Calvinism - Up Close and Personal
Some time ago I got a call from a friend of mine who wanted to have lunch to discuss the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. We had spoken about it before and he was aware that I pray in tongues on a daily basis along with my study of the Word. He also intimated that he had called me because he thought that I could give him intelligent answers to his questions. (see my post, Tongues and Anti-Intellectualism).
We met at a local restaurant and, after eating, we started our talk. Immediately, we hit a wall. When discussing the Word, I tie my statements to specific scriptures so that my hearer can see and understand that I am just not engaging in some extra-scriptural point of view. Each time I pointed out a scripture to him, however, there was an immediate disconnect. The scriptures somehow didn’t mean what they said. God was acting in some contradictory or invisible way to their plain meaning. This went on for about half an hour. Finally, I was exhausted and told him “I quit.” I wasn’t sure where else to go with the conversation.
While I sipped my Diet Coke, he began in on Calvinism. He said that he had decided to become Calvinist even though he had not read The Institutes. Listening to him, it became evident to me that in his mind all Scripture, no matter where it was in the Word, somehow fit under Calvin’s 5 truisms. This was true even though the Scripture’s plain meaning said something else. When I’d ask him about some apparent contradictions, he directed me to read John Piper or Calvin or even take a Calvinism class. Needless to say, at the end of this meeting, he didn’t receive the Baptism and I wasn’t too fond of what I heard about Calvinism. Even to this day, I’m somewhat bothered by this conversation.
Growing up in the Catholic church, I learned early on about extra-scriptural traditions and philosophies. Some of my friends think I was always destined to practice law because I’d cross-examine my CCD teachers about purgatory, transubstantiation, and extreme unction every Sunday. From these formative experiences, I learned to maintain what I believe to be a healthy skepticism about extra-scriptural traditions, statements of faith, truisms, and the like. I also grew to dislike monikers about my walk. At the end of my days, I know that I will stand before Jesus Christ and have to give an account for the light that He gave me and the light that I walked in. Therefore, I don’t take anything at face value no matter who’s doing the talking.
Since my meeting with my friend, I’ve looked at a few resources about Reformed Theology in general. The doctrine relies upon controversial philosophical judgments and assumptions. For instance, in order to mash Scripture into its five-point system, God’s actions or inactions must contradict His Word. And since God has preordained everything, He consequentially is the primary agent or actor in every action, good or bad, by everyone. This includes Ted Haggard’s debacle. The doctrine, therefore, requires an awkward “decoding” of Bible texts as the Calvinist cannot know the true intentions of God from what He said. He must constantly rely upon “translators” like Calvin, John Piper, or some other “great” preacher to understand the hidden meanings of how they fit into TULIP. I imagine that is why most Calvinists do not refer to Scripture, but rather some Calvinistic preacher’s exposition of Scripture as the source code for doctrine. (That is not unlike the Catholic tradition).
This “disconnect,” as I call it, is demonstrated on the Challies.com blog regarding Ted Haggard. In his blog, Tim Challies writes,
… as we explored earlier this week in a discussion about total depravity, there is really no difference between you and Haggard or between myself and Haggard. We are all totally depraved with our sin extending to every aspect of our being.
Every day I have to peer into my dark heart and beg God for forgiveness. Every day I see again how my heart is dark and black and awful and filled with enmity towards God.
I posted a couple of comments to this post. First, I iterated that if Haggard is a born-again believer then he cannot have an evil heart. That was derided as bad theology. I then referred the following verses for my support:
Romans 5:5 - “and hope putteth not to shame; because the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost which was given to us.
Ephesians 3:17 - that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.
Galatians 4:6 - “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
I asked, what about those verses? How is it that God’s love and the Spirit of His Son has been sent forth into our hearts and our hearts be “dark and black and awful?” No comments. I guess the “great” Calvinism preachers must have been busy and no one had their decoder ring on.
Hi Peter,
The Spirit does dwell in the believer, but I am curious as to what you do with the following from Romans? Especially verse 25?
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. David
David, thank you for the comment.
