…and the resulting train wreck is there for you to read in the comments thread. Arminian Today Blog placed the ESV Study Bible video on their site and gave a plug for the Bible. Sounds safe…right?
What follows is a study in why I’m not a Calvinist anymore, and it should be funny…but it’s hard to laugh after a while. These are real people. Their mother must be so proud.
You can call it “cage phase” or “personality disorder,” but there’s something at work here that you see in a lot of theology loving believers. It’s called “totally missing the point of human conversation.”
And just in case, Charles, I won’t be posting your comments here 
wow.
Lord, have mercy! On behalf of Calvinists, I apologize to Arminians. We are one body of Christ. One eye happens to see a few degrees one way and the other eye a few degrees the other way. Who has the corner on total truth but God alone? I happen to like what I believe in Calvinism, but I humbly submit I am a flawed human as was Calvin. “They will know us by our love” indeed…
**hangs head low in shame**
Threads like this could convince me that theology is not much more than an intellectual hamster wheel for people who’d have been better off learning a trade.
The highest virtue in Reformation theology is apparently autism.
Fav. quotes!
Charlie J. Ray said…
I’m trying to evangelize you:) But you’re still in bondage to sin. Besides, “I” can’t save ANYONE. You seem to imply that you somehow share God’s ability to save?
September 12, 2008 1:50 PM
Charlie J. Ray said…
Belligerent? I thought I was merely being graceful. After all, I am sharing the doctrines of grace:)
William Birch said…
Charles,
WRONG, but thanks for trying. Charles, if God gives a person the ABILITY to do something, then in what way whatsoever can it be accredited as man’s “work”? You’re grasping at straws here, and I don’t blame you.
Your god says that he loves the world, but he doesn’t really mean it. Your god says that he sent his son into the world to save them, but he doesn’t really mean it. Simply put: your god has no integrity.
The Seeking Disciple said…
Go pray for us instead.
September 12, 2008 5:55 PM
jsaras said…
“I consider both the RCC and the Pentecostals to be heretical”
Well, somebody has to fulfill the purpose of fueling the fires of hell !??!
In all seriousness, I was blown away about a year ago by Brennan Manning, a (former?) Catholic priest. He had a very firm grasp of the Gospel. Granted, it is not what the RC church teaches at large to it members, but the truth will prevail.
And so on, a dreary autogenerated nightmare straight out of an Albrecht Durer painting.
Somebody do me a favor and turn off the internet.
Woo. I counted more words ending in “-ism” per line on that flamethread than I’ve ever seen before.
That dude says he can’t for the life of him figure out why an Arminian would want an ESVSB?
Well, I want one partly because the wonderful Wesleyan-Arminian scholar John Oswalt is a contributor.
Ah-hahahahahahahaha!
Oh. Dear.
Wow. The Charles guy was trying to win them and evangelize them. His contempt for the Arminians is obvious, and their patience with allowing him to continue to post is amazing.
Why quote Councils that no one else in the conversation would see as having value? Just talking at people without talking with them.
I’m sorry, Michael, but this is just hilarious.
Of course, if someone hangs around with theologians all the time and takes them seriously, I suppose this sort of thing does lose its comic value. But for an outsider like me, it’s very funny indeed.
Let’s face it — these guys are having fun. And they *are* all guys, as far as I can tell — not a totally insignificant fact. They’re just playing “My [theology, in this case] is bigger than yours.”
And they’re doing it with such zest! Who’d want to end their fun? Take their “isms” away, and they might have to duke it out in a parking lot.
No offense intended to guys in general, really. Or to theologians in general. Or… oh, never mind.
Ridiculous – I mean, seriously – why in the hell would some dude just be sitting around waiting for some other dude to adopt “his” Bible and jump on him for it??? I gotta make up a new word – I’m wackadoodled by all that.
I used to have a “favorite” comment hijacker back in the day – mostly about being too Catholic and a bunch of goofy trap-door questions. I think I’m glad those days are over.
Now I know why Ergun Caner said Calvinism was a mental disorder.
Pretty wild over there. Makes the iMonk’s typical comments tame by comparison. I did note a lot of emoticons in use though.
