Neo-Calvinism, the Nonelect, and Planned Parenthood: a Grand Kind of Farce

Last week I made a statement on Twitter about neo-Calvinists’ passion for defunding Planned Parenthood. Namely, I said it’s a little suspicious:

For the purposes of this rather short post, my reasoning is simple: Neo-Calvinists (rightly) believe that God is the essence of perfect justice and holiness. But they also (wrongly) believe that it is perfectly just and holy for God to arbitrarily select a tiny minority of humanity for eternal bliss while consigning the rest to eternal torment – which, no matter how you slice the details or try to soften it as a psychological rather than physical torment, is still torment for all eternity

Further, neo-Calvinists believe that it is perfectly just and holy for God to eternally torment a 16 year old who told some lies and slept with their girlfriend and never repented or accepted Christ, alongside Hitler and ISIS marauders. Sure, there may be “levels” of punishment, but the point is that it is still torment for all eternity.

And of course, neo-Calvinists believe that this fate is coming to the vast majority of all-kinds-of-sinners throughout all time and history without those sinners having any actual ability to turn from their path – at all. They will be eternally tormented just to prove that God is so just and so holy. He could have made them regenerate like he does with the elect, but he just said, “Meh. My justice and holiness really could use an eternal Auschwitz or at least Guantanamo to get maximum just-and-holy glory.”

So – why all the outrage about Planned Parenthood? 

Neo-Calvinists (I believe, rightly) cite God’s justice and human dignity as the basis for opposing abortion-on-demand – all while (wrongly) believing in a God who arbitrarily selects the vast majority of humanity, before they are born or do anything, who are all precious little babies at some point with inherent human dignity and all that, to be tormented forever in hell. That’s their ultimate purpose, as far as God’s concerned. To languish in the eternal concentration camp, all to the praise of his glory.

Which makes any of the previous talk of justice or human rights a particularly grand kind of farce.

Compound all this with the terribly inconsistent belief that many neo-Calvinists hold (I did) that babies and little children who die are automatically elect somehow, and the outrage becomes even more unfounded. In this case, the abortion doctor is a great emancipator, setting the souls of little babies free so they never run the extremely high risk of becoming the nonelect sinners who are predestined to suffer in hell, world without end.

I understand that people can hold these beliefs about God and still be good, caring people. Of course. But the neo-Calvinist leaders especially, who are spearheading the culture war against Planned Parenthood specifically, are, to me, guilty of much more than inconsistency.

They are guilty of masquerading a political agenda as a purely spiritual concern for justice and human dignity – which, of course, it cannot be.

[Photo: Charlotte Cooper, CC via Flickr]

"Or, conversely, "The problem with the egalitarian camp is that it is so prideful and ..."

Beyond Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Building ..."
"This is SO not happened in the 1970s. Oh well, I guess everything old ..."

10 Things I Want You to ..."
"Split across several pages = didn't read."

10 Things I Want You to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Huh

    The subconscious guilt you feel for enthusiastically supporting pro-abortion politicians manifests itself in such weird ways.

  • Zach Hoag

    Hi, huh! That’s quite a theory. Perhaps you could reveal your true identity and expound further?

  • Brad

    I agree, I don’t find Calvinism to be consistent. A lot of people say that Calvinists are too logical, but I don’t find them to rely on logic. They seem to be more dependent on the Bible. I think that is why they can be frustrating. They are willing to hold contradictions together based on the Bible. I think it is because they see the Bible as their authority rather than reasoning or philosophy.

    I think I followed most of the article until the last sentence. Would you be able to flesh out the nature of the political agenda that is controlling the Calvinists?


  • I’m not sure the agenda is controlling them per se, but among the cultural leaders especially I believe a political bias is driving their cause much more than actual concern for justice and human dignity.

  • So does your anonymous trolling!

  • Archibald Blingbling

    Whats this mean from Romans 9.. ”

    What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory….”

  • Jon

    It’s good that you’ve indicated your opposition to abortion-on-demand as a justice-minded Christian. With all due respect, if you do stand with Calvinist Christians on the heart of this issue, and if you’re going to write a blog post about Planned Parenthood (which I assume we agree slaughters babies), why would the object of your criticism be a poorly-crafted straw man Calvinist and not the people who are slaughtering babies?

    I mean this as an honest, respectful question. Even if you may disagree with the perceived motives of evangelicals, do you agree that the legalized slaughter of babies is among the biggest travesties of justice in our time? Do you plan to speak out against it as you (rightly) speak against other injustices?

    From an evangelical perspective, when the more progressive Christians I know seem concerned with selective social justice issues (namely, the ones trumpeted by liberal politicians), to me that comes across as the same political bias that you perceive among many evangelical Christians on the right.

    I appreciate your consideration of these honest and I believe important questions. I’m trying to see things from the perspective of those with whom I disagree, and I hope you might do the same.

  • Hi Jon, don’t pretend to have a sincere, unbiased comment and then accuse the author of a “poorly constructed strawman” in the first paragraph. The burden of proof is on you – prove that it’s a strawman. I’m not going to follow your disingenuous rabbit trail if you can’t. And you can’t, of course.