Yes, some do dispute that particular letter’s authenticity. There are other letters with similar quotes that are not disputed. So what is not fake, is Calvin’s political executions of spiritual dissenters.
If anyone wants to follow Calvin that is their choice and I won’t demand their death because of it. As for me, I’ll follow Jesus and His teachings.
Yes, some do dispute that particular letter’s authenticity. There are other letters with similar quotes that are not disputed. So what is not fake, is Calvin’s political executions of spiritual dissenters.
If anyone wants to follow Calvin that is their choice and I won’t demand their death because of it. As for me, I’ll follow Jesus and His teachings.
I’m not particularly interested in following Calvin myself. Nonetheless, I do consider him a brother in Christ and, while certainly not without his flaws (some of them glaring) deserving of better treatment than to be casually slandered for various theological purposes—that’s even if he might not have returned the favor to us. ;)
Yes, some do dispute that particular letter’s authenticity. There are other letters with similar quotes that are not disputed. So what is not fake, is Calvin’s political executions of spiritual dissenters.
If anyone wants to follow Calvin that is their choice and I won’t demand their death because of it. As for me, I’ll follow Jesus and His teachings.
I’m not particularly interested in following Calvin myself.
Nonetheless, I do consider him a brother in Christ and, while certainly not without his flaws (some of them glaring) deserving of better treatment than to be casually slandered for various theological purposes—that’s even if he might not have returned the favor to us. ;)
I’ve already said that Calvin was not alone in executing disedents. And inspite of his actions, Calvin’s writings have a place in the broader context of church history. I do believe however, that his actions should not be overlooked when we seek to define a movement after him.
The point is that a movement (ie theological system) was named after Calvin’s work and 500 years later ‘bloggers’ are using the term ‘God of Calvinsim’. It is that dangerous elevation of Calvinism that I am highlighting.
Hi JC. I am not even close to interested in getting in a debate about Calvinism but I think you might not be seeing the fact that Calvinists believe that it is nothing less than the teaching of scripture. Somewhat like a person saying they are Trinitarian. It’s not about the man himself (in most cases) it’s about what Calvinism teaches.In other words it is not an either or.
I don’t even use the term “Calvinism,” honestly, preferring “Reformed Theology.” “Calvinism” is a minimalist term generally referring to a particular soteriology. But if you have to name the system of soteriology after a man, “Augustinianism” would probably be more accurate. Calvin certainly never saw himself as innovating anything. His theology stands in the best tradition of the Western church, stripped of the medieval accretions. Frankly, most Arminians and “Biblicists” don’t even realize the extent to which their own thought is indebted to Calvin, as well as to many others—Reformers, Patristic authors, medieval theologians, etc. What they think as “just the plain Word of God speaking to them” didn’t just drop out of thin air. Our theological constructs have a heritage: a lot of brilliant men have thought deeply and often about Scripture, and have passed down the fruits of the labors to us.
When you say “Augustianism” as a system of soteriology - what exactly do you mean? Is there a place that I could look into this?
The point is that a movement (ie theological system) was named after Calvin’s work and 500 years later ‘bloggers’ are using the term ‘God of Calvinsim’. It is that dangerous elevation of Calvinism that I am highlighting.
As someone who has no desire to be labelled with the “calvinist” brush or label, the quote that someone wrote above sums up my distaste for the term. I am sick to death of Calvinism being treated as the sine qua non of Christianity. Christianity was around long before Calvin, or Arminius, or Augustine.
Someone who alters their treatment of another believer because they are not ‘calvinistic’ enough introduces strife into the body of Christ. Period, end of story. It would do a lot of Calvinist preachers (as opposed to Gospel preachers) to meditate on this passage instead of reading yet another textbook on the superiority of their system:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. ForJews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
It appears to me that JC started off this thread missing the entire point of Wilson’s article and then the thread has followed from there. JC, what do you think of Olson’s statements that even if God were revealed to truly be the “God of Calvinism” (note this is only Wilson describing what Olson is saying about God) that Olson would not worship Him?
------- Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor School of Divinity Liberty University
Olsen makes two problematic statements in his blog.
What if God is really the devil in disguise?
‘What if’ questions like these are never ending and dangerous when developing theology. e.g. “What if you and I don’t really exist?” How does posing such a hypothetical question, build up the body of Christ? We can have confidence in who God is, only because of what He has revealed. That is why we need to develop theology directly from the Bible.
If God were the ‘God of Calvinism’ (Wilson’s paraphrased term), I could not worship him.
Olsen says the God of Calvinism fails the ‘goodness’ test. While God is all-powerful, His power can’t break His declared Word. Remember the kids song “God can doing anything, but fail” If God were to break His word, then he would fail to be good and thus fail to be God. If God had not said that He shed his blood for all men, then it would be a different matter. But since God has paid the price for all, a theological system which says he has not (limited atonement) makes God a liar. So I think Olsen is trying to say he does not worship a God that is a liar.
_______________________
Finally, I wasn’t trying to miss the point in writing on this thread. Rather I was trying to make the point that in isolation, the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are limited. Each system emphasis one side of the coin, but neither side is the whole coin. It truly is liberating when we are free to grow in the knowledge of God without human frameworks. I’m happy to live with the mystery of Christ dying for all, and still loving Jacob while hating Esau.
Finally, I wasn’t trying to miss the point in writing on this thread. Rather I was trying to make the point that in isolation, the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are limited. Each system emphasis one side of the coin, but neither side is the whole coin. It truly is liberating when we are free to grow in the knowledge of God without human frameworks. I’m happy to live with the mystery of Christ dying for all, and still loving Jacob while hating Esau.
I appreciate the following statement made In JC’s blog post of 3 years ago:
“The Reformation was a necessary response to middle ages Roman Catholic Church doctrine and practice. Started by Martin Luther in Germany, subsequent European leaders (including John Calvin) moulded the reformation movement to their political and theological understandings. The Reformation was a precursor to great spiritual awakenings.”
He was contrasting the “Historical Reformed” with the “Neo-Reformed.” I agree that there is an important distinction to be drawn. In regard to the “whole coin” JC mentions above, I like the way Lorraine Boettner phrased it in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:
“The true solution of this difficult question respecting the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man, is not to be found in the denial of either but rather in such a reconciliation as gives full weight to each, yet which assigns a preëminence to the divine sovereignty corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator above the sinful creature.” (p. 208).
Discussion
NewDisputed letter maybe, fake claims, No.
Yes, some do dispute that particular letter’s authenticity. There are other letters with similar quotes that are not disputed. So what is not fake, is Calvin’s political executions of spiritual dissenters.
If anyone wants to follow Calvin that is their choice and I won’t demand their death because of it. As for me, I’ll follow Jesus and His teachings.
NewJC wrote:
Nonetheless, I do consider him a brother in Christ and, while certainly not without his flaws (some of them glaring) deserving of better treatment than to be casually slandered for various theological purposes—that’s even if he might not have returned the favor to us. ;)
NewAndrew K wrote:
I’ve already said that Calvin was not alone in executing disedents. And inspite of his actions, Calvin’s writings have a place in the broader context of church history. I do believe however, that his actions should not be overlooked when we seek to define a movement after him.
The point is that a movement (ie theological system) was named after Calvin’s work and 500 years later ‘bloggers’ are using the term ‘God of Calvinsim’. It is that dangerous elevation of Calvinism that I am highlighting.
NewWhy do we even need Calvinism?
Is not God’s Word Sufficient?
NewHi JC. I am not even close to
Hi JC. I am not even close to interested in getting in a debate about Calvinism but I think you might not be seeing the fact that Calvinists believe that it is nothing less than the teaching of scripture. Somewhat like a person saying they are Trinitarian. It’s not about the man himself (in most cases) it’s about what Calvinism teaches.In other words it is not an either or.
