For over 20 years I have been exposed the the Calvin vs. Arminian debate (also known as Reformed vs Free Will theology). I have been in churches on both sides of the debate and let me describe it in one word – UGLY. It can make Labour vs Liberal party politics look tame. Sadly, the bad behaviour in this debate is perpetrated by Christians and the topic is eternal. Both sides generally paint the choices as bi-polar. You are either for us or against us. Like most controversial topics, the reality is there is a bit of truth on both sides and the correct position lies somewhere in between.
I wish we did not have to talk about this. However, in the last 5 years, I have fellowshiped with resurging evangelicals who find their identity in their reformed interpretation. This movement has become increasingly vocal and marginalising. I refuse to support or be part of a church or movement which makes either a reformed or non-reformed position a dividing plank of their platform. Allow me to share with you 3 reasons why I will not join the neo-reformed crusade.
1. Jesus was not ‘reformed’
A leading reformed church planter recently preached and tweeted “I am a Calvinist just like Jesus and the Apostle Paul”.** For me, this brings back bad memories of the ‘Jesus was a Baptist’ movement. Well, to be accurate, Jesus lived 1500 years before Calvin. Christians followed Jesus before reformed theology was even invented. In my experience, some of the adoration of Calvin seems akin to mormonism – to the point where Jesus and Paul are interpreted through the golden lenses of Calvin’s institutes. Or to put it another way, the logic is similar to the 1611 KJV re-inspiration theory. (i.e. full understanding was not complete until around 1500-1600). If reformed theology is Biblical, then it should be able to be fully defended and justified from Scripture without the need for Calvin.
2. Neo-Reformed is different to Historical Reformed.
The Reformation was a necessary response to middle ages Roman Catholic Church doctrine and practice. Started by Martin Luther in Germany, subsequent European leaders (including John Calvin) moulded the reformation movement to their political and theological understandings. The Reformation was a precursor to great spiritual awakenings. Today, Roman Catholic doctrine no longer has the same political/spiritual monopoly over the western masses. However the neo-reformed movement is resurging by creating a new enemy – psycho-Christianity. I am certainly not defending the bad doctrine of some ‘feel-good TV preachers’, but let’s be clear – this is not the same beast as the historical reformation.
3. The ‘Reformed Label’ is used as an egalitarian weapon
“They are not reformed” has been used as code for ‘Christians who are not in our clique and are probably heretical’. Rather than deal with the doctrines of foreknowledge, election and predestination, this slur plays the man and not the ball. In practice, modern use of the reformed label seems to be creating an exclusive new form of fundamentalism. As someone who emerged from fundamentalism, I find the personal attacks, the pride, and the lack of love particularly repulsive. For that reason alone, I choose not to be known by the reformed label. Godly evangelicals don’t need to constantly tell people how reformed they are – and how non-reformed you are. Having said that, Ben Kwok recently posted about biases he has witness from non-reformed Christians. So problem behaviours can cut both ways.
Reformed theology use to be known by the TULIP acronym. Today, the reformed label has evolved in some circles to mean different things depending on who is using it. So it is hard to pin down. TULIP is helpful in that it explains some soteriological truth regarding God’s sovereignty, however it does not give the complete love picture of salvation that only the Scriptures can bring. So for the sake of dealing with the issues, let me expand on TULIP’s points.
- T – Total Depravity of man: The heart of man is inherently evil. Salvation requires the intervening of the Holy Spirit to move us from spiritual death to spiritual life. – Ephesians 1 YET, while unregenerate man is depraved, he still retains the image of God with the free will to choose to do right (e.g. obey government by paying taxes). In comparison to God, these acts of righteousness are still filthy rags.
- U – Unconditional election: Election to salvation requires repentance. God provides the command and the power to repent both mentally (saving faith) and physically (visible faith). YET, the command to repent does not negate our free-will actions to choose to ‘seek first God’s Kingdom’. Our acts of faith are not works that earns us favour or standing with God but we choose them as a response because He first loved us.
- L – Limited Atonement: Atonement is only applied to the elect. YET, God died and shed his blood for the sins of the whole world. The price is paid for everyone. That is why God can honestly say that He wants everyone to be saved.
- I – Irresistible Grace: For those of us who ave received God’s grace, we understand why grace seems so irresistible. YET the Bible is full of stories of people who resisted the grace that God offered to them (e.g. the rich young ruler, Pharoah, etc)
- P – Preservation of the Saints: God gives man the power to repent (John 1:12) and the power to stay following Christ. YET Christians don’t become preserved toy puppets. Rather God gives His followers the power to persevere. There is no earned merit in a Christian’s faithfulness, and some will chose to walk away from the faith (this is not hypothetical). In His eternal foreknowledge, this is not a surprise to God. – Hebrews 6:4-6
If you meet an ugly calvinist or ugly non-calvinist, resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. God does foreknow and pre-destine his elect. (Romans 8:29) He also created man with a free will. Let’s conclude that the ugly person is just not expressing it well.
As I said before, the truth often lies in the middle of man-made debates and positions. I do not consider myself a follower of John Calvin or Joseph Aminius. I am simply a follower of The Way. So the next time, someone asks if you are reformed – don’t buy into the artificial game. Simply smile and say that you follow Jesus.
Blessings
-JC
*EDIT – My responses to TULIP were updated on Jan 16th to provide more clarity. My position on TULIP remains the same.
** I have been told this was originally preached jest. Here is a link to the sermon. However, the comment was subsequently tweet by the Geneva Push and retweeted by other, hence I remain concerned.
