My beliefs have changed in the past few years, and I no longer consider myself a Calvinist. I spent many years studying, defending, proclaiming, and debating the main aspects of that soteriological system. From that time, I became familiar with Calvinism’s strengths and weaknesses. As with most theological positions, there are unfair caricatures and valid criticisms.
Caricatures
As a former Calvinist and one who is in the minority within my circle of friends, I can spot the exaggerated arguments. Are Calvinists bearded, cigar-smoking, and whiskey-sipping theological fanatics? While that is a typical image painted, there are more misguided misconceptions of Calvinistic theology. Robots, pietistic Puritans, and theological snobs are three of the unfair caricatures drawn of Calvinists.
Metaphysical Determinism
Framing human volition and divine sovereignty in causality is a complex endeavor. There are biblical, theological, and philosophical ideas converging, and a range of views allows unique combinations of those elements. Most Calvinists do not believe all humanity is robots with no room for choice or free will. Metaphysical determinism does have a spectrum to which hard determinists would argue against any free will inherent in mankind; however, they are a minority. The typical Calvinist would affirm God’s sovereignty without seeing this as contradictory to human responsibility or choice.
Legalism
Legalism is the caricature I wrestle with keeping in check the most. To quote Flame, you can “make an idol out of not making idols.” The reformed generally do not lean toward legalism; however, their emphasis on the practical use of the law in sanctification can lead in that direction if not counterbalanced. This caricature might be called “purityrannical.” Calvinists can emphasize piety without going too far down the trail of pietism. The former is a healthy holiness, but the latter can lead to a self-reflective cycle of self-flagellation.
Intellectualism
Intellectual snobbery doesn’t depict the heart of Calvinistic theology. Reformed theology is logically consistent and doctrinally robust, which lends itself to this accusation. Theology matters. Correct thinking about God, His word, His Son, salvation, sanctification, the church, and countless other crucial doctrines is imperative. Yet, there can be such an emphasis on being right that it overshadows being right with God through Christ. Intellectualism is not a fair depiction of Calvinists simply because they seek to understand and reason through faith.
As with all caricatures, there is a hint of reality amidst the distortion. Since those threads ran through my theological posture for many years, I can say that.
Criticisms
It was challenging in my journey to let go of the doctrinal presuppositions I had enough to consider a different paradigm. Once I did, I could let scripture speak without imposing my theological grid onto the text. The other side of the coin of the caricatures is the textual debate over how to read, interpret, and apply the scripture. The scope of the atonement, the perseverance of the saints, and the efficacy of the sacraments are three valid intersections for substantive debate and fair criticism of a reformed view.
The Scope of the Atonement
The scope of the atonement is the watershed issue dividing Lutherans and the Reformed. Lutherans particularly find the idea of double predestination abhorrent. Beyond that sentiment, the text of scripture does not lend itself to a limited view of the atonement.
Positively, there are several texts whose plain reading and clear interpretation point toward the universality of the atonement. 1 John 2:2 is one example: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” What is the natural reading of that text? Given the background of 1 John, written to encourage and exhort believers amidst the heretical teachings against Christ’s divinity and humanity, what is the most likely interpretation? The natural reading and understanding is that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for everyone.
Negatively, the passages cited as proof positive for a limited view of the atonement interpose a Calvinistic paradigm onto the text. Jesus’ metaphor of being the door of the sheep and the good shepherd highlights this tendency. The main point Jesus makes in John 10:1-19 is that He is the true messiah amidst impostors and that His people will recognize Him as such. The backdrop of this passage is the Pharisees’ blindness precisely because they claim to see. It isn’t the extent of the atonement that Jesus is illustrating but the nature of belief to recognize the good shepherd. The passage states twice that the good shepherd lays down his life “for the sheep” (verses 11 and 15). The shepherd’s sacrifice for the sheep is a glorious truth but not necessarily a statement of limitation regarding the atonement.
Perseverance of the Saints
Many passages deal with walking away from the faith, but some of the mainstay verses come from Hebrews specifically and contextually. Written to Jews who had embraced the messiah, Hebrews is a reminder of the supremacy of Christ to all things with a recurring question as to why one would go back to the shadows when the substance they pointed to has arrived. Hebrews 6:4-6 read at face value, indicates a falling away from the faith by those who had once been enlightened, tasted the goodness of God’s word and the heavenly gift, and shared in the Holy Spirit. Scriptures like these don’t negate other passages like John 10:26-30. We must accept the apparent meanings of scripture as they are by faith. Our minds may struggle to reconcile how God works to secure the eternity of His sheep and how those sheep might also walk away from the faith. Still, our limited and fallen logic must not override scripture, no matter how appealing the theological consistency may appear.
Sacramental Efficacy
Sacramental efficacy was the most challenging aspect for me to “let go” of my presuppositions. Yet, when I read the passages, it was clear that the sacraments were not mere symbols. Most struggle with viewing Baptism as efficacious; however, the verses were more explicit and clear. Simply reading the passages related to Baptism forces the reader to put baptismal regeneration on the table as an option (1 Peter 3:18-22, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-4, Colossians 2:11-12, and Titus 3:5). Saying that baptismal regeneration negates salvation by faith alone is a caricature as well since Lutherans herald the doctrine of sola fide.
Context
The most significant yet difficult concept for me to learn was to let the context of a passage direct the interpretation. That is rudimentary for someone trained in hermeneutics. However, I realized that I’d read my theological framework into the text instead of being open enough for the text to shape my theological framework. Calvinism was my context, no matter the passage. It was a doctrine in search of a text.
Caricatures are not flattering. Even though they hint at reality, sketching such exaggerated features of opposing views is inaccurate and largely unhelpful. I confess that cage stage is not a term only to be applied to Calvinists as I exhibited the symptoms anew when shifting to Lutheranism. As a former Calvinist stalwart, I invite my Calvinist brothers and sisters to be open enough to consider a different approach. Looking at a caricature isn’t like looking in a mirror, but it can be instructive. The dialogue is helpful because it pushes each side to work on the areas of their caricatures founded in reality.
Next, I’d like to identify and correct some Lutheran caricatures.