Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  

How To Offend a Room Full of Calvinists

Recommended Posts


Tim Challies


Do you want to know how to make a Calvinist angry? Do you want to know how to offend a whole room full of them? Just bring up the old line about Reformed theology being incompatible with evangelism. We have all heard it, we have all read it, we have all rejected it.


It’s the word on the street, though, that Calvinists make poor evangelists. Many people are firmly convinced that there is a deep-rooted flaw embedded within Reformed theology that undermines evangelistic fervor. Most blame it on predestination. After all, if God has already chosen who will be saved, it negates at least some of our personal responsibility in calling people to respond to the gospel. Or perhaps it’s just the theological-mindedness that ties us down in petty disputes and nuanced distinctions instead of freeing us to get up, get out, and get on mission.


We like to answer this charge with facts. We go to the Bible to show that the sovereignty of God is not the snuff that extinguishes the ember of evangelistic fervor, but the spark that causes it to burst into flame. We go to the pages of Scripture to show that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are not incompatible, but that people truly are both free and bound, that God both chooses some while extending the free offer of the gospel to all. We go to history to show that the great missionaries, great preachers, and great revivalists of days past were Calvinists, and that Reformed theology was what fueled their mission.


Those are good and valid responses. But, to quote the Bard, perhaps the lady doth protest too much. The Bible and history answer the charge. But do our lives? Do our churches?


When I look at myself, I have trouble finding a clear line extending from my Reformed theology to evangelistic zeal. I can easily draw a line from my Reformed theology to my beliefs about evangelistic zeal, and I can go to history and look to other men and women to draw a line from their beliefs about Reformed theology to evangelistic zeal.


But in moments of honesty, I have to own it: My life does not consistently display it. Too often I am the cliché. I have got the theory. I have got the facts. I have got the history. But I don’t have the zeal. Not often, anyway. Not often enough.


There are only so many times I can point to Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, or William Carey and the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, or Charles Spurgeon and the countless thousands saved under his ministry. Sooner or later I have to stop looking at my heroes and look to myself. I can’t claim their zeal as my own. I can’t claim their obedience as my own.


It is my conviction—conviction rooted in close study of God’s Word—that Calvinism provides a soul-stirring motivation for evangelism, and that sharing the gospel freely and with great zeal is the most natural application of biblical truth. But it is my confession—confession rooted in the evidence of my own life—that my Calvinism too rarely stirs my soul to mission. The truths that have roared in the hearts and lives of so many others, somehow just whisper in me. The fault, I’m convinced, is not with God’s Word, or even with my understanding of God’s Word; the fault is with me.

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Do Calvinists Believe Myths That Justify Domestic Violence?

