Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists

Labels are a postmodern taboo. This is understandable. Once you are labeled something, you live under the presumptions of the system that has been typified by others. This representation may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, the inaccuracies inevitably rule the label.
Republican: War lover. Does not care about the environment. Apathetic to social issues.
Democrat: Liberal. Godless. Weak. Immoral.
Roman Catholic: Worships Mary. Ignorant.
Evangelical: Fundamentalist. Gay hater. Supports the killing of abortion doctors. Republican (see above).
Baptist: Can’t drink, dance, or smoke. Prideful.
Dispensationalist: Believes in two ways of salvation, one for the Old Testament and one for the new. Cares only about eschatology.
DTS Grads: Dispensationalist (see above). ![]()
OU Sooners: The best ever. Supernatural. Incredible. (Oh, wait . . . this is all true)
Emerging church: Cursing. Compromise doctrine. Nose rings. Disrespectful.
Arminian: Humanistic. Denies God’s sovereignty. Pelagian.
Calvinist: Follower of a man. Believes God hates the non-elect. Denies free will. Denies responsibility. Believes God created evil.
Unfortunately, there are reasons why people have these stereotypical assumptions about systems, and these reasons are often valid. Not because the system itself demands it (although this is sometimes the case), but because of two things: 1) There will always be those radical outspoken representatives who live for the spotlight and focus upon non-essentials within the system, thereby giving outsiders a skewed perspective of what they system is all about. 2) There are those outside the system who seek to distort the “opponent” by creating straw-men arguments.
It is this first about which I would like to speak. Specifically, I would like to speak on it with regards to Calvinism. There are many out there who call themselves Calvinists who make very bad Calvinists. In other words, the way they portray their own system lacks understanding and perspective concerning the system.
When I am around some Calvinists, I want to become an Arminian! There are many reasons I say this, but first and foremost is that many Calvinists lack balance. They act as if the doctrines of grace are the only issues in theology. It does not matter what you are talking about, with these people it somehow always turns into a discussion about the importance of Calvinism. Further, they will strongly demean any who disagrees with Calvinism to the point where they deny them the grace that is so irresistible in their own system. In other words, there are many Calvinists who act like Calvinism is the central core of the Gospel. With this attitude of smugness and disrespect, who would want to be a Calvinist?
I will be the first to admit that there are many who are not Calvinists who love the Lord more, are smarter, and who live the Christian life better than myself (none of which is a great feat
). Who can deny the scholarship of the likes of Roger Olson, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Gregory Boyd, I. Howard Marshall, and Scott McKnight? I can personally attest to the Christian character of Paul and J.P. They demand respect even if we disagree.
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.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Tension in Calvinism - tension in the Christian faith
- Tension in Calvinism - tension in the Christian faith
- Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
- What Do You Mean “God is Sovereign”? Four Options
- What Do
You Mean “God is Sovereign”? Four Options

Wm Tanksley on 30 Sep 2008 at 1:04 pm #
Good post, and could only be written by a dedicated Calvinist.
I have a question. Is “retrobutionist” a typo for “retributionist”? If so, what does that mean?
The article on hypercalvinism you point to is superb. I’m going to read it a few more times.
You offer two warnings for Calvinists. The first is a warning against extremes in doctrine; the second is a warning against extremes in doctrinal excommunication. I think the second warning is more urgent, frankly; if, when we disagree, we treat each other as erring brothers we’re more likely to see some kind of correction from one another.
I don’t find generic warnings against extremes to be useful; every doctrine, true or false, can be characterized as extreme from some viewpoint. The specific warning of extremism I find useful is the one that indicates a lack of context. In other words, our final infallible authority for judging extremism is what Scripture says, not what the majority of other people’s doctrines teach.
Lack of context can be caused either by ignoring the textual and cultural hermeneutics of a given prooftext, or by using too few prooftexts to support an allegedly major doctrine. (This latter is based on the idea that no doctrine should be founded on a single passage; likewise, if you have two passages, perhaps you have a doctrine, but you should humbly consider it to be a weak one.)
Timothy Ha on 30 Sep 2008 at 3:12 pm #
In Russia we have the book by Abraham Kuyper, “Lectures on Calvinism” translated as “The Christian Worldview”. I don’t know if the publisher wanted to soften the title in an Eastern Orthodox country, but that title is also good for calling Calvinism a worldview.
