Why Calvin Is Cool; An Infomercial for Calvinism

The Internet Monk ^ | Michael Spencer

[grey_whiskers]

Re: your freeper name--any reference to the John LeCarre character?

Cheers!

[blue-duncan]

Aha, you guys fell right into Gamecock's ingenious trap. You weren't careful enough to see he had deviously tagged this thread WORSHIP, therefore protected by the new rules from questions, arguments, hurdled insults and gratuitous tweaks. So, up against the wall and spread 'em. Soon all your impudent work will be removed by "you know who" and only my edifying and if I might modestly say so, enlightening posts will remain.

I thought the thread was COOL Gamecock, and I appreciate your hard work in sharing it with us. Keep up the good work!

[Religion Moderator]

LOLOL!

[HarleyD]

Nothing like setting up a self-serving dichotomy and making that your standard of orthodox doctrine....To some extent we must cooperate in the work of grace just by virtue of being free agents.

While I have not had the blessedness of being a Calvinist for nearly as long as you have, I do understand the subtle differences between Rome's view of man's cooperation in grace and the Reformation's view. It was a distinction I immediately grasp upon reading the various views. You would not say this was a self-serving dichotomy if you truly understood the distinction between the two.

"... Even granting your synergist/monergist dictomy (which I do not)

My case in point. A Reformer would not make such a statement.

Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate.

Heretical is defined as: Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards. I don't believe that using the term meaning "departure from established beliefs" is in any way "frantic rhetoric". Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants are free to call me a heretic since I have departed from their established beliefs. It becomes who has departed and what benchmark do you want to set for the departure.

Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate. It gives you no credibility outside of your chorus of yes-men, but leads any fair-minded observer to wonder if you really understand what you're talking about

You might have noticed there are precious few chorus of "yes" men here and fewer still in my Arminian Southern Baptist church. Quite frankly I'm not interested in what others think about me. I research all my material before posting and, as some here know, I'll read any view offered. If I'm wrong I'll print a retraction.

That being said, while I appreciated our brethren and their viewpoints, their position with regards to fundamental doctrines such as election, grace, predestination, etc is wrong. I would be remiss NOT to point this out. If you understood the basic principle of election you would agree.

[HarleyD]

John Calvin wouldn't say it. In fact, I think he'd be rather appalled.

I wonder what Calvin would say if he could step into one of today's mega-churches. We know he certainly wouldn't enter a Catholic Church.

If Calvinism IS the gospel, with which parts of the gospel do you have disagreements? ...oops

Do I believe Mary remained a virgin? No. Do I believe in consubstantiation? No. Do I believe in infant baptism? Currently no but I'm open. None of these are fundamental principles of how God saves men.

[George Smiley]

You are correct, sir.

[blue-duncan]

"I wonder what Calvin would say if he could step into one of today's mega-churches."

He'd probably say, "this is a magnificent work of the Holy Spirit, greater than anything my future followers could ever imagine. and the coffee is great and the donuts are tops but I don't think there is enough bass in the band."

[jude24]

Do I believe Mary remained a virgin? No. Do I believe in consubstantiation? No. Do I believe in infant baptism?

You disagree, recognizing that there is room for informed minds to differ. Wisely, too, I might add.

None of these are fundamental principles of how God saves men.

Nor is predestination. It's an obscure topic dealt with in relatively few Scriptures. Many Christians go about their Christian lives blissfully unaware that a controversy even exists. It's a rather technical question that involves very close exegesis, and informed minds differ on the conclusion. Such cannot be a "fundamental principal" of the gospel.

Take your position on predestination - I probably largely agree with it. What I cannot agree with, however, is the statement "Calvinism is the Gospel." It is not, nor is it even close.

[Corin Stormhands]

I wonder what Calvin would say if he could step into one of today's mega-churches.

hmmmmm..."Nice to see you again Dr. Piper?"

[jude24]

I wonder what Calvin would say if he could step into one of today's mega-churches.

He'd probably stop his ears during the worship set, not unlike the high school kids in Back to the Future who weren't ready for 1980's-style rock. Then, I predict he'd be distracted by the pretty lights in front and wonder how the projector and computer worked.

We know he certainly wouldn't enter a Catholic Church.

After Vatican II, I don't think we can be so sure of that.

[jude24]

Best off-the-cuff response.

[Corin Stormhands]

Thank you, we're here all week.

[PetroniusMaximus]

hi PM... Trying to move o­n by saying, "Augustine was the exception now try to find me o­nE Church Father who agree with your position", is a tad bit disingenuous don't you think?

HarleyD, in all fairness, I did start my remarks to Gamecock with that caveat (post #14)..

"Not that it's a make or break, but... What Church fathers do you draw o­n (besides Augustine) to make the case that something like Calvinism was believed historically by the Church?
I ask, because it is my understanding that the Church always believed in free will and the sovereignty of God."

" There are a number of scholars far better than you or I who have traced the Reformed belief back to Augustine."

That's exactly what I'm getting at! What is the path back to Augustine? What other (non-apostolic, pre-reformation - [ wink to Gamecock ] ) Church fathers are drawn o­n to confirm that Augustine was not a "lone wolf" o­n this issue?

[protest1]

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Ex 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Ex 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. 7:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

PetroniusMaximus claimed
"The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart several times."

You are wrong Petronius scripture contradicts you. The LORD had already hardened Pharaohs heart before the verse 8:15 you quote.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"You are wrong Petronius scripture contradicts you. The LORD had already hardened Pharaohs heart before the verse 8:15 you quote"


Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Even so, my Bible reads..."Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said."

as opposed to your... Ex 7:13 "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart,"

What translation are you reading from???

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Calvinists are "alleged monergists"?

LOL. Only to a universalist like yourself.

[jude24]

Universalist? Me? Not even close. Ex ecclesia nulla salus. I just define "church" more broadly than the Catholics.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I just define "church" more broadly than the Catholics.

Can one define "church" too broadly?

[jude24]

Can one define "church" too broadly?

Sure. One can easily define it too narrowly.

Any church that names the name of Christ, proclaims His deity, and teaches the death and resurrection of Christ is "the Chruch." I may have varying grades of disagreements with individual churches regarding doctrine or practice, but I still must respect them as true churches which proclaim the gospel of Christ. Christ is preached by them all, and for that I must still rejoice (Phil. 1:15-18).

My own personal yardstick is adherence to the Creeds. If a church either adheres to the Creeds or at least to the substance of them, then they are part of the "the Church."

The term which better describes me is "ecumenical," not "universalist." I couldn't give two hoots about denominations. Most of my generation couldn't either.

Only once have I been so mad I could spit - that was when a guy, teaching impressionable high schoolers, said "Only in [his particular type of church] is there liberty to worship in Spirit and in Truth" - as though the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Pentacostals, or the Orthodox don't worship in Spirit and in Truth.

[P-Marlowe]

Any church that names the name of Christ, proclaims His deity, and teaches the death and resurrection of Christ is "the Chruch."

I cannot help but notice your tagline.

Just how broad do you think Augustine would have defined "the Church." I don't think he would have been so liberal.