      The Story: A new study says Calvinists are prone to believe “myths” that may lead them to justify domestic violence. But is their evidence to support this claim? The Background:  Psychologist Steven Sandage, a professor of psychology of religion and theology at Boston University, recently published a study in the Journal of Psychology and Spirituality which implies that Calvinism sometimes justifies or rationalizes violence against women. In an interview with BU Today, Sandage summarizes his research by saying,“Many Christian theologies emphasize the possibility of finding meaning in suffering, but the New Calvinism seems to promote a rather stoic and un-empathic attitude that valorizes suffering, particularly among women. . . Calvinist beliefs were related to higher levels of domestic violence myth acceptance and lower levels of social justice commitment.” In the Calvinist view, “God causes all things, including hierarchical social structures and all suffering,” says Sandage. “Domination by the powerful,” be it God or men, “is just and appropriate, and submission to suffering by the less powerful is virtuous and redemptive.” Sandage is quick to add that not all Calvinists endorse domestic violence myths: “There are many contemporary Calvinists who hold progressive views of gender and other social issues. But our research does offer some data suggesting the ‘New Calvinism’ that combines Calvinistic beliefs and very conservative, binary views of gender may be a kind of theological risk factor for the acceptance of domestic violence myths and other socially regressive attitudes.” The BU Today article also notes that, “Scot McKnight, a professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Illinois, lauds Sandage’s research for drawing ‘accurate and helpful correlations that ought to awaken more theologians and pastors to the implications’ of their theology. What It Means: When I first heard about (and read) the study, I didn’t give it much thought. It’s the type of social science research that uses biased assumptions and flawed “tools” to generate unsupportable conclusions that can clear the low threshold necessary for publication in a middle-tier academic journal. In the publish-or-perish world of academia, this type of low quality, never-to-be-replicated work is often the norm. But then I saw that some well-meaning people, such as the respected scholars Scot McKnight, were citing favorably. I’m not sure if those, like McKnight, who agree with the study are also embracing radical feminist theory, whether they didn’t read the study all that closely, or whether they don’t understand the theory behind the claims. For whatever reason, I figured that if reasonable Christians were falling for the spurious conclusions of the study then it might be worth addressing in detail. As you might imagine, someone who think Calvinists believe “domination by the powerful . . . is just and appropriate” is not likely to be a reliable guide to Calvinistic beliefs. Initially, though, I assumed Sandage and his team were simply afflicted with a virulent case of anti-Calvinism. But it turns out that it’s not so much theological beliefs as an embrace of radical feminist theory that is the driving impetus of the study. The study itself is rather shoddy and could be picked apart from many angles. But the simplest way to show why is it unreliable is to point out the flaws in its primary diagnostic tool, the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale. The Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (DVMAS) was created by John Peters in 2003 as part of his doctoral thesis in social work. It uses 18 statements to gauge whether a person believes “myths” about domestic violence. To show why this study is unreliable, I’ll be pointing out five main flaws that undermine the credibility of the scale. First, Peters defines a “myth” as “stereotypical attitudes and beliefs that are generally false.” But that is not the definition of a myth, which is always false, not “generally false.” If there are occasions when a claim is sometimes true, then we must understand the context to determine whether it true or false. But the scale relies on ambiguous claims about “myths” that exclude any nuance or context and negate the usefulness of it as a metric. Second, the basis for the DVMAS is radical feminist theory. As Peters says, The radical feminist model . . . contends that the violence supports and is supported by patriarchal oppression of women. This model of violence resulting from patriarchal socialization implies that rape, domestic violence, and other forms of violence against woman are part of broader social attitudes toward women. As we will see later in this article, there is a paucity of empirical support for the radical feminist model of domestic violence. Third, Peters defines domestic violence as, “Violence between intimate partners which has as its goal establishing and maintaining a culturally sanctioned pattern of power and control by men over women within the context of an intimate relationship.” While that definition is fitting under radical feminist theory, most Americans have a broader view of domestic violence. This mismatch in definition is likely to skew the results. Fourth, the scale is intended to be a “reliable and valid measure of [DV] myths.” But Peters has no way of determining whether the answers to the 18 statements are in any way connected to actual beliefs about domestic violence. Instead, he simply measures how they are correlated with several other scales, including the Burt’s Sex-Role Stereotype scale [1980] (“a well-validated measure of sexual conservatism which has been shown to be highly correlated with rape myths and with negative attitudes toward domestic violence victims”) and the Attitudes Toward Woman Scale [1974] (“a unifactorial measure of both sex-role conservatism and general attitudes toward women (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Rather than being a reliable measure of what people today believe about domestic violence, the scale merely reflects possible correlations with sexual conservative views held in the 1970s. Fifth, the score on the DVMAS is determined by asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with common statements about domestic violence. Each of these 18 statements are supposedly representative of a “myth” (as defined by Peters). For this study, domestic violence myths were therefore defined as statements about domestic violence which invoke either character blame of the victim, behavioral blame of the victim, exoneration of the perpetrator, or minimization of the seriousness or extent of the problem. Nowhere in his thesis does Peter explain how he determined that these statements, using the wording they do, are myths. He also doesn’t back them up with any empirical research. He simply expects that anyone who starts from the “correct” perspective (i.e., a radical feminist view) would answer in the way he want them to. This is the fatal flaw in the scale, so let’s examine a few of the statements. Statement #8 on the DVMAS states: “Most domestic violence involves mutual violence between the partners.” This is a prime example of the way the scale combines ambiguous language and empirically questionable assumptions to devise a question where political correctness is supposed to trump reality. It’s also an attempt to dismiss anyone who is familiar with the empirical