OK, So I Really, Really Hate This
Monday, August 10th, 2009Update: Apparently the comments on the post in question are still up. However they no longer show up on my browser. Read them and come to your own conclusion.
Well, I suppose it was a matter of time before something like this came up. Usually we like to focus on the Gospel, put the best construction on things, and avoid inflammatory issues and controversy. I knew eventually something would come up that would demand that we speak out. This is one of those times.
Let me preface my remarks, by saying that I am not Reformed (as in Calvinist) and though I have many friends in that camp, I have some vehement disagreements with certain strains of that doctrine. There are a number of reasons I am not Reformed, but one of the foremost is crap like this.
http://www.challies.com/archives/christian-living/the-religious-hell-hole-1.php
For those who won’t bother to follow the link, well known and respected Reformed blogger Tim Challies, replies to a young Christian woman who, in her past, had a couple abortions, and now is involved in ministry to women who have had abortions. The occasion of her email revolves around having read Tim’s posts on original sin and how babies go to hell. At one time she was confident in God’s grace in dealing with her two aborted children, and the aborted children of those she reaches out to. After reading Mr. Challies’s thoughts, her confidence and comfort were deeply shaken and for the most part stripped away. Challies reply, was to put it succinctly, harsh, and completely lacking in any kind of grace. The comment thread that followed(100+ comments) has been deleted. I don’t know if it is because those who disagreed with Challies made his position look really bad, or because those who supported him made it look even worse. Imagine Christians going to bat against this poor woman, exulting in God’s sovereignty being glorified by Him sending infants to hell.
Yeah, it was that bad.
Mr. Challies is considered mainstream Reformed. Many of the commenters are ardently on his side. It is an ugly display.
A few points worth considering:
First, Challies answer was cold and graceless. Read his tone and phrasing. I suppose some will call it” hard love” because he is telling the “truth.” (more about that in a moment) I would call it religious sociopathy, gladly using systems and doctrine to trample underfoot bruised reeds and smoldering wicks, without a single pang of conscience.
Even if he believes what he said, he could have handled the matter a little more pastorally. He makes no effort at any kind of pastoral discernment, and this from a guy who wrote a book on the “spiritual discipline” of discernment.
To make matters worse, he holds this woman and her situation up to the derision of like minded readers by using her as a pathetic example of someone doctrinally ill-informed. Her comfort in Christ concerning her aborted children is held up as a form of idolatry. He says;
” What’s even more sad is the fact that her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven. For her to be thrown back into this “hell hole” means that she’d been finding peace in spite of her sin, not because of the finished work of Christ on her behalf.”
Unless her correspondence with him was more extensive, detailing exactly where her faith is placed, Mr. Challies presumes to know her heart,and judges her according to his own apparent omniscience.
Ugly.
Hateful.
Devoid of Christian charity.
What is with this virulent strain of the Reformed? Why is the glass always half empty? Sure, the biblical evidence on the eternal state of infants or the unborn is incomplete, but we are not left without clues.
One of the few times scripture says that the second person of the Trinity was very angry (indignant is a good translation) was when the disciples were shooing away mothers who were bringing their infants for Jesus to bless.
Jesus says that their(the infant’s)angels always behold His Father’s face in heaven.
Jesus had terrifying warnings to those who would cause children to stumble.
Sounds to me that He likes children.
As Lutherans we always fall on the side of grace, and we trust Christ’s character and mercy, even with our dead children. For us the cup of God’s grace in Christ is always filled to overflowing.
We also entirely reject the execrable doctrine of limited atonement. (No, we are not universalists, I am not going to answer that old cannard. If you suffer under the delusion we believe that, go do the reading yourself.) We really believe God actively wants to redeem His entire creation, and have seen the damage limited atonement does to the Church and individual Christians. Between reliance on God’s Word, Jesus’ person and work, and the doctrine that Christ died for every last person who has or ever will live, there is more than enough hope for our infants and unborn that die.
Tim’s post is the kind of thing that gives unbelievers ammunition against Christianity, pushes the doubting and faltering into unbelief, and frankly, embarrasses the rest of us. Sadly, it is not the only example of its kind on the internet, courtesy of those I call the ‘Caustically Reformed.’ That is some ugly doctrine wielded by some spiteful people. It is of a different spirit.
