ATI vs VF, or, Calvinism vs Baptist

[BalconySmoker]

There are a lot of variations on the Calvinist theology too. There's like a spectrum of Calvinism, as some of them have a different understanding of TULIP and the passages they are derived from. The gamut runs from:

Westboro Baptist/ Fred Phelps = Ultra, Mega Batshit-insane Calvinists. A complete perversion of anything in the Bible or anything ever taught by John Calvin

Vision Forum/Doug Phillips = Very conservative, a lot of man-made rules that are nowhere in the Bible or even in any of Calvin's writings. Dumbass costumes.

Mars Hill/ Mark Driscoll = Conservative Calvinists wrapped in a hip package. Not as much focus on theology as the others.

Redeemer Presbyterian/ Timothy Keller = Conservative, but very reasonable and intelligent. A lot of theology apologetics stuff.

Random Presbyterian churches = May or may not be super liberal. There's one in my town that has female leadership and openly gay members.

It's a whole spectrum in Calvinism, just like in every other theological split.

[EmiGirl]

So to clarify, if Ray Comfort is a Calvinist then he believes he is preaching at people who have not yet found Jesus but if they are of the elect, they will hear the message and be saved. Those who never get saved were never meant to be. Do I have this right?

This goes against everything I was taught as a Christian and seems to go against many biblical verses.

Pretty much yes. That's why I can't subscribe to Calvinism.

[Janes Heir]

Where does John Piper fit in on the spectrum you described, BalconySmoker? I'm guessing a less "hip", brash Mark Driscoll?

I used to be quite interested in Anabaptism (coming from a tradition emphasizing religious liberty and Christian life vs the instant accepting-Jesus-works-like-magic of the magisterial reformation) and I used to assume Baptists were highly influenced by Anabaptism. Now I know that the link isn't direct and there's more Reformed influence, but I'm interested in Baptist history... both the precis and book-length explorations. Suggestions, thoughts, or links?

[uber frau]

Piper is an out-and-out Reformed Baptist. A daggier, less brash (and possibly a smidge less misogynistic-but only a smidge) Mark Driscoll is a good way of looking at him.

[BalconySmoker]

Piper is practically venerated by Mark Driscoll and his ilk. I've read a few of his books, and he is clearly reformed in theology. However, having not listened to any of his sermons I'm not sure how conservative he is. He doesn't come off as a misogynist, but he does hold "traditional" views regarding homosexuality and whatnot. So there's that.

My husband is a Calvinist, and attends an Acts 29 church (it was a network that used to be presided over by Driscoll, although they eventually suggested that he bow out because he is a divisive ass :lol: ). That's the only reason why I really even know anything about it. My knowledge is limited to the tender morsels I've gleaned from his bookshelf and iTunes library. I love my husband dearly, and his church friends are very kind to me..but I'm a little concerned that Calvinism is picking up speed in the mainstream. A lot of younger believers are gravitating towards this theology, his church is slowly getting more and more college-aged kids every Sunday.

Does anybody know if Sovereign Grace church plants are Calvinist? Their name implies they are, and some of the lyrics in their worship music makes me think they are. I couldn't find any more info though.

[BalconySmoker]

Where does John Piper fit in on the spectrum you described, BalconySmoker? I'm guessing a less "hip", brash Mark Driscoll?

I used to be quite interested in Anabaptism (coming from a tradition emphasizing religious liberty and Christian life vs the instant accepting-Jesus-works-like-magic of the magisterial reformation) and I used to assume Baptists were highly influenced by Anabaptism. Now I know that the link isn't direct and there's more Reformed influence, but I'm interested in Baptist history... both the precis and book-length explorations. Suggestions, thoughts, or links?

I think that the modern Reformed influence has at least something to do with Alber Mohler. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has (or had? I don't remember) him in leadership. He basically told everybody on staff to Calvin up, or get the fuck out. At least, that's what I've been told. So from the 80's onward, almost every person who graduated from that school left with a reformed POV.

