Calvinists and non Calvinists within the Christian family have been arguing over the Doctrines of Grace for a long time. They
probably did so in Augustine's day. We know that they did so at the
Synod of Dort and ever since. Sometimes, the words get heated and there
is a parting of the ways. Generally speaking, though, there is still a
recognition that that "the other side" are Christians. In others words,
as far as Calvinists are concerned, you don't need to be a Calvinist
to be a Christian, and as far as the Non Reformed are concerned,
although Calvinism might even be repulsive to them (often their own
words) yet it does not negate, in itself, the Calvinists claim to be
Christians. That's the why it ought to be, in an imperfect world.
Only in Heaven, will Christians of all shades agree on all matters of
doctrine.
Thankfully, this is the way it is. At least in the vast majority of
cases. Calvinists and non Calvinists worship together - share pulpits
together - evangelise together - and cooperate together to greater or
lesser degrees in the Lord's vineyard. However, there are a few
exceptions to the rule. This man here
is frankly a grave embarrassment to the Calvinists. Anyone who even
accepts Arminians as Christians are (according to him) unsaved
themselves. He won't actually say that CH Spurgeon is in hell...but
only because he might have repented of his damning error in his dying
seconds. James White, himself pretty strong in his Calvinism, gives
this man a good robust answer here.
Recently, as I have been doing the rounds of various non Calvinist
blogs, I have come across those who, at least, are heading for the
similar position on their side of the fence. I refer you to two
quotations which I picked up:
First quote:"I’m sorry, my friend. I don’t just think that the Calvinists and the
lordship teachers are wrong, I am convinced that their message is
evil. The challenge is relating to them as brothers in the
Lord if that is what they in fact are. But I wrestle with that."
OK, he is still at the wrestling stage as
to whether or not, Calvinists are brethren in Christ, but the warning
lights are there and flashing dangerously.
Second quote, from a particularly ferocious blog against Calvinism: "Of course this whole concatenation of errors [Calvinism] is a damnable heresy and has no
more right to be called Biblical than the immaculate conception of Mary. Yet
it's amazing how many evangelicals and young fundamentalists embrace this
nonsense as if it were gospel. Apparently, discernment is at a low ebb these
days, and the old heresies are finding a new bosom."
At the time of writing this, I have commented (under my blog name 'Goodnightsafehome') on this man's site, asking him to define "damnable heresy." His reply is that "A damnable heresy is simply the lie of a false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1), a lie that
will end up suffering the heavy hand of God." I have pursued the matter a little further with the question, "Why is it especially described as being damnable? Does it damn the soul of the
man or woman who believes it?"
and I await a reply. If he runs to the commentators, both
Calvinist and Arminian, then he will discover that a damnable heresy is
indeed a heresy that damns - and he has applied it to Calvinists.
(I will update this page, according as I receive reply to my queries.)
Here's my point. What if these two
men, and many others who sometimes let loose with some very serious
words, take the line that Calvinists should not be viewed as fellow
Christians (albeit erring ones) but damnable heretics and purveyors of
an evil message? They have talked the talk...what does it mean to walk
the walk?
1) Are they going to damn some of the greatest, holiest and greatly
used people in the Christian church? Unless they take the line above
that such is not possible because of a last minute, last breath
repentance of error and fleeing to Christ, then they will
effectively tell us that men like George Whitefield, Robert Murray
McCheyne, CH Spurgeon, the AV Translators,
William Tyndale and a host of others are in hell with religious liars
and charlatans like the various Popes of Rome, Joseph Smith and Charles
Taze Russell. In the second quote, the writer actually draws the
parallel of Calvinism with the Immaculate Conception of Mary, so the
thinking is there.
2) Are they going to start evangelising Calvinists who profess to be
Christians? If I meet a Roman Catholic or a Mormon, I never entertain
the thought that they might be Christians. I evangelise them. There is
every display of friendship and civility, but absolutely none
of Christian fellowship. I try and leave them grasping a tract or
evangelistic booklet. I do not use any language that would
give them the impression that they were Christians in the NT sense of
the word. I would feel I had committed a grave betrayal if I did so. If
I meet these two men, who seem to be at least heading for
this path i.e. that Calvinists by reason of their doctrine are
not Christians, then may I assume that I am going to be given
something like "4 Spiritual Laws" or an evangelistic Chick booklet
etc.,?
3) Are they prepared to prevent professing Calvinists from being
baptised or partaking of the Lord's table? Are they going to demonise
those baptisms which are administered to professing believers as false
baptisms? Are they going to denounce those seasons around the Lord's
Table as an "eating and drinking of damnation"?
4) Here's a thornier issue for them. What are going to going to do
about fellowshipping with those fundamental non Reformed brethren who,
although they dislike Calvinism, yet would not even dream of treating
Calvinists as non Christians? Would you fellowship with a man who said;
"I think Jehovah Witnesses are Christians? And Mormons, and mass loving
Roman Catholics?" I wouldn't. I would have to seriously query as to
whether he were a Christian himself. (I accept that some of God's
people can wrongly be found in the most peculiar of places, but
exceptions to the rule are not envisaged in this argument.) But I
will not fellowship with any man who could claim that the Pope is a
Christian. I will separate from him in line with Ephesians 5:11/2
Corinthians 6:14-18 etc.,
If these men are going to be consistent, then they would have to break
off fellowship with those who not share their views on this matter.
They themselves have created the situation, just described. No one is
arguing for umpteen degrees of separation, but to accept those who
accept that damnable heretics are Christians stretches the matter to
breaking point. For all the faults of the embarrassing Calvinist above,
he can claim consistency in his views, even if he is consistently
wrong. Their position will put them at odds with some of the great Christians in
the Church, among the non Reformed, who held that Calvinists were
brethren. Indeed, I cannot think of anyone of note who has taken their position.
Maybe if these other men, inveterate foes of Calvinism (and possibly
soon, Calvinists themselves) go down further down this path, I will put
this point to them. As it is, I am currently engaged with one (as said)
and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. This page will be
upgraded accordingly to reflect any further information.
It is so easy to talk the talk. Walking the walk requires a bit more effort.
THE END
