# Back to Christianity



## Jeremy (Aug 24, 2006)

I was reading through some of the threads and ran across one in this forum started by someone named Ian, concerning the use of the term 'Calvinism'. I can relate in a way to what that individual was saying in concern for God and the glory of His holy name, and for the way the issue relates to an unbelieving world.

Over the centuries since the early church, the need has practically risen for Biblical Christians to brand themselves with the names of particular Christians of the past who taught sound doctrine, due to the flood of heresy and error coming into the church. Of a truth in today's world, the term Christian is held by Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and the like. And even among Evangelicals if one is to be specific with others as to what his doctrine is, if he believes the scriptural doctrines of grace, he would call himself a Calvinist. Yet all of those who are truly God fearing Calvinists will indeed brand themselves with the glorious name of their Lord and Savior infinitely above and beyond the term 'Calvinist.'

But for those who elevate the names of men as their portion, rarely considering the name Christian, how often do they consider how this appears to an unbelieving, sinful world to whom God's children are sent as ambassadors of Jesus Christ. It is God who has appointed His own people to be His messengers for Christ's sake to a lost and sinful world with a glorious message of reconciliation in Christ Jesus. And it is through this means that He has ordained to call his elect to Himself, through the preaching and heralding of this gospel of Christ.

And so we all ought to watch and consider who it is in whom we glory. Do we glory in men or in God? And we ought to consider what God says and what He thinks about our usage of terms and how they can be a stumbling block in another's way. From the scriptures it is quite clear how God has commanded us to reverence His name alone. The passages are vast to support this. And did not the apostle chide the Corinthian church for saying they were followers of Apollos and himself? He did exhort them to be followers of himself in that he followed Christ, but he made it clear that they were to call themselves Christian. They were to tell people they were following Christ, not Paul and not Apollos.

So how can we relate the example of the Corinthian church to our largely similar American church? Isn't continually calling ourselves Calvinist and the like to be equated with the error of the Corinthians? I believe so.

I would like to leave this open-ended if anyone has any comments on this subject. Please also, I pray that this thread can lead to edification, rather than heated debate. 

'But to you who fear My name 
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings' -Mal. 4:2

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Jeremy]


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 24, 2006)

I find that it is usually new adherents to the Doctrines of Grace that are constantly talking about it, and I was no exception. in my opinion this is also probably more prevalent in Baptist and other non-Reformed churches where the Doctrines of Grace are controversial. With some folks, every sermon or conversation ends up getting back to the 5 points. This neglects the whole counsel of God.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Aug 24, 2006)

I think the title of Calvinistic Christian shows that we not only worship the God of the Holy Scriptures through His Son Jesus Christ( Christian ), but that we strain to break through the limits of our sinful natures to see Him as He really is, ie. Sovereign, Satisfied, Holy God( Calvinistic ). It really cuts through to what we really are, in my opinion, which isn't a follower of some man, but one who insists upon a high view of God and His prerogative within the hosts of heaven and among the sons of men.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 24, 2006)

Jeremy,

Calvin would probably agree. It was our Lutheran cousins who used "Calvinist" as a derisive term. 

Since then, like "Christian," (also a derisive term given to us by others!) we have been stuck with it. Originally, we called ourselves "evangelical" and "Reformed." I'm not sure when we began to call ourselves "Calvinist," but I guess it was in the 18th century. I can't think of any 17th century Reformed theologian who called himself a "Calvinist."

We do not confess "Calvinism," but the Reformed understanding of Scripture. The confession includes a significant degree of Calvin's influence and we ought not shy away from that confession.

That said, we will likely not get rid of the adjective "Calvinist," since it has a long historical pedigree and it is an established part of the Modern vocabulary. There is much to admire in Calvin's theology and life and so I'm not ashamed to identify with him, but our confession of the faith transcends any one person, however important or eminent.

We should also define it correctly. Strictly, it does not refer only to the doctrine predestination. It comprehends an entire confession of faith from the nature of doctrine to the doctrine of God to the doctrine of the church and sacraments. 

rsc

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I can't think of any 17th century Reformed theologian who called himself a "Calvinist."



