Click here to read David Van Biema’s Time article.
Here is an introductory excerpt:
Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin’s 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism’s buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism’s latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination’s logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time’s dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation’s other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by “glorifying” him.
I have trouble with this, as I do with all classifications. John Calvin did the best he could in interpretation of the scriptures that were the basis for churches before him. Was Calvin referred to as Paulists or Simonist? And in 400-500 years will they be debating “The New Piperism”? It is a lot of fluff that to many people hold too much stock in. And I hate to say this, and Kevin I’m not necessarily calling you out here, but the primary people group I hear this stuff pushed from are seminary students.
Your personal relationship with Christ should be just that, personal. When you start categorizing and labeling you doctrinal beliefs, you too easily run the risk of falling into the collective definitions that follow those labels. To elaborate, Christ and Biblical teaching should come out of thoughtful study. If I start saying that I agree with what I’ve heard from John Piper, it’s too easy to take everything you hear from that point on as true. Without true thoughtful study.
Thoughtful study should include all thoughts: Calvin, Arminian, or any other Biblicaly base study, in order to truly believe what you believe. And to talk about the power the New Calvinism movement is making, is to belittle the great work other Evangelical Christians are doing everywhere in the world. (If I may use a label to simply separate from some overtly legalistic groups that in fact are hurting the gospel…)
It’s not that I don’t like the “New Calvinism” movement, but John Calvin didn’t get it all correct. Piper, Driscoll, or even my own pastor cannot get it right 100% of the time and things like this only help to divide a Church in desperate need of unity.
It’s just my opinion, and I don’t mean to offend anyone. Would just like people to be careful before they accept such labeling as it is. Even Mohler steps on the subject with caution. Hope all is well, Kev. Call me if you are in Dallas. God Bless, Trae.
Trae:
Thanks for saying that. I will reply to your comment with a couple of things that I have observed over the past couple of years. I think you will agree that the majority of evangelicals are biblically illiterate. They typically identify far better with whatever is popping out in culture than identifying with the Christ of the cross. So, and hopefully this is a careful response, I would redirect what you are saying in order to add to why Calvinism is a refreshing thing in evangelical Christianity, and why I think that, though you are right about Calvin, Piper, and Driscoll, they would never militantly say that they are the only ones, nor are they always, right.
So first, I would say that Calvinism is good for evangelical Christianity today because it makes a big deal about God and about the Bible. Biema said that pretty well in the Time article, I think. Plus, Calvinism is careful about theology. I especially think this is good for evangelicals because, at some stage, error is error, and truth is truth. I do think the term Calvinism may not be all that helpful, but that is not really what I am talking about when I say that Calvinism is good for evangelicals.
John Calvin is a giant in Church history, but like you said, he did not get everything right. And really, few Calvinists today are really Calvinists in the sense that Calvin was a Calvinist. I imagine Calvin would have hated the label, especially today. But I will say that Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, was a man God greatly used to reform His Church. Piper and Driscoll, as much as I like them, are also just men who love God in a long line of godly men.
Yet Calvinism is big today because I think younger evangelicals yearn for bigger theology and a bigger God. The life of evangelical Christianity today, as Biema observed, is not really in what guys like Rick Warren are saying, but it is in what guys like John Piper are saying, because the young, restless, and reformed want something bigger and higher and deeper than evangelical-lite.
Calvinism is not the gospel, and no Calvinist, hopefully, says something like that. Calvinism does matter though. It cogently explains things that relate to the gospel. I began to wrestle with Calvinism four years ago at SEBTS. I bought a New Inductive Study Bible halfway through the semester and began with Romans. Working verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter through the text, the pages began to fill with color and notes.
Like many of my friends, Bible study shaped my theology—a very Baptist, Calvinistic, evangelical, big God theology wrapped in the Bible. I could hardly keep it to myself. Calvin says, “Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty.” Calvinism takes sin very seriously. I say then, a Scriptural view of sin—the awareness of one’s lowly state—changes things. I could hardly keep the gospel to myself!
