Conversions and Deconversions: A Response to Peter Pike

Peter Pike of CalvinDude has raised an issue regarding Conversions and Deconversions as a result of thinking about the deconversion (or apostasy) of former Calvinist Philosopher Michael Sudduth. Before I begin, I want everyone to know that Peter Pike and I get along quite famously, so I have no interest in picking an on-line fight with him. I merely want to respond to his post, since he did ask, at the very last of his post, for responses. Peter begins:

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA [the Society of Evangelical Arminians] who have said that any new convert to Christianity who reads the Bible will automatically find Arminianism. Arminianism can be read in Scripture, they say, while Calvinism must be taught.

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit. Peter concludes:

I would counter by asking why it is that we trust those who are least experienced in Christ, who have followed Him for only a short time and who have not developed a long relationship with Him, would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have traveled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack. That is, why trust the immature Christian to show us the truth as opposed to the elders in the Lord?

We are not "trusting" those who are "least experienced in Christ," rather we are objectively observing that even new converts -- when merely reading the text of Scripture -- do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism when they study their Bibles. But inherent in Peter's confession here are at least two significations: 1) there is an admission that Calvinism must be taught; i.e., Calvinism is not the result of a plain reading of the text; and 2) Calvinism has a tendency to breed Gnostic proclivities in its adherents.

Note Peter's language: "would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have traveled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack" (emphases added). This "inside knowledge" about God and His ways (e.g., His unconditionally electing ways and His alleged "secret" will or decree) are typically granted to the theologically elite: i.e., Calvinists. How often they admit that God "opened their hearts to the doctrines of grace," and, by implication, noting that God has not yet "opened the hearts of others to the doctrines of grace." Those who do not (yet) accept Calvinism are not among the sanctified and theologically initiated. (And if one is to be consistent, this is God's doing, or not doing, and no one else's.)

Peter acknowledges me as a former Calvinist-turned-Arminian, but confesses to know of no others (save the late Clark Pinnock who later, tragically, adopted Open Theism). Yet, he does concede that this could be in part due to his particular environment or context.

Indeed, it is, for the X-Calvinist Corner at Arminian Perspectives boasts many former Calvinists-turned-Arminians; and we have no doubt that there are plenty more of whom we are not aware. He continues, "Yet it still strikes me that even Arminians would acknowledge that there are far more former-Arminian Calvinists around than former-Calvinist Arminians." Who are the Arminians who have admitted this? None of us have the numbers, so to put it, so this is all speculative conjecture, and little else.

Peter concludes, "And this would seem, to me, an indication of the direction of sanctification in the lives of a believer toward the Reformed position as one matures in Christ." This bold statement, I believe, Arminians need to confront head-on.

To make any apparent lack of former Calvinists-turned-Arminians a matter of an insufficiency of sanctification in the lives of a believer is outlandish for at least two main reasons: 1) the Calvinist is no more sanctified ipso facto than is the Arminian; and 2) God is sovereign over our sanctification. If God really is conforming His children, both Calvinists and Arminians, to the image of His Son Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29), then Peter's statement is amiss at best and prideful at worst. Peter is also convinced that this "shows the truth of the Reformed position in the fact that former Calvinists so often will renounce Christianity altogether" -- former Calvinists like Bart Ehrman.

This conclusion is a failure to count the proper noses and suffers in, again, two main areas: 1) perhaps Calvinism is the actual reason why they lost their faith (as with Ehrman); and 2) Arminians are certainly not without their fair share of apostates. Would this, then, indicate that this "shows the the truth of the Arminian position in the fact that former Arminians so often will renounce Christianity altogether" rather than convert to Calvinism? If we take Peter's logic, we are obligated to answer a resounding yes!

Do not think, however, that Peter Pike believes Arminians are unsaved people. He writes, "This is not to say that Arminians are not Christians, however." We are grateful for his brotherly kindness here, as we have been told by the likes of John Owen, Augustus Toplady, those at A Puritan's Mind, among a host of other Calvinists, that Arminians are unsaved heathen. Peter does confess, however, that "Calvinism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity." I have no problem with him thinking so, for I, too, think that Arminianism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity, without confessing that Arminianism is Christianity.

Finally, Peter writes: "If Arminians will grant me that (arguendo), consider this:

1. Calvinism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form of Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole."

If Calvinists will grant me the same arguendo, consider this:

1. Arminianism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form of Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole.

"This does seem, at least to me, to make sense," admits Peter, and I agree with him, at least with regard to Arminianism. Peter continues (my qualifiers are in brackets): "To abandon the more consistent form of Christianity [i.e., Arminianism] results in the desire to abandon Christianity as a whole. One would not logically expect many to step back to a more inconsistent form of Christianity [i.e., Calvinism] if they have trouble with Christian beliefs."

My conclusion, however, will not suggest that this abandonment has anything to do with a lack of sanctification on the part of Calvinism or Calvinists, as does Peter with Arminianism. He writes: "And if you couple this with the belief that Christian sanctification will result in Christians becoming more consistent, we have two facts that seem to lead inexorably (or, dare I say, irresistibly) toward Calvinism.

1. More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification [which has not been proven, only speculated].
2. More former Calvinists reject Christianity completely than convert to a different form of Christianity, indicating that Calvinism is the more consistent version of Christianity [which also has not been proven, only speculated]."

There exists not one shred of evidence for all of Peter's claims. Is this not extremely problematic? In his defense, however, Peter does admit, "While the above is certainly not ironclad, relying on concepts that seem to be most plausible rather than formal logic, I think it ought to give food for thought to the Arminian." Well, we chewed it over and have spit it out for the reasons given above.