Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Tweet of the day
Yeah, we know there’s been a lot of hoopla here and elsewhere about the birth anniversary of a certain Reformer. (Like Marvin said in his column, we do this “only once every 500 years,” so look for our next big Calvin blowout in 2509!) That said, Scott Thomas of Acts 29 and Seattle’s Mars Hill Church provides us with a poignant reminder in a tweet today:
John Calvin is still dead (~500 years) and Jesus is still alive (~2000 years). Just sayin’
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top78 Comments to “Tweet of the day”
And lot of folks who disagreed with Mr Calvin aren’t alive either.
Report comment to moderator
I know it’s a bit macabre, but this reminds me of a little joke that my wife and I have between us. Whenever someone famous dies, we ask each other for the requisite three days, “Is he still dead?” It’s a good reminder to us that Jesus is unique and no one else is Jesus … not even Michael Jackson!
Report comment to moderator
Was Calvin a murderer?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, it’s been discussed on at least 8 threads, of which you posted as well – LOL
Report comment to moderator
Alkaline:
The fetching Mrs. Dad Dog and I have the same tradition.
My young sons and my co-workers are a bit annoyed over my occasional announcements, over the past couple of weeks, that Michael Jackson is still dead . . . but, like you, there’s an underlying message to my madness.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes, I plagiarize Saturday Night Live’s 1975-76 “news bulletins” regarding Generalissimo Francisco Franco:
“News flash!! This just in!! After several weeks, Michael Jackson is still valiantly holding on in his fight to remain dead! More details coming up!”
Report comment to moderator
Actually Calvin may not have his resurrected body, but he is still alive even though he is dead! Couldn’t resist.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure that nobody who comments here is like this, but I have had several friends who seemed to put Calvin above Jesus. It’s pretty bad when your discussing the words of Christ and somebody says, “But Calvin said. . .”
Report comment to moderator
AMEN! “GOD is not the author of confusion”
GOD doesn’t share HIS glory with anyone- the study of HIS WORD should be first and foremost, not the study of a man’s constant interpretation.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I’m not trying to get into a debate about Calvinism at the moment (after all, I’m quite outnumbered on here), but while I disagree with much of Calvin’s teachings, I believe that he was used by God to accomplish much good. i also think that this area should not be as big an area of fierce dispute as it is. Perhaps both sides can agree to disagree and try to serve God the best they can with the convictions they have without attacking the other. After all, there is a possibility that we can always be wrong about certain things where there is lots of controversy. (I don’t mean truths such as “God’s Word is Truth,” “Jesus is God,” etc.)
Of course, I think many arguments are fun, but they shouldn’t be mean-spirited, etc. (for instance, “you’re going to hell if you don’t change your ways and become a Calvinist (or Arminian, or whatever)
In case anyone is wondering, I think I fall somewhere between the areas claimed by “Calvinist” and “Arminian.”
If anyone asks what I mean, I will be glad to elaborate.
Calvinist + Arminian = Carminian?
What used to be a thread by André Seu discussing this topic from last year can be seen at my blog here:
http://polygoncauldron.blogspot.com/
I have yet to edit the unnecessary text out yet.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Did God give us pastors and teachers or not? Are we to seek counsel of elders? Do you quote Matthew Henry here favorably?
Kyle A: I won’t dispute your experience hearing people give preference to Calvin over Christ, but in the great number of relationships and conversations I have with Calvinists, I’ve never-never, ever, never–heard one say, “but Calvin said” in order to dismiss Christ’s words. And I do doubt that it happens much elsewhere. I wonder if you could quote a published author making such a statement.
Report comment to moderator
I quote Matthew Henry when I agree with him – as I have stated before I don’t always agree with anyone.
As far as pastors? – I would only listen to those who live GOD centered lives, that would not include those who commit adultery, homosexuality, murder, etc. I don’t seek the counsel of anyone who would seek their death because they didn’t agree on doctrine. If you are speaking of Servetus and Calvin -
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t take a so called ‘published author to make these comments, it’s the vast amount of doctrinally conditioned Calvinists who make these statements. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if it didn’t take place.
Those in the Evangelical Church are becoming more than aware of the doctrinal conditioning which takes place in those churches which embrace Calvinism. We also NOTE that those churches which hold to Calvin’s teachings are found to have people attending to NEVER bring their Bibles to church, – this in itself is TELL-TALE, it is a doctrine which is being followed not the Word of GOD.
I once read on this blog one of the silliest post ever – someone said “why should we bring our Bibles to church, we have them in the pews, are people afraid of the cooties?” I honestly thought I was reading something a elementary child would write.
Those who study the Word of GOD are serious about their studies, they don’t leave their Bibles at home, they bring them along, if only to make notes, or to follow along – many have places to make notes.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria — 13
You said:
What?? You don’t always agree with Christ? You don’t believe Jesus’ words are infal–Oh, I can’t do this. Just teasin’.
Calvinists, by and large, study God’s word “first and foremost, not…a [mere] man’s constant interpretation.”
