Calvinists often make the worse Calvinists

C. Michael Patton with a good post on Calvinists. (I hardly ever use that word anymore since it is loaded with such negative baggage.)

He writes:

Unfortunately, in some Calvinists’ zeal to proclaim the sovereignty of God, they present a very unbalanced portrayal of Calvinism. They often fail to give proper credence to the love of God and the responsibility of man. Now, to be fair, I don’t know of many respected Calvinist scholars who do so, but I have found this tendency continually among the laity and lay teachers. Progressing mightily in the triumph of the glory of God, they often make God so sovereign that He must, by virtue of their definition of sovereignty, be the author of sin. Now, I do recognize that Zwingli and Beza, who are part of magisterial Calvinism, did go this direction, but this certainly not a necessary belief of Calvinists. In fact, some Calvinists, such as myself, would say that making God responsible for sin is such a way does not dignify His sovereignty, but, frankly, boarders on blasphemy.

Further, there are many Calvinists of the “hyper” version who will deny the title Calvinism to any who don’t believe as they do on the non-essential elements of Calvinism. These non-essential elements of Calvinism include double predestination (retrobutionism), an affirmation of meticulous sovereignty, the absolute and unqualified denial of man’s free will and responsibility, a belief that God hates the non-elect, a demand to see the atonement as limited in the way that they believe it to be limited, and a firm adherence to supralapsarianism. Their circle becomes so thin that it is no wonder that pride abounds. They become the elect within the elect!

I remember a Calvinist who owned a local bookstore where I used to study. Every time I entered the door, he would start arguing. His primary argument was that I was not really a Calvinist because I believed that God, in spite of His unconditional election, still loved the non-elect. This was the discussion every time. I came to the point where I thought that he was not going to welcome me in the doors any longer because I did not agree that God hated the non-elect. The last words I remember saying to him were “What does God want us to do with our enemies?” He said, “Love them.” I said, “Do you think God would expect us to do something that He Himself cannot do?” He did not respond.

I am a Calvinist. I am a five point Calvinist. I don’t mind being labeled as such. But sadly, I have to greatly qualify what I mean by this so that people don’t label me according to the massive misrepresentation of Calvinism by some Calvinists.

Even Phil Johnson, a fellow Calvinist recognizes the danger of misrepresentation when he writes:

“History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences.” (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm - a very good read)

In short, it is sad to say, but I would rather go to a party with a humble Arminian than some passionate Calvinists. Calvinists often make the worse Calvinists.

Read the whole thing. There are some great warnings to consider.