Going on a Worship Strike!

God is not the ‘God of Calvinism’ nor his he the ‘God of Arminianism’.

Worship God as Creator and Saviour and let’s stop trying to define him and box him in by the musings of fallen men.

​Doug Wilson uses the term ‘God of Calvinism’ multiple times in his article to bolster his position. Such a term has all the intellectual rigour of the KJVO theory - which is truly lazy. The fact is that Jesus was incarnated 1,500 years before John Calvin. The gospel was complete and completely understood long before the advent of ‘Calvinism’. And to try say that Jesus taught Calvinism, is the equivalent of trying to say that Jesus was a Baptist.

Let’s not pretend that Calvinism reveals the gospel or has a monopoly on good theology. At best that is a strawman argument. We would be far better to develop good theology straight from the authortative source - the Bible.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why ‘Evangelical Christians’ put Calvin on a pedalstool. In his day, Calvin was the equivalent of ISIS, sanctioning the murder of those who did not submit to his exact interpretations. Hardly a hero of the faith.

I agree that denial of the trinity is a quibble over “exact interpretations.” Why bother with historical fact or context.

KJVO … Calvinists …. Arminians ….. who else can we insult?

[J. Baillet]

I agree that denial of the trinity is a quibble over “exact interpretations.” Why bother with historical fact or context.

By all means, expand on the context. The historical fact still is that John Calvin drowned Anabaptists in Lake Geneva. True, he was not the only reformer to murder others. My point is that Doug Wilson is dangerous in equating God with Calvinism.

@TylerR

You are correct, we all have systems. As long as we are on this earth there will be some element of identifying with Paul or Apollos. My point is that Christian maturity will increasingly drive us directly to the Bible rather than a theological system.

[JC]

J. Baillet wrote:

I agree that denial of the trinity is a quibble over “exact interpretations.” Why bother with historical fact or context.

By all means, expand on the context. The historical fact still is that John Calvin drowned Anabaptists in Lake Geneva. True, he was not the only reformer to murder others. My point is that Doug Wilson is dangerous in equating God with Calvinism.

@TylerR

You are correct, we all have systems. As long as we are on this earth there will be some element of identifying with Paul or Apollos. My point is that Christian maturity will increasingly drive us directly to the Bible rather than a theological system.

Source, please?

Calvin did suggest to the civil council the sword as a more humane form of execution (not murder) than the stake. Glad TylerR saved Calvin from the error of the Anabaptists. Calvin would not have required them to be baptized a second time (although he would have been open-minded on mode).

I believe TylerR has already made the point, but I will reiterate that Doug Wilson was not “equating God with Calvinism,” as alleged by JC, but was contrasting “the God of Calvinism,” i.e. how Calvinists view the sovereignty of God, with “the God of Arminianism,” i.e. how Arminians view the sovereignty of God. All orthodox Christians would agree that the ultimate issue is what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God. “Ay, there’s the rub,” “even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Hamlet’s soliloquy)(II Peter 3:15b-16)(AV). Ouch, even being driven to the Bible does not always provide us with a safe haven.

[TylerR]

I believe JC is conflating Calvin with Ulrich Zwingli, who ministered in Zurich. He infamously consented to Anabaptist minister Felix Manz’s execution, allegedly preaching calculatingly incendiary sermons where he proclaimed, “let he who talks about going under the water go under himself!” Manz was wrapped in chains and tossed into the River Limmat to drown after being sentenced by the Zurich city council for the crime of re-baptizing adults.

Both Zwingli and Calvin (and other reformers) have history of sanctioning killing of Christians for political gain. In his writing in 1561 to the Marquis Paet (chamberlain to the King of Navarre), John Calvin said,

Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others] , who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard”

We can keep discussing to what degree John Calvin’s actions taint him, but that is is not the crux of the issue. Even if Calvin had opposed the killing, we still should not elevate a human system to that of the Bible. I was taught (and I believe) that the first and most fundamental doctrine for the Christian is that the Bible is the sole source for faith and practice.

I do see Doug’s (and many other strongheaded Calvinist warriors) equating of Calvinism and the Bible/God. I have many friends who identify as both Calvinists and as Armineans. That is fine. What I baulk at is the exclusivity of defining God by one to the exclusion of the other.

