* * *
ADMIN NOTE: The comments are closed on this thread and a new one has opened here:
It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2
The other record-breaking thread is getting really long with comments and so I thought it might be good to let Brian’s new comment have its own thread since it’s on one topic. I’m doing something I’ve never done before. We’re going to let this post be an open post on Calvinism. Many of the people I cover in abuse stories come from either Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist background. That’s not to say there are not abuse issues within Arminian churches (i.e., Calvary Chapel). I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are Calvinist who certainly are not abusive. In fact, they defend the oppressed/abused. We have to be careful about those kinds of blanket statements. But there may be some truth to the idea that some doctrines may be a better “breeding” ground for abusive-type leaders.
So, in light of Brian’s comment below, let’s go for it. And okay, I give up . . . go ahead and spell out that “C” word if you want – LOL 🙂
* * *
* * *
Ed said: “Don’t call yourself a Calvinist if you don’t support everything about John Calvin.”
Ed, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.
Holding to the tenets of what is commonly called Calvinism does NOT equate to agreeing with everything Calvin did or taught.
I am curious…does anyone on here even know what they are talking about when they use the term “Calvinism”? I’d be interested to see some responses. What is Calvinism? You’ve all been railing against it, so I expect you can describe it without having to look it up. If you have to look it up, then why are you so against something about which you actually do not know the details?
* * *
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Brian, Do you mean Peter since you quoted Peter? I don’t agree with your interpretation. I do not think you understand “chosen”, destined and Holy Priesthood. You read it with the Augustinian/Calvin filter where man has no volition.
NIV says:
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
(The Greek seems to be passive not active/current but anyway I don’t read determinism into the passage. If I believe man has volition then I do not read it in these passages. I see election as those who believe.)
Those who disobey are destined to stumble. There are consequences to disobeying. And man CAN choose to disobey. Man can choose to reject Christ.
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads up, A mom. I have not heard of that site before.
LikeLike
A Mom, aw, how sweet. Thank you, I LOVE reading such comforting and life-giving words. They mean so much to me, and I will remember what you said when the despair threatens to take over again. I really appreciate your kindness!
I do get the very distinct impression that God is even angrier than I am. Burning with rage, actually. He makes me laugh by reminding me over and over again that he’s on my side. I feel constantly upheld and supported by him, as he seethes. And he will not let me cry for very long when the wave of unlovable certainty hits. That is one thing he does NOT want me to be upset about. Uh-oh, here come the waterworks, haha!
Speaking of videos, I used to watch Refuting Calvinism on there a lot. He is one person who uploaded a video I have found very helpful, from Jesse Morrell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKiw6pmETY4
LikeLike
A Mom and Lydia,
I wasn’t aware that some of the leaders (I assume you mean pastors) were also the sexual abusers. Sadly, I’m not surprised. Obviously I don’t mean that such a leader was duped. The pattern I described is one that has occurred in Calvinist as well as non Calvinist churches. I wish that wasn’t the case. The abuser will find whatever theology is convenient to cover the abuse and silence the abused. How are they able to persuade leaders who are not the actual abusers? I don’t have a good answer for that. No responsible leader in the church today has any excuse for failing our children in this way.
LikeLike
As a sorta full-quiver mom (with a respectable 7 kids), I have been a labor support person (doula) at probably 30 or so births over the years. I learned how to relax during labor (being tense and uptight causes pain) and taught ladies how to focus and minimize the sensation of pain using all sorts of diversion tactics.
I’ll bet these guys would be pissed to know that I had minimal pain at my births and one birth with absolutely no pain (and no pain meds – 12 hr labor – 10-1/2 pound skinny baby whose birthday happens to be today!).
LikeLike
Absolutely man can choose to reject Christ. Not only can he, but apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, that’s ALL he can do. No one can choose Christ of his own volition. As Jesus himself said, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
LikeLike
Brian – Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that an elected person has the choice to reject Christ? But a person not elected does not have the choice to get elected if God has not chosen him?
LikeLike
Brian: I’m in the middle of flipping bacon over for BLTs (fresh garden tomatoes) and had this question – lol:
So, why should we pray for people to get saved if God has already chosen who He elects? That seems like a waste of time.
LikeLike
Furthermore, why should we pray for anything if everything is in His sovereign plan?
LikeLike
Is someone going to pray for me as I drive to choir practice tonight – that I will get their safely? It might be in God’s sovereign plan that I get in an accident. If I get in an accident, should Hannah post a note asking for prayer for my healing, what good would that do? God already knows how it will work out.
LikeLike
That’s only your opinion of scripture, though
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Good questions.
First: A person elected to salvation WILL come to Christ. There is a one-to-one correlation between those whom God has chosen and those who come to Christ. As Jesus Himself said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me”. Paul also says that that all those God called he also justified and glorified. So, the idea that someone who has been made alive by the Spirit will choose to reject Christ is an impossibiity.
Second: There’s no such thing as someone wanting to be one of the elect and not being elect. If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So, again, the idea that someone would want to be elect but could not be is also an impossibiity.
LikeLike
Thank you A Mom for your kind words.
I’m trying to learn more about Calvinism since my contact with it was pretty horrendous. The practice of it didn’t play out well for me in real life.
I don’t understand Calvinism ~ that’s why I’m asking questions. It seems so complicated.
LikeLike
You do realize that all you’ve done here is state a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy?
LikeLike
“Furthermore, why should we pray for anything if everything is in His sovereign plan?”
Another great question.
I have heard it put that since God already knows us completely, prayer is what allows us to get to know him even better. Also, we are commanded to pray. And prayer is also a means by which God accomplishes his will. This is one of those areas that I honestly don’t fully understand, but I have no problem not having everything figured out. He is sovereign over all things, Scripture makes that clear. He has also instructed us to pray, and somehow he uses that prayer to work out his will.
One of the most amazing truths that brings great comfort to me is that God tells me that I have two persons of the Trinity praying for me. Paul says that we don’t know how to pray as we ought, but that the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings too deep for words, and His prayers are according to the will of God the Father.
Also, we are told that Jesus ever lives to make intercession for the saints. What an incredible comfort. My prayers are feeble, sinful and incomplete, but prayers are being offered up on my behalf by the Holy Spirit and the Son (that’s JESUS in case Gary reads this).
Finally, this is a very brief answer on the subject of prayer, so it would be appreciated if others didn’t take this as my complete tome on the subject.
LikeLike
“You do realize that all you’ve done here is state a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy?”
If I’ve stated it then so has Scripture:
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
(John 6:37-40 ESV)
LikeLike
You can try to proof-text it all you like, but all you’re doing is using a logical fallacy to back up a point that Scripture doesn’t logically support. It’s things like these that make sane people shake their heads at literalists.