God is one and only, and we have only one world. But we have many Christian ways of looking at this world. We apply our lens to the Bible and use double lens (ours and the Bible’s) to look at the world. One Christian would need one kind of glasses, and the other Christian would need another kind of glasses.
My way of thinking and reading the Bible is also Calvinistic, but I have a lot to learn from my brothers in Christ from other traditions, so I can only see Calvinism as a worldview and approach to God’s Word and Christian life, but not as an absolute scientific system like pure Mathematics.
Do you see things this way, too?
Rhonda on 30 Sep 2008 at 4:46 pm #
What a great post!!!! And you could change “Calvinist” to “Baptist” or any other group. I feel the same way about some baptists, and I’m a baptist! Makes me want to cry. We think we have truth, yet we act like unbelievers, fighting and accusing, “defending” that truth.
Too bad!!!
Eric S. Mueller on 30 Sep 2008 at 5:29 pm #
Great post, Michael. I don’t consider myself a Calvinist, but I find myself to be highly comfortable with the Calvinist explaination. I remind myself that Calvinism is merely a doctrine, that is a system created by man to try to explain the things of God. Paul did tell Timothy that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, among other things.
Though I am most comfortable with Calvinism, I worship at a church of Christ where the congregation is predonimately, well, not Calvinist. Every time the subjects of eternal security and confidence in our salvation come up, somebody inevitably will make the comment “Oh, but you have to be careful of that ‘Once Saved, Always Saved stuff.’” That comes from our ministers and elders. I have come to the conclusion that this is a strawman born out of an emotional reaction, not so much to Calvinism (though they may interpret it as such) but as a reaction against why John MacArthur calls “Easy believism.” It seems that they are reacting against the possibility of somebody becoming saved, showing no fruit, yet the net result is salvation. I sometimes think I’m the only one in my church who has processed the thought that far. I can remember even after a sermon about our confidence in Christ’s work of salvation, while talking to the minister to say “great sermon!” a brother passing by and joining the conversation somehow turned it into an “OSAS” talk.
I too respect J.P. Moreland. His book “Love God With All Your Mind” was a true inspiration to me. I don’t have much of a heart or soul, so I have to work with what I’ve got.
Anyway, great post. I find your posts very though provoking.
Daily linkathon 10/1 « BrianD blog on 01 Oct 2008 at 1:18 am #
[...] Michael Patton says Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists. [...]
Charles Page on 01 Oct 2008 at 2:22 am #
To be a good Calvinist I have to believe in limited atonement the way you believe it!
I am not a good Calvinist, I believe atonement is limited.
I’ll bet your reply is a long explaination of it being yes/no in limitation.
Paul Copan on 02 Oct 2008 at 7:57 am #
Thanks for your post, Michael (and for your kind words!).
I’m reminded of a very well-known evangelical leader (I won’t mention the name) who comes from a Calvinist tradition himself. He has referred to such ungracious, hard-driving Calvinists as the “Reformed Mafia.” I’m grateful for your irenic spirit.
Blessings,
Paul
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 9:00 am #
Paul Copan…… the kind philosopher (!).
grg on 02 Oct 2008 at 10:48 am #
Good article. We should always be willing to question our theological frameworks to make sure we are following God’s will and not our own. You’re right that ignorant extremists (hyper-calvinists) are a real problem. However, people will always misuse any theological framework — and even scripture itself — but that does not invalidate the underlying theology. It’s a bit of an ad hominem argument.
I’d be genuinely interested to hear what specific biblical objections you have regarding such such as God’s hate for the ‘un-elect.’ Is there scripture in which love for the ‘un-elect’ motivates what God does (as opposed to his mercy, patience, jealousy for his glory, or desire to fulfill his gracious plan for the elect). Does he leave the weeds in the field because he loves the weeds, or because he has a plan for the wheat (Matt. 13:24–30)? Does he command us to love our enemies because he loves them, or because judgment is HIS job (Rom. 12:14–21)?
The question isn’t whether “God expects us to do things he can’t do”. The real question is whether there are things God can do that he doesn’t expect — or doesn’t allow — us to do.
Scripture says that we are incapable of executing righteous judgment. We do not see all that God does. We see through the clouded lens of sin. We see outward appearances, but only God can know the heart.
