The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Making Friends with Calvinists

Evangelical Universalism
#21

I think this is true but not completely true. If a persons beliefs actually do entail the sincere belief that they are here to give no ground against rebels against a sovereign Lord, to not even listen to the other because they do not share the same presuppositions - that makes friendship difficult (nulls the belief is purely notional - a form of words that does not touch the person in their heart). IF a sectarian Calvinists goes to the extremes of Rushdooney, for example, in developing this stance again - unless the belief is notional - it’s going to make friendship almost impossible. I think we need to respond to other people as we find them and be realise that God’s children are everywhere and each person is a child of God in the making. However, sectarian Calvinism taken to a an extreme can easily become an ideology that promotes division and even hatred (as it did in South Africa, and as it does when sectarian Calvinists divide in acrimony over smaller and smaller points of doctrine perhaps splitting up families and friends who never speak again)

Hi Kate - Billy Graham is an interesting old fruit. Of course he’s not a Calvinist but he still believes in hell (but probably these days more along the lines of hell being our rejection of God rather than God needing to torment those who reject him). He was a hard nut in his youth - and he was still a bit of a hard nut when I saw him preach in 1973 (and I was very, very young!!!). However, he has always been open to other Christians who do not share his views and has become increasingly open to them as he has got older (and has often been hardly criticised by other Conservative Evangelicals in the USA for this ). So it is openness and love - or the absence of it - which should guide our discernment of those we disagree with IMHO

#22

Again, I make a late entry - and to this comment I wanted to offer a hearty affirmation: do read “Crazy for God” by Frank Schaeffer. And watch this lecture if you have the time: “My Journey Out of the Religious Right”.

I sympathize/empathize with the sentiment expressed in the original post. I have a harder time with Calvinists who believe in ECT than Arminians who do. I feel that with the Arminians, it’s a lack of faith in the power of God. But Calvinists make God into a monster, in my opinion. But there’s a quote of George MacDonald’s I read that gave me perspective on this - I can’t find it now, and maybe someone can remind me which one it is. :blush: But basically, MacDonald says that sometimes people state that they believe one thing, but then show by their actions that they do not believe this thing. So when Calvinists declare a belief in what I like to call “monster God”, but then live in a way that shows kindness, I try to remember this principle.

#23

Yay :smiley:

#24

It’s somewhat ironic that with the illogical and unBiblical nature of hardcore Calvinism, which makes it quite easy to refute, gets our goat more than the Arminian arguments, which are often more subtle and sly…with nice-sounding bits about God “respecting our free will” (which is undoubtedly partially true at least). Most Christians i meet are of this sort, if they know the label or not, and it really is, to them at least, a waterproof case against Universalism.

i personally find the Arminian arguments far more difficult to refute than the Calvinist ones.

But then, the fact they teach about a God of (mostly) love does at least make them somewhat easier to live with…but should it?

#25

There is difficult truth here IMHO -

If people in a god whose love is limited in whatever form but act lovingly to outsiders then they are imitating something truer than their avowed picture of God

If people who believe in a God of all embracing love in whatever form act with wanton and persistent hate or hard heatedness then they are imitating something that does not match up to their avowed picture of God.

When sectarian Calvinism is taken to extremes it’s ideology of oppositions and separation if going to be a stumbling block against human solidarity in our God of love - so I feel fine to want to argue with extreme sectarian Calvinists if they start talking and behaving in a sectarian manner (but I hope never to insult them again :blush: ).

#26

i may be playing the Devil’s Advocate here, but…Jesus wasn’t too shy about insulting the legalists of His day that put others in bondage…
there’s a difference i think between tolerating people and tolerating horrible beliefs. but as we are not Jesus, it may be that we are not called on to cleanse temples anytime soon, either…if i did, i’d seriously question why i felt i had the right to, when i’d calmed down.

#27

Point taken James - I once read an extreme Armenian site which had a ten page diatribe against all Calvinism - particularly for saying that God had created some people purely for the pleasure of damming them (and cruder forms of Calvinism can tend in this direction) Anyway what is God going to do to all Calvinist - each and every one - for uttering such blasphemies, Why of course he is going to burn them all in hell for eternity :confused:

P.S. The problem with sectarian Calvinism is not only the eschatology - it’s also the tendency to want to set up a theocracy now. We have a right to challenge theocratic thinking - every right.

