“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”—Acts 2:38
A new generation of Calvinists are cropping up as a reaction to the weak biblical teaching and man-centered pragmatism of some fundamentalists. I recently finished a book by a champion of these “new Calvinists” containing a blatant defense of Calvinist doctrine. The writer’s belief was that for anyone to be biblical, he needs to believe the tenets of Calvinism. To believe anything else would be unscriptural, he opined.
He criticized those who preach a “new [pragmatic] gospel,” as opposed to “the old [scriptural] gospel.” This new pragmatism, according to him, preaches a “pitiable Savior” and a “pathetic God” because it pleads with men “as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time.” Ultimately his conclusion was that one is either a Calvinist, believing only some will be saved because Jesus only died for some, or a Universalist, believing all will be saved because Jesus died for all.
Knee-jerking against man-centered pragmatism, however, is hardly a reason to be a Calvinist. Scriptural principles, patterns, and implications should shape our theological positions, and the pattern of Bible ministry contradicts the theology of Calvinism. Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost is just one example.
Peter invited people to “repent” and to “be baptized… in the name of Jesus Christ.” Space prevents us from exposing the meaning of baptism “for the remission of sins,” but it is enough to point out that Peter’s appeal was to the will of every listener before him on the Day of Pentecost. They were being called upon to choose. Calvinist’s cannot make that kind of appeal honestly. The aforementioned writer states that “fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel” and that the opposite view of Calvinism makes “saving faith… man’s own work.” An honest Calvinist preaching “by grace through faith” (especially the way he defines those terms) couldn’t invite people to make a decision—especially the way Peter did. That reality sets Calvinist theology against a biblical pattern.
Peter invited “every one” to “repent” and to “be baptized.” Peter’s appeal was also universal (or, shall we say, unlimited?). It doesn’t appear that Peter thought the atonement provided through Jesus’ death was limited. Does that appear to be the belief of any New Testament preacher? A plain reading of the Bible affirms that the death of Jesus for sin was sufficient for all sinners (I Timothy 2:5-6; I John 2:2; II Corinthians 5:14-15). Yet the writer of the aforementioned article states, “Preaching the gospel… is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them.” Perhaps he doesn’t mean that you can’t tell people that God loves them or that Jesus died for them, but it sure looks like that’s what he’s saying. The writer goes on to acknowledge, however, that “the question of the extent of the atonement does not arise in evangelistic preaching.” I ask, “Why should it arise at all?”
These new semi-Calvinists will argue that their invitation is still to everyone. But I ask you: why be any kind of Calvinist? Space forbids us from exploring this thoroughly, but Calvinism wrongly defines biblical terms like election, grace, and faith. It will lead to practices that are contrary to the biblical pattern. You don’t have to be a Calvinist to be a thinker. Better to be a non-Calvinist altogether.
Yes, the charge of man-centered pragmatism could be leveled at many fundamentalists, but one doesn’t have to be defined by either man-centered pragmatism or Calvinism. I have found that it’s better to walk the road than to choose one ditch over the other.