Posted on 07/12/2013 8:38:23 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Today is the 504th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin (July 10, 1509) — and the 497th anniversary of misunderstanding Calvinists.
To commemorate the event, let’s look at a recent notable example provided by The Economist. The article is out-datedly titled, “Dippers divided” and the subhead is “Where evangelicals disagree.” Where evangelicals disagree, apparently, is on whether to maintain,
the “theocon” alliance in American politics between Catholics and evangelicals, who have set aside their doctrinal differences (over the Virgin Mary, for example) to take a joint stand against abortion and in favour of the traditional family.
What could be causing the rift between Catholics and evangelicals. According to The Economist, the alleged culprit is Calvinists in the Southern Baptist denomination.
. . . the effectiveness of the Catholic-evangelical axis may be compromised by a deepening ideological fissure within the evangelical camp; or more specifically within America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which has about 16m members.
Broadly speaking, the difference is over whether Jesus Christ died to save mankind as a whole, or sacrificed himself only for a particular group of human beings, the elect, whom God had chosen in advance. The latter view is associated with John Calvin, the French reformer of the 16th century; critics find it too fatalistic, and inconsistent with the idea of a loving God. Taken to its logical extreme, some say, Calvinism can lead to an introverted, exclusive mindset: if most of humanity is irrevocably damned, what’s the point of engaging with the world?
Who is this “some” who “say?” Probably the same “some” who claim that premillennial dispensationalists (who are rarely, if ever, Calvinists) also believe that if most of humanity is irrevocably damned (see: the Left Behind novels), there is no point of engaging with the world. Of course, these same groups — Calvinists and dispensationalists — are frequently portrayed as also wanting to create a theocracy in America, so who knows what to believe. The “some” have a tendency to “say” contradictory things.
The Economist adds,
The perceived leader of the Calvinist camp is Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has helped to ensure that many of the young Baptist ministers now starting their careers have a Calvinist way of thinking. In many cases they are out of their step with their flock, and that can lead to stormy pastoral situations.
Change the opening “The” to an “A” and that paragraph is mostly right — predicated on the “Calvinist way of thinking” being actual way Calvinists think and not the caricature presented earlier. A few more paragraphs detail some of the controversy over Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. The reporting on the controversy is rather uncontroversial, until they slip in the F-word:
Neither party will have the slightest truck with liberal ideas. But even among fundamentalists, there can be hard arguments over what the fundamentals are.
So now the opposite of theologicaly liberal is “fundamentalist” rather than, say, theologically conservative? Ugh. You already know what we at GetReligion think of that term so I’ll let that slide without further comment. Now back to the Calvinism:
Will the outcome of this argument make a difference to anybody outside the world of Baptist theology? Yes, because as well as being hard-line over salvation, the Calvinists oppose any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations. So there are limits to their willingness to co-operate with higher-church Christians. “The Calvinists have a very anti-Catholic theological stand,” I was told by David Key, director of Baptist studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology.
Mr Mohler, for example, responded to the general excitement over the election of Pope Francis by recalling that evangelicals utterly rejected the Catholic idea that the pope was Christ’s vicar on earth. In another statement, he said that Catholics and evangelicals might still agree on sexual and reproductive issues, but he also stressed that evangelicals could not accept the validity of the pope’s office.
Let’s examine some of the many confusions in those two short paragraphs. First, Calvinists do not oppose “any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations” because Calvinism is not a denomination. Calvinism is a theological system that crosses numerous denominational boundaries; you can be a Calvinist and be a member of a “low-church” denomination (e.g., Southern Baptist) or you can be a Calvinist and a “higher-church Christian” (e.g., Anglicans). Second, the limits to Calvinists willingness to co-operate with Catholics is almost purely on a theological level. But this is a trait shared by all Protestants. That’s why we’re called Protestants.
The Economist assumes that disagreements about theological matters (e.g., the validity of the pope’s office) will cause conservative Calvinist evangelicals to refuse to work with conservative Catholics on social and political issues. Obviously, they are unaware that this is the exact opposite of what most Calvinist evangelicals believe.
Within evangelicalism, the use of the term ‘co-belligerence’ was popularized by the Calvinist intellectual Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, whose influence on evangelical politics is incalculable, emphasized the importance of activism that leads neither to compromise nor separatism because of theological differences. As Schaeffer once wrote, “A co-belligerent is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice.”
