelist wrote “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may *know* that you have eternal life (1John 5:13).” The Lord Jesus Himself said “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me *has* eternal life” (John 5:24).

I sort of chuckled when Ms Marie characterized the New Testament as the “soft and fluffy” portion of the Christian bible. Even a cursory reading of the text would preclude such an characterization. It would also be valuable to note that the New Testament explicitly identifies the Lord Jesus as the God of the Old Testament.

This statement “However, the fact that the logic of the Bible brings Calvinists to the conclusions of human worthlessness, predestination and a belief in a megalomaniacal God in need of constant glorification is a testament to the inhumanity at the heart of Calvinist theology” is one that is foundationally in error. Calvinists do not believe that humans are worthless. Calvinists like all other biblical Christians believe that humans, although corrupted by sin, are still made in the image of God. Therefore, the human being is worthy of the utmost respect and dignity. The author has in my opinion, greatly misunderstood the doctrine of Total Depravity. Calvinists are not alone in their belief in the doctrine of predestination. All Christians possess somekind of doctrine of predestination. The differences exist in what that predestination is predicated on. Calvinist do not believe in a “megalomaniacal God in need of constant glorification.” We understand that the greatest human endeavor and the reason for the creation of the elect was and is to glorify God. We believe that glorifying God is both our greatest and most satisfying pleasure and the fulfillment of a righteous, divine, and worthy command. Therefore, for God to seek glorification from His people is the equivelent of seeking the greatest good for His people.

The charge of inhumanity is founded on ignorance and such a charge should (if at all possible) be based on a primary resource. Should this same standard be instituted in other areas (say athiesm), I doubt the author or the dialogue’s participants would keep silent.

Hi Mike — thank you for your clarifications. And I readily admit that I am largely ignorant of how Calvinist theology is being practiced and understood today.

I wanted to clarify that you are right about the issue of being a member of the Elect; officially, you were supposed to assume your election, to a certain degree, as you were part of the covenanted community. I should have not under-emphasized that. Again I am speaking here of the New England Puritans. However there is a divide between doctrine and the psychological consequences thereof to individuals, who as Weber points out, were not all as confident as Calvin or other members of the community. The reason Calvinism would lend more anxiety to the question of salvation than say, Catholicism, is because your salvation is not an easy question — ie, you cannot just go to the priest, say your confession or pay your indulgence and be done with it. It requires intense emotional experience and serious lifestyle commitments. I hope I am right at least about this aspect of contrast; again, in practice more than official doctrine, since the Catholic Church was even sure to say from time to time, “you must be sincere when you buy this indulgence” and so on. But therefore, when the individual, unassuming Puritan was trying to be humble before God, the question of whether or not they were truly saved was a deeply serious one indeed. There was no easy criteria, in other words, about what makes one saved. It required total commitment.

As for our other disagreements about the *implications* of much of the Calvinist theology, those will have to stand. There are ideas you are comfortable with that I would characterize harshly, Calvinist or not; we are certainly not going to change that here.

Well, thanks for your response. Although there were a multitude of other problems in both the two broadcasts and your brief article, I suppose it would be best to leave things as is.

One other thing. Why is it that in episode 23, you repeatedly utilized concepts and ideas that presuppose God? You even did this in your article. If you are an atheist, why then do you argue like a Christian? Shouldn’t one’s method of argumentation be consistent with one’s own beliefs?

Hi Michael — good question. The answer is that what I was describing or trying to understand *did* presuppose God; I cannot hope to understand a mindset if I refuse to engage with its fundamental assumptions. None of those discussions were really concerned with whether any idea was True- but what its impact was on those who believed it and the wider society in which it existed, historically. My interest in religion, as an atheist, is not simply in being critical of it but also understanding its consequences, bad *and* good, in the society we can observe on earth. Hope that makes sense.

