Give God The Glory For ...

[Rippon]

In another thread someone thought a comment I made bordered on being idolatrous . I had said something along the lines of : "Give glory to God for His gift to the Church of John Calvin." It would have meant the same if I had said :"Thank God for His gracing the Church with John Calvin ."

If God is given the glory for His gifts , where is the near-idolatry ? If I had something like : "Thank God for the great John Calvin." , then that becomes a little fuzzy .Who am I praising in that statement ? Am I diving praise between God and a mere creature ? No , I extoll the LORD for His gifts . The LORD is the ONE who graced the Church with John Calvin . That man was not just a great man . The LORD is the GREAT ONE . The LORD prepared him for his enduring ministry to the saints through the ages .

Can we not say : "We praise you LORD for your gift of Paul to the Church." ? Are we wrong to say : "I give glory to you O LORD for your gift of John MacArthur to the Church ."? Can't we say : " Lord we give you honor for your gift to the Church of faithful preachers ." ?

There are many things that we can praise God for . It is to the LORD we give praise , honor and glory -- not to puny mortals . However , we must be thankful enough to recognize His gifts in many forms and give thanks that we are privileged to be the beneficiaries of His manifold blessings .

Most of all I give thanks for the wonderful gift of His Son -- Jesus Christ who gave Himself for me , and His Holy Spirit who indwells me .

 

[webdog]

I don't know about anyone else, but would a calvinist be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? Is there anyone besides Jesus Christ who is a "gift" to the Church?

 

[tinytim]

According to His word he did... We may disagree about which people, but God has given (gifts) to the church....
Ephesians 4:11-13 KJV
(11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
(13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[TCGreek]

I don't know about anyone else, but would a calvinist be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? Is there anyone besides Jesus Christ who is a "gift" to the Church?

By the way Jesus is not a gift to the church. The statement assumes that there was the church before Jesus, and he became a gift to it. Rather the church is a gift to the world from Jesus, who purchased it with his own blood.

I am a Calvinist, and I would boldly say thank God for giving Dr. Charles F. Stanley, Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Ravi Zacharias to the church as gifts, men who are proclaiming your name and impacting this world.

When we get to heaven, it is not because we subscribe to Calvinism or Arminianism. It will be because we have trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord. Nothing more, nothing less. That is what I see in the bible.

But Calvin is marked out because of what he has done for the name of Christ and his cause throughout church history. His influence is overwhelming. God has used him mightily.

 

[npetreley]

I can't imagine anything more appropriate than to give God the glory for something good.

It seems to me that what we have here is a case of "I don't like what he's giving God the glory for, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he's glorifying God and twist it to mean he's idolizing the thing I don't like."

 

[pinoybaptist]

When we get to heaven, it is not because we subscribe to Calvinism or Arminianism. It will be because we have trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord. Nothing more, nothing less. That is what I see in the bible.

Allow me a little expansion here, brother.
When we get to heaven it will not be because of our theology or creed or any other earthly circumstance.
It will be because our Father wanted us there.

 

[skypair]

I can't imagine anything more appropriate than to give God the glory for something good.

Yeah, if it is really good.

Web's premise is that Calvin has led a lot of people astray -- either the "elect" into heresy or unsaved into slumber --- and sometimes the "elect" and the unsaved are the same folks! Is this a "good" thing?

skypair

 

[Dale-c]

Wow, so the point is Skypair that if we praise God for something that we find is NOT really a gift from God, then we are idolatrous?
Wow.

 

[blackbird]

I don't know about anyone else, but would a calvinist be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? Is there anyone besides Jesus Christ who is a "gift" to the Church?

The answer is NO!! The Lord Jesus Christ is the glory and honor in His church!!

We must keep in mind that although John Calvin was a great theological influencer---his writings, books, and sermons are somewhat less than inspired, infallable, and inerrant!!

 

[Martin]

In another thread someone thought a comment I made bordered on being idolatrous . I had said something along the lines of : "Give glory to God for His gift to the Church of John Calvin." It would have meant the same if I had said :"Thank God for His gracing the Church with John Calvin ."