Indeed, this view is not only shared by many evangelicals, it is the exact same position taken by Dr. Mohler. Here is Mohler’s own words:
. . . with the cultural challenges now before us, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox should stand without embarrassment as co-belligerents in the culture war. The last persons on earth to have an honest disagreement may also be the last on earth to recognize transcendent truth and moral principles—even the sanctity of human life itself.
This quote is from an essay Mohler published in the the ecumenical(!) journal Touchstone titled “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise.” The date: July 2003.
Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the Religious Right, wrote about co-belligerence 33 years. Albert Mohler, the “perceived leader of the Calvinist camp”, wrote about co-belligerence 10 years ago. For Calvinists, the concept of working together with Catholics goes back more than 400 years (Calvin himself worked with the French Catholic Inquisition on the Michael Servetus heresy trial). In other words, Calvinism is likely to have the exact opposite effect that The Economist seems to think it will have.
This is an embarrassing unforced error by one of the world’s most esteemed newspapers.* But other journalists can learn from their mistake and can avoid such shame-inducing gaffes by using a technique that has worked for four centuries: When you want to know what Calvinists think, ask them.
*For historical reasons The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper. Since Carter’s Rule of Religious Labels states that “Use a religious label a person would use to describe themselves and avoid using ones they would not,” I figure a similar principles should apply to publications.
“In addition, there seems to be a new “militancy” for some Calvinists to force the issue of sovereignty, of total inability, and of no free-will.”
It is a good militancy, since the issue is so important. Just a few days ago I was reading a ridiculous book called “Sound Doctrine” by a Pentecostal man from Denmark, and also watching his videos and reading what his fans say. In the end, it came down to everyone being able to perform in the gift of healing (despite the scripture that ways “do all have the gift of healing? do all speak in tongues? do all prophecy?), and that the operation of spiritual gifts is a “fruit of the spirit” that depends on your personal submission and holiness. If you are not performing great miracles, or getting your cancer healed, there is something wrong with you. “If your soul is prospering, so will your health.”
It’s a great deal of trash, don’t you think? Obviously kin to the prosperity Gospel.
On a blog I frequent, from one of my favorite Christian authors (Karen Hancock), she was talking about a recent upheaval in her church as they all came out of an erroneous doctrine called ‘Rebound.’ Formerly, in error, their pastor used to teach that with every sin you commit, you lose the Holy Spirit, and therefore must repent in order to be refilled. Hence, “to rebound.”
All of this strikes me as a natural consequence of misunderstanding the origin of salvation; and if only they had known the true origin, they would not have characterized holiness or obedience as necessary for salvation, as the Catholics do, but instead would have understood it as the natural consequence of salvation instead.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
If we are chosen by Christ, and not the other way around, then it follows that we are also chosen (ordained) for the purpose of “bringing forth fruit” to God, and fruit that “should remain.” What work of man can “remain” if it is not the work of God? Nothing that man does can last, and “all our righteousness are as filthy rags.” Thus, we must conclude that it is God who “works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” as the scripture testifies.
This is an extremely different world view, and properly understood, removes self-righteousness and the Roman error completely from the equation.
Oops, ignore the previous post, as I misunderstood your meaning. My apologies.
We rebel because anything other than deity will.
Only God is perfect. All others will rebel against perfect holiness.
No, God cannot be a source of evil. He is perfect holiness.
God allows evil...for example He allowed Satan to test Job. But Job's testing resulted in a further revelation of God's perfection to the detriment of Satan.
re: “And BTW it’s not your belief that saves you. It is Christ. The belief (faith) in Him and what He has done is the proof that you are a child of God.”
Yes, according to Calvinism, there is nothing you do that saves you. It is all God’s choosing.
Your saying you believe does not save you, your thinking you believe does not save you, your belief that you believe in God’s Word does not save you. God chooses by His will who will be saved. The problem is - you don’t really know whether you are saved or not because you have nothing to do with salvation.
Sooo, how do you KNOW that you REALLY believe? Maybe you’re in the club and maybe you’re not.
I believe God’s Word is the source of our security. God promised that if we accept/believe/place our faith in His Son, and receive Him into our heart as our Lord and Master, then He would save us - we become one of His children, born not of human flesh, born not by our power or ability because we are helpless to save ourselves by our own righteousness, no, we are saved by the reliability of God’s Word, by the graciousness of His Will that all men should come to the saving knowledge of God (even though all won’t by their unbelief).
We rely on the absolute surety and promises of God. It is God’s promises in His Word we rely on, not our emotion, not our thoughts, not some vague hope that we have been “chosen”.
If we have nothing to do with receiving, through free will, God’s gracious gift of salvation to us, then you ultimately have no assurance whether you are saved or not, because any measure you use to determine whether you really believe is from within your own mind. And, we know that the mind of man is flawed so maybe you just think you’re saved. You wanting to be saved or thinking you are saved is irrelevant in the Calvinist view. If you’re chosen you’re in. If not you aren’t.
If unborn infants are already chosen to heaven or hell by God’s sovereign choice (according to Calvinisms view), then what makes you think you personally know whether you are saved or not?
re: “No, God cannot be a source of evil. He is perfect holiness.”
I agree, but the Calvinist’s view of God’s sovereignty does not allow for that. God has foreordained everything that happens. You sin and are a sinner because that’s all according to God’s sovereign will. God is ultimately the source of sin and evil because no one acts with a free will - only He has that ability.
Adam and Eve had no choice but to eat that fruit - it was ordained by God. Satan rebelled because God ordained that he do so. God created Adam, Eve, Satan, therefore God is the source of sin and evil. I don’t believe that, but logically if you follow Calvinism’s teachings that’s where we end up.
Look, what’s up, I know you love the Lord. I know you believe in Him and are just trying to live in accordance with His Word. I know you want to serve Him and I do too, although I fail many, many times. So, why don’t we just love our Lord and serve Him as best we can. We must answer to Him as His servants.
You don’t have to keep responding. I will not to you anymore if it is in regard to Calvinism. Let’s just let our disagreement be laid at our Lord’s feet and go on with our lives in service to Him. God bless you as you walk with Him.
“If God is totally sovereign, in the Calvinist view, then every act, whether good or bad, it was ordained by God first.”
While it is true that God “before of old ordained [some men] to this condemnation” (Jud 1:4), appointing them that they should stumble at the Word of God (1 Pe 2:8), this does not mean that God is the direct cause of their evil nature. Men, by nature, are already evil. All God need do is pass them by. But while He passes them by in salvation, He does not leave them alone to do whatever they like regardless of His plans. He “fits them to their destruction,” to “make known the riches of His glory” to the vessels of mercy, and His hatred against sin in the vessels of wrath (Rom 9). When it comes to their sins, He, in some cases, allows them to sin through permission, they acting according to their evil nature already, fitted according to God’s purpose, and in other cases moves through a hardening of their heart, as in Pharaoh, or “giving them over to a reprobate mind,” as the homosexuals, or in sending “strong delusion that they may believe a lie,” as the children of the anti-Christ shall be. God orders all the events in history, according to His own will and purpose, so that “all things work together for good to them that love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8). Some call this fate, the founders called it Providence.
It is also necessary to define what we mean when we talk of these things. “Free Will” is not a thing that exists, since the scripture only speaks of the will as being in bondage to sin, or else freed from sin by Jesus Christ. If the will by necessity of its nature moves towards evil things, it certainly is not a ‘free will.’ It is a will under the bondage of Satan. At the same time, however, we can say that this will is “free,” in that it desires and freely wills to do evil. And we can say that the “will” of the natural man is unable to seek God or know anything of God, per Romans 3, out of his “free will,” since if the man does not want to believe in God, then his desire to disbelieve cannot suddenly transform into a will to believe against his will, unless some other force or agent works upon Him.
Certainly he has the power to choose God, and the power to do this or that, and it is very easy to believe if we are just talking about capability. We can say that Jesus had the “power” to sin, but it is impossible for him to sin because His entire will is against it. A sane man, under normal circumstances, has the power to kill himself. But if he does not want to kill himself, he certainly won’t do it against his will.
Unfortunately, the problem is that no one wants to not kill themselves, “there are none who seek after God, they are all gone astray,” says Paul, “there are none good, no, not one.” This is why faith cannot come from flesh and blood, but most come from above:
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
So only one's action determines whether one knows something or not? No, one can know many things without having anything to do with them.
WWI really happened even though I wasn't there to "know" it.
Sooo, how do you KNOW that you REALLY believe?
Faith is in your heart. And as you read the Bible consistently and honestly (in context) the reality of salvation becomes more and more solid. As long as you don't cherry-pick scripture but read it in context you become more aware of God's initiative throughout both Old and New Testaments. Assurance is the result. If salvation is dependent on one's choice, one can choose one's way out of it. This is not true if it is God who has adopted us rather than the other way around.
not some vague hope that we have been “chosen”.
It's not a vague hope. If a believer reads Ephesians ch. 1 one will be convinced that one's faith is real, not vague. This assures us that God chose us before the beginning of time (Eph 1:4). He may have timed it so that one exercised choice (and remember it is not the experience of all believers to experience "choice"...many have believed without any action at all on their part), but as one moves forward and continues in a knowledge of scripture (not just philosophical conjecture) one sees that God moved circustances so that the choice was because of His irresistible grace initiated by Him.
It is God’s promises in His Word we rely on
Amen. And the Holy Spirit will witness that these are for us.
Note: My personal experience was that I did not choose to believe. Experiences led me to gradually believe more and more with no action on my part. I have exercised "choice" to follow certain courses God laid before me in life...but I did not exercise "choice" to believe in my salvation.
Actually, it does.
I might allow my child to toy with the disobedience he is set on it just so he learns a lesson he would never learn by me just saying "no" all the time. I am in command of the agenda but he needs to get burned to learn the right course.
It doesn't mean that I am the origin of the temptation or evil he is toying with. It means I'm allowing it so he can be shown what's right in the end.
So, why don’t we just love our Lord and serve Him as best we can
Amen! And over the years I have learned that better works come from me as I rest easy knowing He has chosen me. He will keep me rather from me having to strive to make sure I am making the right choices to earn salvation. Not trying to be preachy...just real.
I know you love the Lord too. God bless.
I left an SBC church over the issue of Calvinism. I asked if we could sing, “Jesus loves you, this I know!” or needed to sing, “Jesus loves some, are you one?”. I couldn’t get an answer, so I left.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
Because I believe that Jesus has taken my sins and because of that I stand in perfect righteousness before God.
That's all that's required!
“I left an SBC church over the issue of Calvinism. I asked if we could sing, “Jesus loves you, this I know!” or needed to sing, “Jesus loves some, are you one?”. I couldn’t get an answer, so I left.”
I left an Arminian church since they were so utterly legalistic and unloving that they sought control over the entire congregation.
Jesus said, in John 14:21, that whoever has His commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Him. I can't find a command regarding requiring an understanding of Calvinism or Armenian-ism. Unfortunately, I can find hundreds of books on Calvinism and Armenian-ism, but almost none on Jesus's commandments.
I guess the difference would be that there is nothing in Arminian theology that encourages legalism. But there IS something in Calvin’s theology that makes one sing, “Jesus loves some, are you one?”
” it’s possible that aspects of both doctrines might be true.”
It’s even more possible that this way of thinking is simply lazy, or comes from a misunderstanding of what each side actually teaches.
“I guess the difference would be”
The real difference is that most people spend more time slinging ad-homs than they do debating what the Gospel actually teaches on sovereign grace and salvation. I guess they think that generalizations for their opponents makes for good theology.
I posted a website that has lengthy, detailed discussions on why Calvin was wrong. I rarely post anymore on religious threads, because the religious folks arguing on them are so bitter and angry that it demeans the Gospel.
Consider this: there are about 500 verses discussing faith and believing, and about 20 that mention predestination in some way. Do we interpret the 20 in light of the 500, or the 500 in light of the 20?
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Under Calvin’s theology, “whoever” needs to be replaced with “the chosen”...
Why would you add "choose" to the word believe in this passage?
Under Calvin’s theology, “whoever” needs to be replaced with “the chosen”...
No, I'm pretty sure Calvin would say whoever believes is saved.
Under Calvin, only those first chosen will be capable of believing, and then they will have no choice but to believe. So the issue of salvation under Calvin is not “Do you believe?” but “Are you chosen?”. It turns Ephesians into “For by grace you have been saved through faith” into “For by grace you have been saved through predestination”.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-outline-of-the-facts-of-arminianism-vs-the-tulip-of-calvinism/
“I posted a website that has lengthy, detailed discussions on why Calvin was wrong. I rarely post anymore on religious threads, because the religious folks arguing on them are so bitter and angry that it demeans the Gospel.”
So that’s why the first think you say in this thread is to accuse Calvinists of being unable to say “Jesus loves me?” Because you’re so unreligious, unbitter and happy?
As for your website, I very rarely click on links people give to me. I consider it laziness on the part of the person who posted it.
“Consider this: there are about 500 verses discussing faith and believing, and about 20 that mention predestination in some way. Do we interpret the 20 in light of the 500, or the 500 in light of the 20?”
Except there is no actual contradiction between faith and believing, and predestination so that we should believe. Jesus Himself says that those who are given by the Father, believe in Him. No one denies that believing exists. You just dislike the first half of the scripture, and only believe the second half.
This is why I say, most of those who are opponents to Christ’s assertions on this matter don’t actually understand what they are disagreeing with. They’re fighting phantoms.
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.