Changing the World Now... Calvinism

[ErikJohnson]

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.

;0)

--Erik

PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

[Elgama]

have to confess living in Scotland I see some of the worst of Calvinist history all around me, its been here for a good portion of its 500 years , and my views of the sect are based mostly off Robert Burns poetry. It seemed to be a major hotbed of hypocrisy, having said that the church of my youth that I attended most frequently was great and Christlike. I do undestand where Daniel Peterson is coming from so did Burns:) His Ode to His Love Begotten Daughter, Ode to a Louse, Holy Willie's Prayer etc highlight his views.

Like with all faiths for me it holds some truth, misses a lot and is not where God wants me to be. I don't know if you can work out the language but have included Holy Willie's Prayer

O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,

As it pleases best Thysel',

Sends aen to Heaven an' ten to Hell,

For Thy glory,

And no for onie or ill

They've done afore Thee!

I bless and praise Thy matchless might,

When thousands Thou hast left in night,

That I am here afore Thy sight,

For gifts an' grace

A burning and a shining light

To a' this place.

What was I, or my generation,

That I should get sic exaltation?

I wha deserv'd most just damnation

For broken laws,

Six thousand years 'ere my creation,

Thro' Adam's cause.

When from my mither's womb I fell,

Thou might hae plung'd me deep in hell,

To gnash my gums, and weep and wail,

In burnin lakes,

Where damned devils roar and yell,

Chain'd to their stakes.

Yet I am here a chosen sample,

To show thy grace is great and ample;

I'm here a pillar o' Thy temple,

Strong as a rock,

A guide, a buckler, and example,

To a' Thy flock.

O Lord, Thou kens what zeal I bear,

When drinkers drink, an' swearers swear,

An' singing here, an' dancin there,

Wi' great and sma';

For I am keepit by Thy fear

Free frae them a'.

But yet, O Lord! confess I must,

At times I'm fash'd wi' fleshly lust:

An' sometimes, too, in worldly trust,

Vile self gets in;

But Thou remembers we are dust,

Defil'd wi' sin.

O Lord! yestreen, Thou kens, wi' Meg

Thy pardon I sincerely beg;

O may't ne'er be a livin' plague

To my dishonour,

An' I'll ne'er lift a lawless leg

Again upon her.

Besides, I farther maun avow,

Wi' Leezie's lass, three times I trow -

But Lord, that Friday I was fou,

When I cam near her;

Or else, Thou kens, Thy servant true

Wad never steer her.

Maybe Thou lets this fleshly thorn

Buffet Thy servant e'en and morn,

Lest he owre proud and high shou'd turn,

That he's sae gifted:

If sae, Thy han' maun e'en be borne,

Until Thou lift it.

Lord, bless Thy chosen in this place,

For here Thou has a chosen race!

But God confound there stuborn face,

An' blast their name,

Wha brings Thy elders to disgrace

An' open shame.

Lord, mind Gaw'n Hamilton's deserts;

He drinks, an' swears, an' plays at cartes,

Yet has sae mony takin arts,

Wi' great an' sma',

Frae God's ain priest the people's hearts

He steals awa'.

And when we chasten'd him therefore,

Thou kens how he bred sic a splore,

And set the world in a roar

O' laughing at us;

Curse Thou his basket and his store,

Kail an' potatoes.

Lord, hear my earnest cry and pray'r,

Against that Presbyt'ry o' Ayr;

Thy strong right hand, Lord mak it bare

Upo' their heads;

Lord visit them, an' dinna spare,

For their misdeeds.

O Lord my God! that glib-tongu'd Aitken,

My vera heart an' flesh are quakin,

To think how we stood sweatin, shakin,

An' pish'd wi' dread,

While he, wi' hingin lip an' snakin,

Held up his head.

Lord, in Thy day o' vengeance try him,

Lord, visit them wha did employ him,

And pass not in Thy mercy by them,

Nor hear their pray'r,

But for Thy people's sake destroy them,

An' dinna spare.