LikeLike
Someone posted this on TWW and I have read 2 chapters so far. It lines up with quite a few other resources I have read on Reformation Geneva, The councils and Calvin. If you want to understand the roots of Calvinism, try reading it. Especially chapter 2
http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_toc.htm
LikeLike
Haters gonna hate…
LikeLike
“Second: There’s no such thing as someone wanting to be one of the elect and not being elect. If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So, again, the idea that someone would want to be elect but could not be is also an impossibiity.”
Long time professing believer child molesters at SGM were doing that. Some who were leaders of groups. So they are elect? They wanted to be….
LikeLike
Absolutely man can choose to reject Christ. Not only can he, but apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, that’s ALL he can do. No one can choose Christ of his own volition. As Jesus himself said, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.””
Then why would Jesus start out His earthly ministry telling people to repent and believe when He already knew some could NOT because they were not chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved. Seems rather cruel. Was the Holy Spirit working against Jesus not to regenerate what Jesus was telling people to do?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Here’s another example of the one-to-one correlation between God’s chosen ones and those who come Christ (that’s JESUS for Gary):
“So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
Only Jesus’ sheep hear his call and respond. Those who are not among his sheep may hear the outward call of the gospel proclamation, but they never hear the inward call of the Holy Spirit, and so they never come to Christ.
LikeLike
“How are they able to persuade leaders who are not the actual abusers?”
They don’t have to persuade them of anything. It is all about image. It is better to keep this stuff quiet (SGM told the victims talking about it to anyone else in the church was the sin of gossip) to maintain the image.
LikeLike
“As a sorta full-quiver mom (with a respectable 7 kids), I have been a labor support person (doula) at probably 30 or so births over the years. I learned how to relax during labor (being tense and uptight causes pain) and taught ladies how to focus and minimize the sensation of pain using all sorts of diversion tactics. ”
JA, that is awesome. You are amazing woman! Happy B’day to one of the 7!!!
LikeLike
Thanks for proving my point.
LikeLike
“Long time professing believer child molesters at SGM were doing that. Some who were leaders of groups. So they are elect? They wanted to be…”
I don’t know if they are elect or not, Lydia. Only God knows.
LikeLike
Brian, You keep quoting Incarnation texts to try and prove determinism. The incarnation texts would have meant to the hearing Jew that Jesus was claiming to be Messiah. He kept referring to His father and doing the will of his father….there is a reason God in the flesh is saying that to Jews.
LikeLike
“Then why would Jesus start out His earthly ministry telling people to repent and believe when He already knew some could NOT because they were not chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved. Seems rather cruel. Was the Holy Spirit working against Jesus not to regenerate what Jesus was telling people to do?”
Lydia, everyone deserves God’s wrath. God choosing to save some out of his mercy is not unfair to those who already deserve the wrath and curse of God. Some receive mercy, the rest receive justice. This makes sense, unless you think everyone is basically good. Do you beieve that?
LikeLike
Hi Brian,
Question: Heaven forbid, but if one of your children told you they were being molested, is that the advice you would give them? God ordained it since it happened? Or as you put it, “came to pass”?
LikeLike
One thing the Reformation did was to eradicate any vestiges of Jewish understanding of the periscope. Augustine was bad enough. Both Calvin and Luther despised Jews. They were not even allowed in Geneva. They basically formed their own Jesus to fit their determinist/dualistic Greek philosophy paradigm in that era.
This is one reason it was so easy to persecute Jews centuries later in Germany. The historical Jewish Jesus was totally forgotten centuries before..
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Mom,
If a child or family member was rebelling against God, would you pray, “Lord, please do not do anything to my child’s heart…please do not open his eyes to the truth…let him figure it out on his own.”?
LikeLike
Brian said, “Lydia, everyone deserves God’s wrath. God choosing to save some out of his mercy is not unfair to those who already deserve the wrath and curse of God. Some receive mercy, the rest receive justice. This makes sense, unless you think everyone is basically good. Do you beieve that?”
This sounds like gym class when we would count off to determine which team we would be on. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2…. But you’re saying God does the counting & sends one team to hell. Nice guy, this God of yours. I pray your eyes are opened.
LikeLike
Lydia, everyone deserves God’s wrath. God choosing to save some out of his mercy is not unfair to those who already deserve the wrath and curse of God. Some receive mercy, the rest receive justice. This makes sense, unless you think everyone is basically good. Do you beieve that?”
You are describing Allah. You aren’t going to bait me with the everyone is good worm. The converse is: everyone is Hitler or Pol Pot. Your doctrine produces moral chaos. SGM taught you nothing. When all evil is taught as equal in God’s eyes what is the big deal with genocide or child molestation compared to disagreeing with your pastor or not submitting to your elders?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This is one reason it was so easy to persecute Jews centuries later in Germany. The historical Jewish Jesus was totally forgotten centuries before..”
What in the world does this statement have to do with what is being discussed??? You want to malign the Reformers, I get it. But can’t you stay even just a little bit on topic?
LikeLike
Ummm. Please answer my 5:52PM question & I’ll be more than happy to answer your 7:40PM question. I think that’s fair.
LikeLike
“If a child or family member was rebelling against God, would you pray…”
Are they one of the chosen? Can the chosen rebel against God?
LikeLike
“You are describing Allah. You aren’t going to bait me with the everyone is good worm. The converse is: everyone is Hitler or Pol Pot. Your doctrine produces moral chaos. SGM taught you nothing. When all evil is taught as equal in God’s eyes what is the big deal with genocide or child molestation compared to disagreeing with your pastor or not submitting to your elders?”
Lydia,
It is clear that you cannot approach what we are talking about with an open mind. Your hatred is blinding you from being able to talk about the issues at hand without constantly referring back to SGM and other atrocities. Yes, they are bad. But please…can’t you stick to the topics at hand. This is not an SGM thread.
LikeLike
“What in the world does this statement have to do with what is being discussed??? You want to malign the Reformers, I get it. But can’t you stay even just a little bit on topic?”
Your lack of understanding what Jesus is saying. You think it implies determinism when it doesn’t. You lack understanding of the Hebrew thinking of that time. That is typical of Reformed.
LikeLike
It is clear that you cannot approach what we are talking about with an open mind. Your hatred is blinding you from being able to talk about the issues at hand without constantly referring back to SGM and other atrocities. Yes, they are bad. But please…can’t you stick to the topics at hand. This is not an SGM thread.”
See? It never fails. It always comes down to ad hominem. I am narrow minded and hateful because I say things Brian does not like. SGM is quite relevant since the leaders of your movement have totally defended Mahaney and his methods. How can they do that if they are “chosen” and know truth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This sounds like gym class when we would count off to determine which team we would be on. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2…. But you’re saying God does the counting & sends one team to hell. Nice guy, this God of yours. I pray your eyes are opened.”
A Mom,
God doesn;t send people to hell…everyone is deservedly heading for hell and God mercifully chooses to save some from that eternal torent that they so justly deserve.
