Evangelicals Find Themselves in the Midst of a Calvinist Revival

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/a-calvinist-revival-for-evangelicals.html?_r=0


Drew Angerer for The New York Times
Mark Dever, pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. tends not to mention Calvin in his sermons.

By MARK OPPENHEIMER
Published: January 3, 2014

For those who are sad that the year-end news quizzes are past, here’s one to start 2014: If you have joined a church that preaches a Tulip theology, does that mean a) the pastor bakes flowers into the communion wafers, b) the pastor believes that flowers that rise again every spring symbolize the resurrection, or c) the pastor is a Calvinist?

As an increasing number of Christians know, the answer is “c.” The acronym summarizes John Calvin’s so-called doctrines of grace, with their emphasis on sinfulness and predestination. The T is for man’s Total Depravity. The U is for Unconditional Election, which means that God has already decided who will be saved, without regard to any condition in them, or anything they can do to earn their salvation.

The acronym gets no cheerier from there.

Evangelicalism is in the midst of a Calvinist revival. Increasing numbers of preachers and professors teach the views of the 16th-century French reformer. Mark Driscoll, John Piper and Tim Keller — megachurch preachers and important evangelical authors — are all Calvinist. Attendance at Calvin-influenced worship conferences and churches is up, particularly among worshipers in their 20s and 30s.

more at link

[Zambero]

1. Moral detachment in the form of religion

If Ayn Rand had been a believer, chances are she would have been a Calvinist.

[cbayer]

3. I tend to think she would be part of the prosperity gospel movement...

but religion was anathema to her.

[grasswire]

2. ugh! nt

[LuvNewcastle]

4. My parents have become Calvinist.

They raised me as a Baptist, but now they're Presbyterians. It's been going on for the ten years or so. I think it's pretty damn silly to be a Calvinist Evangelical (I don't think my parents qualify as Evangelicals anymore). If you believe in predestination, then 'saving souls' is impossible. Since God has already chosen who is saved and who is damned before a person's birth, damned people can't become saved no matter how much they try. All the preaching in the world can only make people who are already saved come to the realization that they are saved. Got to have some way to get more people in the church and bring in those dollars, I suppose.

Calvinists call themselves 'the elect,' because God has supposedly elected them to be his. They believe they're 'God's Chosen People,' in other words. Anyone who subscribes to the belief that God loves them more than other people is pretty fucked up, in my opinion. I don't think I can express how disgusted I am that my parents hold to such a belief. If anything comes from Satan, it's an attitude like that.

[cbayer]

5. I don't know much about this, but the way I read it is that

even if your are chosen, you have to accept.

So I would guess that the evangelizing is meant to reach those that have been chosen but don't know it.



Do you know much about what criteria they think god uses to select? Are people selected before birth?

I also find the idea that god would love some people more than others really screwed up. It is completely counter to what I was taught, which is that god loves all equally but cares more for those at the bottom. Cares might be the wrong word here, though.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Yes, people are chosen before they're even born.

They say that God has his reasons for doing it and it isn't our place to question or wonder why. Very convenient; they don't have to explain why God would do something so awful. And they very much believe in Heaven and Hell, so they basically believe that God creates some people knowing full well that he's going to send them to Hell. How anyone could love such a god is far beyond my understanding; he's an evil god, certainly not the same one I believe in.

[cbayer]

7. So they know if they've been chosen, but do they know who else has been chosen

and who hasn't?

It really is a twisted form of christianity, imo.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Instead of people achieving their salvation through faith and good works,

from what I understand, faith and good works are a manifestation of their chosen-ness. So they get to judge other people all the time in order to see if they make the cut. I'm sure it's a really fun game and yes, it's very twisted. I suppose you could call it Inside-Out Christianity.

[cbayer]

11. It seems very inside-out to me.

But, as has been said, pretty convenient.

[enlightenment]

8. Predestination means

that the "elect" are chosen before birth.