God is an infinite and powerful God. He can both be sovereign and allow free will at the same time. Christian maturity will allow us to hold those two truth in tension without needing to exclude either one of them.

If it sounds like I am too strong on this, it is because I’ve met enough ‘Doug Wilson’s’ to last a life time. I’m doing my best to not throw out truth with the ‘Calvinist/Arminean bathwater’

For Calvinists, I suggest that rather than telling Armineans that they really don’t know who they worship, a better approach would be to go straight to the Bible’s teaching on foreknowledge and predestination. For Arminean’s the same thing. Rather than say that Calvinists don’t worship a loving God, go straight to the Bible’s teaching on God’s sacrifice for all.

[J. Baillet]

Calvin did suggest to the civil council the sword as a more humane form of execution (not murder) than the stake. Glad TylerR saved Calvin from the error of the Anabaptists. Calvin would not have required them to be baptized a second time (although he would have been open-minded on mode).

I believe TylerR has already made the point, but I will reiterate that Doug Wilson was not “equating God with Calvinism,” as alleged by JC, but was contrasting “the God of Calvinism,” i.e. how Calvinists view the sovereignty of God, with “the God of Arminianism,” i.e. how Arminians view the sovereignty of God. All orthodox Christians would agree that the ultimate issue is what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God. “Ay, there’s the rub,” “even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Hamlet’s soliloquy)(II Peter 3:15b-16)(AV). Ouch, even being driven to the Bible does not always provide us with a safe haven.

“All orthodox Christians would agree that the ultimate issue is what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God.”

I’m not sure there is a such thing as the “ultimate issue” and if the sovereignty of God is the ultimate issue then based on the comments all Christians certainly don’t agree about what the Bible says about it. I think Peter’s comments have to do more with Paul’s teaching on God’s grace and not his sovereignty.

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.” (Romans 3:7-8)

Some were saying if Paul is teaching that God’s grace is greater than our sin (Romans 5:20), then we should sin more so we can get more of God’s grace and God be glorified. Paul refutes this in Romans 6, particularly verse 1 and 15.

In context, the “ultimate Issue” concerning the sovereignty of God is what the Bible says about it, not what John Calvin or John Wesley says about it. I was not applying II Peter 3:15b-16 to the issue of the sovereignty of God, per se, but to JC’s point that we should “go straight to the Bible’s teaching.” Peter may give some insight into why it is that “all Christians certainly don’t agree.”

[J. Baillet]

In context, the “ultimate Issue” concerning the sovereignty of God is what the Bible says about it, not what John Calvin or John Wesley says about it. I was not applying II Peter 3:15b-16 to the issue of the sovereignty of God, per se, but to JC’s point that we should “go straight to the Bible’s teaching.” Peter may give some insight into why it is that “all Christians certainly don’t agree.”

Then what does the Bible say concerning the sovereignty of God and what are the implications?

[JC]

TylerR wrote:

I believe JC is conflating Calvin with Ulrich Zwingli, who ministered in Zurich. He infamously consented to Anabaptist minister Felix Manz’s execution, allegedly preaching calculatingly incendiary sermons where he proclaimed, “let he who talks about going under the water go under himself!” Manz was wrapped in chains and tossed into the River Limmat to drown after being sentenced by the Zurich city council for the crime of re-baptizing adults.

Both Zwingli and Calvin (and other reformers) have history of sanctioning killing of Christians for political gain. In his writing in 1561 to the Marquis Paet (chamberlain to the King of Navarre), John Calvin said,

Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others] , who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard”

We can keep discussing to what degree John Calvin’s actions taint him, but that is is not the crux of the issue. Even if Calvin had opposed the killing, we still should not elevate a human system to that of the Bible. I was taught (and I believe) that the first and most fundamental doctrine for the Christian is that the Bible is the sole source for faith and practice.

I do see Doug’s (and many other strongheaded Calvinist warriors) equating of Calvinism and the Bible/God. I have many friends who identify as both Calvinists and as Armineans. That is fine. What I baulk at is the exclusivity of defining God by one to the exclusion of the other.

God is an infinite and powerful God. He can both be sovereign and allow free will at the same time. Christian maturity will allow us to hold those two truth in tension without needing to exclude either one of them.