Really good article. Seeing "Calvinism" as a label that ties you to historic Protestantism is a very compelling argument for its usage. However, I am still going to stick with the term "Historic Baptist" for now. Primarily, because it indicates an embodied aspect of my religion (aka how do I actually use my body to worship God), and also because too many calvinists and non-calvinists will drag you into an annoying and unprofitable discussion if you use the term.
Yes, I agree. I think it's unfortunate that using the term "Calvinism" will at times drag you into unprofitable discussion, but it is the current reality. That was part of my motivation for this article.
I also champion the term "Reformed Baptist" or "Historic Baptist". Im curious, how does that title indicate the embodiment of religion?
Oversimplified = Theology is the why, but denomination (practice) is the how. The term Baptist tells someone a bit about how I physically practice my faith and sets a reasonable expectation for what to do and expect when visiting a service. Aka how I use my tongues, hands and feet to worship, receive sacraments, and participate in church life. A Calvinist charismatic church and a Calvinist OPC church could still have very different expectations for how to use our bodies in worship and church life.
My soteriology is generally Calvinist, but not the Hard Determinism of someone like A.W. Pink. Neither do I accept the idea of Libertarian Freewill, so I differ from many Compatiblist-Calvinists. I also differ with Reformed Theology in many other areas. Does accepting T.U.L.I.P. make a person a Calvinist?
Yes we are working with two different definitions of Compatibilism. As I understand it Compatibilism doesn't outright reject libertarian free will, but it takes a different stance on the relationship between free will and determinism. Compatibilism argues that free will and determinism can coexist—essentially, it says you can have free will even if your actions are determined by prior causes, as long as those actions align with your desires, intentions, or character. It’s less about rejecting libertarian free will and more about redefining what free will means in a deterministic framework.
So, Compatibilism doesn’t deny libertarian free will in the sense of saying it’s impossible; it just offers an alternative that sidesteps the need for indeterminism. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett or David Hume (classic compatibilists) would argue libertarianism overcomplicates things—why demand absolute freedom from causation when practical freedom (acting as you wish within a determined system) suffices? Meanwhile, libertarians like Robert Kane would counter that compatibilism’s version of free will isn’t "free" enough, lacking the robust agency they see as essential.
It’s a tension between two views, not a flat rejection—compatibilism reframes the debate rather than dismissing libertarianism entirely.
I absolutely reject the idea of Libertarian Freewill as unbiblical. I hope that clarifies the difference.
That’s a great question! In my view, Calvinism is really more than a simple affirmation of the doctrines of grace. Calvinism really entails a high view of Gods Aseity that informs the rest of our theology.
I’m interested, if you reject libertarian freedom, in what ways do you differ with compatiblists?
I would say that I do have a high view of God’s Aseity. But I don’t understand your question about my differences with Compatiblists. They believe that man’s libertarian freewill exists and is somehow compatible with God’s divine decrees.
I accept that how man can retain any semblance of freedom of the will with the Providence of an omniscient and omnipotent God. But I think Calvin was correct that man’s will has the freedom to choose what is in his nature to choose. It is not in the nature of fallen man to choose God so we don’t (without God first making it possible). I’m not sure His makes it possible by regeneration preceding faith (the Ordo Salutus) but clearly God must act first or no man would be saved.
Somehow within God’s divine decrees He left man sufficient freedom of the will to hold us accountable for our choices but if we are only free to choose that which our natures would choose and those natures are depraved then that freedom of the will is not libertarian freedom.
Ahh yes, I see and I agree! But I think we are operating on different definitions of "Compatibilism". As I understand it, compatibilism maintains that man is truly free that God is totally sovereign, and that those whose realities are compatible. However, compatibilism rejects the idea of libertarian freedom (Which is what distinguishes it from Arminianism). Instead, in saying that man is truly free, they understand freedom to be the ability to always choose what one desires most or is most inclined to most in any given moment without being coerced. They embrace the Edwardian idea of freedom that it seems like you are articulating.
This is what Steven Wellum teaches in his Systematic Theology, pg 725-930
Well, with all that history evaluated it might be interesting to discover that the Surah's and Quran of Islam have frightening parallels to Calvinism. You say Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin, and I would agree with you. It is interesting to see the history of France and the rise of Islam too - yep, right at that time.
I have been told I am out of touch and have no clue.
It is just a matter of taking both Islam and Calvinism and making a list to look at.
RC Sproll has doubled down on saying that Jesus Christ was a curse - and that is a foundational piece condemned by scripture.
John MacArthur says that the mark of the beast can be taken "by accident" because choice doesn't matter.
Calvinism has been condemned over and over through history by many. All of their reasons seem to be just thrown out the window. And it is interesting to see how Calvinism rises at times of Nationalism - yes, in Europe and the US it can be measured. People see the condemnation resulting in "those who have no choice so we don't care" and run from it after wars break out and suffering needs to be really answered. Ask CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, they rejected it for good reason.
