Intellectual superiority

[StillGods]

Do Calvinists believe they have a more superior intellect than non-Calvinists?

Is Calvinism a denomination for the intellectually superior?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Anyone even remotely familiar with the likes of R. C. Sproul or John Piper, two of the most well-known Calvinists out there, can see how inaccurate and distasteful this question is.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Do Calvinists believe they have a more superior intellect than non-Calvinists?

Is Calvinism a denomination for the intellectually superior?

Not at all.

 

[StillGods]

Anyone even remotely familiar with the likes of R. C. Sproul or John Piper, two of the most well-known Calvinists out there, can see how inaccurate and distasteful this question is.

your reply in itself shows that Calvinism is only for those who are well versed in the works of those two theologians...is that not in itself an intellectually superior reply.

 

[Jonaitis]

Do Calvinists believe they have a more superior intellect than non-Calvinists?

Is Calvinism a denomination for the intellectually superior?

No. This is the assumption we receive from non-Calvinist all the time, but many of us can be over zealous that it appears that way.

No, but it will engender intellectual growth.

 

[StillGods]

No. This is the assumption we receive from non-Calvinist all the time, but many of us can be over zealous that it appears that way.

No, but it will engender intellectual growth.

Honestly many Calvinists I have met do seem to think themselves intellectually superior to the rest of Christendom, so it is not an assumption but an observable trait.
But perhaps as you mentioned it is a zealousness. Whatever it is, it is certainly offputting.

 

[StillGods]

Is Calvinism out of reach for those who are not intellectually inclined, as there seem to be a number of concepts that the average person would not find it worth wrestling with to try and understand. Also there is the extra recommended reading of texts that Calvinists seem to subscribe to.
Anyone who is not into such things can not enter into Calvinism so it does seem to only be for intellectuals and out of reach for the common man which is a shame.

 

[Jonaitis]

Honestly many Calvinists I have met do seem to think themselves intellectually superior to the rest of Christendom, so it is not an assumption but an observable trait.
But perhaps as you mentioned it is a zealousness. Whatever it is, it is certainly offputting.

It can be off-putting, and that was one reason I began to drift from that community. Some do think that they have been enlightened enough to judge everything a non-Calvinist believes, having blind-spots themselves that they are not willing to admit. When you introduce a different perspective, it becomes illegal by tradition, and many of them want to be a lawyer.

 

[StillGods]

It can be off-putting, and that was one reason I began to drift from that community. Some do think that they have been enlightened enough to judge everything a non-Calvinist believes, having blind-spots themselves that they are not willing to admit. When you introduce a different perspective, it becomes illegal by tradition, and many of them want to be a lawyer.

That has been my experience aswell, thank you for understanding.

 

[Jonaitis]

That has been my experience aswell, thank you for understanding.

I use to think that way myself, and would critically analyze everything someone said, and sometimes I still have a bad habit of doing that in inappropriate situations. So I understand the mindset, they truly think they hold the keys of the kingdom, but won't admit that outright. It is hard for many of them to listen to a sermon or a book written by someone not recommended in the community. However, I would not describe that of my church body and many others out there.

A term often used for some of those people is "cage-stage Calvinist," and most usually outgrow it after years studying the tradition.

 

[StillGods]

I use to think that way myself, and would critically analyze everything someone said, and sometimes I still have a bad habit of doing that in inappropriate situations. So I understand the mindset, they truly think they hold the keys of the kingdom, but won't admit that outright. It is hard for many of them to listen to a sermon or a book written by someone not recommended in the community. However, I would not describe that of my church body and many others out there.

A term often used for some of those people is "cage-stage Calvinist," and most usually outgrow it after years studying the tradition.

Thank you for sharing this, you have described it well.
I have a tendency analyzing everything said aswell sometimes.
I'm glad your church body is not like that..mine isnt either.