It is becoming clear that you see people’s starting point as basically good and deserving heaven rather than as deserving God’s wrath. Is that what you believe?
LikeLike
Gotta get some sleep. Rest in His awesome love and grace. That includes you too, Brian. :o)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian said: “God choosing to save some out of his mercy is not unfair to those who already deserve the wrath and curse of God.”
I’ve never been able to buy this. Suppose I had two kids, and both landed themselves in jail. One kid, I do everything possible to rehabilitate; the other, I leave to rot. And yet I’m not being unfair?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“See? It never fails. It always comes down to ad hominem. I am narrow minded and hateful because I say things Brian does not like. SGM is quite relevant since the leaders of your movement have totally defended Mahaney and his methods. How can they do that if they are “chosen” and know truth?”
See? You can’t talk about the topic of this thread without derailing it into a rant about SGM. I thought this was a thread about the tenets of Calvinism, not the terrible things regarding SGM.
LikeLike
Brian said, “You want to malign the Reformers, I get it. But can’t you stay even just a little bit on topic?”
Many of the reformers do a fantastic job maligning themselves by their very evil actions.
Your “so what” attitude regarding the persecution of Jews, is pretty heartless. Luther & Calvin had great distaste for the Jews (that’s putting it way mildly). These are just two of the people you mention favorably in one of your comments on your 8/11/13 guest post.
I don’t really think you see yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’ve never been able to buy this. Suppose I had two kids, and both landed themselves in jail. One kid, I do everything possible to rehabilitate; the other, I leave to rot. And yet I’m not being unfair?”
If both deserved the jail sentence, then NO, you are not being unfair to the one who deserves to serve out the sentence. What you are doing is showing mercy to one…the other receives his just penalty.
LikeLike
“Your “so what” attitude regarding the persecution of Jews, is pretty heartless. Luther & Calvin had great distaste for the Jews (that’s putting it way mildly). These are just two of the people you mention favorably in one of your comments on your 8/11/13 guest post.”
Hey, moderators? Julie Anne? Can I get some help here? Is this a thread about anti-semitism and SGM or is it about the theology of Calvinism?
LikeLike
Oh one last thing…a little night time reading from some of the pages of the Town council notes in Calvin’s Geneva on Calvins rules and punishment from Zweigs . book. Sweet Dreams about Calvinism! :o)
“We need merely turn the pages of the minute-book of the Town Council to see how skilful were the methods of intimidation. One burgher smiled while attending a baptism; three days’ imprisonment. Another, fired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during the sermon: prison. Some working men ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water. Two burghers played skittles: prison. Two others diced for a quarter-bottle of wine: prison. A man refused to allow his son to be christened Abraham: prison. A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city. Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva. A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance. And so on, and so on, without end. Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: twentyfour hours on bread and water. A burgher said “Monsieur” Calvin instead of “Maitre” Calvin; a couple of peasants, following ancient custom, talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison, prison, prison. A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung round his neck. Another sang riotously in the street: was told “he could go and sing elsewhere,” this meaning that he was banished from the city. Two boatmen had a brawl, in which no one was hurt: executed. Two boys who behaved indelicately were sentenced first of all to burning at the stake; then the sentence was commuted to compelling them to watch the blaze of the faggots.
Most savagely of all were punished any offenders whose behaviour challenged Calvin’s political and spiritual infallibility. A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was mercilessly flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled. A book-printer who, in his cups, had railed at Calvin was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city. Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite. Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the records of the Consistory so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence”.
Of course his doctrine did not drive his barbarity. Of course not. He was very Christlike. Sigh
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian,
Just say you refuse to answer my question below & I”ll move on & gladly answer your 7:40PM question:
Brian, Heaven forbid, but if one of your children told you they were being molested, is that the advice you would give them? God ordained it since it happened? Or as you put it, “came to pass”? think that’s fair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian, the only things you guys have are coercion or censorship. that is it. You are used to people playing by your rules.
Hey, I said I was going to sleep. Brian, read about your hero above and remember, you think his ST is biblical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes…SIGH…
This is NOT a thread on the defense John Calvin! What will it take for you to realize this???
This is a thread on the theology of what is known as Calvinism. Not being able to distinguish between the two (after repeated corrections) makes me wonder about your (plural) jugment of other things.
LikeLike
Kristen, As a parent, I cannot fathom this. I don’t even care if the kid is the most obstinate kid ever……you don’t ever give up on your kid. It doesn’t make sense to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“As Lydia had said Jesus wept with me. So how can a God who elects some for damnation identify with our sufferings then? How can he weep with me and yet then perhaps (?) damn me at the same time?”
Sorry it’s take so long- I was busy putting on a CD release concert 🙂
(BTW, I think anyone who has struggled with an abusive church would find my new CD encouraging- and I don’t think too much of my Calvinist leanings come out on it)
At any rate, to answer your question- if you are a believer then he will not damn you. If your faith is in Jesus as Savior, then you are the elect (even if you don’t believe in the elect). And from what I gather, you are a believer.
It is true that for the unbeliever the Cross offers no hope. This is one of the benefits of faith.
LikeLike
Brian, I think your answer sums it up pretty well:
Brian Thornton said, “Hey, moderators? Julie Anne? Can I get some help here? Is this a thread about anti-semitism and SGM or is it about the theology of Calvinism?”
In response to my comment:
“Your “so what” attitude regarding the persecution of Jews, is pretty heartless. Luther & Calvin had great distaste for the Jews (that’s putting it way mildly). These are just two of the people you mention favorably in one of your comments on your 8/11/13 guest post.”
My comment was based on his response:
What in the world does this statement have to do with what is being discussed??? You want to malign the Reformers, I get it. But can’t you stay even just a little bit on topic?
To Lydia’s comment:
“This is one reason it was so easy to persecute Jews centuries later in Germany. The historical Jewish Jesus was totally forgotten centuries before..”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie Anne,
Something should be said here about different kinds of Calvinism. I don’t think Calvinism (in a more traditional sense, i.e. Reformed theology) lends itself more toward authoritarianism or abuse than other types of belief systems. But what should be noted is that much of your writing, and the writing of others like at TWW, is about NEO-Calvinism.
If you look at the list of usuals, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, TGC and on and on, you will notice that these men are NOT traditional Calvinists from Reformed backgrounds. Most of them are from somewhere else, and have added Calvinism on to their beliefs. CJ Mahaney has a charismatic background, Mohler and Piper are more traditional Baptists, and MacArthur has a fundamentalist background. Each of the neo-cal circles I’ve associated with are the same. Some variety of conservative evangelical who “discovers” the “5-points of Calvinism,” or the “doctrines of grace.” These doctrines are then added on to what already exists in their theological systems, as opposed to making a complete transition to a Westminster type of system that is already fully and traditionally Reformed.
So if anything, I see abusive types of systems remaining abusive types of systems once Calvinism is added.