Mark Driscoll has been pretty instrumental in the last few years too. He's really only gained mainstream attention recently, but in the day he was getting calls from a lot of struggling churches and was asked to do a lot of consult work. So his theological influence is in a lot of churches that are supposedly non-denominational. Dying churches saw that Mars Hill was growing despite being in Godless Heathen Seattle :twisted: , and they wanted a piece of that success too. So they would call up Dickwad Driscoll and get his advice.

The Acts 29 network has planted TONS of very successful churches in a very short amount of time. All reformed. A lot of baptist groups won't align with Acts 29 churches because of moral issues like Alcohol consumption. I have no idea how that's all going to play out, my husband's church have some kind of conundrum over a local Baptist convention offering support for a church plant in another town, only if their Elders agree to not ever drink alcohol. Which is the most bizarre argument I've ever heard of, but whatever. I don't fully understand how the whole thing works.

If you are interested in the history of this subject, check out "Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists" by Collin Hansen. It's kind of a crash course in the last 20 years of Calvinism, a very quick read.

If you want to know what many of the "New Calvinists" believe, look up Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology"

or Mark Driscoll's "Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe." The second one is a fairly short read, the first not so much.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Piper is practically venerated by Mark Driscoll and his ilk. I've read a few of his books, and he is clearly reformed in theology. However, having not listened to any of his sermons I'm not sure how conservative he is. He doesn't come off as a misogynist, but he does hold "traditional" views regarding homosexuality and whatnot. So there's that.

My husband is a Calvinist, and attends an Acts 29 church (it was a network that used to be presided over by Driscoll, although they eventually suggested that he bow out because he is a divisive ass :lol: ). That's the only reason why I really even know anything about it. My knowledge is limited to the tender morsels I've gleaned from his bookshelf and iTunes library. I love my husband dearly, and his church friends are very kind to me..but I'm a little concerned that Calvinism is picking up speed in the mainstream. A lot of younger believers are gravitating towards this theology, his church is slowly getting more and more college-aged kids every Sunday.

Does anybody know if Sovereign Grace church plants are Calvinist? Their name implies they are, and some of the lyrics in their worship music makes me think they are. I couldn't find any more info though.

When I wikipedia-d Calvinist denominations the other day sovereign grace was on there.

I don't understand why reformed people are so obsessed with the reformed label.

[debrand]

BalconySmoker, I was told once by an online Calvinist that he didn't believe that god was omnibenevolent. Is that a common belief among Calvinists?

The number of atheists who used to be either Calvinists or Catholics has surprised me. I wonder why those two denominations produce so many atheists?

[tigerchild]

The number of atheists who used to be either Calvinists or Catholics has surprised me. I wonder why those two denominations produce so many atheists?

All or nothing, maybe? (At least from the Calvinist perspective). When you find one "lie" the whole house shatters. I am not Catholic, but it seems like the Catholic church (and if I'm not mistaken there's quite a bit of variance there there) has a little more nuance?

I didn't realize there were several Calvinist variants as well (though, jeez, that makes total sense). One of the things that has puzzled me is why any predestination Calvinist would identify at all with evangelizing, as if your name is written in the book it's there, if it's not it's not, tough bananas.

But it sounds like things are more nuanced than that, on that end. At least about THAT particular aspect.

[debrand]

All or nothing, maybe? (At least from the Calvinist perspective). When you find one "lie" the whole house shatters. I am not Catholic, but it seems like the Catholic church (and if I'm not mistaken there's quite a bit of variance there there) has a little more nuance?

I didn't realize there were several Calvinist variants as well (though, jeez, that makes total sense). One of the things that has puzzled me is why any predestination Calvinist would identify at all with evangelizing, as if your name is written in the book it's there, if it's not it's not, tough bananas.

But it sounds like things are more nuanced than that, on that end. At least about THAT particular aspect.