God says to love our enemies not because God loves them, but because “`Vengeance is mine’, says the Lord, `I will repay.”’ Elsewhere it’s written that his wrath burns against the unrighteous. Does that sound like a God who loves the wicked? He’s asking us to forebear our sinful, imperfect vengeance in view of the certainty that God will take care care of business in his perfect timing. All of this is written in the New Testament to Christians, so it cannot be dismissed as an Old Testament Thing.
We are commanded not to judge, lest we be judged, not because judgment itself is evil or because the wicked don’t deserve it, but because we stink at it. Judgment is God’s job, not ours.
So why, then, do we love our enemies? When we love our enemies, we are obedient to his command to do so, we recognize and exalt his sovereign right to administer perfect justice, we demonstrate faith in his ability and intention to do so, and we imitate his patience and mercy toward those who don’t deserve it. God isn’t required to love the wicked. He doesn’t love the wicked. But, he makes it clear that hating the wicked is not our job.
We are created in God’s image and by faith through grace are being transformed into the likeness of his son. That does not mean, however, that we are God or ever will be. He reserves for himself things that only he can do: things that would be wicked for us to do because we would do it imperfectly. God, however, does not partake in our character flaws. He is the perfect judge and will judge perfectly, both the wicked deserving of his wrath and the gracious recipients of his love through the completed work of his son on the cross.
I’d love to hear biblical responses to any of this. It’s how we grow in love and unity. I can be wrong — and often am — but I want to be corrected a la Luther by the Scripture and plain reason. I’m looking forward to reading such thoughts.
Thanks for the article.
Press on!
Jude 3
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 1:35 pm #
grg,
Matt. 5: 43-48
“You have heard it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, SO THAT YOU MAY BE LIKE YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?…. So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Sometimes, context is everything.
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 1:42 pm #
Wow, you mean I typed that for nothing!? I love the green scripture clicker!
Michael, I loved the question you asked that man: “What does God say to do to your enemies?”…. and following Great!
grg on 02 Oct 2008 at 2:58 pm #
@Susan — Good verse. Thank you.
I know it’s difficult to interpret tone in this medium, so be assured that my questions aren’t intended to be argumentative. I’m genuinely interested.
Also be assured that I agree it is never OK for a Christian to hate a non-believer. Ever. I’m just not sure that constrains God based in part on the passages I cited. I also agree with the overall critique of hyper-Calvinism. I would be considered Calvinist, I suppose, but I only agree with him — or anyone else — inasmuch as he (or she) agrees with scripture. That’s why I’m interested in specific biblical examples.
. . .
Question: You said along with your verse that “context is everything.” How is what I said an error of context? What verse(s) did I quote out of context?
In fact, it’s context that drives my question. That Christians should love their enemies (believers or not) is undisputed. How, though, with respect to God’s love for the un-elect, does Matt. 5:43-48 work together with passages such as Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5 and Psalm 26:5, which say that God hates the wicked? Or with passages such as Romans 1:18, which reveals God’s (loving?) wrath from heaven against the unrighteous, who are storing up (loving?) wrath and judgment from God (Rom. 2:5)? Or with passages such as Rom 12:14-21 and John 16:7-11, which speak of God’s judgment of nonbelievers? Or with passages such as John 15:9-10, which seems to imply that those who do not keep his commands do not abide in his love?
You’re right: context is everything. All of these passages are part of the full counsel of God as revealed in his word, and we cannot dismiss or ignore these passages any quicker than Matt 5. So it’s the broader context that makes we wonder if we can make an unqualified statement that “God loves the un-elect.” What does it mean when we say that, biblically speaking?
Again, thanks for the article and discussion. Good stuff.
Press on!
grg
Jude 3
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 3:19 pm #
grg,
You said: “God isn’t required to love the wicked. He doesn’t love the wicked.”
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 4:05 pm #
grg, I was in a hurry when I glanced at your reply….. now I’ve read further.
There is a footnote in the NET Bible which states: “The Lord ‘hates’ the wicked in the sense that he despises their wicked character and deeds, and actively opposes and judges them for their wickedness”
This note accompanies both Ps. 5:5 and Ps 11:5. Maybe you wouldn’t agree…
“For God so loved the world…” It doesn’t say, “for God so loved the elect”
grg on 03 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am #
@Susan — Good point. I appreciate your responses.
“For God so loved the world…” It doesn’t say, “for God so loved the elect”
Neither does it say “For God so loves the world.” Some would say that God’s love was demonstrated in Christ (a la Rom 5:8). I really don’t like to hang a theological point on a Greek tense, but it’s also consistent with passages like John 15:9-10, which speaks of believers alone abiding in God’s love.