data. In 2010, Murray A. Straus wrote an article for the journal Partner Abuse in which he says, Although at least 200 papers report research that found gender symmetry in perpetration, many studies with similar results were not submitted for publication because the authors thought a paper showing gender symmetry would not be accepted or because the authors feared adverse effects on their reputation and employability. In referring to early studies that had been ignored, Straus says, Why were these statistics presented and the implications ignored? An important part of the explanation was that these results contradicted the feminist analysis of [partner abuse] that had made both the academic world and the general public conscious of [partner abuse]. This same criticism applies to the DVMAS: it delegitimizes any perspective on domestic violence that disagrees with or contradicts radical feminist theory. This is evident in several other statements, such as “When a man is violent it is because he lost control of his temper.” For the DVMAS, this is considered a “myth” even though it is supported by empirical research. As Erica Birkleya and Christopher I. Eckhardta wrote in a 2015 meta-analytic review of current research on intimate partner violence (IVP): There currently exists a substantial, and hotly contested, debate in the [intimate partner violence] field about whether anger has any meaningful relation to IVP whether anger-related constructs should be included in assessment for [intimate partner violence] risk, and whether anger-related variables should be the focus of IVP interventions to any degree. Much of this debate stems from assumptions based on the earliest, and still currently popular, model of IPV etiology: Power and control theory. This model, which is the predominant perspective in the broader IPV field, focuses exclusively on gender socialization patterns and defines IPV as male-to-female violence deeply rooted in gender-based power dynamics that play out in the romantic context. . . . Thus, adherents to this model place little emphasis on factors internal to the individual (such as anger or other negative emotions) as causes of behavior, preferring instead an analysis of community and contextual-based determinants of power-and-control socialization patterns. The DVMAS is based on just this sort of “power and control theory,” and considers anyone who believes factors internal to an individual (such as anger) are a factor in domestic violence to be embracing a “myth.” The DVMAS thereby demonizes anyone who does not think that “gender-based power dynamics” are the sole factors in the problem of domestic violence. This view is especially problematic since it has no empirical support. As Birkleya and Eckhardta note, [T]here is very little empirical support for a strictly gendered analysis of IPV that restricts the understanding of IPV to the behaviors enacted by men towards women, or that organizes IPV risk factors solely around gender-themed attitudes or behaviors, especially as proximal causes of IPV-related outcomes. Rather, the available data suggest a gender-inclusive approach to IPV etiology that considers a wide range of individual, interpersonal, and contextual risk factors that may lead both men and women to act aggressively towards an intimate. Of relevance to this report, several theoretical models appear to offer support for anger, hostility, and internalizing negative affect as important risk factors for IPV perpetration. [emphasis in original] Out of the 18 statements on the DVMAS, 3 of them (18 percent) are about anger. They are all claims that a reasonable person could believe to be true and yet not consider to be a justification for condoning domestic violence. (The other two questions are “Abusive men lose control so much that they don’t know what they’re doing” and “Domestic violence results from a momentary loss of temper.”) Some of the statements are similarly biased. For example, statement #7 is “If a woman doesn’t like it, she can leave.” This is a strangely worded question that reveals the general incoherence and ambiguity of the DVMAS. What is the proper answer? The respondent is expected to reply in a way that denies the agency of women. While it is certainly the case that there are a variety of reasons why some women feel they are unable to leave their abusers, the idea that women being able to leave is a “myth” is not only empirically false but deeply misogynistic. Two other statements on the DVMAS are based on ambiguous terms that require making assumptions based on estimations: “Domestic violence does not affect many people” and “Domestic violence rarely happens in my neighborhood.” In the first statement, the respondent is expected to determine what is considered “many people.” While they might be wrong, it’s possible that someone could think that domestic violence is a serious problem that nevertheless does not affect many people. In the second, the respondent is expected to guess what is meant by “rarely” and “neighborhood.” Domestic violence is based on socioeconomic factors that are not evenly distributed in all areas of the country. It is numerically possible (and even quite likely) that there will be areas that could be construed as “neighborhoods” in which domestic violence “rarely happens.” There’s no reason to assume that giving the “wrong” answer is believing a “myth.” Even if we have a strong opinion about how people ought to answer these two questions, we should be able to agree that the questions are not a reliable measure of beliefs. Out of the 18 statements, four are contradicted by empirical evidence, one is a bizarre claim that denies reality, and two are hopelessly ambiguous. There is no justification—at least not for anyone who doesn’t have an idealogical ax to grind—for trusting a measurement where between 22 and 39 percent of the scale is flawed. Conclusion What the paper by Sandage, et al., shows is that there is potentially a negative correlation between Calvinism (which the study doesn’t really measure either) and uncritical acceptance of the radical feminist view of domestic violence. It tells us nothing about how Calvinists actually view domestic violence myths, much less their view on domestic violence. Yet is will lead some people to believe it has found a connection, and lead other people to assume that all modern psychological research is equally worthless. What makes it even worse is this sloppy and biased study was produced by scholars who are Christians; it might have been more reliable had it been produced by Christian scholars. The distinction, as Nicholas Wolterstorff once said, is that, “To put it in a nutshell, I think the project of being a Christian scholar is the project of thinking with a Christian mind and speaking with a Christian voice within your chosen discipline and within the academy more generally.” There is nothing in this current study that bears evidence of having come from a “Christian mind” nor dos it speak with a “Christian voice.” In fact, there is nothing in the research that could not have been produced by any non-Christian radical feminist scholar. For that reason, and all the other reasons cited, there is no reason why Christians—or anyone else who doesn’t embrace the intellectual fad of radical feminism—should take the study seriously. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • The Calvinists - "Total Depravity" (Lyric Video) HD

