Think all Calvinists are frozen, puffed up know-it-alls? Then you need to read Richard Mouw's, .
The bizarre title is taken from a scene in the movie Hardcore, where the character played by George C. Scott esplains Calvinism to a thoroughly pagan young lady named Niki while they are sitting in the Las Vegas airport. It is a humorous (and disturbing) microcosm of how awkward and difficult it can be to witness to an unbeliever when you lead with TULIP.
I'll never forget my friend Keith telling me, as we were standing in the breakfast line at K&W Cafeteria, "when I witness to unbelievers, I lay it all out there. I talk about God's wrath, His sovereignty and election. I don't hide my Calvinism." I just thought, man, how in the world do you do that?
Mouw, like myself, is a Calvinist. Mouw was raised in a Calvinist tradition. I was not. I never heard the word until I was a sophomore in college. Nonetheless, I embraced Calvinism wholeheartedly in a doctrine class at Covenant College after Dr. Krabbendam, who is a 6 foot 7 inch Dutchman, towered over me and esplained, "Cheer up, you are worse than you think. But God's grace is greater than you can imagine." I love Calvinism. I am a systematic thinker, and Calvinist doctrine ties scripture together so elegantly and faithfully in my opinion. Calvinism should produce humility. It should produce wonder. It should produce hope.
Unfortunately, the stereotype people have of Calvinists is there for a reason.
Mouw writes,
"I must also say up front that it isn't just in our conversations with unbelievers that I find many Calvinists lacking in gentleness and respect. I find these qualities missing in Calvinists' interactions with other Christians. Indeed, Calvinists are often not very gentle and respectful when debating fine points of doctrine with fellow Calvinists."
True statement.
Mouw asks reflectfully,
"What does Calvinism have to say to our present world? How do I as a TULIP-lover speak gently and respectfully to non-Christians about what I believe? What do the Canons of Dordt mean for people who hang around in the Las Vegas airport."
If that sort of thing interests you, get the book. It is a short, easy read. Mouw writes in a conversational manner and makes his points well.
In my own ABOUT page, I call myself more of a gospel cowboy than a doctrine cop. Those of you in the PCA know what I am talking about. This book will appeal to gospel cowboy Calvinists -- it will likely bother doctrine cops. I love the fact that God provided doctrine cops. The church needs them. They are a gift. But this is not the book for them. It will annoy them because Mouw is a gospel cowboy Calvinist.
There are two good chapters which make the point that Calvinism is more than a discussion about salvation. One is called After The Election, and delves into the area of calling. The second is called Every Square Inch, which is a clear reference to Abraham Kuyper. It deals with Calvinism as a world and life view. Mouw has been called an "Abraham Kuyper on Prozac". I like sticky phrases, and that one stuck with me.
The chapter that challenged my thinking the most was called The Generosity Option. I introspected on my view of election, and found that I have bought into a stingy view of God's grace. Why do I presume that God is a miser with His grace? I have not been able to answer that question yet. Mouw challenged me to rethink how I view God, and reflect on God's as a generous God rather than choosing to view him as a miser who dispenses His grace on a "select few." That is profoundly challenging. And helpful.
What is TULIP again?
Posted by: John M. | February 27, 2006 at 15:59
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perserverance of the Saints
Posted by: Mr. Dawn Treader | February 27, 2006 at 17:58
Aaaargh! Another book I have to buy! :-)
Posted by: dopderbeck | February 28, 2006 at 10:02
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Calvinism require a belief in double predestination?
(BTW, thanks for your latest entries on the CADRE Comments. I especially enjoyed the bit about the begging the question fallacy fallacy. Well done.)
Posted by: BK | February 28, 2006 at 10:32
"I especially enjoyed the bit about the begging the question fallacy fallacy."
Thanks, I hope it helps.
"doesn't Calvinism require a belief in double predestination?"
Precision is critical with your question. Define exactly what you mean by "double predestination" -- I think I know, but I want to make sure (and others may not understand what you are asking).
Posted by: Mr. Dawn Treader | February 28, 2006 at 12:19
"Aaaargh! Another book I have to buy! :-)"
I'll loan you my copy -- your wifey is probably already upset with me for causing you to overrun the family book budget. :-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawn Treader | February 28, 2006 at 12:20
Double-predestination, as I understand it, is the belief that some people have been chosen for heaven and some people have been chosen for hell. These decisions are made prior to their births. (Of course, I don't have a background in Calvinism, so I would welcome your enlightening me if am mischaracterizing what double-predestination is).
Posted by: BK | February 28, 2006 at 12:59
The topic of double predestination can be a heated one depending on how it is depicted. It is a nuanced discussion, and difficult to tackle in a comment thread.
I invite you to read an essay by RC Sproul called Double Predestination. It is loaded with big theological words -- so be like me, read it slowly and twice through ;-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawn Treader | February 28, 2006 at 13:21
That article by Sproul is a good one. The major confusion comes because Calvinists do believe that God saves sinners by no merit of their own and God ordained this before the creation of the universe. This also means that God didn't choose some sinners to be saved (he chose some and didn't chose others). The (logical) confusion is this - "not choosing some to be saved" isn't the same as "choosing some not to be saved." (IOW, "I do not choose X" is different than "I choose not-X.") I would call the later "double predestination." It is an active choosing of who is and who isn't saved. As Sproul points out, though, the standard Reformed view is that they aren't both "active" - there isn't a "strict parallelism" between the two. God actively regenerates some, while leaving others to sin and misery.
Posted by: Macht | February 28, 2006 at 15:21
Here is a good webpage also. The discussion on not confusing the motives and the grounds of God's decrees is important, I think:
"The term "predestination" is sometimes used more generally and at other times more particularly of specific intents toward a limited class of objects. This has caused much miscommunication among those debating this issue.
The grounds and motives for election and reprobation are often confused. The motive for election and reprobation are to be found in the independent good pleasure of God alone. Otherwise this would make his decrees and purposes dependent upon something outside of himself. The grounds for his election and reprobation is everywhere presented as something judicial. The grounds for election is the atonement provided by Christ. The grounds for the condemnation of the reprobate is everywhere presented as the individual's guilt. If the judicial grounds of the decrees are confused with the motives of God then conflicts are to be expected."
This is another reason whythere isn't a parallel between the predestination and reprobation. The grounds for each of them is different.
Posted by: Macht | February 28, 2006 at 15:30