Despite those I’ve offended, I can’t help but notice the overwhelmingly positive response to this little series. And though I might undo that goodwill with this post, it has been worth it if I have at least gotten you to consider these things.
Change, for me, has been a very slow process. I was raised in the fluff of the IFB, and it takes a long time to get rid of that mindset. Honestly, most of the change has come from people who loved me enough to challenge my assumptions and demand that I defend my positions with Scripture. I am thankful for those who have done so (HT: Kent Brandenburg). And I hope to do the same for my readers.
That said, here is this series’s final installment. Think of it as the 39th stripe. The others can be found if you follow this set of links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and for Part 5, scroll down one post (sorry, I can’t link it right now).
Overstated Anti-Calvinism
And there go all my readers.
You aren’t going to like this. You’ll probably say mean things about me for writing it. But rabid anti-Calvinism isn’t the answer to Calvinism. And Calvinism isn’t a doctrine of devils.
I heard a preacher say from the pulpit, twice in fact, in two separate sermons, “The God of Calvinism isn’t the God of the Bible.”
I didn’t say “Amen.” I understand why good men disagree on the Doctrines of Grace. I recognize why good friends of mine despise Calvinism while other friends embrace it. The disagreement won’t likely end in our lifetimes, and I doubt it will end until the Millenial Reign of Christ. But some of the slanders I hear hurled at Calvinism are absolute garbage.
To say that the God of Calvinism isn’t the God of the Bible, one must also maintain that Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, and most other Baptists before the 1900s were all false prophets and today burning in hell. Because historically, Baptists were nearly all Calvinists until the late 1800s.
By the way, it is hard to claim that Calvinism kills evangelism when you consider that list. William Carey launched the modern missionary movement. Adoniram Judson was one of the great missionaries of all time. And who could criticize Spurgeon’s evangelistic zeal? Seriously, we don’t need to attack scarecrows when it comes to Calvinism.
I try to be transparent in my writing, so I’ll give a little background here – at risk of further alienating my reading audience. I came very close to leaving the IFB and embracing Calvinism totally. In my 30s, I gave it serious thought. I won’t lay it all out here. Ultimately, I decided that I had objections I couldn’t square with the Bible. I don’t say that to invite the Calvinists onto my blog to attempt to convert me. But I will confess that I found Calvinism very attractive – especially the emphasis on the exhaustive sovereignty of God. And let me add that I strongly believe in that exhaustive sovereignty.
If you were to examine me, I probably would be “too Calvinistic” for your taste. I’m not saying this to thumb your eyes. Ultimately, I didn’t embrace Calvinism. You don’t have to like what I say – I’m telling you where I stand. So maybe I’m a little too friendly towards Calvinism and perhaps even a little too sensitive. But one of the things that nearly drove me into it was all the slanders leveled against it.
Because when I went to examine Calvinism to prove the slanders true, I found that the slanders were just that. And that nearly caught me. I was surprised to discover that most Calvinists give good Bible reasons for their position. I don’t believe they are applying Scripture rightly in some of their conclusions, but I cannot join with those who claim that this is a man-made system.
I’m sure I’ve said too much already, but I need to make a few points here.
First, our fear of Calvinism has caused us to deny vital spiritual truths. The Biblical doctrine of election is one glaring case in point. I rarely hear an anti-Calvinist give a faithful account of the Bible’s teaching on election. In fact, I hear many deny that there even is such a thing as election, despite verses such as these:
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Acts 1:4)
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2 Thessalonians 2:13)
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2 Timothy 1:9)
You don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe in election. You do, however, have to believe in election if you want to be a Biblicist. And no, the logic problem doesn’t apply because the Bible nowhere speaks of God arbitrarily choosing some for heaven and some for hell. The fact that we can’t wrap our brains around the ways of God, which, as the Bible tells us, are “higher than our ways,” shouldn’t prevent our falling at His feet to worship Him and to say, “You are God, and there is no other.”
Second, our hostility to Calvinism – and our blatant dishonesty about it as a result – is driving many young men into it. Take it from someone who once gave it serious thought. You don’t help your cause by being dishonest about Calvinism.
