Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Does anyone know if it's true that the members of the infamous westboro baptist church are calvinists?

While I'm sure most calvinists wouldn't want to admit the association or the extreme to which they take it, the Westboro Baptist Church does state that they hold to Calvins 5 point Tulip.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html

I think WBC is a good example of hypercalvinism taken to it's logical extremes. I don't believe, however that's it's fair to draw the comparison with all Calvinism.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

RickD wrote:Does anyone know if it's true that the members of the infamous westboro baptist church are calvinists?

While I'm sure most calvinists wouldn't want to admit the association or the extreme to which they take it, the Westboro Baptist Church does state that they hold to Calvins 5 point Tulip.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html

I think WBC is a good example of hypercalvinism taken to it's logical extremes. I don't believe, however that's it's fair to draw the comparison with all Calvinism.

Do you think the absence of love in the WBC is because of their Calvinistic beliefs whatsoever ? What I've seen from Calvinism leads me to believe their doctrine promotes a lack of love to whom they believe is the nonelect.

That's a hard statement to make. I think their gravitating to hypercalvinism is certainly connected.

I have some strong personal opinions as to the level of love and body life that I've observed evidenced within reformed and calvinist based churches over my life and ministry. That's led to my leaving reformed based theology based churches. I don't believe most people in reformed churches really understand the entirity of and the implications of many of their doctrines. In fairness I think the same could be said of most churches of any particular brand.

I understand that the majority of Calvinists are not hyper-Calvinists and in terms of their faith and practice they pray as if the will of God can be entreated in specific situations and they also evangelize and reach out to others as if all can be saved. It's my personal opinion however that calvinism is all of it's forms actually requires the practicioneer to hold to one set of intellectual beliefs when it comes to the truth of their doctrine and then rationalize their practices outside of them because when you analyze them down to the brass tacks there are self-contradicting elements. Again, to be fair, I don't think Calvinism is unique in that. I strongly believe that Calvinism is the natural extension of Greek based Philosophy into the context of Theology and Biblical interpretation. It has value and I don't reject every tenet of Calvinism, but I no longer wish to be characterized by it.

That may cause offense to some. I am speaking for myself and I'll be the first to admit that these opinions are based in some of my experiences, which flavor my opinions. That said, it's also my considered opinion after studying and examining the entire system of belief, not just internally (which is where calvinists prefer to stay focused) but also externally in terms of the influences of culture, history, tradition and philosophical influence.

Thanks bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:...it's also my considered opinion after studying and examining the entire system of belief, not just internally (which is where calvinists prefer to stay focused) but also externally in terms of the influences of culture, history, tradition and philosophical influence.

While you are studying the history, culture, and tradition of these movements, you may want to study the history and theology surrounding the Scottish and London Missionary Societies (as well as just about every major historical missionary movement). You may also want to examine the theology of the Great Awakening.

While you are at it, you may contrast these with the theology and culture of modern American Evangelicalism and the "therapeutic revolution" in our churches (in case you are wondering, that is not a compliment to the modern church).

We do agree on one thing. Ideas have consequences.

puritan lad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:...it's also my considered opinion after studying and examining the entire system of belief, not just internally (which is where calvinists prefer to stay focused) but also externally in terms of the influences of culture, history, tradition and philosophical influence.

While you are studying the history, culture, and tradition of these movements, you may want to study the history and theology surrounding the Scottish and London Missionary Societies (as well as just about every major historical missionary movement). You may also want to examine the theology of the Great Awakening.

While you are at it, you may contrast these with the theology and culture of modern American Evangelicalism and the "therapeutic revolution" in our churches (in case you are wondering, that is not a compliment to the modern church).

We do agree on one thing. Ideas have consequences.

Bart, help me out here. Isn't this response a "red herring"?

No. It's called historical fact. I'll let you discover which theology surrounded which set of movements.

While we are discussing logical fallacies, I could discuss "Sweeping Generalization", but certain disclaimers were cleverly inserted into some claims to wriggle their way out of this.

Now if you want a real "Red Herring", someone did make a comment about westboro baptist church in this thread.

I don't think so RickD.

For the record, I have a lot of appreciation and respect for PL and August and many others who remain in and come from a reformed position. I have looked at many of the factors that PL is suggesting here. I also have some bad experience and a bad taste in my mouth from working and fellowshiping in a Reformed Church where I watched the sausage being made in the background and it was very disillusioning and sad to observe what was said behind doors and compare it to what came from the pulpit. That in many ways served as a catalyst that has led me to re-evaluate a great deal of ecclesiology and how the Church is to live out it's association with Christ. I own that and say it up front, so if I seem to be coming across stronger or more personal than usual, that may be why.

He's noting that if you're going to look outside of the actual system of beliefs itself and look not only at the influences from the outside then it's fair too to take a look at the impact of the belief system on the world around it. As PL notes, there are some pretty impressive and wonderful things that can be noted with regard to Calvinism and Reformed Theology and it can also be noted that most Evangelical Churches (and what he derisively refers to as "therapeutic revolution" which is actually nicer than "touchy-feely" Christianity) are foundering today. In terms of the statistics though that can make that statement, Reformed Churches in the US aren't faring much better.

Any group can play tag with positives and negatives. Truthfully, Calvinism has some pretty ugly beginnings with some "heretics" being put to death under Calvin's system which was at that time not just theological but also political. That in and of itself doesn't negate the validity of the approach. I simply still find it telling that Christianity did without Calvinism and systematic theology for 1500 years. That doesn't make it unprofitable. I think it's clear however that it was never meant to be foundational.

