This is primarily for those who identify with Calvinism

[Iconoclast]

What do you see as the three best points made in this helpful article?

What do you see as the three weakest points if any in this article?

http://www.gracegems.org/SERMONS2/practical_wisdom_for_calvinists.htm

Non Cals...feel free to take a look also:wavey: proceed at your own risk...this article is rated '''

R for reformed

I believe this article has good points and error in it.Can you spot the errors?
I do not agree with several points here,however....he raises many good points for discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

The article makes two errors:

1. The first is an error based on the inability to function theologically outside of some particular system of theology. And that is that if you are not Calvinist then you are automatically Arminian. I also believe it is out of laziness. Many cals do not want to have to deal with numerous points of view so they broad brush everyone.

2. The second one is also very common among cals and it is made out of arrogance. It is only arrogance that says anyone who disagrees with cals must do so out of ignorance of what cals believe. Cals struggle to deal with people who actually understand exactly what they believe and still reject the terrible doctrines of Calvin. Their hyper-intellectualism is an impediment to reasonable discussion or graceful consideration of other views.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell


Good imput.

The article makes two errors:

1. The first is an error based on the inability to function theologically outside of some particular system of theology. And that is that if you are not Calvinist then you are automatically Arminian. I also believe it is out of laziness. Many cals do not want to have to deal with numerous points of view so they broad brush everyone.

Or...could it be that in speaking in general terms you say the most in the least amount of time? To try and break down all possibilites everytime we speak on an issue would not seem feasible.

2. The second one is also very common among cals and it is made out of arrogance

.

This has to be addressed as it comes up very often.
he in part addressed it here;
5. Although those who adhere to the precious Doctrines of Grace should be ready always to articulate and explain their beliefs, we must be careful to not go looking for debates or disputes with our Arminian brethren – as Paul reminds us in Philippians 4:3, "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Let us also remember that we do not always have to have the last word, nor is it necessary to always "win the debate" – as Spurgeon wisely warned his own students at The Pastor’s College:

In all probability, sensible conversation will sometimes drift into controversy, and here many a good man runs upon a snag. The sensible minister will be particularly gentle in argument. He, above all men, should not make the mistake of fancying that there is force in temper, and power in speaking angrily. A heathen who stood in a crowd in Calcutta, listening to a missionary disputing with a Brahmin, said he knew which was right though he did not understand the language – he knew that he was in the wrong who lost his temper first. For the most part, that is a very accurate way of judging. Try to avoid debating with people. State your opinion and let them state theirs. If you see that a stick is crooked, and you want people to see how crooked it is, lay a straight rod down beside it; that will be quite enough. But if you are drawn into controversy, use very hard arguments and very soft words. Frequently you cannot convince a man by tugging at his reason, but you can persuade him by winning his affections (Lectures to My Students [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Reprint, 1977] Vol.1, p.188).

6. Christian love, however, does not exclude a proper and humble boldness. Proverbs 28:1 reminds us that "the righteous are bold as a lion" (cf. Acts 4:29,31; Philippians 1:14).
This is accomplished easier face to face,harder on a keyboard ,responding to just the words, or the attack that comes most times.

It is only arrogance that says anyone who disagrees with cals must do so out of ignorance of what cals believe

.

Or....what if it is out of a degree of ignorance? he said;
3. Most Arminians reject the Doctrines of Grace out of gross ignorance, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation on the part of sincere, but misinformed Calvinist’s. Thus, often they are not rejecting genuine Calvinism, but distortions of it. One’s heart may be right, while one’s head may be wrong.

Cals struggle to deal with people who actually understand exactly what they believe and still reject the terrible doctrines of Calvin.

For two people to disagree demonstrates that in some way they "do not understand exactly the same"...If everyone understood the same way,that would include a belief that is the same.

Now...if someone can articulate the doctrine accurately enough,and then offer why they do not hold to it.....that is another story.

For example, can we as baptists go into a Presbyterian church and present their view of why infants should be baptized in such a way that if they do not know us to be baptists they would believe we believed as they do?

Their hyper-intellectualism is an impediment to reasonable discussion or graceful consideration of other views.

1]This can and sometimes is a real danger...a person can be flat out arrogant, and puffed up,thinking themselves to be more than they are.

2] they can be perceived as "arrogant" because they are very bold and confident in the truth itself,so much so that the person who disagrees gets overwhelmed with the confident presentation of truth that they cannot understand properly, or find an answer to...so they charge

he addressed that here:
1. Consider the grace and blessings which God has lavished upon you: He could have chosen to create you into a mouse or even a cockroach but, instead, chose to make you into a member of the human race; He could have chosen to plant you in the most remote and harshest place on this planet but, instead, chose to plant you in the free and prosperous land of America; He could have left you in sin and darkness but, instead, chose to redeem you and adopt you as His child through Christ Jesus; And He could have left you in your Arminian confusion but, instead, chose to graciously reveal the Doctrines of Grace to you. Therefore, do you have any excuse for pride or arrogance toward others – particularly toward our Arminian brethren? As the apostle Paul says, "For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7).

