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.
Oops, ignore the last part about you “coming in shooting.” I got you confused with that other guy.
In any case. Pope Francis would if asked totally agree with Mohler. Catholics have indeed long worked with Muslims to block the pro-abortion agenda in the UN. Even held conferences with them, under no delusion that there is much common ground. Between Catholics and Calvinists, much more common ground. Have read Calvin’s Institutes, I find that many liberal Catholics have less in common with more traditional Catholics than the latter have with Calvinists.
Most of your statements are pretty close in nature to what the other fellow wrote, who I responded to (thinking he was you to begin with, since I didn’t notice who pinged me). Please see my reply to him for a reply to this post.
Though there is one thing I can respond to that is unique in your reply:
“As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect.”
This isn’t what the scripture teaches at all regarding election. It teaches that whom God predestinates, He also calls, and whom He calls, He justifies, and whom He justifies, He glorifies (Romans 8). There is no conditional nature to this election. There is no “those He calls, and responds to the call and is justified, he glorifies and elects.” Election is always spoken of as preceding the actual act of faith, and actually being the work of God from start to finish.
These replies from your website are just confused attempts at attempting to make scripture that clearly disagrees with them make sense, but it doesn’t make sense.
Again, just to clarify, I thought I was responding to Mr. Rogers in that long post to you. So if anything feels like “when did I argue that?” or “why’s he being mean to me?” It’s cuz I meant to be mean to the other guy, not you. LOL. My apologies in advance.
“his is why the Arminians even invented the idea of an “initiating grace” in the first place, because man has no native ability to “respond to God’s call.”
Grace is grace.
“19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Notice they knew God, and rejected him.
“At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” 4 And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”
Notice that before Cornelius converted, the angel said of him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”
Can a man do something good before conversion? Of course.
“14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
No man left alone by God would turn to God, but God has left none of us alone. He has given his revelation of himself to all of us in some measure or another.
The point of your Romans 3 quote is this:
“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
But Paul goes on:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
Notice Paul puts no restrictions on who may believe - as Jesus did not. Whosoever.
There is no indication in scripture that man is so depraved that he cannot repent - not unless God has abandoned him in his unbelief. While one passage calls us dead, others call us sick, captive, slaves, blind, etc. God in his grace reveals himself to man. Some respond, others do not.
“18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
We won’t solve a dispute that has gone on for 2000 years - from well before Calvin was born. I’ll go on, feeling free to sing “Jesus loves you, this I know”. Some in the SBC will sing a different song. Oh well.
“It’s cuz I meant to be mean...”
And that is why I usually avoid the religion forum like the plague. The meanest people on FreeRepublic are the ones arguing about who God is...
“Grace is grace.”
God’s favor for everyone isn’t actually equal. And that’s all that grace is. It is unconditional favor, which is given to some men, more to others, or a favor leading to a different result in others. There is no “standard” grace that is the same for everyone.
The knowledge of God in Romans 1 is not revelation of Jesus Christ. It is knowledge made known to the hearts of men not to bring them infallibly to Christ, as the elect are: “All that the Father hath given me shall come to me” (John 6), but rather so that they are without excuse for their judgment. Because they have, through every rational means available, the power within them to believe in God, but choose to corrupt that knowledge. All the Jews had that by nature, yet Christ does not state that they had God’s grace to believe. He states that they did not believe because it was not given to them by the Father to believe.
“Can a man do something good before conversion? Of course.”
You actually didn’t prove that statement. You just made an assertion that Cornelius’s seeking of God was by his own free-will, and not rather by the special drawing of God.
“No man left alone by God would turn to God, but God has left none of us alone. He has given his revelation of himself to all of us in some measure or another.”
Except He has left people alone when it comes to His effectual grace to save a man. All throughout the Gospel of John, Christ tells the unbelieving Jews that they do not believe because they are not the children of God, and because it was not given to them to believe. Your religion simply has no basis within those scriptures, no matter how hard you try to wrest other scriptures to save you.
Rom 9:11-15 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God is perfectly sovereign in doing this, and is not obligated to give all people mercy. Furthermore, the entire concept of “choosing” precludes the idea that all are given the same mercy and compassion. If all are chosen, then no one was actually chosen.
“Notice Paul puts no restrictions on who may believe - as Jesus did not.”
This has already been refuted, many times, though you keep repeating yourself. The restriction is “No man can come unto me, unless it is given to him by my Father.” That’s a pretty big restriction.
If all are “given,” then the Jews in John 6 would not have received the response they did, and Jesus later would have prayed for them, instead of just those who are given to Him.
“God in his grace reveals himself to man. Some respond, others do not.”
The external call is indeed given to all, yet it is written “few are chosen.” It is the Sheep who are the good ground, whom Christ knows, and who know Him.
Joh_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And they are not chosen because they chose Christ. They are chosen by Christ to bare fruit.
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.
And again, not for any foreseen works, but for the grace and purpose of God.
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
The same sense is in that quote from Romans 9. Before either child had done good or evil, and “not of him that runneth, or him that willeth, but God who sheweth mercy” (also Romans 9).
“And that is why I usually avoid the religion forum like the plague. The meanest people on FreeRepublic are the ones arguing about who God is...”
This is why I dislike responding to your particular posts, since you’re quite vicious to people, and then blame them for reacting to it. It’s quite hypocritical.
If you don’t like fights, you shouldn’t start them by immediately accusing all your opponents of being arrogant, without love, and not knowing God as well as you do. It’s the height of being a Pharisee.
So go on singing that Jesus loves you, but that He doesn’t love Calvinists. I am indifferent to your contempt.
