Changing the World Now... Calvinism

[ErikJohnson]

“Deceitful interaction,” “hypocrisy,” “prime candidate for a professional anti-Mormon…”

Did you ever read Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, Maxel? It was Luther’s answer to Desiderius Erasmus's public attack against him. It’s a fiery read, and Luther pulls no punches. A sample—

“…you are an advocate for these most barbarous soul-murderers, who fill the world with hypocrites, and with such as blaspheme God and hate Him in their hearts...”

I’m flattering us both to even call their exchange to mind. And an irony perhaps, that while you may be closer to Luther’s style—I’m infinitely closer to his theology.

The greater irony, of course, is that the guy you accuse of deception posts under his own name, with his own photo, makes full disclosure of his LDS background and current beliefs, and even discloses that his account was terminated on another board. That’s me. I abide by the board’s code of conduct, and I even treated one of the senior mods to breakfast a couple months back. I’m the sort of poster who would happily buy his fellow poster a beer (a non-alcohol variety, for LDS) if he was anywhere near Seattle. It’s an irony that only the most partisan could miss, I would think.

All that said, I do enjoy our discussions overall and I would like to address the substance of your response. In order—

The crux of your argument lies on the idea that Calvinism is biblical- and any theology being 'biblical' relies largely on one's own interpretation of the Bible (unless you're willing to think that by reason alone you have come to the correct conclusion). Sola scriptura is not true doctrine, and is contrary to the actual methods and purposes of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient to interpret itself- sola scriptura is circular reasoning based in falsehood, although the intention that bred its origin- an attempt to break away from the unrighteous dominion caused by men in power misinterpreting the Bible through pretended prophetic authority- wasn't bad. However, the time for belief in sola scriptura and other like doctrines is past- it is no longer the most true doctrine to be found on the earth (if it ever was).

I’m thinking the Five Solas merit their own thread. But I am interested that you (or any LDS) think there ever was a time for the first of these doctrines. Sola Scriptura posits the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Now if this was true 500 or a 1000 years ago—it could be no less true today, since neither God nor His Word have changed. Do you say otherwise?

And consider—

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If Scripture is the means to be thoroughly equipped for every good work—on what grounds can you say that it is insufficient? Is there something more thorough than “thoroughly?” Is there something more inclusive than “every?” And is the passage so difficult to understand that we cannot trust its meaning and must look outside of Scripture for an interpretation?

Personally, I think Calvinism has some true doctrine but it does not have other crucial doctrine- thus it offers an unbalanced view of God and His nature. Is it good that Calvinism is emerging more? In my opinion, yes and no. Some of Calvinist doctrine is utterly distasteful; other doctrine is good.

I’m intrigued. Please tell us what good you (or any LDS) find in Calvinist teaching.

More than this. I need examples of charitable work (of any kind) being sparked by Calvinism. In the article, the only result listed of Calvinism's reemergence has been "kirmishes among the Southern Baptists... and online flame wars". Judging solely from the article and my own (very scant) knowledge of Calvinist theology, its comeback seems to breed more ill than good.

That’s certainly fair. By their fruits you will know them. If you’re in the mood for a little history lesson via Wikipedia—look up the following names (all Reformed Christian missionaries) and see their works and legacy: William Carey, David Brainerd, William Chalmers Burns, John Eliot. As for Mars Hill Church in Seattle (where I am a member), the Church engages in outreach with the Union Gospel Mission (a large downtown homeless shelter), supports North Helpline (a local food bank), World Vision (international aid and child sponsorships), and Vision Nationals (church planting and relief work in India, Thailand, and Napal). And in addition, 10 percent of all tithe offerings are contributed to church planting via the Acts 29 Network. Google any of this if you want to know more.

Regarding online flame wars (e.g., where some posters accuse other posters of being “deceitful” and guilty of “hypocrisy”)—you haven’t been hanging out on Southern Baptist message boards too, have you Maxel?

