Why is Calvinism surging?

Sources:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27050

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26914

 

The problem lies in the definition of what calvinism is. I would venture to guess that some people believe they are calvinists for the sole reason they are OSAS, some may believe if that if they are not arminian, they must automatically be calvinists, some might not want to feel theologically inferior to their professors, etc., ...and for any number of reasons.

Also, while some might consider themselves calvinists if they hold to 2, 3 or 4 points, that is not the case, as it is a systematic theology IN WHOLE. That is what I meant by any poll is flawed. What "calvinism" is can be pretty vague. It's the same way in labeling all non calvinists arminians. There is no true way to gauge if there really is an increase in the doctrine, and who has accepted it as truth. That is why I pointed out the OP was based on a presupposition and not fact.

 

Do more pastors who consider themselves calvinists automatically mean that "calvinism is surging"? I don't think that is the case. My pastor is a calvinist and I don't see a surge within our church. Even if this is the case, is it due to the Holy Spirit, or proselytizing of the doctrine? I have seen that within my church and here on the BB. I believe it was ReformedBaptist that had a thread on this very thing in the fundamental forum that I will try to find.

Found it. Excellent thread (read the whole thread), and a reason if there is a "surge"...the most likely reason behind it: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42563

Kind of ironic he hasn't posted much since this thread (1200 posts from August to the end of October, 7 since)...

 

Mr

Actually, Jesus taught what you refer to as a "watered down" theology. We're the one's that have made it complicated much to the detriment of Christianity.

Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

 

Agreed, Tom Bryant. I disagree with all five points of TULIP but have never viewed Calvinists as anything other than faithful to what they see as a literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

StefanM,

Somehow I like your post. :thumbs:

 

Faithful exposition of God's Word always triumphs, no matter the oppositions.

 

Maybe because it's theology and not doctrine?

 

What is that supposed to mean?
Of course it is a doctrine. Mormons have doctrine.
You may not agree with it and it may not be your doctrine but it is doctrine nonetheless.

 

I voted it as Apostasy

While I do believe the average Calvinist is well meaning and sincere, I do believe the doctrines of John Calvin were (and are today) the misconceptions of a misguided MAN. I believe that in these LAST DAYS Satan is doing all he can(in a "Purpose-Driven" sort of way:tear: ) to deceive as many as he can even among the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and KILL the evangelistic zeal and fervor of the Church. What better way than to convince as many as possible that some(many,most,etc.) are PREDESTINED for hell without any hope of remedy.
Thus,I believe that Calvinism in any form in any denomination(SBC,IFB,etc.)is just another symptom of the apostasy that is sweeping our churches. At least Spurgeon (as a Calvinist) had it right....give the Gospel to as many as possible and let GOD sort them out.I'm no Calvinist but even I know that "salvation is of the Lord"......so is my eternal security. Thank God for the Blood of Christ!!!

God Bless, Greg Perry Sr.raying: :sleeping_2: :type:

 

It is part of a larger fad called the Emerging Church. The surge will disappear when post moderns lose interest in their games.

 

I agree and is why niether Calvinism nor the non-Cal view will always be dominant because both have some errors in them.

One or the other has also come back into swing BY GOD to keep any one group from taking their beliefs and doctrines to far. Just as at the Reformation once it became the foremost view, we see God bringing back the to the Church the Non-Cal view which was seen as coming back to true exposition, just as the Reformers did from Catholics. When view goes to far God is the one to bring the other back in to balance.

The Non-Cal view has become to lax in our generation just as the Cal view became to strict back in it's (Reformation). They are counter-balances one of another, two sides of the same coin (so to speak).

Regardless of the theological devotion some maintain to their view, God has, is, and will continue to use both that the Church will continue in truth. And it is by both that God has furthered not only the Gospel but spiritual growth in and to His Children.

 

1. You know not of what you speak. I encourage you to read church history and the indelible mark that the exposition of the doctrines of grace have left.

2. How is the resurgence of Calvinism a subset of the Emerging church?

 

1. Read carefully church history, my brother and be impressed with the continued exposition of the doctrines of grace.

2. Rippon, if you are reading, I know you have the stats handy; please, fill us in some more. :thumbs:

 

I have.

And I like many others as well as those who left Calvinism were not so greatly impressed. It has truth within it no doubt. But it is a theology set forth by man and therefore has errors many errors as well. Yep, you heard me - Errors.

You want stats?
What stats are you looking for?
Stats like the fact that Calvinism declined after it increased and therefore due to their increase the Non-Cals declined and then later increased. That increase came from the teaching of those who were not Cal's and those who came from being completely Calvinistic to not so much or even not at all.

Or maybe the fact that the theology of Calvinism grew so out of whack with biblical reality it became a poison unto itself that even evangelism in it's own ranks almost died. I am speaking of it's later years and the rise of the Non-Cal position. It almost died because of it's legalism just as the non-cals almost died because their lack dilgence. One became to strict the other to not so.

Or how about the fact that both veiws have been in and throughout CHurch history. Rips views are ENTIRELY one sided on the issue and always have been since I've known him on the BB. The study of Church history through Calvinistic eyes will yield... guess what? Seeing Calvinism everywhere he looks. But that is also vise-versa and one can see that is either sides books on Church history. What is FUNNY is when one states their sides view of Church history is more correct because they are above reproach. I laugh at that. I have read Church history and done so with great care and both it and the Non-Cal view brought forth by God and used by God.

So apparently by reveiwing Church history it is apparent that God deems the Non-Cal view JUST as doctrinal in many areas as the Cal, and having error just as the Cal view as well. Yep, God uses both views because no one view gives an acturate depiction of God nor word. And you can see that through out Church history as well.

 

Allan,

1. Until I see otherwise, I'm going to expound on the doctrines of grace, for they are all over Scripture.

2. Just today I had to correct a gentle on the TULIP, an acronym which has generated a lot of misrepresentations. I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the gentleman.

3. He even thought that all Calvinists are pedobaptists--poor fellow. But I'm not here to defend the doctrines of grace, for we've been there time and time again. Guess what, non-Cals and Cals are going to occupy heaven. How about that!

 

I agee, AND THAT is part of my very point!!

I'm sorry to hear Calvinism being mispoken of again.

I believe it is the ignorance of the both sides that perpetuates much of the in-fighting with regard to what is ACTAULLY believed, rather than a regergitation of what someone told them they beleive.

With regard to preaching, I to will continue in that which God has revealed unto me UNTIL He show me otherwise.

Enjoy this glorious night.

 

Hey, how come 'Martin' voted twice?

little stinker :laugh:


Also, I'm currious.
Those polled about being Calvinistic, what was the criteria for being Calvinistic.
5 - pointer, 4, 3, 2 or more points? Anyone know off hand?

 

PK,

Doctrine means teachings. All theology, both good and bad is teachings.

 

Thank you, my good brother and same to you.