I have been told that some Calvinists evangelize because it is proof that they are saved but that never really made sense to me either. :shrug:

[treehugger]

Most Calvinists believe that no one can be saved unless they actually hear about Jesus. That is why they evangelize. It would be absolutely dreadful if an elect person ended up in hell because they did not hear Jesus' name, and therefore were unable to invoke it and become saved.

I know… :cray-cray:

[singsingsing]

And I always thought that the elect were going to be saved no matter what - God had ordained them to be saved, so he would make sure they heard about him one way or another. If you weren't saved, you just weren't one of the elect.

Nothing about Calvinism makes sense to me. I don't want to offend any Calvinists, but it seems like the total opposite of Christ's message.

[Cleopatra7]

And I always thought that the elect were going to be saved no matter what - God had ordained them to be saved, so he would make sure they heard about him one way or another. If you weren't saved, you just weren't one of the elect.

Nothing about Calvinism makes sense to me. I don't want to offend any Calvinists, but it seems like the total opposite of Christ's message.

I think Calvinism was/is popular because it eliminates some of the anxiety about whether you're saved or not, as well as some of the anxiety involved with the ups and downs of everyday life. Two of the key points of Calvinism is "perserverance of the saints" and "Irresistible grace." With the former, it means if God meant to save you, then there's no way that you can fail in your attempt to get to heaven, because God is sovereign. Those who fall away from the faith were never really part of the elect to begin with, so it makes perfect sense for them not to believe anymore. With the latter, it means that those the God is determined to save must become Christian, because he has given them the needed grace to do so. If you believe that God is utter sovereign over every part of life, then you can also not be concerned with things like school shootings, hurricanes, and other disasters, because you know that it's all part of God's plan. Of course, a belief like this leads to the accusation that God is the source of evil.

ETA Also, if God chooses to have mercy on you and save you, according to Calvinists, then it doesn't matter how "good" a person you are, like how King David committed adultery and such, but was still "a man after God's heart." God could choose Hitler to be one of the elect, and it would perfectly acceptable, as God can pick and choose who to have mercy upon.

[RachelB]

BalconySmoker, I was told once by an online Calvinist that he didn't believe that god was omnibenevolent. Is that a common belief among Calvinists?

The number of atheists who used to be either Calvinists or Catholics has surprised me. I wonder why those two denominations produce so many atheists?

I can't speak for its commonness, but my father, who has some Calvinist leanings, insisted that it's only our limited human understanding that keeps us from being able to square God's goodness with God's commandments to slay all the Amalekites, women and children included, that ultimate good is equivalent to whatever God does, because God is the definition of goodness.

I got a bit shouty in response to that.

[Janes Heir]

Thanks for the info, everyone. Thanks especially for the book titles, BalconySmoker. (Really not sure how soon I could gather the courage to read Driscoll. :(

[lemonhead]

Here's my two cents, as someone who grew up in a Gothard-worshiping church: early on, our church (named "Calvary" incidentally) was affiliated with the SBC. After a few years, we left the SBC and became very much in line with Calvary Chapel teachings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Ch ... rminianism for a good summary if you're not familiar with it). Essentially, Calvary combines some Calvinist and Arminian teachings, trying to strike a balance between the two--and IMHO making a spectacular failure of it in the process.

Looking back, I think Gothard's teachings had elements of both Reformed and free-will doctrine. It is a peculiar system of beliefs. I don't know if most of his followers could easily be categorized as either/or.

[uber frau]

I can't speak for its commonness, but my father, who has some Calvinist leanings, insisted that it's only our limited human understanding that keeps us from being able to square God's goodness with God's commandments to slay all the Amalekites, women and children included, that ultimate good is equivalent to whatever God does, because God is the definition of goodness.

I got a bit shouty in response to that.

IME, that's a very common argument in Calvinism. It's the ultimate thought-stopper and it works very well indeed.

[Vex]

I apologise in advance if my ignorance is showing.

