Is your denomination based on Calvinism? Do you Care?

[Kathryn]

I like Luther more than Calvin - gotta admit that. Luther was more of a "real man" than Calvin seemed to be.

Henry VIII - he started off pretty good but fell off the tracks somewhere along the way!

 

[Kathryn]

You either did or did not receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Say that I am renting a house. I have agreed to let the tenant live there. If he has moved in a week from the agreement it is not a sign that the agreement is null and void. If the person goes on vacation or travels a lot He is still a resident under the agreement. When you received Jesus as Lord and Savior you effectively entered into a covenant with Him and the only way it can be broken is if you declare it null and void. The fact that you have not fully entered into that salvation does not nullify the covenant.

\

My point is I don't believe that salvation can be pinpointed on a calendar. The moment that we REALIZE it may be (or may not be), but the sacrifice of Jesus happened even before our sins were committed. He has known since before we were born whether or not we would accept that gift. He also knows whether we will remain in the faith or leave it. So I believe that true salvation transcends linear time.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

\

My point is I don't believe that salvation can be pinpointed on a calendar. The moment that we REALIZE it may be (or may not be), but the sacrifice of Jesus happened even before our sins were committed. He has known since before we were born whether or not we would accept that gift. He also knows whether we will remain in the faith or leave it. So I believe that true salvation transcends linear time.

True... but our final repentance may come as we approach God's presence.
we simply can not tell. It would be unsafe to believe salvation comes at any other time.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I loathe Calvin. Luther is more complicated; I like some things about him and hate others. Sort of like Henry VIII.

I agree about Luther... after all, all he wanted to do was reform the Catholic Church.

Henry VIII , had too much of a personal agenda, and did too much damage to the best structures of the Catholic Church, whilst cleaning out what he saw as bad.
He never really was a Protestant, Just a catholic who Hated the power and wealth of a Pope that controlled a state with in his State. The Church held more "hands on" Power than the King himself.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Other than WW2, which I would say was a major preoccupation, whether overt or subvert.

Absolutely not.
no flavor of Christianity was involved. It was a Racial/Social problem.

Certainly the Nazis hated Jews; though it was because they thought the Jews were a degenerate race not because of their faith.

Socially, Jews were not acceptable in to British society untill well into the 70's 80's.
most private Gentleman's clubs and Golf clubs were not open to them, in the same way the clubs were not open to tradesmen, however wealthy.

Even today the race laws do not apply to private membership clubs; whilst for contrast, anti smoking laws do.
There have been near exceptions, as Prime minister Disraeli was a favorite of Queen Victoria , but even then was not accepted by the upper classes into their circle.

In America where Class, has mostly been seen as a subset of wealth, there are far fewer problems, except perhaps amongst the more ancient old wealth families.

The only world in which UK Jews have always been accepted as equals, has been in Banking.

 

[Muffled]

I agree about Luther... after all, all he wanted to do was reform the Catholic Church.

Henry VIII , had too much of a personal agenda, and did too much damage to the best structures of the Catholic Church, whilst cleaning out what he saw as bad.
He never really was a Protestant, Just a catholic who Hated the power and wealth of a Pope that controlled a state with in his State. The Church held more "hands on" Power than the King himself.

Other thann the major issues Luther had with the Roman Catholic Church of his time, I don't know anything about his views. His view on justification by faith is too revolutionary fundamental to simply be a reform in the church.

King Henry VIII had a valid issue with the Roman Catholic Church of his time considering that Jewish law provided for divorce and Jesus reaffirmed the validity of that law.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Other thann the major issues Luther had with the Roman Catholic Church of his time, I don't know anything about his views. His view on justification by faith is too revolutionary fundamental to simply be a reform in the church.

Luther based his thinking on Augustine of Hippo as did Calvin. they were certainly not new to the Church. Justification by faith was not in shape or form new.
It was the emphasis that had changed.

King Henry VIII had a valid issue with the Roman Catholic Church of his time considering that Jewish law provided for divorce and Jesus reaffirmed the validity of that law.

The Jewish law was not part of Christianity since the start of Paul's Mission. Even St. Peter accepted that as fact.
King Henry certainly would not have seen any thing Jewish as a president. Henry simply had the power to make a tantrum stick.

 

[logician]

Absolutely not.
no flavor of Christianity was involved. It was a Racial/Social problem.

Certainly the Nazis hated Jews; though it was because they thought the Jews were a degenerate race not because of their faith.

Socially, Jews were not acceptable in to British society untill well into the 70's 80's.
most private Gentleman's clubs and Golf clubs were not open to them, in the same way the clubs were not open to tradesmen, however wealthy.