Why do you extend more graciousness to a person who openly hates God, who undoubtedly supports the right of women and “doctors” to abort children, and who amusingly condescends toward us silly Christians, than you do to a large number of people with whom you share a place in Christ? I truly think you do disservice to the body (Jn 13:35). I’ve seen a few others of your brothers and sisters in Christ point out that your demeanor toward them and other Christians is less than loving, yet it seems to make no impression on you. That’s disturbing, sister.
Report comment to moderator
OK, Victoria (14). You describe a phenomenon with which I, in my years of Reformed church-going and small-group-meeting and general hang-outing, am entirely unfamiliar. In fact, my experience is diametrically opposed to what you describe. I can’t argue with your perceptions. I’m sorry I bothered.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been a member of two Reformed churches over the past 12 years. We all bring our Bibles and reference them often during the sermon. Sola Scriptura is closely heeded. Calvin above Christ? I’ve never, ever heard such a thing even hinted at.
I agree with Rio and others here that those of us who are members of one body (”calvinists” and “arminians” alike) ought to accord grace and love to one another as Christ called us to do. Frankly, I don’t know what to make of some of the harshness I’ve seen expressed on these and other threads on this topic. There’s really no cause for this and I’ve shied away from them for that reason.
I’m guessing I’ll soon regret not doing the same with this one.
Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
It is not a phenomenon, it’s a fact – I have attended many so called Calvinist churches, they promote Calvinist teaching often times not calling it that, but at the same making sure the doctrine is well established in everyone who attends the church, Sunday school and other meetings.
Report comment to moderator
That is exactly the problem – we aren’t “Calvinists” or “Arminians” those who are saved are Believer in Jesus Christ, we are Born Again – forget the ‘Calvinist and Arminians’ label – when you label people what are you saying? – why not call ourselves Christian Believers, that is the MISSING LABEL which most Calvinists have forgotten.
SIDE NOTE:……………Calvinists is spelled with an upper case “C” – Arminians is spelled with an upper case “A” as well –
If you are are speaking about Servetus, there is just cause – why bring up the harshness? – was not Calvin harsh in exterminating Servetus? – taking responsibility for the extermination of Servetus burning at the stake, he was most joyful at regarding his achievement? – If you don’t want to discuss it as in “shied away” that’s fine, but why bring it up?
If there is another sort of “harshness” please make yourself plain as to what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
“Those in the Evangelical Church are becoming more than aware of the doctrinal conditioning which takes place in those churches which embrace Calvinism. We also NOTE that those churches which hold to Calvin’s teachings are found to have people attending to NEVER bring their Bibles to church, – this in itself is TELL-TALE, it is a doctrine which is being followed not the Word of GOD.”
I have never heard or seen this happen in any church I’ve ever been to. This sounds more like propaganda from a paranoid Chick tract than an actual widespread occurrence.
Report comment to moderator
Well, phenomenon isn’t antonymous of fact, but I get your point.
What’s supposed to be so scandalous about a Calvinistic church teaching Calvinistic doctrine? If the church believes it’s Biblical, what should we expect? Would you be willing to provide the names and locations of some of these churches in case some onlooker here could pay a visit to said church(es) and examine things for themselves? I’m skeptical of your claim.
Hey Anyone Else: Is your experience similar to Victoria’s? Can you point us to some “Calvinist” church doing what Victoria says she’s observed? There’s a lot of “Calvinistic” literature out there, but none that I know of that dismisses Christ’s words because Calvin said something different. It would be odd for such a sentiment to occur so frequently among flesh and blood Calvinists, yet rarely, if ever, in the literature.
It should be noted that every school of Christian theology–Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, non-denom (or more simply, Calvinist and Arminian)–has representatives in liberal and conservative camps. The largest Presbyterian denomination in the country sadly happens to be among the worst (w/ some local church exceptions). I wouldn’t hold it against the OPC if the PCUSA doesn’t think highly of the Bible. But “some people” may consider both to be Calvinist.
Report comment to moderator
Disgusting post track Ringbearer, where did you learn to speak so dis-respectfully, I could take a guess, but already have a good idea where this comes from. Is this the way guys and gals talk where you come from? – I live in Southern CA, where we take a lot of unfair slaps from the the rest of the country – in all my experience, I have NEVER HEARD on person protray a Christian woman as a “paranoid Chick track” –
DISGRACEFUL, is this where you come from, and what you represent?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You voice agreement with Donna that we Christians should bear with one another, putting aside doctrinal labels. But you’re the one calling many of us “Calvinists” like it’s a four letter word. We’ve asked, in sincerity, that you take a more loving posture, but you continue to make harsh posts directed at “Calvinists,” and not only or always because they believe Calvin to be a worthwhile Bible expositor. No, you also chide them for not taking Bible study seriously, and for supporting churches that forsake the Bible and “condition” the congregation, etc. You clearly offer a “harsh” critique. I don’t think any onlooker would deny that.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, come now. After all those posts deriding Calvinists, you present us with #22? Don’t you think that’s a bit unfair?
