Tuesday, March 21, 2006

On Calvinism pt. 1

Some people call me a Calvinist. Those people would not be entirely accurate - I didn't even know what the Five Points were until earlier this year, and I've never even cracked a book by John Calvin. They would be more accurate in saying I am a believer in predestination, although this itself was a more recent development. So I decided that's what I wanted to talk about.

There are many excellent discussions out there about Free Will vs Predestination vs Open Theism. I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so I'll save the gripping theological analysis for my betters. Instead, I want to tell you about three Calvinists I've known who have helped shape me into the kind of Christian I am today. Hopefully, something I write here will resonate with you and help you understand why I am a believer in what is a decidedly unpopular doctrine today. You should know, however, that I have no interest in "converting" you to my way of thinking. The vast majority of my friends are Arminian, and I couldn't care less about it. This is just what I believe to be true.

My first encounter with a Calvinist was at Providence College, about 6 years ago. It was my first year, first semester, first month and first week of classes. I knew next to nothing about church history and was still unclear about what denomination I belonged to. Needless to say, I was somewhat naive.

Enter George, straight from the American south. I don't remember which state, but he let it be known that he was from the "Bible Belt," and proud of it. Several years older than me, second year student, and On Fire for The Lord. Found the best way to worship God was to engage in discussions about spiritual matters. These discussions would often become heated and frequently turn into arguments. George was a good friend and a decent floor hockey player, but disagree with him theologically and he'd not stop short of questioning your salvation. All of this was unknown to me at the time of our encounter.

We were sitting in the lounge of the men's dorm, drawing close to 1 in the morning. That's prime theology time, for you rookies. I was enjoying the fellowship with my new dorm brothers as we compared classes and shared our stories of faith and Christian service with each other. All was peaceful and Godly. (and not one of us mentioned the cute girls we'd noticed. Honest.)

A couple guys went out to make a 7-11 run, and George and I were alone. He turned to me with one of those roguish Christian smiles on his face. I didn't know enough to be worried.

"So Grey Owl," he said, "Which is it? Calvinist or Arminian?"

"Err, sorry?" I was reasonably sure he was still speaking english, but there were a lot of international students about and I wanted to make sure. "Could you repeat that?"

"Are you a Calvinist or Arminian?" he said it again very slowly. Stared at me with disturbing intensity.

Panicked. Took my best guess. "Uh, I like girls, if that's what you mean."

A blank stare was returned to me. I began to sweat. My first week in dorm and already people thought I was gay! He shook his head slowly and tried again.

"Do you believe in Free Will or Predestination? You know, Arminian or Calvinism?"

"Oh, that!" I laughed with relief. Well, this I thought I could handle. "I guess I believe in Free Will. I mean, we're supposed to make a decision for Christ, right? How could we do that without Free Will?" I gave myself a mental pat on the back. Done and done! My first theological debate a success! I wanted to call my mother, but it was 1 in the morning. That, and George wasn't finished with me yet.

"Oh really?" He sounded decidedly sly. I nodded confidently, and he moved in for the attack. "But Paul says we only respond to God by faith, and God gives us the faith to respond to him. Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 12. We can only be saved if he gives us the faith to be saved."

Confusion. He sounded correct - lots of bible verses at the end, so it must be true - but it sounded so one-sided. Why would God act like that?

I tried asking. "If God wants us to respond to him, but we can't unless he gives us faith, then he can't very well get upset at the people who don't respond, because they can't respond unless he gives them faith, can they? So he's angry at them for nothing, really." It seemed to make sense in my head, but coming out my words were all jumbled. I felt slow and stupid, while Georges argument came out smooth and practiced.

"No, God holds them under righteous condemnation for their sinful nature, which they have since before they were born. They are punished eternally in Hell because he's a just and righteous God, and they deserve it. God only saves the elect, who have heard his Gospel and been given the faith to accept it." He quoted a few more passages but I can't remember the references. I began to get concerned.

"Now hang on a sec, George. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why wouldn't God give everyone an equal chance to be saved? If it's not up to them - I mean, if the choice isn't up to them - then God is condemning them for being exactly what he made them be. That doesn't seem fair." I was a bit more sure of myself here. "And if only people who hear the gospel even have a chance, what about the billions of people who have never heard it? Do they not even matter?"

"They exist to give glory to God. That's what matters." George had drew himself up and was in preaching mode. A thin film of sweat glistened on his forehead, and there was a holy (feverish?) gleam in his eye. He wasn't even looking me in the eye when he continued. "And who ever said God is fair? He's just and he's righteous and he's perfect. Everyone but the elect is sinful and hateful to his eyes. He saves the elect, and only because it glorifies him."