Even today the race laws do not apply to private membership clubs; whilst for contrast, anti smoking laws do.
There have been near exceptions, as Prime minister Disraeli was a favorite of Queen Victoria , but even then was not accepted by the upper classes into their circle.

In America where Class, has mostly been seen as a subset of wealth, there are far fewer problems, except perhaps amongst the more ancient old wealth families.

The only world in which UK Jews have always been accepted as equals, has been in Banking.

to deny that religon was involved in WW2 is naive.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

to deny that religon was involved in WW2 is naive.

Then I am Glad I am Naive and not stupid.

 

[Muffled]

Luther based his thinking on Augustine of Hippo as did Calvin. they were certainly not new to the Church. Justification by faith was not in shape or form new.
It was the emphasis that had changed.




The Jewish law was not part of Christianity since the start of Paul's Mission. Even St. Peter accepted that as fact.
King Henry certainly would not have seen any thing Jewish as a president. Henry simply had the power to make a tantrum stick.

That is why I used the term The Catholic church of his time. Certainly his views were opposed but maybe it was the issue with indulgences since that hit the church in the pocketbook where it hurts.

Then the law against divorce was a law made by the Catholic Church of his time and not necessarily something that was imposed by The Paraclete since it contradicts already written law.

It is not outlandish to think that King Henry VIII paid attention to the church and its teaching. He tried to work with the church for an annulment but as usual the church was mired in politics and decided against him. Annulments were not unusual although the usual reason given was the the married couple was too closely related (it could have been true for most of royalty). I am beginning to read a book on Eleanor of Aquitane who was divorced by the King of France because she didn't give him a male heir and subsequently married Henry II the first Plantagenet king who was her second cousin. She managed to provide Henry with male heirs. (They didn't know back then that gender is determind by the male not the female) Henry the VIII wasn't the first to seek to limit the political power of the church but he gets the credit. In any case it is hardly likely that either party was really interested in what God had to say about it.

 

[Muffled]

to deny that religon was involved in WW2 is naive.

Without a doubt religion always has a part to play. However Hitler favored the views of Nietzsche who was a critic of Christianity and democracy and most famous for stating that "God is dead."

 

[cindy161]

See the thread/forum "Understand Original sin to see why Calvinism is wrong"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is your denomination based on Calvinism?

Most Protestant denominations are based on Calvinism. Yours is probably amongst them, though it is surprising how few congregation members know what he taught or indeed how it affects them.

Main line Churches such as Anglican/ Episcopalian, congregational Methodist Presbyterian In deed most Protestant faiths have adsorbed his teachings into their confessions of faith.

However there are a few LiberalChurches, and indeed Liberal members and groups of liberals with in the Calvinistic denominations, who deny part or all of his teachings. However even such churches as liberal as the Unitarians are not totally untouched by some of his ideas.

Read through “what is Calvinism” “TULIP” and then discuss or debate what you think is true, reasonable, or false in regard to your own personal faith.

You can find more pro’s and con’s on this site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm


What is Calvinism: (I have removed the Biblical references, But they can be found in the version on the above site)

It is a series of theological beliefs first promoted by John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the leaders of the Protestant reformation. They were affirmed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619 CE) as being the doctrine of salvation which is contained in the Bible. It laid the foundation for Reformed Theology.
Calvinism is often summarized by The Five Points of Calvinism, which are easy to recall by using the acrostic "TULIP:"

T: This usually stands for "Total depravity:" This is often mistaken to mean that humans are all hopelessly, intensely sinful. Actually, it means something quite different: as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God -- the Fall of Man -- sin has extended to all parts of every person's being: "his thinking, his emotions and his will." 1

Sometimes, this has been called "Total inability." This is the concept that it is impossible for the ordinary "natural" human to understand the Gospel's message. They are spiritually helpless. First, God must first decide to intervene in the form of the third personality within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the person is lost forever.


U: This stands for "Unconditional Election." This is the concept of predestination: that God has divided humanity into two groups. One group is "the elected." It includes all those whom God has chosen to make knowledgeable about himself. The rest will remain ignorant of God, and the Gospel. They are damned and will spend eternity in Hell without any hope of mercy or cessation of the extreme tortures. God made this selection before the universe was created, and thus before any humans existed. The ground or grounds that God uses to select the lucky few is unknown. What is known is that it is not through any good works on the part of the individual. It is not that he extends knowledge to some in order to find out who will accept salvation and who will not.

There is a degree of tension within the Bible concerning precise division of responsibility between God and humans on this matter. The Bible does not resolve this issue.

Hyper-Calvinists believe that a person has zero responsibility for their own salvation; it is all up to God.

Arminians teach that humans have free will and thus can accept or resist the call of God.