I am not going to engage in endless doctrinal debate. The Lutheran Confessions and the writings of our theologians that debunk this kind BS are available publicly and/or online, and they can speak for me.
People need to know that there is a biblically solid, orthodox, and well thought out theology that totally refutes that junk.
To my Reformed friends, I am sorry for the offense, but I could not let this one pass. To those others who are offended, at least you will never be in doubt about where we draw the lines.
To the commenters: Keep it sane. I will moderate with extreme prejudice.
By Pat K
Thank you. Very well written. Regardless of your religious affiliation, the “know it all” approach of some Calvinists to someone hurting is a bad approach.
As I am a person who is re-evaluating Calvinism and actually looking at Lutheranism, this is comforting to read.
Dear Writer,
The article was NEVER a response to the lady directly, but a reflection of Tim Challies thoughts on the email that he received from a lady that had read one of his articles.
As far as in your comments in the above post,
“The comment thread that followed(100+ comments) has been deleted.”
Tim Challies did not delete them at all, they are all still there. He always shuts them down once the reach 100 or go over. So that would answer you rash assumption when you said the following sentences,
“I don’t know if it is because those who disagreed with Challies made his position look really bad, or because those who supported him made it look even worse. Imagine Christians going to bat against this poor woman, exulting in God’s sovereignty being glorified by Him sending infants to hell.”
Michael,
In reference to your first comment, that makes Challies’ treatment of her so much better! (insert sarcasm here.)
In reference to your second comment- duly noted.
I am going to make one last statement because I am a bit offended at your definition of the Reformed Faith, Reformed Theology and what you think Reformed is. You making the following comments during your blog post.
“For those who won’t bother to follow the link, well known and respected Reformed blogger Tim Challies”
and the following…
“Mr. Challies is considered mainstream Reformed.”
For the sake of the Reformed Faith and Reformed Theology, Tim Challies is NOT “mainstream Reformed.” I think Tim himself would understand my point, but Tim as far as I last check was a Calvinistic Baptist, which has many leanings towards the “mainstream Reformed” as you call it.
“Mainstream Reformed” is Ligon Duncan, David Hall, Sincalir Ferguson, Joel Beeke, Joey Pipa, Michael Horton, Robert Godfrey, R. Scott Clark, Westminster Seminaries, Reformed Theological Seminary – Not Tim Challies. “Mainstream Reformed” is a system of beliefs that are found in the three-forms of unity and the Westminster confessions, not just the belief in original sin and the five points of calvinism.
John Calvin, Martin Buncer, Henry Bullinger, Robert Rollock were mainstream Reformed, not Al Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll or Tim Challies.
My suggestion is when writing a post against someone and using terms like “mainstream Reformed” you should know the differences in New Reformed, Old Reformed, Calvinistic Baptist, etc.
I hope this is taken well and thanks for making people think a little more when reading, take care.
Michael,
Thank you for your clarification and contribution to the discussion.
Please note that in my post I said this was true of certain streams of Reformed thought, not all of them.
Secondly, Mr. Challies is very prolific, and almost omnipresent in the theological blogosphere. He is quoted in blogs and magazines, Ligonier Ministries tweet his blog posts, and his blog has an absolutely huge following. To all but the most ardent connoisseur of Reformed thought, he appears for all intents and purposes to be the face of Calvinism in the Blogosphere. I am Lutheran, and although I am aware of several different shades of Reformed thought, I do not have time to familiarize myself with the exhaustive spectrum of splinter groups among the Reformed.
Peace
I’d start reading R. Scott Clark’s the Heidelblog if you wanted throughly Reformed thought so that you are more aware of the Real Reformed Faith and not the newer guys like Tim, Justin Taylor or Desiring God. For Tim Challies, I know he grew up in the Real Reformed Faith (Canadian Reformed Church) and than left it I believe sometime in the 90′s, maybe the early 2000′s.
Yes Tim Challies may be quoted by Ligonier’s Ministry (which is mainstream reformed) but that doesn’t make him, nor does that make him the voice of Reformed Thought and circles. If I quoted you on something, I cannot make the generalization that all Lutherans teach, say, and practice exactly what you do?