While a short comment section isn’t really the forum to discuss your question in detail, let me offer this. In Romans 7:5, Paul states, “For when we were in the flesh …” He then goes into argument about a man’s life lived under the law. In Romans 8:1, he presents the New Covenant and the reborn state of the Christian by declaring, “Now there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” (The KJV extrapolates the rest of the verse which it shouldn’t have done.). In verse 9 he distinguishes the Christian in that “[he] is not in the flesh” which contrasts with his argument shown in 7:5, et seq. In short, unlike Tim Challies’s statement that the Christian heart is “black and dark and awful,” it is renewed and filled with the Spirit of Christ and the love of God. Our bodies, however, remain unredeemed, see Romans 7:23 (sin in our members), and as Christians we are required to keep the body under (its appetites and its lusts). See I Cor. 9:27. This gives us some insight, in a general way, to a Christian’s statements that he committed acts that went against his beliefs.
I hope this somewhat answers your question. I have done a few blogs on what the Word describes as the spiritual body and on the soul. I have plans to do a few on the Christian’s physical body, but I haven’t gotten to it yet.
Hi Peter and thanks for the reply. I guess my perspective is a little different. Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” Also, we know that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45).
And yet a Christian, being a new creature in Christ, still has to deal with the garbage that sometimes comes out of his/her mouth and the sinful actions that he sometimes does. I guess you are saying that these things spring from the corrupted physical body and not the heart, but I don’t see how an evil desire or a corrupt word can spring from anywhere besides the core - which is the “heart”.
I think the condemnation we are freed from as shown in 8:1 happens because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. A covering of righteousness, if you will. Christ’s perfection covers our sins. We are new creatures - but not yet perfect. But while we are new creatures, with new hearts given by Christ’s work on the cross, we still have to battle the old sinful nature. But we now have help from the spirit to conquer over sin and follow the spirit rather than the flesh - as he goes into in chapter 8.
Anyway, I won’t hijack your thread here, but thanks for the reply. David
David, I welcome the comments. The purpose of the blog is to expound on the Word and I want to know if and when I have missed something.
With regard to your post, you quote from Jeremiah and also Luke for the state of the heart. While the Bible includes Luke as a gospel of the New Testament, it includes Jesus’s earthly ministry under the Old Covenant and events before the resurrection. Things changed. Under the Old Covenant, men were not born again, but expectantly waited for the promise. (see Hebrews 11:39). The resurrection (which I intend to explore beginning Monday) made the way for New Testament believers to receive the promise. We see that in Hebrews 10:16 (and lots of other Epistle verses) where God says that He will put His laws in our hearts.
One mistake that people make is to mix and match the Old and New Testaments. Usually, what people call dispensationalism is discussed only in terms of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost or the end-times. There are many verses in the Old Testament that speak of the evil heart of man, but because those verses are there does not mean that they are necessarily applicable to New Testament believers.
Hi again. I guess all I will say Peter is that I would be very careful trying to make such a bold dividing line between the Old and New Testaments. The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:16 “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”
I understand that we are under a new covenant in Christ, but we can hardly understand that without also understanding the old covenant. We can understand that God demanded blood sacrifice as a covering for sin. We can understand better the nature of God, etc.
I guess I’m just saying that they beautifully complement one another and I see no reason or any Biblical injunction to view the Bible otherwise. I’ll read what you have to say about it when you post in detail.
David, I refer you to Hebrews 8:7 which states, “For if that the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second,” and Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
Paul makes such a bold dividing line between the Old and New Covenants, so much so that he calls those outside of the Body of Christ “dogs.” See Philippians. While the Old Testament stands to us as “examples and types” as declared by Paul in Hebrews, we are not under the Old Covenant. Consequently, it is error not to differentiate between those who were looking to the promise and those to whom the promise has been fulfilled.
We know from I Thess. that man consists of Spirit, Soul, and Body… Paul states that we should follow the spirit rather than follow the body … the question here is who makes that decision?… if it were the body we would follow the body if it were the spirit we would follow the spirit… so what is left is the soul… the soul chooses which we choose to follow after…
you see that in Rom 7 passage quoted above… I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God, yet with my flesh, I serve the law of sin… so the I in this verse is the spirit (you can see that also in the verses above)…
Now to the question David brought up… I don’t believe you can put a one-to-one correspondance with the heart and the spirit (from the Luke passage)… I think it is both the soul and spirit make up the heart… or that heart is a general term that can mean one at one time, another at another time, or both at some time… general meaning: the thing(s) that are inside of you… we know from I John that anyone born from God [our spirits] does not sin… so what he is talking about must come out of the soul… I see no contridiction here…