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – 24
Poor you – and now you want to deride me because I find a man who can exterminate another man, and then joyfully exalt his achievement to be dishonorable? -
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (25):
No, I don’t want to “deride [you] because [you] find a man who can exterminate another man, and then joyfully exalt his achievement to be dishonorable.” Which post of mine gave that impression?
You keep switching between topics. You’ve derided Calvinists for their Christian practice–neglecting the Bible, performing/submitting to “conditioning”, etc. All those criticisms are unrelated to the Servetus execution, and those criticisms are “harsh.” You just joined Donna in a call for peace. Good! Let’s have it!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Ringbearer is referring to the inflammatory anti-Catholic tracts written by Jack Chick–Chick Tracts. Ringbearer didn’t mean the reference as a sexist slur.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga
Have you finished making your religious malt?
Read my post number 19 over again before you make an assumption such as “You just joined Donna in a call for peace. Good! Let’s have it!” – I didn’t mention the word peace nor did Donna –
Do you read these posts?
Report comment to moderator
OK, Victoria. I’m sorry I misread you.
Report comment to moderator
Despite all the time in Seminary, when I hear the name “Calvin” I first think of Calvin Klein, then Calvin and Hobbes, and then Calvin Coolidge.
Report comment to moderator
#26 Victoria.
Victoria is not the type to read the lurid tracts by Chick. So it is totally understandable and applaudable that she would not know the reference.
Report comment to moderator
There is a great passage in Calvin’s Institutes that I think is applicable in this particular discussion. It is Section 4 of Chapter 24 in Book 3. I won’t quote the whole thing here (but at 755 words it is not too long and worth a thoughtful read), but he uses the analogy of a shipwreck to illustrate some of the dangers inherent in this type of discussion.
Calvin acknowledges the impossibility of the limited human mind to effectively probe the depths of God’s wisdom and methods. This is not to say that we shouldn’t attempt to understand God, for He clearly intends for us to read His word, use our minds and come to know Him better. But there is danger when we attempt to go too far. We begin to speculate about things beyond our knowledge, things God has chosen not to reveal to us. We also begin to lose our balance between seemingly contradictory points of view that the Bible simultaneously teaches and which we cannot resolve. We hate to live with “contradictions” or to admit that we cannot solve them, so we gravitate to one extreme or the other and then rail against those on the other end.
Calvin cautions against going too far because there is a great potential for disturbing one’s personal peace and tranquility in God. I would add that it also has the obvious and proven (here) potential for disturbing our community peace and tranquility.
In my opinion, we don’t need to resolve the seeming conflict between man’s choice and God’s choice via a debate that turns contentious and sinks into the shipwreck of animosity between Christian brothers and sisters. In my lifetime of 67 years I have held both views. As I have grown older I have shifted more to Calvin’s side (his Servetus mistake notwithstanding), not because I have personally grown wiser, but because I have grown less sure of myself and more sure of God. At least, that’s the way I see it. But I am not going to fulminate against a Christian of the opposite persuasion any more than I would against myself at age 29.
At this stage I would rather relax and take the position of Paul in regard to debatable things:
Paul was confident in his own view of things, but he wasn’t going to descend into a hurtful fight over it. He wasn’t adverse to friendly debate, but the moment it turned contentious, he was willing to let it go. He would rather leave his Christian brother to privately wrestle the matter out with God. In the meantime they could still be friends and happily work together for their common good in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, EXCELLENT post. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
I’m finding this discussion confusing. I must have missed the memo that Calvinists are now to be despised… last I heard of reformed theology was the scholarly and nuanced teaching of RC Sproul over at Ligonier Ministries, and I heard nothing a Mere Christian could not see the scriptural basis for, such as the depravity of man, the holiness of God, the need for redemption through the sacrifice of Christ, the love of the Father towards man and all creation, and the authority of Scripture.
If you want to dispute a point of Calvin’s doctrine, it is only fair to start by understanding what it actually consists of by reading an articulate presentation, rather than by reacting to hearsay. The Ligonier site is an excellent source. http://www.ligonier.org/
Meanwhile, I hope traditional Presbyterians and other Reformed believers remain welcome here?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Kwerna’s post #35, I have to say I’ve also been taken aback by what is sometimes an outright hostility toward the Reformed faith on these threads. I’ve never really encountered that before and found it extremely disconcerting.
It’s been a real eye-opener, and not a pleasant one.
(I, too, have found so much of value in Ligonier Ministries.)
I am certainly not angry with Christians who disagree with me on these issues. I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ and I strive to treat them accordingly, with kindness and giving the benefit of the doubt when something seems unclear. Many on both sides here have posted calmly and carefully so as not to cause unnecessary offense. When we can do that, the discussion is edifying to all.
I think the topic is certainly worthy of discussion, and I’m only sorry that it arouses such an intensity that it results in contention. What’s that old adage, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable?
