Featured A Tale of Two Calvinisms

I have noticed across boards and books that there are two kinds of Calvinism reflective of the two kinds of people that adhere to them. The doctrine is identical, but the people are completely different. We could say that there are simply two kinds of Calvinists, but based on arguments I think it is better put that the way Calvinism is held creates two different kinds of Calvinism as the arguments against Calvinism are often misdirected.

One is the idea that Calvinism best explains God’s work of Redemption from the standpoint of God’s sovereignty and the moral state of human beings. The other is that Calvinism is itself the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One is a theology, the other a philosophy that seeks to know God apart from Christ (a “backdoor Christianity).

While I believe the first is wrong, it is not a departure from the gospel but an explanation of the gospel. While I also believe the second is wrong, it is wrong on a more significant level as it is another gospel and is in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The first recognizes that other Christians are no less brothers in Christ, no less mature in the Spirit, no less a partaker of the heavenly gifts and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. The second considers those who believe differently to be brethren, but less spiritual, less enlightened, less mature.

The first discerns that these theological positions are to those who hold them the gospel, for it is their understanding of the gospel, and they interact with fellow believers in respect and love. The second replaces the gospel with their understanding of the gospel and argues that others adopt their view.

The first is secondary to Christ in the lives of the believer. The second replaces Christ in the lives of a believer.

The first sheds understanding on a living faith. The second is a dead religion.

The first is an explanation, the second is a false gospel.

 

What brought this to mind is that I'm revisiting old books. I mentioned before that one book that I've read countless times is God in the Wasteland by David F Wells (it is a wonderfully insightful book).

In it David Wells writes: "The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, His grace is too ordinary, His judgment is too benign, His gospel is too easy, and His Christ is too common."

Now, Wells is writing of the effects of Postmodernity on evangelical Christianity. But it occurred me that this is applicable to Calvinism (at least as sometimes argued for and sometimes mischaracterized).

Calvinism as an explanation of God's work shares a deep history with the Church because it shares the gospel and Church history that transcends any one theology.
But Calvinism as the gospel itself is a shallow thing. It presents a God that is inconsequential. It presents the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as too distant, making no demand on the "Christian". Despite it's focus on moral justice, it even presents a judgment that is too benign, a gospel that is too easy, and a Christ that is far too common.

This, I'm sure, can apply to any other theological position or religious philosophy when people replace the gospel with their understanding of the gospel. It is interesting in this context (Calvinism) because Calvinism is such a simple and concise system.

 

Not at all (I have not said one thing against Calvinism). Please reexamine my posts.

 

When Spurgeon taught "Christ crucified" he taught the right gospel. Like good ole Charles said - he naturally leans towards certain presuppositions while others naturally lean towards other presuppositions.

 

No, he did not. He said that when he speaks of Calvinism he is speaking of nothing less than the gospel. I certainly hope that is true of all of us (regardless of our understanding - whether Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or other "isms"). Whitfield, when he spoke of Calvinism also spoke of nothing less than the gospel - and he realized, I believe (by his comments) that Wesley speaking of Arminianism also spoke of nothing less than the gospel. We can only speak of our understanding.

Of Calvinism? I do not have any issues with any of the main Christian theological systems. I do not agree with all of them but that does not mean I have an issue with them. I try to understand what people believe, why people believe differently, and weigh beliefs against Scripture.

That in no way means I have a problem with Calvinism.

Perhaps you have forgotten - for much of my life I was a Five Point Calvinist (seven point if we take John Piper's explanations into account). I studied theology at a graduate level as a Calvinist. I have taught theology, to include teaching Calvinism. I taught for a couple of years at a church with a friend who was also a Calvinist (and a professor at DTS). And I still believe in the conclusions of Calvinism (there was a reason I became a Calvinist, and that reason has never changed - although now I do differ with how Calvinism reached its conclusions).

So did John Wesley (even stronger than Spurgeon). I do not see your point. I follow neither men but appreciate the writings of both (especially where I find them to biblical).

 

Look at it this way, @Yeshua1 (hopefully to clarify):

You and I both believe TULIP to be correct. BUT neither of us can point to those doctrines being described in Scripture as a part of the gospel itself. The gospel is not the "scope of the atonement". The gospel is not "the depravity of man". The gospel is not "divine election". The gospel is not "God's prevailing grace" (although I would argue that the gospel is grace). The gospel is not the security of the believer.

Christ tells us that the gospel is that the Kingdom of God is at hand and men may enter into this Kingdom (and, again I'd argue, how man may enter into this Kingdom). But the gospel itself is not various understandings about the gospel (as D.A. Carson pointed out, it is not really even the effect or benefits of the Kingdom, but rather the Kingdom itself).

So to say that the gospel is "the doctrine of the depravity of man" is to teach a false gospel. To say that the gospel is "unconditional election" is to teach a false gospel. To say that the gospel. is "the scope of the Atonement" is to teach a false gospel. To say that the gospel is "God's prevailing grace" is to teach a false gospel (although, again, I'd argue it is applicable). To say that the gospel is "the eternal security of the believer" is to teach a false gospel.

It is not that those things are unimportant or untrue. It is only that they are untrue as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Calvinism is perfectly fine if held by a believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Calvinism is a heresy if held by a believer as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Given the responses on this thread hopefully this will help understand what I am getting at:

I hold a ransom theory view of Christ's work - that Christ ransomed us, freeing us from the bondage of sin and death and thereby reconciling us to God. That is what I believe is the primary focus of Scripture.

But if I were to say that this idea, or Christus Victor, is the gospel then I would be just as wrong as the few Calvinists who view Calvinism as the gospel in opposition to it being their understanding. Christus Victor is what Christ did, but Jesus tells us that the gospel is the kingdom of God at hand (not necessarily how the kingdom of God came to be at hand, although that is certainly important).

 

I understand that you may believe that, but this is not what Jesus, Paul, or Peter taught. In fact, when boiled down to it's barest form Jesus simply said that the gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom (that the Kingdom is near). Moving from there, the main point actually mentioned in the Bible insofar as theories of Atonement go is that Jesus has conquered the grave. Probably the next theme would be man ransomed (the price paid). And then the reason (that we are redeemed for a purpose). After that would be that we escape the wrath to come.

That is, of course, assuming that we consider the frequency the Bible mentions these things as important to such discussions.

But none of the Theories of Atonement are the gospel itself. The gospel is very simple. The Kingdom has come. The rest is very important, but it is not the gospel itself.

 

Yes, I am very sure on John Wesley. He wrote on Penal Substitution Theory probably more than any other preacher (you are confusing his view of man's will in salvation with Atonement itself).