9 Comments
Robert Apps
Behold a blogger in whom is no guile!
Great article Jeremy. I like how you set this one out.
As you said ‘the truth often lies in the middle of man-made debates and positions’.
PJ
While I have a deeply-held view in this debate and would disagree somewhat with your theology, this is a magnificent post. Thankyou Jeremy. All for the glory of God and His Gospel.
Jeremy Crooks
Thank PJ
It is all for Jesus glory. He is our redeemer.
Jason Harris
It seems to me that the reason you don’t call yourself Reformed is that you are not Reformed. Based on your TULIP outline, you reject most of the theological premises of Reformed theology. It seems to me that the “somewhere in the middle” approach discounts the gravity of the theological issues being addressed. And sidesteps the theological debate.
I wholeheartedly agree that the debate needs to be carried out graciously, but we do no service to God’s church when we sidestep the issues. Especially when the issues centre on the gospel itself.
Additionally, I have never met a Calvinist, ever, who believed that “Calvinism” started with Calvin. A quick read of Augustine demonstrates that he too was a “Calvinist.” I felt this was a straw man and weakened your point.
Jeremy
Thanks for your comments Jason.
Maybe we have met different Calvinists.
How can you say Augustine is a follower of Calvin given he lived nearly a 1000 years before Calvin was born?
The point I made was that Biblical theology stands by itself and does not need the definition of a man or a system of theology.
If the Bible is our sole rule for faith and practice then we must develop our theology and terminology based soley on its teaching. If Biblical teaching aligns 100% with a system of theology, so be it. But we must not reverse read a systematic theological label into Scripture.
Regarding ‘sidestepping or discounting the gravity of the issues’, I can assure you this is not my intention. My point is that if we are to discuss important theology and the gospel in particular – we must use Biblical terminology such as predestination, election, foreknowledge etc. Using TULIP or any other systematic theological label (be it reformed or otherwise) changes the goal posts.
Jason Harris
Thanks for your response Jeremy.
It is a straw man to present the Reformed as “followers of Calvin.” It is no more fair than to suggest that Arminians are followers of Arminius. Calvinism and Arminianism are systems of soteriology that bear the names of men who significantly influenced their systematisation. Followers of both systems would generally argue that the system is the best interpretation of the Scriptures. An Arminian believes that the Arminian system is biblical theology. The Calvinist believes that the Calvinist system is biblical theology. It doesn’t help anyone to present Calvinists/Arminians as if they are primarily loyal to a man. That does not represent their actual views fairly.
I understand your point with Augustine which is why I put Calvinists in quotation marks. It is generally unwise to ascribe later labels to earlier men. You effectively pointed that out with the “Jesus was a Baptist” comment. The point I was intending to make is that Augustine held views that differ with the ones you present in your post and which generally agree with the views of the Reformers. This suggests that the ideas of Calvin were held by notable theologians before A.D. 400 and therefore could not have originated with John Calvin a thousand years later.
Just to clarify, I didn’t intend to suggest that you were trying to sidestep theology. I intended to suggest that the idea that the truth is “somewhere in the middle” is typically a rationale for not wrestling with the theological issues biblically and precisely rather than an argument for doing so. Someone who says the truth is probably in the middle typically cannot accurately articulate the views of either side precisely and is therefore incapable of arguing that they are wrong. In other words, careful, precise consideration of an issue like the extent of the atonement does not land someone in the middle. It lands someone either firmly on one side or the other (thus the passion in the debate) or it leaves them unsure which is vastly different from saying the truth is in the middle. Careful consideration of the issue clarifies that the gospel is on the line and therefore leaves one either sure and passionate or unsure and humble. But it does not, and should not, leave him saying it doesn’t matter.
Jeremy Crooks
Thank for the clarification Jason. I am not saying we should not take a position. I agree to take a ‘middle approach’ just to avoid hard doctrine is not correct.
One of the reasons it is hard to articulate both positions is the variety of definitions out there. How many degrees of calvinism are there? 4 point, 4.5 point, 5 point?
However, Point taken about how most Calvinsts in practice distinguish between their soteriological system and venerating the man. My position is that I don’t use the label at all.
Peter Moroney
Jeremy,
I have been uncertain whether to respond or not. I am calvinistic and love both the doctrines of grace and the saints. More than most I have enjoyed both the blessings and the pain of the new calvinist movement. I feel your pain intimately and I am sorry you got hurt by us.
I too think its right to critique the movement. As for this article, I think that you have asked the right questions but drawn the wrong conclusions. Revelation chapter 2 was very helpful to me. For all else this passage is, it is an epistle and therefore timeless in intruction to us. Here is a church that has borne fruit, that has contended for the faith but against whom the Lord has an indictment that we must take to heart.
To the Church in Ephesus,
1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Warmest regards
Pete
Jeremy
Hi Pete,
Thanks for your words on encouragement. They are a blessing.
As a point of balance I do recognise there are beautiful Christians who define themselves as calvinist. In my passion to speak out against some of the ugliness perpetrated and experienced, I must not throw the baby out with the bath water. My decision to not adopt the reformed label is partly a reaction to that ugliness “If that behaviour is what characterises the movement, then I don’t want to be associated with it”. Many of the same reformed people would write similar blogs about fundamentalism.
However, God’s kingdom is made up of those who call them reformed and non-reformed. Thanks for the reminder.
PS Maybe when the current new-reformed movement moderates, I may not be so concerned by the label.
Jeremy