Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The Problem Of Sectarianism And Mutual Dialogue
date
newest »
newest »
"Calvinists" - yes. It is a broad term that encompasses lots of people. Read author Marilynne Robinson (Gilead, When I was a Child I read Books), she's a liberal Calvinist. I'd also put James K.A. Smith here. And NT Wright probably counts too.Calvinists as in "Neo-Puritans" of the Driscoll/Piper/Gospel Coalition ilk - I am starting to have my doubts.
My only hope is that people I know personally, online (like Brent) and offline who are in this tribe are still friends with me. Of course, I identify with the Anabaptist camp (we think you should actually live like Jesus and not just figure out right beliefs) and Calvinists were drowning Anabaptists centuries ago. So who knows.
Ha! Ha! That's pretty funny, Erick, as I was given the impression by Calvinists that I was guilty of slander and personal attack when questioning THEIR beliefs!
I'd wonder if part of it is what you think election is for. I grew up thinking Christianity was primarily about going to heaven and I think many define election as God choosing which group of people to save from hell while the rest go to hell.So here election = election to heaven/hell avoidance.
But in the Bible, election is for the purpose of bringing good into the world. Abraham was blessed to be a blessing. Election = election to show love to those around you.
I'd suggest Wright's book on Paul. He writes about election for like 300 pages but, following Paul, does not see it as some being elect for heaven. Instead, Jews were chosen to be God's instrument to save the nations, Jesus fulfilled this and now the body of Christ (Jew and Gentile) have the same call.
If you think you are elect and thus heaven bound while everyone else is hell bound, of course you'll be exclusionary. If you think you are elect and your call is to be a blessing to the nations, the people around you, I suspect you'll be more inclusive.
Robert wrote: "Ha! Ha! That's pretty funny, Erick, as I was given the impression by Calvinists that I was guilty of slander and personal attack when questioning THEIR beliefs!"Haha. That's typically how they operate. I try to be magnanimous with everyone -especially Christians because I must assume (unless shown otherwise) that I have a Spiritual kinship with them. Unfortunately when dealing with sectarianism, I don't see a lot of the Christianity I've come to love.
David wrote: But in the Bible, election is for the purpose of bringing good into the world. Abraham was blessed to be a blessing. Election = election to show love to those around you."I agree. Calvinism and other sects usually treat Christianity as a rewards or punishment centered faith. As if no one would believe and serve Jesus Christ if they weren't tempted or threatened. I was exposed to this kind of Christianity before conversion myself. I disliked it then and I still do.
David wrote: I'd suggest Wright's book on Paul. He writes about election for like 300 pages but, following Paul, does not see it as some being elect for heaven. Instead, Jews were chosen to be God's instrument to save the nations, Jesus fulfilled this and now the body of Christ (Jew and Gentile) have the same call."
Sounds interesting. I will check it out.
One of the problems I've seen in the approach of sectarian Christianity is the choice of proof texts. This usually means verses removed from context and appealed to over and over while de-emphasizing, ignoring, or interpolating sectarian ideas into texts that call their interpretation into question. For instance, 1 Timothy 2:4 is a major text that shows Calvinism to be errant. They cannot handle the text without interpolating their own ideas into it. I had a Calvinist say that it doesn't really mean God wants all people saved but all "kinds" of people. Instead of taking the verse as is and changing his theology he must change the verse to suit his sectarian ideas.
How often are we guilty of doing this without realizing that we are doing it?
Even if we reject a particular interpretation, is it right to not give the reading a fair appraisal i.e. to listen without resorting to charging someone with heresy?
How much is allowed as far as differing interpretations go?
If sectarianism is questioned by it's adherents, such as in differing approaches to Calvinism, how much can they change the original sectarian beliefs without departing from them entirely?
David wrote: Calvinists" - yes. It is a broad term that encompasses lots of people. "I gave a related question above.