But, Lord, remember me an' mine

Wi' mercies temporal and divine,

That I for grace an' gear may shine,

Excell'd by nane,

And a' the glory shall be Thine,

Amen, Amen!

Epitaph on Holy Willie

[NeuroTypical]

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Yeah, I second Erik's suggestion that you go find Dan Peterson's threads on the subject, and put them in context. For example, here's Dan clarifying his comments, responding to the poster he was conversing with:

I imagine that this will show up in some future propaganda item that you publish. Too bad. I thought we were just having a conversation. You made some rather negative comments about my religious beliefs; I have never said a word about yours, but decided that you should realize, at least on this one occasion, that it's a two-way street.

But now that I know that you're playing "gotcha" and looking for ammo for your publications, I'll understand better how to interact with you in the future. (Like, preferably not at all.) My mistake. I should have realized it.

Here's where things actually stand:

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker. But I find "Five-Point" Calvinism exceptionally unappealing -- one of the most unattractive religious options on the planet, to be completely candid -- and cannot remotely imagine why anybody would find it "good news." (Well, actually I can figure why some would: I'm reminded of what a prominent Arminian theologian told me one night over dinner: He said that he would think more highly of Calvinism and Calvinist theologians if he had ever met even one who, while professing belief in "unconditional election," didn't believe himself to be among those foreordained to be saved. But, although he had spoken with scores and scores of Calvinist theoreticians, he said he had never met any who were not confident that they were destined for heaven. Hell is for everybody else.) I recall a lengthy conversation with one of cksalmon's fellow Calvinist anti-Mormons some years ago. We were talking about the fact that the majority of those predestined to salvation appeared to be northern Europeans and descendants of northern Europeans. I raised the matter of the Chinese. "Maybe God doesn't like the Chinese," responded the good reverend's wife. I've pondered that remarkable comment for several years now.

Yet I do not write, publish, or edit attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists. The only things I've ever published on the subject have been either positive or, at worst, neutral and explanatory. I participate in no "ministry" to counter Calvinism. I've never picketed any meeting of Calvinists, or opposed the construction of any Calvinist place of worship. I don't go on Calvinist message boards, or any other message boards, to criticize Calvinism.

In response to unprovoked negative remarks about my religious beliefs here on this thread, I for once stated my own personal reaction to Calvinist dogma here, and now one of the saved elite, not content to contemplate my imminent and everlasting torture as among those (probably the vast majority of the human race) foreordained to damnation, evidently intends to use it as a weapon against me in some of the anti-Mormon materials that he produces. And he apparently feels very good about this.

I'd hazard a guess that Erik seconds that good feeling.

LM

[WANDERER]

Perhaps those that believe they are predestined for salvation are actually right...may perhaps be a self-fulfilling prophecy ...certainly the concept of being a 'chosen people' is not unique. On the other hand you have to continue to maintain the belief that you are predestined and will act in a 'saved way' for your entire life...otherwise you might fit into the oposing category.

The we think we have it right and are saved and they have it wrong and are not saved concept is not a Calvinist monopoly. Predestination or 'more valiant spirits' ????

Heh heh, all sorts of fun scenarios from predestination, you may be predestined to believe that you are predestined to be saved when really you are not....a bit of a headspin. Admittedly I don't know enough about Calvinism to understand it.

Edited March 22, 2009 by wandering

[Snow]

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

I don't know about abhorrence but it certainly does paint a picture of an immoral god if by moral we mean just, fair and benevolent.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Snow

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

I think there made a move by some evanglelicals to look for a deeper theology than is sometimes presented especially in evanglelism driven mega churches and some pentecostal churches. Calvinism is a thorough and complex system having some very capable defenders over the years even from an evanglelical angle. (Spurgeon, Whitefield)

However my guess is that it will at most be 4 point rather than 5 point. Limited atonement I think is never likely to be widely held. Billy Graham, the evanglelical movemen and the odd "bannerman" has made John 3:16 ubquitious, as almost the most well known verse in the bible. I know people manage to get around it but "...God so loved the world..." tends to cause problems if your veiw is that God only loves the "elect" (and the corollary from Rom 9 that God hates the "non-elect".)