To reply to a couple of your observations, first, I would say that I do not wear Calvinism on my sleeve. Really, unless I know who I am talking to pretty well, I rarely discuss Calvinism as Calvinism. Instead I talk about things that I think jump out from the pages of Scripture, especially things that relate to the gospel. If one really wants to know if I am a Calvinist, I want to know what they mean by the label before I say yes.
Secondly, though, I respectfully say that what the Church believes is not an individualistic thing. Calvinism is deeply passionate for the purity of “the faith that was delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). So, in reality, every Calvinist—at least every good Calvinist—will not be one who will preach Calvin, but one who will preach the Word. And I would add, one who is willing to cooperate with other Christians rather than dividing the body of Christ further over second-order things.
I could probably write a lot more, but hopefully that at least shows why I think Calvinism is good for evangelicalism, especially for an evangelicalism that has dumbed down theology for way too long. I really appreciate your comment, and believe that every Calvinist, Arminian, Amyraldian, Baptist, or whatever, should always keep what you are saying close to heart.
I don’t know when I’ll be in Dallas again, but it could be fairly soon. My parents moved to Houston a few weeks ago, so maybe a trip home or two will go through Dallas to get there.
KS
KS: I don’t think Calvinism is back, I don’t think it ever left. It seems it’s back because of the internet, we can have access to more information than ever before. It’s also not new. It’s the same way Christians should do and have done. Take what they see in scripture and place it within their doctrine. No one is going to agree with Calvin 100%, there were many who did not agree with Calvin or Augustine 100%, even in their own time period.
I do believe Calvinism to be the gospel. By that I do not mean that it is inerrant or superior with the Bible. But it does include the gospel in it’s presentation. I believe Calvinism gives a God view of what occurs in our salvation and in our sanctification. I know that offends, but it should not offend anymore than those who are not Calvinists saying the off handed things they say concerning their beliefs and mischaracterizations of Calvinism. I’m not going to shy away from saying that Calvinism is the gospel and I think Charles Spurgeon’s sermon on this is relevant today.
Debbie:
Calvinism is resurging in Christian evangelical circles. That is really what Biema is saying. No Calvinist thinks that it ever left the American evangelical scene. So that is not what the label New Calvinism is saying either.
I don’t like the label New Calvinism because Calvinism is not new. But I think that it is fair to say that the Calvinistic flavor is different today than it was 400 years ago just as Edwardsian Calvinism is not exactly the Calvinism of Owen, etc. That is a bit too general for today’s Calvinistic flavor that is resurging in evangelical churches but I do think that is a helpful first step to grasping what is going on. Besides one can be sure that the resurgence of Calvinism in Southern Baptist churches is not exactly the same as in other evangelical churches.
I need to answer your comment that Calvinism is the gospel. I am going to do it by posting two major quotes here and then by delineating exactly what I mean when I say that Calvinism is not the gospel. To begin, I really think this is important for Calvinists to bear in mind: I say that Calvinism is not the gospel in a similar way as I say that Jesus is not a Calvinist.
For the quotes:
C.H. Spurgeon said, “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor” (A Defense of Calvinism).
Graeme Goldsworthy wrote, “The gospel is what we must believe in order to be saved. To believe the gospel is to put one’s trust and confidence in the person and work of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. To preach the gospel is faithfully to proclaim that historical event, along with the God-given interpretation of that event.
It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruits of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel.
If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel” (Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 59).
I agree with Goldsworthy and Spurgeon. Yet I still differ with Spurgeon if Spurgeon indeed differs with what Goldsworthy is saying. Calvinism goes hand in hand with the gospel, but Calvinism itself is not technically the gospel. And I actually think your reading of Spurgeon misses something, for Spurgeon says in that very sermon, just above the previous Spurgeon quote, “If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, ‘He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.’ I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this.” That is how I agree with both Spurgeon and Goldsworthy.
To say that Calvinism is the gospel is a bit brash today. I said earlier that it is similar to saying that Jesus is a Calvinist. That is certainly anachronistic to begin with, but I also think it is very unhelpful to Calvinism. I said earlier, again, that Calvinism is good for evangelical Christianity, and it is so precisely because it is a pure expression of sin, grace, and election, which go hand in hand with the gospel. So I think Calvinism is very good for the purity of the gospel, but I stop short of saying that Calvinism is the gospel. It is not, and neither does one have to be a Calvinist in order to believe the gospel and be saved. I think that kind of thinking is much more helpful.
