In the past on this board I have made the statement that 'modern American evangelicalism is nothing if not Calvinist" and I have been told that I was 'ignorant', "didn't know what I was talking about" and various other derogatory things. In the past, I let these comments slide, even though I always knew I was right because I just wasn't in the mood to argue about it. Today I am in the mood to argue I'm ready to die on this hill. So I'm ready to explain what that comment means.

First, understand the things that I am going to point to are not matters of coincidence, the reason fundamentalism and evangelicalism are Calvinist is that the vast majority of theologians who created what we today call fundamentalism and evangelicalism were Calvinists. This goes back a long way, from Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century to JG Machen, Boettner, and RC Sproul in the 20th.

First, some definitions,

Evangelical- what I mean by evangelical I mean 'a Christian who, regardless of his denominational affiliation, tends to de-emphasize formal liturgy and the sacraments and tends to practice an informal style light on ritual but heavy on preaching, which focuses on individual conversion and religious experience.

fundamentalist-a fundamentalist is an evangelical who believes in separatism, that is, who believes that the mainline Protestant denominations are completely corrupt and irredeemable so that the only way a believer can 'real Christianianity' is by leaving those denominations and joining a 'Bible church'

Calvinist-I don't like this term, which I regard as misleading, and prefer 'Reformed Theology', the term Calvinist implies that the doctrines associated with this tradition begin and end with the person of Jonn Calvin, which isn't even close to being true, but I will use it because using the correct term tends to lead to awkward sentences.

But Calvinism is a comprehensive, systematic theological system, that is expressed not merely in the 'Institutes' of Calvin but in many other subsequent works over the centuries.

I feel the need to emphasize that Calvinism is systematic and comprehensive, because to most people, Christian and non-Christian, Calvinism begins and ends with the doctrine of predestination, so when I say that modern evangelical is Calvinist, most people think I mean that evangelicals believe in supralapsarianism. But Calvinism is much broader than that, Calvin himself put no more emphasis on predestination than any other theologian of his era, and in fact of the two, Luther had the much more extreme view on the subject. Calvinism has retroactively become to be identified with predestination because Reformed theologians generations AFTER CALVIN were obsessed with it, and they became obsessed with it because that was the Calvinist doctrine that was most frequently attacked by critics, not because they regarded it as their central doctrine.

So...in what way are fundamentalists and evangelicals 'Calvinist'?

One can see Calvinist influence in the following ways

The overwhelming majority of evangelicals believe in penal substitution. This is a distinctively Calvinist theory of atonement that is largely rejected both by Catholics and non-Calvinist Protestants.

The attitude that the vast majority of evangelicals have towards the Deuterocanon, which they call 'the Apocrypha is Calvinist rather than Luthern or Anglican. The Lutheran and Anglican traditions also reject the canonicity of these books, but they still retain them in their Bibles and still occasionally read them in the liturgy. (Granted this is largely only true only of Lutherans outside the United States). The complete rejection of these books to the point that they are removed from Bibles altogether and never read at all is a distinctively Calvinist position. And it is due to the influence of the (Calvinist) Church of Scotland that they have been removed from most Protestant Bibles in the English-speaking world.

On the sacraments, evangelicals largely disbelieve that there is really such a thing as a 'sacrament' and that they are only 'ordinances' and that they are matters of obedience only and don't "do anything"; in the sense of conveying God's grace, this too is Calvinist and not Lutheran or Anglican both of whom still endorse the principle of sacramentalism.

On justification, studies show evangelicals have largely abandoned the principle of justification by faith alone, but the ones who do believe in it tend to follow Calvinist, rather than Lutheran, thought on the matter.

The majority of evangelicals still believe in the principle of "eternal security" by which a believer, once he has been converted, can never lose his salvation, and that if a Christian falls into sin this means "he was never really saved at all". Sometimes, one can even find extreme versions of this doctrine so that they would go so far as to say that even if a Christian should renounce Christianity and become an atheist and a porn star or serial killer, he would not lose his salvation, although granted that is an extreme position and most won't go quite that far.

Needless to say, eternal security is a distinctively Calvinist doctrine.


I could go on at a much greater length, but I think these examples are sufficient to make the point. Although I do feel the need to point out that Arminianism, such as you see among the Baptists and Holiness Churches, is actually a branch or variation of Calvinism. and not its opposite. Again, Calvinism does not begin and end with the doctrine of Predestination, just because you don't believe in TULIP does not mean you are not a Calvinist, there is no contradiction at all in being a Calvinist who rejects some or even all of the 5 points of Calvinism. The 5 point do not go back to Calvin himself, but to his 17th-century successors.