David wrote: Of course, I identify with the Anabaptist camp (we think you should actually live like Jesus and not just figure out right beliefs) and Calvinists were drowning Anabaptists centuries ago. So who knows. "
I've been influenced significantly by the Anabaptists and the Spiritual reformers as well. Neither could probably have been free from the charge of sectarianism, but I think that their approach was very often correct.
Just to be fair, I should show how I differ with other Pentecostals. Many Pentecostals say that no one is really a Spirit filled Christian if they don't have tongues. While 1 Cor. 12 does list tongues as a gift, 1 cor. 13 says that it is meaningless without love, and it will eventually come to an end.Once again, this shows the tendency of sectarianism to take one text and emphasize it at the cost of others. And for that reason it should probably be questioned.
Can there even be a de facto approach to scripture when just relying on our own reading comprehension?
Erick - you mentioned spiritual gifts and we are all doled out at least one and hopefully more. Unfortunately, no one has the whole bundle so none is capable of fulfilling the entire range of Biblical "expectations". Rather than accepting this, performing our duties for the Lord humbly and as prescribed, we wish to exagerate our contributions and belittle those of our neighbors. This takes some finagling of Scriptural verses to sit well in our conscience. Whole denominations center around one or two gifts. In the traditional churches I attend, none seem to speak in tongues, but all have discernment.
David - you and I have touched on this before, but this discussion thread takes a slightly different tack. I'm in the camp where only Jesus is truly "elect", the rest of us have choices to make. The first and most important is to accept the Son of God as Savior thoroughly and in the heart not just cerebrally. This takes commitment to the Lord in toto, not just to a slice of Him. I can always tell a Jesus slicer and dicer as he ascertains the Bible has been obsoleted by modernity. Jesus was in God from the beginning so if you can't accept that God and Jesus speak with one voice, then yes, I'm exclusive - you don't KNOW Jesus and by your ignorance or refusal you CANNOT be saved. Once you are saved, you can be of proper service to the Master as you're still on earthly "loan" for awhile and are expected to do good works, as you pointed out, David. Here we have multiple choices. The Jesus slicer and dicer will get it wrong everytime because he'll focus on love or some other small portion of the Lord. With prayer, the true believer should carry his personal cross in the assigned direction, but even that isn't assured. The saved still have choices and we can allow our built-in sinful nature to lead us astray. Up your's, Calvin!
Robert wrote: "Erick - you mentioned spiritual gifts and we are all doled out at least one and hopefully more. Unfortunately, no one has the whole bundle so none is capable of fulfilling the entire range of Bibli..."I was thinking of your points specifically. I noticed that different churches emphasized different gifts. I think they all have their place, but it is curious that you don't have them encouraged more discursively; meaning, if my church (Assembly Of God) focuses on charismatic gifts, why doesn't it spend equal time encouraging the gift of discernment or the gift of knowledge? Now here is the real question: are the different (orthodox) Christian churches all fulfilling the different functions of the one church that Paul had in mind? If they are, why are the churches not more ecumenical I wonder. You would think that the Holy Spirit in genuine Christians should be able to see His work in other confessions. If we are really in tune that is.
Robert wrote: "David - you and I have touched on this before, but this discussion thread takes a slightly different tack. I'm in the camp where only Jesus is truly "elect", the rest of us have choices to make. Th..."I tend to agree. I didn't care for Calvin even before reading the Institutes. I can't say reading the Institutes improved my opinion. I don't think everything he said was wrong, but what was right was not specifically Calvinistic. So I can't attribute the things he got right to Calvin personally.
Alex wrote: "This seems like a place to put this:http://www.christianitytoday.com/pars..."
I agree with the points. The history of Calvinism is interesting. In England during the time of the commonwealth under Cromwell, many of the Puritans held some Calvinistic ideas, but they were very critical of Calvinist hardliners like the Presbyterians. The Presbyterians were incredibly forceful with their views. They made themselves very unpopular with the other Christian confessions. It seems hardline Calvinists have a history of this kind of behavior. I don't think all Presbyterians are hardline Calvinists anymore, but there are still some around.
