This is a beautiful, honest post. My mom attended RC Sproul's church in Orlando for years until she came out of Calvinism. He told her "I hope I did enough" before he died. Wow! Heartbreaking really. It wasn't until I became a dispensationalist and understood the true nature of God's outworking of His plan in the worls that I gained real clarity in Christ. It's been life-changing. A literal, plain, grammatically correct reading on Scripture solves the predestination problem too - every time it's discussed it's in the plural ... yes, Israel is predestined to be in the earthly Kingdom; yes, the Body of Christ is predestined to be in the heavens, but anyone can convert. It's not that complicated. And if I hear one more sermon on Biblical womanhood based on Proverbs 31, I'm going to puke. None of Proverbs is about a literal female, especially Ch. 31 ... it's a Jewish book about Torah living, is it not? Is Proverbs 31 not about a nation providing for her people? Releasing me from the demands of the PRoverbs 31 "superwoman" was life-changing. Again, beautiful article -- thank you for sharing!
Dispensationalism is a fairly recent invention, the church fathers were far from that view, and it leads to christian zionism (also a recent invention). It was dispensationalism that turned me away from being baptist (i know not all baptists are dispy but many are), and towards covenant theology. Taking the most surface level meaning can sometimes lead to literalist, fundamentalist, biblicist errors. To read scripture in light of church history and historical context often does not lead to dispensational theology
Isnt that interesting? Jesus chastised the Pharisees for their worship of “tradition”. Jesus brought in the church age and most of the New Testament tells of Paul’s (and others’) efforts to unify the Jewish and Gentile traditions. But because dispensationalism is “new”, its not worthy of our consideration?? No discussion of its merits or logic?? This is exactly what this article is pointing out so eloquently.
I’m tired of people demonizing ALL tradition and having 0 regard for church history. All our core beliefs came from the first 3 ecumenical councils. If someone told u “I have a new theory about explaining the trinity/the hypostatic union” you SHOULD be suspicious. Go to an orthodox Anglican church just to try it out and see how God-honoring and beautiful and reverent GOOD tradition can be. The first time I did that, my eyes were opened. It’s because of a total disregard for church history that restorationist cults pop up, and since many only examine them against their own personal uninformed interpretation of scripture (none of the reformers wouldve been ok with this btw), they dont realize theyre cults. If we dont care at all how the church had historically interpreted the scriptures, we are not protestants. The Reformers were not just going back to scripture but also church fathers. Modern evangelicalism has become so hyper individualistic it has severed its ties with the wider historic church and wandered into its own heterodoxy due to it
Sir Im trying to bring up objective facts as politely as possible, if one cannot accept opposing views presented in a neutral manner then they’re just not ready to examine their own beliefs. I love all Christians no matter which stream they come from, but I have benefited greatly from learning more abt church tradition and history, I only hope others would find the benefits I have. God bless
Hi Rachel - Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your perspective and love of church history. I share that with you. While there are valid critiques of dispensationalism, as there are with any interpretive system, claiming that it's new, leads to Christian zionism, and biblicism are common charges but I don't believe they're supported by the facts. As for reading Scripture with an historical gloss, that's a dangerous path because none of the church fathers were canonical authors, or receivers of revelation, and none of the creeds or confessions are revelation either; hence the reformation, right? Sola scriptura means scripture alone. Period. Full stop. Now, following tradition and ritualizing one's faith in certain ways can be quite meaningful, but neither tradition nor ritual replaces or enhances revelation. Back to your charges, so to speak. I'm not sure I understand the charge of biblicism as it truly is. The Bible is ultimate authority (2 Tim 2:15) or it isn't. If Scripture is God-breathed, and it is, then it is authoritative, infallible, and internally consistent, on its own. It doesn't require a doctrine of compatibility, or anything else. When we read scripture as instructed, see 2 Tim 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth - it always makes sense and resolves any human concerns about contradictions. This leads me to the charge of dispensationalism being new. John Nelson Darby systematized and popularized dispensationalism in the modern era, but he didn't invent the concept of the rapture of the church of the Body of Christ or even the pre-tribulational rapture of the church of the Body of Christ. Irenaeus, Victorinus, Ephraim the Syrian, William Sherman, and John Gill all reference the concept of being caught up with the Lord, and all predate Darby. Dismissing dispensationalism's historical development because it wasn't systemitized until the 1800s is like saying formalization of Calvinism in the 1600s negates the doctrines of grace. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. Covenant theology recognizes various administrations (what dispensationalists call dispensations) within the theological covenants imposed by the framework, i.e. the convenant of grace, so we all understand that God's revelation has been progressive over time. If a dispensation is simply a time period during which God dealt with mankind in a certain way, and prescribed rules for how man dealth with each other, then we agree on much more than we disagree on. To wrap up, the charge of zionism is a political one, not a theological one. Dispensationalism draws clear distinction between prophecy and mystery and maintains that God will fulfill all prophecy literally, as He promised. When Israel was set aside at the end of Acts, the Scripture doesn't tell us that the new entity, the Body of Christ (mystery), will become the new Israel and receive her promises. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and preached something Peter and the 12 never knew, hence prophecy and mystery. As such, we believe that when the Body of Christ is caught up in the air to meet the Lord (Thessalonians), the current dispensation of grace will end, and the dispensation of the law (Israel) will resume until the second coming at the end of the tribulation. At that point, when Christ comes back and plants his feet on Mount Olivet, he will take his throne and usher in his physical kingdom, which will proceed for 1,000 years, after which will be the Great White Throne of Judgment and, finally, the new heavens and new earth. I don't think that's zionism, I think that's simply following the text literally and plainly. God told us to study by rightly dividing the Word, he didn't tell us to allegorize and spiritualize to make it all fit together. I know there's all kinds of disagreement about translations, the textus receptus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the KJV/ESV debate, etc., which have hermeneutic impact, but we can all agree that reading the Bible in its original language, to its original audience, and in its original context is a valid way of approaching the Word. Forgive any typos - no proofreading - and the length, but I wanted to give a fuller response. I know this matters a lot to you and believe it's a really important conversation to have without judgmet or drama.
“I thought about going to seminary but then I decided to disagree with a Calvinist and get five-hour lectures for free.”
Ded
Seriously, I think a lot of what passes as “reformed” Christianity is simply fleshly behavior, tribalism, and the absolute arrogance of knowing how everything works at all times in every instance, going all the way back to when Driscoll first cursed us with his online presence.
Wonderful articulation by Brian Marks! This is a tough subject and it can sometimes feel like you’re splitting hairs, but as it says, the living word can “split between joints and marrow, and soul and spirit and discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
A phrase I often use when witnessing, whether it’s to Reformed or LDS, is that you can have all your “doctrinal ducks in a row” and miss the kingdom of God, because you miss the fruit. Transformation is the fruit of true salvation.
While my family isn’t part of the reformed tradition, I fell into many of these blind spots as a teenager because of a biblical and scriptural upbringing that was pretty vast, compared to my peers. Can definitely see where the written word becomes the idol, over relationship with the living Word. I truly believe that God values our trust more than our cerebral understanding- pride is a spirit that we’re so vulnerable to, and having the tools and mental framework to have a way to be right and have an answer for everything… we’ll, congratulations, people join every denomination for that same reason: it provides them with an answer.
Letting God be mystery at times before he gives you answers and rejoicing in his nature because you trust him indefinitely, and being assured that he will transform your heart and he is, every day, that’s Salvation.
The Pharisees had this exact same problem- they were able to crucify the Son of God who was the living truth because they were so convinced he was violating the written truth because of their interpretation.
Wanting to be part of the right church because you want to be right, and you don’t have the faith to work through being wrong, and wanting to be part of the right church because you love Jesus and desire to understand him clearly to be more like him… there’s a thin line between those motives.
A good statement from the Reformed Presbyterian Church woman:
"It wasn't until shortly after I was married and became a mother that I realized through what I now believe was 100% the Holy Spirit in my life, that I wasn't exhibiting any of the fruits of the Spirit. I wasn't loving. I wasn't joyful. I wasn't a peaceful person. I wasn't gentle. Not only was I not these things, but I didn't even know what it meant to be these things. What did it look like in practice? What did it feel like to experience these things? I was spiritually bankrupt and my niche elite theology and sense of superiority had kept me from realizing this my entire life."
That was a great statement. “Spiritually bankrupt with a niche elitist theology…” I wonder what it is about our human hearts that falls into these so easily. No matter what theology it is! Are we just insecure without a way to understand the world? But yikes. What a wake-up call. She saw it though!
Reminds me of the message to the church of Sardis, (Rev. 3) “I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete…”
About that R.C. Sproul clip (and thanks for that by the way), where you see a “nasty and cruel man ridiculing Christians,” I see a man of conviction exposing false doctrine (and so did his amused audience who knew Sproul well enough to know he would never grab anyone by the throat). You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but mine is that we need more men like Sproul.