As far as in “splinter groups among the Reformed” I can see what you mean within the Reformed Faith its self. There are a good many denominations. However it is important to know that there is a vast difference in the New Calvinism, or the New Reformed Faith from the Old-Calvin-Reformed Faith.
Most of Challies blog follower’s are those that have been a part of the New Calvinism movement in the last 10-years. He however has reader’s now from all different end’s of the spectrum, both the New and Old Reformed Faith, to Lutherans such as yourself and Calvinistic Baptist like himself.
Lastly you say, “Please note that in my post I said this was true of certain streams of Reformed thought, not all of them.”
In your article you tend to bash ALL of them. However at times the pig-headedness of the Reformed Faith can get in the way of hurting and dealing with others, but that in most cases comes from the younger, new converts that are still learning to do both learn theology and practice it. I for myself can tell you my mentor Dr. Joel Beeke is not in the least bit like that.
Michael,
We know and like Dr. Clark. and peruse his blog from time to time.
I appreciate your explication of the differences between the Old and New Calvinism, and our readers will find this to be of help.
Pat,
You are right on target about the Reformed and don’t let anyone tell you any different. Been there and done that Any Calvinist who holds to TULIP is mainstream Reformed, plain and simple. One’s views on baptism don’t determine who is mainstream Reformed and who is a splinter group. They are all splinter groups starting with Zwingli and continuing through Calvin, both of whom splintered away from Luther’s reformation early on, same as the Anabaptists.
The Lutheran Cyclopedia explains the difference between Calvin and Luther in this way:
“Luther stress the glory of God’s love; Calvin stresses God’s love of [His own] glory.” Which God would you rather serve” Luther’s God or Calvin’s?
The problem with the above definition is that it does not go far enough. The difference is not merely a matter of emphasis; it is a matter of a different gospel. The “execrable doctrine of limited atonement” prevents the Calvinist from telling anyone, including himself, that Christ died for you on the objective, outside of us, basis of the bare Scripture alone, regardless of what we feel or do not feel inside of ourselves. Some Calvinists go so far as to say “you don’t have to believe that Christ died for you in particular in order for you to be saved”. If not, then what, pray tell, is the gospel? That Christ died for sinners? The devil believes that. That you are a sinner? Saul and Judas believed that. That is certainly not the gospel that Paul preached to the Corinthians and summarized in the beginning of I Cor 15.
The Calvinists have to reason themselves into the kingdom in this way: 1) Christ died for sinners, 2) I know myself to be a sinner (on the basis of what Scripture says, or what I feel inside of me, or whatever), and 3) ergo, Christ must have died for me. And then comes the “but”. But, if I don’t see some fruits pretty quick I have to question whether I am truly elect, saved, etc. That throws one back on his feelings and/or performance in the end and not on the bare Word of God alone.
In the final analysis, the consistent Calvinist has to base his assurance on what Christ has done to him through the Holy Spirit and not on what Christ has done for him on the cross, all outside of himself based on the bare promise of God. I know many of the Reformed camp, regardless of to which splinter group they belong, will cry “foul”. Nevertheless, they truly are, in the main, “of a different spirit” than Luther. They are of Zwingli’s spirit through Calvin and not Luther’s. What Luther said to Zwingli at Marburg applies to Calvin and his followers.
In my humble opinion.
I agree with the Lutheran Cyclopedia in one thing: “There existed, nevertheless, a distinct difference between the two reformers [Luther and Calvin], characterized by Calvin’s predominantly formal and legalistic approach to Christianity in contrast to Luther’s warm and evangelistic spirit.
Hi Pat,
I agree with you, Challies’ response was quite graceless. But this sort of thing seems to me to be rather characteristic of the “new Calvinists” (or as I have referred to them, “neo-Puritans”) who are mostly Calvinistic Baptists, as opposed to more classical Calvinists /Reformed like Horton, Clark et al. As you say, it is a “virulent strain” of Reformed thought.