Donald Miller once said that he tries “to be a Christian without being [a defecatory orifice].” Substitute “Calvinist” for “Christian” and the statement is applicable to me.
I realize that the lunacy that Charles presents is (unfortunately) prevalent in Calvinist circles, but it is not inherent. I also realize that Michael knows this. But when Caner — who is simply the other side of the same asinine coin — gets quoted in the comments, it’s obvious that not everyone here does.
I also realize that lunacy such as Charles’ is not the sole reason that Michael is not a Calvinist anymore. But it is a hindrance; might one be so bold (and seminary-ish) to call it “a stumbling block”?
Not that I’m saying that Michael is wrong to not be Calvinist. But what in God’s name — quite literally — is the point of totally alienating someone who doesn’t believe as you do, in hopes that the alienation will make them want to move to your side?
The application to Christianity (as opposed to Calvinism) is left as an exercise for the reader.
“Granted, it is not what the RC church teaches at large to it members, but the truth will prevail.”
*sigh*
Which is exactly why the bloke in the big white hat living in Rome has all the bishops over for the Synod discussing the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church right this minute. They’re even reading the whole Bible through (from Genesis to Revelation) on Italian state television while they’re at it.
I have to admit, I was amused by the charges made by at least one of the comments that the Arminian in question was interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly (while he, as a Calvinist, OF COURSE had the absolute correct interpretation).
Yes, indeed: nobody’s infallible – except me.
I’ve sent a message to Brian Evans (as in http://www.xanga.com/pilgrimsjourney7419, duh). He will settle this for all of us I’m sure.
Without any disrespect to my Calvinist brothers and sisters, I want to ask one question:
Are you aware of what it is in your tradition of spirituality that produces “Charles” in all his arrogant, rude, presumptuous glory? Something in Calvinism rewards this kind of spirituality rather than curbing it. This is why so many Calvinists would NEVER act like this, but what is the consensus on what to do with Charles? In my experience, it was to let him continue in his path, encourage his theological debating and temper his extreme comments with just a touch of caution. Some Calvinistic leaders will speak louder, but Calvinism is full of guys like Charles.
Something is amiss in local churches that are producing and rewarding this kind of individual.
That’s a great question. I think it’s perhaps immaturity. Not unlike a brand new Christian (of unknown theological bent) who is so excited about what they have learned about the gospel, that they will use ever tactic, many times obnoxious ones, to share the truth they have found and are so passionate about. I have been guilty of being a “Charles” when I found Calvinism after growing up in Arminianism. What I have learned at my church is that Calvinists have the greatest reason NOT to behave like Charles or BE like Charles. If every part of our being is depraved and we have been saved through no act of our own, we have NOTHING of which to boast, much less the grace we understand has been given to us for no reason we know of other than God was pleased to do it. Somehow, though, it’s tempting to think we have found a treasure non-Calvinists are not privvy too, and so we get obnoxious. Somehow being “chosen” is a reason to boast bc we “forget” we weren’t chosen for reasons of our own deserving. This is stream of consciousness. Thanks for the challenge and it is something I’m aware of and having to temper and remember grace.
Calvinistic and Reformed theology has always been the most intellectually stimulating and satisfying of theological traditions. In my experience I have found it often attracts “Scribe and Pharisee” temperament types. These lawyerly personalities believe that winning an argument is nirvana. We all have our own points of pride, but intellectual superiority seems to be the one for the TULIPS among us.
Something in Calvinism rewards this kind of spirituality rather than curbing it.
Two semi-opposing thoughts:
1) I wish I knew. Anyone with any real understanding of Calvinism would see that it should yield greater humility. Ya know, that whole “total depravity” thing?
Maybe I’m just an idiot — and I’m sure that Charles could verify that — but, in some ways, I am certain of less now than I did before I embraced Calvinism.
2) On the flipside, is it really Calvinism that produces such arrogance and team politics? If so, then how do we explain people like Caner?
(Doh! That would be “than I was“, not “did”.)
Brendt Waters,
You said,
“I realize that the lunacy that Charles presents is (unfortunately) prevalent in Calvinist circles, but it is not inherent. I also realize that Michael knows this. But when Caner — who is simply the other side of the same asinine coin — gets quoted in the comments, it’s obvious that not everyone here does.”
