Correction, Chrisitanity swept western Europe.
Within 100 years of Calvin's death the most dedicated Calvinists were the Puritans of England--many of whom came to America. The ideas which fed the American Revolution and formed our constitutional government were largely of Calvinist background.
So, the Calvinist would have you believe. The Purtians also drove out of their area those who would not agree with them, thats how Rhode Island got started.
Princeton and all the Ivy League did indeed go reprobate, however Calvinist ideas also were the ground in which the Baptist denominations were originally born in England. Most Baptists, indeed most evangelicals hold to at least 3 or 4 of the ACTUAL (not misstated) TULIP points. Total Depravity (I too have never been taught it termed "total inability") Unconditional election (we do nothing to earn our salvation), and Perseverance of the saints (meaning God preserves us--the meaning I've always been taught, not that we in our "strength" persevere--God preserves so we do indeed persevere, by His mercy alone) and even a form of Irresistible grace (no less an Arminian than C.S. Lewis taught this--from his own salvation experience).
And what is your view on Limited Atonement? Can I have the quote from CS Lewis or am I just suppose to believe you? This is what goes under the heading of Calvinistic discussion, just throw our anything and it is suppose to be accepted as 'gospel'
It's laughable that the author of the article uses the same language formulation as classic Calvinists when attempting to refute Limited Atonement, namely "Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers (the elect).
Why is that so laughable if that is a true definition. The problem with Limited Atonement is that 1Jn2:2 and Heb.2:9 (to name just two off the top of my head) refute it! Only the philosophical view that no one who God died for could be lost makes Limited Atonment part of the TULIP system.It has no Scriptural support. But then again, that doesn't stop a Calvinist anyway.
What is really laughable is your defense of TULIP. Who cares who believes in it or not, the only question for a Christian is what saith the Scriptures?
You know what I noticed in your post, the same tired Calvinist arguments, No one really understands our view, Calvinism is Christanity, and no scriptures!
I actually think its a sin to bitterly argue these points, especially when the argument is so poor as the posting article.
Get over it!
These are mysterious issues... no one's will is violated by the grace of God and yet, as with Israel in the Old Testament, God is calling an elect people of His own, for His own reasons...
Oh,yea, first talk about the few who God is choosing and rejecting the rest and then talk about how no one's will is being violated. Typical Calvinist doubletalk.
I've never really understood the appeal of trying to "parenthesize" Romans 9-11, as then it just makes God acting Calvinistically toward Israel... when I always thought God was consistent.
The reason you do so is because the Scriptures demand it. When it speaks of those of Pauls and Christ flesh it is speaking of racial Jews. Israel is unconditionally elected, individuals are not.
Back to the original point though, to blame the apostasy of Europe, American universities and Presbyterianism on Calvinism is like blaming wars on Christianity.
No one blamed the apostasy on Calvinism, the point what that it is Calvinists who point out Arminians as the cause of apostasy and apostasy is just as rampant in their churches as Arminian ones.
Just as it is the LACK of Christian virtues which makes "Christian" Europe's history so full of bloodshed, so too it is a LACK of clear honest Biblical thinking--which is called Calvinism--which led and leads to apostasy. You'd be hard put to claim that the Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and other historically more Pelagian (read Arminian) denominations are less fallen than Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
No, and you would be hard pressed to say that the Calvinist churches were any less fallen.
Another fact to be reckoned with: The modern missionary movement is FULL of evangelical Presbyterian types. Groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators (the largest independent protestant mission organization in the world), Campus Crusade, Navigators, and Inter-Varsity also have undue numbers of evangelical Calvinistical types... so the claim that Calvinism stifles the preaching of the Gospel just doesn't hold water. Consider also how few Calvinists in America there are,
How few? I thought you said that most Baptists (Evangicals) adhere to Calvinism!And the statement that you can accept three points and be a Calvinist is nonsense. Even 4pointers are attacked on these sites as being 'fake' Calvinists, as was L.S.Chafer
and their numbers in those para-church organizations are even more notable.
I would say that Arminian type evanglists could easily hold their own with the Calvinists, Wesley, Finney, Billy Sunday, Cartwright, Sam Jones to name a few.
Now, let us get down to brass tacks. On this website it is not the Arminians who are accusing the Calvinists as being 'nonregenerate' because they reject Arminianism. It is the Calvinists who want to make the 'five points' a test of ones Christianity. So we will see just how Scriptural those points are. Do you know not one Calvinist has attempted to even defend TULIP by explaining it!. Everyone whined and moaned about how 'unfair' the article was, the author doesn't understand us, blah, blah, blah.
You don't like it, put up a TULIP article explaining it and get used to the fact that you will be seeing more posts, which will reveal how nonScriptural Calvinism is.
Calvinism swept West in Europe.
Correction, Chrisitanity swept western Europe.
If you'd read the sentence below, you'd realize I was speaking of the movement of Calvinism after Calvin's death in the 1560s--not the innitial evangelization of Europe in the 500s+.