LikeLike
“If both deserved the jail sentence, then NO, you are not being unfair to the one who deserves to serve out the sentence. What you are doing is showing mercy to one…the other receives his just penalty.”
Is this what Love does?
LikeLiked by 1 person
More on the man who wrote the “biblical” Systematic theology so many are attracted to today. (I cannot put this one down and I read about Castillo before. He paid dearly for being compassionate and then confronting Calvin later)
“Within a few months dissatisfaction with Calvin was again rife, for his boasted “discipline” had seemed far more seductive as a wish-dream than in reality. The glamour and romance had faded, and those who yesterday were rejoicing now began to murmur. Still, a palpable and easily understood reason is needed to shake the prestige of a dictator, nor was Calvin slow to provide one. The Genevese first began to doubt the infallibility of the Consistory during an epidemic of plague, which devastated the city from 1542 to 1545. The very preachers who had, in loud proclamations, insisted that, under pain of punishment, every sick person must within three days summon a divine to his bedside, now, when one of their number had been attacked by the infection, allowed the sick in the lazaretto to perish without spiritual consolation. Vainly did the municipal authorities try to discover at least one member of the Consistory who would be willing “to visit and to console the unfortunate patients in the pest-hospital.” No one volunteered except Castellio, rector of the school, who was not commissioned because he was not a member of the Consistory. Even Calvin got his colleagues to declare him “indispensable,” openly insisting “it would not do to weaken the whole Church in order to help a part of it.” The other preachers, who had not so important a mission as Calvin’s, were equally careful to keep out of danger. Vain were the appeals of the Council to these timid shepherds. A critic said frankly of the preachers: “They would rather be hanged than go to the lazaretto.” On June 5, 1543, all the preachers of the Reformed religion in Geneva, headed by Calvin, appeared at a meeting of the Council to make the shameful admission that not one of them was bold enough to enter the pest-hospital, although they knew it was appropriate to their office to serve God and the Church in evil days as well as in good.
Now, nothing is more enheartening to the populace than a display of personal courage by its leaders. In Marseilles, in Vienna, and in many other towns, after the lapse of centuries the memory of the heroic priests who did their duty during the great epidemic is held in high honour. The common folk never forget such heroism on the part of their leaders, and are even less inclined to forget pusillanimity in the decisive hour. Scornfully did the Genevese watch, and make mock of, those divines who, from the pulpit, had been accustomed to demand the greatest sacrifices of their congregation, but were now neither ready nor willing to make any sacrifice at all. A vain attempt to allay popular discontent ensued, an infamous spectacle being staged. By order of the Council some destitute fellows were seized and tortured until they admitted having brought plague into the town by smearing the door-latches with an ointment prepared from devil’s dung. Calvin, instead of contemptuously dismissing such a tale, showed his fundamental conservatism by heartily supporting the medieval delusion. He did himself even more harm by publicly declaring that the “semeurs de peste” had done their work abominably well, and by maintaining in the pulpit that, in the broad light of day, an atheist had been dragged out of bed by the devil and flung into the Rhone. For the first time in his experience he had to endure the humiliation of noticing that many members of his congregations did not even try to hide their smiles.
“
LikeLike
Holding out hope any Calvinists who believe God ordains everything that comes to you in your life will throw me a bone and answer my Jerry Bridges knit in the womb questions. Brian? Jeff B?
Hope I’m not being church disciplined (or something) for sinful questioning.. Are you shunning me? 🙂
LikeLike
Steve, From my reading of history and Calvin’s institutes, his letters, etc, the neo Calvinists are closer to Calvin in ST and method than the mainlines who went more liberal and became what we know as the frozen chosen. Calvinism surges and dies out or goes liberal….if you look at history. You can see it in surges, Geneva, Puritans, Boers (Aparthied), Pro Slavery south wealthy were mostly Calvinists. This stuff simply cannot last because it is so authoritarian and fatalistic. So it dies out or goes more liberal or social justice focused and subdued. Many of the descendants of the Puritans became Unitarians in the NE! I mean you cannot live it for generations in it’s pure form, It is so fatalistic and damning. It can be great for those with the power over others, though.
I think this is easier to see if you really study the history.
What we are seeing in the Neo Cal movement today is the purer form of Calvin’s determinist god ST played out in a society that has valued self determinism so it is going to look a bit different than Geneva but the principle is still there sans infant baptism and the rack. It still needs coercion (church discipline, authoritarianism, obeying elders) and censorship (negative truths are gossip) to operate. That is why we are seeing 9Marks rules, the rise of church discipline to the levels we are seeing it today.
It is not a movement defined by love. That is for sure.
There are many very nice Calvinists from the mainlines and ironically they are appalled at the Neo Cals.
LikeLike
Diane, I think we are, in fact, being shunned. 🙂 That or Brian is spending his time trying to control this blog, again. Why so many tears at flying birds? We’re just wimmins. 😉
LikeLike
“This is NOT a thread on the defense John Calvin! What will it take for you to realize this???
This is a thread on the theology of what is known as Calvinism. Not being able to distinguish between the two (after repeated corrections) makes me wonder about your (plural) jugment of other things.”
Brian, It is kind of hard to forget that “Calvinism” has nothing to do with John Calvin. They are connected by name, you know.
I have had so many YRR tell me that Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin. Cracks me up every time. They really believe this. Make long arguments about it. It is surreal. I chalk it up to more of the contradictions they live in daily.
LikeLike
One more observation:
Calvinism has a particular counseling movement tied to it. Nouthetic counseling. And Paul from paulspassingthoughts.com has a study that shows these counseling centers have facilities in mid to upper income level zip codes. None, to my knowledge, in low income areas. Hmmm.
And these counseling centers draw people who are hurting & in need of help. They are already vulnerable & may be quite desperate & seeking relief. They are funneled into reformed churches & into church membership (many of which require tithing) rather quickly.
Don’t tell me these counseling centers aren’t about money & boosting church numbers.
And these hurting people are taught the doctrines of TULIP, Calvinism, total depravity, inability to please God. They are taught their circumstances are dictated by a sovereign God. They are taught the “gospel” of looking for Jesus under every nook & cranny in the OT. They are taught that while they mediate on the cross, the cross will get bigger, which will then make them even more aware of sins they weren’t aware of before. These pastors tweet things like, “I can’t remember any good thing I’ve done” & “Teach your children they are deeply broken”. This is the solution to for hurting people who need help. Much of this teaching creates a dependency & self-loathing. Maybe that’s exactly how these pastors like their congregants?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am going to bed. Really mean it this time!
BTW: book I quoted is online so no copyright infringement.
LikeLike
Nouthetic Counseling is horrible and damaging. I will have nothing to do with it, ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian – I don’t want to get triggered by women talking about shunning. Good grief, I hate shunning. It’s despicable. Would you please give them the courtesy of responding to their questions? thanks!
Goodnight, Lydia – lol 🙂 I have a late night date with the boys to play monkey in the middle at the swimming pool, so it will be a couple hrs before I hit the sack 🙂
Jeff S – Nouthetic counseling sends shivers down my spine when it comes to abuse.
LikeLike
Just one thing- I’m pretty sure if I refused to call myself a “Calvinist” but still believed TULIP, I would be labeled as dishonest.
In the past I have tried to forgo the “Calvinist” label and instead use a phrase like “doctrine of Grace”, but that gets people upset because they feel like it is being deceptive.
It puts me between a rock and hard place, because all I want is to believe what I think is true. I don’t care at all what the label is, but a lot of other people do.
LikeLike
Jeff S – why can’t you just say you’re a Christian?
LikeLike
This is in response to Brian’s comment early this morning. I am just getting around to reading this.
Brian said:
That’s tantamount to a witch hunt.
My response:
Straw man, witch hunt.
We are off to see the Wizard.
Here is my two cents.
To much emphasis is put on what the so called “forefathers”, or church fathers believed, and beliefs are based on those people. If all the knowledge that we had was a Bible alone, then whatever the church fathers believed would be a mute point. In my view, it is not important to know what they believed. All that matters is what I believe. If I believe based on God’s Word alone, that is more important than if I believe based on Calvin’s word, or Westminster Confession, or Vatican 2, or Luther. Why so much concentration on what dead people believed? I don’t really care. It’s not my basis of belief, it is theirs.
I can just imagine Judgement day, and people are saying to God, “But Calvin said…”
And God responding, “I never knew Calvin”.
Ed
LikeLike
Well, that’s how I identify myself (as a Christian). But I DO think that my belief in how salvation works is important. As much as I am accepting of differing viewpoints, it’s a huge part of my theology and affects a lot of the way I think about things. it enhances my worship and makes my Christian walk so much more full of life. I don’t think it would be right for me to not talk about my closely held beliefs, even if I hold them with an open hand. And I sure don’t enjoy it when others malign my beliefs, especially when they describe them in a way that I don’t believe, and no one I know believes.
Here’s a different way of putting it. My views about the doctrine of Grace (as I will call it for the moment) bring me life. They enhance my worship and cause my walk with God to be closer. This is true for numerous people in my life with similar beliefs. Then I visit this site or TWW and I see people misconstruing those beliefs and knocking them down, blaming them for abuse. I’m not blaming your or Deb and Dee for this- it’s just the way it is. But surely you can understand why this would be disconcerting to me, especially when I have such a heart for abuse survivors? The very thing that brings me life is being condemned as the problem. And the worst part is, the life giving theology I have is being rejected by arguing a version of it that I don’t believe. It’s maddening and painful to read.
And all the while, I feel like the focus is on tearing down good theology while the true villains are getting away with their evil deeds. So much energy is spent on being anti-Calvinist, it just makes me weary because I know Calvinism isn’t the issue.
And people say they want others to think for themselves and not be told what to believe, but my understanding of the doctrine of Grace is off limits because of things people who are not me have done.
I know you and TWW have done a lot of work around trying to not let Calvinism be the issue (this post notwithstanding), but it just keeps happening and it makes me sad. The anti-Calvinist bent of abuse survivor blogs lessens their impact, because the issues become fuzzy. It allows detractors to write them off as missing the point and having an agenda that is different from stopping abuse.
Anyway, I’m sorry to rant. It is what it is. I’m just tired. Really tired. Quite probably I should have stayed away from this post.
LikeLike
That’s a good question, Ed. Hmmm.
Do Calvinists or reformed Christians believe Calvin is in heaven?
Can one preach “doctrines of grace” while executing others for not believing what he preaches? While burning faggots & sentencing boys to death for misbehaving? And beheading a girl for slapping her mother? Or was it for talking back? It’s hard to keep track….
LikeLike
No, Jeff S, I’m glad you didn’t stay away and you and Craig and Jeff and Wade and so many others are why I do have a problem with the anti-Calvinist slant. I think Steve Scott made an excellent point that a lot of the people we refer to are Neo-Calvinist. I don’t know if we have a clear understanding on many others when they claim they are “Calvinist” because as I said earlier, some will say they are Calvinist and are only 2 pt 🙂
LikeLike
A Mom, Calvinists believe that people can commit grievous sins and still go to heaven. This can be especially exacerbated by differing cultures in which some sins have been viewed much lighter than they ought to have been (chattel slavery, for instance).
I think in the OT law we see God willing to work within sinful cultures, not condoning their practices, but allowing them to go on for the sake of mercy (polygamy, for example). Looking at women in the OT- were they equals with men? No, they were not, and we know from the NT this was not God’s pure design for women. However, did the OT law restrain a patriarchal society from treating women far worse? Yes, it did. Women could have been FAR worse off than they were in OT Israel (and in other nations, they were). God allows Godly people to do grievous things, but I think he does restrain them.
I think one key factor is what happens when people are confronted with their sin. Do they excuse it when someone says “you are the man!”, or do they ignore or punish those who would hold them accountable? I think a regenerate person confronted with serious sin will repent. It seems to me, though, that there is not always a Nathan put into the lives of those who sin grievously.
BTW, these are mostly my personal thoughts. I’m not necessarily representing any systematic theology here 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff S, So the only difference between a person damned to hell is that one was elect? Both elect & non-elect can continue to commit grievous sins until the day they die? The elect sounds like a club with license to do evil without eternal consequence, based on how you put it. Both produce the same bad fruit, one is excused, one is not. The saints are totally depraved? Yikes!
I believe grace is a free gift. One can choose the gift of their own volition. The Bible also makes it clear we are to follow Jesus, to repent AND turn away from wrong-doing. If our actions never change or become righteous & loving, we are not followers of Jesus. That would be trampling on God’s grace.
Turning away from wrong-doing after one receives grace seems to be the part you don’t believe.
Jeff S, you said, “God allows Godly people to do grievous things, but I think he does restrain them.” Godly people doing grievous things is an oxymoron, IMO. The Bible says you will know them by their fruit, meaning actions.
Jeff S, you go on to say, “I think a regenerate person confronted with serious sin will repent. It seems to me, though, that there is not always a Nathan put into the lives of those who sin grievously.”
I think our conscience & Holy Spirit can & do convict regenerate persons of their sin. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You again, seem to place responsibility on God by not “putting a Nathan” into people’s lives so they will repent. Have you ever thought that maybe some people, who claim to be followers of Christ, aren’t interested in repenting? That it’s their choice alone? They reject relationships where “wounds from a friend” are possible?
LikeLike
Calvin’s yoke is sure complicated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Mom,
No, that’s not what I think at all. A regenerate person has a new nature- fundamentally, he or she is changed changed into a new creation and will not continue on as before, sinning with abandon. But that individual still battles with the flesh. He or she will not sin exactly as before, but he or she has not lost the capability of sin either.
As I’m discussing this, I’m thinking about David. We must explain how David was able to be a believer and still commit adultery and then execute a man to cover up his sin. That is seriously bad stuff, and yet he was a man after God’s own heart.
And then we look at the history of faith in the U.S. Are we also prepared to say that there were virtually NO Christians in the days of slavery in the U.S.? Yet I believe, even when slavery reigned high in the U.S., if you take a genuine believer and contrasted him with a non-believer, there will be a marked difference in the genuine believer’s life.
And 200 years from now, when people look back at our generation, are they going to see grievous sin in us that we were blind to? Like how we’ve treated women or homosexuals? Or maybe how we’ve treated the impoverished? How we’ve lived in the U.S. as the richest nation in history while people are starving in other countries? Are we properly grieved and repentant for that sin?
I agree with you that unrepentant people who continue in unrepentant grievous sin are not genuine believers. I’m not sure why you think I would think otherwise. Yes, I said “can commit grievous sins and still go to heaven”, but that doesn’t mean I believe that believers can sin without consequence or that they continue on exactly as before. In fact, I believe very much the opposite. They WILL be changed. I just know that we don’t leave the battle with the flesh behind, and even with our new natures we still struggle, sometimes even with as bad a sin as King David did.
LikeLike
“Turning away from wrong-doing after one receives grace seems to be the part you don’t believe.”
Also, it really, really grieved me that you wrote this. To the point that I might be done with this conversation. Not out of anger or hostility toward you, but to think that I am doing such a poor job of communicating that you could think this about me, well, it gives me little hope in this conversation. Perhaps the gulf is just too wide for us to cross.
LikeLike
JA, if there is anyway for you to edit that line above where I left out the “NOT”, I would appreciate it. I’m severely disturbed that anyone would think I believe in “cheap grace”. You, at least, must know from my work on ACFJ that I think cheap grace and the idea that people can claim Christianity without having changed lives is one of the biggest problems with the church today. Such beliefs make the church a safe haven for abusers. I’m very, VERY much against that idea.
LikeLike
Jeff S says “I know Calvinism isn’t the issue.” Yes, absolutely. Jesus is the issue.
If all Calvinists held to their theology with the same humility I see in Jeff S, Calvinism would not have become the issue. Unfortunately, it would seem that the proponents of a hyper brand of predestinarianism have made their doctrine the issue, promoting faith in a set of doctrines rather than faith in our living Savior. While this is problematic in itself, it can lead to real harm. As just one example, if the focus is on doctrine, there may a tendency to become like Job’s comforters, as evidenced by the testimony of so many who comment here. People who have suffered grievous loss or grievous abuse will be “comforted” with the assurance that, well, god is sovereign and what you have suffered is all in god’s will. If the focus is on Jesus, on the other hand, I submit that the response is more likely to be that we will weep with those who weep, and that we will be concerned to minister comfort, healing and, yes, even justice.
It seems that the majority of of the spiritual abuse described on this blog was suffered under Calvinist ministers and ministries. I submit that this fact is significant and should not be ignored. However, I also agree that not all perpetrators of spiritual abuse are Calvinists. I do not consider myself to have been spiritually abused, only mistreated or dishonored. Nevertheless, such mistreatment as I have suffered has been experienced at the hands of both predestinarians and proponents of human free will. The common thread seems to have been that the offending ministers were more focused on doctrine than on Jesus.
So, while I am adamantly opposed to the radical brand of predestinarian doctrine some come here to push, I am more adamantly opposed to the fact that their faith in and pursuit of their doctrine has replaced faith in and pursuit of Jesus.
LikeLike
Jeff S
You had said:
“Regarding TULIP- JA gave its definition.
For clarification, it was devised as a response to five points of Arminians by Calvinists years after Calvin himself died.”
Are you saying that Calvin did not believe in the doctrine of T, or U, or L, or I, or P?
Just because the acronym was created years after Calvin died does not negate out that Calvin actually believed those things, right?
If I am wrong, please tell me which of those letters that Calvin did not believe in.
Ed
LikeLike
Jeff S,
Please stay around. Yours is a voice of reason and compassion, and it is needed.
LikeLike
Thank you for your kind words, Gary.
I promise I’m not trying to pull the “take my ball and go home” card. Just sometimes these conversations get a little painful for me and I have to be careful how much I involve myself.
LikeLike
“Are you saying that Calvin did not believe in the doctrine of T, or U, or L, or I, or P?”
That’s not what I was intending to say at all. I apologize if I was unclear.
I was just giving the history since someone asked about TULIP who did not know what it was. I thought giving a short history was in order.
LikeLike
I fixed it for you, Jeff.
LikeLike
Thanks so much 🙂
LikeLike
“As I’m discussing this, I’m thinking about David. We must explain how David was able to be a believer and still commit adultery and then execute a man to cover up his sin. That is seriously bad stuff, and yet he was a man after God’s own heart.”
I always get a bit nervous when I see David used as an example for us today. I am not comfortable with comparing David with us. I would rather see him compared/contrasted with King Saul. God was angry they begged for a king in the first place. Can we not see the obvious message there? God was their King. Not some human. They did not NEED a king. But they wanted to be like the pagans who all had strong human kings.
How would the Cross/Resurrection fit into using David as an example for us today? How would David fare with Hebrews 10, for example?
To be fair, I see David used as an example by both Calvinists and Seeker preachers. I think it resonates with people. See what a creep David could be and God used him! You can commit grievous sins as a believer and not worry. David did it. Why would we use David as an example for us today when we have Jesus Christ as an example. Wasn’t that one reason why God became Flesh? To show us?
I am concerned this thinking fits well with the false dichotomy of total depravity (inability) where our choices are sinless perfection or total depravity. What a choice!
One of the many problems I have with the Calvinist construct is that it ultimately teaches that God is completely responsible for our behavior instead of us being responsible. God is responsible for making us repent, have faith and believe. We really have no real responsibility in the matter of what we believe and how we believe because we are “unable”. And I think this has been a disaster for Christendom for centuries.
LikeLike
“You can commit grievous sins as a believer and not worry.”
This is not at all what I said.
LikeLike
Jeff S, i happen to think you are a genuinely sincere Christian; but doctrine itself constructed by the hands of men, does have an effect on what someone thinks and does- logic dictates this in everyday life. We are told in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is who gives knowledge and wisdom, not a pastor or elder. Pastors and elders are there to reinforce what the Holy Spirit, through the proper lens of Scripture, teaches. We are told in Scripture that there is no need for man to “teach” (mold, shape, give wisdom) us His Word but that of the Holy Spirit. So each and every one of us MUST be in tune with the Holy Spirit ourselves and “work out our own salvation”. John Calvin (a student of Augustinian doctrine, who by the way was the man who put firm foundation to the RCC) constructed a “doctrine” of his own thinking and wisdom, not something that came from the mouth of God. History should give us clues to the despotic behavior of this doctrine and “get a clue”! ANY “doctrine” other then what was written by God is a false belief system- I actually look at Calvinism as I would Morminism. Both have some kind of book written by a guy trying to conform and coerce others to follow it- no different. I choose to just call myself a Christian and leave all other so-called “doctrines” to the wind, even TULIP (didn’t Arthur W Pink come up with this?). They have no baring on my belief in the Lord anyway.
When I went to a Reformed Church a few years ago, I can say it was the worse experience I had spiritually ever. No, the church was not abusive in the sense that many here have gone through, but slowly I saw the joy of walking and learning from the Holy Spirit turn into doubt about my soul and where I was going; I was left with joylessness and despair. Jeff, this church was a model off of John MacArthurs so in no way was this a hyper-Calvinist denomination.
This is what Calvinism over time leaves an individual- a constant reexamining of one’s self in the context of wrath, depravity, and focus on the cross, when we have already laid our sin to be done with at the cross. Calvinism leaves one to have to rely on a pastor or elder for enlightenment instead of relying on the Holy Spirit for truth. I don’t need too read any of Michael Horton’s, Mark Dever’s, John Pipers, etc…etc… to get what I need.
I for one do not believe in “total depravity”- no where in Scripture state that all are in total depravity. I do see in Scripture, though, that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Good and Evil they did not JUST see good, now they saw evil as well. They then were banished from a world of innocence and good into a world where it was tainted with sin. So now they were able to see and DO good and evil. Of course evil cannot be accepted in the sight of God and we also know that no one can get away from sin- we are all capable and vulnerable of falling into sin. We all do it; however, you cannot say that one is so depraved that none do good. What do you say to the one who saves the life of another yet is not a believer? Was he saving the one for his own selfish benefit? I doubt it.
The key is, is that no one can enter the sight of God with sin, so in that we are all guilty because we all sin. The only way out is through His Son. But one cannot say that we are all so depraved that we cannot do any good – that is a fallacy. Also, I will say that not all sin is equal except in the area of eternal life (if we do not believe or believe in the Son Jesus Christ). I would say sin can grow into more evil and then harden a persons soul to the point that they will not choose the right way, but go to the path of least resistance. Sin begats sin- and there is more evil sin.
LikeLike
“I know you and TWW have done a lot of work around trying to not let Calvinism be the issue (this post notwithstanding), but it just keeps happening and it makes me sad. ”
Jeff, I just chose this snippet but am responding to the entire comment. I am not sure how this can be a problem. The resident pastor at TWW is a Calvinist and very few people challenge him there on it. In fact, I see very little challenge of Calvinism at TWW anymore except a few comments here and there. No one really goes deep with the doctrine at all there.
You talk about Calvinism giving you life, enhancing your worship, etc and what we talk about here is not what you believe. This becomes extremely confusing! In another comment believers can commit grievous sin and be saved as David did. Then it was– they can’t. I see this confusion all the time with NC here around me.
It is the confusion that comes from man’s responsibility being taken out of the salvation equation. It will always be contradictory and require masses of explanation. Man has free will but God chooses you, you cannot choose Jesus Christ. That is contradictory because you have to limit free will to be so narrow that it hardly qualifies.
The other problem is that people are offended that doctrine is discussed with bad behavior. How can it not be? One of the things I saw with the seeker movement is that their doctrine of cheap grace was one of the main reasons there was so much corruption in the leadership. They thought their marketing….oops, evangelism excused all other sin. (The seeker movement is very shallow I think)
But, what they believed did drive their behavior. That does not mean every single seeker did that. (Usually just those with power who were teachers/preachers). Why make discussing these things off limits because people get their feelings hurt? Lots of people were spiritually abused in the seeker movements because their buildings and image were more important than the people in the pews and they went to lots of hassle to hide the corruption. They used different methods because in that construct people are more prone to hold people responsible for their behavior and therefore cheap grace became a prominent doctrine.
You asked earlier about people in the future looking back and seeing our grievous sin. I don’t agree with that. I look back on history and know that those who hold the front line place in Christianity are probably not the real thing is we truly judge by fruit. Salvation is above my paygrade but I am allowed to judge fruit and we have some facts but must be careful. I don’t think the believers are the greats with power and position. I think they CAN be but am concerned so many are so enamored with them. I think the believers, those who have gone before, are obscure nobodies who labored in the trenches. They were the ones nursing the plague victims when everyone else fled. They were the ones giving their last pieces of bread to those who were starving knowing they would starve.
History did not record much about them at all. Because they were nobodies in the world. But they were great in the Kingdom.
LikeLike
I would like to respond to a comment by William Birch, way up there at the beginning of the comments thread. William said:
” I, as a convictional Arminian, don’t think that this doctrine makes God an evil dictator.
And, if you don’t mind me pressing this a bit: I don’t even think that the Calvinist view of the matter would make God an evil dictator, given that we are all rebellious creatures by nature. In Calvinism, if God did not graciously elect some unto salvation, NO ONE would be saved. ”
William,
You are right, it does not make God an evil dictator. But the reason isn’t because the doctrine is sound; the reason is because the entire predestination/election/sovereignty paradigm (it’s all fatalistic determinism, the only difference really is semantics) destroys morality at its root. Morality becomes utterly relative…that is, GOOD and EVIL are irrelevant. God cannot be “evil” any more than man can be “good”, not because the idea of election is reasonable but because good and evil can have no actual meaning.
If man is “elected” before he exists, you are left with a couple of serious logical fallacies. The first is, how does God elect something, or someone, which we have just admitted DOES NOT YET EXIST? How can God elect YOU if YOU aren’t around to be elected? Any election logically must occur only AFTER you exist, because only after you exist can God perpetrate any of his OWN actions on your behalf or in your direction (such as electing you).
But let’s presuppose that “election before existence” is somehow reconcilable. Then, by definition, whatever man does is irrelevant to his final outcome in the salvation equation. Your actions are meaningless…your status is already determined. As such, any “good” you do is of no more practical meaning than any “evil” you do. Evil and good cease to have any real meaning purpose because they cannot and do not contribute in any way to what God has already determined regarding your eternal state.
If you say that all men are “rebellious”…well, the question is, if God determines your fate APART from you, that is, apart from any ACTION of yours, apart from any human agency, then what does “rebellious” even mean? It can have no moral meaning or relevance because you have already conceded that God predestines BEFORE man exists. Thus, man’s rebellion cannot possibly be the reason for election or non-election. Election is before existence, remember. According to the Calvinist doctrine, salvation or damnation must be utterly apart from any human agency because they are determined BEFORE man even exists, and in order that the integrity of God’s “sovereignty” may be maintained. If man does ANYTHING to effect his own eternal outcome, then God is not truly sovereign, according to the Calvinists.
Finally, how can God know your are going to rebel before you exist? By definition, it is impossible to know anything about something that is NOT, that is, doesn’t exist. Something which does not exist can have no attributes. This is simply a fact. So, if God decides what you will do before you are, and God is the Creator, then He must DETERMINE that you will “sin” or “rebel”…which means that it is not really YOU doing it, but you are merely an extension of God’s absolute will. Your sin then is God’s sin…not that sin has any meaning, again, for morality is an illusion if you accept election as the Calvinists teach it. In fact, YOU don’t really exist. You are merely an extension of God, the absolute, who has determined you in SPITE of you.
And now, call me a heretic if you want, but IF this is what the Bible teaches then the Bible is wrong. The Bible is not the context for all TRUTH…man is. Without man, there would be no bible (the bible is for man, not man for the bible; man came first)…the bible must then conform and confirm man’s right to act apart from God in order that morality can actually exist and that God can be said to be just. If it doesn’t do this in places, then in those places it fails. Remember, the bible is not God.
Thanks for letting me ramble, guys.
LikeLike
Another thing I looked at was comparing Jesus to Calvinism. When I read about Jesus, His contact with others; how He treated others; what He thought of religious despots, I saw a different picture. Jesus loved to be with simple people; people who did not have pedigrees or stature. He taught deep things, but He also said that He would give us the Holy Spirit to teach us these deep things. Calvinism, on the other hand, admonishes simple people and lauds higher intelligentsia. They put men on pedestals that have Doctorates degrees and coming from the most prestigious seminaries (where in my opinion spew out more progressive teaching of “Christian” socialism). This caused me to take a long, hard look at what Calvinism really desires- more control; not unlike other religious caste systems.
Oasis, I really loved reading your comments. You have really gone through alot and it is so wonderful to see that you are relying on the Holy Spirit to teach instead of “doctrines of men”.
LikeLike
Ya know, once a year we have a TULIP festival in the Skagit Valley here in the State of Washington. Now I am wondering if this festival is about Calvinism.
Just a little humor to lighten the conversation. I still have 158 more comments to read.
Ed
LikeLike
“Why make discussing these things off limits because people get their feelings hurt?
It isn’t. Enjoy your discussion.
LikeLike
Well, Jeff…I am moderated into oblivion over at TWW because apparently I “hurt peoples feelings”. So, “sensibilities” do at times take precedence over reasonable debate. That is just a fact.
Curious though, apparently the assumption was that the insults lobbed my way were not hurting MY feelings because they went on without the slightest protest from the moderators. I’m not sure how they knew that my feelings were impervious to the insults but others’ were not.
Hmmm…
But I digress. Back to Calvinism.
LikeLike
I just saw this on Twitter and think it is very appropriate to the responses against Calvinism on here:
From @UnvirtuousAbbey:
It used to be, “I’m right and you’re wrong” and now it’s, “I’m right and you’re evil.”
LikeLike
Lydia, you are exactly right about the “nobodies”- these are the ones that no one sees because of their humbleness. They did not desire the “throne of greatness” yet with Jesus they will be called great.
Ahhh….come on people it is not so hard. Any guy that comes on the scene and says “I have the right doctrine” should we not be discerning?
We are the “ones we’ve been waiting for”; we are the only ones who have that direct pipeline to the Heavenly Father for wisdom?
Each one has that responsibility to work it out with God and I think He can handle it; He did with Job. Each of us have the responsibility to walk right before the Lord and do it- no depravity here. It is within our power, as Christians, to know and study the Word and love others without the “clamor and cymbals” of men who can’t find a regular job, but keep writing 100 books and claim royalties off of them. I know that sounds harsh, but really? have any of these books improved this country to this date? have any of these books produced more loving churches or righteous lives? The results are pretty grim.
LikeLike
And the discussion, while many think harsh……try sitting in the British Parliament for a season. 🙂
I do not go on Calvinist sites, because I don’t like to constantly banter back and forth- and that is my choice. But if I did, I am just a glutton for punishment.
LikeLike
Well, you are on the side that admits to being totally depraved. 😀
LikeLike
Jeff S,
The topic of Calvinism is painful to many of us. Many of us have been hurt by the hyper-authoritarianism implicit in the Calvinist “sound doctrine”. I gave over a hundred thousand dollars to SGM and 15 years of my life just to be told, “We don’t care what you think…here is the door.” I lost friends and family because I was such as hard-core proselyte for the neo-Cal movement. To this day close friends and family members still want nothing to do with me and won’t speak or relate to me because they cannot see me as anything else but a close-minded bully; a devotee of the kind of shrug-determinism that I believe Calvinism teaches. Nothing I do or say matters to them now. I am dead to them. How do you think that makes me feel?
Maybe hurt. But I have no feelings to hurt, according the Dee and Deb apparently.
But we come here of our own volition to debate these ideas because they are important to us. We suffer the pain because we understand that on the other side of it we might just find a counter-philosophy to the destructive reformed juggernaut. If that is something you find too difficult, perhaps you should take some time off from engaging these discussions.
LikeLike
Ed: There is a Tulip festival in Woodburn, OR. In all of the 10 yrs I lived in Beaverton, not once did I go and I had every intention of going. What prevented me from going? Was it God’s sovereign plan that I not go?
Probably not, however, I did plant tulips bulbs in our yard in Beaverton 🙂 They were elected (by me at least). Wait a minute, that’s not coming out right. Ok, I elected the colors, or maybe I didn’t.
LikeLike
Brian,
“It used to be, “I’m right and you’re wrong” and now it’s, “I’m right and you’re evil.””
That’s because we have Educated ourselves. September 11, 2001 was my turning point into wanting to be more educated as to why people believe what they believe. And I haven’t stopped since. There are many sects of many different religions that believe in some very strange concepts. When I study these things out, I scratch my head, wondering how people can believe such things.
What I find in Calvinism, is that it mostly pits Christians against Christians. It really isn’t about Christians vs. Atheists. So, it boils down to an “internal” conflict. And it gets me wondering, Are Calvinists Christians, because surely, I do not buy off on ANY of the Calvinistic beliefs. NONE whatsoever. Speaking Christianese does not define the whole concept of Calvinism, neither does quoting scripture. Any Christian can quote and speak. What it boils down to is the inner belief about the quote and speak. That inner belief is what I disagree with, wholeheartedly. I scratch my head, wondering how people can believe such things.
Ed
LikeLike
@ JA~
“Brian – I don’t want to get triggered by women talking about shunning. Good grief, I hate shunning. It’s despicable. Would you please give them the courtesy of responding to their questions? thanks! ”
JA, I am so sorry for the use of that word. Please forgive me. I wasn’t thinking how it could affect those who have had the actual experience, and that was selfish and in-considerate of me.
LikeLike
Well, Argo – you should be able to discuss it here in this thread that was elected (can’t help it) to allow talk on Calvinism. Don’t hold anything back now, ya hear. Well, anything but personal attacks.
LikeLike