Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

[AverageJoe]

I had Strouse for Missionary Methods. I would assume that he and Weeks were not Calvinistic. It was all about the “Trail of Blood” in those days

I remember those days well. That's one book I rejected. Some good historical information in it, but clearly misapplied to the Baptist "Landmark" mentality. I was licensed through a BMA (Baptist Missionary Association) church in Pekin, IL. After a year or so of listening to all the Landmark garbage, I firmly rejected the position. I refused ordination from the three churches that called me to pastor, also declining to pastor those churches because of their belief anyone outside of the Missionary Baptist movement were heretics. UGH!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Me too!

But I am currently in Seminary getting smarter with each passing minute!

Here is an excerpt from my "Decrees of God" paper where God's directive and permissive will are discussed. Perhaps it will be of help and I value any feedback you may have. The "Ibid" references are from the Moody Handbook of Theology which was the textbook for the course.

From your writings I would take it you are a classical Calvinist of the reformed type that believes in some form of double predestination. If so, here is a link to that sort of thinking (Ligonier Ministries, Sproul)...

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship. Link

I think I follow his logic in shunning those who he characterizes as Hyper Cals but in his article he doesn't go on to explain (sufficient to and for my pea brain anyway) a Biblical rationale and support for "symmetrical modes of divine activity" in relation to what you appear to be calling "passive" decrees and the will of God. That sort of emphasis, no offense (and I mean that literally, because the lack of understanding is probably more due to my inability to fathom this stuff than any inability on your part to articulate it sufficiently) seems to make logical inferences that can't be clearly Biblically grasped without leaps of extra-biblical philosophical inference and logic.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

You stated in your essay”The scriptures are clear that God actively and deliberately chooses those who are his according to his directive will (Jn 6:37, 44; 15:16; Eph 1:4-5, 11; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pet 2:9).”

Off topic here, but is it Scripture or Scriptures, and also should it be capitalized? Also, isn’t he (as in God) supposed to be capitalized, or does it not matter?

I believe either is correct. I could have stated "Scripture is clear" (singular) meaning the Canon in its entirety but I was thinking all of the scripture references (plural) I was about to shoot at them. The Seminary professor (and the Seminary for that matter) is not Calvinistic so I felt like I really had to stay on my toes and load up my guns! I wasn't very kind when it came to the Arminian view as I recall. I did get an "A" on the paper so I am guessing I was adequate in my explanation.

Good question about capitalization of pronouns referring to God. I know this is the standard in English translations of the Bible (KJV especially) but not sure about scholarly work. I'll have to check out the style guide on that. I wasn't marked off for it anyway.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

From your writings I would take it you are a classical Calvinist of the reformed type that believes in some form of double predestination. If so, here is a link to that sort of thinking (Ligonier Ministries, Sproul)...



I think I follow his logic in shunning those who he characterizes as Hyper Cals but in his article he doesn't go on to explain (sufficient to and for my pea brain anyway) a Biblical rationale and support for "symmetrical modes of divine activity" in relation to what you appear to be calling "passive" decrees and the will of God. That sort of emphasis, no offense (and I mean that literally, because the lack of understanding is probably more due to my inability to fathom this stuff than any inability on your part to articulate it sufficiently) seems to make logical inferences that can't be clearly Biblically grasped without leaps of extra-biblical philosophical inference and logic.

I am Calvinistic but not necessarily "Reformed." Reformed folk adhere more closely to the historic confessions (Westminster, London Baptist, Etc.) and are largely A-mill or Partial-Preterist in their eschatology. I am more in line with John MacArthur on these issues.

You cannot get away from double predestination. If God chooses one for salvation, the logical inference is that the other is chosen for destruction and this is where many get their bowels in an uproar. This is why we must always take into account what we truly deserve and that God is perfectly just and holy if he saved NO ONE!

I agree with RC Sproul and discussed much of this a little further in the paper. May have even cited the same source as you. I believe double predestination to be asymmetrical and not symmetrical. Equal Ultimacy (asserts that God actively decrees the reprobation of the non-elect) actually undermines the Calvinist view of total depravity in that it insinuates Man would be able to seek out God had God not prevented him from doing so. I adamantly reject this position.

The paper discussed the four views: Supralapsarian (God decreed his elect before the fall), Infralapsarian (God decreed his elect after the fall), Amyraldian (atonement for all but efficient only for the elect), and Arminian (Christ died for all but no one in particular). At the conclusion of the paper, I landed on the Infralapsarian view with a sympathetic ear towards Amyraldism.

I guess I really need to work on getting beyond the "Scholarly" talk and better communicate with the "Lay Men" in the pew (and do so without splitting a Church )! Thanks for helping me with this!