Within 100 years of Calvin's death the most dedicated Calvinists were the Puritans of England--many of whom came to America. The ideas which fed the American Revolution and formed our constitutional government were largely of Calvinist background.
So, the Calvinist would have you believe. The Purtians also drove out of their area those who would not agree with them, thats how Rhode Island got started.
Jame's Madison, main writer of the Constitution, was from a Presbyterian background, attending Princeton. Many of the Founding Fathers had similar Calvinistical backgrounds. You will find many secular historians who agree Calvinism had a central role in the founding of the USA. The very form of representational government--republican democracy--a kind of leadership by "elders" (or presbyters, to use a biblical term) was originally formed for Church government, using the Bible as the guide, by John Calvin. Maybe even your own church fellowship uses elected elders or deacons to lead the church. I hate to break it to you by this is a Calvinistic idea.
The Puritans were intolerant--but not especially so for persons of the 17th Century. Keep in mind they banned people for their beliefs, while non-puritans in Europe were executing persons by the score for the same kind of offenses.
Princeton and all the Ivy League did indeed go reprobate, however Calvinist ideas also were the ground in which the Baptist denominations were originally born in England. Most Baptists, indeed most evangelicals hold to at least 3 or 4 of the ACTUAL (not misstated) TULIP points. Total Depravity (I too have never been taught it termed "total inability") Unconditional election (we do nothing to earn our salvation), and Perseverance of the saints (meaning God preserves us--the meaning I've always been taught, not that we in our "strength" persevere--God preserves so we do indeed persevere, by His mercy alone) and even a form of Irresistible grace (no less an Arminian than C.S. Lewis taught this--from his own salvation experience).
I'm not claiming that Baptists are "true" Calvinists, however I would claim most evangelicals who look the the Bible as their sole authority do incorporate many Calvinistic ideas--which have their root in the re-discovery of the Bible in the Reformation period. That's one reason the bitterness of the debate is so untoward--on several points the position is close if not identical. For example, the arguement in the posting perporting to "refute" Perseverance of the saints, then goes on to SUPPORT "once saved always saved" theology, which is exactly the main point of the Perseverance doctrine. The man plays a semantic game--demolishing a straw man. Clearly he believes as John Calvin did, that the truly regenerate will not, by the grace of God, fall away.
And what is your view on Limited Atonement? Can I have the quote from CS Lewis or am I just suppose to believe you? This is what goes under the heading of Calvinistic discussion, just throw our anything and it is suppose to be accepted as 'gospel'
It's laughable that the author of the article uses the same language formulation as classic Calvinists use explaining Limited Atonement when attempting to refute Limited Atonement, namely "Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers (the elect).
Why is that so laughable if that is a true definition. The problem with Limited Atonement is that 1Jn2:2 and Heb.2:9 (to name just two off the top of my head) refute it! Only the philosophical view that no one who God died for could be lost makes Limited Atonment part of the TULIP system.It has no Scriptural support. But then again, that doesn't stop a Calvinist anyway.
What was laughable, was he uses the same words Calvinists always have to describe the '"Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers' nature of the attonement. His position is defined by the VERY SAME words, meaning the SAME THING as Calvinists take them to mean... I mean simple logic says that in eternity, you and any Arminian will have to admit, that Christ's blood is only EFFECTIVE for those in heaven. Those in hell will be punished not only for their failure to believe in Christ, but for all the other sins they have done too. The universalist sounding verses used in those "same tired arguments" by Arminians are easily understood when one is educated to the RADICAL idea in New Testament times that God was actually interested in saving people all over the world, not merely of the "chosen people" the Jews. What is really laughable is your defense of TULIP. Who cares who believes in it or not, the only question for a Christian is what saith the Scriptures?
Its always been amazing to me that Arminians point to a few verses--disregarding the context--to call their views "scriptural," while when Calvinists can point to whole chapters (Romans 9-11) the Arminians simply attempt to CUT OUT those chapters from the Bible. While I think the arguments of Romans flow perfectly smoothly without trying to narrowly parentasize (read CUT OUT) chapters 9 to 11, EVEN IF YOU DO say they only apply to Israel, the point still holds--God has and does unconditionally elect people. Who ever said grace was fair?
You know what I noticed in your post, the same tired Calvinist arguments, No one really understands our view, Calvinism is Christanity, and no scriptures!
I'm not a bible scholar and really don't have the time to look up the relevant scriptures. I doubt anything would change your mind anyway. :)
I actually think its a sin to bitterly argue these points, especially when the argument is so poor as the posting article.
Get over it!
This really doesn't reflect a mature Christ-like attitude.
These are mysterious issues... no one's will is violated by the grace of God and yet, as with Israel in the Old Testament, God is calling an elect people of His own, for His own reasons...
Oh,yea, first talk about the few who God is choosing and rejecting the rest and then talk about how no one's will is being violated. Typical Calvinist doubletalk.
Its "doubletalk" to stand in awe that God would choose to save people at all? God rejects no one--we all rejected Him, and yet He chose to DIE in my place! I've never really understood the appeal of trying to "parenthesize" Romans 9-11, as then it just makes God acting Calvinistically toward Israel... when I always thought God was consistent.