Again.....knowing this intellectually,and having the grace and wisdom to apply this in real life when under attack is part of where the battle is.:thumbs:

2]

 

[Iconoclast]

two areas where he is off the mainline teaching are because he follows Jon Zens and those who went off about 30-40 years ago;

3. The truth is, some aspects of Reformed theology are erroneous.

).

B. The Covenant of Grace. For a critique of this view, see Jon Zens, "Is There A ‘Covenant of Grace’?" Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1977, Vol.6/No.3), pp.43-53; Richard L. Mayhue, "Hebrews 13:20: Covenant of Grace or New Covenant: An Exegetical Note," The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall – 1996, Vol.7/No.2), pp.251-257.

C. The Reformed View of the Law. For an evaluation and critique of the traditional view of the Law and its relationship to the believer under the New Covenant, see Douglas J. Moo, "The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View," [Chapter 5] in The Law, The Gospel, and the Modern Christian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); "‘This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!’: The Foundation for New Covenant Ethics and Ecclesiology," [ed. Jon Zens] Searching Together (Summer – Winter, 1997, Vol.25/1,2,3); Fred G. Zaspel, "Divine Law: A New Covenant Perspective," Reformation & Revivial [Journal] (Summer – 1997, Vol.6/No.3); Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1988); John G. Reisinger, Tablets of Stone (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1989).

these two areas are a separate thread all by themselves.

 

[Iconoclast]

This section is helpful also, but with some discussion needed:

III. Don’t View Any Period of Church History as Perfect (e.g., the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century), Nor Any Particular Group of Christians (e.g., the Reformers, Puritans, Anabaptists).

1. We must value the spiritual contributions of different men and different periods of time within church history, but never idolize them.

2. We must be willing to look at both the good as well as the faults of our spiritual and theological heroes.

3. We must seek to guard ourselves from the error of a party-spirit as well as from making a virtual pope out of Calvin or Luther – something which, by the way, the apostle Paul explicitly told us not to do (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-6; 4:1).

4. When we fail to realize the faults of our spiritual/theological heroes, or when we are guilty of idolizing the past, we end up:

A. Making man the measure or standard of righteousness, instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

B. We fail to see the progression of church history and end up chained to the past – not recognizing that each period of history has its own unique contribution and blessing (including ours in the twenty-first century).

C. Romanticizing the past ("the good-old days"). We end up viewing history from a romanticized perspective, rather than from reality, which includes both great achievements as well as great down-falls. If even the Bible records the failures and sins of the greatest saints (e.g., David, Peter, et al.), why should we then ignore the faults of lesser saints throughout church history (e.g., Calvin, Luther, et al.)? Perhaps one of the major reasons why God allowed the failures of various biblical characters to be recorded, is so that we would not idolize such persons nor form theological parties around them. For those willing to look at the faults of our Reformation and Puritan heroes – not for the purpose of discrediting them, but for the purpose of seeing a true picture – I recommend the following: Thomas N. Smith, "The Perils of Puritanism," Reformation & Revivial [Journal]: Puritanism I (Spring – 1996, Vol.5/No.2), pp.83-99; Jon Zens, "What Can We Learn From Reformation History?" Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1978, Vol.7/No.3), pp.1-13; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1964).

 

[Iconoclast]

This section is helpful also, but with some discussion needed:

III. Don’t View Any Period of Church History as Perfect (e.g., the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century), Nor Any Particular Group of Christians (e.g., the Reformers, Puritans, Anabaptists).

1. We must value the spiritual contributions of different men and different periods of time within church history, but never idolize them.

2. We must be willing to look at both the good as well as the faults of our spiritual and theological heroes.

3. We must seek to guard ourselves from the error of a party-spirit as well as from making a virtual pope out of Calvin or Luther – something which, by the way, the apostle Paul explicitly told us not to do (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-6; 4:1).

4. When we fail to realize the faults of our spiritual/theological heroes, or when we are guilty of idolizing the past, we end up:

A. Making man the measure or standard of righteousness, instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

B. We fail to see the progression of church history and end up chained to the past – not recognizing that each period of history has its own unique contribution and blessing (including ours in the twenty-first century).

C. Romanticizing the past ("the good-old days"). We end up viewing history from a romanticized perspective, rather than from reality, which includes both great achievements as well as great down-falls. If even the Bible records the failures and sins of the greatest saints (e.g., David, Peter, et al.), why should we then ignore the faults of lesser saints throughout church history (e.g., Calvin, Luther, et al.)? Perhaps one of the major reasons why God allowed the failures of various biblical characters to be recorded, is so that we would not idolize such persons nor form theological parties around them. For those willing to look at the faults of our Reformation and Puritan heroes – not for the purpose of discrediting them, but for the purpose of seeing a true picture – I recommend the following: Thomas N. Smith, "The Perils of Puritanism," Reformation & Revivial [Journal]: Puritanism I (Spring – 1996, Vol.5/No.2), pp.83-99; Jon Zens, "What Can We Learn From Reformation History?" Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1978, Vol.7/No.3), pp.1-13; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1964).