L: This stands for "Limited atonement" or "Particular Redemption." This is the belief that Jesus did not die to save all humans. He only died for the sake of specific sins of those sinners who are saved.

I: This stands for "Irresistible Grace:" This is the belief that every human whom God has elected will inevitably come to a knowledge of God. The elect cannot resist the call.

P: This stands for "Perseverance of the saints:" This is the "Once saved, always saved" belief -- that everyone who has been saved will remain in that state. God will begin and continue a process of sanctification which will continue until they reach heaven. None are lost; it is impossible for them to lose their salvation.

I follow Cavinisms:

Oh lovely snowball,
Packed with care,
Smack a head that's unaware!
Then with freezing ice to spare
Melt and soak through underwear!
Fly straight and true,
Hit hard and square
This, oh snowball,
Is my prayer.
"I only throw consecrated snowballs." -Calvin)

 

[cindy161]

I have asked a very pointed question which paraphrased is "Do you Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin"

You go all around the houses answering a different question except that one. I firmly believe you do believe that God is the author of sin but you are not brave enough to say so. Unlike John Calvin you have not really got the courage of your convictions because John Calvin unequivocally answered 'yes - God is the author of every ones sins. Both the saved and the reprobate'.

Prove it you say - OK

Book 3, Ch 23, Section 4
"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will."

Book 3, Ch 23, Section 6
God ... arranges all things by his counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death.

Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7
"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? ... The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree." "And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision..”


Did God even force Adam and Eve to sin. No ? Well Calvin says yes, God did.

Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7
God not only foresaw the fall off the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity: but also at his own pleasure arranged it.”

A W Pink - A hardline Calvanist concurs - Yes God is the Author of every ones sin. Ref The Sovereignty of God pp 83-84
"we assuredly gather it was His everlasting determination so to do; and consequently that He reprobated some from before the foundation of the world"

A W Pink ‘From The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation Chapter 5
If then God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire.

No I am not waving the flag for arminianism. The argument put forth by Skala a few post ago does kill the 'free will/God not sovereign' debate effectively.

What I am saying is that Calvanist are not quite as honest with themselves or any body else. If I am wrong then answer the question as directly and as boldly as Calvin and Pink to name but two.

The problem it leaves me though is there is a huge amount of scripture that suggest differently. I have no idea how to reconcile that. I believe it needs to be done if only to stop the onward rise of Islam.

Not good Huh

 

[sojourner]

They are both are very similar and loosely called confessions of faith. They are still taught leading up to confirmation.

I wasn't required to learn them...

 

[sojourner]

I don't follow Calvin. At all. I find him tedious at least and grossly mistaken at most. I tend to be far more universalist than Calvin would allow. If grace is true, if the Jesus Event is efficacious, then it was for all humanity, and all humanity benefits from it. No matter what they believe.

 

[Muffled]

Is your denomination based on Calvinism?

Most Protestant denominations are based on Calvinism. Yours is probably amongst them, though it is surprising how few congregation members know what he taught or indeed how it affects them.

Main line Churches such as Anglican/ Episcopalian, congregational Methodist Presbyterian In deed most Protestant faiths have adsorbed his teachings into their confessions of faith.

However there are a few LiberalChurches, and indeed Liberal members and groups of liberals with in the Calvinistic denominations, who deny part or all of his teachings. However even such churches as liberal as the Unitarians are not totally untouched by some of his ideas.

Read through “what is Calvinism” “TULIP” and then discuss or debate what you think is true, reasonable, or false in regard to your own personal faith.

You can find more pro’s and con’s on this site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm


What is Calvinism: (I have removed the Biblical references, But they can be found in the version on the above site)

It is a series of theological beliefs first promoted by John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the leaders of the Protestant reformation. They were affirmed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619 CE) as being the doctrine of salvation which is contained in the Bible. It laid the foundation for Reformed Theology.
Calvinism is often summarized by The Five Points of Calvinism, which are easy to recall by using the acrostic "TULIP:"

T: This usually stands for "Total depravity:" This is often mistaken to mean that humans are all hopelessly, intensely sinful. Actually, it means something quite different: as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God -- the Fall of Man -- sin has extended to all parts of every person's being: "his thinking, his emotions and his will." 1

Sometimes, this has been called "Total inability." This is the concept that it is impossible for the ordinary "natural" human to understand the Gospel's message. They are spiritually helpless. First, God must first decide to intervene in the form of the third personality within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the person is lost forever.