The reason you do so is because the Scriptures demand it. When it speaks of those of Pauls and Christ flesh it is speaking of racial Jews. Israel is unconditionally elected, individuals are not.
To say "scriptures demand it." doesn't self evidently prove that. That's a non-argument. As I said above, EVEN IF the point was granted (and certainly not a natural way to read Romans) STILL, as you admit here, God unconditionally elected a nation (through the individuals Jacob and Esau, I might add). To try to distinguish between Israel, and individuals is silly--since the very text deals with both the individuals, and the nations that came from them. Paul's arguement is very clear: Its fully just and right for God as Creator to elect some to love and not to elect others. I think his Holy Spirit inspired response to objections (such as yours) to such are outstanding:
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:19-21
Back to the original point though, to blame the apostasy of Europe, American universities and Presbyterianism on Calvinism is like blaming wars on Christianity.
No one blamed the apostasy on Calvinism, the point what that it is Calvinists who point out Arminians as the cause of apostasy and apostasy is just as rampant in their churches as Arminian ones.
Actually the thing I innitially responded to was indeed claiming deadness--ie apostasy--was a result of Calvinism.
Just as it is the LACK of Christian virtues which makes "Christian" Europe's history so full of bloodshed, so too it is a LACK of clear honest Biblical thinking--which is called Calvinism--which led and leads to apostasy. You'd be hard put to claim that the Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and other historically more Pelagian (read Arminian) denominations are less fallen than Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
No, and you would be hard pressed to say that the Calvinist churches were any less fallen.
???
I think it helps to distinquish historically Calvinist denominations (Presbyterian & Reformed) from actual Calvinists. I have yet to meet a theologically liberal Calvinist. Persons who reject the authority of scripture (which liberals do) also throw out scripturally based doctrines--especially those repellent to the modern egalitarian mindset. I would further argue that Arminian views were the ground from which Schliermacher and others raised up theological liberalism. When it becomes all about me...and my freedom--not about God and His freely given grace, one easily slips into wanting to block out certain objectionable parts of scripture.
Another fact to be reckoned with: The modern missionary movement is FULL of evangelical Presbyterian types. Groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators (the largest independent protestant mission organization in the world), Campus Crusade, Navigators, and Inter-Varsity also have undue numbers of evangelical Calvinistical types... so the claim that Calvinism stifles the preaching of the Gospel just doesn't hold water. Consider also how few Calvinists in America there are,
How few? I thought you said that most Baptists (Evangicals) adhere to Calvinism!And the statement that you can accept three points and be a Calvinist is nonsense. Even 4pointers are attacked on these sites as being 'fake' Calvinists, as was L.S.Chafer
To be consistantly Calvinist one should accept the 5 points--as supported (but not argued by me here) by scripture. An interesting thing is though, show me ANY modern group of Christians who believes ALL the 5 points of the Remonstrants? If not, then they are "partially" Calvinist. Are you partially Calvinist? :D
and their numbers in those para-church organizations are even more notable.
I would say that Arminian type evanglists could easily hold their own with the Calvinists, Wesley, Finney, Billy Sunday, Cartwright, Sam Jones to name a few.
I've read Finney on the Atonement and sadly clearly the man was in no sense a biblical Christian. He's still a famous evangelist, but underneath, his gospel was hollow, as he denied very basic biblical truths. Finney was a true Palagian, and honestly, having read him, I don't think can be named a brother in Christ. I know little of Billy Sunday except he was known as a great showman, of Cartwright or Jones I know nothing.
Now, let us get down to brass tacks. On this website it is not the Arminians who are accusing the Calvinists as being 'nonregenerate' because they reject Arminianism. It is the Calvinists who want to make the 'five points' a test of ones Christianity.
I suppose thats possible, but I have yet to hear a Calvinist say a non-Calvinist must not be a Christian. They will say they are wrong and unbiblical, but real faith in Christ, dependent fully on his grace is what makes one a Christian or not. Calvinists primary concern is to make known the full extant of that dependence on God. Not 99% God's work, and 1 % my wise and good choice...
So we will see just how Scriptural those points are. Do you know not one Calvinist has attempted to even defend TULIP by explaining it!. Everyone whined and moaned about how 'unfair' the article was, the author doesn't understand us, blah, blah, blah.
There's an easy explanation for this--in that most of us have jobs and simply don't have the time to write an elaborate apologetic for TULIP. TULIP, after all was merely the Calvinist RESPONSE in the Cannons of Dort to the 5 Remonstrants points. Calvinism, as I tried to point out above in matters of church governance, is a lot bigger than 5 points developed long after Calvin's death.
You don't like it, put up a TULIP article explaining it and get used to the fact that you will be seeing more posts, which will reveal how nonScriptural Calvinism is.
Several Calvinists in this thread have pointed out what a straw man the innitial post's argument is... Even where the authors view agree with Calvinist doctrine, he finds little semantic points to try and dispute so he can say he doesn't agree... Seems kinda petty in his hatred of Calvinists if you ask me.