 

[FSSL]

A layman…
I start with the default premise that God’s sovereignty is absolute, thorough and not to be watered down

Then, when the question about Theodicy is raised, I know the Scripture says: God is Holy, Just and Merciful. Paul also saw the tension about the appearance of sin and How a Sovereign God uses it

Romans 9:19–24: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?

…What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us,

As I was teaching through the Doctrines of Grace, my friend, who was shedding his Arminian thinking said, “I don’t understand how all this works out, yet, but my default position is that God is Sovereign.” I have used his words ever since.

 

[FSSL]

AverageJoe… I no longer have Bancroft. I do remember in his discussion of “foreknowledge “ that he wrote “foreknowledge is not itself causative.”

I asked Hershberger about that statement and he disagreed with Bancroft.

Am I right that was Bancroft? I may have him confused with another.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

By most definitions I am a ‘Calvinist’ in my soteriology.
If I were not convinced that it was the superior theology, I’d change my belief to the superior one.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

By most definitions I am a ‘Calvinist’ in my soteriology.
If I were not convinced that it was the superior theology, I’d change my belief to the superior one.

All this goes without saying!

But this is the way many (not all) Arminians (Anti-Calvinists) come across when someone brings up anything pertaining to the doctrines of grace:

 

[FSSL]

I have a relative who told me he is a 1 point Calvinist. So, I replied and said, “Oh! You are a 4 point Arminian.”

Actually, he said he only believed in eternal security and not Perserverance of the saints… so he is a 4.5 Arminian. He doesn’t have support for eternal security, but, then again, he’s not a thinker theologically… just likes the sayings

 

[ALAYMAN]

A layman…
I start with the default premise that God’s sovereignty is absolute, thorough and not to be watered down

Then, when the question about Theodicy is raised, I know the Scripture says: God is Holy, Just and Merciful. Paul also saw the tension about the appearance of sin and How a Sovereign God uses it

Romans 9:19–24: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?

…What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us,

As I was teaching through the Doctrines of Grace, my friend, who was shedding his Arminian thinking said, “I don’t understand how all this works out, yet, but my default position is that God is Sovereign.” I have used his words ever since.

I really appreciate the perspective you bring with this post, and I intend to revisit it as soon as possible, it's just been crazy busy lately and I don't have the time to put into words sufficiently to cover what I want to say, so again, I just want to say thanks for your perspective here. Something to chew on for sure.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I have a relative who told me he is a 1 point Calvinist. So, I replied and said, “Oh! You are a 4 point Arminian.”

Actually, he said he only believed in eternal security and not Perserverance of the saints… so he is a 4.5 Arminian. He doesn’t have support for eternal security, but, then again, he’s not a thinker theologically… just likes the sayings

I like RC Sproul's comments on this. He says he likes to think of it more on the terms of the "Perseverance of God" rather than the "Perseverance of the Saints" because it is not up to us to "Endure to the end" in order to be saved which is what your friend was probably thinking based on what he has been "told" about Calvinism.

Perseverance means a Child of God WILL NOT fall away and depart from the faith. When "Supersurfer" apostatized years ago on the old FFF, it forced me to reevaluate the so-called "Once Saved Always Saved" mentality that many Baptists exhibit. I recall doing open air "Street Preaching" in San Diego and one of the men in our Church encountered a man who was a professing "Satanist" and was supposedly a Baptist at one time who had walked an aisle and prayed to accept Jesus as his Savior. Based upon this statement, the fellow member of my Church tried to convince him that he was actually saved, just extremely backslid!

NOPE! If you tell me you are no longer a Christian. I will believe you! 1 Jn 2:19 makes this quite clear.

Flaming Arminys insist that it is impossible for a Calvinist to have complete assurance of salvation because they could never know if they were actually elect which is complete absolute nonsense. We are commanded to "Make our calling and election sure" and the only ones who know whether we are truly saved is ourselves and God. You cannot know for sure that I am saved and I cannot know for certain that you are saved.

 

[Rockson]

And why are Arminians always so bothered about this?

Who says Non-Calvinists are bothered by those who think their doctrines are superiors? I don't care whether they think their belief is superiors or not. I put focus on the WORD of God and seek to teach what the Bible says.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Who says Non-Calvinists are bothered by those who think their doctrines are superiors? I don't care whether they think their belief is superiors or not. I put focus on the WORD of God and seek to teach what the Bible says.

First of all, it's called "Sarcasm," and secondly, it is what I often observe from non-Calvinists and most especially from Anti-Calvinists.

Note the following meme that I created:

At times, this is the extent of the intellect of those who object to the Calvinist view. They cannot come up with a valid scriptural argument either for their position or against the Calvinist view so they mischaracterize and misrepresent the Calvinist position and resort to ad-hominem attacks.