The words, "I know" is just pride that won't take a moment to say "I don't know everything. I know I can be wrong about a great many things." I said those words too once, along with many others you might consider listening to. "Idol Killer" may be a place to start on YouTube - you may love his knowledge of history and being a former Calvinist, gives an interesting perspective. Or "Sergio DeSoto" here on Substack. I mean, what could be the harm. Even "John17 Apologetics" on YouTube has great work to evaluate the Greek words in question too.
But what called me out was knowing that any religion that believes God SENDS people to hell and MAKES people for its end fall into 1 John 4 where those who have no love don't know God. When God says that, I don't even understand why people don't stop and listen. There are SO many scriptures that say it isn't so.
Reformed is just the other side of the same coin - a tragic heresy.
I get it - this piece isn't a question, it is a telling. And I hope you actually research outside the inward facing bubble that reinforces itself. If you don't, you will never see "the other side" and be able to Acts 17:11 anything.
I prefer "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist," not because of any doctrinal disagreements, but for the same reason others prefer "Catholic" to "Papist". It clarifies one's doctrinal positions without falling into the trap of saying, "I am of Apollo/Paul/Peter", and better expresses how we understand their underlying essence and origin of our tradition.
I also prefer "strict Monergism" over "Five Points," not out of any personal disagreement with those tenets (at least a general understanding of them), but because that's a much better simplified summary. They are not the only unique characteristics of the Reformed tradition, after all.
That's totally understandable. I do think the label "Reformed" Is very helpful, but it can have a wide range of meanings nowadays. In my experience, some people use the word "Reformed" to be less than Calvinistic (this kind of use is common in popular nondenominational circle) and some people use the word reformed to be more than Calvinistic, entailing covenant theology and confessionalism (this is common in reformed Presby circles).
Covenant theology is a major part of historical Reformed orthodoxy, is it not? And confessions, catechisms etc. do help to strengthen the theological foundations of the laity while promoting a stronger sense of continuity with the historic Reformed Church. Heaven knows catechism rates are at an all-time low across the board…
I can tell from the self-referential question in your title that you are. Poor guy. You’re putting on the cloth of 16th century rationalism, cut to fit the ancient text of the Bible.
Great read!!! So helpful!!
Glad you were encouraged Amy :)
Great read . Really enjoyed this article
Really good article. Seeing "Calvinism" as a label that ties you to historic Protestantism is a very compelling argument for its usage. However, I am still going to stick with the term "Historic Baptist" for now. Primarily, because it indicates an embodied aspect of my religion (aka how do I actually use my body to worship God), and also because too many calvinists and non-calvinists will drag you into an annoying and unprofitable discussion if you use the term.
Yes, I agree. I think it's unfortunate that using the term "Calvinism" will at times drag you into unprofitable discussion, but it is the current reality. That was part of my motivation for this article.
I also champion the term "Reformed Baptist" or "Historic Baptist". Im curious, how does that title indicate the embodiment of religion?
Oversimplified = Theology is the why, but denomination (practice) is the how. The term Baptist tells someone a bit about how I physically practice my faith and sets a reasonable expectation for what to do and expect when visiting a service. Aka how I use my tongues, hands and feet to worship, receive sacraments, and participate in church life. A Calvinist charismatic church and a Calvinist OPC church could still have very different expectations for how to use our bodies in worship and church life.
My soteriology is generally Calvinist, but not the Hard Determinism of someone like A.W. Pink. Neither do I accept the idea of Libertarian Freewill, so I differ from many Compatiblist-Calvinists. I also differ with Reformed Theology in many other areas. Does accepting T.U.L.I.P. make a person a Calvinist?
Yes we are working with two different definitions of Compatibilism. As I understand it Compatibilism doesn't outright reject libertarian free will, but it takes a different stance on the relationship between free will and determinism. Compatibilism argues that free will and determinism can coexist—essentially, it says you can have free will even if your actions are determined by prior causes, as long as those actions align with your desires, intentions, or character. It’s less about rejecting libertarian free will and more about redefining what free will means in a deterministic framework.
So, Compatibilism doesn’t deny libertarian free will in the sense of saying it’s impossible; it just offers an alternative that sidesteps the need for indeterminism. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett or David Hume (classic compatibilists) would argue libertarianism overcomplicates things—why demand absolute freedom from causation when practical freedom (acting as you wish within a determined system) suffices? Meanwhile, libertarians like Robert Kane would counter that compatibilism’s version of free will isn’t "free" enough, lacking the robust agency they see as essential.
It’s a tension between two views, not a flat rejection—compatibilism reframes the debate rather than dismissing libertarianism entirely.
I absolutely reject the idea of Libertarian Freewill as unbiblical. I hope that clarifies the difference.
That’s a great question! In my view, Calvinism is really more than a simple affirmation of the doctrines of grace. Calvinism really entails a high view of Gods Aseity that informs the rest of our theology.
I’m interested, if you reject libertarian freedom, in what ways do you differ with compatiblists?