U: This stands for "Unconditional Election." This is the concept of predestination: that God has divided humanity into two groups. One group is "the elected." It includes all those whom God has chosen to make knowledgeable about himself. The rest will remain ignorant of God, and the Gospel. They are damned and will spend eternity in Hell without any hope of mercy or cessation of the extreme tortures. God made this selection before the universe was created, and thus before any humans existed. The ground or grounds that God uses to select the lucky few is unknown. What is known is that it is not through any good works on the part of the individual. It is not that he extends knowledge to some in order to find out who will accept salvation and who will not.

There is a degree of tension within the Bible concerning precise division of responsibility between God and humans on this matter. The Bible does not resolve this issue.

Hyper-Calvinists believe that a person has zero responsibility for their own salvation; it is all up to God.

Arminians teach that humans have free will and thus can accept or resist the call of God.

L: This stands for "Limited atonement" or "Particular Redemption." This is the belief that Jesus did not die to save all humans. He only died for the sake of specific sins of those sinners who are saved.

I: This stands for "Irresistible Grace:" This is the belief that every human whom God has elected will inevitably come to a knowledge of God. The elect cannot resist the call.

P: This stands for "Perseverance of the saints:" This is the "Once saved, always saved" belief -- that everyone who has been saved will remain in that state. God will begin and continue a process of sanctification which will continue until they reach heaven. None are lost; it is impossible for them to lose their salvation.

I have been through the Presbyterian statement of faith and there is much about which I disagree.

I was brought up American Baptist but I don't remember ever seeing a creed. My understanding is that each member in Christ is free to understand scripture as the spirit guides him. Although like Quakers there is not a stated creed there is no doubt a credal culture that is somewhat understood as in the belief in believers baptism.

I tend toward the Arminian view myself. Somehow the two views are interpreted as irreconcilable.

 

[Plato]

I never knew much about Calvanism until I researched it a couple of years ago. Here's some things people may or may not know about Calvin/ Calvinism....
Calvin was a Frenchmen whose real name was Jean Cauvin who lived 1509-64. He was not originally a cleric but actually a lawyer. He fled Catholic France 1535 for Switzerland due to his Protestant beliefs. There he met up with the Swiss Zwingli and his followers who had started what was then called the 'Reformed Religion'. Cauvin did not create most of the theology (that was done by Zwingli and others) but became the chief writer and codifier of the religion. The Reformed Religion was rejected by Luther the leader of the Protestant Reformation. In English 'Jean Cauvin' became 'John Calvin' and eventually as writer of the religion his name was applied to it.
Theology... as I understand it Calvanism is based on the idea of 'sin', especially the 'Doctrine of Original Sin' (Calvin mentions the Doctrines creator the 4th century Manichaeian writer Augustine of Hippo tons of times). Basically it states...all humans are born sinners because of Adam's 'original sin' which is inherited by all people forever, also humans sin all the time throughout their lives. The purpose of religion therefore is to be 'saved' from all this sin. To be saved a person must do 2 things...be 'regenerated' or 'born again' free of this original sin by a sincere faith in and spiritual rebirth in Jesus as Savior, and repent and practice remission from sin.
However, even after doing these things God alone chooses who he wants to really 'save', a person cannot save themselves, so doing 'good works' or good deeds to impress God is not necessary because they don't matter. Once God has chosen a person as 'saved' they remain that way no matter what sins or crimes they do. Among Christian values are...sobriety, hard work, business and money making.
Calvanism may have been just a footnote in history but for 1 man...pro British Scottish rebel John Knox who imported it into Scotland 1559 as part of the effort to win Scotland for the British orbit rather than that of the French. In Scotland it became the national religion (except for some of the Highlanders) and later spread to England as Presbyterianism and Puritanism, and to the Scotch plantation of Northern Ireland. From Northern Ireland and England it then spread to the USA, where by now it makes up the great bulk of US Protestants.

 

[anthony55]

Why do people call the Truth of the Gospel calvinism ? The Truths of the Tulip are based upon scripture, not Calvin !

 

[Muffled]

I don't follow Calvin. At all. I find him tedious at least and grossly mistaken at most. I tend to be far more universalist than Calvin would allow. If grace is true, if the Jesus Event is efficacious, then it was for all humanity, and all humanity benefits from it. No matter what they believe.

This is a Calvinist belief. Arminian belief is that a person only benefits from grace if that grace is accepted. Calvinist belief is that a person is selected to believe he should accept grace and another person is not. My guess is that this is based on Pauls statement:

2Ti 2:20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor, and some unto dishonor.

That verse doesn't say that the vessals were created for dishonor but only that they exist. It could be that there is a reference to the previous verse where Paul says God knows who are His but that does not guarantee strict determinism only existing reality ie at any point in time God knows who is His but that does not preclude conversion. Otherwise God is wasting His time working to save people. I believe Jesus when He says that if He is lifted up all men will come to Him. John 12:32.