==I don't think that is the issue at all. I think the issue is "who" you were thanking God for. If you had said I thank God for giving the church John Wesley or someone like that I really doubt anyone would have said anything. There are a lot of "Christians" out there who "hate", in the literal sense of the word, John Calvin. Most of these people know little to nothing about John Calvin the man and most of what they may know is factually questionable. Why do they hate John Calvin? I think it is because they associate him with the start of certain doctrines they disagree with (election, perseverance, etc). What they often ignore, however, is that Calvin was not the first to teach these doctrines. Either way their pure hatred for John Calvin is the reason some people have such an angry response anytime his name is mentioned. Anthor reason they hate John Calvin is that it is much easier to slander a dead man than to have a serious, deep, theological discussion on freewill/election/perseverance (etc). That is why if you try to talk about election there are some people who will go on an anti-Calvin rant (when you did not even mention John Calvin). It is much easier to go on an anti-Calvin rant (and to make other wild statements) than it is to have a serious, careful, Bible focused, text focused, theological discussion about election.

 

[webdog]

==I don't think that is the issue at all. I think the issue is "who" you were thanking God for. If you had said I thank God for giving the church John Wesley or someone like that I really doubt anyone would have said anything.

I would have said the same thing that I did about John Calvin. Christ is the Gift. There is no other Gift to THE Church.
This was my point, btw, in my comment above. Would a calvinist honestly say this...since many feel free willer's serve a different "god"?

 

[Allan]

==I don't think that is the issue at all. I think the issue is "who" you were thanking God for. If you had said I thank God for giving the church John Wesley or someone like that I really doubt anyone would have said anything. There are a lot of "Christians" out there who "hate", in the literal sense of the word, John Calvin. Most of these people know little to nothing about John Calvin the man and most of what they may know is factually questionable. Why do they hate John Calvin? I think it is because they associate him with the start of certain doctrines they disagree with (election, perseverance, etc). What they often ignore, however, is that Calvin was not the first to teach these doctrines. Either way their pure hatred for John Calvin is the reason some people have such an angry response anytime his name is mentioned. Anthor reason they hate John Calvin is that it is much easier to slander a dead man than to have a serious, deep, theological discussion on freewill/election/perseverance (etc). That is why if you try to talk about election there are some people who will go on an anti-Calvin rant (when you did not even mention John Calvin). It is much easier to go on an anti-Calvin rant (and to make other wild statements) than it is to have a serious, careful, Bible focused, text focused, theological discussion about election.

I think your Calvinism has clouded your judgment. Since it was I, who made the comment on another thread and stated it was not the same thing as Idolitry but it gets pretty close; you might want to ask rather than assume. It keeps you from looking silly.

It doesn't matter if it was Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody, or any other man.
No MAN is a gift the Church as whole because they are mearly a part of the whole. Calvin did do alot (both good and bad), and stands on equal ground with people like Wesley, Moody, and others. They are all men of God used by God for the furthence of His Church and NO MAN stands above another, except Christ the Lord of All.

BTW - There are alot of Calvinists out there who 'hate' just as vehemently anyone non-Calvinistic.

You can step off of you martyr's platform, and maybe take a moment to realize the people don't 'hate' Calvinism per say but they 'hate' the Calvinistic attitude that comes so often with it. Look at your own writting and you can see the disdain for those not in line with your view. You can read in your post the 'greater than' attitude that is common in many of the Calvinistic BB'ers here.

I find the current Calvinism conveys the Cain type love typified here by John:

1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

They claim they love the brethren but they don't mind killing (spiritually) them either, much like how Cain loved his brother. (love the brethren but not as Cain did)

 

[Rippon]

Back to the OP , we can thank the LORD for His many gifts to the Church . Calvin is not THE gift , Christ is . But among the human-only category I think Calvin is second to the apostle Paul . The Church stands in their debt .

 

[webdog]

Calvin is not THE gift , Christ is . But among the human-only category I think Calvin is second to the apostle Paul

:laugh: :laugh:
What book of the Bible did Calvin write again?

 

[saturneptune]

posted in error

 

[Rippon]

That's not John 3:16 SN . But it is true that those who were elect in Him before the foundation of the world shall not perish .

What book of the Bible did Calvin write ? He wrote no canonical book . But that does not disqualify him from being considered # 2 after the Apostle Paul for being a wonderful gift that God has provided the Church for centuries . Praise God for His gifts !

 

[saturneptune]

That's not John 3:16 SN . But it is true that those who were elect in Him before the foundation of the world shall not perish .

