Anyone who knows me knows that I’m no Calvinist. I cringe at the thought of ever becoming one. But nevertheless, there are a couple of things about Calvinism as a system of theology that I like. For instance:
I like the logic of it all. The way that the 5 main points of T.U.L.I.P. interlock is something to behold. And it is this logical consistency that has me convinced that there can be no hybrid system of Calminianism or Arvinism (or whatever other strange concoction of a theological buzz-word you can think of). If any one point falls then the system falls.
I like the idea of the theocentrism that is supposed to stand as the foundation of Calvinism, although I have to be honest in saying, that in practice, most of Calvinists I interact with seem superficial on this point. Most like the lofty language of God’s “freedom,” “sovereignty,” and “glory,” but in practice they seem much more concerned with the language than the God who the language supposedly refers to.
I’m hard-pressed to think of a third thing that I like about Calvinism, but as an ardent Arminian, I think liking two things should be good enough.
Update: Peter Kirk has shared some thoughts on what he doesn’t like about Calvinism, here. Basically, the logic I like is what he doesn’t. And while he rejects 3½ of the 5 points, I reject them all.
See also, Geoff Smith’s post on the same subject. He likes a bit more than I do, but I really appreciated his 5th point of dis-like:
Calvinism typically assumes it is correct from the get go and that traditional reformed theology was on the minds of the NT authors all the time no matter what they wrote about.