I consider myself to be a reluctant Calvinist. I arrived at my position kicking and screaming and, to be honest, I don't really WANT to be a Calvinist! I do not look at the scriptures through "Calvinist" glasses nor have I done much reading from men like John Calvin and others who have been instrumental with the formulation and codification of reformed doctrine. I do not cite the Westminster Confession nor do I have sufficient understanding of its content nor do I feel compelled to remedy such a deficiency of my store of knowledge. For the most part, I am a BIBLE BELIEVER and I will stand upon the authority of the scriptures!

I would really welcome those who have the ability to challenge Calvinism from a biblical standpoint and provide information that would stimulate my thinking and cause me to study the matter further! I believe this to be the proper attitude regardless of where you may happen to stand on the matter.

 

[abcaines]

I consider myself to be a reluctant Calvinist. I arrived at my position kicking and screaming and, to be honest, I don't really WANT to be a Calvinist!

So, should we call you C.S., or Jack?

 

[Rockson]

They cannot come up with a valid scriptural argument either for their position or against the Calvinist view so they mischaracterize and misrepresent the Calvinist position and resort to ad-hominem attacks.

Perhaps there are ad-hominem attacks upon Calvinists and perhaps there aren't. Depends I guess on who is doing the talking and debating. Same goes of Calvinists towards Non-Calvinists unless you're so absolutely bias you think one side acts like a bunch of sweet angels.

I consider myself to be a reluctant Calvinist. I arrived at my position kicking and screaming and, to be honest, I don't really WANT to be a Calvinist!

Well I see no valid reason to be one. Perhaps you haven't read or heard the arguments against Calvinism I have through a great many years.

. I do not cite the Westminster Confession nor do I have sufficient understanding of its content nor do I feel compelled to remedy such a deficiency of my store of knowledge.

You should therefore be studied up upon what Calvinists claim to be true. If you're brought to a place where you just can't accept it you should really be knowing where you stand.

I would really welcome those who have the ability to challenge Calvinism from a biblical standpoint and provide information that would stimulate my thinking and cause me to study the matter further! I believe this to be the proper attitude regardless of where you may happen to stand on the matter.

Of course. Don't deny that at all.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Perhaps there are ad-hominem attacks upon Calvinists and perhaps there aren't. Depends I guess on who is doing the talking and debating. Same goes of Calvinists towards Non-Calvinists unless you're so absolutely bias you think one side acts like a bunch of sweet angels.

You have nasty Calvinists as well. Some refer to anyone not a Calvinist to be "Semi-Pelagian" and whenever I hear such, I will come to the defense of Arminians to refute such a notion (or at least add clarification). There may be some disagreement but the 1610 Articles of Remonstrance makes it clear that classic Arminians hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity. Our disagreement is whether grace is irresistible but we must also properly define the sort of grace being discussed.

Well I see no valid reason to be one. Perhaps you haven't read or heard the arguments against Calvinism I have through a great many years.

Can you make a compelling argument against man's total depravity? What does "Totally Depraved" actually mean? Does man actually seek after God or does he simply desire the benefits God has to offer without actually knowing him or (especially) being confronted with the matter of sin? Provide a solid argument against the "T" and I may have to reevaluate my position.

The denial of or the softening of man's total depravity is cornerstone to the Church's slide into modernism and liberalism and why the Gospel of Christ no longer has any power! The Gospel is no longer "GOOD NEWS" but "NICE NEWS" and is the reason why so many idiot preachers out there are saying "Jesus is my Homie" or some similar nonsense!

You should therefore be studied up upon what Calvinists claim to be true. If you're brought to a place where you just can't accept it you should really be knowing where you stand.

I know what Calvinists claim to be true. My knowledge is sufficient anyway. I reject Supralapsarianism and Equal Ultimacy (Hyper or "High" Calvinism) and my personal view on Limited Atonement is more towards "Amyraldism" although it logically stands that if the other four points are true, the "L" is correct as well.

 

[Ekklesian]

Well, I think you know by now I don't let anyone know where I stand on this issue. It's really nobody's business. But, it's fun to keep them guessing! I think both sides believe they have superior theology...but, hey...guess what! They don't.

Meaning neither is true?

 

[Ekklesian]

If God looks down the tunnel of time

Which He created and ordained...

 

[AverageJoe]

Meaning neither is true?

Where did I imply this? I didn't. Now go away, Aaron.

 

[Ekklesian]

Where did I imply this?

Right here...

I think both sides believe they have superior theology...but, hey...guess what! They don't.

What would make a theology "superior" other than its proximity to the truth? If neither one is closer to the truth, than the other, that makes them equally inferior, and the truth something else.