Let me modify that a little. I believe that, in many cases, men aren’t being dishonest intentionally. Many slanders have been passed down for many years. More than a few preachers have taken their word for it without examination. When slanders are often repeated, many come to believe them. They repeat the lie because they honestly believe it.
It is far better for us if we take an honest look at what Calvinism actually teaches and then deal with that Scripturally. One mark that we are willing to deal with it honestly is that there will be a calmness in how we deal with it. May I encourage the reader to consider?
Third, deal honestly with what Calvinism actually teaches instead of drawing caricatures to refute. If you want to win the day, this is how to do it. And since you hold the Biblical position, this shouldn’t be hard. In my experience, people only need to slander someone else’s position when they don’t have an answer to it.
Lest someone accuse me of being one-sided in this, let me say that I understand the grief many preachers feel because of Calvinism. You might think that I have let the Calvinists off the hook in what I have written here. But the point of this particular series is to deal with some of the excesses and failures of the IFB. And I have not left the IFB. There will be other series at other times, when other issues can be dealt with.
A farmer once invited the preacher over for Sunday dinner. As they sat down at the table, the farmer began to point out everything the preacher didn’t say but should have during his sermon. The preacher listened respectfully. As the farmer was wrapping things up, his wife set the dinner on the table. And let me tell you, it was delicious! Fried chicken, corn on the cob, hot biscuits, mashed potatoes and gravy. The preacher feasted. When the meal was finished, the preacher sat back in his chair and said to the farmer, “You should have had ham and green beans and a fresh dinner salad and French bread.”
I trust you get the point.
The Village Smithy 
Pingback: Responding to Dave Mallinak on Anti-Calvinism – Notes from the North
Brother Mallinak,
Like you, I reject Calvinism. I disagree strongly with Calvinism on several things. I think it presents some false interpretations (conclusions) that the Scriptures simply do not support. I have found that most Calvinists seem to have reasons for what they believe that they think are derived from the Bible. Generally speaking, they have exegesis. Some of the exegesis is correct. Some seems to me like a major leap with no connection. (1) I particularly find it strange that the Calvinists I’ve been exposed to seem to reverse the Bible order of “repentance and faith” and speak of “faith and repentance” instead. I think there might be a relationship to their doctrine that God supernaturally regenerates a person first and then the person is able to believe. (But maybe those two things are unrelated.) I am thinking of the book by Sinclair Ferguson called THE WHOLE CHRIST about “The Marrow Controversy” in Scotland years ago (a good read, by the way, but hardly infallible, of course). (2) I also find it unbiblical to say, as do Calvinists, that “dead in trespasses and sins” necessarily means “unable to believe”. I do not recall reading or hearing any remotely tenable exegesis of the Bible supporting that claim.
Two other things I have been unable to accept from Calvinism: (3) I have not found a biblical reason to accept its view that “world” in John 3:16 (and I John 2:2) means “some of all types of people” rather than “every single person”? And, relatedly, this issue: (4) I John 2:2 says that “[Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Calvinists (Jeff Riddle included – in at least one of the first two installments of his critique mentioned below) seem to think that anyone who believes Jesus died for every human being is supporting universalism, the false doctrine that all will be saved. I don’t see that. I think the application of the provision of Jesus’ sacrifice provides a distinction. I say this: Jesus is the propitiation for every single human being, but not all have accepted what Jesus did for them, so his propitiatory sacrifice does not accomplish for them what it would if they would repent and receive Him. Sinners’ rejection of the provision is not the same as it not having been provided for them. (In deference to the Calvinists, I guess they are relying on the present tense of the verb “is” in “he is the propitiation”.)
Similar to what you said, I seldom hear of a sermon or article on election from independent Baptists. I do not have election all figured out, but I accept everything written about it in the Word and am willing to explain it and apply it as best I can.
I dislike it if Calvinists say I am an Arminian. I am not. Those two are not the only options. I think that is one of their oft-repeated inaccuracies: equating non-Calvinism with Arminianism.