The idea is total social control, based on the idea that an individual cannot know if they are truly one of the elect. Since you don't know, you better behave, because you can screw up your chances and be damned. Of course, if you're not chosen, you're doomed anyway . . . but you don't know.

You can't "buy" your way into heaven on this plan, but you spend your life playing a version of "Let's Make a Deal" - hoping that each decision you make will result in the ultimate prize.

[cbayer]

9. So, even if you are chosen, you still might go to hell?

It's just gets more and more confusing.

[enlightenment]

12. Technically, no.

Since no one can know whom god elected, humans can only assume they are chosen.
The doctrine of Calvinism states that some are elected and some are not - and that those elected are elected regardless of their actions (so, they'll never go to hell).

The reality of it works a bit differently.

If you are faithful, you HOPE you are elected. You can't assume. You live your life virtuously, by the tenets of the faith - and when you die, you only have the knowledge that you didn't screw anything up and that probably means you are one of the elect, because if everything is predetermined, then you would probably have committed some major sin during your life.

The flip side of that is that if you screw up, you are not faithful, and probably not one of the elect - but who wants to know in advance that they are going to hell?

The system wouldn't work if people actually believed they could know who was elected and who wasn't, because "unconditional election" means that they don't have to do anything - they've got the golden ticket already. But since it also teaches that they cannot KNOW, the doubt allows for the development of rules (controls).

You do the best you can - you be the best person, the most vigilant within the tenets of the faith - and you hope you're elected.

At least that's how I understand it. I think it's a really effective method of social control, but crazy illogical otherwise.

Hopefully, someone with more knowledge can do a better job with this - sorry.

[cbayer]

13. Wow, I had no idea that this whole convoluted thing was out there.

So, you can't really go to hell if you are chosen because it is highly unlikely that you would do something bad…

but you have to be careful but there might be some kind of scale involved.

I've no problem with the part about being the best person you can be, but the other parts flummox me.

Thanks for the info. I think you are doing just great and I appreciate it.

[enlightenment]

16. Appreciate the kind words, thank you. :)

My mother took me to Presbyterian church when I was little (until I told her I wasn't buying any of it). I vaguely recall some conversation in Sunday school about election, but my strongest memories are really boring sermons and an unfortunate Easter Sunday incident involving colored pastels and buttermilk.

I'm not a person of faith or belief, but I find religions intellectually fascinating. Some of the ideas that people come up with to try and order their worlds is - well - interesting, to say the least.

That said, I am not a scholar of religion in any way, so I could be wildly wandering away from what Calvinists actually think.

[cbayer]

18. Colored pastels and buttermilk?

I can't even imagine, lol.

Like you, I find religion fascinating as well, although I am not a theist.

I see the good and bad and grew up seeing how important religious organizations and people were in social justice, civil liberties and anti-war movements.

We all get were we are on different paths.

Really nice talking with you.

[enlightenment]

19. Picture an eager young

Sunday School teacher who was planning on studying art in college.

Add "clever" idea: children draw pictures of the crucifixion (umm, right . . .) with pastels, then "paint" them using the buttermilk, which - as I recall - make them look vaguely like oil paintings. Very BAD oil paintings.

Problem 1: this was done the Sunday before Easter, so the masterpieces would be ready for viewing by the assembled congregation, touring the Sunday school. Completed pictures were hung on the walls to dry for the week.

Problem 2: the weather warmed up that week.

Problem 3: the room was completely closed.

Result: Unforgettable image of Sunday best-dressed grown-ups (including the minister) running from the room, gagging, after opening the door to about 20 rancid, moldy masterpieces.

It may have been the reason I started to doubt the veracity of what I was being taught . . .

Fun chatting with you, too.

[cbayer]

20. OMG, that's hilarious.

I google searched this and it is an actual technique recommended for children's art.

But NOWHERE is there a warning about not putting in an enclosed space to dry.