I think it might be the 'cage-stage Calvinists' I have mostly encountered.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Is Calvinism out of reach for those who are not intellectually inclined, as there seem to be a number of concepts that the average person would not find it worth wrestling with to try and understand. Also there is the extra recommended reading of texts that Calvinists seem to subscribe to.
Anyone who is not into such things can not enter into Calvinism so it does seem to only be for intellectuals and out of reach for the common man which is a shame.

Some thoughts based on your comments (and keeping in mind that I'm about one year into my Christian journey so any of this might be incorrect. Actually, any of my statements on any topic might be incorrect - including this statement):

1. Some Calvin scholars have pointed out that he himself would not have approved of the term "Calvinism" (he probably more so would have described himself as a "Reformed Catholic").
2. That said it DOES seem to be a shortcut for expressing a general set of doctrinal positions (e.g. TULIP, Reformed, a strong position of God's Righteousness and Sovereignty).
3. Re. being "out of reach" - I don't look at it like that at all. There is no bar, no entry test. You might well align with some, many, or only a few of "Calvinistic" principles, and it's seeming subjective at what point you might decide to call yourself a Calvinist.
4. One part of me is tempted to say that Calvinists generally adhere to an emphasis on a rigorous exegesis of the bible (going hand-in-hand with the Reformational principle of Sola Scriptura), and this may well lean a Calvinist towards argumentation (after all, how else do you get to the bottom of what is being biblically said other than argument, study, analysis, etc). Prioritizing these things over "feelings", tradition, non-biblical preferences seems to be the order of the day. For example, to me if a verse REALLY seems to say "A", given a review of scholarly sources, original language analysis, etc, then my general rule is to accept this despite perhaps in my heart I'd prefer that it says "B". The bible doesn't get hammered into the shape I want it to be - instead, my role is to study and conform to the bible.
5. Now, given all that I've said in point 4, it's of course not lost on me that EVERYONE, Calvinists or not, presumes that they're operating objective and rationally in this way. And everyone who argues against their cherished positions is irrational, driven by emotion, ego, etc. Welcome to the human race I guess, where ego and self-righteousness and the gnostic tendency to think that "Me and my little crew of like-minded thinkers (but mostly me) have stumbled across the true nature of God." This is an ancient problem and Calvinism doesn't solve it any better than any other belief system. But that all said, planting the Iwo Jima flag in the bedrock of Sola Scriptura is, for me at least, a start: it's not about me and what I'd like, it's not about my traditions, it's ONLY about what the bible says and my belief system can only be bootstrapped on that foundation.
6. Re. recommended reading: Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a serious, non-trivial work so I'd recommend working up to it. In my opinion much more accessible would be to spend some time with John Piper, RC Sproul, John MacArthur to get a much more down-to-earth feel. Focus on the problem of evil, or the Doctrines of God, or the Doctrines of Grace. These topics each can showcase some of the differences in thinking in Calvinism.

 

[StillGods]

Some thoughts based on your comments (and keeping in mind that I'm about one year into my Christian journey so any of this might be incorrect. Actually, any of my statements on any topic might be incorrect - including this statement):