I deleted my earlier comment because I hadn't watched the video in question. But: Double Predestination has harmed many people who've been raised in it, Carolyn. Jesus was not kind to evil beliefs.
You are right that the Bible is not kind to false teaching. Hence Sproul’s fervor. Surely it’s clear he wished no one harm. He was a gracious, gentle man and I wonder at those who observe his passion and see cruelty.
I don’t know anyone who’s been damaged by the doctrine of predestination, nor can I guess how such damage would look. Though I expect I do know a fair number of people—Arminians all—who may find themselves saying, “Lord, Lord. What about all the good stuff we did in Your name?” I can’t imagine a worse pit to be in. But at least we know there won’t be any reformed folk in that wretched group, huh?
I speak with Ex-Reformed people and asked them specifically about the emotional and mental anguish that belief in Double Predestination caused them. Some of the answers broke my heart. So I don't care when you say you're not aware of anyone who's been damaged by Double Predestination. It says more about the limitations of our knowledge than the benignity of this doctrine.
Well, after hearing from you twice about the horrible scars caused by predestination, I still don’t know what they are. And I will live in ignorance until someone else explains to me the disaster unleashed when God calls the shots. Because truly, I don’t see it. But thanks for trying.
I’m a Calvinist attending a Presbyterian church in Dallas. I think you have valid (and important) points but lost me when you went off the rails a bit halfway through your essay. In person, I know many kind and giving Calvinists who are not on social media but instead working with the poor and homeless in a large metroplex filled with people who need help. We’re not all Twitter(X) keyboard warriors. And I can’t base what I believe about God based on those that are.
My friend Brian poured his heart into this essay, and I hope it will land on open minds and hearts.
While I remain eternally grateful for so many of the truths and disciplines I learned in my Reformed upbringing, I think it's also true that sometimes the people outside the camp can see our flaws most clearly, and I think it's a good practice to force ourselves to contend with the truths that they illuminate.
I published Brian's essay on my Substack in hopes it would invite improvement, not condemnation.
Like you, I know many faithful Calvinists who are good people. I know Brian does, too. This piece was aimed specifically at the attitudes that get a free pass too often in places of extreme influence in Reformed leadership.
I don’t think Brian “went off the rails” in naming them.
Aside from challenging behavior, I believe covenant theology is problematic for many reasons. I don't doubt the salvation or genuineness of reformed believers at all, but much allegorizing and spiritualizing of Scripture is required to fit everything under a single covenant of grace, which isn't a Biblical covenant. The TULIP is an extremely narrow framework that leaves much out of the picture, particularly the L ... again, great share.
Jesus’s 1st message in the book of Revelation to the church of Ephesus is essentially the same thing. He commends the church for what it IS doing right, and how careful they’re being with scripture, knowing how they hate some things that he hates, and endure and work hard to test those who call themselves apostles- but he still has this against them- they’ve lost their love. He warns them there is a consequence for not repenting of this, despite what they’re doing right. He’s going to take away what insight they do have, their “candlestick”. That’s a *severe* consequence, and the reformed church fits squeaky clean into the church of Ephesus. Not everyone in every denomination of course is going to fit into the box, but as a whole, there is a common thread, a spirit of pride, a trap that we fall into, and Jesus promises all will be well- if we heed the warning.
I didn’t see anything in the essay about this being a social media thing. Frankly, just about every in-person interaction I have had with Calvinists is exactly as the author describes.
Whether they do good deeds like feeding the poor is not relevant to this issue.
I wasn’t able to put my finger on exactly what bothered me about Calvinism (except I thought double predestination just felt mean) until I recently read some of Calvin’s Institutes and stumbled across a casual but monumental phrase: “God does not suffer.” Suddenly everything made sense. A God who cannot suffer cannot feel empathy, cannot truly love another. And only a God who does not suffer along with His children could predestine them to hell. In this view, all of God’s suffering and empathy was limited to Jesus’ earthly life. I am fascinated that this isn’t discussed more.
As a mom, the idea of choosing some of my kids and rejecting others, based on nothing other than my own will, could never be counted as good or wise. It could only be described as abusive. And isn’t God infinitely more loving and merciful than I am?
Calvin’s view of God seems to be overly influenced by Platonism, seeing God as a detached, unfeeling, and orderly force far beyond our capacity to understand. The God of the Old Testament, and revealed in Jesus, have a lot of emotion, both positive and negative. It makes perfect sense that a religious system based on Calvin’s understanding is perfectly willing to sacrifice human emotions in favor of an unfeeling system.
