Tea
Active Member
Whenever church-state governments have formed in the past, history has shown us that has not gone very well.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is a Calvinist?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Whenever church-state governments have formed in the past, history has shown us that has not gone very well.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
I agree in the sense that we have been given the responsibility to occupy “till He comes” as citizens of the countries where we have been placed. We have an interest in and responsibility to our countries and neighbors to promote the gospel. If it is in our power and within our rights, as is often the case where this subject arises, we are in the right to initiate, support, and further any advance of the gospel.
I, like you I should hope, am not referring to a state church.
If God has authority over every area of our lives, politics is not excluded. I will not stand by idly and watch the world fast track themselves toward eternal destruction. I will be as much breaking power as I know how to be in the country where I have a say.
In countries where there is no freedom to speak, I would focus more on the gospel and less on politics. I will not throw away what ability I currently have. I will not give up ground where there is no conflict.
Somehow I seem to have missed this thread.
I was brought up in a nominally Christian home. I did not go to church and was entirely ignorant of Arminius and Calvin.
I was saved at the age of 39 at a church that was evangelistic but rather doctrine-lite. I guess it was Arimian in its doctrine but again, Arminius and Calvin were never mentioned. From the time I was saved I came under a conviction that I needed to make up for lost time, so I read voraciously - the Bible, commentaries, anything I could lay my hands on. As I read, I became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace. I prefer to think of 'Definite' or 'Efficacious' Atonement, but TUPIP or TUEIP don't have quite the same catchy ring to them as TULIP.
I also want to say that Calvinism did not start with Calvin. In addition to him, a chap called Gottschalk of Orbais became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace at a time when most of the Church of Rome had become Semi-Pelagian. Also John Wyclif(fe) was a Calvinist 150-odd years before Calvin, as was his protege John Hus. At the time of the Reformation, William Tyndale, Peter Martyr and others were Calvinists some years before Calvin started his career.
I was brought up in a nominally Christian home. I did not go to church and was entirely ignorant of Arminius and Calvin.
I was saved at the age of 39 at a church that was evangelistic but rather doctrine-lite. I guess it was Arimian in its doctrine but again, Arminius and Calvin were never mentioned. From the time I was saved I came under a conviction that I needed to make up for lost time, so I read voraciously - the Bible, commentaries, anything I could lay my hands on. As I read, I became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace. I prefer to think of 'Definite' or 'Efficacious' Atonement, but TUPIP or TUEIP don't have quite the same catchy ring to them as TULIP.
I also want to say that Calvinism did not start with Calvin. In addition to him, a chap called Gottschalk of Orbais became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace at a time when most of the Church of Rome had become Semi-Pelagian. Also John Wyclif(fe) was a Calvinist 150-odd years before Calvin, as was his protege John Hus. At the time of the Reformation, William Tyndale, Peter Martyr and others were Calvinists some years before Calvin started his career.
I am referring to our govt working the way it did when it was founded. Prayer in schools, Bible in schools, laws based on Biblical law, etc.
I would contend the doctrine of Calvinism began with Jesus and was more clearly stated by Paul. It was just named after Calvin many years later.
I agree. For a politician to become a Christian is a great thing, and we should be prqaying for that.
For a Christian to become a politician....... maybe not so good; it may draw him away from Christ into the world.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Christians becoming politicians is how we got our country over here 250 years ago. We have a bit of a different history than yours. It affects the way we think. But I don’t completely disagree with your statement. I can see the argument in it. But it denies the possibility that God would want to give the government into the hands of someone who already serves Him.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
They did that under Calvin and we see how well that turned out.
Tea
Active Member
It could only have long-term success if it was a Christian government that was unified. As you know, our very top government officials identify as Christians but believe in fundamentally different things. President Trump is lukewarm at best, J.D. Vance is a Catholic, Mike Johnson is a Southern Baptist, and Pete Hegseth is a reformed evangelical.
I'd rather vote for a conservative atheist that protected the constitution at all costs than someone like Reverend Raphael Warnock.
God can and has used crooked sticks to draw straight lines.
Remember Newt Gringich - he was a Southern Baptist until he re-married a Roman Catholic and chose to convert to her religion.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I think you got the wrong idea from my comment Tea.
Government under calvins direction lead to:
Executions: During a 17-year period of Calvin's influence, there were 139 recorded executions in Geneva, a city with a total population of around 20,000. These sentences were handed down by the civil city council, not Calvin himself, although he often influenced their decisions.
The Servetus Affair: The most famous and controversial event was the 1553 execution of Michael Servetus, a Spanish theologian who denied the Trinity. Servetus was arrested and tried for heresy. While Calvin advocated for a less brutal execution by beheading, the city council insisted on burning him at the stake with green wood, a slow and agonizing process. This event was widely criticized even by some contemporaries, though other prominent reformers of the era supported the decision.