I was tempted to Calvinism (four point) cause I longed to maintain the sovereignty of God. However for me, placing God outside the human time continuum resolved my issues. No need to try work out fore-knowledge and predestination with a God that "fore-exists" our entire time spectrum. The "elect" are already in eternity (outside of time) and hence are already elected before they or God decide in the here and now of our time.

As for Jean Calvin, even though he had brilliant mind, how I can I celebrate a man who supported judicial execution for believers of credo-baptism (believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism). Michael Servetus was condemned to death for denying the trinity and infant baptism. No man should ever be executed solely on account of his beliefs.

On a lighter note, and with all due respect to your church and its leadership, which form all reports is excellent, there is however one thing that I and vast majority of reformed believers do hold in common. Reformed credo-baptist is an oxymoron.

Edited March 22, 2009 by AnthonyB

[gabelpa]

For me,God's foreknowledge of events does not equal predestination. Mortality is our journey, not God's. He may know where we will wind up, who will be "saved" and who not, but we do not know.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.

;0)

--Erik

PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

I do share Dr. Peterson view on Calvinism.

As a believer in the Book of Mormon, but not LDS, I wouldn't approach them with this view as a warm up session. :) I would, as any Book of Mormon Believer should do, invite them the read the Book of Mormon and pray to Heavenly Father about it, waiting for the fruit of the Spirit to confirm it's validity. I would then share the verses that speak of how Jesus invites ALL men to come unto Him and how we are not merely creatures to be acted upon, but we have a choice whether to follow God or not.

By the way I love Pastor Mark, he is just simply wrong on this issue.

[ErikJohnson]

Erik,

I think there made a move by some evanglelicals to look for a deeper theology than is sometimes presented especially in evanglelism driven mega churches and some pentecostal churches. Calvinism is a thorough and complex system having some very capable defenders over the years even from an evanglelical angle. (Spurgeon, Whitefield)

However my guess is that it will at most be 4 point rather than 5 point. Limited atonement I think is never likely to be widely held. Billy Graham, the evanglelical movemen and the odd "bannerman" has made John 3:16 ubquitious, as almost the most well known verse in the bible. I know people manage to get around it but "...God so loved the world..." tends to cause problems if your veiw is that God only loves the "elect" (and the corollary from Rom 9 that God hates the "non-elect".)

I was tempted to Calvinism (four point) cause I longed to maintain the sovereignty of God. However for me, placing God outside the human time continuum resolved my issues. No need to try work out fore-knowledge and predestination with a God that "fore-exists" our entire time spectrum. The "elect" are already in eternity (outside of time) and hence are already elected before they or God decide in the here and now of our time.

As for Jean Calvin, even though he had brilliant mind, how I can I celebrate a man who supported judicial execution for believers of credo-baptism (believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism). Michael Servetus was condemned to death for denying the trinity and infant baptism. No man should ever be executed solely on account of his beliefs.

On a lighter note, and with all due respect to your church and its leadership, which form all reports is excellent, there is however one thing that I and vast majority of reformed believers do hold in common. Reformed credo-baptist is an oxymoron.

Limited atonement does seem to be a frequent sticking point, even at Mars Hill. It's considered an open-handed issue.

Regarding Servetus, Wikipedia gives a pretty even-handed treatment of what is obviously a difficult matter for admirers of John Calvin.

John Calvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Erik

[ErikJohnson]

I'd hazard a guess that Erik seconds that good feeling.