Someone should be sued!

[enlightenment]

21. At the very least, that technique should come

with a warning!

I know I skipped it when my kid was growing up.

[eomer]

26. That sounds a lot like you're saying they are wrong.

No?

[cbayer]

27. Uh, oh! Should I tread carefully? Am I about to be step in the trap, lol?

I don't agree with them and see their position as pretty much the opposite of how I see the basics of christianity.

Is that ok?

[eomer]

30. That is great, actually.

Thanks.

[hrmjustin]

14. Nevrr really got into Calvinism.

[cbayer]

15. That does not surprise me, justin.

It's seems very poorly suited for someone like you.

[hrmjustin]

17. I am not into the hell and damnation thing. I believe in a loving God.

[pinto]

22. Interesting stuff. I've never known much of anything at all about Calvinists.

Other than the emigres on the Mayflower were largely adherents to some form of Calvinism. They established the first "Blue Laws" in Massachusetts.

The whole predestination doctrine is news to me. Thanks for the snip.

[Dawson Leery]

23. Terrible. The Calvinist cult is NOT Christianity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218105693#post7

John Calvin ranks as one of the worst people to ever had existed.

[edhopper]

24. Why not

don't they believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins?
That is pretty much all you need to be a Christian. Now it might not be a very nice form, or adhere to what you would deem right, but it is still Christian.

[Bradical79]

52. Sure it is. -nt

[Brettongarcia]

25. Is Calvinism proto-atheistic?

I was exposed as a child to many churches; including Calvinist ones. And I found much of Calvinism as I understood it, as rather dark and repulsive. The notion that all human beings are by nature bad, even "depraved," seemed evil itself; having no confidence in God's creation, mankind, did not seem positive enough. To be sure, later I read Wesley; who more or less cleaned up, spiritualized, much of Calvin. But still many of these related beliefs seemed hopelessly dark.

To be sure, Calvinists seem in some readings, to aim at condemning most human beings - in order to goad us all into seeking to better ourselves. Still, as many have properly noted, notions of predestination, and being born bad, seem to militate against any chance of improving ourselves. Here some try to finesse all these contradictions, by various theological arguments; yet this fundamental problem remains.

One interesting side implication of Calvinism, however, might appeal to frustrated reformers and agnostic and atheistic leaders: in part, Calvinism seems to suggest that some of us are just born smarter, and will get it. But lots will not.

So if you spend many hours in what seem like useless, endless discussions, trying to get thru to more conservative Evangelicals? Some Calvinists will understand, it might seem.

[riqster]

28. Here is how we were taught predestination:

A logical consequence of God's omniscience. He knows past, present and future (all means all) and so he knows before we're born what we'll do. Thus his foreknowledge of our outcomes.

Of course, WE don't know everything God knows (because humans are not omniscient) so we have to bust our kazoos to make sure we are really as good as we hope we are.

That was the doctrine of our half of the church back in the '60's anyway. No free rides to heaven, no purchasing a ticket: doing good and being good was the only way to get there.

I've heard a lot worse. Prosperity gospel, instant access to heaven via a single prayer, and so on.

[Brettongarcia]

31. Problem: some Calvinism says nothing WE do can save us; its only the (random) help from God

Or what God predetermined will happen.

But if God already knows the final results? But does not change them? Then in effect, our fate was determined by God. Even before our existence. He has not really helped us. He has not allowed us to depart from the already-determined script. In part written by God himself.

So there are problems with Predestination - and Calvinism. It's not much better than Evangelicalism. If at all.

So it really is just more nonsense, many might well say.

[riqster]

41. Yes, there are varying sub-sects and variations.

Like with any theology or philosophy.

[cbayer]

32. This seems wholly illogical.

If one's life is fully known and god has already made a decision, than it would seem that all free will is gone. So why bother trying to do good or be good? It's all been determined anyway.