This is interesting Doom and something I hadn't given any thought. Thanks for posting it.

I would love to hear what TheJack would have to say in response.

He is the one I was referring to who said it is "ignorant" to say that evangelicalism is basically Calvinist. But I always knew I was right, I've read a lot about the origins of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and so I've long known that most of the early evangelicals were Reformed. Evangelicalism originated in the First Great Awakening in the last half of the 18th century. And I've also long known that most of the authors of "The Fundamentals", the 12 volume book series that led to the creation of the term "fundamentalist" were Reformed, and Princeton Theological Seminary, where fundamentalism got it's Start, was a Reformed Seminary. Before the term "fundamentalism" was coined, it was called "Princeton theology"

To put it bluntly, in the theology wars, the Reformed tradition has conquered all it's rivals, Lutheranism, which used to bigger, is now a small island in a sea of Reformed theology

So all of this leads to a question - since much of Protestantism outside the liturgical traditions (i.e., Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.) seems to be headed unifying into a hodge-podge of a Reformed [tradition], where will they be in another 100 years?

I see Protestantism eventually unifying into, basically, an Assemblies of God type tradition.

Good question, the current trend in mainline Protestantism is towards unification. In 2001, the Episcopal church, ELCA, The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the United Methodist Church signed a clergy sharing agreement that allows for intercommunion. In 100 years, there will probably only be one mainline Protestant denomination, I might as well follow The Simpsons and call it "Episcaopresbylutheranism". It's theology will be undistinguishable from atheism ( well, that is pretty much true today, no big prediction that).

On the evangelical side, there is currently a big trend towards liberalism, with most prominent evangelical theologians endorsing things like annihilationism, universalism, open theology, process theology, and various other historic heresies such as Nestorianism and monothelitism (William Lane Craig endorses both)

With evangelicalism going the way of the mainline churches in the late 19th century, I expect there will eventually be a backlash, a kind of "fundamentalism 2.0" movement back towards orthodoxy, but much like in the 19th century, I will probably lead to more schism and division

Mostly agree with your prognostication of mainline Protestantism. Its happening now as more and more I see the acceptance of certain sins as acceptable (particularly homosexuality). Eventually though, I'm not sure it will be undistinguishable from atheism as much as it will look like Unitarianism.

I'm not even sure the same won't happen with Evangelicalism. The "modern" style of worship services which are so popular in the nondenominational Churches is a symptom. As is their acceptance of drinking alcohol, listening to rock music, casual dress at church, dancing and etc. that indicate the rising secularism. Combine these changes with slip-and-slide Baptism's, prosperity gospel and other sacrilegious practices and beliefs and you ultimately end up with a Church that looks just like Unitarianism as well.

I suspect some big changes will becoming to Catholicism too (and more than just schism of the Church in Germany); a parting of ways resulting in a small and vibrant Church made up of traditional and charismatic congregations. Each will look suspiciously at each other at first, but will eventually see the fervor and love of Christ each group has and that will bond them in a special way. And both groups have a good and strong love for the Blessed Mother. I think She will help each accept the other as different brothers from the same loving family.

Are you suggesting that alcohol and dancing are sinful? Evangelicals have held looser standards on those issues than the more hardcore fundamentalists for a long time, even in the 50s people like Billy Graham were saying that whether or not to drink alcohol was a personal choice.

Billy Graham was instrumental in the rupture between fundamentalism, which happened in the mid to late 1940s. Graham had attended Bob Jones University, was a personal friend of Bob Jones I and was closely attached to the fundamentalist movement. But as he began his ministry, he gradually became disenchanted with the strictness and legalistic rules of fundamentalist, finally making a definitive break in the early 50s when he founded the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and later founded the slightly left-of-center (at least by the standards of mid 50s evangelicalism but conservative by the standards of secular society) magazine Christianity Today. But while he was personally a teetotaler, he refused to say outright that alcohol consumption was a sin as long as it is done in moderation.

But if there is one rule that is absolute in history it is this, for every action, there is a reaction. It is human nature to swing from one extreme to its opposite. After a few decades of liberalization within evangelicalism, there is going to be a movement back towards the center. It is guaranteed. I'm not saying the conservative reaction will be as big as the liberals, it wasn't in the 19th century, but it will exist nevertheless. History is not a straight line, it is like a chandelier, swinging from one extreme to the next, more or less forever.

