Being Calvinist without Calvin

 

The title of this article should be enough to make the reader want to scratch his head in confusion. The title would seem to be self-refuting if the typical accusations against Calvinist Christians were left unchallenged. Those accusations normally go something like this:

 

Roderick Edwards

 

John Calvin was a mean & cruel guy & thus so are his "followers" who go by his name & they have made Calvin their master over Christ Himself.

These accusations fall flat when facts are brought to bear.

1. Most 'Calvinists' haven't read much by Calvin so they can hardly be seen to be following him or making him their master.
2. The so-called "five-points of Calvinism" were written 54 years after his death, in response to the five articles of the Remonstrant.
3. Most if not all that Calvin ever theologically advocated has been taught by other theologians of the Reformation & theologians long before the Reformation.
4. Most Calvinists today were former rabid freewillers.  This phenomenon typically doesn’t work in the opposite direction.  Rarely does a Calvinist, after truly understanding the doctrines of grace become a freewiller
5. The term 'Calvinism/Calvinist' has been accepted in popular vernacular, not to mean a follower of Calvin but a simple way to sum up an advocate of a specific brand of theology that can be ascertained completely independent of Calvin himself.
   
   So, you see that when people accuse Calvinist Christians of following John Calvin those accusers simply show their ignorance.  Take the word "American" for example.  Does being called an "American" mean the person is a follower of Amerigo Vespucci (for which America was named)? Even more striking is that Amerigo Vespucci had little to do with America.  In fact, it is doubtful He ever even set foot on its soil, but yet by the haste of a German mapmaker many maps bore Amerigo's name as the founder of the New World.
   
   What does this prove? It proves that terms & labels have come to be accepted as definitive despite those terms historical & logical inaccuracy.  Trying to equate what have come to be known as "Calvinists" & "Calvinism" with everything John Calvin the man said or did is then seen to be not only erroneous but ignorant.
   
   Further, usually what is interesting about the accusers of Calvinist Christians is that the accusers typically have little knowledge of the history of the Reformation or history in general for that matter, including the history of America.
   
   America’s first English Christians were staunch “Calvinists”.  They did not bring with them the KJV translation, with John 3:16 autographed by King James himself, but rather they brought with them the Geneva Bible.  The Geneva Bible, so named because it was first produced in Geneva (the city where John Calvin resided, but not produced by him) in 1557 & went through several editions.  What made the Geneva Bible so different is that it was one of the first to have marginal notes which greatly aided the reader in understanding the intent of the text.  Interestingly enough, one of the main detractors of Calvinists from within my own theological circle (preterist view) is trying to utilize the Geneva notes for the basis of a Bible commentary project.  Talk about hypocrisy.
   
   We shall not get into all the historical battles of whether John Calvin the man was a great theologian or a great tyrant. That’s not the point.  Much ink & blood has been spilled over the course of history on such matters.  I suggest the reader do a research of Phillip Schaaf’s History of the Christian Church, which is known for extensive treatment of Christian history, rather than relying upon the words of men who not only know little about the Reformation but are openly hostile toward it. Our concern, as we stated at the beginning is not so much with a man, but with theological concepts.
   
   Interestingly, many of the detractors (at least within the preterist view) are known for their aberrant theology & their open distain for “doctrine”.  Many of them will androgynously claim they are not “Universalists” all the while saying God has reconciled every individual back to Himself. These same people have a low regard for Scriptural integrity, often using psychological writings to support their “theoriology”.
   
   They revel in error, esteem doubting, desire a “right to heresy” & hypocritically pretend to be “loving”, “gracious”, & “merciful”, but if you don’t agree with their brand of pop-psychology & “tolerance” over sticking close to Scripture you will see how thin their “love” really is.
   
   Love, real love passionately tries to fulfill being our “brother’s keeper”.  Real love works to make our calling sure.  It doesn’t spend months in doubt over the most basic elements of Christianity.
   
   Recently, a critic of Calvinists observing that Calvinists typically sound alike posted that Calvinists must have a text book.
   
   Well the secret is out now folks, we might as well come clean & tell the world we have been utilizing a single source to spread this thing we call the gospel.  That source?
    
   Sola Scriptura
    
   Or since our detractors are usually not conversant on basic Reformational terminology (or any other theology older than their own), it is simply a term that means -- the Bible alone.
   
   That means we don't consult the so-called "sacred texts" of other religions.  We don't read the latest pop-psychology author (even if his name is Brian McLaren) We don't get a group concensus about what we "believe".  We don't search our hearts (i.e. emotionalism) to see what is true. We don't speculate on woulda-coulda-shoulda concepts.
    
   So, while these detractors think they can defame the doctrines of grace by defaming merely one advocate (John Calvin), they fail to understand that being 'Calvinist' has as little to do with John Calvin as being freewill has to do with Jacob Arminius. These theological views were being advocated & followed long before either of these men were born. It really is a matter of what the Bible actually says about salvation. Is it of God or of man? Is it 99% God & 1% man -- or is it 100% of God?

 

 

Comments:

Name: