Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
When good things happen to our children, we tell them to say "Thank you, God, for your wonderful gift."
And when unhappy things happen to our children, we tell them to say "Thank you, God, because by this event I will learn how to depend on You more."
Calvinist parents probably pray with their children some variation of what's come to be called, the Serenity Prayer -- "God grant me the strength to change the things I can change by your grace; the patience to accept the things I cannot change by your grace; and the wisdom to know the difference by your grace."
There's a silly old MGM movie from the 1940's called, "My Brother Talks to Horses" with Butch Jenkins as a young, freckled-face boy and Peter Lawford as his older brother. One day at dinner, Jenkins nervously asks his mother, Spring Byington, a question about the future.
His mother replies, "Don't worry. Everything's happening the way it's supposed to happen."
Now granted, it wasn't Kubrick or Coppola. But for a child, that one line teaches a tremendous amount of trust and patience and acceptance and fortitude to do good and let God sort out the rest.
I remember one night when our young son couldn't sleep for worrying about his basketball game the next day, and nothing could settle his restless anxiety. I thought of that exact line from that movie. I reminded my son that everything is already known to God, even tomorrow's scoreboard, and that God wanted him well-rested and strong and clear-headed for the game ahead so he would play his very best. In a moment, my son was asleep. And the next day, he played his heart out.
When you see enough anecdotal evidence of something, you begin to recognize a trend. The more I believed in God's hand in my life, the more I saw it and was comforted and encouraged and strengthened by it.
And as God is so good, our children now see it, too.
Children need firm answers to life's thorny questions. So do adults. And the answers are the same. It's all happening exactly as it's supposed to happen, according to God's will, for God's glory and for the welfare of His children, who learn from the bad as well as the good.
Romans 8:28. That's what Christian parents should teach their children.
Does this mean:
a. You disagree with Kosta
b. You agree with Kosta but not the RCC catechism
c. You and Kosta both agree with the RCC catechism
d. You and Kosta both disagree with the RCC catechism
e. Other, please explain
Yes, we would never say "condescend TO", we would say "condescend in front of" or before. I think that is a big difference.
BTW, I actually started using the term "Apostolic" on the Erasmus thread. I explained it a couple of times, and I guess I just missed you on those ping lists. IIRC, it came about when I got a couple of soft complaints from some Orthodox posters, who didn't necessarily want to be lumped in with Roman Catholics on "everything", because there are some differences in views. I thought that was perfectly reasonable, so I started using the term "Apostolic" to mean "all those beliefs upon which Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree". It was never meant as a pejorative and is only my shorthand for "Roman Catholic/Orthodox".
[continuing] (note, God doesn't inspire men with knowledge of quantum physics. He tells us what He wants us to know at OUR level of knowledge).
It's true that He doesn't inspire here with Divine inerrancy, however, where do you think the knowledge comes from anyway?
Do you actually think God became man because the "PLAN" forced God to follow what is in Scriptures? Is the Bible the script that God must follow or does the Bible relate what God ended up doing? If you believe the former, than there may be some truth to the idea that you worship the Bible...
Not sure where this is coming from. This is not a chicken and egg situation. Clearly there was first a plan, and parts of it were later recorded in scriptures. Everything was already ordained before any words ever appeared on a page.
I agree with the Catholic Catechism. If I stray, then I appreciate any assistance in returning. Even non Catholic assistance. :)
Inasmuch as kosta agrees with the Catholic Catechism, I agree with him. I’m not ducking the full answer to the question, but I cannot speak for him.
A tender post. Thank you for sharing a personal story and the trip back in time when people had a better understanding of providence.
I'm satisfied with your response. I'll put my rifle down.
Truly I do not see anything more important than loving God - in deed, not in word only. As you have testified, raising your children to give God the glory for everything and to trust Him no matter what.
Praise God!!!
Calvinist parents tell their children what I would hope all parents tell their children -- that God loves them unconditionally and will be with them always and never leave them.
I agree with your hope. My initial question was whether that was taught since it assumes, according to your views: that the child is a member of the elect, which not every child is.
Perhaps the best practice for Calvinist is to assume all their children are. Maybe that is what you're saying in your reply.
Isn’t that inconsistent with the Reformed belief that only some get God’s unconditional love?
At what point do you inform them of the situation and status and inevitable outcome of the non elect? And, depending on the extent (Calvinist versus hyper Calvinist), when do you inform them that God hates (Reformed version of the Jacob and Esau story) those who will go to hell?
And by His will, we do.
You seem incredulous that anyone would presume their children are among God's family. Scripture tells parents to believe exactly that...
"He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great. The LORD shall increase you more and more, you and your children." -- Psalm 115:13-14
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
"And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." -- Hebrews 2:13"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
See post 7,990.
At what point do you inform them of the situation and status and inevitable outcome of the non elect? And, depending on the extent (Calvinist versus hyper Calvinist), when do you inform them that God hates (Reformed version of the Jacob and Esau story) those who will go to hell?
There really is no such thing as a "hyper-Calvinst." It's a term of derision meant to tarnish the doctrines of grace.
I don't have to inform my children of the reprobates' unhappy circumstance which they bring upon themselves. Anyone can see that Godless people are unhappy people.
Does your Bible say God hated Esau? Does your Bible include Romans 8 & 9?
I wasn't aware that was part of TULIP, or at least your views. Sorry.
Is the reverse true for children born to the non-elect?
Is the reverse true for children born to the non-elect?
God saves whom He will. The parents of the thief on the cross could well have been unbelievers, but God chose to save him and take him to heaven with Him the very day he died.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm says that:
I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.
yper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I’ll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:
From a popular theological dictionary:
1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .
2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, “Hyper-Calvinism,” New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]
Notice three very crucial points in that definition: First, it correctly points out that hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will. Indeed, in all their discussion of “the will of God,” hyper-Calvinists routinely obscure any distinction between God’s will as reflected in His commands and His will as reflected in his eternal decrees. Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. (See John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All To Be Saved” in Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, 1:107-131.)
Second, take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists’ “denial of the use of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the gospel.” This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.
Third, mark the fact that hyper-Calvinism “encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect.” Assurance tends to be elusive for people under the influence of hyper-Calvinist teaching. Therefore, hyper-Calvinism soon degenerates into a cold, lifeless dogma. Hyper-Calvinist churches and denominations tend to become either barren and inert, or militant and elitist (or all of the above).
I was unaware of the derision found at this website.
We’ve been through the Jacob and Esau saga on this thread. My footnotes explain about how the terms is less loved (ie less gifted) rather than hate. My Bible contains all of Scripture, not just the portion that made it past the Reformationist Scriptural Visigoths’ loving attention.
If God's will is that all be saved, and man has free will, and not all men are saved, then God's plan is not accomplished with man having free will. God's ways are not our ways. I also note that you are putting your money on His omniscience INSTEAD of His omnipotence. This of course erases the concept of God even having a plan. God just watches the events of human history, then snaps His fingers and says: "Yep, that's my plan"! :) This isn't God's plan at all, it is God simply signing off on whatever man decides for himself.
During the 19th century apparently there were some who thought we shouldn't preach to all the world. Those are not Calvinists of any sort. Which Calvinist on this forum do you think is not preaching loudly enough? 8~)
From a popular theological dictionary
Ahhh...yeah. Right.
Supralapsarianism is not hyper-Calvinism, as much as those who despise the doctrines of grace would have the world believe.
We’ve been through the Jacob and Esau saga on this thread. My footnotes explain about how the terms is less loved (ie less gifted) rather than hate.
So Esau was "less gifted" than Jacob and THAT'S why he was hated? LOL. First, even if that goofy interpretation were true, all gifts come from God, and therefore the absence of gifts is also an act of God's design.
But Paul is not talking about men's good works in Romans. He's talking about God's good work alone through the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of His children for which those whom have been so graced are eternally grateful.
If this is your conundrum, you have the same problem without free will:
If God's will is that all be saved.. and not all men are saved, then God's plan is not accomplished.
Your way out of course is: "Aha! God doesn't will that all men be saved!" changing in your mind "Our Father" to "Some of Our's Father."
But then that's your choice. You do have free will after all.
We agree God is omnipotent and omniscience. Free will stares you in the face each morning when you wake up.
How you build a TULIP from this is a major puzzlement to this court, counselor.
So I take it that you don’t agree with this individual.
I just thought that it would be interesting putting a rather strong commentary from the Spurgeon.org website by an individual that identified himself as a 5 point Calvinist on this thread and getting your reaction.
I guess I got it.
We believe that God gives everyone different gifts according to His direction. I am less gifted in, say, basketball than Michael Jordan. Does God therefore hate me and love him?
What caliber, and how heavy a load?
A .30-06 ought to do it, now don’t entice me take it out again, okay?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.