I may work on organizing this comment and the one I made above into future posts if the Lord permits. Thanks for your comment, Debbie.
KS
PS: Cf. Packer, “Calvinism is one of the ‘odious names’ by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel” (from “Saved by the Precious Blood of Christ” in A Quest for Godliness, 134). Packer says this after 6 pages of defining Calvinism, just as Spurgeon says that Calvinism is the gospel in a bigger context. Taken out of context, both observations may be easily confused. That is partly why I hesitate to say that Calvinism is the gospel.
Check out these two interesting articles:
(1) “Why the Time Magazine Trumpeting of New Calvinism is a Bad Thing” by Thabiti Anyabwile
(2) “Calvinist Comeback?” by Time Magazine, Feb. 24, 1947. 1947!
HT: JT
KS: I will read the articles. I agree with you in that one does not have to believe Calvinism in order to come to salvation. Spurgeon would agree with you too. Dwight Moody preached a few times in Spurgeon’s church, and Spurgeon crossed the waters to preach at Moody’s church. Then there is Jonathan Edwards and Charles Wesley’s friendship. I don’t want to write a post here, so I won’t go into what I disagree with, but there are a few things in your last comment that I think most if not all Calvinists would disagree with. I know of none who would not agree with this particular point however. There is only one way to heaven, and it’s not by believing or not believing Calvinism.
Sorry. That should read John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards friendship.
Someone also corrected me in that it was Thomas Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon’s son who preached in Dwight Moody’s church. I think that’s all the mistakes. Who knows? Thank you for allowing me to state my views here.
Debbie:
Thanks for coming back. I would be interested in what you think most Calvinists would disagree with in my last comment. I really only said a few things outside of the two quotes, and I can’t think of what my close Calvinist friends would disagree with. You don’t have to write an article or anything like that, but I’d like to know what they are!
I’d like to know what you mean when you say that Calvinism is the gospel. If you post an article on your blog just let me know. I just think that it comes across as brash and arrogant, especially to Christians who differ with parts of Calvinism.
I say that as a Calvinist.
Drew, Tyler:
Anything you disagree with? I don’t necessarily mind disagreeing in a few places with Calvinists, but hey, since I am one, I hope to strike a chord more often than not!
I imagine there might be a little more to disagree with in my first comment than my second, because my first one was a little more open. Anyway.
Thanks for your response, Kev. I believe (and I’ll admit my being mistaken if I am) that Debbie’s comment legitimizes my statement. I mean no offense to you Debbie, please, but when you start equating Calvinism to intellectual study of scripture (Calvinism = gospel) you are in danger of following an incorrect teaching. You are more so in danger of not seeing what God has for you because you are viewing the gospel through Calvinistic goggles. (Eph. 1:23, is the only example that comes to mind right now.)
As I said, labeling can cause one to seek God in the confines of the collective understanding of what that doctrinal belief entails. I see this all too often with seminary students (maybe that’s too broad, maybe it’s just SWBTS or DTS, as they are the big players around here), where the gospel is replaced by the teachings of Calvin.
I believe that you, Kevin, are not a pusher of Calvinism. But too many people are, and this TIME article perpetuates the view. Why isn’t a return of a true, biblicaly based teaching changing the world? TIME presupposes that the teaching of Calvin is changing the world, which is false. Calvinism isn’t the side-note to this world changing movement, it isn’t even seen as the major contributor…Calvinism is the movement. And that’s what bothers me.
Trae:
Thanks for saying that, too. Part of the trouble is just that people often do not say what they are saying clearly enough, or they are saying things publicly that may not be properly taken. So, that is why I really wanted to say what I mean when I say that Calvinism is not the gospel. But, as with my comment to you, Calvinism is not what I brought to the Scriptures, but what Bible study brought me to—i.e. I became convinced of the 5 points of Calvinism while I was studying Romans to see if I could confute them!
