Is your denomination based on Calvinism? Do you Care?

[Muffled]

This is a link to the Westminster confession of faith The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
This takes you to the official Anglican 39 Articles
Anglican Communion Information Service - The Thirty Nine Articles

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

The Church of England is a state religion and subject to the queen and parliament.

Bishops are still appointed by the prime minister.

Priests are still obliged to submit to the confession.
However according to our local priest this is not always insisted on in practice.

Again, in practice, the combined houses of the Synod make its own rules. though some have to be ratified by parliament.

It was only in the 1800's that we were no longer subject to imprisonment for being a Unitarian. That applied to all protestant faiths in the UK, not just Anglicans.

The Church of England does not recognize Unitarians to be Christian at all, even more so since the association with the UU's

However the Non subscribing Presbyterians are some what different, and not officially or necessarily unitarian as they have no Dogmas. (though many members would subscribe to the Unitarian belief emanating from Servetus.)

It is true the Anglican faith is a very broad one and these days, does not ask many questions of its members... this is how I can remain a member whilst holding quite Heretical views (fortunately for me Heretics are no longer executed).

The African Anglicans are indeed pressing the case for greater orthodoxy, and as they outnumber the other Anglican churches, there are problems ahead.

Personally I would be very happy for the liberal wing to win out (or continue in its own sweet way), provided we keeep the traditional Liturgy.

I am presently attending a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America) and am in the midst of reading and critiquing the Westminster Confession. However our church does not follow the liturgical year. At one time I attended a UCC church (United Church of Christ) and the pastor was from a Reformed Church background, so we did follow the liturgical year.

I was brought up American Baptist which had its fundamental teachings but no set confession or statement of faith. This leads to a lack of coherency between congregations since there can be a wide discrepancy between them as to belief and worship style. These days the freedom to ssek the truth in scripture that the denomination affords has lead to a great deal of heresy and I wouldn't be surprised if some congreagtions had become apostate.

I have read Calvin's biography and it does appear that he had an authoritarian state of mind. Was his the only Protestant attempt at systematic theology or did Luther do the same thing? Just because a person writes a book and believes he is right, doesn't mean that he is right. However it is true that the Protestant Church needed someone to try and identify what it meant to be Protestant.

Does the Arminian approach have a progenitor of sytematic theology or is it more of a composite as a reaction to Calvinism?

 

[Muffled]

Is your denomination based on Calvinism?

Most Protestant denominations are based on 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.

T This is not a realistic position but then neither is Mary Baker Eddy's position that everyone is perfect. Scripture does not support either one.

U Again predestination and free will, neither are supported by scripture. The reality is that both are true. We will choose one way or the other and forever is a long time to hold on to one position. I like to believe that we are all making progress towards believing the truth but then it is difficult for me to understand why people would hold on to falsehood.

L What are they trying to say? The efficacy of the cross is available to everyone. Of course the salvation isn't sought by everyone so many remain in their sins.

I There is no scriptural support for this approach.

P It would be nice if no-one ever changed their minds but that is not the reality. I think Paul is like me in that He can't see how a person finding the light would ever wish to go back to the darkness and if they did why would they ever choose to go back to the light but the reality is that not everyone has a definitive mindset.

 

[Xgolfer]

Calvinist actually don't understand scripture very well despite their claims to the contrary. They consider themselves the ultimate scholars and exegetes, yet they miss the basics of biblical theology. They can't seem to understand that God can sovereignly set aside his sovereignty enough to allow man sufficient "freedom of will" to make legitimate choices that God will not interfere with. By the way, that's why we see suffering that doesn't make sense, i.e., God allows our volition to manifest itself sufficiently to hold us accountable. Sometimes innocent folks will get hurt as a result. If God stepped in every time we expressed an evil intent and carried it out, then we would no longer have free will. He does, however have full foreknowledge of what will happen and what might happen if he changes a few parameters. That's how God manipulates history without violating our volition. When Christ died on the cross, he satisfied (propitiated) the righteousness and justice of God so that God is now free to offer as a gift eternal life to man. Man must choose to accept this gift, and he does so by accepting its truth (believing.) Sadly, Calvinist have distorted this concept and now say that man must be regenerated before he can believe (because of total depravity in TULIP). Calvinist misunderstand "total depravity" and have taken it way beyond what the bible means when it says man cannot save himself. Calvinist also because of this wrong starting point on total depravity, get the rest of it wrong as well, i.e., unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverence of the saints. Their theology is actually a complete concoction which starts with some very basic misunderstandings about anthropology. They are the hardest to reach and evangelize because of it. It's really tragic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am presently attending a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America) and am in the midst of reading and critiquing the Westminster Confession. However our church does not follow the liturgical year. At one time I attended a UCC church (United Church of Christ) and the pastor was from a Reformed Church background, so we did follow the liturgical year.