Report comment to moderator
I was indeed referring to the tracts written by Jack Chick, I’m sorry if anyone took it another way.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J and Kwerna: It’s one thing for tempers to flare after a little back-and-forth on doctrinal issues. It’s another matter, though, to denigrate the Christian *piety and practice* of a large number of your brothers and sisters in Christ–even those in here–because they hold a doctrine that by no means falls outside the bounds of orthodoxy. To do so unprovoked, and without providing any tangible evidence, only compounds the uncharitableness of the act. If such a thing were to happen in “real life” and not some anonymous forum, an apology would be in order. As it is, though, a poor testimony of the love among believing brethren is put out there for all to see.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – 33
You give a number of excerpts from Calvin, however after going over this thread there is no mention of Predestination/election/predestinate/chosen until you made your post.
My comments for the most part center around IDENTIFICATION, that meaning identifying with a man (Calvin) calling themselves Calvinists, rather than saying I am a Christian Believer.
I have posted this before, but feel it important to post again in case you have not read it in the past.
“One thing I have witnessed, and its not Godly, is the effect of the stubborn and persistent attempts to make Predestination and Election so important that un-Believers listen, or read in this case and ask themselves “I’m not a very good person, I’ve sinned so much, I’m sure I’m not one of the elect” - this happens all too often – It serves no purpose but to hurt those who are hungry for the Gospel, but in their mind they know how much they have sinned, and its hard for them to grasp GOD’s love, they don’t feel very ‘elected’ –
In this particular venue, I believe strongly in not discussing ‘election’ – ‘predestination’ – ‘chosen’ –
Christ did not base HIS message and preaching on those who were predestined – HE preached Salvation to the lost, Jesus told people to repent of their sins –
This is a good place to give my views on this subject in more depth; The churches I have attended (Calvinist) have put an ELITIST stand alongside their beliefs in predestination, chosen and election. I have found the attitude to be un-Christian, and sadly lacking in knowledge – rather chirping their superiority to those whom they believe are not worthy. Often making the statement “if they don’t believe they weren’t chosen” -
GOD is in charge, not those who distribute these attitudes which hurt the cause of Christ. Jesus told us the first shall be last, and the last first. Jesus made it plain we were to be humble, preaching and teaching HIS Word – we were to spread the Gospel. Instead we have a select group of denominations which love nothing more than to preach predestination with glee, I doubt it is pleasing to Christ.
Here is another point to ponder:
1. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘chosen’ five times in Scripture - three of those occasions were in reference to HIS disciples.
2. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘elect’ seven times in Scripture
3. Jesus Christ never mentioned ‘predestination’
4. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repentance’ ten times
5. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repent’ nine times
6. Jesus made mention of saved 20 times
7. Jesus made statements about LOVE, and LOVETH fifty (50) times in the New Testament.
I could go on, but I believe most people will get the idea.
I don’t know who is going to believe and who isn’t, but GOD knows. I don’t know how GOD created the world, or why some people are sinful and proud of it, or why others are shamed by their sins and ask GOD to forgive them. I do know this, GOD knew before the world who would believe, who would follow HIM and who wouldn’t. You and I don’t know these things. We do know from Scripture that Christ died for everyone, but we don’t know who will accept his forgiveness and repent- But we can’t forget, GOD sent HIS Son to die for the sins of “the whole world” – but at the same time, HE knew who would and wouldn’t believe and stay the course.”
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: I have to sadly agree. And I don’t understand it, it’s not something I’ve ever really seen in (real life) Christian circles, thankfully. As believers we should always carefully examine & check ourselves, including our attitudes, words and tone.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria, I think the point we try to make (and what the Reformed churches I’ve attended teach in no uncertain terms) is that no matter how sinful one is, salvation is of God. It absolutely does not depend on us, and that’s the Good News.
Now if one is saved, there will be evidence of that, some change in one’s life and certainly a hunger & a desire for the things of God, a desire to follow God.
We will often fail at that, but when we do, we get up again and keep trying. It’s evidence that we belong to Him. And even when we fail, when we are unfaithful, he is faithful. That’s the grace. And understanding that rightly spurs us on further and even more to be faithful to Him in response.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a bit intrigued by all the hate directed toward John Calvin, especially by WMB stalwarts like Victoria and Joel Mark (on a different thread). After all, World Magazine is largely a Reformed publication. With the exception of Lynn Vincent, I believe that all of WorldMag’s editors and on-staff journalists are Reformed. The magazine’s notion of “Christian worldview” comes directly from the teachings of Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and Rousas Rushdoony — all three of whom are prominent conservative Calvinist theologians and political theorists. Thus, any non-Calvinist Christian who comments here is no less a troll than the non-Christians who comment here. So, welcome to Trollville, Vicky.
Besides, the statement by Thomas appears to run afoul of basic Christian theology. While Christ already has his resurrection body, John Calvin still awaits his. But after the parousia, John Calvin will be just as alive as Christ is today. Therefore, the statement is wrong insofar as it suggests that Calvin’s current state is permanent. Or maybe Thomas denies the resurrection of the dead.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I think that most Reformed Christians would gladly accept that Reformed theology is “elitist” in contrast to the populist variant of Christianity that you espouse. While the notion of divine sovereignty can run against the democratic and populist sensibilities that pervade our culture, that makes the doctrine no less true.