You sure read alot into one simple comment. He was quoted because the fact of the matter is that Charles and his type of Calvinist friends fuel the fires of people like Caner who is equally vehement in his anti-Calvinist rants. That’s all. What was “obvious” to you really was not true.
Michael,
How about Colossians 3, Ephesians 4-5, Romans 13-14, 1 Corinthians 1, Galatians 5, ….. The New Testament.
I uphold Calvinistic Soteriology with no shame; however, with just a little reading of Church history we will see that their soteriology and doctrine never, ever brought them to the submission of the Lord Jesus. Just ask the Anabaptist. But I will stop there before I go into a rant.
Truth be told in Calvinism doctrine is more important than practice which as far as I can tell in the New Testament is an oxymoron. More time is spent debating, instead of loving, philosophizing instead of serving, and reading instead of walking it out. Big Conferences are going on in the Christian church trying to disprove one another while the world goes to hell in a hand basket (yes I know I believe in Divine Election).
I appreciate your critical views, hopefully more of us who uphold the 5 points will begin to see the dying world and get at it instead of boasting on all of the past evangelistic “calvinist” who have been dead for 200 years. Much love Micheal. I enjoy the CCA, I am a passive listener and blog observer.
I suspect that the presence of such rudeness comes less from Calvinism as such as from the modernism/fundamentalism disputes in which most of the conservative Reformed denominations were born. John Frame has a good article, “Machen’s Warrior Children”, found at http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Machen.htm, which details some of the internecine conflicts between Calvinists during the last 80 years or so. Frame’s observations at the end are worth reading, even if you don’t want to read the whole article. I suspect that the birth of the OPC, PCA, RPC, etc., in (mostly justified) conflict concerning what is and is not the gospel led to a mindset where almost any doctrinal dissent could be seen as threatening to the heart of the gospel.
A second, more recent, source of this sort of arrogance may come from the “Christian Worldview” stream of thought associated with Francis Schaeffer. I find this sadly ironic, because it would seem that this sort of behavior was one of the postures that Schaeffer was trying to avoid. Unfortunately, the (correct) idea that Christianity is relevant to every area of life all too easily becomes the (incorrect) idea that no dissent is possible on any topic without denying the gospel.
The pastoral question is more difficult; the suggestion I have in preaching (even though I’m not a pastor) is to be clear that there is no such thing as justification by theology, and to occasionally put the spotlight on Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees. An encouragement to read theologians from other Christian traditions could go a long way, as well as a challenge to serve the local church in a way that doesn’t involve the exercise of “teaching gifts”.
Absolute best part of that? The guy’s blog title: “Reasonable Christian”
Somehow, I sense the need for a lot more sermons based on 1 Cor 8:2.
Then there are those caught in between. The Calminians like me. Our favourite verse:
2 Peter 3:17 – Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Looking at Charles’s profile, he’s an Anglican, and I’m half Scottish. Already, I’m painting my face blue.
Last year I read Mark Twain’s book _Roughing It_. It is a great sampling of Twain, and it includes such gems as Appendix C. Look it up on Google Books, and read just that one section (though I highly commend Chapter XLVII to you as a study in high-falootin’, schooldumacated God-talk vs. miners’ vernacular… classic!). Calvinists like Charles just shoot from the hip and get really nasty when they miss and somebody is able to fire back. It’s that bookish, socially maladjusted quality that comes from too much time alone in the library when he should have gone out to spend time with other people, date girls, etc.
Calvin himself starts the _Institutes_ by treating knowledge. I don’t think the leap is too large from aspiring to gain knowledge about God and man to saying, “I know more than you do.”
I love reading Calvin, and I love most of my contemporaries who are associated with his legacy. For the most part, I have found them to be humble and kind, good neighbors, and loyal friends. But I hate talking with this particular brand of Calvinist. They just come across like Conrad Wiegand (_Roughing It_, Appendix C).