Very well said. And I say that as a (sort of) Presbyterian. A message with which I have been challenging my fellow Calvinists, and one which many contest and protest, is the direct line that can be traced from Calvin’s arrogance to the arrogance of Calvinists today. Here is one memorable line from Calvin’s one-time secretary and former disciple, Francois Bauduin, writing to Calvin:
“What will posterity say, not about me whose name will perhaps be unknown in the future, but about you, the memory of whom you boast will be great and eternal? You might be and might be held to be the greatest theologian, but certainly, unless you become a good man, you cannot even claim to be a theologian.”
My favorite hand grenade just tossed out there so smoothly. I love it hahaha.
I can say that even though I tend to live and move in reformed circles.
Sadly this is far more accurate than we are willing to admit. Both the proof-texting and being a-holes to fellow believers. Thank you for this piece, while I have spent decades in reformed circles, I have also spent time in the Pentecostal circles and have always felt like one focused on getting us thinking “rightly” and the other feeling and living “rightly”. Or to put it another way, into the fruit of the spirit like we should be doing.
Its been the help of being friends with those outside said circles that allows us to see these theological topics are often splitting hairs when we should be aiming at how we will “clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”
YES, YES, YES! However, we look like people who base our theology on feelings if we don't also give some solid points about how Calvinist theology is deeply flawed. Yeah, I know, they'll just come back with theological sophistry ad nauseum, but we should always say we've found the theology flawed. And maybe you did but I missed it for all the repetition of "how can an ass truly know Jesus" sentiments. But yeah, Calvinism slanders the character of a just God by saying he would act in such an unjust manner as damn people without giving them a chance, while hypocritically telling us to be just. Then Calvinism takes away the responsibility of man while punishing him for what he wasn't responsible for. And it takes the dealings of God with Israel and appropriates it to every individual (that western mindset) by saying things like "I am the clay" instead of Israel, on and on. THANK YOU for this, Brian, keep up the good work. They are outwriting us, we need to get the truth out there better and keep it simple. The gospel is simple.
As a non-Calvinist, while I’d agree there’s some degree of truth here, and presumably a sincerity of heart behind it, I think the presentation ultimately missed the mark. The author’s comments leave me contemplating the point behind Proverbs 26:4.
As a Methodist who has seen members of my own tribe spend more time the last few years trying to win arguments instead of hearts, I’ll second the longing for peace I read in these words.
Before I renounced Calvinism, I renounced Calvinists. Meaning, quite some time before I had developed exegetical and theological refutations for the Calvinistic system, I had arrived at the basic existential awareness that I did not want to be like the Calvinists I knew. Scrupulous, argumentative, arrogant, unkind, inhospitable, platitudinous, fearful, angry.
The argument and the arguer are a packaged deal. You cannot “sell” your theological system without also “selling” yourself. Your arguments cannot persuade on your behalf; at least, no properly religious argument can. You can never properly say “Believe as I do” without also, if only by implication, but it is a direct and necessary implication, saying, “Be someone like me.” You, your life and how you treat others, are the final (and some would say also the first) test of the integrity of your beliefs. And here, Calvinists often fail.
You can never properly say “Believe as I do” without also, if only by implication, but it is a direct and necessary implication, saying, “Be someone like me.”
That is one profound quote. I'm committing that one to memory.
i think flesh and blood reformed folks are different than anon theobros and online culture warriors. the ones i know are winsome and kind. Sounds like you’ve experienced a lot of hurt at the hands of some bad actors. im so sorry and hope you find healing and peace.
Very well written, Kelly. Calvinists and Reformists (of which I know almost nothing) don't hold a monopoly on doctrinal pride. All other church sects and denominations (and non-denominations) suffer the same fate. In my opinion because there exists within them all a paid clergy and a centralized institutional structure that has wealth and comforts for it's hierarchy and, thus, is on a constant PR campaign to keep and gain members (donors).
If, like Jesus and the Apostles, the clergy had real jobs and tradecraft to sustain them, they would then be much closer to preaching and teaching the Gospel to people to bring them closer to Jesus and salvation, not the donation box.