#28

Yes, that’s not a particularly loving attitude, either…
Arminians i’m sure can be just as unpleasant, though i suspect they take a more subtle and insidious and “nice-sounding” route…maybe a bit like Rob Bell, who i still haven’t read. My understanding (pending actually reading Love Wins) is that “Love Wins” by giving the loved one what it wants…the right to choose to walk off into the darkness forever :open_mouth:
which to me doesn’t sound like Love at all!!! but that kind of thinking is insidious, and “sounds right” at least superficially, if you’ve not come around to seeing God’s salvation literally being offered to all.

i don’t have much choice here, though. most of my friends are this form of Arminian, to one degree or another…and they are loving people that show more of the fruits of the Spirit then i could ever dream of doing. their theology, like the kind Calvinists, doesn’t totally match their real hearts.

i don’t think i’d be wrong to say that MOST Christians, regardless where they fall on the spectrum are at least decent people. There are nasty types, but probably not as many as we choose to think. Also, there may be a similar danger in saying one can’t be a good person AND a “good Calvinist” (sorry WAAB, not trying to be harsh here) to saying one can’t be a good person and a good Muslim :open_mouth:
clearly it depends on what you yourself bring to the table how your chosen theology will play out…if you will follow the bits that confirm your desire to do good…or if you’ll follow the bits that justify your need to feed your ego and bully others. Clearly, we get those types of people in ALL belief groups

#29

But I’ll bet you’d oppose theocracy James? :slight_smile:

#30

Well said.

#31

Sorry, Dick, yes of course i do!!! forgot to say that bit.
Theocracy = all bad (God doesn’t really get a say in this system)
God actually being All in All and ruling in His own way = all good

#32

Glad to hear it - I kind of suspected you did :laughing: :laughing: (and I think you know well how Calvinism taken to extremes can lead to theocracy or theocratic ambitions - unlike Armenianism which is more likely to merely lead to people just having some rather ungracious beliefs when taken to extremes). I’ve gotta go out now - but if anyone wants me to explain my assertion without the jargon (what does he mean by theocracy!!!? :imp:) I will be happy to do so. :slight_smile:

#33

Unless someone else wants to explain it to me first :laughing: I think Geoff might have some ideas :slight_smile:

#34

I have less bitterness toward Arminianism, because it has caused me less personal grief than Calvinism – although not by much. I would often waver between the Arminian fear of losing my own salvation, to embracing the Calvinist idea of eternal security,to agonizing over why a Calvinist god would send so many to hell, to going back to Arminianism and then fearing once again that I had lost my own salvation. Quite the vicious cycle.

I think it’s important to note that most Christians have never heard of universal reconciliation. If they have, it’s only in the concept of it as a cultish false teaching. They feel trapped, as I once did, between Calvinist and Arminian doctrine – which are seemingly the only options for a “good” Christian. And from my experience, neither of those doctrines make one feel very “good.” I’d venture to say that a majority of Christians – although they are perhaps scared to confess it – believe in *some *type of postmortem or death-bed salvation. I believe Rob Bell mentioned something along these lines, arguing that if people *really *believed in eternal hell, there would be much more evangelizing and even violent actions to get unbelievers to accept Christ before they die.

I haven’t the slightly idea where to find this MacDonald quote, but I just wanted to mention that I think this is very true – even for the most seemingly staunch Calvinists who nonetheless show great kindness. I think the greater problem is that oftentimes, as Dick mentioned, hard hearts mesh well with harsh doctrine. Individuals who revel in the idea of ECT are much more to be feared than those poor hearts who espouse the belief because they have no other options.

So you were just a bit older than me when you first saw Billy? (Ack – I really am the baby of this bunch, aren’t I? :laughing:) Yes, he has softened greatly over his career. In my opinion, he writes much gentler than he speaks. He preaches like an old southern revivalist, but when I read his works, I feel like I’m having a conversation with a wise and loving grandpa.

Although I know dear Billy is far from a proponent of universalism, I still love the old YouTube clip, where he affirms there is a wideness in God’s mercy that so many Christians do not recognize.

I’m sure most hear have seen this before, but I’ll include it anyway.:slight_smile:

youtube.com/watch?v=drt5VPfnnms

I was going to ask you this question (minus the angry face :laughing: ), but you beat me to it. How is theocracy a purely Calvinist notion? Very interesting – and a viewpoint I haven’t heard before. (I tend to ignore the idea of theocracy as something from long-ago, at least for us in Europe and the States.)

:slight_smile: Kate

#35

Dick,

To be fair to Calvinists, I want to point out that theonomy is a minority position among the Reformed/Calvinists, nor does being a theonimist imply that one is a Calvinist.

Also, the American Revision of the Westminster Standards (1788) is much more tolerant of the separation of Church and State than was the original document produced a century earlier by Scottish Establishmentarians.

It is true that Reformed Covenant Theology possibly “can lead to” theonomy (or any other establishmentarian idea), but I’m sure you’d agree that that is not necessarily the case.