You seem to be a proponent of bombastic, revivalistic, wear-my-religion-on-my-sleeves evangelicalism. In contrast, we Reformed believe that grace is communicated to the unbelieving elect through their exposure to the means of grace (i.e., worship — including preaching and the spiritual presence of Christ in the communion elements). This does not make us elitists; we are simply living according to what we believe Scripture teaches. We simply believe that the Spirit can speak through the means of grace, and that we don’t need to supplement God’s voice with our own voices.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The feigned victimhood gets you nowhere. After all, you are the one who initially slandered the religious practices of Reformed Christians. When people rebut your errors, they are not ridiculing you.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you mentioned a “select group of denominations which love nothing more than to preach predestination with glee.”
Which denominations in which locations?
Report comment to moderator
Also, Victoria,
Apparently, a number of “Calvinists” post on these boards with some regularity. Why not provide some quotes to back up all these charges of yours? Even some language from Reformed authors might be in line.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (#39):
You are correct in that there was no direct mention of “predestination/election/predestinate/chosen” until my post. However, those issues are central to any substantive discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, which had been mentioned several times earlier in the thread. These issues are also what usually generates the most heat in such debates.
I agree with your dislike for Calvinism when it is expressed as an elitist type doctrine. I am sure that there are those who have that attitude, although I don’t think Calvin himself intended his views to be interpreted that way. I believe such elitism is a sinful attitude and a distortion of Calvin’s views. The full passage I cited (Institutes: Book 3, Ch 24, Sect 4) focuses, in part, on the comfort that election/predestination provides for the beleaguered believer. There is no elitist gloating in Calvin’s words there.
Your “point to ponder” about what to emphasize in evangelism is well taken. No sensible person that I know of is going to initiate a discussion of election/predestination when presenting the Gospel to non-believers. It is difficult enough for believers to grasp without misunderstanding and doubt, let alone non-believers.
However, it is not something we should shy away from when asked, especially when there is a useful purpose in the discussion. Note that Paul, in his letter to the Romans, spent a great deal of time discussing the Gospel in chapters 1-7. Then in chapter 8 he begins to discuss the realities of Christian suffering, especially pertinent to those Romans then dealing with the persecutions of Nero. Then in chapter 9 he begins to present election/predestination to his Christian audience (not non-Christians) for the purpose of giving them assurance about God’s strength in bringing them and their faith, intact, through their severe trials. They will persevere in their faith because God has chosen them and He will bring them through whatever trials they must endure.
Every person has a breaking point, no matter how brave they are. Having been in the military, I know that if I were a POW and subjected to enemy mistreatment, my own weakness might get the better of me at times. When buffeted by Satan, our situation in life is sometimes similar, but with a lot more at stake. I would hate to think that the maintenance of my salvation is dependent on my own strength.
No matter what happens to me here on this earth, I know that eternal life is not something I will receive when I get to heaven, provided I am strong and do all the right things in the meantime. No, I have eternal life right now because God has already decided my destiny from even before I was born, and He in His strength will make sure I complete my pilgrimage as planned. I think that is the essence of Paul’s message in Romans 9
(and elsewhere), and as such, it is also God’s message and Christ’s message.
So I don’t see election as an elitist message to throw in the face of non-Christians. I see it as a message of strength and comfort for Christians, especially as we face the trials of life. I believe this is the way Calvin presents it and I agree with him.
Report comment to moderator
What Michael Martin said (again).
I completely agree that if predestination is seen as some kind of bizarre reason to boast, that is a wrong attitude. But rightly seen, I view it as a source of true humility in that our salvation depends upon nothing in us, but wholly (and inexplicably) upon God and His grace and mercy to sinners.
I’ve never heard it discussed as part of salvation. Our pastor preaches from time to time at a local homeless mission and the Gospel message is giving the plea for people to call upon the name of the Lord, believe in Jesus Christ, and they will be saved.
As to how that all happens in the spiritual realm (a) can’t ever be completely known by us and (b) certainly doesn’t need to be debated at that level.
But I agree with Michael in that knowing it is God’s faithfulness, not mine, that saves — and holds — me. Otherwise, in my own strength, I’d be completely lost and undone, no doubt about it.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, correction, my mind was moving in different direction than hands on keyboard.
Paragraph 2 should read: I’ve never heard it discussed as part of the call to salvation message or in evangelism per se.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m certain you’re familiar with the “five points of Calvinism,” as represented in the acrostic “TULIP”:
T-Total depravity (or total inability) of man (a.k.a., “original sin”)
U – Unconditional election
L – Limited atonement (a.k.a., “particular atonement”)
I – Irresistable grace
P – Perseverance of the saints (sometimes known as, “once saved, always saved”)
You’re probably also aware that:
1) these five points were developed not by Calvin, but after his death; and
2) they were not comprised “in a vacuum” as it were, but in response to what were considered to be the erroneous teachings of Jacob Arminius.
Thus the “five points of Calvinism” are an attempt to answer what Calvinists see as the errors of Arminianism.
Rather than debate Calvin’s part in the execution of Servetus, whetehr he considered it murder or a justifiable execution, whether he repented of it or not, etc., I’d like to ask you a question. Please note, I am not here to cast an aspersions on your beliefs, and I am certainly not here to call you an Arminian or anything else.