I was brought up American Baptist which had its fundamental teachings but no set confession or statement of faith. This leads to a lack of coherency between congregations since there can be a wide discrepancy between them as to belief and worship style. These days the freedom to ssek the truth in scripture that the denomination affords has lead to a great deal of heresy and I wouldn't be surprised if some congreagtions had become apostate.

I have read Calvin's biography and it does appear that he had an authoritarian state of mind. Was his the only Protestant attempt at systematic theology or did Luther do the same thing? Just because a person writes a book and believes he is right, doesn't mean that he is right. However it is true that the Protestant Church needed someone to try and identify what it meant to be Protestant.

Does the Arminian approach have a progenitor of sytematic theology or is it more of a composite as a reaction to Calvinism?

You will see most of your answers about Arminians here Arminianism: A Christian belief system about salvation

They are what I would call modified Calvinists... But the still hold to the principal of an "elect" few, If you are not amongst the the elect you can not be saved.
To me this is contrary to Jesus Teachings as he did not put a bar on people who he would save.

I doubt many even in a Calvinistic congregation, actually believe that teaching.

Luther as the instigator of the protestant break from the Catholic church had a fully
developed belief system that survives today in hundreds perhaps thousands of churches. It is best to do a web search as there are a vast number of links to chose from.
One of the most notable difference from the Catholic of the day, was the introduction of congregational singing, That more than anything else would have been the most noticeable change to a casual visitor. Much else of the service would have changed very little.

As to apostasy and heretics... these relate only in regard to a given Confession of faith or Creed. Most churches consider at least some other Christians to be heretics, as they have differing beliefs.

There is no definition for a heretic that is universal.

For my part I love the worship style of the Anglicans, but the freedom to study , think and believe of the non subscribing Presbyterians.

I find that combination gives me a far more tolerant foundation when faced with Christians with other persuasions.
However, They will be no more tolerant of my beliefs, as they are restricted by their own creeds.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

This would just leave us screwed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This would just leave us screwed.

What would leave who screwed in what way.?
Or is this a guessing game.?

 

[uu_sage]

As a Christian Universalist, I draw from some of Calvin's ideas including Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As a Christian Universalist, I draw from some of Calvin's ideas including Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

I did not know the UU's were that dogmatic about anything. Or is that a personal belief.

I have never heard of a christian universalist..
though we have christian unitarians here, but they are not calvanistic

 

[Muffled]

You will see most of your answers about Arminians here Arminianism: A Christian belief system about salvation

They are what I would call modified Calvinists... But the still hold to the principal of an "elect" few, If you are not amongst the the elect you can not be saved.
To me this is contrary to Jesus Teachings as he did not put a bar on people who he would save.

I doubt many even in a Calvinistic congregation, actually believe that teaching.

Luther as the instigator of the protestant break from the Catholic church had a fully
developed belief system that survives today in hundreds perhaps thousands of churches. It is best to do a web search as there are a vast number of links to chose from.
One of the most notable difference from the Catholic of the day, was the introduction of congregational singing, That more than anything else would have been the most noticeable change to a casual visitor. Much else of the service would have changed very little.

As to apostasy and heretics... these relate only in regard to a given Confession of faith or Creed. Most churches consider at least some other Christians to be heretics, as they have differing beliefs.

There is no definition for a heretic that is universal.

For my part I love the worship style of the Anglicans, but the freedom to study , think and believe of the non subscribing Presbyterians.

I find that combination gives me a far more tolerant foundation when faced with Christians with other persuasions.
However, They will be no more tolerant of my beliefs, as they are restricted by their own creeds.