The odd thing about the Time article is that it says that Calvinism is one of the 10 things changing the world. I really am not sure what that means. Anyway, at SEBTS, Calvinism is not really a big issue, and I think that is because expository and exegetical Bible study and preaching is what we are all very committed to. My Calvinist friends preach the Bible, not Calvin.
But I am a Calvinist. That is because I believe the 5 points of Calvinism are, in fact, very biblical. Now, that does not mean that I see TULIP exactly the same way as my Calvinist friends. In a few ways, I differ with higher Calvinistic stuff. However, what is refreshing about Calvinism, I think, is that it takes theology very seriously, including the hard texts! That is especially why I think younger evangelicals are excited about the resurgence of Calvinism because it is in direct opposition to the hazy, lite, prosperity-ish, self-esteem teaching that too many evangelical churches, Christian literature, and televangelists are feeding believers.
That is why I agree with Biema saying that the life of evangelicalism is not in the lite (e.g. Rick Warren, Hybels), and I would add, nor the revisionists (e.g. McLaren), nor the liberal. The life of evangelical Christianity is in the very God-centered, Bible-centered churches and schools. What I like about your comment goes back to the very fact that there was a faith delivered once for all to the saints long before Calvin’s birth in 1509. So insofar as Calvin got the Bible right, then that is terrific, but my allegiance lies in Christ and His Word.
Yet Calvin stands out as one who got it right more often than others But like I said, he is just another man in a long line of godly men who would rather us align with the Bible than anything else. Still they help us and inform us! I think that Calvinism does that very well. And that is the only reason why I talk about it and get excited about it, because that means that more people are digging into the Scriptures, and digging deep, because they have a passionate affection for the big God they tell us about.
KS: I will gladly answer your questions when I return home this evening as I am off to work. I do not believe my comment legitimizes Trae’s statement, but I will go further into detail when I am able.
Also you have to remember that Time magazine is a secular magazine and they are simply calling it as they see it. I don’t think that anyone expects Time magazine to be theologically correct. They cannot see things as we see them. The world is not going to use theologically correct words. But it’s interesting that it as gotten Time’s attention, so God is moving…but more on that later also. Thank you for asking for clarification. I hope you understand I didn’t want to take up a lot of space on your blog.
The only concern I would have with the Time article would be that it seems to advocate personality more than the actual spirituality and doctrine of Calvinism. That seems to be more of a function of the sinful human nature that craves personality and celebrity more than sitting still to the inscribed Word of God. The second book of Timothy warns us about this: Many people will no longer put up with sound doctrine, but turn to what their itching ears want to hear.
I admire John Piper, Albert Mohler, and their Alliance of Confessing Evangelical colleagues as men who stand firm to the inscribed Word and preach it faithfully for the spiritual health of their respective congregations and denominations. I think one thing to be careful about with these men – and it’s not a slam in any way – is that they seem to have a desire to have secular culture reflect their ethics or to have secular culture Christianized in their image.
Piper does that with demanding that secular culture get rid of abortion by law. I ordinarily don’t have a problem with shunning abortion, but I don’t think that people necessarily see the values of God from the side of unbelief without regeneration. The Gospel must be impressed on their hearts; what they need is not a mere turnaround in ethics, but a whole new beginning, a new birth. I think if we communicate the Gospel to sinners in culture rather than try to aggressively reform culture to be a Christianly culture, we would do well in our witness of the Gospel.
Only when people know the new birth of Christ for believers, and the visible feature of that new birth in the form of living, Christ-centered faith, will people actually change their minds about abortion, handling the issue in relationship with God. The first book of John points this out in two ways: Everyone who believes in Christ has been born of the Father, and he who loves the Father loves the child born of Him. And everyone who is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world – even faith. I think Piper does a remarkable job impressing the basic Gospel on sinners. But I also think that Piper (being human as a Christian) has real struggles with trying to Christianize culture in unhealthy ways; and I think Bible passages like 1 John correct that struggle.