1. Some Calvin scholars have pointed out that he himself would not have approved of the term "Calvinism" (he probably more so would have described himself as a "Reformed Catholic").
2. That said it DOES seem to be a shortcut for expressing a general set of doctrinal positions (e.g. TULIP, Reformed, a strong position of God's Righteousness and Sovereignty).
3. Re. being "out of reach" - I don't look at it like that at all. There is no bar, no entry test. You might well align with some, many, or only a few of "Calvinistic" principles, and it's seeming subjective at what point you might decide to call yourself a Calvinist.
4. One part of me is tempted to say that Calvinists generally adhere to an emphasis on a rigorous exegesis of the bible (going hand-in-hand with the Reformational principle of Sola Scriptura), and this may well lean a Calvinist towards argumentation (after all, how else do you get to the bottom of what is being biblically said other than argument, study, analysis, etc). Prioritizing these things over "feelings", tradition, non-biblical preferences seems to be the order of the day. For example, to me if a verse REALLY seems to say "A", given a review of scholarly sources, original language analysis, etc, then my general rule is to accept this despite perhaps in my heart I'd prefer that it says "B". The bible doesn't get hammered into the shape I want it to be - instead, my role is to study and conform to the bible.
5. Now, given all that I've said in point 4, it's of course not lost on me that EVERYONE, Calvinists or not, presumes that they're operating objective and rationally in this way. And everyone who argues against their cherished positions is irrational, driven by emotion, ego, etc. Welcome to the human race I guess, where ego and self-righteousness and the gnostic tendency to think that "Me and my little crew of like-minded thinkers (but mostly me) have stumbled across the true nature of God." This is an ancient problem and Calvinism doesn't solve it any better than any other belief system. But that all said, planting the Iwo Jima flag in the bedrock of Sola Scriptura is, for me at least, a start: it's not about me and what I'd like, it's not about my traditions, it's ONLY about what the bible says and my belief system can only be bootstrapped on that foundation.
6. Re. recommended reading: Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a serious, non-trivial work so I'd recommend working up to it. In my opinion much more accessible would be to spend some time with John Piper, RC Sproul, John MacArthur to get a much more down-to-earth feel. Focus on the problem of evil, or the Doctrines of God, or the Doctrines of Grace. These topics each can showcase some of the differences in thinking in Calvinism.

Thank you for your thoughts. my apologies I am going to an appointment shortly this morning but will reply later today to what you have said.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Thank you for sharing this, you have described it well.
I have a tendency analyzing everything said aswell sometimes.
I'm glad your church body is not like that..mine isnt either.

I think it might be the 'cage-stage Calvinists' I have mostly encountered.

The only problem with a concept like "Cage-Stage Calvinist" is that this just becomes another shortcut for dividing, ignoring, or putting oneself over the opinions of others - all nice little boosts to the ego.

It would be tempting, when disagreeing with Catholics, for me to simply label them as "Cage-State Catholics", or otherwise presume that their position is "unformed" so that naturally explains why they don't align with my crystalline logic. Furthermore, if you're a self-described "post-Cage-Stage Calvinist" what magic occurred to promote you to wisdom? Are you sure?

Anyway, I do get the concept. Yes, we all run into people that are at the enthusiastic beginnings of knowledge and sure maybe they're not ready for a face-off with an Arminian scholar. I would just recommend some healthy humility and self-reflection if throwing this around too easily.

 

[Jonaitis]

Furthermore, if you're a self-described "post-Cage-Stage Calvinist" what magic occurred to promote you to wisdom? Are you sure?.

I would say that I gained not wisdom, but a realisation that it doesn't matter. You seem to have assumptions too. You talk down on egoism, but then proceed to open a game into provoking another member with their own words.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I would say that I gained not wisdom, but a realisation that it doesn't matter. You seem to have assumptions too. You talk down on egoism, but then proceed to open a game into provoking another member with their own words.

Thanks for the feedback:

1. What do you mean by “it doesn’t matter”? What is “it”, and why doesn’t whatever it is matter?
2. Indeed I never claimed to not have assumptions. My earlier post opened with an outright statement that everything I say could be wrong.
3. I’m not sure what “opening a game into provoking another member with their own words” means. Do you mean by my asking a “post-cage-stage-Calvinist” what transpired to progress them away from their “cage-stage”? To me this is a legitimate question (as is suggesting that the term itself is potentially not very charitable).

 

[Jonaitis]

Thanks for the feedback:

1. What do you mean by “it doesn’t matter”? What is “it”, and why doesn’t whatever it is matter?
2. Indeed I never claimed to not have assumptions. My earlier post opened with an outright statement that everything I say could be wrong.
3. I’m not sure what “opening a game into provoking another member with their own words” means. Do you mean by my asking a “post-cage-stage-Calvinist” what transpired to progress them away from their “cage-stage”? To me this is a legitimate question (as is suggesting that the term itself is potentially not very charitable).