The new Calvinists’ attitude seems to be, “God is sovereign and you should rejoice in that sovereignty and in the fact that He is glorifying Himself,” and that might even mean rejoicing in the fact that people are being predestined to hell. Why? Because God is being glorified by it, and to them, God’s sovereignty/glory is absolutely central – even over and above God’s mercy in Christ. To be fair, Calvin himself seems way more close to Luther than these folks. I doubt Calvin would even recognize certain aspects of their theology. The “new Calvinism” is like TULIP on steroids with a large dash of pietism thrown in.
Blessings,
Dawn
Here is what Calvin believed according to the following excerpt from “Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue”, edited by E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner:
“Calvin approached the issue of predestination with the premise that ‘the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things,’ an assumption that left little or no room for permission. Some try to argue that Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza, transformed Calvin’s teaching on election into supralapsarianism; but Calvin’s work of the subject, a book entitled ‘Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God’, reveals that Calvin held to double predestination just as firmly as his protégée.”
“ … In this paradigm God does not reject the reprobate because he is a sinner; it is the other way around. The reprobate becomes a sinner because God rejected him. God reprobated certain ones and then decreed the fall in order to actualize His disfavor toward them. Calvin made this clear when he declared that ‘the highest cause’ of reprobation is not sin but ‘the bare and simple pleasure of God.’”
…“This is why some supralapsarians such as David Engelsma do not hesitate to speak of God’s attitude towards the non-elect as one of eternal hatred. In supralapsarianism, sovereign grace gives way to mere sovereignty.”
All quotes are footnoted and further information is provided at the following link (hope it works for you)
[...] garnered responses from Patrick Kyle, Abraham Piper and Michael Spencer, none of whom were in, shall we say, full agreement with [...]
[...] This post was Twitted by Rumor99 [...]
Phoenix Preacher,
Thanks for the link to your website. I liked it and appreciated even more the comments I read there regarding the Challies article. In my 30 years as a (Hyper?) Calvinistic Baptist it was these kinds of comments that finally made me become a Lutheran 5 years ago (plus Rod Rosenbladt’s “The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church, which led me to Walther’s “Law and Gospel”). I have a Presbyterian friend who swears that I never was exposed to true reformed teaching. Maybe he is right. Anyway, it did my heart good to read some kind and compassionate Calvinist comments at your website to remind me that I can’t paint the whole group with one brush anymore.
Ted,
I share your vitriol on this, you are a better man than I am because it infuriates me to the point I can hardly contain myself (and often I don’t and I stick my foot in my mouth more than a few times on such). That hell hole she speaks of, I know what that feels like. This is something, if it were asked of me, I’d explain to her:
One of the reasons I left Calvinism (the Baptist variety and then later the more pure Reformed variety) was the link I saw between infants, adults and the sacraments. In the unhinging of the sacraments one will find that the actual out play and affect of the doctrine, regardless of any repair job one attempts to bring Calvin back toward Luther, that at the end of the day in the balance of the scales there is in fact just as much synergism in Calvin (and particularly in his successors) as there is in any Arminian doctrine. And with that synergism, explicit or implicit, eventually it’s false promise ends in utter despair and terror, or utter pride.
Luther once made the observation speaking of the Anabaptist, ironically, that if we cease to baptize babies we loose the Gospel (paraphrased from memory – ldh). That resonated with me personally when I was in those long deep dark years of “am I saved, elect, reborn, truly baptized” within the non-sacramental versions in Reformed Baptist circles and Reformed Reformed circles. I was about ready to literally hang myself so despairing and dark it was. I was like the prostitute needing to hear via the sacraments, a Word from God, “I forgive YOU all your sins”, and not just some generic word. I told my wife once that if I cannot tell that my children were baptized and the sacrament was utterly objective to them and – and this is the key difference in Luther and Calvin – that it actually gave to them (not awaiting their faith) forgiveness of sin, the Holy Spirit, rebirth, etc…then I can never tell it for myself ever – neither under Calvin and especially under Baptist versions of it. One undermines the other. Why? Because if grace is not truly given, and I mean really given not just signs and symbols of it, but actually and really bestowed upon an infant that is the PICTURE of “can only helplessly receive it”, then no amount of examining, no amount of secondary forms of fruit inspection, no amount of repair work to bring Calvin’s doctrine in line with Luther, none of that whatsoever can ever make me, or anyone else assured of the mercy of God toward them. In other words when we require of infants something for the sacraments to actually give you forgiveness and/or we make the sacrament a sign pointing to a reality elsewhere, even faith itself, that requirement MUST extend to adults. When that happens, you will loose the Gospel and either despair utterly of any hope and assurance, or you will be filled with pride that you’ve somehow found the “coin” that buys your conscience assurance. I make this opening point for a reason because it speaks to the reality and direction of grace, utterly and totally free, from heaven actually down to and on earth in the present tense.