I did a quick word study on "elect" but found no reference to a predetermination. Granted 'The Eelct' are referred to in the past tense but there is no reference as to what they were previously. Since the word means chosen, the question becomes who does the choosing. The answer is God of course: Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as God’s elect, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering;

That makes a lot of sense that the saved are God's chosen and the unsaved are not. The saved are determined by this: Ro 10:13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

For this reason Antinomialism would have to be seen as apostasy and an acceptance of sin rather than repentance is antithetical to salvation, so it is also apostasy. As far as I am concerned anything that controverts scripture is heretical. However I am not convinced that so called church authority automaticaly assures a position of orthodoxy with God's word.

I find that people have a great struggle to reach the truth when they are burdened by creeds and church authority. As for me it is Heb 12:2
Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith,

 

[Muffled]

As a Christian Universalist, I draw from some of Calvin's ideas including Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

If election were unconditional it wouldn't be election. When we choose a president we don't do it by putting everyone's name in a lottery and letting a computer select someone randomly nor does God do anything like that either. The invitation to salvation is universal but the acceptance of that invitation is not.
Mat 14:17 and he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If election were unconditional it wouldn't be election. When we choose a president we don't do it by putting everyone's name in a lottery and letting a computer select someone randomly nor does God do anything like that either. The invitation to salvation is universal but the acceptance of that invitation is not.
Mat 14:17 and he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse.

The problem with peoples understanding of salvation is about when it occurs.
I would maintain it can only occur at our judgment.

Simply by accepting Jesus into their lives, People say they are saved when they are not. Sins are not forgiven till we repent, the final repentance can only occur after death.

What God offers, is Love and the holy spirit to guide all men along with the offer of Salvation...We still have to accept that offer, follow the teachings of Jesus and repent our sins. This is a continuing process, one is never saved for all time, come what may.

Before we can return to God we are stripped of our sins. Before we can enter into His presence we must be pure. For some that will mean only their original perfect souls will return. Self will be stripped along with the burden of sin.
I do not believe imperfection can exist in the prescence of God.

I believe this process is universal to all men Christian or not.

Salvation is a gift not a prize. It is Dependant on the grace of God and his judgment of us.

So what is the benefit of being Christian?

It is simply knowing these things... and having the teachings of Jesus to guide us.The more we let God into our lives, the more perfect will those lives be.

 

[Muffled]

The problem with peoples understanding of salvation is about when it occurs.
I would maintain it can only occur at our judgment.

Simply by accepting Jesus into their lives, People say they are saved when they are not. Sins are not forgiven till we repent, the final repentance can only occur after death.

What God offers, is Love and the holy spirit to guide all men along with the offer of Salvation...We still have to accept that offer, follow the teachings of Jesus and repent our sins. This is a continuing process, one is never saved for all time, come what may.

Before we can return to God we are stripped of our sins. Before we can enter into His presence we must be pure. For some that will mean only their original perfect souls will return. Self will be stripped along with the burden of sin.
I do not believe imperfection can exist in the prescence of God.

I believe this process is universal to all men Christian or not.

Salvation is a gift not a prize. It is Dependant on the grace of God and his judgment of us.

So what is the benefit of being Christian?

It is simply knowing these things... and having the teachings of Jesus to guide us.The more we let God into our lives, the more perfect will those lives be.

I am not sure which judgement you are referring to, the one when we die or the one at the judgement seat of Christ. Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This is not salvation from sin existentially but extemporaneously.

This is a salvation from judgement and is based on our willingness to be saved. Rom 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The salvation from sin usually takes some working out and salvation from other people's sins still remains problematic.

I suppose this depends on how you view forgiveness. If you see it as an absolution from judgement, I don't think that is true even for a Christian but if it is viewed as a removal of enmity between us and God then that is ture for everyone.

It is unlikely that repentence is complete after death.

This presupposes that some who are not Christian will make it to Heaven or The Kingdom of God. It could not be said of those who don't make it.

Jesus is our savior. Non-Christians have to try to save themselves.

This is true for anyone but it is more possible for Christians.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. I believe that repentence is possible - in fact, REQUIRED, at each of these junctures.

I believe that Christ's offered salvation for me was begun on the cross. I believe that his sacrifice is once and eternal - that moment of sacrifice transcends time and space and that my sins not yet committed were paid for at that moment and for all eternity.

When I accept the sacrifice of Christ, part of that acceptance is repentence.

When I walk with Christ, this requires repentence along life's way.

