Is Calvinism "Dangerous"? Yes and No, (part 2)

Is Calvinism "Dangerous"? Yes and No.

Calvinism itself (a branch of Protestant Christianity based on John Calvin's teachings) isn't inherently violent or physically dangerous like a weapon.

 

However, some people argue its interpretations or applications can have negative or harmful consequences spiritually, emotionally, or socially.

 

Here are the main concerns people raise ("dangers"):

1. Can Seem Harsh or Unloving: The doctrine of "double predestination" (God actively chooses some for heaven and some for hell) can make God seem cruel or arbitrary, especially to those suffering or grieving. It can feel deeply unfair.

2. Can Lead to Spiritual Pride or Despair:

o   Pride: If someone believes they are definitely one of the "elect" (chosen by God), it might make them feel superior to others.

o   Despair: If someone doubts they are part of the "elect," it can cause deep anxiety, hopelessness, and a feeling that trying to be good is pointless. "If it's all predetermined, why bother?"

3. Can Discourage Evangelism & Compassion: A misapplication might lead someone to think: "Why share the Gospel or help others if God has already decided who's saved and who's damned?" (Though most Calvinists strongly reject this and are active in missions and charity).

4. Can Be Used to Excuse Inaction/Injustice: A misapplication of God's sovereignty ("God controls everything") might lead to passive acceptance of suffering, injustice, or evil, rather than fighting against it ("It must be God's will"). 

5. Can Overshadow God's Love: The focus on God's power, sovereignty, and justice can sometimes seem to downplay His love, mercy, and desire for relationship. (That is why sometime ago, Charles Seet sued Jeffrey Khoo in civil court. He thought it is allright, since he is justified to sue.)

6. Can Cause Division: Disagreements about predestination and free will are incredibly sharp and have split churches and friendships for centuries.

 

What About Theodore Beza? (Calvin's Successor)

Beza was crucial in defending and systematizing Calvin's ideas after Calvin died. Critics argue he misinterpreted or shifted emphasis in a few key ways:

1. More Rigid on Predestination: Beza placed even more logical emphasis on predestination as the starting point of theology. He made it feel more like a fixed, logical decree established before anything else (including creation or the Fall). Calvin started more with Christ and Scripture.

2. "Supralapsarianism": Beza favored this view (though not exclusively). It means God's decree to elect some and reprobate (condemn) others happened logically before His decree to allow the Fall of humanity. To critics, this makes God seem like He wanted people to sin just so He could condemn them. Calvin was less specific on the logical order and emphasized human responsibility for sin after the Fall.

3. More Legalistic/Logical?: Beza, a brilliant lawyer and logician, tended to present Calvinism as a very tight, logical system. Some feel this lost some of Calvin's pastoral warmth and emphasis on mystery. Calvin's system was logical too, but Beza arguably pushed the logic further, making predestination feel more central and deterministic.

4. Focus on Individual Election: While Calvin focused on Christ as the foundation of election ("chosen in Christ"), Beza sometimes emphasized the individual decree of election more starkly. This could make it feel more abstract and less relational.

In simple terms: Think of Calvin building a house with strong walls (doctrines). Beza came after and reinforced those walls, especially the predestination wall, making it even thicker and taller. He also drew very detailed blueprints showing how all the parts fit together logically. Critics feel he made the "predestination room" the first and most important room, built before the foundation was even laid (the Fall), and made the whole structure feel colder and less like a home focused on Christ.

Important Caveats

• Calvinists Disagree: Many Calvinists believe Beza faithfully developed Calvin's thought and reject the idea that he distorted it. They see it as a natural clarification.
• Not All Calvinists are Alike: There's a wide spectrum. Some Calvinists focus heavily on God's love and grace despite predestination. Others focus intensely on God's sovereignty and justice.
• Intent vs. Application: Calvin and Beza intended their theology to glorify God and comfort believers. The "dangers" usually arise from how people understand, emphasize, or apply the doctrines, not necessarily from the core intent.

In a nutshell: Calvinism's teachings about God's total control and predestination can be emotionally difficult, potentially lead to harmful attitudes (pride/despair/apathy) if misunderstood or misapplied, and have caused deep divisions. Beza is often seen as making the system more rigid and logical, pushing predestination to an even more central (and for critics, problematic) position than Calvin did.