1. For many people, their loss of zeal in a "cage-stage" has little to do with gaining "wisdom" or becoming more enlightened, but simply becoming indifference in the putting effort.
2. You may not have not claimed, but it looks bad when you point out other's assumptions in the same post where you're doing it.
3. There is nothing uncharitable about the term. It is scarcely, if at all, ever used outside Calvinist circles.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Your reply in itself shows that Calvinism is only for those who are well-versed in the works of those two theologians.

That simply doesn't follow, so I think you misunderstood my reply. Anyone even remotely familiar with the likes of R. C. Sproul or John Piper will know that (a) Calvinists don't necessarily believe they are intellectually superior to non-Calvinists, and that (b) Calvinism is not necessarily a denomination for the intellectually superior. Such men as these exude humility in all they say and do. The lives of people like Sproul and Piper demonstrate love, humility, compassion, a servant's heart, etc. There is no indication of intellectual snobbery to be found. And as a Calvinist it is likewise my desire and aim to see the works of the Spirit manifest in all that I say and do, too, just like those men and other renowned Calvinists (e.g., Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Alistair Begg, and more).

And Calvinism is not "only for those well-versed in the works of those two theologians" or any others. It is for all who are weary and heavy laden, for we preach peace with God found only in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Honestly, many Calvinists I have met do seem to think themselves intellectually superior to the rest of Christendom, so it is not an assumption but an observable trait.

But perhaps, as you mentioned, it is a zealousness. Whatever it is, it is certainly offputting.

I just want to point out, here, that this isn't exclusive to Calvinists. It's a very human sin that can be found everywhere. There are Arminians who represent an attitude of intellectual and moral superiority in their anti-Calvinist tirades. There are Catholics who come across as superior to Protestants (and vice-versa). There are Christians who seem to think of themselves as intellectually superior to atheists. And so on.

Is Calvinism out of reach for those who are not intellectually inclined, ... ?

Certainly not. My wife is not the least bit intellectually inclined but has nevertheless found a home in our local covenant community of faith.

Although there are great intellectual depths to pursue in Calvinism, that's true of most Christian traditions. However, just because a person CAN go really deep, that doesn't mean they MUST, nor is anyone excluded if they don't. But, again, that's true of most Christian traditions. There are intellectual depths to search out in premillennial dispensationalism (e.g., as found in Pentecostal churches), but that doesn't mean it's out of reach to those who aren't so inclined.

... as there seem to be a number of concepts that the average person would not find worth wrestling with to try and understand.

As I said, the same is true of, say, premillennnial dispensationalism, which can involve some pretty sophisticated and complex terms and issues. Or even Catholicism, such as the depths of Jesuit teaching which is pretty intimidating. (I don't even pretend to understand the intricacies of Molinism.)

Also, there is the extra recommended reading of texts that Calvinists seem to subscribe to.

Name a Christian denomination or tradition that DOESN'T have extra recommended reading for those who are interested.

Again, it's never mandatory, nor is anyone excluded if they have no such interest.

Anyone who is not into such things cannot enter into Calvinism ...

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but that statement is completely false.

I'm glad there are tremendous theological depths worth pursuing because I truly enjoy doing that, but also welcome in the body of Christ are people like my wife who have a simple faith in Christ.

 

[StillGods]

Some thoughts based on your comments (and keeping in mind that I'm about one year into my Christian journey so any of this might be incorrect. Actually, any of my statements on any topic might be incorrect - including this statement):