[riqster]

34. It's a level of perception and a question of abilities.

When I had kids at home, I often knew what they would do before they did it. Did that take away their free will?

Of course not.

[cbayer]

36. I often thought I knew what my kids would do, but they sometimes surprised me.

Some of those surprises were good, others not so much, lol. Anyway, that's where their free will came in.

I'm thinking that the way this is being described there is a rather absolute certainty about what an individual will do.

[riqster]

37. It depends on a literal interpretation

Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

Given those qualities, a supreme being could be completely certain. We, of course, are none of those three things, so we can't gauge God's abilities by our own.

We can infer, but as you point out, the fact that we could sometimes predict our children's activities was by no means complete. Our abilities are not sufficient, but then we don't have to be perfect.

Just our best.

[cbayer]

38. So, even though god knows what a person is going to do, the person themselves

has to carefully listen for guidance, I would imagine.

And if they do so correctly, they will get the message and do the right thing? Is that correct?

[riqster]

39. Well, the guidance is already there.

The Commandments, Greatest Commandment, and suchlike.

[Leontius]

50. That's closer to Arminius than Calvin.

[Brettongarcia]

44. Unless you ordered their lives so it would happen, created the life where it would happen, etc.

Then too, why did you fail to head it off before it happened, when that was clearly in your power?

It would seem in such cases, that we do not have the perfect God that Christians promise.

In what sense is our will really free, when we were so created in such a way as to "decide" to do the wrong thing?

[riqster]

45. It depends on how active one thinks God is.

My view is that we were given free choice, and that we get to make our own beds and then lie in them.

Any other view would be impossible to reconcile with the world as we know it.

[Brettongarcia]

46. Unless ...

The whole universe is essentially ordered, determined. But in ways so complex, that we see many things as unexpected.

And our own experience/determination is so individual, that we experience our selection as "our" selection after all.

It is determined. But it is ours. Therefore it feels free; like our choice.

[trotsky]

47. Except that throughout history, we see countless people that are forced to lie in the beds...

created for them by others. What happened to their free will? Was it less important than that of the oppressors?

[riqster]

48. That is the crux of the Active God question.

People who really think our lives are controlled by a higher power can't reconcile this conflict: if God is in control, and allows bad things to happen, is God really benevolent?

If, on the other hand, we accept that we were given free will and it's on the humans to deal with each other (taking the creator-and-then-hands-off as opposed to a puppet master view of God), then situations like you describe are our responsibility.

All it took to convince me that we were given stewardship of the planet, and that God keeps His mitts off our affairs, was reading about the Holocaust.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Unless God created everything as we are told; including the devil himself. And evil itself.

Then even evil is not entirely our fault; God created it after all.

[riqster]

51. But we can choose whether or not to be evil.

So it's still on us.

[Brettongarcia]

53. Can we? Does conventional theology really hold up? Can we be blamed by God for evil? Is it OUR fault

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:34 AM - Edit history (2)

All this relates to a classic argument against the existence of God. Which comes out of the existence of Evil. Briefly, God is said to be good. But but he allows evil to exist. So how can he be good? The conclusion is that God does not exist.

Expanding here: 1) God is said to be good, and to have made the whole universe.

2) But our universe includes Evil in it. So First, God created a universe with Evil in it. Indeed, God even created Satan, if he created all things. In effect, God created Evil.

3) Then God created even humans ... with an openness to evil; an ability to sin. He could have made us without any such leaning. God made us imperfect; and if we go wrong - it's in part his fault. Since he made us in such a way that we COULD go bad.

4) Beyond creating the possibility of our erring, sinning. Then worse, in the Bible, sometimes God himself actively even uses or "sends evil" etc. to us.

5) To simplify all this? Our classic good God, does not exist.

The now-famous takeaway from all this, is the most famous and telling argument against the existence of God; which is popularly misnamed "The Argument from Evil"; but which might be better termed "No Good God."