This is a beautiful, honest post. My mom attended RC Sproul's church in Orlando for years until she came out of Calvinism. He told her "I hope I did enough" before he died. Wow! Heartbreaking really. It wasn't until I became a dispensationalist and understood the true nature of God's outworking of His plan in the worls that I gained real clarity in Christ. It's been life-changing. A literal, plain, grammatically correct reading on Scripture solves the predestination problem too - every time it's discussed it's in the plural ... yes, Israel is predestined to be in the earthly Kingdom; yes, the Body of Christ is predestined to be in the heavens, but anyone can convert. It's not that complicated. And if I hear one more sermon on Biblical womanhood based on Proverbs 31, I'm going to puke. None of Proverbs is about a literal female, especially Ch. 31 ... it's a Jewish book about Torah living, is it not? Is Proverbs 31 not about a nation providing for her people? Releasing me from the demands of the PRoverbs 31 "superwoman" was life-changing. Again, beautiful article -- thank you for sharing!
Dispensationalism is a fairly recent invention, the church fathers were far from that view, and it leads to christian zionism (also a recent invention). It was dispensationalism that turned me away from being baptist (i know not all baptists are dispy but many are), and towards covenant theology. Taking the most surface level meaning can sometimes lead to literalist, fundamentalist, biblicist errors. To read scripture in light of church history and historical context often does not lead to dispensational theology
Isnt that interesting? Jesus chastised the Pharisees for their worship of “tradition”. Jesus brought in the church age and most of the New Testament tells of Paul’s (and others’) efforts to unify the Jewish and Gentile traditions. But because dispensationalism is “new”, its not worthy of our consideration?? No discussion of its merits or logic?? This is exactly what this article is pointing out so eloquently.
I’m tired of people demonizing ALL tradition and having 0 regard for church history. All our core beliefs came from the first 3 ecumenical councils. If someone told u “I have a new theory about explaining the trinity/the hypostatic union” you SHOULD be suspicious. Go to an orthodox Anglican church just to try it out and see how God-honoring and beautiful and reverent GOOD tradition can be. The first time I did that, my eyes were opened. It’s because of a total disregard for church history that restorationist cults pop up, and since many only examine them against their own personal uninformed interpretation of scripture (none of the reformers wouldve been ok with this btw), they dont realize theyre cults. If we dont care at all how the church had historically interpreted the scriptures, we are not protestants. The Reformers were not just going back to scripture but also church fathers. Modern evangelicalism has become so hyper individualistic it has severed its ties with the wider historic church and wandered into its own heterodoxy due to it
Again you make the essay points perfectly. And you have that borderline disdain the it refers to. God bless.
Sir Im trying to bring up objective facts as politely as possible, if one cannot accept opposing views presented in a neutral manner then they’re just not ready to examine their own beliefs. I love all Christians no matter which stream they come from, but I have benefited greatly from learning more abt church tradition and history, I only hope others would find the benefits I have. God bless
Hi Rachel - Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your perspective and love of church history. I share that with you. While there are valid critiques of dispensationalism, as there are with any interpretive system, claiming that it's new, leads to Christian zionism, and biblicism are common charges but I don't believe they're supported by the facts. As for reading Scripture with an historical gloss, that's a dangerous path because none of the church fathers were canonical authors, or receivers of revelation, and none of the creeds or confessions are revelation either; hence the reformation, right? Sola scriptura means scripture alone. Period. Full stop. Now, following tradition and ritualizing one's faith in certain ways can be quite meaningful, but neither tradition nor ritual replaces or enhances revelation. Back to your charges, so to speak. I'm not sure I understand the charge of biblicism as it truly is. The Bible is ultimate authority (2 Tim 2:15) or it isn't. If Scripture is God-breathed, and it is, then it is authoritative, infallible, and internally consistent, on its own. It doesn't require a doctrine of compatibility, or anything else. When we read scripture as instructed, see 2 Tim 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth - it always makes sense and resolves any human concerns about contradictions. This leads me to the charge of dispensationalism being new. John Nelson Darby systematized and popularized dispensationalism in the modern era, but he didn't invent the concept of the rapture of the church of the Body of Christ or even the pre-tribulational rapture of the church of the Body of Christ. Irenaeus, Victorinus, Ephraim the Syrian, William Sherman, and John Gill all reference the concept of being caught up with the Lord, and all predate Darby. Dismissing dispensationalism's historical development because it wasn't systemitized until the 1800s is like saying formalization of Calvinism in the 1600s negates the doctrines of grace. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. Covenant theology recognizes various administrations (what dispensationalists call dispensations) within the theological covenants imposed by the framework, i.e. the convenant of grace, so we all understand that God's revelation has been progressive over time. If a dispensation is simply a time period during which God dealt with mankind in a certain way, and prescribed rules for how man dealth with each other, then we agree on much more than we disagree on. To wrap up, the charge of zionism is a political one, not a theological one. Dispensationalism draws clear distinction between prophecy and mystery and maintains that God will fulfill all prophecy literally, as He promised. When Israel was set aside at the end of Acts, the Scripture doesn't tell us that the new entity, the Body of Christ (mystery), will become the new Israel and receive her promises. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and preached something Peter and the 12 never knew, hence prophecy and mystery. As such, we believe that when the Body of Christ is caught up in the air to meet the Lord (Thessalonians), the current dispensation of grace will end, and the dispensation of the law (Israel) will resume until the second coming at the end of the tribulation. At that point, when Christ comes back and plants his feet on Mount Olivet, he will take his throne and usher in his physical kingdom, which will proceed for 1,000 years, after which will be the Great White Throne of Judgment and, finally, the new heavens and new earth. I don't think that's zionism, I think that's simply following the text literally and plainly. God told us to study by rightly dividing the Word, he didn't tell us to allegorize and spiritualize to make it all fit together. I know there's all kinds of disagreement about translations, the textus receptus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the KJV/ESV debate, etc., which have hermeneutic impact, but we can all agree that reading the Bible in its original language, to its original audience, and in its original context is a valid way of approaching the Word. Forgive any typos - no proofreading - and the length, but I wanted to give a fuller response. I know this matters a lot to you and believe it's a really important conversation to have without judgmet or drama.