Strict Moral Laws: Little distinction was made between religious and moral offenses, which were enforced by the Consistory, a body of pastors and elders. Punishments ranged from fines and imprisonment to exile and execution for behaviors such as adultery, blasphemy, and striking one's parents (based on Old Testament law). Christmas celebrations were banned as "papist superstition".
"Theocracy" and Control: Critics, often called "Libertines" by Calvin, accused him of creating a new form of tyranny, nicknaming him the "Pope of Geneva". While some historians dispute the idea that Geneva was a rigid theocracy with the clergy directly controlling the state, Calvin's influence over the civil authorities was substantial.
Banishment and Persecution: Individuals who disagreed with Calvin's theology or the church's discipline faced banishment, as in the case of Sebastian Castellio, who argued against the execution of heretics.
I would not hold calvin up as an example of Christian values.
To say that calvin was just a man of his times will not help the calvinist cause as the Apostles were men of their times and yet did not resort to the brutality that calvin did.
I met Newt one evening in Atlanta. Seemed like a heathen to me.
Tea
Active Member
The Genevan city council was not under the authority of Calvin but was heavily influenced by him. I do agree with you on the problems caused by that church-state system.
I consider Calvin to be one of the greatest minds the church has ever redeemed, but of course he was flawed just like the rest of us.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that Calvin believed that damnable heresies were punishable by death. At the same time, he traveled to Paris, which was heavily persecuting Protestants at that time, in order to share the Gospel with Servetus. He even wrote in one of his letters that he was willing to risk my life to win him to our Lord, if possible.
In regards to the OP:
1. Synergism
2. Corporate view of election and predestination
3. And others
Arminianism came out of Calvinism and many find things like Total Depravity, to which Arminianism holds, to be unbiblical and unhistorical(from the Early Church Fathers). This is why the title of this Forum does not represent many that are not on the Calvin/Arminian side of things.
I know from my perspective that there are other paths to walk when looking at how God exerts His power and how salvation is accomplished.
1. Synergism
2. Corporate view of election and predestination
3. And others
Arminianism came out of Calvinism and many find things like Total Depravity, to which Arminianism holds, to be unbiblical and unhistorical(from the Early Church Fathers). This is why the title of this Forum does not represent many that are not on the Calvin/Arminian side of things.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but irrelevant. Many should "feel" hopeless as many are ultimately destined for destruction [even setting Calvinism and predestination aside ... just a Biblical fact].
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Jesus (Matthew 7:13-14) [ESV]
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." - Paul (Romans 1:18-21) [ESV]
Those who have chosen the wide gate, on the easy road to destruction, futile in their thinking and darkened in their hearts, should not rest in the comfort of a false hope in a "god" that just loves everyone and would never judge anyone. It is said that Jesus died between two thieves ... one so we should not presume and the other so that we should not despair.
I respectfully disagree. Is God not "longsuffering" and "patient" towards those that daily store up for themselves ever more wrath for the day of wrath? Does God not send the sun to shine and the rain to fall and grant another day of breath to the saints and sinners alike ... another day to see creation declare His glory and another chance to come to Him for forgiveness? God turns no one away, it is MEN that will not come to God, not God who rejects men.
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John (John 3:18-20) [ESV]
So you believe that this is a choice and God did not Sovereignly determine that they would be on the wide path? Is He not in control of that choice? My understanding is that Calvinist’s believe God controls all things, in their understanding of Ephesians 1:11. Do you take this understanding of Eph 1:11 or some other view? Do you not believe that these people on the Wide Path is not the council of God’s will?
Luke 10 is the story of the Good Samaritan in response to a question on inheriting eternal life and loving one’s neighbor. When we consider God in the place of the Good Samaritan, I think this helps illuminate how loving God is. However, In the case of Calvinism, some (the elect) are sinners on the road and He will save them, like the Good Samaritan. Others (not the elect) are sinners on the road that He will pass by like the priest or the Levite. The idea of giving rain and sun seems to indicate that it is enough for them to be beaten on the road clinging to life with rain and sun falling on them as a demonstration of God’s love, and this is enough to demonstrate that He is loving. To me, this seems to be advocating a God of partiality, which we know God is not (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9).
I could go on with other points, but I typically only have time to reply in evenings. I would love to hear your thoughts on this two points as I have never that Calvinism has sufficiently answered this. I will just add, I consider myself open to Calvinism still, but I have found many points at which I have not received answers to questions or biblical justification; arguments always end up getting dropped or re-directed. I’m hoping to have some good dialogue to maybe advance some of my understanding on Calvinism where I have hit rational and biblical road blocks before.
Thank you for your time and consideration!