(Indeed, you have rejected/eschewed any such terms as “Calvinist” or “Arminian.” I can relate. I was raised Catholic and converted in a Baptist church in Germany, but for some reason, I always resisted identifying myself as a Baptist. And when I attended a Calvary Chapel, I respected the fact that they also eschewed those labels — they taught that the Scriptural truth was “somewhere in the middle.”)
That said, my question for you is this: Do you find yourself in agreement, to some degree or another, with any of the “five points of Calvinism” at all?
Again, I ask not to accuse you of anything, but rather in hopes of fostering a better understanding between us — and ideally, between those here who are more “like you” and more “like me.” I.e., I prefer to try generating more light than heat.
Blessings …
Report comment to moderator
An inquisition – or another investigation of my belief in Jesus Christ as Savior? This is exactly the type of interrogation which I have heard and witnessed with others. The excuses are the same, the posturing never changes. I always feel saddened when anyone who disagrees with Calvinists must be questioned as they stand trial.
What is to be gained by this? I have answered the same questions over and over again, but it appears that it will go on until I leave the blog – does it bother any of you that this is the reason people leave Calvinistic churches which harass those who don’t agree until they finally walk out the door – I’m talking about Born Again Believers who are devoted to Christ as Savior, basically chased away – it’s a case of ‘my way or the highway’ approach – it wouldn’t matter how much the individual loves the LORD or believes, they MUST agree with Calvin, and those who identify themselves as ‘Calvinists’ –
Don’t forget, I am a pastor’s daughter – I’ve attended a number of churches and visited many, have had the opportunity to know many Believers on both sides – I spent years in study – I know the results of not agreeing with Calvinists, and it isn’t pretty – I made a Statement to Michael Martin which should have settled this, as it was worded so that anyone could understand what I believed and my reason for not desiring further discussion of ‘predestination’ however, that appears not to be sufficient, YOU want me to go down the TULIP with you, which I have done in the past –
I’m sure most of the contention now has resulted, after Calvin’s 500 years celebration yesterday and my making plain my reasons for not holding him in high regards. So, the day after Calvin’s birthday the assault (however well couched) is brought into high gear. The one person who is a staunch Calvinist, ‘Michael Martin’ appears at this moment to be the only one who controls himself, or appears to be sincere – that doesn’t mean there might not be a few others, but for many of you, there is a history –
I won’t change my mind regarding labeling as in “I’m a Calvinist” because it doesn’t give the LORD Jesus Christ the honor and glory – this blog didn’t give Christ last December 24, 2008 so much attention – but Calvin’s birthday is a blowout in more ways then one – Check it out, post #12 on “Liberty’s champion” – why is CHRIST JESUS not honored even more then Calvin?
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/07/10/libertys-champion/#comments
Report comment to moderator
My original comment, which seemed to spark the debate needs a bit of clarification.
No published author that I know of would ever admit to putting the words of Calivin above the words of Christ. Nor would any well-known preacher or denominational body.
My comment was in regard to the few radicial individuals that I know who have argued based on Calvin’s teachings whenever I brought up Scripture passages that I think are contradictory to extreme Calvinism. I would rather they argue Scipture with Scipture; that is bring up a clearer or stronger Scipture passage that disproves my points.
I respect so-called Calvinists very much and regard them, of course, as brothers and sisters in Christ. I have found myself persuaded by Reformed doctrine to the point that I have embraced (at least tentatively or patrially) many Reformed ideas that I once completely rejected.
My reading of Calvin persuades me that he was not a Calivinist–at least not a “hyper-Calivinist” as I have heard some of his more radical followers called. He did his best to interpret God’s Word correctly, and he did an excellent job. However, he should not be idolized as he is by some people that I have known.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You’re the only one here getting angry, and the only one unable to recognize it.
Report comment to moderator
Give it a rest – you and Donna are the only ones on this thread who have used the words “anger” or “angry” -
Report comment to moderator
I believe Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary and that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were simply relatives (cousins). I personally don’t agree with Calvin on this. The man was certainly not perfect.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I sincerely doubt that any Reformed church has chased people from the parish by endless inquisition about particulars of Reformed doctrine. On the other hand, I have to wonder why these would-be victims even bothered to set foot into a Reformed parish. After all, would someone attend Roman Catholic mass if one believed that the Pope were the antichrist?
The revivalistic heritage of evangelicalism has led most evangelical churches to adopt a semi-Pelagian gospel: “God has done 99% of the work, but you have to do the last 1%. Won’t you come down to the altar tonight and do that last 1%?” The Reformed do not deny the role of the human will. Yet we do not believe that the human act of faith can be distilled and separated from God’s act in quickening the sinner’s heart. In other words, if Christ does the 99%, then the sinner will always “do the last 1%.” Thus, we believe that all for whom Christ dies will be saved. Semi-Pelagians (aka Arminians) believe that there are many people for whom Christ dies who will nonetheless be damned. I see these as two radically different views of the efficacy of the Cross. Mine views the Cross as sufficient for propitiation. Arminians view the Cross as somewhat deficient in this respect.