NewI don't even use the term
I don’t even use the term “Calvinism,” honestly, preferring “Reformed Theology.” “Calvinism” is a minimalist term generally referring to a particular soteriology.
But if you have to name the system of soteriology after a man, “Augustinianism” would probably be more accurate. Calvin certainly never saw himself as innovating anything. His theology stands in the best tradition of the Western church, stripped of the medieval accretions.
Frankly, most Arminians and “Biblicists” don’t even realize the extent to which their own thought is indebted to Calvin, as well as to many others—Reformers, Patristic authors, medieval theologians, etc. What they think as “just the plain Word of God speaking to them” didn’t just drop out of thin air. Our theological constructs have a heritage: a lot of brilliant men have thought deeply and often about Scripture, and have passed down the fruits of the labors to us.
New@AndrewK
When you say “Augustianism” as a system of soteriology - what exactly do you mean? Is there a place that I could look into this?
As someone who has no desire to be labelled with the “calvinist” brush or label, the quote that someone wrote above sums up my distaste for the term. I am sick to death of Calvinism being treated as the sine qua non of Christianity. Christianity was around long before Calvin, or Arminius, or Augustine.
Someone who alters their treatment of another believer because they are not ‘calvinistic’ enough introduces strife into the body of Christ. Period, end of story. It would do a lot of Calvinist preachers (as opposed to Gospel preachers) to meditate on this passage instead of reading yet another textbook on the superiority of their system:
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewIt appears to me that JC
It appears to me that JC started off this thread missing the entire point of Wilson’s article and then the thread has followed from there. JC, what do you think of Olson’s statements that even if God were revealed to truly be the “God of Calvinism” (note this is only Wilson describing what Olson is saying about God) that Olson would not worship Him?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
NewOlsen's questions.
Olsen makes two problematic statements in his blog.
What if God is really the devil in disguise?
‘What if’ questions like these are never ending and dangerous when developing theology. e.g. “What if you and I don’t really exist?” How does posing such a hypothetical question, build up the body of Christ? We can have confidence in who God is, only because of what He has revealed. That is why we need to develop theology directly from the Bible.
If God were the ‘God of Calvinism’ (Wilson’s paraphrased term), I could not worship him.
Olsen says the God of Calvinism fails the ‘goodness’ test. While God is all-powerful, His power can’t break His declared Word. Remember the kids song “God can doing anything, but fail” If God were to break His word, then he would fail to be good and thus fail to be God. If God had not said that He shed his blood for all men, then it would be a different matter. But since God has paid the price for all, a theological system which says he has not (limited atonement) makes God a liar. So I think Olsen is trying to say he does not worship a God that is a liar.
_______________________
Finally, I wasn’t trying to miss the point in writing on this thread. Rather I was trying to make the point that in isolation, the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are limited. Each system emphasis one side of the coin, but neither side is the whole coin. It truly is liberating when we are free to grow in the knowledge of God without human frameworks. I’m happy to live with the mystery of Christ dying for all, and still loving Jacob while hating Esau.
FWIW: This was also my position 3 years ago. http://teaminfocus.com.au/why-i-am-not-reformed/
NewReformed or not Reformed? Is that the question?
I appreciate the following statement made In JC’s blog post of 3 years ago:
“The Reformation was a necessary response to middle ages Roman Catholic Church doctrine and practice. Started by Martin Luther in Germany, subsequent European leaders (including John Calvin) moulded the reformation movement to their political and theological understandings. The Reformation was a precursor to great spiritual awakenings.”
He was contrasting the “Historical Reformed” with the “Neo-Reformed.” I agree that there is an important distinction to be drawn. In regard to the “whole coin” JC mentions above, I like the way Lorraine Boettner phrased it in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:
“The true solution of this difficult question respecting the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man, is not to be found in the denial of either but rather in such a reconciliation as gives full weight to each, yet which assigns a preëminence to the divine sovereignty corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator above the sinful creature.” (p. 208).
JSB