I haven't made a list, but I have seen it from time to time as a contrast to Lutheran and Romanist systems. E.g., Twisse, Riches of God's Love, p. 84:



> Is it to be expected, that any doctrine should be well spoken of, by such as are opposites and adversaries thereunto? Suppose a rigid Lutheran should by Gods providence, be taken off from their ubiquitary doctrine; and in justifying himselfe for the change of his Opinion, should represent unto them, the infamous condition of that doctrine, both in the judgment of Papists, and in the judgment of Calvinists; I pray consider, How in all likelyhood would this plea be entertained?


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 24, 2006)

Notwithstanding our insignificant preferences, what does God say about the matter?

(So far in this thread there has been a lot of 'I feel', 'I think', 'I find', etc...) ought we not ask ourselves what is right and what is wrong in our Father's eyes? 

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Jeremy]


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2006)

I just perused some of my old notes. It appears also in Ursinus' Discourses (English translation, 1600), p. 51:



> Whilest I was compiling this tract I happened on the answere of Th. Beza Calvines successour to the Actes of the Conference held in Mountpelier published at Tubinge; which Aunswere was printed at Geneva in the yeare of our Lord 1588; wherein I saw how desperately the Calvinists contende with Lutheran Divines both about other opinions, and expressely in this touching Predestination...



So the appellation goes back to the 16th century.


----------



## satz (Aug 25, 2006)

While we should always profess ourselves a christian above all else, i don't think adding an additional identifier is necessarily taking away from the focus on God and Christ. I would agree with the others that with so many different denominations and professing christians today, it is useful to have some term to distinguish what we believe in.

I cannot remember the references off hand, but I believe many times in the epistles Paul urges his readers not to move from 'his' gospel or 'his' teachings as opposed to that of the false teachers. So within a particular context, I do not think it is always wrong for a christian to say 'I follow Paul' when it is used to distinguish himself from those following false teachers who may claim the name of 'christian.'

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by satz]


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Jeremy,
> 
> Calvin would probably agree. It was our Lutheran cousins who used "Calvinist" as a derisive term.
> ...


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 25, 2006)

My previous comment was not intended to be cutting. The first response was indeed the most edifying so far as was Mr. Clark's. 

I just wanted to try and convey this discussion into something that centers around our own heart's attitude toward the Lord and how He looks at the issue. What does He say in His own word?


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 25, 2006)

I am cautious about ever calling myself a Calvinist. For one thing I don't believe everything he believed. And within the realm of those who call themselves Calvinists, there is varied adherance to what he believed as well. More liberal sections of the PCA call themselves Calvinist, yet sing modern praise and worship songs with electric guitars. The RPCNA would call them heretics.

So the whole Calvinist issue is becoming cookie cutter jargon like we've seen all along. I have met 'Calvinists' who believed nothing but the five points he made popular, and yet they think okay to worship via images of Christ, etc. So they prove they know nothing of what Calvin really taught. 

Another thought, although he was a solid teacher, he didn't possess infallable teaching either.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 25, 2006)

Jeremy, if I may hazard a guess, I think what you may be getting at is an attitude of "I am of Luther", "I am of Calvin", "I am of Spurgeon" and that some seem to glory, even boast in being identified with their hero, being proud and puffed up. I deplore that attitude as well. But I think as Dr. Clark pointed out, we're not likely to be rid of adjectives this side of glory. I believe that identifying with labels or camps can be the sin of the Corinthians, but I don't believe that's necessarily the case, especially given the course of church history. 

We also often hear about the evils of denominationalism. These folks say, let's drop the name Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, etc. and just be Christian. After all, is Christ divided? Didn't Jesus pray that we be as one. Don't we all worship the same Jesus? they ask. But unless you're doctrinally indifferent, such a course of action is not really practical, and there are lines that will inevitably be drawn on baptism, worship style, soteriology, ecclesiology, "charismatic" gifts etc. Some have hoped to solve this problem by "going home" to Rome or into Eastern Orthodoxy.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I call myself "Calvinist" so that it's distinguished from the droves of folks who call themselves "Christian" but will mostly die outside of Christ. But, on that same note, I merely mention the term to mainly other professing-Christians. Whereas with unbelievers, I use "Christian".
> 
> Spurgeon:
> ...