I went to a predominantly Calvinist College and a predominantly Calvinist Seminary and one of the main things I noticed is that there was a lot more arrogance at the college (among students) than at the seminary. I remember hearing a preacher while at the college say “I believe a great many things less firmly than I did while in bible college” and I thought, at the time, that he was crazy – you’re supposed to believe everything MORE strongly as you go on, right? But now I realize that he was absolutely right – not in the sense that I am less convinced that Jesus is my Savior than I was five years ago when I finished college, but by learning MORE I am now absolutely convinced of fewer things. I think that the arrogance found in Charles’ comments stems not simply from being a calvinist, but from being a Calvinist who has stopped learning. I saw arrogant college-level calvinists (such as myself) become humbled by calvinist seminary professors who, because they kept on learning, are aware of their own intellectual limitations.
This is not to say that college grads are arrogant, and seminary grads aren’t! My point is that true learning is evidenced by humility, and this simply takes time.
To address your question more directly, iMonk, I think Calvinism can breed arrogance because the theological perspective tends to disregard emotional and “close to home” issues (miscarriages, mentally-handicapped siblings, “those who have never heard,” etc.) and so it is easy for Calvinists to say “I don’t get caught up in emotion, I just let God be God” and similar kinds of things. And we become arrogant because we give God more credit than Arminians do, by our way of thinking. I’m not saying it makes sense!
This also ties into what I said before about humility and time – how many of us have faced real emotional challenges to our faith, such as our firstborn being a miscarriage, by the time we get through Sunday School and into Christian college? How often is it after college that the real world forces its way into our lives and forces us to admit that things are not as simple as we thought they were? I’m still a Calvinist, of a sort, but I’ve had to think in real life terms, not just “theological” terms, about what I believe, and that, admittedly, is a real challenge to being what most people mean today when they say “Calvinist.”
Michael asks: “Are you aware of what it is in your tradition of spirituality that produces ‘Charles’ in all his arrogant, rude, presumptuous glory?”
As a matter of fact, I do. Knowledge puffs up. The higher the knowledge, the more puffing up. The fact that the most arrogant people in the world are Calvinists proves Calvinism’s truthfulness. hehehe
It strikes me that many of our doctrinal hellfire and brimstone diatribes seem to go away when instead of writing hours of comments, we put on our jackets, head out the door and go serve the poor, listening to their story and finding the core of the heart of God.
I think it’s an important question of spiritual formation. SBCers need to ask it about excessive zeal for evangelism, RCs have their argumentative apologists that concentrate on converting Protestants, political types have their zealots.
There’s a place there in mentoring somewhere that needs some more assertiveness. This kind of behavior is wrong. It really should be a matter for church discipline if it continues without being tempered.
All of us can be like this, but we don’t have to create a system that has Charles teaching Sunday School as a reward for his knowledge.
BTW, I think the blogger in the first part of this video has a good idea of this sort of personality. (About 1 minute in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9pPZs4aTcU
Preach it Pat!!!
Steve Scott said: The fact that the most arrogant people in the world are Calvinists proves Calvinism’s truthfulness.
Aliasmoi said: Case in point…..
Lionel said: … Just ask the Anabaptist….
Aliasmoi said: Excuse me???
What the heck is an Arminian?
The post doesn’t seem to make a case for Calvinism so much as it makes a case for much stricter comment moderation on the part of the blogger.
Here’s the illogical bit: Those who believe in election insist, nevertheless, in trying to convince someone by argument that they’re wrong and should repent. They may believe in monergism, but certainly don’t practice it.
But to be fair, sometimes we Arminians are just as obnoxious in the defense of our system. I see it a lot less, but I certainly do see it.
Pat, in the main, I tend to think that people (not Jesus) tend to prefer wielding hellfire arguments to helping out, because saying Things Of Profound Importance (and knowing you’ll be ignored because you’re right) is one of the most delicious consolations religious people take advantage of. It feels nice to lose yourself in some miasmic old-time language, to wield the words of learned men and fiery prophets blithely and remain innocent; if you master the imitation, you feel like you’re one of them, part of their tradition, a spiritual Knight of God’s, not a student, not an awkward amateur. The theology, Bible citations, the pious language don’t seem to me to be anything more than a costume, so trivial people can walk around feeling like Jeremiah. In the main, I think this IS Christianity in the suburb: we’re bored. Get a roomful of the Good Guys, and sooner or later they’ll declare one of their own a Bad Guy just to have someone to practice Christianity against.
Scott, I stand corrected. My apologies and relief. My (mis)understanding stemmed from the fact that you started with “Now I know why…”; that certainly sounds like a support of Caner’s statement.
Maybe no one who has commented on this post needed to hear it, but the simple existence of Caner does prove that there are people out there with, shall we say, incomplete analyses of Calvinism.
Amen, Pat. Amen.
I think that guy in the video attends my book club.
Mike: … I think Calvinism can breed arrogance because the theological perspective tends to disregard emotional and “close to home” issues …
Which, in one sense, explains a lot. I was part of a group at my church that embraced Calvinism all within a few months of each other. The guy that introduced us to it already was an emotional (but not overly-so) guy. His emotions didn’t go away when he became a Calvinist, nor did he pick up any arrogance. So imagine my surprise when I started to run into Calvinists who are arrogant automatons.
On the flip side, it’s ludicrous that Calvinism would drain someone of emotions (I’m not saying that you’re ludicrous, Mike — just that you are observing and commenting on a ludicrous situation). Just as I said before that Calvinism should lead to further humility, not arrogance, the same goes for emotion. The greater that you realize how great God is and how much we suck, the more you should be passionately in love with Him. (And I’m not saying that you have to be Calvinist to get a proper perspective on this stuff — but that perspective is a very basic tenet of Calvinism.)
Here’s the kicker: Mike mentions miscarriages as one of the “close to home” issues. One of our group miscarried her first child two days before she was due. She and her husband took great solace in their new-found understanding of God’s sovereignty, while several of their Armenian friends were telling them (what boiled down to) “excrement happens”.
So while Mike’s analysis is correct that Calvinism can lead to arrogance and non-emotion, it doesn’t have to — and I would argue, can’t logically do so, if one is honest about his/her Calvinism.
As Chaplain Mike said:
Wow.
Makes me tired. Reminds me of the election (the political one). The verse that comes to mind is:
this one, second sentence…
Does anyone wish to argue as to whether priest must have beards or not? And, may the beards be trimmed short or do they have to be allowed to grow long? Sadly, there are people who argue that within Eastern Orthodoxy. Fortunately, not many. Nevertheless, I share this tidbit under the idea that “misery loves company.”
Following up on that, our Church is very old. How old is it? It is so old that we no longer do full theological arguments, we just cite a keyword or two that reminds everyone of the argument, or counter-argument, in question. It saves a lot of time and lets us get back to what we are supposed to do.
I had to stop reading at this point in the discusssion:
“Well, Charlie boy, if you find out that Calvinism is NOT the gospel, then you have believed in a lie, and will spend eternity in hell. Are you prepared for that? Hope so.”
Wow. Nothing like telling somebody their views could send them straight to hell, all the while crying foul that someone like Charles dare show contempt for their own views or be honest enough to say he believes certain sects to be heretical. No Calvinist believes that it is doctrine that saves a person, no matter how important they think doctrine is.
But for the record, this guy was the equivalent of a theological cage-fighter in that discussion. I am a calvinist and have know only a couple who acted like this, and trust me….. guys like this don’t usually last long. They either get burnt out by fighting windmills and eventually reprioritize their faithSometimes we can get puffed up by knowledge but Grace will eventually humble a person.
To be honest; I can see parallels of this type of behavior in almost all christian circles though; Catholics who actually believe Protestants are of a lower status, charismatics who believe non-charismatics are living out a marginal faith, emergent-types who sanctimoniously look down upon mainline expressions of faith, the fundamentalist baptist whose sermons are a rotation of rants against particular “sins” or social ills, liberals who look down on evangelicals because they believe in more than a social gospel, evangelicals who condemn those who don’t share the same narrow political view or militant fervor……. the list goes on and on of people who can’t proverbially see the forest for the all the trees.
I hope you don’t moderate this post away Micheal.