I’m sorry, I still find your proposition that I am incorrect, in calling Calvinism a “Christian sect,” an argument in semantics. As a side note, I agree that someone who holds the Triune God perspective might not consider someone else to be Christian if they do not believe in the Trinity. However, that doesn’t mean that other people wouldn’t label them as Christians, nor that the non-Triune believing group wouldn’t call themselves Christian.

I recognize those who ‘hold to the essential doctrines’ are of one group, but the very fact that Calvinism is a term denotes a difference between the individuals of that group. Any difference within a group, in lay speak, is easily identified as a sect. With layman use of the term, sect is synonymous with faction. For example, all people with red hair are a faction/sect of society. Sect comes from the Latin ‘Sectus’ (from seco, secare) which means a division, and I submit that I can even discuss the ‘division’ of theological perspectives as a ‘sect,’ simply because it is a division; I understand etymological definitions, at times, do not even share the denotation of the word in English usage, but it does in this case. I understand that in theological studies one might reserve the term ‘sect’ for specific meanings, but the word has broad usage in the English language. Again, I submit that this is simply an argument of semantics, one that I am especially confused as to why it would be deserving of highlighting or any remotely strong disagreement. I do appreciate your comment, and your appreciation for precision and correctness. Thank you for listening!

Ms. Marie, I am afraid you haven’t understood what my question was. I was not referring to the subject matter of the broadcast, but your utilization of terminology and methodology that presupposes the existence of God. For example, you asserted that Calvinists “believe horrible things.” How is it that you can make such a statement as an atheist? During your presentation on the broadcast you repeatedly used terms like “good,” “bad,” and “evil.” It seems to me that in arguing this way, your basically stealing from the Christian worldview. Care to explain?

-

Mr. Beasely, Christian theology is legion. There are innumerable amounts of theological positions that fit within the bounds of orthodox biblical Christianity. Whether or not a non-Trinitarian would like to call themselves a Christian is irrelevant. The issue instead is; does this person meet the criteria to merit that title? You wouldn’t catagorize Thomastic Roman Catholics as a sect, nor would you catagorize Mulinistic Roman Catholics that way. Both groups fit doctrinally and theologically within the bounds of Romanist orthodoxy. Why then do you impose such a distinction upon Calvinists? Ultimately, I think your right about this being an issue of the semantical range of the term. Whatever the case, Christians do not consider such theological positions a “sect.” And as a side note, Calvinists do not see a disjunction between the beliefs of the great American theologian/philosopher Jonathan Edwards and our own. His anthropology and theology have been instrumental in a great majority of Calvinists today, including myself. Furthermore, the participants of the broadcast seemed to fail to recognize the actual views of Edwards on the human condition, this by virtue of the out of context excerpt read by Ms Marie. Too bad, as I think the dismissive tone given to Edwards is unfortunate and unearned. Calvinist anthropolgy is easily misunderstood, both by non-Calvinist Christians and unbelievers.

Hi Michael — if you do not think atheists can have a source of ethics, and distinguish between good and bad, then we are at one of those impasses where we cannot go much further. There are entire bodies of thought, such as humanism for example, that answer this question and, any book by any prominent atheist will address your belief that right and wrong are concepts that belong solely to Christianity and are only possible assuming the existence of God.

If you are not aware of any of them, you have not investigated the atheist position very much at all; if you are and you simply disagree and are merely taking this as an opportunity to express your opinion, you must know I will not find it compelling.

Do you believe in such a thing as absolute morality? Also, one of the distinctives between Calvinists and other Christians is what is called presuppositionalism. I would really like to know if you do indeed believe in absolute morality, or if the laws of logic are too absolute. As I have studied the various worldviews (including humanism), I find there to be a solely fallacious basis to posit such things as morality. Consider my inquiry an opportunity for primary research into the apologetic methodology of a Calvinist.

Michael - I am aware of presuppositionalism. You are aware of other explanations for morality, absolute or otherwise, I imagine. And yet, our disagreement remains.

I am not going to get into an endless conversation about my ethical and moral beliefs. I would convince you of nothing, and vise-versa. Let’s please leave it there.