"Sounds awfully Narcissistic to me. Does God have self-esteem issues?"

George ignored me. "The people who die and go to Hell give God glory, and the people he saves give him glory. That's the purpose of mankind."

I tried to recapture some ground. "But it really sucks to be the people who aren't picked, doesn't it? And it's kind of arbitrary - like God just picks some people to save and the rest get sent off to Hell because... because he just decides 'some go up and some go down?'"

"Well, yes. We all belong to God, and we're his to do with as he will. The clay can't get angry with the potter, you know. We don't have the right."

I was getting flustered and more confused by the minute. "But... but the Bible says God is loving. Why would a loving God be so arbitrary? And why would he hold people responsible if he basically makes our decisions for us?"

"Grey Owl, I already told you. He holds us responsible for our sinful nature, which we have from before birth. Even if we don't choose our actions or path, we still have to pay the price for our sins. And God is loving, but you don't expect his idea of love and your to be anything alike, do you? He loves us for - "

" - his glory, right, yeah." Felt absolutely awful. I never knew that this is what God was like. I thought he was a lot nicer than that. I thought God liked me! Loved me, even! Now I felt like a checkmark on some heavenly clipboard. Could George be right?

Suddenly remembered something else he said. "Hey George, you said we have our sinful nature from birth?"

He frowned. "No, our sinful nature is a part of us. That's one of the most important parts of Calvinism - Total depravity, the first of the five points of Calvinism. We are sinful as a part of our being."

"Then what about stillborn or aborted babies? What about children who die from cribdeath?"

"They are under the same condemnation as the rest of the sinners."

I went cold inside. "You mean they're in hell?"

"Well, yes, they are. The gospel could never have reached them, which means that God has destined them for punishment for their sinful nature. If he had wanted them saved, they would be alive and part of the elect."

This was too much. "You're not serious."

"It is all for God's glory. You shouldn't feel bad about them, because they are receiving just punishment -"

I cut him off. "I'm done, George."

He looked pastorally concerned. "Listen -"

"No!" I practically shouted. "This is totally wrong! I could accept what you said on some level, but not this! God would never do that!"

"His ways are not our ways, you know."

"Look George, I'm not as smart as you. But I know Jesus, and he would never let that happen. He loves kids! And if Jesus and God are the same person, then God couldn't do that either." I stopped feeling cold and started to get very, very hot and upset. "And personally, if God is anything like what you say, then I think we're all better off without him."

George started to get angry. "That's heresy! Our doctrines -"

"Oh, fuck your doctrines!" I snapped. That rocked him back a step. "I'm done with listening to this. Everything I've ever heard about the gospel and Jesus tells me that God loves us, and hurts for us, and saves us out of love. If you're trying to convince me that this same God is selfish and gleeful about people going to hell, then I think you and I are worshipping different Gods. And I think mine beats yours all hollow."

I stood up to go. "And next time you want to bring this up with me, think on this: If you convince me that what you told me today is true Christianity, then I will leave the church and never look back. You will drive me away. So you'd better decide if convincing me your right is worth my soul." And I stalked from the room.

We spoke again a few days later. He apologized for not being sensitive, and I apologized for swearing and being "exceedingly dramatic." We played floor hockey together a few times, hung out at dorm, and prayed together at Bible studies. He helped me with my Church History, and I helped him with his Intro Psychology. He didn't return the next year, but we certainly ended on better terms than we began.

It must seem very strange, then, that after a beginning like this I am where I am today. If you want to hear the rest of the story, then stick around. It's been nice talking to you.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey bro,

Sure, pick an easy topic, why don't you. Geesh! I look forward to hearing the rest of the story- just hope it comes sooner rather than later.

From where you are headed, I think we are likely to disagree on this one, but I am interested as to where you will take it. Looking forward!

Peace,
Jamie

Wed Mar 22, 10:20:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Jamie - I can softball you a topic if you like! How about "Would God be a Vegetarian? You may be surprised by the answer!"

Hey, if we can agree to disagree, I think we'll be just fine. I've got no interest in convincing anyone about this issue. Is that odd?

Wed Mar 22, 10:36:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Arthur Brokop II said...

Would you be surprised to hear me say I hated this one? After 25+ years of being a Christian, I am exactly where you were, with the same emotions and same arguements as you were with George.
I did leave a church because of it. Not Christianity, I didn't walk away from Jesus, but I did walk away from a church.
But I respect you Gray Owl, and I am curious as to how you came to be convinced...so I will keep reading...reluctenly.
One thing though, granted we can not limit God's love to our minute understanding of love, but I think the Bible is very clear in it's definition of God's love, or what God means by love.