Erick - well I would be guilty of scoffing at this. In my own church, I can see no evidence that ANY of those who claim discernment have any such gift. I find it far more likely someone who doesn't advertise actually possesses that gift and will only exercise it when directed to do so by God. Similarly, as one who has never actually met someone who speaks (or understands) tongues, I'm highly skeptical of claims. Once again I would think the practitioner would keep the gift secret until God reveals the precise use for it.
Robert, I don't necessarily disagree with your post. I mean, Paul does speak of us being elect in some way. But my only point was that the problem comes in when you think being "elect" confers on you some privileged status at the expense of (rather then for the benefit of) everyone else.
Erik, on some level we could say everyone is guilty of sectarianism. At the same time, you could also say Christianity has been divided since they very beginning with the Ebionites then the Greek speaking and Roman speaking. The Ebionites died off and it took 1000 years for Greeks and Romans to separate. If we focus in on the west, we could identify the problem as coming with the splits during the 1500s. This intensified in America with freedom of religion. We live in a world where any Christian faith, non-Christian faith or even non-belief are all live options (you gotta read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, its about the best book ever). We don't have the one authority to lean on (the pope) who can tell us what the one truth/church is. Now we all have the freedom to choose and if I don't like one church there are a million others...or none at all.
Really, your question is how we can get along in a pluralistic world. All I can say is that personally, I try to see the good in others. I may disagree, but I see a lot of good (and some bad) in Catholics and Calvinists and Pentecostals and even Liberals (Lee, lol).
David wrote: "Robert, I don't necessarily disagree with your post. I mean, Paul does speak of us being elect in some way. But my only point was that the problem comes in when you think being "elect" confers on..."I agree. That's my point with Robert.
David wrote: Really, your question is how we can get along in a pluralistic world. All I can say is that personally, I try to see the good in others. I may disagree, but I see a lot of good (and some bad) in Catholics and Calvinists and Pentecostals and even Liberals (Lee, lol).
I agree but I am focusing more on the church. Does it behove Christians of different confessions and denominations to have greater dialogue with each other? Does ecumenism require syncretism? I don't believe that it does. Can the church continue to function dividedly? Or can there be a greater union of purpose? Such as was found in Nazi Germany with the confessing church?
Didn't I admit to scoffing without adequate proof? It's not real Christian to pile on a person who bares his weaknesses to further the discussion.
Robert wrote: "Didn't I admit to scoffing without adequate proof? It's not real Christian to pile on a person who bares his weaknesses to further the discussion."My apologies. I took the capitalization of "ANY" as sign of confidence that there was adequate proof in your church that there was no such thing. Once again, my apologies.
Apologies accepted, Erick. No, the ANY was just an indication of my excessive bias (of which I'm hardly alone). I suppose I'm so jaded by unwarranted braggadoccio that I'm cynical about nearly everything, even spiritual gifts. My bad, I fear.
Robert wrote: "Apologies accepted, Erick. No, the ANY was just an indication of my excessive bias (of which I'm hardly alone). I suppose I'm so jaded by unwarranted braggadoccio that I'm cynical about nearly ever..."Not everything that passes as charismatic gifts are genuine. Many are false. That kind of thing sort of has to be handled on a case by case basis. Anything that is done theatrically is suspect I think. All gifts are like that though. It's not always easy to tell what is and is not genuine from outside. That's why discernment is so important. It is a gift I think I have to a degree.
Does it behove Christians of different confessions and denominations to have greater dialogue with each other? Does ecumenism require syncretism? I don't believe that it does. Can the church continue to function dividedly? Or can there be a greater union of purpose? Such as was found in Nazi Germany with the confessing church? Yes, it always benefits people to have greater dialogue.
I am not sure that ecumenism leads to syncretism. For some, listening to others causes you to emphasize what you have in common and hold lightly to other things; for others it causes you to harden in the differences to know who is in and who is out.
I think the church will do fine. Unless we all come under the Pope, well have to function dividedly. But there are many organizations that get support across many denominations - Samaritan's Purse, International Justice Mission - pretty much any missions or relief organization. I would also guess that if we continue in a post-Christian culture there will be less Christians and more unity.
