Goodbye, Mr Cauvin

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 8.01.26 PMHere’s a scenario…

It’s the year 96, and John is on Patmos. He’s had a second vision, and it is extremely disturbing. He is told not to disclose it, which relieves him greatly. The vision is dark and absurd beyond anything he could ever have imagined, and he is convinced no one would believe it.

In the vision he is shown a strange type of rectangular scroll, one that glows and that can be unrolled by pressing a circle on it. It contains a discussion amongst followers of Christ during the start of the great apostasy.

The discussion is about something called Neo-Jehanism. Turns out a man by the name of Jehan is going to become a big name amongst the saints centuries into the future, and gather millions of followers behind him. But not everyone will find him or his teaching appealing, and so another saint by the name of Zoonhermans would rise up and oppose him, also gathering millions of followers behind him.

 Ultimately the schism would become so absurd that it would be be narrowed down to something called the Five Statements of Jehan, composed to refute the arguments of Zoonhermans’ followers. During the times of the end, the Five Statements would be summarized by a set of letters that would serve as a type of code for determining whether one is a “Jehanist” or a “Zoonhermian.”

 The befuddling thing about the vision is that saints from all over the world would feel the need to place themselves into one of these two categories, and provide reasons for doing so.

 To make matters worse, each group would be severely divided amongst themselves: The Jehanists would be made up from hundreds of strange named clan-types who would constantly be bickering and arguing amongst themselves: The Elders, the English, some from the Immersers, and so on. The Zoonhermians would be made up of clans like the Method Makers, the Festival Goers, the Gift Receivers, many from the Immersers, and so on…

It’s winter here in South Africa. A friend gave Revien and I a truckload of wood last week, and so the two of us spent the best part of Saturday sipping Cappucinos and listening to the crackling of a blazing fireplace and some great music.

That was the nice part.

But then I began to fiddle on my Ipad, and stumbled onto a five year old Classic iMonk post with almost three hundred comments. The Calvinists and Arminians were at it again, and of course I felt obliged to follow the whole thing and ride it out. Right to its very end.

But it left me feeling strangely empty and fatigued. And wondering what on earth the point was of it all, and what Paul and Peter and John and the others would have had to say about it.

To make matters worse, I spent the previous Thursday doing research for a project that involved tracing the origins of Calvinism’s famous TULIP acronym, only to be reminded that it never existed before the twentieth century.

For those who are interested: Its first known use was in 1905, when the American Presbyterian minister and hymn writer, Dr. Cleland Boyd McAfee, was heard using it at the Presbyterian Union Of Newark New Jersey.

And even then it was not fully developed. McAfee’s “U” stood for Universal Sovereignty, not Unconditional Election.

Of course it is said that the so-called Five Points are much older than that, dating from 1619 and the famous Synod of Dordt, where they were stated in response to the Five Articles of the Arminian Remonstrants. But even that does not solve the problem of TULIP’s relative late arrival at the Calvinistic party. Not all Calvinists are wildly excited about the acronym, or convinced that it faithfully represents Dordt. As Kenneth Stewart put it in  The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect:

There is the striking fact that twentieth-century writing on behalf of TULIP has only very infrequently engaged with the actual Canons of Dordt of which the acronym purports to be a paraphrase or summary. This meant, and means that writers have been implying the fidelity of the acronym as a rendering of Dordt’s meaning without ever being pressed to demonstrate that this fidelity exists in fact. To call the paraphrasing of Dordt by TULIP a ‘broad brush’ approach, is arguably too kind! Why has there been no inquiry as to whether there is actually a true correspondence between this alleged paraphrase of Dordt, and the actual intention of the Canons – widely available in English? We may well be overdue for a revisiting of the Canons of Dordt themselves – even to the point of quoting them, or making a fresh compressed summary of their actual contents.

That explains something I have often wondered about, namely why many Dutch Reformed dominees here in South Africa have never even heard of TULIP.

Thinking of all this, my cheery Saturday morning mood dampened, and in its place memories arose from over a decade ago. That was my post-Pentecostal period, during which I, too, earnestly tried to become a Calvinist.

The thing that I could not wrap my head around at the time (perhaps I should say heart) was double predestination, a term derived from John Calvin’s assertion that the decree of election is symmetrical with the decree of reprobation. In plain English, it means that the God whom I had come to know as the ultimate source of love had chosen to damn some to the very extent that he had chosen to save others.

Some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (Institutes iii, xxi, 5)

To make matters worse, the “eternally damned” weren’t mere stats on some theological pie chart, but a significant portion of the very broken children, teens and widows that I had been ministering to for years as a pastor and shepherd. God chose the majority of them to be damned forever and no one shall stand in his way? Has God then become my opponent in the ministry? Was Jesus even aware of this? Would he be angry if he found out?

These were the crazy thoughts that haunted me. And so I devised a plan: I would become a four-point Calvinist. I would not limit the atonement, and my acronym would simply be TUIP. That would allow me to have the best of both worlds. I could still listen to MacArthur, and distribute recordings of Sproul’s The Insanity of Luther, and read Piper’s The Pleasures of God, and introduce a younger generation to Francis Schaeffer’s Trilogy, and collect Pink’s books, and dislike TBN.