I am however reminded of the prediction by Hermann Melville "these two will battle it out, Rome and the atheists. Protestantism will continue to exist, but only as the base of operations for the atheists."

No, I’m not suggesting alcohol and dancing are sinful. Rather, the evangelical tradition in which I was raised did. However, they have over the years relaxed their moral positions on more moderate subjects (alcohol and dancing); and even now there are nondenominational churches with openly homosexual preachers of churches that are quite well attended.

Hate to break it to you but if the church you grew up in opposed drinking and dancing, ( and probably playing cards too I bet) it wasn't evangelical, it was fundamentalist.

Granted, there was and is a lot of overlap between the two, but evangelicals have usually been the less restrictive of the two. Although it is true that often the only difference is the name. Many fundamentalists started calling themselves evangelicals in the 30s and 40s after the term fundamentalist started carrying negative connotations after the Scope's trial.

Another example of the growing secularization of the evangelical movement is the now near universal acceptance of inclusive language on Bible translation. There was a time, not that long ago, when evangelicals were disgusted by the alleged "liberalism" of the RSV that they sponsored their own translations, the NASB and the NIV. Yet, both of these Bibles, in their most recent editions, have become fully endorsed inclusive language. In fact, pretty much all of the evangelical Bibles on the market today , including the RSV, CSB, NLT and the NET all endorse some degree of inclusive. Even the "moderate" translations like the ESV,. endorse the view that as much as possible the scriptures should be "de-masculinized"

I remember when the Church I attended as a kid surveyed the congregation about drinking and women deacons. Well, it wasn’t super well received. But yes, eventually, they changed their ways.

I’ve noticed that even in some Catholic Churches the priest go out of their way to say “sisters and brother”, where its typically said the other way around. That’s fine, whatever floats your boat. But dang, its so cheesy to go out of your way to be “inclusive”. Just be yourself and treat everyone with dignity.

What church was that may I ask, was it a national denomination or just a local "Bible Church"

The problem with "inclusive language" in Bible translation is that it is ahistorical. It represents an attempt to impose a modern, 21st century egalitarian ethos upon the Bible.

Translators ASSUME without proof other than wishful thinking that "surely this applies equally to both men and women", when in point of fact when the Bible often perhaps even usually, uses masculine language specifically to exclude women. It is important to remember that the world of the Bible was a patriarchal society in which women held a much lower position than men. Surely a translation ought to reflect the times in which it was written.

And inclusive language taken to an extreme actually makes the Bible less coherent. A classic example of this is the book of Proverbs, which begins with a kind of open letter from a father to his son. Every few verses it says "my son" this "my son" that.

Many modern translations make this gender neutral by translating it "my child" under the foolish belief that the passage is not gender specific and could just as easily apply to his daughter. Except that if you actually READ the text, it is clear that it IS gender specific because a lot of the advice is stuff like "stay away from loose women", and what to look for in a wife, and lots of stuff that only applies to son's, not daughters. The fact is that men are often led into some by an attractive woman, as the song "Secret Agent Man" says "a pretty face can hide an evil mind". But while women might be led astray by a man, it isn't his attractiveness that lures them, but by other qualities. Men are obsessed with looks, women much less so.

In inclusive language, this whole portion of the Bible makes no sense. And this isn't the only example

I agree with doom.

And I really liked the Norelco reel to reel tape recorder in SAM.

I've never actually seen an episode of the TV series, called 'Danger Man' in England, and I don't even know where I could watch it. I have however seen The Prisoner, which is widely suspected of being a sequel, though they weren't allowed to confirm it due to copyright issues.

I am, however, familiar with the Johnny Rivers song 'Secret Agent Man' which was the theme song of the American version of the re-named Danger Man. And I have seen the animated parody of Danger Man, the cartoon Danger Mouse, which is a hilarious but probably much funnier if you are familiar with the series it parodies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAXmNUDAWv4

Yes.

I know them all.

Danger Mouse, with Penfold. Oh, crumbs. Pulled a muscle in me ear.

Theme song from The Prisoner was one of my favorites such. And the closing scenes of the ultimate episode. And we go round, round, round.

As to seeing John Drake, start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMVQrIE ... upV7zFfUSo