      I've now seen everything:    

      in Lounge

    • Calvinists are funny......

      So Bill dies and goes to heaven and St. Peter is giving him the tour. They walk by this group of people hanging out with the Virgin Mary and a couple of saints. “Who’s that?” asks Bill. “Oh, that’s the Catholics.” St. Peter tells him. The continue walking and pass another group of people who are rolling on the ground and speaking in tongues. “Who’s that?” asks Bill. “Oh, that’s the Pentecostals.” St. Peter tells him. Then they come across to a huge mansion and St. Peter makes Bill duck down and sneak very quietly beneath the windows and then they continue walking. “Who’s in there??” Bill asks. “Oh,” says St. Peter. “That’s the Calvinists, they think they’re the only ones here.”

      in Humor & Games

    • Calvinist Missionary In Remote Jungle Surprised To Learn Calvinists Don’t Evangelize

      PAPUA NEW GUINEA—Reformed missionary of 12 years Jon Garth and his family were surprised to learn Friday that Calvinists don’t evangelize, after reading on Twitter over their satellite connection that their theology discourages sharing the gospel and doing missions work. “Huh, I guess our Calvinistic theology doesn’t allow for delivering the gospel to the remote […]   The post Calvinist Missionary In Remote Jungle Surprised To Learn Calvinists Don’t Evangelize appeared first on The Babylon Bee.       More...

      in Christian Satire

    • Why Aren’t Calvinists Pacifists?