I could have all of this without the nagging thought that there was something darkly terrifying about God, that perhaps he did not love my children as much as I did but hated them, that perhaps the whole unfolding nightmare would drive me to a place of such insanity that I would want to escape from this terrifying God, revealing myself to be one of the reprobate after all, and ultimately suffer the inevitable fate of joining the rest of them in a cosmic concentration camp where we would suffer forever without the merciful prospect of death by gassing or gun or suffocating under a pile of corpses – all of this so that God’s perfect sovereignty and justice would prevail.

I figured that I would never have to worry about any of this again. Calvin’s reference to a “secret decree” under the guise of God’s loving exterior would never give me another sleepless night, and I would never even have to wonder whether the decree was still secret after Calvin caused it to leak out.

All of this would magically vanish through a simple subtraction!

Which brings me to the flashback. I had to test my plan, and so I presented it to one of the brethren of my newfound Reformed community. The man had a formidable intellect, and was regarded as one of the more mature men in the group. I told him that I had made peace with the fact that I am a four-point Calvinist, and asked him for his opinion. His response was immediate and to the point: “We have a name for four-point Calvinists. We call them…ARMINIANS!”

Pop. That was it. There was no way out.

During that time another brother, whom I had grown to respect and love, proved to be somewhat more gentle in his approach. He used the term “inescapable conclusion” in reference to TULIP’s L.

And then there was the discussion where all of this was applied to the hopeless fate of non-elect children dying in infancy, which was perhaps the single most disturbing experience of them all.

I’ll spare you the rest. In the end, it all became too much and my effort to morph into a follower of a dead Frenchman by the name of Jehan Cauvin failed spectacularly. Which, in the long run, turned out to be one of the best things that had ever happened to me.

I put it all behind me, and conceded that my reasons for wanting to become a Calvinist (Cauvinist?) were infinitely stupid in the first place. It really had nothing to do with a desire to rethink my view of God, grace, election, free will, the atonement or anything else. These questions had been settled in my heart and mind years before, as a result of the teaching of the Bible, prayer, study, contemplation, fellowship, and simply walking with Jesus Christ through the thick and thin of life for two decades.

No, the reasons why I was attracted to Calvinism were all circumstantial. I can list them, but it is really unnecessary as the late Michael Spencer himself has already done a wonderful job in another one of his classic posts: Why Calvin is cool: An infomercial for Calvinism.

Note that Spencer starts the updated post with the words “Even though I am no longer a Calvinist, a lot of this essay is still true…”

Here’s some extracts from the post, providing us with a synopsis of Spencer’s reasons for calling Calvin cool, and perhaps providing some penetrating insights into the real reasons for Calvinism’s recent resurgence. Ironically, none of them has anything to do with the stuff that almost drove me batty over a decade ago, and ALL of them are to be found in other expressions of Christianity. (If one would only look!)

“Calvinists have their problems, but going the openness route or denying the authority of Scripture are not dangers in the near future…Calvinism is fired up about missions…Calvinism is the strongest resistance to the excesses and errors of the church growth movement…Calvinism is warmly God-centered…Calvinism is contending for the Gospel…Calvinism is evangelistic, when practiced and not just debated… Calvinism has a wonderful reverence for history… Calvinism has the best approach to cultural issues… Calvinism isn’t detoured into fads (Jabez, Left Behind etc.)… Calvinists are great apologists… Calvinists aren’t on television…”

Those things were all true, and wonderful, and available without having to become a double predestinationist! (or whatever it is called).

And so, in the end, I was happy to write a dear John letter to Mr. Cauvin. The whole thing was just a bad affair. I was attracted to him for the wrong reasons, which blinded me to his dark side and simultaneously ruined any possibility of other, more wholesome relationships.

These were the memories that surfaced on Saturday. And the, for a moment, I felt like phoning my old friend who had trashed my dreams of becoming a four-point Calvinist. I wanted to ask him: “How could you? How could you use a novel and questionable doctrinal construct, not a century old at the time and a babe in comparison with the doctrine of the rapture that you so despise, to bully people into a category of your own making and subject them to a ridiculous stereotype that flatly ignores their personal histories of following the Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of Scripture to the best of their abilities?”

But of course it would be useless. I realized how little effect humanitarian considerations have on Calvinists when I read John Piper’s response to Thomas Talbott’s On Predestination, Reprobation, and the Love of God: A Polemic.

In fact, I reread it just now, and experienced a near irresistible temptation to get back in the fight and tell the whole world why Piper is wrong, and how both Scripture and common sense contradict him at every point, and why it is not okay to pray for your children thinking that they may be reprobates, and…

But then I’ll just go back there, and I’m not sure I want to do that.

Bye bye, John…



12 thoughts on “Goodbye, Mr Cauvin

  1. Anne-Marie Tirabassi June 10, 2016 / 8:02 pm

    The simple truth of God’s love clarifies the most complicated arguments!