“I thought about going to seminary but then I decided to disagree with a Calvinist and get five-hour lectures for free.”
Ded
Seriously, I think a lot of what passes as “reformed” Christianity is simply fleshly behavior, tribalism, and the absolute arrogance of knowing how everything works at all times in every instance, going all the way back to when Driscoll first cursed us with his online presence.
Wonderful articulation by Brian Marks! This is a tough subject and it can sometimes feel like you’re splitting hairs, but as it says, the living word can “split between joints and marrow, and soul and spirit and discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
A phrase I often use when witnessing, whether it’s to Reformed or LDS, is that you can have all your “doctrinal ducks in a row” and miss the kingdom of God, because you miss the fruit. Transformation is the fruit of true salvation.
While my family isn’t part of the reformed tradition, I fell into many of these blind spots as a teenager because of a biblical and scriptural upbringing that was pretty vast, compared to my peers. Can definitely see where the written word becomes the idol, over relationship with the living Word. I truly believe that God values our trust more than our cerebral understanding- pride is a spirit that we’re so vulnerable to, and having the tools and mental framework to have a way to be right and have an answer for everything… we’ll, congratulations, people join every denomination for that same reason: it provides them with an answer.
Letting God be mystery at times before he gives you answers and rejoicing in his nature because you trust him indefinitely, and being assured that he will transform your heart and he is, every day, that’s Salvation.
The Pharisees had this exact same problem- they were able to crucify the Son of God who was the living truth because they were so convinced he was violating the written truth because of their interpretation.
Wanting to be part of the right church because you want to be right, and you don’t have the faith to work through being wrong, and wanting to be part of the right church because you love Jesus and desire to understand him clearly to be more like him… there’s a thin line between those motives.
A good statement from the Reformed Presbyterian Church woman:
"It wasn't until shortly after I was married and became a mother that I realized through what I now believe was 100% the Holy Spirit in my life, that I wasn't exhibiting any of the fruits of the Spirit. I wasn't loving. I wasn't joyful. I wasn't a peaceful person. I wasn't gentle. Not only was I not these things, but I didn't even know what it meant to be these things. What did it look like in practice? What did it feel like to experience these things? I was spiritually bankrupt and my niche elite theology and sense of superiority had kept me from realizing this my entire life."
That was a great statement. “Spiritually bankrupt with a niche elitist theology…” I wonder what it is about our human hearts that falls into these so easily. No matter what theology it is! Are we just insecure without a way to understand the world? But yikes. What a wake-up call. She saw it though!
Reminds me of the message to the church of Sardis, (Rev. 3) “I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete…”
About that R.C. Sproul clip (and thanks for that by the way), where you see a “nasty and cruel man ridiculing Christians,” I see a man of conviction exposing false doctrine (and so did his amused audience who knew Sproul well enough to know he would never grab anyone by the throat). You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but mine is that we need more men like Sproul.
I see it that way too.
Why thank you, Michael, for your gracious example of non-reformed kindness.
I deleted my earlier comment because I hadn't watched the video in question. But: Double Predestination has harmed many people who've been raised in it, Carolyn. Jesus was not kind to evil beliefs.