When I stand before Christ at the final judgment, I will fall on my knees in repentence.

So no, I don't believe that salvation is a moment that can be pinpointed - "On October 27, 2003 I became a Christian," doesn't jive with my personal beliefs.

Even the apostle Paul said that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling - this implies a daily journey full of introspection, repentence, forgiveness, and grace.

 

[logician]

One big problem with most protestant religions is that they were strongly based in anti-semitism. Just read the works of Luther to see where he stood on the matter.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

One big problem with most protestant religions is that they were strongly based in anti-semitism. Just read the works of Luther to see where he stood on the matter.

I am not sure how that fits into the OP, about Calvinism.

Luther might well have had anti semitic leanings, but I do not know that to be a fact.
The view that the Jews had killed Jesus, so were responsible for killing God's Son, has been common amongst Cristian's down through the ages. This may have led to quite severe anti-semitic outpourings and attacks from time to time. For much of European history the Jews have been tolerated rather than welcomed. If it were not for their freedom to lend money for interest, whilst Christians were banned by the religious laws against usury, they might have found life even more difficult.

To say that protestant Christians based their religion on anti-semitism is far from the truth. Neither the Protestants nor the Catholics of past times had any great love of the Jews in their midst. However it was hardly a major preoccupation.

 

[Kathryn]

Luther and his teachings don't encompass Protestants. The Reformation happened pretty much simultaneously across Europe. Though Martin Luther's "95 Theses" is considered by most to have sparked the active reformation, there were others before him who introduced the ideas, such as John Wycliffe and Johannes Hus. The English Reformation Movement did not incorporate anti Semitism into it's theology at all - and the churches spawned from the English Church are the Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist, and Presbyterian, to name a few.

The Anabaptists were a movement of their own, for centuries before the Reformation, and anti-Semitism was not a part of their teachings either.

Even the subsequent Lutheran Church soon distanced itself from Luther's teachings on "the Jewish question."

Martin Luther was, in many ways, mad as a march hare, and over time that became apparent in his writings and behavior. His initial call to action was not a break with the RC church, but rather reformation OF the Catholic Church. Martin Luther does not and never has accurately represented the core beliefs of most Protestants, either in his day, throughout the 17th through 20th centuries, or today.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. I believe that repentence is possible - in fact, REQUIRED, at each of these junctures.

I believe that Christ's offered salvation for me was begun on the cross. I believe that his sacrifice is once and eternal - that moment of sacrifice transcends time and space and that my sins not yet committed were paid for at that moment and for all eternity.

When I accept the sacrifice of Christ, part of that acceptance is repentence.

When I walk with Christ, this requires repentence along life's way.

When I stand before Christ at the final judgment, I will fall on my knees in repentence.

So no, I don't believe that salvation is a moment that can be pinpointed - "On October 27, 2003 I became a Christian," doesn't jive with my personal beliefs.

Even the apostle Paul said that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling - this implies a daily journey full of introspection, repentence, forgiveness, and grace.

I am willing to believe this if you can prove it with scripture. Who knows; I might learn someting in the process.

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.

There is general repentance and specific repentance. In genreal you decide to turn from sin to the goodness of God. However there will be sin in our lives until it is dealt with specifically and that requires repentance of that specific sin. I struggled with a sin for a long time (works doesn't work so well) before I finally handed it over to Jesus and it had been gone a long time before I even realized it was gone.

 

[logician]

I am not sure how that fits into the OP, about Calvinism.

.

To say that protestant Christians based their religion on anti-semitism is far from the truth. Neither the Protestants nor the Catholics of past times had any great love of the Jews in their midst. However it was hardly a major preoccupation.

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

 

[Smoke]

When I say that I am a "liturgical Christian" I mean that I observe the Liturgical Year. As a Christian who has been very much exposed and active in many, many Christian sects, I have to disagree with the assertion that most active Christians are liturgical.

The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Lutheran Churches, the Anglican Churches, and most congregations of the United Church of Christ are liturgical -- and there are others, too. All in all, probably at least 75 to 80 per cent of Christians belong to liturgical churches. Of course, we don't see much of that in the South, where it's overwhelmingly various sorts of Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal.

 

[Smoke]

As an adult, as I explored my own personal faith and developed my own set of beliefs, I slowly began to nearly LOATHE Calvin and Luther.

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