Calvinism "more scholarly"?

[Alcyone]

http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/ ... -Chart.pdf

Hopefully, the above link will work. I found it a useful chart for sorting out some key differences between Arminians, regular Calvinists, hyper-Calvinists and "high" Calvinists. The chart shows that Calvinists of all three stripes basically believe that God tolerates the non-elect for their threescore and ten here on earth and then sadly tosses them into the burning pit for all eternity. The differences between the groups would be just how sad God is when he does the tossing, ranging from not sad at all to kinda sad.

The group with which I was most familiar was on the borderline between the high and the hyper viewpoints. I did see a certain amount of disdain for anyone (including children) who had not made a "credible profession of faith" with the fruits thereof. Really sad, really crazy. The problem is though, that the God of the Bible is the only one they had, and they felt that remaking him in a kinder, gentler form would get them a one way ticket to you know where. So it seemed to be part of the exercise of faith, if you will, to believe in a God who appeared to be cruel and loathsome but who was actually, in some alchemy only they understood, the only good being in the universe.

[mirele]

The damned are doomed to spend and eternity being tortured. If the choice is between hanging out with Jesus or being tortured, I am going to talk a wild guess that most people would rather hang with Jesus. They might not be wildly blissful but it's a lot better than being miserable forever.

Erm, why would I want to do that? Why would I want to worship a being that is so capricious that he decides certain infants* deserve hellfire forever? I wouldn't be "wildly blissful" at all; in fact, I'd be annoyed as all get out and probably expressing my opinion at every turn that this god is more like Molech, who loved his child sacrifices.

* I don't think any human being, including myself, is competent enough to make a so-called "decision" regarding where we want to be eternally. In fact, I don't think anyone, up to and including the Pope, the president of the Mormon church, the pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston (that'd be Ed Young, Sr. and I'm picking on him because he runs a megachurch but you can substitute your fave there) or any other church leader has any better grasp on eternity and/or infinity than any of the rest of us. None of us have all the facts or evidence--nor can we, from moment to moment, hold in our heads all the beliefs allegedly required for salvation. In other words, we're all walking around heretics, agnostics and atheists on something considered "essential doctrine" by someone else. As for me, currently, the facts point to "probably no god," which is why I'm agnostic. But I do know one thing. I don't worship monsters or Molech and the deity of the Calvinists is definitely all that. So he's out for damn sure.

[Joykins]

Calvinism is a philosophy that makes a certain amount of sense given its own presuppositions. I just don't think all the presuppositions hold up. I do know a lot of Calvinists read a lot and generate a lot of text. Also generally Reformed people tend to be less "know-nothing" on the whole than some other groups in Christianity.

There is a flip side to Calvinism--Universalism. If God saves everyone he wants to, and he wants to save everyone, he DOES. Calvinists generally hate Universalism with the heat of a thousands suns. This works with the presuppositions of Calvinism.

[formerlyfundie]

My husband has been studying this at school lately and it is ALL he has been talking about.

I will say that it seems like the whole point of Jesus is defeated of we are predestined from birth to be saved or not, it also takes a certain level of pride to say "I AM a chosen one", even though there is absolutely no certainty of that in the eyes of God. From what I see, it is another case of taking the Bible a bit too literally, putting something there that isn't. (Much like over the top modesty, and "Biblical womanhood" and the like.)

Okay, here is what he says (he saw me typing this) :) - he thinks it is more that we were predestined to serve Christ, as that is what we were created for, rather than saved from Hell. There would be no point in the cross or resurrection, no point of grace which IS Christianity.

[Shirley MacLaine]

Erm, why would I want to do that? Why would I want to worship a being that is so capricious that he decides certain infants* deserve hellfire forever? I wouldn't be "wildly blissful" at all; in fact, I'd be annoyed as all get out and probably expressing my opinion at every turn that this god is more like Molech, who loved his child sacrifices.

So much word. The Calvinism v. Arminianism debate seems silly to me because picking between no choice and a false choice? Who cares. Both ways completely and entirely suck and God is a jerk in both constructions.

[Witsec1]

This is a side issue but maybe someone can explain. Some of our Calvinist bloggers (Kelly, Visionary Womanhood) talk about the "gift of mercy" - specifically how they don't have it. Is this a Calvinist thing? How is it supported biblically? It seems like the bible is pretty clear that you are *required* to be merciful, it's not a gift like prophecy or speaking in tongues. Or is there any place in the bible that speaks of a gift of mercy? if so, it seems unlike the other gifts because no one is *required* to prophesy or heal.

I'm agnostic so have no horse in doctrinal debates, but I'm interested in the underlying psychology.

[Bookworm]

I read this book 2 years ago, and have since quit going to church altogether, so it's not exactly fresh in my brain. I just know that it convinced me - because it made more sense than any other explanation of the Bible that I have ever heard. In theory, I do accept the infallibility of Scripture (at least, I did at the time I read that book). However, I'm not exactly rock solid in my faith at this point in my life either. I'm disillusioned as to how many different interpretations of the Bible there are, and how no one can seem to agree on an of it (this thread is a great example!). Also, I believe that much has been lost through the many different translations the Bible has undergone. I do feel there are certain things that don't add up.

I would suggest that you do a little research (Wikipedia is a good starting point) on how the Bible was put together. I remember reading about the documentary hypothesis and being completely fascinated. And through Christian history there have been radically different orthodox explanations of grace and mercy and why Jesus died. There is also a video about a book called the "history of God" on YT that is very good.

[Alcyone]

This is a side issue but maybe someone can explain. Some of our Calvinist bloggers (Kelly, Visionary Womanhood) talk about the "gift of mercy" - specifically how they don't have it. Is this a Calvinist thing? How is it supported biblically? It seems like the bible is pretty clear that you are *required* to be merciful, it's not a gift like prophecy or speaking in tongues. Or is there any place in the bible that speaks of a gift of mercy? if so, it seems unlike the other gifts because no one is *required* to prophesy or heal.

Some churches test new or prospective members to find out what their spiritual gifts are. The gifts could be described as qualities that would make the person useful in serving the congregation. There are a couple dozen gifts so if you don't have some it does not matter, as long as you have something you can use to serve the church. More examples would be the gift of encouragement, the gift of giving, the gift of administration, etc. So while everyone is supposed to give, encourage and be merciful, each person will manifest the gifts in various degrees. The assessment is for the purpose of plugging you into the correct ministry that will play to your strength. I find that these tests make me break out in hives but if you are curious, there are several you can take online.

[Witsec1]

Alcyone, so it's just modern christian pop psychology? No traditional or "biblical" basis?

[Joykins]

It's more or less stuff you're good at that has a use in ministry. It's based on this:

I Cor. 12

1 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,†and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,†except by the Holy Spirit.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

[Alcyone]

Alcyone, so it's just modern christian pop psychology? No traditional or "biblical" basis?

Pretty much. They do have a "verse" for it , as Joykins says. I think it started gaining in popularity in the nineties along with the wave of church growth stuff. In the Calvinist church I attended, I got the vague impression that we were also being tested on our status as one of the elect. IF you were elect, you would definitely have one or more of the gifts. That was a major point of God electing you: so you could work for him through his church.

[Witsec1]

Thanks, Alcyone and Joykins for that explanation. I had never heard of aptitude tests for church membership before! The verse about the gifts (charisms) is the one I remember, there is nothing about a "gift" of mercy. So where did this "gift" of mercy come from?

[Joykins]

OK, I looked it up. Mercy as a gift comes from Romans 12

"6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully."

For what it's worth I do think mercy is required but some people are especially good at it. Kind of like serving, and encouraging, and giving.

[mirele]

I have the gift of being a first-class pain in the ass.

