# Brian McLaren was formerly a "Calvinist"?



## Marrow Man (Aug 5, 2009)

Cal.vini.st referenced this post by McLaren on his blog. Here's is the relevant (ha!) snipet, in reference to a "why do people dislike you?" question. The following is one of those groups mentioned by McLaren:



> Strict 5-Point Double-Predestinarian "Truly-Reformed" Calvinists. I spent many years as a card-carrying (should I say "tulip-toting"?) Calvinist. I understand its appeal from the inside, because it's a highly coherent (from the inside), self-reinforcing closed system, and it gives its defenders a feeling of true superiority, in a humble-yet-exclusively-privileged sort of way. But I believe Calvinism (of this strict, 5 point, TR - or "truly reformed" - sort) rests on some erroneous assumptions. One of those assumptions is what Lesslie Newbigin called the greatest heresy of monotheism, namely, a misunderstanding of election as being for exclusive privilege rather than for suffering and service for the common good. In addition, many Calvinists define the gospel as a theory of atonement (penal substitutionary atonement, to be specific). I define the gospel as Jesus and his announcement that the kingdom of God is at hand. (More on this in SMJ, if you're interested.) Obviously, Calvinists of this sort (especially strict Westminster Confessionalists) believe I've left the reservation.
> 
> By the way, there's another way to understand Calvin - as a brilliant, open, progressive and creative leader rather than a tense reactionary, entrenched enforcer/inquisitor. But that's another story.


Hmmm, the progressive Calvin. I suppose that might correct in one light, but somehow I doubt McLaren would have gotten far in Geneva. But hey, even the neo-orthodox managed to draft Calvin to their side.


----------



## Sven (Aug 5, 2009)

I love the strawman that McLaren builds up and then appears to tear down. Why don't I build one myself? An emergent Christian is a smug, I-better-than-thou-because-I'm-hip-relevant-and-tolerant person. But emergents rest on an erroneous assumption. The assumption is that you're hip whereas, in fact, you are an annoying jerk. Two can play this game.

But really, do Calvinists really believe that they are the privileged sort? Do they really reduce the gospel to a theory (albeit, a correct one) of the atonement? Does anybody really recognize the Calvinism McLaren is talking about? Was Calvin really Neo-orthodox, which is probably the assumption behind McLaren's assinine comment?


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 6, 2009)

> "Obviously, Calvinists of this sort (especially strict Westminster Confessionalists) believe I've left the reservation." Brien McLaren



*"The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep." John 10:13*

Mr. McLaren, you were never on the reservation to begin with.

Many religious counterfeits seek to identify with orthodox Calvinists in an attempt to legitimize their persons, positions, and right to preach in the name of Christ, while simultaneously sneering at, insulting, and denying the Scriptural doctrines that constitute true confessional orthodoxy.

The true sheep of God are not fooled. They do not hear the voice of these false shepherds, but know they are dangerous thieves. (John 10:5)


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 6, 2009)

His definition of the gospel sounds disturbing close to what the Eastern Orthodox teach.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 6, 2009)

Thankfully, I have never met a "former" Calvinist.

Think about it and it will come to you. 

AMR


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 6, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Cal.vini.st referenced this post by McLaren on his blog. Here's is the relevant (ha!) snipet, in reference to a "why do people dislike you?" question. The following is one of those groups mentioned by McLaren:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed, McLaren might very well have found himself burnt at the stake in Geneva.


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

> Indeed, McLaren might very well have found himself burnt at the stake in Geneva.



No, he would have to have done something as radical as calling the Trinity a Three Headed Monster, and to have been competent enough to have convinced others to his view.. The little wuse would have been beneath notice at Geneva. In any event he would have been too busy shoveling horse manure to have bothered the body politic there.


----------



## louis_jp (Aug 6, 2009)

Sven said:


> I love the strawman that McLaren builds up and then appears to tear down. Why don't I build one myself? An emergent Christian is a smug, I-better-than-thou-because-I'm-hip-relevant-and-tolerant person. But emergents rest on an erroneous assumption. The assumption is that you're hip whereas, in fact, you are an annoying jerk. Two can play this game.



Now THAT was funny!


----------



## William Price (Aug 6, 2009)

wow! Guess that guy is just plain deceived. Oh well.


----------



## D. Paul (Aug 6, 2009)

In the new book unChristian, which is evidently all-the-rage, McLaren is among those cited as "Christian leaders" giving reason why 16-29 yr olds are abandoning Christianity. The book was referenced frequently in a recent sermon series at church and while no mention was made of McLaren specifically, the series prompted me to write a letter to our pastor to state that the "solutions" were given by at least one apostate, namely Mclaren. His hatred for the church could not be more evident.

-----Added 8/6/2009 at 09:13:07 EST-----



TeachingTulip said:


> *"The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep." John 10:13*
> 
> Mr. McLaren, you were never on the reservation to begin with.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 6, 2009)

He just completely mis-stated the Calvinist position; revealing that he was never a Calvinist. Eitherh e's lying, or he just was/is ignorant of Calvinist soteriology and overall Reformed theology. I don't mean that in a mean way, albeit it is a harsh truth.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 6, 2009)

> namely, a misunderstanding of election as being for exclusive privilege rather than for suffering and service for the common good. In addition, many Calvinists define the gospel as a theory of atonement (penal substitutionary atonement, to be specific). I define the gospel as Jesus and his announcement that the kingdom of God is at hand.



Exclusive privilege? New one on me. Never heard this within the confines of the Reformed tradition or modern Calvinistic thought, but I'm under-read.

I'd also like for him to define "Jesus" and the "Kingdom of God". Under the Biblical understanding of Jesus' person and God's Kingdom, the substitutiionary atonement of Christ is the cornerstone of God's Kingdom, allowing God's people to be reconcilled to Him and members of his heavenly kingdom, co-heirs with His Son. 

I'm thoroughly amused by McLaren's concession that Calvinism is internally consistent (albeit from the "inside", whatever that means in the context of being consistent... from the inside). He appears to admit that it's the consistent position, and then set up false, vauge assertions about some imagined inconsistancy and then present his own vauge alternative view, lacking meaning and any real criticism. 

The man is so bent on himself and being a god to other people. He needs Christ.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 6, 2009)

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford * matter of praise, reverence, and adoration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.*

Yeah, I could see why biblical Calvinism is wrong. It doesn't praise the right person for salvation...

What about everyone doing what is right in his own eyes...

Praise God that He bestows grace; but for His grace, I would think it was all about me, too.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 6, 2009)

Hey, let's not lump him into the neo-orthodox camp. Karl Barth is John Knox next to what I've heard this guy teach. (Though I'm sure he's taking something of Barth and running with it. Comments, Grymir?)


----------