Look at it this way - decades ago Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists could not get along, let alone Catholics. To some degree the divisions today have narrowed. There are "mainline" (evangelical Lutheran Church, Presby USA, Methodist, UCC, Episcopal) and "evangelical" and "fundamentalists". Any such groupings are tenuous. My take is that evangelical has divided into the neo-Puritan Calvinists and everyone else (progressive emerging whatever). What I am trying to say is for as divided as it looks, you could also see more unity then the 1800s.
The Church will never be united on every issue. But I think large united groups do offer a united front on some issues, even if other large groups disagree (so mainlines are okay with gay marriage, fundies are not).
Lastly, to some degree I care less of such things then I used to. For me, my local church matters. I can speculate and worry about what is going on all over the place. I can go on Twitter and wherever and write a lot. Or I can just go to my church and worship Jesus and study the Bible in a small group and do a collection for the local women's shelter and so on. I think these are fun discussions to have, but in the end we can only influence our local arena. Really, what am I doing to bring unity in my little corner of the world?
Glad to know we are still friends, David (:Everyone proof texts, Erick. The goal is to construct a system that most adequately handles the whole of the biblical witness, notwithstanding the fact that there might be some anomalous texts that need to be worked out somehow. Sure, proponents of free will in a strong sense, or at least incompatiblists are obviously going not going to like our defense for 2 Peter 3:9, or 2 Timothy 2:4, but where are the open theists, or Arminians who don't sufficiently succeed in exegetically destroying Romans 9 or Ephesians chapter 1? Sure, there is a harmonious friendship between freewill and omnicausality; as a comparabilist I assert this harmony in robustness à la the Westminster Confession. It may not be the definition of freewill people want (power of contrary chocie which can only be upheld in an open theistic model, or temporal ontological model, or actions unconstrained done freely but unable to do otherwise which can only be upheld if God has knowledge of contingent counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which has. o ontological basis whatsoever antecedent to God actualizing a world, etc.)
In short, can there be any harmony: sure. Can there be a reconciliation between two diametrically opposite systems? Obviously not. Still, everyone should stop hating us Calvinist, even if we were burning Anabaptists alive on faggots four hundred years ago. You're supposed to love us like Jesus, remember!? (-:
Brent wrote:Everyone proof texts, Erick. The goal is to construct a system that most adequately handles the whole of the biblical witness, notwithstanding the fact that there might be some anomalous texts that need to be worked out somehow."I agree. I am more noting the fact that many will not even gauge the texts that call into question an idiosyncratic view. I agree Romans 9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 are literally irreconcilable. That's at least partly the point. Maybe Christians can agree to disagree on that or maybe work out a better solution than focusing on one text while ignoring the other. Proof texting alone in this situation hasn't solved much because both passages cannot be clearly reconciled without modifying one of them. Which one is chosen to be modified often has more to do with the particular perspective than what is actually said in the text itself. It usually says more about the person than the text. There are many examples of denominational proof texts that are the exact same way.
Brent wrote:Can there be a reconciliation between two diametrically opposite systems? Obviously not.
It could be because both are taking an illogical extremist POV. Maybe there is need of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Contrary to what many critics of that view point might say, the synthesis never includes everything found in the thesis and antithesis, only what was correct in both.
Brent wrote: Still, everyone should stop hating us Calvinist, even if we were burning Anabaptists alive on faggots four hundred years ago. You're supposed to love us like Jesus, remember!? (-:
I have zero hatred for Calvinists. I simply used them as an example. I also included my own denomination if you notice. I wanted to be fair. I came fresh from a debate on free will where a Calvinist asserted that I was a "heretic" and an "idolater." I was a lot more polite to him by far. I don't really care to revisit that discussion I was losing my patience with it as it was. I simply got inspired to start a discussion on the effect that sectarianism has on friendly Christian dialogue. So far this discussion hasn't made me overly optimistic that such is feasible in most cases.