From my Australian perspective it seems that the most popular denominations in the US apart from Catholicism are evangelical churches like the Baptists. This is an enormous contrast to my own country where Baptist churches do exist (I live 2 minutes from one) but it seems they are vastly outnumbered by Anglicans and Lutherans. Conversely, I've noticed that while there are quite a lot of Lutherans in the US there are very few Anglicans in comparison to Australia.

How come the evangelical brand of Christianity is so appealing to Americans? I'm aware I'm probably asking a question there is no general consensus on but I'm interested to hear the opinions of people from the US. I know a lot of FJ-ites come from Baptist backgrounds and I'm just wondering what the appeal of Baptism was to them or their families over, say, the Lutheran or Anglican church.

I'm really sorry if this is too vague, I just find it really interesting that Baptism really never caught on in a big way here but it (and other evangelical versions of Christianity) are so widespread in the US.

[lilith]

I apologise in advance if my ignorance is showing.

From my Australian perspective it seems that the most popular denominations in the US apart from Catholicism are evangelical churches like the Baptists. This is an enormous contrast to my own country where Baptist churches do exist (I live 2 minutes from one) but it seems they are vastly outnumbered by Anglicans and Lutherans. Conversely, I've noticed that while there are quite a lot of Lutherans in the US there are very few Anglicans in comparison to Australia.

How come the evangelical brand of Christianity is so appealing to Americans? I'm aware I'm probably asking a question there is no general consensus on but I'm interested to hear the opinions of people from the US. I know a lot of FJ-ites come from Baptist backgrounds and I'm just wondering what the appeal of Baptism was to them or their families over, say, the Lutheran or Anglican church.

I'm really sorry if this is too vague, I just find it really interesting that Baptism really never caught on in a big way here but it (and other evangelical versions of Christianity) are so widespread in the US.

I'm Australian too, so my understanding is limited, but it's a subject I've read a but about.

Firstly, the US equivalent of Anglican is Episcopalian - when the US revolution happened they couldn't have the King if England as head of one of their churches, but the American Episcopalian church kept to the tenants of Anglicanism and is a recognised part of the Anglican communion.

Secondly, a lot of the popularity of Baptist and evangelical churches in America is because they allow or encourage lay preachers. Small and isolated communities in the early days of the US couldn't support a university educated vicar and his wife and children to an upper middle class standard of living, but they could tithe enough to provide a local farmer who was a talented orator with a knowledge of the bible with a church to preach in and a little extra income. Communities who didn't have a local preacher were served by nomadic preachers who tended to be non denominational but if the evangelical persuasion - I guess you'd have to have a strong evangelical bent to live as an itinerant preacher. Reading about the Great Revival of the early 19th century (from which Mormonism sprang) is absolutely fascinating.

In Australia we had an established church (C of E) from day one, and Scots immigrants brought their Presbyterian tradition and Irish their Roman Catholic, so there wasn't such a void for independent churches and evangelicalism to fill. Although I'm noticing more and more baptist/evangelical/happy clappy type churches about Sydney, and they seem to be getting bigger. Even ATI has a yearly Australian conference.

[Vex]

That makes a lot of sense. Before I changed my Bachelor's degree I was studying religion as a second minor and it always irritated me that we didn't go into any detail about Christianity in Australia. The independent reading I've done is mostly on religious abuse in fundamentalist families so I'm pretty uneducated about stuff like this.

I never really thought about how expensive a clerical education must be. I have a friend who is an Anglican priest but his studies were covered by HECS. I guess it's easier to go to a bible college than it is to go to university, or do that whole "I have a ministry because I say so' thing. I also never thought about how the English background of the Anglican church might effect its application in the US.

I'm still interested to know what the appeal is to individual people/families though, if anyone wants to chime in.

[Minijumb]

Hi , I've been lurking for quite awhile but this is my first post.

I'm Australian and grew up Baptist. We are rare creatures.