Report comment to moderator
What accounts for your hostility, Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Charming –
Many churches teach Calvinism, they are not Reformed. Not all Calvinist based churches are under the Reformed camp – giving you a better understandng.
I’m not an Arminian, so you can drop the ‘crystal ball’ anywhere you like!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (53): An inquisition – or another investigation of my belief in Jesus Christ as Savior? This is exactly the type of interrogation which I have heard and witnessed with others.
Frank: I truly hope that’s not in response to my question at post (52) immediately preceding yours, for I was simply trying to engage in a theological dialogue — to find some common ground, to understand our differences and our similarities … )
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (53): … YOU want me to go down the TULIP with you, which I have done in the past –
Frank: Okay, I see your remark was directed to me. (It’s as my wife always says, read the (instructions, story, whatever) all the way through before you start asking the Qs, as they very well may be answered there!)
In fairness, Victoria, I’ve only read/participated in a thread wherein you debated predestination (or the “U” in TULIP). I have not read your views on the other four points.
Believe me, I am not here to either sell you something, force you to believe something, or criticize you for believing something different than I do.
I was only trying to open up a peaceful dialogue.
While your statement …
… does not apply to me, I’m sorry if I’ve said anything in the past that has given you the impression that it does.
Peace.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – it may have sounded as if I directed my post to you, it was meant to encompass as many posters as possible, by no means were you singled out.
I appreciate your remarks -
Report comment to moderator
We all understand racism – however there is church discrimination as well, it hasn’t one thing to do with color, but it has everything to do with predestination. Predestination, election are all terms which are used to describe Biblical doctrine. What is missing here is mercy, and by that I mean a thoughtful and loving approach to those who don’t believe, but very likely might come to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. Did GOD know who would believe and who wouldn’t before the formation of the world? – YES – HE knows this because HE is GOD, HE knows everything. We have free will, but he knows the free will we will use to chose which path we take, and so doing knows who will and who won’t believe on HIS Son for Salvation, who will and who won’t repent.
The church can debate the finality of man’s eternity, but it is GOD who knows what we cannot understand, what we stammer and search for answers – the ONLY ANSWERS are in HIS WORD – we can only make a decision regarding our own life, not that of our family member, mother or father, sister or brother or dear child, but OUR OWN, that is the person who will stand before GOD and give an answer, just ME – It won’t depend upon whether we believed in the ‘rapture’ – ‘hell’ – but it will be depend on our faith in Christ – will our fruits please HIM, or will they smell like a corpse of 10 days in the hot sun?
Did Christ talk about predestination? – a select group of people who were pre-ordained to inherit Eternal Life, and those who were damned to hell? – NO – however there is a hell, and there are those who will not, have not believed on Jesus Christ as Savior, they have never repented of their sins – It is not our place to decide who will go straight to hell after the judgment -
We will know the Believer by their fruit -
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
Good Morning.
The passage regarding “by their fruits” isn’t just an evaluation of believers. Jesus was speaking of both the false and the true, namely false prophets or the religious wicked (wolves in sheep’s clothing). The passage does encompass the apostate who DENYS the truth as well as the heretic who DEFIES the truth.
I agree with your post #65. We usurp the authority of God when we make deliberate and final pronouncements on the eternal fate of people, be they deceased or yet living. However, we can evaluate a life transformed by the power of God’s grace as well as recognize those in rebellion against God.
There are no perfect or sinless Christians, of course. From conversion to natural death, we struggle and sadly, aren’t very patient with one another and do not faithfully pray for each other or bear each other’s burdens.
I do think Jesus spoke of the sovereignty of God regarding those who would believe in Him in verses like John 6:39, 44 and John 17:19,24.
Even so, God’s sovereignty does not allow us to disregard the clear commands concerning the church’s purpose of evangelism. God has chosen human witness and the preaching of his Word as the means to reveal salvation to humanity. We are to be ready to given an answer for the hope that we have(I Peter 3:15)no matter who asks.
When we present Truth as though there is no love in God to sinners and that His only regard is for the elect, we sin; we “bear false witness” against God Himself. Many have used predestination as an excuse to justify their laziness, their selfish disregard of others and as a means of exalting themselves. It doesn’t matter if they call themselves “Calvinists” or not.
It seems to me, you’ve been offended perhaps deeply hurt by some from the various churches you’ve mentioned attending in the past. I’m sorry for that.
The church is too often a place, unfortunately, where the wounded are routinely shot and our “childlike” faith is manifested as nothing more than childishness.
You do contend for the Truth on WMB and I would encourage you to continue doing so.
Perhaps some of us need more of your patience in these discussions as we seek to understand your points and express our own. Forgive me if I’ve been less than patient myself and short on understanding.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day.
Report comment to moderator
Re: “predestination” in Scripture:
Romans 8:28-30 (King James Version)
28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Thought I’d look up occurrences, cause I’m mystified why the concept seems to be such a bugaboo…. is there some stigma in the word itself?
