Calvinist by Thought?

[GZUSFREK]

Do you think any Calvinists stand where they stand because spiritually they've matured past the Arminians? C.H. Spurgeon said that he didn't embrace the doctrines of grace until in church one night he started thinking about why he was saved. This certainly implies that Reformed Theology is the result of careful consideration. Of course the most implicit passages in the Bible that are proof texts for Calvinists (Eph. 1, Romans 9, etc.) are the most difficult for Arminians to explain. :blush:

Surely this can't mean that Calvinists are smarter than others, can it?

[mentored1]

Do you think any Calvinists stand where they stand because spiritually they've matured past the Arminians? C.H. Spurgeon said that he didn't embrace the doctrines of grace until in church one night he started thinking about why he was saved. This certainly implies that Reformed Theology is the result of careful consideration. Of course the most implicit passages in the Bible that are proof texts for Calvinists (Eph. 1, Romans 9, etc.) are the most difficult for Arminians to explain. :blush:

Surely this can't mean that Calvinists are smarter than others, can it?

In reading your post I'm reminding of some things I read (who knows where) that got me thinking whether or not the structure of Christian theology hasn't behaved much like an evolution of ideas... Most ideas do evolve in sometimes the same sense we are told organisms do: by adaption to an environment, utilization of an adaption for a novel purpose, etc...

Perhaps the splintering of the doctrines you mention in your post is the result of such idea-evolution?

Take care

[GZUSFREK]

I don't think that Christianity has evolved, I think it has devolved, much like everything else. When Jesus Christ began calling men to follow him, he instructed them on the doctrines they should hold to. Unfortunately, beginning even in the first century, people were disregarding some of his teachings, and men like the apostle Paul had to write to them and instruct them in the truth.

As people get wrapped up in the traditions that are handed down to them, they sometimes unwittingly wander from the original intent of those traditions and need to be reinstructed or corrected in the truth.

I think that's why there are so many different denominaions of Christianity. Most of them began when someone realized through study of Scripture that the church they were a part of could be doing something a little better. In a lot of cases the church is unwilling to adapt, but the champion of change is unable to continue there in good conscience and starts a new church.

[Xavier]

[...] Of course the most implicit passages in the Bible that are proof texts for Calvinists (Eph. 1, Romans 9, etc.) are the most difficult for Arminians to explain. :blush:

Surely this can't mean that Calvinists are smarter than others, can it?

One has to wonder why the Calvinist has to flee to the most implicit passages in the Bible for proof texts.

Does the fact that you have to be "smarter than others" count FOR or AGAINST Calvinism?

[mentored1]

I don't think that Christianity has evolved, I think it has devolved, much like everything else.

I most certainly agree with you... I should have indicated I meant 'changed' rather than "changed for the better"... :teeth: Whether the change is for better or worse is the in the realm of the person observing the change - like yourself. But no doubt there have been a bewildering number of changes, at least in practice.

Have these changes been a result of the social forces, biological forces, environment... What do you think caused them?

When Jesus Christ began calling men to follow him, he instructed them on the doctrines they should hold to. Unfortunately, beginning even in the first century, people were disregarding some of his teachings, and men like the apostle Paul had to write to them and instruct them in the truth.


A question has arisen to me... Early on (I think within the first century) there was a very metaphorical, allegorical interpretation of Scripture that I think had to do with Gnosticism... Certainly some of Scripture is of this metaphorical/allegorical nature - but many assert that it is literal; or others say it is literal except where obviously symbolic... What do you make of this and what is your measure to discern the difference?

I think that's why there are so many different denominaions of Christianity. Most of them began when someone realized through study of Scripture that the church they were a part of could be doing something a little better. In a lot of cases the church is unwilling to adapt, but the champion of change is unable to continue there in good conscience and starts a new church.

Your thoughts on the matter I think are confirmed - at least by my experience... Except I didn't found a new church - I found doubt...

Nonetheless you reveal the truth that many churches want so badly to be correct that they lose the vision of the cross they were meant to maintain. And with it all the lessons that Christ left to follow.

Take care

[GZUSFREK]

I think the changes in practice have been the result of a lot of the things you mentioned, as well as some other things. Surely when you bring a new 'religion' to a new people with different customs, there will be obvious differences in the way things are practiced. This is especially true with biblical Christianity because it is not meant to be legalistic as to dress, language, or in other ways.

I would say, and many Christians would agree that the cause of the changes is false teachers and prophets who have infiltrated the church and led some astray by implementing new and false teachings. Every new denomination or reformation must be tested by Scripture. Where many of the churches have gone wrong is that they have included man's word as a revelation of God, and have thus been led away from the truth of canonical scripture.

As for the gnostics, it is my understanding that they crept into the early church and began teaching that Jesus was not really "God in the flesh," he was just an idea, or a spirit form. This, like all other false doctrines, denied the diety of Jesus and his incarnation. (By false doctrines, I'm referring to those that disagree with or contradict what the Bible teaches. I understand this is a subjective view.)

The Gnostics were infiltrating the church from the beginning, and many scholars believe that much of the apostle Paul's writings were intended specifically for them, and for those who may have been challenged with what they were teaching. (see Ro. 1:2-5,5:15-21; 1Cor.15:47; Phi. 2:6-11; 1Tim 3:16; Heb. 2:14)

God bless!

[A-Man]

Of course the most implicit passages in the Bible that are proof texts for Calvinists (Eph. 1, Romans 9, etc.) are the most difficult for Arminians to explain.

They are very easy to explain from the non-calvinist point of view. Do a search here on TWEB on those Chapters. Especially look for posts by the TWEB member "Arminian". If you can't find them, PM me and I'll show you. You'll be enlightened.

Regards,
A-man

p.s. Welcome to TWEB

[GZUSFREK]

They are very easy to explain from the non-calvinist point of view. Do a search here on TWEB on those Chapters. Especially look for posts by the TWEB member "Arminian". If you can't find them, PM me and I'll show you. You'll be enlightened.


Thanks for the welcome! I should have been clearer and said that those passages are hard for non-Calvinists to explain properly and in context.

My bad. (tee hee)

-FREK