“This is why I dislike responding to your particular posts, since you’re quite vicious to people, and then blame them for reacting to it. It’s quite hypocritical.
If you don’t like fights, you shouldn’t start them by immediately accusing all your opponents of being arrogant, without love, and not knowing God as well as you do. It’s the height of being a Pharisee.”
Cite an example. Please. Or apologize.
“Cite an example. Please. Or apologize.”
Your very first posts in this thread, designed to claim that Calvinist teaching is unloving, or legalistic!
Yet you would completely erase from Ephesians verse 1:11 which specifically states: "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the counsel of his will..." and Ephesians 1:4-5, "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
Book three of Calvin's Christian Institutes for starters. Calvin repeatedly emphasizes that regeneration precedes and enables faith. Otherwise faith is just another work. Also, those sections of Book two regarding justification and free will. Luther made the exact same points in his "Bondage of the Will"
“Your very first posts in this thread, designed to claim that Calvinist teaching is unloving, or legalistic!”
I did attack Calvinism, but I did NOT attack you. You have attacked me personally, in vicious terms.
And I attacked Calvinism for what it teaches - that God loves a few, and hates the rest. That we are saved by grace thru election, not grace thru faith. I wrote the truth - that hundreds of verses speak of faith and believing, and about 20 speak of election - and Calvin used the 20 to interpret the hundreds, instead of the hundreds to interpret the 20.
Jesus taught we are to repent, and believe the Good News. Jesus said, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
Calvin turned ‘whoever’ into ‘The Chosen’. In Calvin’s theology, we are saved by grace - but thru election. election is everything - with it, you are irresistibly saved, and without it you are irreversibly damned. Calvin is contrary to scripture.
“Yet you would completely erase from Ephesians verse 1:11 which specifically states: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the counsel of his will...” and Ephesians 1:4-5, “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world...”
“Calvin repeatedly emphasizes that regeneration precedes and enables faith. Otherwise faith is just another work.”
Actually, I have already mentioned what Calvin missed in Ephesians: IN HIM. We are predestined “IN HIM”. We are chosen “IN HIM”. If we are “IN HIM”, we are safe. And we are placed IN HIM - become a part of the body of Christ - by believing.
And faith is contrasted with works in the NT. Works refers to man’s efforts to be good enough for God. No man is saved by his own strength. Yet there IS one place where Jesus calls faith a work:
“28 This made them ask him, “What must we do to carry out the work of God?” 29 “The work of God for you,” replied Jesus, “is to believe in the one whom he has sent to you.”
Please notice that Jesus says it in response to “What must we do?”
Or as we read in Acts:
“30 He led them outside, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 And they replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and then you will be saved, you and your household.”
The words “IN HIM” don’t change the meaning one whit. It just means God and only God can predestine salvation. Not individual will through the a personal work of belief. If faith is an act of will then those who come to faith DO have a reason to boast. I could boast that given the same opportunity as every one else I chose to come to faith and they didn’t. If God decides then Paul’s words make sense, there is nothing to boast about.
That verse makes my point - coming to belief is "the work of God for you". It's the work of God for you to "believe in the one who he has sent you. It's not of their own volition but it is the "work of God"
The words IN HIM are crucial. Faith places us IN HIM, and IN HIM we have a certain finish. Calvin ignores those two words because he does not understand them. In a tribal society - like the Jews - those words were clear. All the members of a tribe are considered part of the originator of the tribe. That is why in Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, Jacob and Esau were mentioned - although they had been dead for 1500 years.
We are chosen IN CHRIST. Those words are important and ahve meaning.
“That verse makes my point - coming to belief is “the work of God for you”.”
Jesus was asked “What must we do to carry out the work of God?” What must we do? And if Calvin was right, Jesus should have given the same answer that Paul gave in Acts 16: “You can do nothing! God does it all!”
Except that is not what Paul replied, either. Believing and faith is always something we DO in scripture, not something done TO us.
Again, consider the example of healing:
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
Mat 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.
Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Jesus didn’t heal them to give them faith, he healed in response to the faith they had. Faith is always an act we do in response to someone else. Faith is defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.”
Faith is contrasted with works, but is not a work itself:
“Now how does all this affect the position of our ancestor Abraham? Well, if justification were by achievement he could quite fairly be proud of what he achieved—but not, I am sure, proud before God. For what does scripture say about him? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’.
4-8 Now if a man works his wages are not counted as a gift but as a fair reward. But if a man, irrespective of his work, has faith as righteousness, then that man’s faith is counted as righteousness, and that is the gift of God. This is the happy state of the man whom God accounts righteous, apart from his achievements, as David expresses it: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin’.”
Note that Abraham believed God. It doesn’t say God gave Abraham belief. Abraham believed God. We have a choice to make - to believe God, or not. It is not a work we produce, but a response we make to God. There are 31,103 verses in a Bible. Not one calls saving faith a gift, something God does TO man. Saving faith is always something we do in response to God - but it is not described as a “work”.
Certainly all words in the bible are crucial but these don't change the clear meaning of the words which follow.
Absolutely and they mean exactly what they say, we don't choose him, he chooses us. "Faith is contrasted with works, but is not a work itself"
Only because faith is impossible without the God initiated regeneration which produces faith. If we could come to faith on our own it would certainly be a work. And we would have reason to boast that WE decided to come to faith and the unsaved didn't.
Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. We look at the same scripture and see two different answers. It happens. In the end, God will let us know, or let us know He wasn’t too concerned with the argument all along. May your future on earth draw you ever closer to God!
Right and bless you for doing just what Christ commanded we all do.
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.