[kaetrin]

I have the gift of being a first-class pain in the ass.

That's the gift of prophecy!

I haven't seen these ideas about gifts in a church context, but it was a big Gothard thing. He says there are seven gifts; that everyone has one primary one but ought to try to learn how to practice them all. They really function more like spiritualized personality types, as someone above said. I wish I still had the Gothard gift/personality test to see what the points were.

The gift of mercy in this context doesn't have much to do with what Catholics call the Corporal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, etc.) but seems mainly to be shorthand for an empathetic personality. So when Kelly and Natalie say they don't have it, that's what they mean. I think we can all attest to the truth of that. :)

This came up on the old board when someone asked why Kelly was always saying she had the gift of prophecy. Prophecy here doesn't mean predicting the future; it means being driven to and good at speaking up for truth even when it's unpopular. People who think they have this gift are prone to use it as an excuse to be argumentative assholes because, you know, they're just telling the TRUTH.

(To give him credit, much as I hate to, Gothard emphasized that there was a negative and a positive side to each gift, and that you shouldn't use the gift as an excuse to indulge its negative aspects. However, I think this is true in terms of personality types, but a fundamentally misguided view of actual spiritual gifts. I think spiritual gifts are akin to the fruits of the Spirit - positive enactments of your spiritual growth, not just personality traits.)

[Alcyone]

I have the gift of being a first-class pain in the ass.

HaHa.....How can I get that gift? I have always been a shrinking violet and I am afraid I always will be.

[Shirley MacLaine]

That's the gift of prophecy!

Haha, totally. Isn't that Kelly @ GC's spiritual gift?

[emmiedahl]

The differences between the groups would be just how sad God is when he does the tossing, ranging from not sad at all to kinda sad.

Thank you for my first good laugh of the day!

But I also rejoice, the more I read up on Judaism, that there is not the dark uncertainty of whether or not God forgives us, as many Christians have taught about Judaism. Maybe that uncertainty is there, in fundamentalist Judaism, adn maybe I'm just surrounded by really progressive, reformed, reconstructionist Jews.

No, I think your observation is correct. I don't know any Jews who are worried about their afterlife. What I have always been taught is that we don't really know what happens, but God will make it good. In Judaism the afterlife is not really a focus the way it is in Christianity and Islam. I think God will be merciful because we are only working with what we given. From atheists to the most devout holy people, from mass murderers to Mother Teresa, I believe we have all done the best with what we were given and that we will all share in a good afterlife, whatever that may be.

[kaetrin]

Haha, totally. Isn't that Kelly @ GC's spiritual gift?

Sure is. She herself has said it. (Sorry, mirele. :) )

[punkiepie]

This is a side issue but maybe someone can explain. Some of our Calvinist bloggers (Kelly, Visionary Womanhood) talk about the "gift of mercy" - specifically how they don't have it. Is this a Calvinist thing? How is it supported biblically? It seems like the bible is pretty clear that you are *required* to be merciful, it's not a gift like prophecy or speaking in tongues. Or is there any place in the bible that speaks of a gift of mercy? if so, it seems unlike the other gifts because no one is *required* to prophesy or heal.

The Calvinists love them some grace- getting something you do not deserve (a gift), but they are not so fond of mercy- not getting something you do deserve. It's the withholding of something- i.e., not spanking their child when they disobey. The main components of mercy are sympathy and compassion- the desire to help someone who has done nothing to warrant your aid, but you want to do it because you want to extend some relief and ease their burden.

Calvinists, well most fundies in general, are all about helping themselves/family/fellow Calvinists/other fundies. That's why they all get up there and pontificate about how they receive no help from the government and are debt free. etc. They live their life in such a way that keeps them off the welfare rolls and so should everyone else. If they don't- well then that's their fault- why should they give them anything when they've done nothing to earn it? The whole "elect" thing magnifies it even more because they believe God chooses to not have mercy on people. They will often cite Romans 9:15 "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Since God has already made that decision- and He will do whatever He's going to do- it somehow relieves them of any moral obligation to show mercy themselves.