All atheists need to know this, the best argument against the existence of God. Which is this: a) God they say, is "good." And b) yet however, there is evil in the universe. And c) what good God, could allow Evil to exist? d) Therefore, God cannot exist.

[trotsky]

43. So?

Who said religion had to be logical? Logically, free will is gone if one believes in an omniscient deity, period. Why are you singling out just the Calvinists for your scorn?

[okasha]

33. That sounds like my Presby friends

back in the Sixties, as well as the ones I've worked with more recently in AI and on environmental issues.

One of my dearest friends is Jewish. At the time of her daughter's marriage, their shul had no rabbi. My friend, the Presbyterian minister and the Presbyterian choirmaster/organist were all involved--still are--with local theater groups. So: the Jewish bride's family rented an Assembly of God Church, the Catholic groom wore kippa and shawl, and the Presbyterian minister performed the Jewish wedding service with the Presbyterian musician serving as cantor. More recemtly, the same musician played at the funeral of a gay Catholic friend's mother.

Somehow that just doesn't fit with the Google snippets.

[riqster]

35. It is a very complex theology that seems simple at the surface. And google snippets are surface.

The story you relate does not surprise me in the least. Our Presbo church took the lead in interfaith activities in our town.

[on point]

29. Just a deeper hole within the world of delusional nonsense

[Leontius]

40. Without our choice to seek and accept salvation it has no meaning.

Just my opinion.

[Jim__]

42. Marilynne Robinson has written at least a couple of essays on Calvin.

The 2 I am familiar with are in her book of essays, The Death of Adam. The essays are Marguerite de Navarre and Marguarite de Navarre, part 2. She explains that the titles of the essays are due to the fact that if they were named John Calvin, just about no one in contemporary America would read them. Robinson is an interesting writer in that she always challenges things you are certain about. These 2 essays run for about 55 pages, so this excerpt is just a hint of what she talks about:

...

Finally, those who know anything about Calvinism know that Cauvin asserted and defended a doctrine of election or predestination: we are lost or saved as God wills and our destiny has always been known to him. In this he parts with Chrysostom and embraces Augustine. His position is a consequence of his refusal to allow any limit to the power or knowledge of God or to the efficacy of his grace. Cauvin's apparent isolation with the burden of this thorny doctrine is an artifact of the history of polemic rather than of controversy. His great contemporary and nemesis, Ignatius of Loyola, says in his treatise, Spiritual Exercises, "Whilst it is absolutely true that no man can be saved withouht being predestined and without faith and grace, great care is called for in the way we talk about these matters." Furthermore, he warns, "Nor should we talk so much about grace and with such insistence on it as to give rise to the poisonous view that destroys freedom ... our language and way of speaking should not be such that the value of our activities and the reality of human freedom might be in any way impaired or disregarded, especially in times like these which are full of dangers."

Ignatius was writing for an elite of highly committed men; Cauvin, for anyone who could read him. Cauvin's theology does not permit the esotericism that allows Ignatius to nuance this doctrine by advising "great care" in the manner in which it is discussed, though in the Institutes he also warns that the subject should be approached with caution. Certainly neither Cauvin nor Loyola lived the life of a fatalist, nor does either show the least reluctance to urge others to act decisively. Anomalies must be expected along the conceptual frontiers between the temporal and the eternal. Surely it is not at all Ignatius's purpose in writing to find logical solutions to theological problems - " I will believe that the white object I see is black if that should be the decisiion of the hierarchical church." Nor is it Cauvin's, who does not "contrive a necessity of the perpetual connection and intimately related series of causes, which is contained in nature." He is as committed to the freedom and mystery of God as Ignatius is to the divine authority of the Church. The logical difficulties of their positions matter only if the question is understood in terms both explicitly reject.

...

Later she says with regard to Calvin: And in fact, the more deeply one reads him the more thoroughly his thinking baffles paraphrase.

I don't believe the essays are available online.