LM

No need for you to guess, LM, I'll be glad to share my thoughts on the matter. Daniel Peterson made a highly inflammatory statement and got called out on it. So what does he do (in the quote you provided)? He throws out an outrageous strawman ("God doesn't like the Chinese") and then follows up with an assertion of his seemingly perpetual victimhood ("a weapon against me"). I'll leave it to fans of FAIR/MA&DB to decide if there's any pattern here...

--Erik

[Giant_Son]

No need for you to guess, LM, I'll be glad to share my thoughts on the matter. Daniel Peterson made a highly inflammatory statement and got called out on it. So what does he do (in the quote you provided)? He throws out an outrageous strawman ("God doesn't like the Chinese") and then follows up with an assertion of his seemingly perpetual victimhood ("a weapon against me"). I'll leave it to fans of FAIR/MA&DB to decide if there's any pattern here...

--Erik

Calvinism doesn't make any sense to me (in light of Christ's message of commandments of faith, repentance, baptism, etc.) and seems to erase personal responsibility - two things that are sacred (commandments and free agency) to Mormons.

[Giant_Son]

Calvinism is not believed by most Christians today and the arguments are very convincing. Why do you believe in the 4.5 points of Calvinism?

[AnthonyB]

Giant,

I'm not personally a Calvinist but its proponents generally think it maintains God's sovereignty and that he gets the maximum glory from their scheme. Read Rom 9, it is the great "proof" text of Calvinism.

[ErikJohnson]

Calvinism doesn't make any sense to me (in light of Christ's message of commandments of faith, repentance, baptism, etc.) and seems to erase personal responsibility - two things that are sacred (commandments and free agency) to Mormons.

The link I provided under "Five Points" in my OP may be of use to you, Giant_Son. It's to an article by John Piper (who is also mentioned in the TIME Magazine article). Reformed theology certainly doesn't "erase personal responsibility." The fact of a Sovereign God doesn't relieve anyone of their duty, or their accountability for thought, word, and deed. It's useful to remember that while God wills the ends, He also wills the means to the ends.

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?

--Erik

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

The link I provided under "Five Points" in my OP may be of use to you, Giant_Son. It's to an article by John Piper (who is also mentioned in the TIME Magazine article). Reformed theology certainly doesn't "erase personal responsibility." The fact of a Sovereign God doesn't relieve anyone of their duty, or their accountability for thought, word, and deed. It's useful to remember that while God wills the ends, He also wills the means to the ends.

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?

--Erik

I had to endure a week of John MacAurthur speaking about it on Christian radio. I'm all 5-Point Calvinisted out.

[Snow]

Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?

--Erik

I read it. I don't have a thought - rather a question. Is the article correct that Calvinism holds that God orchestrates everything? Even serial killing and child-molesting?

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

From the article...

"These five points are still at the heart of Biblical theology."

Sort of presumes that no body but calvinists have a biblical theology, I think of "a" biblical theology or calvinistic bible theology would show a little more humility.

As for the role call of great Calvinists, I think I could muster a role of great Arminianists to match. Matching the respective teams, you'd have Wesley to Whitefield, Booth to Mueller, Moody to Spurgeon I shan't continue but you get the idea. (I don't know who to place on Augustine but then I would struggle to find a Calvinists to play against Smith Wigglesworth (Gotta include someone from PC's mob in the Arminian team line-up, given the numbers there adding to the Arminian side, but there just isn't a lot of Calvinist miracle workers\evanglelists to choose from and no.... the Calvinists can't draft Paul.)

The following is a personal observation and I'm happy to be corrected.

I sometimes feel when reading Calvinist material that they find it inconceivable that anyone of good will, intellect and spiritual integrity could take a contrary veiw of theology. Yet as I listed above any number of what I consider great man of God have differed on these issues.