Or regarding Mohler and his Alliance colleagues, I think they tend to get a bit too harsh at times in demanding that secular culture conform to Christianly thinking, without thinking that the audience they’re addressing doesn’t operate on the same foundation as them. This is seen in Moher’s participation in public debates with neo-atheists, which get ridiculed in the news. Now, I appreciate Mohler and his friends wanting the Gospel to be applied to all of life and culture. I basically agree with that approach – I want Christians to be stewards of the Gospel in politics, art, and the like.
But when the arguments get too aggressive to get people to change their minds witout the presence of the Holy Spirit, I think that aggression tends to show itself in the negative aura that the Time article presented itself, an aura of disdain for the “New Calvinism.” And I think we would really need to get back to this Biblical principle that unbelievers and Christians operate out of two different foundations of thinking for their lives, and that we are to communicate this particular truth to lost outsiers. 2 Corinthians point that out to us: Can Christ have fellowship with Belial? Can light have fellowship with darkeness? We’re not to look to the raising of a blame-free cuture, but rather look to a blame-free God for rest. I think that communicates the Gospel best to lost sinners in our fallen surrounding culture.
Rick:
Perhaps. Yet I imagine the Puritans would beg to differ. Certainly it is the life-changing work of the Spirit via the gospel that changes hearts and minds. However that does not mean that we should stop short of redeeming all things that are injured by sin. That would include reforming culture. Piper and Mohler are doing that for God’s glory and they do not check the gospel out at the door while they are doing it.
So I would just say that probably the better answer is something of both. On the one hand are those whose hearts are hardened and cold to anything and everything that would honor God in this world. Yet on the other hand are those same people who bear the image of God. Just because the image is badly disfigured and broken does not mean that any and all truth that is spoken to them is spoken in vain. God can even use pagans to reform a culture and redeem something that is being abused back to himself.
I do not think we should be pacifists. You are right though: the gospel is what truly changes things. A Christian government official will certainly strive to honor Christ more so than any pagan politician. Anyway. I think that kind of thing honors Scripture and bears in mind that Christ changes things in ways that lobbying for causes so often falls short.
This has been an interesting thread. Sorry to say that I will not be adding anymore to it though. I have a full load of tests next week followed by a project that is due a week from Monday. So thanks guys and gal for all your comments.
Debbie:
Feel free to add your comment whenever. I added a PS to the bottom of my first comment to you about Packer’s introductory essay to Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Sorry if I don’t add any response further to any future comments here.
KS: I’m still trying to find the time, but I will respond. And I do understand if you do not comment further. You have presented your view well. I think I understand it.
Trae: I would bet that you believe that your view is correct Bible teaching or the gospel. But that is not the gospel, and that is not what I mean by Calvinism being the gospel. Calvinism contains the message of the gospel. I believe it to be a true message. I also believe that Calvinism requires a deep study and understanding of the Bible. Intellect is used. It is not what saves a person however, faith in Christ does. Those who disagree with Calvinism are saved. Calvinism teaches that faith in Christ alone brings about salvation. God wooing us through the power of the Holy Spirt. That is the gospel. We are responsible for that choice. That is the gospel. To say what you are saying I believe is to misrepresent the phrase Calvinism is the gospel.
@All
Hey sorry I am so late in getting in on this discussion. I just finished a service project with the youth of my church over our Spring Break and then went to Minneapolis to spend the weekend with family.
I drop off the blogosphere for a week and look what happens an intriguing comment thread on Calvinism!
I don’t have a lot of time so I just want to say a couple things: What worries me about the “New” Calvinist movement and what excites me about it.
1. What worries me: What worries me about the new Calvinist movement is that it is (like most any other movement that involves sinful human beings) too heavily dependent on strong personalities like Piper and Driscoll. If anyone in this “new” movement is following man and not the Lord, they have missed the point and perhaps the gospel. As Piper says, “God is the gospel.” That is why we hold the gospel so dear because it restores us to right fellowship with the beautiful and holy God of the universe. When we make the gospel about us being right over and above anyone else or about following a particular man, then we have missed it. I don’t think has happened with the New Calvinists but where it has happened that is not of the Lord.