Now when it comes to infants who die I think the scriptures are in fact very explicit about the matter. At a minimum if I cannot find explicitness to the answer I think Luther’s advice is best, stick to the revealed God, and the revealed God who became flesh and blood and soul as a man for us and suffered for us and died for us, to me, screams explicitly the answer for the dying infant! Second to that, and I find this explicit too, the Calvinist writer seems to be giddy over the concept of original sin. I would submit first of all that as a Calvinist and with that doctrine’s understanding of the sacraments, that he does not really understand original sin at all, nor can he as long as he clings to his view of the sacraments. Total depravity under Calvinism is not at all the same as bondage of the will of which Luther speaks, and ultimately the two gospels are different, because one cannot disconnect one with the other. Again, Luther is correct in saying Christianity is a tapestry that if one strand is altered, it is ruined and worthless. Luther was not being hyperbolic. To that what Sasse said one time has always stuck with me, “if you get the sacraments wrong you will necessarily get the rest of Scripture wrong”. He was never more correct. I say that having been a Calvinist myself and having had to ferret out the differences as a laymen between Luther and Calvin, and they are essential differences. And in principle a Calvinist would have to agree with Sasse for if they perceive their doctrine THE true doctrine, including the sacraments, then they must conclude that Luther’s view on the sacraments drives the errors they see in Luther that oppose their doctrine.
The one thing Calvinist, especially of the neo-puritan brand, forget is that Jesus Christ ACTUALLY, TRULY, FACTUALLY, REALLY, GENUINELY, VERILY, SINCERELY, THOROUGHLY, COMPLETELY, etc…died for original sin. Nothing could be more crystal clear in the Scripture than that. This is why I say ultimately a Calvinist does not really understand original sin. Because he imagines, somehow, that Jesus only died for original sin in “Edward the elect over here” but not “Robert the reprobate over there”, but not ORIGINAL SIN holistically and entirely. And while in the doctrine of original sin some Calvinist, like this guy, like to fry people’s faith and assurance to a burnt crisp, they forget the part about Christ dying for original sin. I’m not even sure Calvin would agree with them, though he tossed too and fro closer to and further away from Luther, which is why he’s dangerous at length (again the sacraments being his disconnect, because of this he was tossed to and fro in his thinking). Original sin is indeed terrifying, but that just makes the Gospel all the more sweet!
One last thing I’d address that this guy said, and this links crucially back up with what and why I opened with what I opened (can’t tell an adult’s salvation if you can’t a child’s, the linkage there). He accuses her, with his nefarious “alarm”, that she ultimately had faith in faith that infants go to heaven and not Jesus. That’s BS. She like many tender souls sees the link! What utter grace she saw as revealed by the revealed God to the dying and aborted infants, she sees applying to herself and adults. Again, one cannot divorce the sacrament issue here, Sasse was brilliant on that point. Thus, her faith was not in “just because infants go to heaven” but rather the utterly gracious God revealed in Christ to which this bears witness too and she believes extends to dying infants. Again, as Luther said if we cease to baptize infants, we will loose the Gospel, and then synthesis that with Sasse who said if you get the sacraments wrong you will get the rest of Scripture wrong – well both were 100 percent correct.
I apologize for the “fire” in my words, I am a sinner and my blood boils over things like this when I see Christ hidden from a tender soul, I know the “hell hole” she speaks of, it’s an accurate adjective she uses there.
Yours truly in Christ alone,
Larry
[...] garnered responses from Patrick Kyle, Abraham Piper and Michael Spencer, none of whom were in, shall we say, full agreement with [...]