You are right that the Bible is not kind to false teaching. Hence Sproul’s fervor. Surely it’s clear he wished no one harm. He was a gracious, gentle man and I wonder at those who observe his passion and see cruelty.
I don’t know anyone who’s been damaged by the doctrine of predestination, nor can I guess how such damage would look. Though I expect I do know a fair number of people—Arminians all—who may find themselves saying, “Lord, Lord. What about all the good stuff we did in Your name?” I can’t imagine a worse pit to be in. But at least we know there won’t be any reformed folk in that wretched group, huh?
Those who recall Sproul as nasty, might read this and hope to be remembered as fondly: https://www.challies.com/articles/he-was-a-kind-man/
I speak with Ex-Reformed people and asked them specifically about the emotional and mental anguish that belief in Double Predestination caused them. Some of the answers broke my heart. So I don't care when you say you're not aware of anyone who's been damaged by Double Predestination. It says more about the limitations of our knowledge than the benignity of this doctrine.
Yeah that’s not it. 🤦🏻♀️
Well, after hearing from you twice about the horrible scars caused by predestination, I still don’t know what they are. And I will live in ignorance until someone else explains to me the disaster unleashed when God calls the shots. Because truly, I don’t see it. But thanks for trying.
I’m a Calvinist attending a Presbyterian church in Dallas. I think you have valid (and important) points but lost me when you went off the rails a bit halfway through your essay. In person, I know many kind and giving Calvinists who are not on social media but instead working with the poor and homeless in a large metroplex filled with people who need help. We’re not all Twitter(X) keyboard warriors. And I can’t base what I believe about God based on those that are.
My friend Brian poured his heart into this essay, and I hope it will land on open minds and hearts.
While I remain eternally grateful for so many of the truths and disciplines I learned in my Reformed upbringing, I think it's also true that sometimes the people outside the camp can see our flaws most clearly, and I think it's a good practice to force ourselves to contend with the truths that they illuminate.
I published Brian's essay on my Substack in hopes it would invite improvement, not condemnation.
Like you, I know many faithful Calvinists who are good people. I know Brian does, too. This piece was aimed specifically at the attitudes that get a free pass too often in places of extreme influence in Reformed leadership.
I don’t think Brian “went off the rails” in naming them.
Aside from challenging behavior, I believe covenant theology is problematic for many reasons. I don't doubt the salvation or genuineness of reformed believers at all, but much allegorizing and spiritualizing of Scripture is required to fit everything under a single covenant of grace, which isn't a Biblical covenant. The TULIP is an extremely narrow framework that leaves much out of the picture, particularly the L ... again, great share.
Jesus’s 1st message in the book of Revelation to the church of Ephesus is essentially the same thing. He commends the church for what it IS doing right, and how careful they’re being with scripture, knowing how they hate some things that he hates, and endure and work hard to test those who call themselves apostles- but he still has this against them- they’ve lost their love. He warns them there is a consequence for not repenting of this, despite what they’re doing right. He’s going to take away what insight they do have, their “candlestick”. That’s a *severe* consequence, and the reformed church fits squeaky clean into the church of Ephesus. Not everyone in every denomination of course is going to fit into the box, but as a whole, there is a common thread, a spirit of pride, a trap that we fall into, and Jesus promises all will be well- if we heed the warning.
I didn’t see anything in the essay about this being a social media thing. Frankly, just about every in-person interaction I have had with Calvinists is exactly as the author describes.
Whether they do good deeds like feeding the poor is not relevant to this issue.
I wasn’t able to put my finger on exactly what bothered me about Calvinism (except I thought double predestination just felt mean) until I recently read some of Calvin’s Institutes and stumbled across a casual but monumental phrase: “God does not suffer.” Suddenly everything made sense. A God who cannot suffer cannot feel empathy, cannot truly love another. And only a God who does not suffer along with His children could predestine them to hell. In this view, all of God’s suffering and empathy was limited to Jesus’ earthly life. I am fascinated that this isn’t discussed more.
As a mom, the idea of choosing some of my kids and rejecting others, based on nothing other than my own will, could never be counted as good or wise. It could only be described as abusive. And isn’t God infinitely more loving and merciful than I am?
Calvin’s view of God seems to be overly influenced by Platonism, seeing God as a detached, unfeeling, and orderly force far beyond our capacity to understand. The God of the Old Testament, and revealed in Jesus, have a lot of emotion, both positive and negative. It makes perfect sense that a religious system based on Calvin’s understanding is perfectly willing to sacrifice human emotions in favor of an unfeeling system.