Just kidding. I made a joke. And methinks you had it coming…

;0)

But notice I gave you a nice balanced article to read, some cons to go with the pros. I’m not here to shill anyone’s propaganda. You’ll give me a point for that, right?

Perhaps you missed Peterson's words explaining his stance and why he said what he said? Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him: if the idea that 'God just doesn't like certain groups of people' is a natural fruit of Calvinist belief, then the system is false and repugnant. The question then becomes 'is the idea that God doesn't like certain people a natural fruit of Calvinism'?

How could I miss an explanation like that! To suggest, as Dr. Peterson did, that a logical outcome of Calvinism is that, “God doesn’t like Chinese” does the conversation no favors. It’s plainly outrageous, and I have difficulty imagining a BYU professor wouldn’t know better (though I’ll concede the possibility he really doesn’t). If you find some appeal in Peterson’s logic—you might pay special attention to William Chalmers Burns in the names I listed above. Or you might take a moment to educate yourself about what God is accomplishing there today. I trust the empirical evidence alone will dissuade you from making any further defense of Dr. Peterson in this matter.

Furthermore, you should have told us why you couldn't link a direct quotation when you used Dr. Peterson's exact words. The fact that you've been banned from another LDS forum speaks volumes- although it is a legitimate reason for not being able to link the source.

I disclosed it in my intro thread, and even furnished a link to the post that got me banned. I’ve nothing to hide. Not sure it “speaks volumes”—but please judge for yourself.

First of all, Calvinism was only one system of Christian doctrine that was born from the Reformation. Secondly, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism had the whole truth. Yes, the Reformers were inspired, but that doesn't mean they were inspired to bring about the correct doctrine of Christ in their time. No one will deny that the impact of the Reformation reached far beyond the theological world: it helped to shake the Catholic Church's vice grip on the governments of the day and was the first step towards real religious liberty. Only men inspired of God could have spearheaded that reform.

I will open a dedicated thread to the Five Solas. I think it will be interesting to see if any LDS think the specific Protestant doctrines themselves were inspired of God or whether those doctrines were only inspired in the sense that God used them to bring about the religious shake-up and political outcomes associated with the Reformation. A means to an end. I’m guessing it’s going to be largely the latter, but perhaps we’ll get some insight into the doctrines themselves.

You overlook the fact that there are many cultural Christians who aren't converted in their hearts. Someone saying 'I'm a Christian!' doesn't mean much. They may or they may not actually believe.

Yes, and while this happens—it wasn’t the example I gave you. But I appreciate your instinctive skepticism. It’s something you and I have in common. And while we’re on the subject, have you considered the exact same observation can be made about LDS?

However, that's not the main reason I would bear my testimony of Christ (which means, by the way, to testify that Christ is the Savior of mankind and God- you should know that if you were truly ever "formidable in Gospel Doctrine" classes). When a person bears testimony through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost affirms the truth of it in the listeners if they are susceptible to the message (that is, if they are prepared and their hearts are softened enough). The power of testimony is that it transcends the normal process of symbolic communication and speaks directly from one soul to another. Bearing testimony of Christ's divinity and the Book of Mormon is bearing my own testimony of some of my most precious spiritual feelings and the sharing of God's truth in the way that He has prescribed.

Interesting. I’ve shared my testimony with other believers and have been strengthened by others as well. For me, it’s different when I’m engaging with a non-believer. How I engage depends upon what I first learn from them about their background and how they’ve come to the views they hold. I definitely don’t take a cookie-cutter approach.

But you appear to treat any claim of Christian belief with skepticism, and hence you engage them all the same (if I understood you correctly). Out of curiosity, are you equally skeptical when someone professes LDS belief? Do you likewise witness to them, just in case they might be a “cultural” Mormon, going through the motions and mouthing the words for the sake of maintaining family relations or some other motivation? If not, why not?

I do enjoy and appreciate your posts, Maxel. Crazy busy these days, so it may take me a week or two to respond, but I’ll get to it.

--Erik