Hello Michael
As you know I am a big fan of your site and regard you as a kindred sprite but I think your “front paging†nuts like ‘Charles’ is a bad idea. You are in danger of creating an unfair image of Calvinist as a bunch of raving loons. I no longer describe my self as a Reformed but I have spent over half my life in reformed churches and they are full of wonderful God fearing christians (a special hat tip to Peter Moore formally at Toronto’s Little Trinity (now at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry) and Scotty Smith at Nashville’s Christ Community). Every Christian community throws up is share of whack jobs (I have a friend who went to the Charismatic Catholic Franciscan University in Steubenville who makes Charles look like a model of charitable ecumenism). Lets not lose site of the wonderful insights into the Gospel that come from the Reformed Tradition it’s far to easy for us ex-Calvinist to amplify the traditions failing. The fact is that although I now worship at an Anglican Church its hard to avoid the conclusion that taken as a whole the PCA is the most well healthy well rounded and consistently biblical of any major denomination in North America I am convinced that this is because of the many virtues of their reformed heritage.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
jsaras said…
“I consider both the RCC and the Pentecostals to be hereticalâ€
I read that as “Everybody’s a Heretic except MEEEEEE!”
The ultimate theoretical end stage of Protestantism: Millions of Only True Churches, each with only one member, each denouncing all the others as heretics.
iMonk: There’s a place there in mentoring somewhere that needs some more assertiveness. This kind of behavior is wrong. It really should be a matter for church discipline if it continues without being tempered.
I agree whole-heartedly. However, there’s a key flaw, in that this assumes that those in a place of mentoring or those in a position to execute church discipline don’t have the same problem. After all, where does the crabby Calvinist get his warped perspective from? Is it not from the leaders that he worships?
Unfortunately, Charles (or one of his friends) will most likely be the pastor of his church in 15 years, replacing the guy from whom Charles got his viewpoints. And the vicious cycle continues.
The problem that we calm Calvinists have in trying to get other Calvinists to chill is that most of them argue that if we won’t go to the mat for Calvinism, then we’re not really Calvinists. And seeing as how the crabby Calvinists only listen to those who they deem to be Calvinists, that becomes a nearly inpenetrable circle.
Wow. I can only hope to one day have that kind of train wreck in the comment threads of my blog!!!
As to your question on what it is in Calvinism that produces and rewards people like Charles, my take on it is that it is not Calvinism so much as it is basic human nature. Calvinism appeals for the most part to those of strong intellect, who have the distinct challenge of not allowing their intellect to fill them up with false notions of superiority to other people. Put these people in a system where knowledge is rewarded, and you’re asking for trouble.
Since my experience and knowledge of Calvinism is limited, that is as far as I will go.
Is this the product of “self-feeding”? Leave the kids to choose their own menus, and is it any wonder if they choose chocolate cake everytime? Theology-bashing is kid’s stuff (my bobble-head can beat up your bobble-head). I absolutely agree that this is a Spiritual formation issue, where everyone chooses a spiritual form that is right in their own eyes. I am not surprised why people like these get plugged into teaching positions, especially with most spiritual gift assessments being a narcissistic self-evaluation, and churches typically being desparate for warm bodies to stick in front of Sunday school classes.
I think Charles really thinks he is spiritually advanced, because in a world of self-feeding spirituality, he has nothing to compare himself to, except self-induced illusions. I think I know, because I have been Charles more times than I can count.
Discipleship and spiritual mentoring: amen, amen, amen. Start as early as possible, showing kids what it means to be a Christian, rather than just filling their heads with data.
I am not a Calvinist. One reasons is that my observation of many Calvinists is that they not only believe they are predestined as one of the Elect, but also often act as if they are predestined to be right.
The first, correctly interpreted, is an occasion for the deepest of humility on the part of any human. The second is the occasion for the most offensive of spiritual arrogance.
Why do people keep saying that ue that Calvinism attracts people of strong intellect?
It’s about as silly as making the argument that atheism attracts people of strong intellect. That may be true, but it also attracts those of not so strong intellect. It also conveys false assumptions about the people in the other camp.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but coming from the standpoint of the Stone-Campbell movement I’ve heard the exact opposite. I don’t think it’s because Stone-Campbell people are smarter or not as smart as Calvinists. I think it’s because people typecast people and ideas from the other movement.