[finleeport]

I never really liked Calvinism, maybe I biased but I see Calvinism as purely hopeless, humorless and unfair. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that Calvinism was 'a religion of demonism'

[apple1]

http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/Conference-Chart.pdf

Hopefully, the above link will work. I found it a useful chart for sorting out some key differences between Arminians, regular Calvinists, hyper-Calvinists and "high" Calvinists. The chart shows that Calvinists of all three stripes basically believe that God tolerates the non-elect for their threescore and ten here on earth and then sadly tosses them into the burning pit for all eternity. The differences between the groups would be just how sad God is when he does the tossing, ranging from not sad at all to kinda sad.

The group with which I was most familiar was on the borderline between the high and the hyper viewpoints. I did see a certain amount of disdain for anyone (including children) who had not made a "credible profession of faith" with the fruits thereof. Really sad, really crazy. The problem is though, that the God of the Bible is the only one they had, and they felt that remaking him in a kinder, gentler form would get them a one way ticket to you know where. So it seemed to be part of the exercise of faith, if you will, to believe in a God who appeared to be cruel and loathsome but who was actually, in some alchemy only they understood, the only good being in the universe.

Just a couple of my thoughts on this.

The chart in the above link (and many of those who argue on this topic- not speaking of FJ) creates a false construct, with the idea that Christianity has to be one or the other, Calvinism or Arminianism. I would submit that both are attempts to plug God into a manmade theological box.

As a Christian myself, I think that dwelling in those types of arguments misrepresents Christianity as represented by Jesus, his life, and his teachings. If we as Christians worried more about living a Christ-like life and less about arguing over things like this, we would all be better off. I don't mean that we should not as individuals examine what or how we believe, but I find much of this type of argument to be non-productive at best, and arrogant/destructive many times.

One more thing, somewhat off-topic, re: previous comment in this thread about where Baptists fall on this spectrum:

I was raised Baptist, spent much of my life in Baptist churches. (I clearly self-identify as Christian rather than Baptist, BTW). I would say that the Baptists of my youth were definitely not into Calvinism. But I am hearing more and more of a shift among many Baptist churches toward a "Reformed"/Calvinistic position, especially with the ascendency of Al Mohler in the SBC. I fully expect an upcoming split in the SBC between the Reformed group and those who want to stay with a more traditional position on these doctrines. (Maybe this is partly why I am hearing more and more argument on this topic). As for the IFB group, I doubt this is even an issue, and I think IFBs have been self-destructing for some time now, for numerous reasons.

Oh- the original question- Calvinism more scholarly? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. Flat out arrogance.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I know it's been mentioned on here that certain elements of fundie or fundie-light culture have been moving more mainstream. I was thinking about all this over the weekend (and Mr. Bride Price's blog discussed here today just clinches it), and it really seems to me that as certain parts of fundieland become more mainstream, the fundies are going ever more conservative to set themselves apart.

I was home over the past weekend and that entailed visiting the old fundie church. It has really changed just in 10 years. The sweater and slightly below knee plaid skirt I wore would be death-defyingly preppy in most places but it was almost risque in this church. The church is Calvinist and tends to be middle to upper-middle class, so denim frumpers aren't that common but vests and jackets worn with high-necked blouse and ankle length skirts most certainly are. There was plenty of vintage Laura Ashley to be seen as well. And some women were covering their heads, which was almost unheard of when I was there.

I also noticed that youth group had become "young maidens" and "young men" meetings. There was also a feature about a courtship seminar for parents listed in the bulletin and they've also gone from advocating parent choice in education to really talking up homeschooling. This church has always been very conservative and fundie, but there was an edge of VF-ness, for lack of a better term, that I detected in my interactions with people. And it rather unsettled me.