I totally agree with you, Josh. 

I don't go around calling himself Calvinist in Southern Baptist circles. I do talk about theology and when others dictate a difference and they ask about my beliefs, I tell them that my frame of reference is reformed, confessional, Calvinistic...in other words, biblical. 

I don't see the need of beating the Calvinistic "drum" or making it my label, but I take the Word of God as it is. People can sometimes tell the difference, sometimes not, but I try to always be biblical in my interpretation of the Bible and the way I live my life.

I often fail, but I try.

Spurgeon's statement is exactly how I feel. I am not ashamed of being a Calvinist or a Baptist...and I'm certainly not ashamed to tell others that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 25, 2006)

I have found myself even qualifying Christian. It seems that today everything needs to be qualified, even if there is no real need.

If by Christian you mean that I rest my faith in Jesus Christ - who was the sole sacrifice for the sins of His people, and who by His resurrection from the dead gives life to all His people - rest my faith in Him alone for my salvation and I belong solely to Him, not because of anything I have done to become His, but because the Bible assures me that He has chosen me by His grace to become His, then I am a Christian.

But if you mean by Christian that I am a biting, angry, self-righteous, condescending, and judgmental person, all the while claiming that Jesus loves me more than He loves you; claiming that I have been chosen by God because He saw my faithfulness; claiming that I don't have to listen to the people of the past or anyone else to know truth; and claiming that what I believe and what my church believes is the pinnacle of religious truth to the exclusion of all others, then I am not a Christian, nor do I want to become one.

We can lose the terms, get new ones, or completely redefine the old ones but it will never change anything in the gospel. Unfortunately, we won't change either. We'll still qualify and categorize because of our sin. It was happening in Jesus' and Paul's day, it is happening still. Simply returning to Christianity will not change our propensity to hang on to titles. It's because we're still sinners and live in a fallen world.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## turmeric (Aug 25, 2006)

Looking for a quote from Edwards...

In his introduction to _The Freedom of the Will_



> That the difference of the opinions of those who, in their general scheme of divinity, agree with those two noted men, Calvin and Arminius, is a thing there is often occasion to speak of, is what the practice of the latter itself confesses; who are often, in their discourses and writings, taking notice of the supposed absurd and pernicious opinions of the former sort. And therefore the making use of different names in this case cannot reasonably be objected against, or condemned, as a thing which must come from so bad a cause as they assign. It is easy to be accounted for, without supposing it to arise from any other source than the exigence and natural tendency of the state of things, considering the faculty and disposition God has given to mankind, to express things which they have frequent occasion to mention, by certain distinguishing names. It is an effect that is similar to what we see arise, in innumerable cases which are parallel, where the cause is not at all blameworthy.



[Edited on 8-25-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 25, 2006)

Matthew,

Thanks. 

I hadn't seen that. I'll check the DLCP to see what I can find.

rsc



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Aug 25, 2006)

There will always be those who take advantage of every weakness. Sure, there is a weakness to calling ourselves Calvinists. But why should we not thank those who point out the wrongs, so that we may be corrected? If we have turned Calvinism into some kind of cult, and this is pointed out to us, so much the better for us because we can then get back to the very things that Calvin spent a lifetime pointing out to us, namely the true gospel. If we have turned into some kind of prideful arrogance and prowess on our own part, to show our superiority over others, and this is pointed out to us through accusations, then why can not we be thankful for that? After all, all that these accusations do is point us back to our firm foundations and away from our own perversions. And was that not what Calvin was preaching too? Is that not a more realistic and true to form Calvinism?

We should be careful of those who style themselves as Calvinists but are not. I had to deal with such people. One of their platforms was "Calvinistic soteriology", but of course that just could not be the case if their other four platforms or foundations were all rooted in men's philosophies built from certain man-chosen interpretations of Scripture. No matter how much they appealed to the Calvinistic confessions, it was just impossible that they could be married to subjectivisms and still be called Calvinistic. So we need to be careful, and not merely accept teachings just because they profess themselves to be Calvinistic. But all the same, we can take a lesson from such things and examine ourselves for additives and perversions. If we don't do such things, then, as Dr. Clark says, we're not really being Calvinistic, for it is much more than just about predestination. It includes self-examinations as well. And if we are accommodated by our accusers in that respect, let us thank them for their help. If their accusations are right, all they have done is revert us away from errors and back to the true teachings, of which Calvin was a chief defender.

There is a postive side to all these problems with the name.


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 25, 2006)

Hey brothers

Thanks for the responses to this thread. More than I had even hoped for. This is definitely a good topic to address and I believe John V. was right on with the last response here.

But just for the record, I am by no means making accusations. The reason I brought this subject up is because I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that this is an important issue that is also important to God. And if it is important to Him, then we ought to think it so as well. Also, in response to 'Pilgrim's hinting about 'I am of Calvin', 'I am of Luther', yes, that is what I am referring to. 'Tis the same thing as the Corinthians. But what was Paul's remedy for the Corinthian church, 'Jesus Christ and Him crucified'. This is our exclusive glory. 

Now as someone pointed out in the other thread, this is a point and click technological world we live in, which was not the type of world that Luther and Calvin were born into. We have all the books ever written it seems at the click of a finger and a 16 digit Visa number. We can sit in our living rooms with our cappaccino and spend 5 hours on the Puritan board or reading some book. Yet I ask, with myself included, how often do we really sit down with our Bibles open, humbly asking for God to reveal His truth to us? How often do we just sit down and read through entire books of the Bible? I remember before I knew the Lord, as a kid I would sit down with a favorite Hardy Boys book and read the whole thing without putting it down.

The whole issue we have been talking about here some of you have addressed quite well in that it stems from our sin. Apart from Christ our hearts are so incredibly man-centered that by nature as men we desperately want to glorify anything but God. Isn't that what the prophet told us, 'The heart is deceitful and DESPERATELY wicked, who can know it?' I feel the force of that statement that our sinful hearts are so desperately wicked that apart from the saving grace of God we will do anything and everything to fulfill those sinful, man-centered desires.

And so naturally in the realms of religion, those who become educated in the faith run the risk of glorifying those champions of faith from the past, rather than God.

Now here is the thing I hope to be clear about, so I am not misunderstood as to what I'm trying to convey. The point in this thread was not to indicate that we ought to forsake the ancient landmark or the teachings of our forefathers. They are of tremendous value and we ought to hold especially to them and the great confessions of faith. The point was that we be careful to give God the glory as we pray 'Hallowed be thy name', and that we be careful to maintain the Bible as our sustaining bread and water and truly seek to know the will of God from it. If we never do this, then how do we know that the other things we are reading are true? Must our consciences be bound to the words of men without knowing the words of God?

Every time we do sit down to read the scripture, we are wasting our time unless we first prepare our hearts to receive it. As we all know we have to plead God's help in understanding His word and we have to seek His face with all our hearts in order to find the truth. 

He will reveal the truth to us, but we must seek it with the whole heart. Christ does not reveal his deepest truths to us unless we search for Him with heart, soul, strength and mind. Isn't this what the Puritans did? 

-J


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> I am cautious about ever calling myself a Calvinist. For one thing I don't believe everything he believed. And within the realm of those who call themselves Calvinists, there is varied adherance to what he believed as well. More liberal sections of the PCA call themselves Calvinist, yet sing modern praise and worship songs with electric guitars. The RPCNA would call them heretics.
> 
> So the whole Calvinist issue is becoming cookie cutter jargon like we've seen all along. I have met 'Calvinists' who believed nothing but the five points he made popular, and yet they think okay to worship via images of Christ, etc. So they prove they know nothing of what Calvin really taught.
> ...


I disagree. When I think Calvinist I think soteriology. It is just a label. I don't care if it was called zaboomafooninist I hold to that theological perspective because I think it is what the bible teaches. When somebody says, "I am a calvinist" they are not referring to every single thing John Calvin as a man thought and believed, making him some kind of Jesus. What they are saying is in terms of soteriology I hold to a Calvinist (the 5 points and the like) view. So even if they differ with Calvin on other theological issues they can still rightly be labeled Calvinist, because that is all that it is, a label. Now if you are talking about the label reformed, that is a whole different matter.


----------