What book of the Bible did Calvin write ? He wrote no canonical book . But that does not disqualify him from being considered # 2 after the Apostle Paul for being a wonderful gift that God has provided the Church for centuries . Praise God for His gifts !

posted in error

 

[Rippon]

But John 3:16 does not stand in isolation SN . It is related to quite a few other verses . If you believe in the whole counsel of God you should check out John 11:52 ; John 17:9 ; John 13:1b ; Rev. 5:9 ; Rev. 7:9 ; Rev. 14:4 ; 1 John 3:16 ( the other 3:16 ! ) ; Titus 2:14 and many more .To understand John 3:16 look beyond the surface and use the anology of Scripture . By the way , add Eph. 1:4-14 and Romans 8:28-30 as well .

 

[Martin]

I think your Calvinism has clouded your judgment. Since it was I, who made the comment on another thread and stated it was not the same thing as Idolitry but it gets pretty close; you might want to ask rather than assume. It keeps you from looking silly.

==I don't keep up with who posts what in all the threads, I don't have that much time on my hands (I wish I did). Also I had nobody in mind in my reply, I was just making general comments. I think anyone who read what I said, without being defensive, would see that. Also my comments are based on pure experience. There are some people, I never said all, who will go into a hate-filled anti-Calvin rant even at the mere mention of election. I never said you, or anyone else on this board, was like that. I was making general comments.

It doesn't matter if it was Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody, or any other man.No MAN is a gift the Church as whole because they are mearly a part of the whole.

==My Bible tells me that all good gifts come from God (Jms 1:17). I believe God does send the church teachers/preachers for the good of the church (Matt 23:34). I would say that men like Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, etc, are gifts to the church in that sense. God has given gifted men to the church for the benefit of the church (to edify the body).

Calvin did do alot (both good and bad), and stands on equal ground with people like Wesley, Moody, and others. They are all men of God used by God for the furthence of His Church and NO MAN stands above another, except Christ the Lord of All.

==I would not disagree with that and I don't know anyone in this thread who has placed Calvin above those men.

There are alot of Calvinists out there who 'hate' just as vehemently anyone non-Calvinistic.

==I did not say there were not.

You can step off of you martyr's platform, and maybe take a moment to realize the people don't 'hate' Calvinism per say

==Excuse me, but yes they do. I have seen it, I have run into it, I have read it. There are people who have a deep seated hatred for Calvin and Calvinism. If you don't think there are then you must not be paying attention to the various sermons/comments/debates on this issue.

but they 'hate' the Calvinistic attitude that comes so often with it.

==I hear this a lot mainly used against James White. However I am not sure that there is an "attitude" with the majority of Calvinist (no more than any other group anyway). I think the problem is that many non-Calvinists can't debate many Calvinists. I have seen debates in which the non-Calvinist was just out matched (I don't know any other way to say that). Why is this? Personally I believe it is because the general teachings we know as "Calvinism" are Biblical and therefore trying to argue against them (not Calvin, Calvinists, or Calvinism) is very difficult.

Look at your own writting and you can see the disdain for those not in line with your view. You can read in your post the 'greater than' attitude that is common in many of the Calvinistic BB'ers here.

==I am certainly glad you can read that into a post on a internet discussion forum. Mainly when you don't know the person who wrote the post. You have never met me in person, we have never spoken, you don't know the first thing about me. So how you can read an attitude into my posts is beyond me. In person nobody accuses me of that (O, well).

I have no disdain for non-Calvinists. I use to be a non-Calvinist, my grandmother was a non-Calvinist before she went home, I have friends who are non-Calvinists, I graduated from a non-Calvinistic seminary, I support ministries/preachers that are not Calvinistic (In Touch, Jerry Falwell, Ergun Caner, Norma Giesler etc), need I go on? On this forum I am just stating what I believe is true. I believe the teachings of Calvinism are on solid Biblical ground. I believe non-Calvinists are wrong (not unsaved, just wrong). I like the example of Wesley and Whitefield. Even though they disagreed in a most heated way about these issues they were still friends. Wesley even preached Whitefield's funeral.

 

[Dale-c]

It is much easier to go on an anti-Calvin rant (and to make other wild statements) than it is to have a serious, careful, Bible focused, text focused, theological discussion about election.

The problem is that calvinist theology (which is Biblical theology) leaves absolutely NO room for man to boast. zero.
Not even AFTER salvation.
There are many that are fine with being saved by grace but they appear to want to be able to be better than others by their good works afterwards.

Calvinism is a personal attack against them, even though we never mean for it to be.
The people who get the most offended are often those who see what the implications are:
You, though you may be saved are still a dirty, depraved sinner with NO GOOD WHATSOEVER in your own flesh, just like I am and every other calvinist on this board.

It isn't the calvinist that is atacking, it is the little boy saying "Momma, the emperor is naked!"