My parents were converted in the early 80's by the great Phil Pringle (sorry non-Australians, bear with me, I doubt you will have heard of these players), the guy behind the massive Christian City Church (now C3) Pentecostal movement. This was in their original church in Sydney, where they were taught such doctrinal brilliance as 'health, wealth and prosperity Christianity' (still going strong at C3 BTW) and 'saved women experience no labour pains as they are no longer under the curse of Eve', while my mum was pregnant with me. That caused no psychological problems for an already mentally ill new convert :roll: But I digress...

On moving West, my parents tried to link up with another Pentecostal church. The ministers were too busy to meet with my parents. Despite being warned off Baptists (Baptists don't have the Holy Spirit, apparently), they ended up in a Baptist church. They filled out a request for a pastor's visit, and the minister was on the doorstep the next Wednesday. We were trapped the next 20 years. My parents ended up rabidly anti-Pentecostal funnily enough. The church really discouraged relationships with extended family (not Christian), Santa (anagram of Satan), was very misogynistic and homophobic and I struggled with cognitive dissonance from the time I was about 12. I left at about 18, am now agnostic, but will attend a Uniting Church with my husband on Christmas and Easter (we met at church, he believes in God, but not biblical literalism) as their theology offends me least and I respect that they prioritise social justice issues. I don't want my kids exposed to the hateful hellfire and brimstone style of preaching I was exposed to 6 days a week through childhood (private church school, church 2x on Sundays with Sunday School before, Bible Study 1 night a week, Girl's Brigade Wednesday nights, Junior Christian Endevour Friday nights) it's a wonder we got any damn homework done, but we were thoroughly pickled in the Kool-Aid.

Our particular church was constantly debating predestination (Calvinism), but 'we have to evangilise EVERYONE' because there are several schools of thought on this and no-one knows for sure. I do think legitimately that they believe that God will send people to hell if they don't believe in Jesus, blah blah blah. I can't reconcile a loving God with the insane megalomaniac depicted in the Bible, hence years of cognitive dissonance and failing to be able to read the Bible literally.

[uber frau]

That makes a lot of sense. Before I changed my Bachelor's degree I was studying religion as a second minor and it always irritated me that we didn't go into any detail about Christianity in Australia. The independent reading I've done is mostly on religious abuse in fundamentalist families so I'm pretty uneducated about stuff like this.

I never really thought about how expensive a clerical education must be. I have a friend who is an Anglican priest but his studies were covered by HECS. I guess it's easier to go to a bible college than it is to go to university, or do that whole "I have a ministry because I say so' thing. I also never thought about how the English background of the Anglican church might effect its application in the US.

I'm still interested to know what the appeal is to individual people/families though, if anyone wants to chime in.

I'm also Australian. I grew up in a closed community of Calvinist immigrants so my perspective on other denominations is as an outsider. A number of disjointed thought. I'm supposed to be putting small ppl to bed.

I think the fact that we are a Commonwealth country is a huge factor. Our founding fathers might have been criminals, but they weren't religious nutters so we have a history of a state church rather than one of DIY religious extremism. In religious culture (and in other ways) we are a lot closer to the Canadians than the Americans. We might not have the US next door but in the last few decades more and more of our culture (including religious thought) has come from the US. I think the attraction to mega churches is as much a part of the socio-economic culture as it is about about religion. Most of them designed to appeal to middle-class, white consumers and are heavy on prosperity gospel and conservative values and other aspects of traditional Christian theology are pretty much ignored.

I think the large number of Lutherans comes mostly from the fact that the US had a huge number of German and northern European migrants at a time when most still were religious. Australian Lutheran churches are mostly concentrated around Adelaide and the Barossa because that's where most of the German immigrants ended up.

When it comes to the cost of theological education, I think most churches are happy to take the government money if it's offered but the bigger ones are quite capable of absorbing the costs of putting the small number of interested students through college. Even my community of a couple of thousand ppl was more than able to heavily subsidise the handful of students who were studying (overseas) at one of the very limited number of approved institutions.