Report comment to moderator
There are those who might call me a Calvinist because my shoes are by Calvin Klein, some of my shirts, my eyeglass frames , my underwear, my coffee cup, my handkerchiefs all say Calvin Klein. I am also a Jordachian, K Swissian, (even on occasion K-martian
).
) Officist, Ball Gametite, and the list goes on. I want to serve Christ everywhere I go.
Labeling ourselves is a silly thing to do at times. The information that is gained when one says they are this that or the other is that you have ’closed your mind’ to new thoughts. Something which God does not want you to do. Now you can say I am a “Southeast Evangelical Centrist Performist” but all you are saying by that is that you go to the Southeast Evangelical Centrist Performist church in order to serve Christ there. By that token I am a Bus Stationist, Airportitite, Streetist, (always elitest
When asked about theology I respond that it is a good thing.
When pressured to select which theology I respond that I am an anti-navelite. I definitely , unashamedly, and without any doubt or reservation whole heartedly believe that Adam did not have a navel. But I am open for discussion on the issue.
The central idea is of Christ living His Life so that He could Die for us and thus bring us back to God. And the Resurrection puts the proof to the central idea.
Report comment to moderator
MontyFisherWoof, 68:
Those ideas are fine, but how do Calvinists misuse labels, or violate any of the sentiments you mention; and if you know of examples, can you post a few indicating it’s a far-reaching thing? I’m a “Reformed” believer, and I don’t claim I or similar believers are perfect, but I don’t commonly see the problems you or others have alluded to.
Report comment to moderator
MONTY-
I have run into such staunch and extreme views primarily among radical Baptist people and among Grace Brethren people as well. In general I have not seen it among Presbyterians, although I actually have not known very many Presbyterians in real life.
Report comment to moderator
A joke about labels:
Woo Hoo, Frank in Spokane!! That’s flat out funny. I’ll have to start work on memorizing that one. I always liked Emo Phillips
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga, and Kyle,
I am not alluding to their being a problem. I am putting forth what I believe and if the shoe fits then think about it a bit. We should not be calling ourselves names.
)
(Now Barack Obama is a different kettle of fish. You have my permission to call him anything you want
Kyle,
Stauch and extreme? I am not sure what you mean . Staunch as in staunch ally, I can see that. Extreme? I am extremely happy. I am extremely at peace. I feel extremely well. As far as philosophy I would hope that what I expressed would be accepted as universal. That to be a Christian we need to accept Jesus as our personal lord and saviour.
As far as denominations go I think we are all a pinch of Presbyterian, a bit of Baptist, a little Lutheran, an angstrom of Anglican, and a half cup of Catholic. The portions may vary from person to person, but our common ground is Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
#65 Victoria, I agree with you 100%.
(My only caveat is that very few people truly understand racism and know how to get rid of it. Some day, some magnificent day, I will write my magnum opus on racism.)
Deet, I thought you expressed yourself marvelously.
Report comment to moderator
My hurt has been for others, and perhaps myself – however I am convinced that the discussion of predestination serves no purpose to a hurting world, those who have yet come to Christ as Savior and repented. It does nothing but wound those who look at those who profess to be Christian Believers as elitist, and that is something we should avoid, WE don’t know how all this has come about…. after all GOD’s thoughts are far about ours – only GOD knew before the foundation of the world who would and would not believe, and therefore would come to HIM.
Let us spread the Gospel, that is what we are called to do.
Report comment to moderator
“When we present Truth as though there is no love in God to sinners and that His only regard is for the elect, we sin; we “bear false witness” against God Himself. Many have used predestination as an excuse to justify their laziness, their selfish disregard of others and as a means of exalting themselves. It doesn’t matter if they call themselves “Calvinists” or not.”
I’m not a member of a Reformed or “Calvinist” church, but I know for a certainty their doctrine does not remotely excuse such attitudes as are slapped on them above. And I’m pretty sure the stereotyping and sanctimonious trashing of the “many” unnamed, straw-man malefactors who are guilty, ipso facto, of pride and sloth because they hold to doctrines that are well within the bounds of orthodoxy, is not pleasing to Our Lord.
This is false witness in action, not to mention bigotry. I’m amazed at what I’m reading!
May I add that historically, Presbyterian and other Reformed churches were at the forefront of global missions. South Korea, for example: “Within the major Protestant traditions there are a total of 121 denominations, approximately 90 percent of which are separate Presbyterian groups.” (Wiki)
May I also add that my sister, who died last week, was an ordinary member of a conservative Presbyterian church and the practical, organized, hands-on help lavished on her and her family on a daily basis over a four-year battle with cancer is the most astonishing, hard-working, sustained love I have EVER witnessed.
Report comment to moderator
KWERNA,
I’m glad your sister had the support and loving sacrifice of so many. Love is after all, the church’s greatest apologetic.
I happen to believe wholeheartedly in the sovereignty of God concerning salvation. My post above was not a denial of biblical truth. Nor was I criticizing those believers who are commited to upholding and teaching doctrine without compromise.
Rather I was stressing the point that doctrine is used by some to lord authority over others and hide their own disobedience in sanctimonious posturing which hurts our fellow believers in Christ and damages our witness to the watching world.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!