Also, I have a hard time building a biblical case for separating God’s disdain for sin from is disdain for the sinner. Part of this is because it is the sinner — not just the sin — that the ultimate object of God’s wrath (Rom 1–2 and elsewhere). I think it may be a distinction we try to force on the text.
I have a feeling we’re talking past each other a little bit. I’d point back to the difficulty in using the word “love,” which can be used to mean many things. If “God loves the unelect” means that he shows compassion and mercy and grace, then yes, God loves the unelect.
Perhaps it is more accurate to ask in what way(s) God’s love for the elect is different from his love for the elect.
At the end of the day, the point of the article stands. Regardless of how we explain God’s attitude toward the unelect, we are clearly commanded to love them.
Susan on 03 Oct 2008 at 11:47 am #
grg,
Greek tense…. ‘God so loved’… past tense there does not indicate that God loved, but then stopped loving (as you seem to suggest). God never changes. Heb 13:8 “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”2Pet.3:9
Back to post # 12…God is a just judge. This does not negate his love for the lost. You seem to be saying that for God to punish the unredeemed he must hate them. Your logic there is the equivalent of saying: God is merciful. God is Just. God punishes sinners, therefore He must not be merciful after all. One attribute of God being displayed does not trump, or change that the other remains in-tact.
As I see it, even God’s punishment of sinners is an act consistent with his love. If I had been molested as a child, and my molester never acknowledged his need for redemption through Christ, then it would be fitting, and in a sense a display of love for me, that my molester be punished for that act.
And, by the same token, you mention John 15:9-10 “which seems to imply that those who don’t obey his commands do not abide in his love”. Yes, it does. I’m not a scholar, and I don’t know God’s full meaning of that which is translated “abide or reside”, but perhaps this refers to the fact that when we are his, and thus keeping his commands we are experiencing the full benefits of his love, as apposed to the nonbeliever who does not have the inner witness of the Holy spirit confirming in their heart that God loves them. Also, as one created in God’s image, I don’t hate those whom I don’t love. It’s possible for me to see someone go to jail, and have a sense that justice is being served, without hating them. In fact I’m sure that there have been parents who love their son who goes to jail, and yet believe that the punishment is right and necessary.
You are correct in concluding that the bottom line for us is that we are to love our enemies, but I think we need to couple that with the rest of what is said in that passage Matt.5:43-48…. Part of “be(ing) perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect” is loving your enemies “so that you may be like your father in heaven”. I think that this matters, because it matters what our understanding of God is. He is completely loving, and completely just. These two attributes are fully wed in the death of Jesus in our stead.
Thanks, I appreciate your tone, and the fact that you want to be scriptural.
Susan on 03 Oct 2008 at 12:10 pm #
grg, Note also Rom. 5:8-10. Verse 10 indicates that God considers us enemies before we are reconciled…… yet (vs 8)”God demonstates his love for us…while we are still sinners”.
Does this not clearly show that being an evil sinner/ an enemy of God, does not mean that he hates us (but rather that he loves all, even in the enemy status)? After all, he didn’t make us an enemy, we do that.
Aaron C. Rathburn on 05 Oct 2008 at 9:20 pm #
Where have I seen that list of generalities before? Was it on this very blog?
Great thoughts, though!
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2008 at 9:31 pm #
Yes, it was here. This was a repost of a lost post. Hopefully it is the last recovered blog since the crash.
Calvinists Often Make the Worst Calvinists « Then Face to Face on 08 Oct 2008 at 6:25 am #
[...] Often Make the Worst Calvinists An excellent artice over at Parchment and Pen. My thoughts precisely. Would you rather hang with a humble Arminian then a proud Calvinist? Or, [...]
Doug Klein on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:47 pm #
God’s everlasting love is toward the elect only. His common love (His universal love) is toward absolutely everybody. When God shows love toward the nonelect, He does so knowing their eternal destiny in burning unending retribution.
Thus His common love is a Holy love. a love which is experienced by every human being. Its ultimate purpose is to add intensity of sorrow to the nonelect who no longer experience it, as they used to—no more quietness, peaceful days, wife, family, friends, water, rest, sunshine etc. Yeah for all eternity they will remember His universal love, even as they scream and wail and pop and burn.