1. Some Calvin scholars have pointed out that he himself would not have approved of the term "Calvinism" (he probably more so would have described himself as a "Reformed Catholic").
2. That said it DOES seem to be a shortcut for expressing a general set of doctrinal positions (e.g. TULIP, Reformed, a strong position of God's Righteousness and Sovereignty).
3. Re. being "out of reach" - I don't look at it like that at all. There is no bar, no entry test. You might well align with some, many, or only a few of "Calvinistic" principles, and it's seeming subjective at what point you might decide to call yourself a Calvinist.
4. One part of me is tempted to say that Calvinists generally adhere to an emphasis on a rigorous exegesis of the bible (going hand-in-hand with the Reformational principle of Sola Scriptura), and this may well lean a Calvinist towards argumentation (after all, how else do you get to the bottom of what is being biblically said other than argument, study, analysis, etc). Prioritizing these things over "feelings", tradition, non-biblical preferences seems to be the order of the day. For example, to me if a verse REALLY seems to say "A", given a review of scholarly sources, original language analysis, etc, then my general rule is to accept this despite perhaps in my heart I'd prefer that it says "B". The bible doesn't get hammered into the shape I want it to be - instead, my role is to study and conform to the bible.
5. Now, given all that I've said in point 4, it's of course not lost on me that EVERYONE, Calvinists or not, presumes that they're operating objective and rationally in this way. And everyone who argues against their cherished positions is irrational, driven by emotion, ego, etc. Welcome to the human race I guess, where ego and self-righteousness and the gnostic tendency to think that "Me and my little crew of like-minded thinkers (but mostly me) have stumbled across the true nature of God." This is an ancient problem and Calvinism doesn't solve it any better than any other belief system. But that all said, planting the Iwo Jima flag in the bedrock of Sola Scriptura is, for me at least, a start: it's not about me and what I'd like, it's not about my traditions, it's ONLY about what the bible says and my belief system can only be bootstrapped on that foundation.
6. Re. recommended reading: Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a serious, non-trivial work so I'd recommend working up to it. In my opinion much more accessible would be to spend some time with John Piper, RC Sproul, John MacArthur to get a much more down-to-earth feel. Focus on the problem of evil, or the Doctrines of God, or the Doctrines of Grace. These topics each can showcase some of the differences in thinking in Calvinism.

I apologise that I did not get back to you when I said I would.
i appreciate your opening statement/disclaimer that you made.
1. I had not heard of this before reading your post, but I quite like the 'Reformed Catholic' term.
3. I can not help but think of intellectually challenged people who have no way of working through the concepts needed to understand what Calvinists believe, and then there does seem to be a barrier there and out of reach.
4/5. I agree it is very important to study scripture and wrestle with it etc and Calvinists are not the only denomination in Christendom that rely on rigorous exegesis of the Word of God, so I dont think this is what leans Calvinists toward argumentation.
it is interesting that Calvinists tend to express the view that other denominations do not know Scripture enough and that Calvinists are the only ones who do rigorous exegesis of Scripture...this in itself is an expression of intellectual superiority. Other denominations rely on rigorous exegesis of Scripture.
I have encountered this mindset that other denominations dont studt scripture so many times in circles where Calvinist beliefs are held. Other denominations are looked down on openly, many times when I first started attending a Calvinist church and naively mentioned my background in non Calvinist denominations Calvinists have asked me 'do they read the Bible?' or 'do they teach the Bible?' with an air of obviously they dont... not like we do!!!, which is such an arrogant condescending put down of other denominations. The first time I was stunned by their arrogance then over time I became used to this question, or variants of it, being asked by people and realised it is part of the Calvinist mindset/worldview. perhaps this was just the church I attended but it really affected me when my brothers and sisters in other denominations who had cared for me sincerely with Christs love were dismissed in such a way.
6. thanks for mentioning reading material it is kind of you to do so.
However again I cant help thinking the gospel has to be accessible to people who have intellectual challenges aswell as the scholarly inclined, and yet Calvinism seems to only be understandable to those who have read copious amounts of 'extra' reading.
if people have to do so much extra reading to understand Calvinism then it seems to me there is a barrier to the illiterate and the intellectually challenged, the broken in society, addicts, drunks, anyone impaired in any way intellectually will struggle to grasp the extra twists and turns of Calvinism.

 

[StillGods]

.