Edited March 23, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Faded]

Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Erik, I think that other responders have adequately covered the matter of your taking Professor Peterson's comments greatly out of context. Do Latter Day Saints believe in many of the advances and teachings of the Reformation? Yes. Do we unquestioningly accept all of those teachings the Reformers came up with? No. When it comes to John Calvin, it is his teaching of predestination that we disagree with. It is not to say that John Calvin did not do a lot of good things. Without him, Martin Luther, John Hus, and a long list of others, the Restoration through Joseph Smith would not have been made possible.

I can promise you that if any group of Latter Day Saints were to organize themselves to target and attack other religions (which is EXACTLY what anti-Mormon elements do withing Protestant faiths) then the General Authorities would see to shutting it down, post-haste.

There is the saying, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Anti-Mormon hate propaganda gives absolutely no heed to that bit of wisdom, and consistently places the LDS religion into question. Each of those types of questions, if redirected at the rest of Christian faiths, could not be adequately answered by any of them either. But we do not return fire as a matter of principal. Every Christian faith has a history that could be thrown under microscope and picked apart but apparently it is only popular to do so to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

This hate mongering is not God's will. He intends for all those who follow him, Catholic, Latter Day Saint, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc. to get along, work together for good, and not act like spoiled children fighting over the same toy.

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

No modification would be required. We view the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all the faith and hard work on the part of Christians for these many centuries. What we have received completes what was received before, it does not destroy it. We acknowledge that God works within every Christian denomination. We have received more information from God and simply ask all to come and see it.

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.

;0)

--Erik

Easily done. You do realize that you've failed to "play nice" on more than one occasion, right? I hope that is in the past now.

PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)"—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

I may very well do something like that. What is the exact birth date? Edited March 23, 2009 by Faded

[Faded]

Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?

--Erik

Yes I read it. Calvinist elements have been on the decline in recent decades, or so I've heard. Anything that would re-energize any Christian religion is good news. We live in times where far too many are turning their backs on religion altogether. We'll see how it all goes for them from here.

[Faded]

No need for you to guess, LM, I'll be glad to share my thoughts on the matter. Daniel Peterson made a highly inflammatory statement and got called out on it. So what does he do (in the quote you provided)? He throws out an outrageous strawman ("God doesn't like the Chinese") and then follows up with an assertion of his seemingly perpetual victimhood ("a weapon against me"). I'll leave it to fans of FAIR/MA&DB to decide if there's any pattern here...

--Erik

I think that referencing Peterson at all was in extremely bad taste Erik. Here is why:

1.) You open a discussion about the upcoming 500th birthday of John Calvin, then you link the article talking about Calvinism going more Evangelical.

2.) Next you had to throw in a quote to demonstrate a complete non-truth. "You Mormons HATE Calvinism!! I have the quote to prove it RIGHT HERE!!" That's inflammatory and had absolutely nothing to do with the topic your were presenting.

3.) You leave the suggestion hanging there that all Mormons are religious bigots and expect it to not bother anyone.

If you can find all of the people who have ever said anything inflammatory about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and call on them to repent of their terrible behavior, you will seem a lot less hypocritical to me. You don't have to go digging for inflammatory comments from other faiths about us and you could spend the rest of your life trying to convince them to stop their unChristian behavior. There is so many of them and so much hateful propaganda against Mormonism that you'll never make a dent if you spent every waking hour of the rest of your life trying.

Matthew 7:3-5

[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

The Anti-Mormon organizations throughout all Christian religions have heaped up a mountain of inflammatory and hateful statements, yet most Christian faiths do nothing to discourage them. Can you forgive Brother Peterson for his small mole-hill of similar statements, while not treating the Anti-Mormons with the same sense of zealous indignation?

I think the grown up thing to do would be to delete the remarks, and continue with the discussion. Poisoning the discussion from the start is very bad form.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Faded

[Giant_Son]

The link I provided under "Five Points" in my OP may be of use to you, Giant_Son. It's to an article by John Piper (who is also mentioned in the TIME Magazine article). Reformed theology certainly doesn't "erase personal responsibility." The fact of a Sovereign God doesn't relieve anyone of their duty, or their accountability for thought, word, and deed. It's useful to remember that while God wills the ends, He also wills the means to the ends.