Wed Mar 22, 12:02:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Cerise said...

Blech - I was taught Bible by a fire-breathing Calvinist at boarding school for a few years. He's one of the reasons I became "none of the above". He'd say I'm predestined to be screwed. Good job I don't believe in hell...

Owl, if anyone can make The Big C sound even remotely palatable it would be you, though I'll still wear my safety mantle of religious non-affiliation while I read. Keeps me impartial and good-tempered. [grin] Write on, brother.

Cerise

Wed Mar 22, 12:29:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't know why i ended up here, don't know why i'm commenting, but, hey, i'm interested. jamie is rihgt, don't take to long with part 2.

Wed Mar 22, 03:19:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Wanderer said...

I would snip, but it would take quoting most of George's arguments. I have heard this style of argument before. I have heard it from Calvinists. I have heard it from battered wives and from submissives in a dominant/submissive relationship.

"I am getting what I deserve." "I exist for his glory (or amusement." "Who am I to argue?"

While I have definitely insinuated some insinuations of a dom/sub relationship with deity, as God is in fact superior, this argument sucks.

You didn't fail in your argument when you made your suggestion that if we have a sinful nature, and pay the price of it, without the ability to change unless he changes it, then this isn't a God worth worshipping.

Why would you bow down to a God that created you, declared you damned for being what he made you to be, and punished you for all eternity.

Even atheist human beings in dom/sub relationships realize that you cannot simply inflict pain because it amuses you. There have to be rules. The one you would punish must be capable of successfully avoiding punishment, even if only by doing your will. Otherwise it is cruelty.

There is no sense in worshipping a cruel God, or an arbitrary one. If you have no chance of redeeming yourself or doing the right thing, why bother?

If God refuses to provide rules and a way for you to do it right, then the odds are against you, so why wouldn't you just live your life as you saw fit?

I am sorry, such thinking is one of the reasons I walked away as well.

Wed Mar 22, 08:03:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Cerise said...

Right you are, Wanderer.

Poor Grey Owl - you do some lovely writing about a difficult topic and everyone goes, "Ew! No! Gowd help us, turn it off!!" I mean, that's how I feel about C-ism, anyway. But I'm still on board, man. As is everyone else. Very interested in Pt. 2.

Cerise

Wed Mar 22, 09:20:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Arthur Brokop II said...

yep, we are,
and I hope some of the other predestinationalists (huh?) get wind of this debate before it is overrun by us "Ew! No! Gowd help us, turn it off!!" folks.

Thu Mar 23, 11:31:00 a.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grey Owl,

I hate to discuss this topic, as it is one of the few that, depending on how it is articulated, I cannot always "agree to disagree". Again, I'll have to wait for the next post to know, but I am... uneasy (wink).

I guess that, having realized how Calvin's deeply legal, systematic worldview shaped the resulting understanding of Scripture, I have as much issue with the means of coming to that understanding than I do with the end result. I have come to believe that an overly systematic, reductive (or inductive) method will inevitably result in seriously erroneous results. Like getting a mechantic to diagnose your sick child.

Don't get me wrong. Calvin was a brilliant man that contributed much, but he also clearly took things dangerously far, as have many who have identified their faith with his name. Just some thoughts...

Peace,
Jamie

P.S. This is my eighth attempt to post this comment.

Thu Mar 23, 01:50:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Maryellen - I'm glad you're going to stick around, even if it's a rough topic. But I think you'll find the type of "calvinist" I became to be decidedly different from my friend George, here. I have never and will never use or support the worldview that George was pushing here. In fact, I think that Calvin wouldn't either, but that's another story.

Cerise, I'm so glad you're sticking around! I look forward to your comments and thank you for your sympathy!

Watchman - glad you stopped by. I'll try not to dissapoint.

Wanderer - I'm glad we seem to have come from similar places, even if we wound up different. BUt I agree; the mindset that comes out in George's argument is remarkably like the "battered spouse" outlook... I actually hadn't thought that before, but it certainly makes sense.

Jamie - 8 times, eh? That's commitment... and don't be uneasy, my friend, if I was a "fire-breathing Calvinist" (nice imagery, Cerise) you would have known it long before now. I'll try not to take too long with part 2.

Thu Mar 23, 02:20:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Linda said...

I'm holding my tongue until I see where you are headed with this. So far I find myself mostly in agreement with the other comments.

Fri Mar 24, 08:15:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Sabrina said...

i just happened to find your blog by searching the term "calvinism". very interesting! i will be back for part two :-)

Sat Mar 25, 09:49:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Thanks grace, sabrina. part 2 is now up, so I hope you'll check it out.

Tue Mar 28, 03:12:00 p.m. 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home