I would say that I do have a high view of God’s Aseity. But I don’t understand your question about my differences with Compatiblists. They believe that man’s libertarian freewill exists and is somehow compatible with God’s divine decrees.
I accept that how man can retain any semblance of freedom of the will with the Providence of an omniscient and omnipotent God. But I think Calvin was correct that man’s will has the freedom to choose what is in his nature to choose. It is not in the nature of fallen man to choose God so we don’t (without God first making it possible). I’m not sure His makes it possible by regeneration preceding faith (the Ordo Salutus) but clearly God must act first or no man would be saved.
Somehow within God’s divine decrees He left man sufficient freedom of the will to hold us accountable for our choices but if we are only free to choose that which our natures would choose and those natures are depraved then that freedom of the will is not libertarian freedom.
Ahh yes, I see and I agree! But I think we are operating on different definitions of "Compatibilism". As I understand it, compatibilism maintains that man is truly free that God is totally sovereign, and that those whose realities are compatible. However, compatibilism rejects the idea of libertarian freedom (Which is what distinguishes it from Arminianism). Instead, in saying that man is truly free, they understand freedom to be the ability to always choose what one desires most or is most inclined to most in any given moment without being coerced. They embrace the Edwardian idea of freedom that it seems like you are articulating.
This is what Steven Wellum teaches in his Systematic Theology, pg 725-930
Ok fine. I’m a Calvinist🙋♀️
Excellent. Impressive writing skills.
Thank you for the encouragement!
Well, with all that history evaluated it might be interesting to discover that the Surah's and Quran of Islam have frightening parallels to Calvinism. You say Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin, and I would agree with you. It is interesting to see the history of France and the rise of Islam too - yep, right at that time.
I have been told I am out of touch and have no clue.
It is just a matter of taking both Islam and Calvinism and making a list to look at.
RC Sproll has doubled down on saying that Jesus Christ was a curse - and that is a foundational piece condemned by scripture.
John MacArthur says that the mark of the beast can be taken "by accident" because choice doesn't matter.
Calvinism has been condemned over and over through history by many. All of their reasons seem to be just thrown out the window. And it is interesting to see how Calvinism rises at times of Nationalism - yes, in Europe and the US it can be measured. People see the condemnation resulting in "those who have no choice so we don't care" and run from it after wars break out and suffering needs to be really answered. Ask CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, they rejected it for good reason.
The words, "I know" is just pride that won't take a moment to say "I don't know everything. I know I can be wrong about a great many things." I said those words too once, along with many others you might consider listening to. "Idol Killer" may be a place to start on YouTube - you may love his knowledge of history and being a former Calvinist, gives an interesting perspective. Or "Sergio DeSoto" here on Substack. I mean, what could be the harm. Even "John17 Apologetics" on YouTube has great work to evaluate the Greek words in question too.
But what called me out was knowing that any religion that believes God SENDS people to hell and MAKES people for its end fall into 1 John 4 where those who have no love don't know God. When God says that, I don't even understand why people don't stop and listen. There are SO many scriptures that say it isn't so.
Reformed is just the other side of the same coin - a tragic heresy.
I get it - this piece isn't a question, it is a telling. And I hope you actually research outside the inward facing bubble that reinforces itself. If you don't, you will never see "the other side" and be able to Acts 17:11 anything.
i wish people could read substack posts without having an account, because there are a few people i would love to send this to lol . great article!
Im glad you were encouraged. You actually can share posts via txt to your friends, and they don't need an account to view!
So are Southern Baptist Calvinist? I know there was so debate about this a decade ago
I prefer "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist," not because of any doctrinal disagreements, but for the same reason others prefer "Catholic" to "Papist". It clarifies one's doctrinal positions without falling into the trap of saying, "I am of Apollo/Paul/Peter", and better expresses how we understand their underlying essence and origin of our tradition.
I also prefer "strict Monergism" over "Five Points," not out of any personal disagreement with those tenets (at least a general understanding of them), but because that's a much better simplified summary. They are not the only unique characteristics of the Reformed tradition, after all.
That's totally understandable. I do think the label "Reformed" Is very helpful, but it can have a wide range of meanings nowadays. In my experience, some people use the word "Reformed" to be less than Calvinistic (this kind of use is common in popular nondenominational circle) and some people use the word reformed to be more than Calvinistic, entailing covenant theology and confessionalism (this is common in reformed Presby circles).
Covenant theology is a major part of historical Reformed orthodoxy, is it not? And confessions, catechisms etc. do help to strengthen the theological foundations of the laity while promoting a stronger sense of continuity with the historic Reformed Church. Heaven knows catechism rates are at an all-time low across the board…
Yes. Totally agree!
I can tell from the self-referential question in your title that you are. Poor guy. You’re putting on the cloth of 16th century rationalism, cut to fit the ancient text of the Bible.
If I use the term "Augustinian" do I at least get to claim 4th-century rationalism?
Well, if you did, the coolness factor gets higher. But the Pelagians get really pissed off.