And what I find incredibly ironic is that scripture LITERALLY describes Jesus as a man of sorrows. 😩
Very well said. And I say that as a (sort of) Presbyterian. A message with which I have been challenging my fellow Calvinists, and one which many contest and protest, is the direct line that can be traced from Calvin’s arrogance to the arrogance of Calvinists today. Here is one memorable line from Calvin’s one-time secretary and former disciple, Francois Bauduin, writing to Calvin:
“What will posterity say, not about me whose name will perhaps be unknown in the future, but about you, the memory of whom you boast will be great and eternal? You might be and might be held to be the greatest theologian, but certainly, unless you become a good man, you cannot even claim to be a theologian.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/onceaweek/p/john-calvin-pastor-preacher-reformer-b83?r=16589c&utm_medium=ios
“…y’all do that proof-texting thing a lot…” 😂
My favorite hand grenade just tossed out there so smoothly. I love it hahaha.
I can say that even though I tend to live and move in reformed circles.
Sadly this is far more accurate than we are willing to admit. Both the proof-texting and being a-holes to fellow believers. Thank you for this piece, while I have spent decades in reformed circles, I have also spent time in the Pentecostal circles and have always felt like one focused on getting us thinking “rightly” and the other feeling and living “rightly”. Or to put it another way, into the fruit of the spirit like we should be doing.
Its been the help of being friends with those outside said circles that allows us to see these theological topics are often splitting hairs when we should be aiming at how we will “clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”
Those who believe R.C. Sproul was "cruel and nasty" might read this and hope to be remembered as fondly: https://www.challies.com/articles/he-was-a-kind-man/
YES, YES, YES! However, we look like people who base our theology on feelings if we don't also give some solid points about how Calvinist theology is deeply flawed. Yeah, I know, they'll just come back with theological sophistry ad nauseum, but we should always say we've found the theology flawed. And maybe you did but I missed it for all the repetition of "how can an ass truly know Jesus" sentiments. But yeah, Calvinism slanders the character of a just God by saying he would act in such an unjust manner as damn people without giving them a chance, while hypocritically telling us to be just. Then Calvinism takes away the responsibility of man while punishing him for what he wasn't responsible for. And it takes the dealings of God with Israel and appropriates it to every individual (that western mindset) by saying things like "I am the clay" instead of Israel, on and on. THANK YOU for this, Brian, keep up the good work. They are outwriting us, we need to get the truth out there better and keep it simple. The gospel is simple.
As a non-Calvinist, while I’d agree there’s some degree of truth here, and presumably a sincerity of heart behind it, I think the presentation ultimately missed the mark. The author’s comments leave me contemplating the point behind Proverbs 26:4.
As a Methodist who has seen members of my own tribe spend more time the last few years trying to win arguments instead of hearts, I’ll second the longing for peace I read in these words.
Before I renounced Calvinism, I renounced Calvinists. Meaning, quite some time before I had developed exegetical and theological refutations for the Calvinistic system, I had arrived at the basic existential awareness that I did not want to be like the Calvinists I knew. Scrupulous, argumentative, arrogant, unkind, inhospitable, platitudinous, fearful, angry.
The argument and the arguer are a packaged deal. You cannot “sell” your theological system without also “selling” yourself. Your arguments cannot persuade on your behalf; at least, no properly religious argument can. You can never properly say “Believe as I do” without also, if only by implication, but it is a direct and necessary implication, saying, “Be someone like me.” You, your life and how you treat others, are the final (and some would say also the first) test of the integrity of your beliefs. And here, Calvinists often fail.
You can never properly say “Believe as I do” without also, if only by implication, but it is a direct and necessary implication, saying, “Be someone like me.”
That is one profound quote. I'm committing that one to memory.
i think flesh and blood reformed folks are different than anon theobros and online culture warriors. the ones i know are winsome and kind. Sounds like you’ve experienced a lot of hurt at the hands of some bad actors. im so sorry and hope you find healing and peace.
Very well written, Kelly. Calvinists and Reformists (of which I know almost nothing) don't hold a monopoly on doctrinal pride. All other church sects and denominations (and non-denominations) suffer the same fate. In my opinion because there exists within them all a paid clergy and a centralized institutional structure that has wealth and comforts for it's hierarchy and, thus, is on a constant PR campaign to keep and gain members (donors).
If, like Jesus and the Apostles, the clergy had real jobs and tradecraft to sustain them, they would then be much closer to preaching and teaching the Gospel to people to bring them closer to Jesus and salvation, not the donation box.