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?

--Erik

Erik, I'll read your link. In the article, it says, "a rock-stead deity that orchestrates everything ..." Does "everything" include our words, thoughts, and actions? Thanks for the additional link explaining more about Calvinism. I'm always interested in learning more about what others believe.

[Snow]

Eric,

Could you address post number 16?

[ErikJohnson]

I read it. I don't have a thought - rather a question. Is the article correct that Calvinism holds that God orchestrates everything? Even serial killing and child-molesting?

Good question. The short answer is that God is in control and He wills ALL actions, including sinful acts. Yet God does not sin.

For a more complete explanation, I'd turn again to John Piper--"Are There Two Wills in God?" Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

There’s a reason Piper gets a mention in a secular magazine’s top ten list—you'll find he's a pretty thoughtful guy. Scroll down to "How Extensive Is the Sovereign Will of God?" if you don't want to read the whole thing.

An excerpt--

There are passages that ascribe to God the final control over all calamities and disasters wrought by nature or by man. Amos 3:6, "Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? Isaiah 45:7, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things." Lamentations 3:37-38, "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" Noteworthy in these texts is that the calamities in view involve human hostilities and cruelties that God would disapprove of even as he wills that they be.

BTW, if you find this troubling, consider the alternative--a God who is not in control, a spectator who must await the outcome of human initiative and/or submit to other forces. Would such a being be worthy of worship?

--Erik

[Giant_Son]

Good question. The short answer is that God is in control and He wills ALL actions, including sinful acts. Yet God does not sin.

For a more complete explanation, I'd turn again to John Piper--"Are There Two Wills in God?" Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

There’s a reason Piper gets a mention in a secular magazine’s top ten list—you'll find he's a pretty thoughtful guy. Scroll down to "How Extensive Is the Sovereign Will of God?" if you don't want to read the whole thing.

An excerpt--

There are passages that ascribe to God the final control over all calamities and disasters wrought by nature or by man. Amos 3:6, "Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? Isaiah 45:7, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things." Lamentations 3:37-38, "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" Noteworthy in these texts is that the calamities in view involve human hostilities and cruelties that God would disapprove of even as he wills that they be.

BTW, if you find this troubling, consider the alternative--a God who is not in control, a spectator who must await the outcome of human initiative and/or submit to other forces. Would such a being be worthy of worship?

--Erik

Thanks for the reply, Erik. I disagree with your conclusions, but I like to hear why someone believes the way they do.

Another question: In your beliefs, can someone be elect and saved and not know it? Does someone have to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept it to be saved?

Edited March 24, 2009 by Giant_Son

[Snow]

Good question. The short answer is that God is in control and He wills ALL actions, including sinful acts. Yet God does not sin.

For a more complete explanation, I'd turn again to John Piper--"Are There Two Wills in God?" Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

There’s a reason Piper gets a mention in a secular magazine’s top ten list—you'll find he's a pretty thoughtful guy. Scroll down to "How Extensive Is the Sovereign Will of God?" if you don't want to read the whole thing.

An excerpt--

There are passages that ascribe to God the final control over all calamities and disasters wrought by nature or by man. Amos 3:6, "Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? Isaiah 45:7, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things." Lamentations 3:37-38, "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" Noteworthy in these texts is that the calamities in view involve human hostilities and cruelties that God would disapprove of even as he wills that they be.

BTW, if you find this troubling, consider the alternative--a God who is not in control, a spectator who must await the outcome of human initiative and/or submit to other forces. Would such a being be worthy of worship?

--Erik

Thank you for the answer.

It's well and good to say that God wills serial killing and child abuse (for example) but God does not sin. But HOW is it that God wills evil into existence and will the commission of evil and yet is not evil.

God created reason for a reason. Can you explain it - hopefully without an appeal to mystery, which or course is not an answer.