2. What excites me: What excites me is what excited me the first time I read a Piper book. The first time I read a Piper book was a time in my life in which I too was wrestling through Romans and what Piper said about God’s massive soveriegnty and holiness matched in many ways with what I was wrestling with in the Bible. So when Piper talked about salvation being a work of the Lord and about missions existing because worship doesn’t, it struck chord with me and really helped me to seek the Lord.
That is what I pray the New Calvinist movement is doing more than anything else–I pray it is moving people to seek the Lord, to dig deep into the Scriptures, to let theology scare them and then to find deep, lasting, satisfying, life-shattering joy in the LORD!
I think that is happening. As someone who must admit to being a part of this “New” movement, I think I can say that that has happened and is happening to me as we speak. My introduction to Calvinism has moved me to seek the Lord more fervently. If our Calvinism is causing us to seek Calvinism more fervently, then we have missed the boat. But for many, Calvinism has been a great catalyst in helping them seek God’s face–for that I rejoice and pray that theological revival would come more and more!
I want to say one more thing and this is sort of aimed at some of the things that Trae has said (whose comments I by-and-large agree with).
What I want to say is this: None of us can completely divorce our reading of the Bible from the influences around us. There is no such thing as a human being who has a completely Biblical theology completely uninformed by anything else. Even if someone is not reading other theologians they are influenced by other’s thoughts, comments, and ideas expressed through culture, media, personal conversations etc. Futhermore, there is never a moment while in this fallen world, when our own sin nature will not affect our conclusions (that may sound frightening, but all the more reason to ask the Spirit’s help in Bible study!). While we search for a thoroughly Biblical theology, we will never get there till Christ returns or calls us home. So in the meantime, why wouldn’t we seek to discerningly benefit from those on the same journey as we are who are attempting to seek God’s face in the Bible? It would seem that we are all bad stewards of the resources before us if we are not willing to benefit from those in church history who have sought to teach sound doctrine. Again, I whole-heartedly agree that if those we are reading are causing us to seek man rather than God we have missed the boat! However, in my short experience, reading Piper, Tozer, Calvin, and Edwards have moved me not to seek man but to be awed at who God is and seek Him more fervently in the Bible!
I hope that helps, as I have time I will give my two cents on Spurgeon’s comments on Calvinism and the gospel.
When I said that I hope that renewed interest in Calvinism is moving people “to let theology scare them,” I probably chose a poor word when I chose the word “scare.”
What I meant was that we shouldn’t be surprised when God troubles us to some degree. His meticulous sovereignty as the Bible presents it, troubled me greatly when I was reading through Romans some 6 years ago, but I soon realized that my problem wasn’t with God but with myself. I wanted to be captain of my own soul and the thought of God being so meticulously sovereign consequently revealed that I am really small, which cut deeply against my flesh!
Studying theology is always a process of learning to accept God’s enormity and our smallness in comparison. Such a process, however, leads to more satisfying joy and a more eternally purposeful life!
Drew:
You get at the heart of things. God is enormous and theology is no small thing. That is probably the biggest plus of Calvinism. Besides just about every man needs a bigger theology. They need one that will shake their very foundation!
Psalm 97:1-5: “The Lord reigns, let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries all around. His lightnings light up the world; the earth sees and trembles. The mountains melt like wax before the Lord, before the Lord of all the earth. The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all peoples see his glory.”
Thanks guys for so many comments. I certainly think that Calvinism is a good thing for evangelical America that has suckled lite theology for too long. But I say along with Drew: Calvinism is not meant for followers of Piper and others. They are just men. Usually they are godly men and I happily admit that I have read a bunch of Piper stuff. But I am pretty sure Piper would get really mad if any one of the so-called New Calvinists were only in it for Piper.
Trae:
Thanks for checking the Calvinistic fervor. I agree: Calvinism must not be about a fad but about what the Scriptures say. Certainly there may be abuses of the Scriptures by a few Calvinists along with a few angry Calvinists. But the heartbeat of most Calvinists is the gospel of our Lord Jesus and the big God of all who gave us the Word of God. That is what Calvinism should be all about.
Later guys. Off to study for a theology exam!
KS