David wrote:What I am trying to say is for as divided as it looks, you could also see more unity then the 1800s."Agreed. But maybe more can be done. I certainly think it can. It's never good to rest on one's laurels.
David wrote: The Church will never be united on every issue.
Never is a long time. I don't believe a divided house will be found in the coming eternal kingdom.
David wrote: Lastly, to some degree I care less of such things then I used to. For me, my local church matters. I can speculate and worry about what is going on all over the place.
I don't lose sleep over the issue, but as it stands, the church is a divided house in this world. That shouldn't be seen as a good thing in my opinion. Working for a little more unity here is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don't propound the view that we should all be under one institutional church, but maybe we can respect differences without terms like "heretic" being thrown about ignorantly and arrogantly. My POV is not utopian. I am not a pre-millennialist or a post-millennialist. I am not all that optimistic about the chances. My perspective has more to do with practical functionality in this world.
I think a "divided house" is both inevitable and a good thing. I approve of Erick's perspective being "practical functionality," rather than specifics of doctrine. It is this emphasis which lets Christians be brethren while accepting that each of us has a brain and an opinion. Some of us have more opinions than brains, but let's not go there.
I was toying with the idea of posting a link to Hans Denck's Pardoxa in order to show why proof texting by itself is a misguided practice. But every time I have done it, I have regretted it. It usually calls down the religious wrath. I leave it to others to look it up if they choose. Hans Denck was an early Anabaptist/Spiritual reformer. I became more and more influenced by his and Caspar Schwenckfeld's view on how to approach the Bible. I already largely held the same view before reading them, but they verified my own feelings.
Erick,Isn't asserting a thesis, antithesis, synthesis dialectic remedy in fact propounding a theory, even if it is to "solve apparent contradictions," in itself that many would not necessarily agree with? I'm sure Hegel would be proud, but that should just compell you to live with the contradictions.
I think perspicuous texts should shed light on unclear ones and not contrariwise. Hence, the long philosophical discourse in Romans 9 should serve to help formulate our understanding of providence, election, and freedom of the will. Taken in light of "seemingly contradictory" verses, like 2 Tim 2:4 should be read in light of our full understanding of atonement, etc.
I'm sorry a Calvinist belittled you. I apologize on his behalf. Certainly it goes both ways, but yes, I agree that philosophical discussion should be encouraged, especially with Open Theism becoming popular in certain evangelical circles as well.
It all boils down, in my opinion, to whether one wants to actually develop a system and push the theologal ramifications to their ultimate conclusion. Calvin did:many do not. David follows his Anabaptist tradition, but doesn't have a system and so he throws his hands up to the "mystery" of sovereignty and freewill, and is OK with that. Most, in fact, are OK with just that. As far as fully developed systems go, not simply those who find it inscrutable, I believe Calvinism best represents the biblical witness, and can be thoroughly upheld philosophically where others fail (Molinism, for example, in the grounding objection).
I don't know. Some days I wish I could go back to the days where I was a naive Christian. It seems the more I read, learn, and know, the more sorrowful I become. Solomon was right.
Brent - although we often disagree, I find you a refreshingly honest young man. I think you believe your cultural experiments before finding the Lord qualify as enough empirical adventuring to be Soloman-like. I'll tell you this: You're sure to abandon Calvinism on multiple ocassions throughout a lifetime due to changing circumstance; you'll probably lose your faith now and then as differing wisdoms compete, too. Trying to attribute uncertain matters to certainty is always a human default position. Calvinism and fundamentalism may seem rational from where you currently stand but, you're not a statue and life will most assuredly change your stance.
David wrote: ""Calvinists" - yes. It is a broad term that encompasses lots of people. Read author Marilynne Robinson (Gilead, When I was a Child I read Books), she's a liberal Calvinist. I'd also put James K...."In terms of "Neo-Puritans", I wonder how much of it has to do with setting. I think Timothy Keller is a fabulous preacher and thinker and though he's Calvinist to the core, he doesn't make a lot of the bold and abrasive statements that a lot of his Neo-Puritan compadres makes. He's also based in New York, a very pluralistic and diverse city so perhaps he's used to have to navigate through dialoguing with different views? One could say the same thing for Driscoll in Seattle, but I recall an interview where Keller recommended pastors not write books until they are older (like he did) because by then their theology has settled down (e.g. Driscoll went from being an early proponent of the Emergent movement to one of its critics).