Nonetheless, I have seen some grossly unbiblical (untrue, unloving, not seasoned with grace) attacks on Calvinism and Calvinists that made me cringe. Jeff Riddle, a Calvinist defender of the Received Text, has begun multi-part review of a sermon published by a pastor who mis-characterizes Calvinism. The first installment is here: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2023/09/wm-287-sermon-review-five-dangers-of.html. The sermon Jeff Riddle is critiquing makes me cringe. I am willing to say that I think the pastor critiquing Calvinism is preaching a false gospel, what I’d call “Profession Only-ism”. Reactions against such unbiblical preaching can indeed have the effect of driving folks toward Calvinism, since the attacks are so obviously unfounded. We should at least try to understand the view we are critiquing before critiquing it, methinks. There are things we can demonstrate, I think, to be wrong in Calvinism. And I think there actually are many such things. But let’s follow better examples than the one Jeff Riddle is reviewing. There is almost a worship of ignorance among some independent Baptists, and it shows. If more independent Baptist preachers would study the Word of God deeply and preach it, rather than use half a sentence from the Bible as an excuse to propagate their opinions, some progress would be made. In many churches Independent Baptist people are starving on the diet of sermons they are getting – but, thank God, there are some churches where the sheep are well-fed. We live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. We need God’s words from God’s Word, rightly divided.
By the way, I’m open to learning more on the issues I have with Calvinism as listed above. I know my view cannot be flawless, for neither am I.
Here is a quotation from another independent Baptist with whom I’ve exchanged e-mails. I like it. “We are not Calvinists either. I do respect the position as one held by many of our Baptist forefathers, and we shy away from some of [the] evangelistic practices that seem like rank Arminianism. However, Calvinism as a whole seems overly interested in systematically fine tuning things that are best left in their simplicity. We preach the gospel to all. God does the saving.”
I appreciate your willingness to state your position on this topic.
E. T. Chapman
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoyed it as I have the others. I’m no calvinist but also i’m don’t rage against it. Those who are, are still my brothers. So I’m here for the long haul. Can’t wait for the next drop
LikeLiked by 1 person
I probably have over a 1000 hrs studying, and reading just about every book on calvinism. From Calvin’s institutes, Sproul, MacArthur, James White and everyone in between. I definitely don’t hold to a single point of the TULIP. I would be more in the Provisionist or traditional belief camp, but the way Calvinist get caricatured and strawman by most IFB churches is crazy.
If we as non Calvinist believe we are correct in our interpretation of scripture then we should “steelman” their beliefs/arguments instead of strawmanning them.
The strawman arguments from non calvanist is what almost drove me to calvinism.
I grew up in an IFB church in the southeast. My pastors response to calvanism was “I wouldn’t even be around someone who rubbed shoulders with a calvanist”. I thought if “my side” has to resort to this then maybe we’re wrong and that led to months of saying to myself “maybe I’m a Calvinist”.
After months of studying and questioning I saw I don’t have to accept calvanism, and I don’t have to avoid the words “election” and “predestination”. They’re Bible doctrines (maybe not how Calvinist interpret) that we don’t need to run from and I don’t know why the IFB movement has been afraid to address them.
The IFB I grew up in an was the poster child for just about everything your series has touched on, and it really hurt my Christian walk looking back at it.
Thanks for your writing. It’s always refreshing to see an IFB pastor not be a stereotypical IFB pastor. If that makes any sense.
P.S. I’m still in an IFB church and I love my church and pastor, but there are so many IFB churches out there that I visit (travel for work) that need to give some thought to some of the issues you write about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like we have similar experiences.
LikeLike
“To say that the God of Calvinism isn’t the God of the Bible, one must also maintain that Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Carey”
Perhaps they were really bad Calvinist. And instead of these men being a good argument for productive Calvinistic outreach, they are a better illustration of men who ignored Calvinist teachings & witnessed to everyone as though the person could be save?
I’ve read Spurgeon say he was critiqued for calling men to come to Jesus Christ. Other Calvinist of his day felt he should not invite anyone to Christ, they would come on their own, if God chose.
Carey is hardly a good example of a productive witnessing Calvinist. Famously, he was opposed by a true Calvinist. [I’m presuming this quote is accurate]
“Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without consulting you or me.”
There is a Calvinist indeed!
There are no hyper Calvinist, only consistent Calvinist. The men listed as glowing examples of Calvinism, seem much more like repudiations of Calvinism by their actions.
Sincerely,
JIm
LikeLike