      Why have so few Reformed Christians been pacifists? A plain reading of Jesus’s teachings would seem to commend a pacifist interpretation, at least at the individual Christian’s personal level. As he famously instructs us, “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). Yet Christian pacifism has gained much more traction among Anabaptists, and among liberal Catholics and Protestants, than among Reformed believers.   If the Word of God is our final authority for faith and practice, we should be willing to ask why Reformed Protestants have tended not to be pacifists. While I can only offer tentative answers to this enormous topic, I suspect there are two major explanations: one admirable, and the other problematic.   Approach to Scripture   The first reason is that Reformed Christians have traditionally been hesitant to prioritize any particular parts of Scripture, and have tended to read (however imperfectly) the Bible as a whole. Pacifist Christians are sometimes, by their own confession, “red-letter Christians” who give Jesus’s teachings on ethics top biblical billing. At times they imply, perhaps unwittingly, that other parts of Scripture—such as the accounts of the Israelites’ wars against the Canaanites—do not carry the same authority as the teachings of Jesus.     While Reformed Christians would never advise neglecting Jesus’s teachings, they balk at suggestions that some sections of Scripture take precedence over others, or that certain passages contradict. Therefore, as difficult as it may be to explain, Reformed Christians begin with the assumption that Jesus’s teachings on non-retaliation somehow mesh with the Israelites putting men, women, and children to the sword. Since we believe in the perfection and inspiration of Scripture, and its sufficiency as a guide to the ways of God, this correct assumption that should indeed undergird our interpretation. Reformed Christians have similarly tended to see certain continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Although Israel and the church are distinct entities, they contend, there are similarities between the way that God related to Israel and the way he relates to the church. Thus, if God at times commanded Israel to take on military assignments and conquer territory, it isn’t a stretch to think he might ask Christians to do the same things through the agency of the governments under which they live.   Checkered Past   Herein lies the more problematic factor in the relative absence of a Reformed pacifist tradition: Reformed Christians have often been too comfortable with state-sanctioned violence. Since the Reformation, many Protestants have seen an important role for nations, kings, and militaries in advancing the ends of the kingdom. If one believes in providence, then of course the acts of nations do somehow fulfill God’s plans for humanity. But Reformed Christians could borrow a dash of pessimism from Christians such as Anabaptists (Mennonites and others), and theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, who are inherently skeptical about the agenda of any nation-state and its military pursuits.   To cite just one era’s attachment to the state, consider New Englanders after the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689). The removal of the Roman Catholic King James II from the English throne inaugurated decades of imperial war between Europe’s Roman Catholic and Protestant powers. Colonial New Englanders were often directly affected by these conflicts, especially in vicious wars with their Roman Catholic neighbors to the north in Canada.   Anglo-Americans in the first six decades of the 18th century attached enormous religious importance to the success of the British military, and the protection of the British monarchy, all in the name of the Protestant cause. To them, this meant the continued reign of the House of Hanover, the Protestant King Georges (including, initially, King George III). Benjamin Colman, the leading pastor in Boston at the time of the Great Awakening, once stated that New Englanders’ “adherence to the Protestant Succession in the House of Hanover is our fidelity to CHRIST and his holy Religion.” Supporting the king “is” our fidelity to Christ? If that sort of civil-religious statement doesn’t make you wince, you’re not thinking correctly about our priorities as Christians.   Of course, many Calvinists have deplored the effects of war and imperial aggression, but these figures were often marginal to state power. Baptists who were persecuted in late colonial America, or Native American evangelical converts during the Great Awakening, commonly took a dim view of the Patriot cause in the American Revolution. They had suffered bad treatment from some of the same men who now called on them to take up arms against the British. Leading Baptist pastors Isaac Backus and James Manning didn’t react with martial zeal when the first battles of the American Revolution began. Instead, they regretted that the war seemed to snuff out an ongoing revival that had recently begun in New England. “Oh horrid war!” they lamented. “How contrary to the spirit of Jesus!”   Celebrated Baptist Calvinist pastor Charles Spurgeon registered similar concerns about Britain’s imperial exploits of the 19th century. But pacifist-sounding quotes notwithstanding, Spurgeon does not seem to have embraced full-blown anti-imperialism. Reacting to an 1857 rebellion in India, Spurgeon made comments that, when taken out of context, could peg him as a pacifist. “Long have I held that war is an enormous crime,” he said, “long have I regarded all battles as only murder on a large scale.” Yet he cited Romans 13, noting that the ruling authorities did not bear the sword in vain. “This time,” he said, “I, as a peaceful man, a follower of the peaceful Savior, do propound war.” He saw the rebels as murderous criminals who must get their just due from the state.   Humble Skepticism and Regretful Support   I am a Reformed evangelical Christian, and I am not a pacifist. I do not see a consistent pacifist requirement in Scripture, especially for rulers and governments. But Reformed Christians could use more skepticism about the wisdom and value of war, and about the aims of the nation in which they live. We should pray for leaders’ wisdom, and regretfully support wars when they meet standards of just conflicts (they should be limited, defensive, and so on). Instead, Reformed Christians, and American evangelicals generally, have sometimes seemed like zealous warmongers, believing their nation was seamlessly carrying forward the purposes of the kingdom of God.   Source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ists-pacifists

      in Calvinism


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.