Perhaps I am a bit oblivious, but I think that the conversation on sectarianism here is involved basically with just free will and election. Other theological and ecclesiastical issues divide wedges among Christians such as women's ordination and infant/believer baptism. For instance, look at the Presbyterian denominations in the USA. The PCUSA ordains men and women as well as homosexuals. The PCA ordains only men. The new ECO ordains men and women but not homosexuals. That itself demonstrates the diversity of views over ordination in one (broadly speaking) theological tradition alone. As well as the Presbyterians splitting, there are loud murmurs of conservative Methodists splitting from the UMC.
I think one important thing to keep in mind in the midst of schism and sectarianism is how we as fellow believers respond to the Lord's Supper. Are we all able to partake of the same meal? Certainly, Catholics and Protestants do not hold the same views, but can a Pentecostal and a Presbyterian partake in communion together? I like what N.T. Wright says on this:
“At the heart of Galatians 2 is not an abstract individualized salvation, but a common meal. Paul does not want the Galatians to wait until they have agreed on all doctrinal arguments before they can sit down and eat together. Not to eat together is already to get the answer wrong. The whole point of his argument is that all those who belong to Christ belong at the same table with one another.
The relevance of this today should be obvious. The differences between us, as twentieth-century Christians, all too often reflect cultural, philosophical and tribal divides, rather than anything that should keep us apart from full and glad eucharistic fellowship. I believe the church should recognize, as a matter of biblical and Christian obedience, that it is time to put the horse back before the cart, and that we are far, far more likely to reach doctrinal agreement between our different churches if we do so within the context of that common meal which belongs equally to us all because it is the meal of the Lord whom we all worship. Intercommunion, in other words, is not something we should regard as the prize to be gained at the end of the ecumenical road; it is the very paving of the road itself. If we wonder why we haven't been travelling very fast down the road of late, maybe it's because, without the proper paving, we've got stuck in the mud.”
Haha, my "Anabaptist tradition." For the record, I did not grow up in this tradition and have no official connection to it (none of my supporting churches for my ministry are Anabaptist). I identify with it just because I've found Wesleyan-Anabaptist as the best descriptor of my theology. I am leery of "systems" because the Bible is not a system. The implication ends up being that the Bible is not good enough, instead it is a puzzle we need to solve to get to the real truth. So we all create systems that contradict and then we fight. Create a system, but we ought to hold it lightly. The Bible writers were not setting out to answer the question "free will or determinism" so why do we try to do so. The Bible writers answer questions that we might not be asking.
Not sure if it is a system, but if I was going to pick one I more and more have a soft spot for either the Catholic or Orthodox one. It seems like many of my favorite writers (Charles Taylor, David Bentley Hart) are either Catholic or Orthodox.
The more I read, the less I feel I know. I'll stick with Paul and seek to know nothing but Christ crucified.
I like what Alex pointed out. It doesn't seem like normal people (i.e. people who go to church and who don't post in forums like this one) are dividing over free will issues. And I have heard many Christians who I know are not "Calvinist" pray Calvinist prayers (God took our child, God works in mysterious ways, etc.). But it is other issues - gay marriage - that divide people. Of course, it is the systems behind these issues (are you fundamentalist or liberal) that lead to such issues.
Oh, and in response to what Alex said, I'd take communion with any of you here, from Lee to Rod and everyone in between.