We can trade anecdotal stories of pluses and minuses of different systems and if we get caught upon in that then it will indeed be a red herring to the extent that the original themes are ignored. When that happens, it's usually just an indicator that most of what can be said has been said and now we're moving into the emotional appeals.

My thoughts anyway.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I simply still find it telling that Christianity did without Calvinism and systematic theology for 1500 years.

Do we really want to go back to that form of Christianity? One of the best historical proofs of predestination is that God ordained the timing of the Reformation to coincide with the invention of the printing press.

Calvinism theological framework serves as one set of tools leading one to understand God better. It has its limits and once these are reached, one can remain within the theological framework of Calvinism or can branch out into the deepness and vastness of God's incomprehensibleness.

For myself, I choose to branch out into that darkness that veils God and explore the light of the Lord beyond (Eph 3:14-19 – John 17:3 – Col 1:10 – 2 Peter 3:18c).
-
-
-

puritan lad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I simply still find it telling that Christianity did without Calvinism and systematic theology for 1500 years.

Do we really want to go back to that form of Christianity? One of the best historical proofs of predestination is that God ordained the timing of the Reformation to coincide with the invention of the printing press.

It was powerful and it's made huge changes in many different areas that can't be denied. I take those things as supplemental and not foundational.

The internet is having similar scale impact that will continue in my opinion if we don't blow it and each other up for the next 100 years or so.

It's tough looking back to the early Church in some ways to draw ecclesiology out without falling into the error of thinking that all elements of the early Church need to be imitated today. I do think however, that we've complicated Christianity a great deal from it's early foundational understandings and practices. Increased knowledge is all well and good, but when it is somehow added into the soteriological mix that existed and worked just fine before it came along and people begin to insist that it's not enough to trust in Christ, you have to agree with the mechanics taught as to how everything happens, then I think we're flirting with modern gnosticism and moving away from Christ.

If you are holding that systematic theology is errant, I would agree. (I don't agree with everything Calvin said myself). Having said that, one of the ways we acknowledge our own fallability is to value the works of others who have labored in Word and Doctrine. The only other option is to ignore systematic doctrines and rely own our own studies. While personal study is important, it is also important to appreciate the wisdom of others, for God has given teachers as gifts to his church. Those teachers aren't just limited to those who are living today.

I agree that there is a danger of getting locked into any theological framework, but ultimately everyone has a systematic theology, even if that systematic theology refuses to appeal to other systematic theologies. Whether or not they write it down is another matter.

puritan lad wrote:No. It's called historical fact. I'll let you discover which theology surrounded which set of movements.

While we are discussing logical fallacies, I could discuss "Sweeping Generalization", but certain disclaimers were cleverly inserted into some claims to wriggle their way out of this.

Now if you want a real "Red Herring", someone did make a comment about westboro baptist church in this thread.

The question about WBC was asked by myself to see if Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion would lead to what the WBC is about. Bart seemed to think that WBC is more about hypercalvinism than mainstream Calvinism. I stand by my question, and I'm sure you weren't expecting everyone here to agree with your beliefs.

All of us are created unique, meaning that our relationships, values and norms are unique to some extent as well. That includes our unique relationship with, and understanding of, God, and we end up with our own personal theological systems based on our relationship with God.

We still learn from others, and we still accept or reject teachings. But ultimately we are individually responsible and accountable, and we are each assigned faith which dictates how we think and act. I like what the whole of Romans 12 has to say about this: Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

That is why we may end up with Augustism, BWism, Canucksterism, PLism, Calvinism, Arminiasm etc. And is also why discussions of this type end up being mostly futile...even though something may be crystal clear to one person, it is muddied waters for another.

puritan lad wrote:If you are holding that systematic theology is errant, I would agree. (I don't agree with everything Calvin said myself). Having said that, one of the ways we acknowledge our own fallability is to value the works of others who have labored in Word and Doctrine. The only other option is to ignore systematic doctrines and rely own our own studies. While personal study is important, it is also important to appreciate the wisdom of others, for God has given teachers as gifts to his church. Those teachers aren't just limited to those who are living today.

I agree that there is a danger of getting locked into any theological framework, but ultimately everyone has a systematic theology, even if that systematic theology refuses to appeal to other systematic theologies. Whether or not they write it down is another matter.

I appreciate your being able to say that PL. I haven't said that Systematic Theology is unprofitable. Systematic Theology is just one method of approaching the Scripture. As I've noted, but I'll try to make things a little clearer, there are other means of approaching scripture than systematic theology as it is defined narrowly and as Calvin introduced it. Biblical Theology (as an approach not a quality) works with the text in far broader themes looking to exegete things within the more immediate context. It then looks to synthesize the broader themes of Scripture into a broader understanding. I actually believe that that type of approach is more true to the text and less subject to eisogesis carried in from a Systematic Framework. Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive and one can and should feed into the other.

My disenchantment with some elements of Calvinism doesn't mean that I reject it all. It does mean though that I've rejected elements of it as inconsistent with what I see in those broad themes of Scripture. I don't know that there is any formal system of systematic theology that I'd identify my beliefs as falling with in nor do I think it's necessary to pigeonhole every belief in this manner. Sometime dissecting a living faith, if not killing it, certainly leaves it maimed and limping

Maybe sometime, so I'm not seen as just sniping from the sidelines, I'll trot my beliefs out in a more formal manner and let you all take shots at me.