  2. Tobie June 11, 2016 / 5:17 am

    Thanks for the comment, Anne-Marie, and double Amen to that statement!

  3. errollmulder June 11, 2016 / 1:43 pm

    Thanks for being so ‘real,’ Tobie, and for the post.

    As you know, I also flirted with Mr. Cauvin for many years following my seminary training, mainly in reaction to the imbalances of the charismatic movement at the time. But I finally bade him & especially TULIP farewell (much prefer the ‘tulips of Amsterdam’) in the mid to late 80’s, to follow a few other roads, not always better. Until about nine years ago when the Lord ‘sovereignly’ intervened, but that’s another story…

    Contrary to Spencer, I always found my Reformed family (more often than not) coldly (!) God-centred, in stark contrast to my more recent experience with saints who gather under the Lordship and love of Jesus.

    Enjoy some more crackling warmth from the fireplace – with warm greetings and love from a cold Port Elizabeth!

  4. Tobie June 11, 2016 / 6:44 pm

    Hi Errol. Good to hear from you! Yes, there is no comparison between what the Lord has allowed us to enjoy in fellowship over the past few years and what we had in the past. Which reminds me how much we miss you guys. Hope to see you soon!

  5. necolepr December 18, 2016 / 7:21 pm

    I too have been spiritually molested by Cauvin dba Calvin. I say off with his head he is nothing more than a charlatan and a gang leader. Oops he is already dead.

  6. minussie December 20, 2016 / 1:51 pm

    Hi Tobie

    I so very much identified with the statement “one of the damned reprobate after all” :-).

    It occurred to me from very early on that if there was an “in” group then I am very likely not to be in it. Even today I often wonder how much of my ‘depression’ was rooted in the fact that shortly after meeting the tulip and seeing it very effectively laid out with scripture and reason by its proponents I came to the conclusion that my certainty of my salvation is perhaps not so certain at all. That together with me actually bearing the fruit of the damned convinced me thoroughly that I must have turned back because I was never part of the flock to begin with. I confess that my initial ‘prosperity’ interpretation of the gospel “Jesus loves you and he has a plan for your life” (it has matured only a little bit since then 🙂 ) has done much more for keeping me away from sin than any of the assurance of being elect could ever achieve. I need to to know that my salvation is universally accessible to whosoever believe otherwise I simply would not be able to separate myself from the idea that I probably am not elect and (at least for me) everything truly has remained vanity. And so I choose to believe that the word cosmos means everybody and not just the whole of the group – for emotional and personal reasons :-).

    Regards – Marinus

    • Tobie December 20, 2016 / 4:03 pm

      Hi Marinus, so nice to hear from you. You touch on something interesting. The “outsider” syndrome (or whatever one wants to call it) is certain to make some of us feel intuitively disqualified from a any type of religion that is only accessible to an elite core. Conversely, it makes me wonder if some are not perhaps attracted to such a type of religion for the pure reason that they are “insiders” by nature, that is, that they harbour a type of entitlement that makes them feel extremely comfortable to be included in an elect minority, even though millions of others are damned alongside them. I have been fascinated for some time about the lack of survivor’s guilt amongst Calvinists, and have oftentimes wondered about the extent to which it may have contributed to the apartheid atrocities committed in the name of the “triune God” by staunch South African Calvinists. Coupled with this, the dark (and mostly unknown) history of John Calvin’s Geneva testifies to a strange type of magic that desensitised Calvin and his fellow persecutors in a most puzzling way. (The Geneva court records are remarkably similar to the Isis ones that made headlines not so long ago.) I can only guess that the theology of predestination has something to do with it…

  7. Douglas Barroso April 7, 2017 / 7:07 pm

    Great post! I am a former calvinist, I spent almost twenty years trying to convince myself and others that Calvinism was the real Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am a brazilian pastor and brazilian church has a very weak theology, we lack good theologians and good theology (it has exceptions, but it is the predominant picture). When i was preparing to ministry I felt the necessity to look for sound theology and I discovered Calvinism and thought that this was what I was looking for. But I had a contínuos fight with my conscience and with what I read in the Bible. Thank’s God I could see that are great and much more biblical theology outside Calvinism, when i knew Arminianism as it really is, i discovered that I didn’t need to be a calvinist to have a good and biblical theology. Of course, the truth is in the Word of God and not in a theological system, and all sincere believer find it through the Holy Spirit teaching in the Scriptures. But arminian theology, at least in respect to me, doesn’t conflict neither with the Bible neither with my conscience.

    • naturalchurch June 16, 2017 / 8:18 pm

      Thanks for the comment, Douglas. Your story is a blessing. I would love to contact you via email. Will you let me have it? Thanks

      • Douglas Barroso August 1, 2017 / 11:03 am

        Yes brotar! It would be great a honor to me! You can make contact when you want!

      • Douglas Barroso August 1, 2017 / 11:06 am

        Sorry, I wanted to say “Yes brother!”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s