Eta: For a really interesting study of why religion developed the way it did in the US (and not in Europe or the white colonies that stayed closely attached to Europe), there's a book called "God is back". It shouldn't be terribly difficult to find but if you'd like to borrow my copy, PM me & I'll shove in the post.

[debrand]

I apologise in advance if my ignorance is showing.

From my Australian perspective it seems that the most popular denominations in the US apart from Catholicism are evangelical churches like the Baptists. This is an enormous contrast to my own country where Baptist churches do exist (I live 2 minutes from one) but it seems they are vastly outnumbered by Anglicans and Lutherans. Conversely, I've noticed that while there are quite a lot of Lutherans in the US there are very few Anglicans in comparison to Australia.

How come the evangelical brand of Christianity is so appealing to Americans? I'm aware I'm probably asking a question there is no general consensus on but I'm interested to hear the opinions of people from the US. I know a lot of FJ-ites come from Baptist backgrounds and I'm just wondering what the appeal of Baptism was to them or their families over, say, the Lutheran or Anglican church.

I'm really sorry if this is too vague, I just find it really interesting that Baptism really never caught on in a big way here but it (and other evangelical versions of Christianity) are so widespread in the US.

Others have given good historical information but I'd like to add a little bit of the local culture to that information also. Baptist Churches in the south are very, very friendly. When you walk in to one, you are greeted by many people all eager to make friends with you. Automatically, you are part of their community without having to do any further work just because you walked through their church's door on Sunday. I've talked to people who joined churches based not on how much they agree with the theology but on how nice the congregation and pastor was to them.

In the southern United States there is a lot of pride in tradition and polite manners. This is part of the reason why some Southerners invent a historical past in which their ancestors were heroes. There are a lot of Baptists in the south and I think that some people follow what their parents and their parents follow because it is traditional to do so.

[AlexIsAwake]

I just wanted to add my perspective to the questions someone asked as to why there seem to be a lot of atheists who come from Calvinist backgrounds. I myself have sort of run the gamut with religion - I was raised Independent Fundamental Baptist, then switched to "prosperity gospel and faith healing" evangelicalism, then switched to Calvinism and became Presbyterian before finally losing all faith ending up an atheist.

As an IFB-raised child, I was taught never to question authority. You obey the first time, every time, and you don't ask why. And when it came to religious instruction, the same applied. The pastor's interpretation of the Bible was The Way, period. This results in a lack of need to really study the Bible in depth. You are told what to believe, so no need for in depth theological study. And for those who are deeply entrenched in IFB doctrine, I think it is highly unlikely they'd ever become atheist unless they first move far away from this doctrine.

As for Calvinists, they do fancy themselves as intellectuals. The pride themselves on being the most correct in their theology, far superior than non-Calvinists. In my case, this actually worked against my faith growing stronger, however. Because my thinking was, intellectuals study. If I was going to be a Calvinist intellectual, I needed to study the theology and be able to defend it. I also wanted to theologically prove wrong all the IFB crap I had been taught growing up. Well, the more I studied the Bible, the more I saw contradictions and the less sense it made. So, because Calvinists do encourage in depth theological study, it could serve to produce more atheists because, well, the Bible just cannot stand up to too much scrutiny. This is all just my opinion, though. Others may see it differently, and I respect that.

[Hane]

All or nothing, maybe? (At least from the Calvinist perspective). When you find one "lie" the whole house shatters. I am not Catholic, but it seems like the Catholic church (and if I'm not mistaken there's quite a bit of variance there there) has a little more nuance?

Definitely. As a lifelong Catholic (until age 55), I rarely heard anyone spout the "you're all going to burn in hell unless you're a Catholic" line. Many of the priests and nuns I've met have a strong ecumenical bent. The concept is "God knows what's in your heart," and applies to believers and non-believers alike.

This attitude, combined with an intellectual and tolerant bent, would make it easy for a Catholic to slide from belief to agnosticism or even atheism.