Brent wrote:Isn't asserting a thesis, antithesis, synthesis dialectic remedy in fact propounding a theory, even if it is to "solve apparent contradictions," in itself that many would not necessarily agree with? I'm sure Hegel would be proud, but that should just compell you to live with the contradictions."Actually, I'm not really a fan of Hegel, but it would be wrong to say that just because you fault some things in the thought of a particular person that all things they say are wrong. That would be absurd. In this case there is something to be said for the model I referred to. I had cited Hans Denck's Paradoxa for a purpose. You might want to look at it. It is dealing in similar principles WAY BEFORE HEGEL LIVED (capitalized for emphasis only). I BEG YOU TO FIRST READ THE INTRODUCTION AND THE POINT OF THE PARADOXA BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT:
http://www.jeffreyclong.com/2006/01/0...
The fact is that many contradictions are only apparent but not REAL contradictions. They can be resolved and it usually means understanding the context of each. An appreciation for this I believe will allow any Christian to grow in their faith because 1) it will encourage reliance on the Holy Spirit and 2) it requires humility to admit that we do not have all the answers as Christians. Pride insists that we do. I follow this up below.
Brent wrote:I think perspicuous texts should shed light on unclear ones and not contrariwise. Hence, the long philosophical discourse in Romans 9 should serve to help formulate our understanding of providence, election, and freedom of the will.
I am aware that that is your perspective. I don't want to get in another debate about free will and Calvinism at this time. The discussion I got into is available elsewhere, but I do not want to continue it right now. I have not seen anything that causes me to doubt the position I've taken in regards to it.
Brent wrote: It all boils down, in my opinion, to whether one wants to actually develop a system and push the theologal ramifications to their ultimate conclusion. Calvin did:many do not.
I disagree that his system is faultless. Hegel also believed he founded a system that was faultless. The claims of both were rather naive in my opinion. Not that everything they said was wrong. I have a problem with systems that claim to account for everything. The system itself becomes an idol. I believe that is not a good thing. I am not saying that you treat Calvin's system that way, but many do.
Brent wrote: I don't know. Some days I wish I could go back to the days where I was a naive Christian. It seems the more I read, learn, and know, the more sorrowful I become. Solomon was right.
I believe there's many mysteries we do not know and I think it is healthy to recognize that. I've read a lot and still admit much ignorance. Paul said that we know only in part and we see through a glass darkly. Indeed, he even said to not pass judgment before the time and complete knowledge is given (1 Cor. 4:5).
Robert wrote: Trying to attribute uncertain matters to certainty is always a human default position. Calvinism and fundamentalism may seem rational from where you currently stand but, you're not a statue and life will most assuredly change your stance. Most excellent Robert. Thank you brother.
Alex wrote: "I think one important thing to keep in mind in the midst of schism and sectarianism is how we as fellow believers respond to the Lord's Supper. Are we all able to partake of the same meal? Certainly, Catholics and Protestants do not hold the same views, but can a Pentecostal and a Presbyterian partake in communion together? "I would take communion with any of them and I have a good Catholic friend and I would take communion with him too.
Alex wrote: The differences between us, as twentieth-century Christians, all too often reflect cultural, philosophical and tribal divides, rather than anything that should keep us apart from full and glad eucharistic fellowship. "
I agree.
I used to have a very negative view of the Puritans. I have since changed my mind. There were many kinds of Puritans. Some were Arminian, some Calvinist, some were quite mystical. That latter fact blew my mind. One would have thought that Puritanism and Christian Mysticism were quite incompatible, but as it turns out that isn't the case.
Erick - maybe you ought not thank me too quickly. I did not mean that Brent may not end up, when all is said and done, a Calvinist and/or Fundamentalist. I meant that as his status and vantage point change, he'll question even his most closely held beliefs. All deep, thoughtful people do and Brent certainly qualifies.
Robert wrote: "Erick - maybe you ought not thank me too quickly. I did not mean that Brent may not end up, when all is said and done, a Calvinist and/or Fundamentalist. I meant that as his status and vantage poin..."I knew what you meant. Maybe there's some irony.
I'm not taking Communion with Guillermo in his present iteration.
It doesn't take long for them to resort to personal attack and slander of other confessions. Does this sort of fruit put Calvinism is a bad light?