#36

Are you asking for an explanation of theocracy, or an explanation of why a believer in UR would have an easier time getting along with an Arminian who does not believe in UR as opposed to a Calvinist who does not?

On theocracy - I think the question is an interesting one, because if we’re really, truly honest, I think every single one of us would have to admit at some point that they want a theocracy, in the sense that we want a system where the rule of our god (whether that be a little “g” or big “G”) is represented. Atheists would try to duck out of the question by saying they don’t believe in any god, but everyone has some form of law that is absolute. The reason we find the word “theocracy” to be so distasteful is because for too many of us, this has come to represent a very strict, legalistic form of government which would draw heavily from Old Testament law and have harsh consequences for those who disobeyed it, I think. But when I admit that at some level, I am wishing for a theocracy, I must stress that I do not mean the same things, as I stress very heavily the love of God. To define exactly how a proper theocracy would play out is admittedly very difficult for me, and is a struggle that results in me changing and tweaking my political views of how it would work out almost daily (note: tweaking, not completely starting over). I try to think of how the principles that Jesus taught would work out on a large scale. I try to think of how a system of law based on I Cor. 13 would work out - which is very, very tricky, as there is that little clause “love does not demand its own way” - how do you put that one into play? Yikes, it’s hard! I think more along the lines of God’s passive justice than His active justice - I think God allows us to have our way and this leads to pain, and this pain can be redemptive in that we will wake up to our own foolishness. But then, I struggle with making sense of how a system of justice that was based on principles like this would work out in cases such as murder - clearly these things cannot be allowed, but how would we punish those who commit these acts in a way that shows love towards the one who committed them? And at the same time, I recognize the horrible complexity of life in that I know that heinous acts are not born out of a vacuum - those who hurt have themselves been hurt at some point. And so I wish to have an attitude of mercy towards all that recognizes this. It is terribly difficult to work all of this out, I will admit!

#37

I can’t reply immediately - just to say I do not wish to be unfair. I’ll clarify later (and have taken on board what has been said)

#38

OK :slight_smile: –

Theocracy means the ordering and rule of society by a group of men (and usually men by gender) in power as if they were implementing the rule of God.

Theonomy refers to the idea that we know exactly what the laws of God are that need to be implemented. It is associated with Rushdooney and North’s extremist and minority movement within sectarian TULIP Calvinism mainly in the USA (there is only one pastor on the whole of the UK who is a Rushdooney enthusiast). The theomomist programme includes restoration of the death penalty for murder, adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft (which is an open category) and blasphemy (which could simply mean dissent from extreme Calvinism); the restoration of slavery; and the introduction of limited democracy only for the elect and the disenfranchisement of everyone else.

The idea that the elect should rule in the name of God and restore OT law goes back to Calvin. It was part of the Scottish constitution set out by John Knox who was a confidant and close follower of Calvin.

The watering down of original Calvinism- especially in America – was due to it being influenced and modified by very different traditions including the thinking of people like Roger Williams who insisted on the separation of Church and state and that we live in the time of the Wheat and Tares and not in the time of God’s clear rule. In this time truth and error should be allowed to grow up together – it is not for us to separate the two. We must build and maintain a society in which we recognise that different points of view must be respected and in which tyranny of one gourd over another should be held in check at all points – through due process an strong institutions, good law, freedom of the press, academic freedoms, freedom of information etc. Tyranny includes the tyranny of the godly over the ungodly – for when the godly become tyrants they become ungodly to the power of ten. I such a society Christians should act as leaven in the dough.

All of us must strive to be leaven in the dough in an imperfect world that we cannot perfect (but we can do our best to make the best of it). Utopianism from any side – from the theonimists, or from the Marxists, the utopian Anarchists etc will lead to atrocity in cleansing violence.
Whoever we are – let us hold on to the vision of the time of Wheat and Tares until our Lord comes.

Blessings

Dick

#39

Is there a word for desiring to implement a governmental system that builds on the example of love that Jesus taught? That’s what I want.

#40

Theonomy refers to the idea that we know exactly what the laws of God are that need to be implemented. It is associated with Rushdooney and North’s extremist and minority movement within sectarian TULIP Calvinism mainly in the USA (there is only one pastor on the whole of the UK who is a Rushdooney enthusiast). The theomomist programme includes restoration of the death penalty for murder, adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft (which is an open category) and blasphemy (which could simply mean dissent from extreme Calvinism); the restoration of slavery; and the introduction of limited democracy only for the elect and the disenfranchisement of everyone else.

:open_mouth:

Wow. I’ve never heard of Rushdooney or North before. I’m glad they’re a minority movement, or else we’d have some real trouble. Real, real trouble.

And we universalists would probably be the first sentenced for witchcraft! :confused: