Confessions of a Former Calvinist: What This Means For Me

     So we have reached a time where I have been a Calvinist for several years, probably at least seven or eight years. I ended up giving up the title of Calvinist and altogether leaving this idea regarding the whole of it where I am not fully committed to each of what is known as the five points of Calvinism. This caused me to lose some friends and associates who seem to only want to associate or be with Reformed/Calvinist Christians as opposed to Reformed (Protestant) Christians. This has led others to also requesting what my particular reasons for this to be. My reasons are merely that in an agnostic sense, though not atheistic as I still do believe that Christian Theism is the only true and consistent form of theism that exists. If I get around to it, I will eventually write articles refuting and responding to other religions found in Theism. While this article will be short, it is to at least give forth what I believe are my reasons and convictions for the rejection of Calvinism.

    First, the reason of historicity would be the starting issue, meaning that there was hard to find a consistent form of Calvinistic soteriology in a single church father. As of becoming more richly indebted to Protestant history, I have learned to see the value of church history and the traditions of the church to understand how doctrine was dealt with. But as of studying the Early Church Fathers, I will find that several of the early church fathers adhered to a form of Calvinism in their writings. However, you will also find Arminianism in these very same fathers as well. So while pure Arminianism & Molinism have been absent in early church history, the same is said towards Calvinism. Some people might argue Augustine was the church father who invented Calvinism (though I would challenge this after trying to read more of Augustine for the first time). So it would just be that I am trying to look for an approach to my Christian faith which is historic as well as biblical.

    Second, the reason of scripture seems to support both the doctrine of events being predetermined while there also being a sense of free will. Furthermore, not just mere determined events or a concept of undetermined free will decisions, but even the concept of chance is involved as noted in 1 Samuel 6:7-9 when the priests were explaining how to send the Ark of the Lord back after giving offerings:

Now then, prepare one new cart and two milk cows that have never been yoked. Hitch the cows to the cart, but take their calves away and pen them up. Take the ark of the Lord, place it on the cart, and put the gold objects that you’re sending him as a guilt offering in a box beside the ark. Send it off and let it go its way. Then watch: If it goes up the road to its homeland toward Beth-shemesh, it is the Lord who has made this terrible trouble for us. However, if it doesn’t, we will know that it was not his hand that punished us—it was just something that happened to us by chance.”

    So we do find that there is a means in which there would be an expectation of "chance" involved, which is something that originally led me to pursue the Calvinist view of Compatibilism in light of viewing chance as something which is unpredictable and thus only God knows the outcome. In fact, this goes in mind with the casting of lots (dice) to see what God wants the outcome of an action to be. Yet, we see there is more than just this idea of God's hand being involved in this case as there does seem to b the comparison between moments God brings his hand involved and then there is "chance" involved which doesn't include mere undetermined free will options. So there is more that I must consider here.

    Third, my other reason should not be one which should be considered as a refutation or a major point against Calvinist. Anybody who would try to use this section or part to try to somehow slam dunk on the Calvinists would be foolish and erroneous to do so, which is probably not going to stop some people like Warren McGrew and Leighton Flowers from trying if they were wanting to be desperate (which I doubt that Dr. Flowers would stoop to that low of a tactic). The reason is simply this: The Calvinist Community soon became toxic and very divisive, even towards their own people. Calvinists were fine and calm with unity at first, but soon Reformed Baptists & Presbyterians were starting to make accusations of anathema over disagreements on modes of baptism. It eventually escalated when the question of the theonomy debate became important and then recently the debate over divine simplicity. I eventually was just tired of this pointless arguing and bickering as well as false charges put forth against their brethren, which wasn't helped by the fact some were pushing for the idea of "Christian Nationalism" proposed by Stephen Wolfe. So I sought after something which brought more unity and thus had to re-examine my beliefs.

    This isn't long, like I said, but it is something to put out since some might be asking questions now as to what is causing me to abandon the title of Reformed/Calvinist. I have already seen some toxicity as some only would fellowship or follow me if I was a Calvinist. The main thing I seek for is a faith which is both biblical and historical as well as true to the ecclesial unity (catholicity) of the church in fellowship and worship. The Episcopal Church (Anglicanism) is where I believe my path in this must go. While I am neither Calvinist, Arminian, Molinist or Open Theist, I would agree with Phillip Schaff's comment on the manner from Volume VIII of his Church History as a position I hold to (except the last comment on it being more "Christian" than either of them:

"Calvinism emphasized divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasized human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine that Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them."