Misunderstanding Calvinism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
rather than being whatever awful religion Jonathan Edwards was.
Click to expand...
“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a great example of the preaching of the “Terrors of the Law” during the Great Awakening.

However, it’s not representative of Edward’s theology. The purpose of preaching the judgment of God was to prepare people for receiving the answer–which was the grace of Jesus Christ.

You have to understand that in those revival meetings, the itinerant preacher would preach and then the regular minister would in the days and weeks to come provide individual pastoral counsel to those who were convicted by the sermon and provide them with spiritual direction. So, it wasn’t simply Edwards preaching “you’re all going to hell” then leaving. There was more to it.
 
Last edited:
One of the hosts of EWTN radio Dr. David Anders a former Calvinist and a convert to Catholicism has many wonderful anecdotes and insights having come from that camp. Check him up I am sure you will not be disappointed.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Good ol’ Jonathan and his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon.
Click to expand...
Those familiar with Jonathan Edwards’ writings say the vast majority were actually the opposite of that one. The very few that were in the same category as that one always get the most attention.
 
Thank you all and especially @Itwin for helping me better understand what Calvinism really teaches. But your explanations have given rise to even more questions, and I hope it wouldnt be too much of a bother for you to answer them.

Number One: Do Calvinists believe Elect status exists outside of Calvinism? Do they believe, for example, that a Catholic or Lutheran who is martyred for his Christian faith and who had lived an exemplary Christian life is one of the Elect and is therefore, according to them, in Heaven? Or would they believe that this person’s Election would have lead them to Calvinism in the first place, which didn’t happen, ergo they were never Elect and only outward rather than inward believers?

Number Two: You said that some hardcore Calvinists hold beliefs not held by other, less hardcore Calvinists. How is this possible? Or to better phrase the question, how can a “fervent” (hardcore) Calvinist have different beliefs to a moderate one? Is there a disparity in belief within Calvinist tradition?
What is the body or who are the people responsible for determining what is authentic Calvinist teaching and what is not?

Number Three: In one of your posts, @Itwin, you were speaking of something similar to the Churchs Militant and Triumphant. Being who they were, it logically follows that the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin were Elect, as per Calvinist teaching. And being part of this “invisible Church”, they participate in something which we call in Arabic “Malakoot Allah” which i don’t really know the correct translation of in English, but it basically means that they participate in the Heavenly Life and can therefore hear prayers and pray for us Christians on earth.( It literally translates into “the Vision of God”) What fault do Calvinists find with this teaching, and why do they reject the veneration of saints?

Lastly, a question for all: Do you find that internet Calvinism is a gross misinterpretation of what that religion actually teaches?
 
An interesting psychological use of emotion, which technique is still practiced today.
I wonder if anyone saw through the emotional manipulation then. I suspect some people did.
 
Salibi said:
Lastly, a question for all: Do you find that internet Calvinism is a gross misinterpretation of what that religion actually teaches?
Click to expand...
It’s probably about as reliable as “internet Catholicism”, which is seriously all over the map in both interpretation, conformance to official teachings, and quality.
 
I think it is basic human nature for people to need to be spurred on to do the right thing when it comes to faith. Although I am not Calvinist, I can see the need for people to be reminded that mankind is sinful and in need of a Savior in Jesus Christ. I think Billy Graham could be considered a Calvinist Southern Baptist and he did much to help people see their need for Christ and offer them a bridge to Him through faith and turning away from sin. I actually found Christ through one of his crusades back in the day, and it changed my life forever in a positive way.

I am reminded of the French historian and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited the US during the 1830’s. He was a Catholic and had this observation and insight into America during the Second Great Awakening, which was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time, especially with a large number of Methodists and Baptists, and Episcopalians.

" “I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

I think his quote is prophetic and I am concerned about America’s future as our culture seems to be falling more and more away from Jesus.

Although I am not a Calvinist, I find irony in that some Catholics on this thread to call the Calvinist approach “emotional manipulation”. Some Christians may find it to be the spurring on the person to find Jesus in order to follow Him and His ways, which lead to a better eternal spiritual outcome than unbelief.

By the way, an objective non-Catholic may see a psychological component to such Catholic rules and regulations as the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. If I understand the regulation correctly, If one doesn’t attend church and doesn’t have a valid excuse, it is considered a “mortal sin” that is need of confession or else the person faces eternal damnation if left unrepented.

Although church attendance is highly encouraged in most Protestant churches that I know and non-attendance is frowned upon, I don’t recall any of them ever saying it is a mortal sin not to attend. And yet, according to some Catholics, it is only the Calvinists who are “manipulating” people to do the right thing. I am reminded of the title of the Alanis Morrisette song, "Isn’t It Ironic".
 
Salibi said:
Do Calvinists believe Elect status exists outside of Calvinism?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Salibi said:
What is the body or who are the people responsible for determining what is authentic Calvinist teaching and what is not?
Click to expand...
Calvinism is not a church or denomination. It is a theological system, which has been adopted by various denominations.

Presbyterians or Continental Reformed traditions have authoritative church courts that can settle doctrinal controversies. Reformed Baptists believe in congregational autonomy.
 
Salibi said:
What fault do Calvinists find with this teaching, and why do they reject the veneration of saints?
Click to expand...
Calvinists believe in the communion of saints, they just don’t believe there is scriptural warrant for venerating saints as is done in Catholicism. It moves the focus off of Christ and promotes a hierarchical view of who has access to God.
 
Last edited:
Although I fail to see how this promotes a hierarchical view of who has access to God, I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Thanks again.

As yet another follow up question (promise this will be the last one), do Reformed Christians have devotions and pious traditions like Catholics do? Stuff that are Christocentric such as the Jesus Prayer, the Stations of the Cross, etc? If not, do they object to them?
 
Salibi said:
Although I fail to see how this promotes a hierarchical view of who has access to God, I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
God is the emperor, the saints are his royal court, and to get to God you have to appeal to those who are closest to him.
Salibi said:
do Reformed Christians have devotions and pious traditions like Catholics do? Stuff that are Christocentric such as the Jesus Prayer, the Stations of the Cross, etc? If not, do they object to them?
Click to expand...
There maybe those who do but these aren’t traditionally part of Calvinist piety. They have their own stuff, but someone’s whose actually Reformed could answer that better than me.
 
Last edited:
We do not believe that appealing to saints is necessary to get closer to God. It’s possible for a Catholic to live a good Christian life without ever venerating a saint.
 
Salibi said:
do Reformed Christians have devotions and pious traditions like Catholics do? Stuff that are Christocentric such as the Jesus Prayer, the Stations of the Cross, etc? If not, do they object to them?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what “Reformed Christian” encompasses, but I know from my inlaws that Reformed Presbyterians would have found all of those things (except maybe the Jesus Prayer read as scripture - not repeated over and over as a prayer) to be unacceptably Catholic. They pretty much just read the Bible, studied the Bible, studied Bible history. Lots of Bible study. They said the Our Father as that is scriptural.
 
Do they reject stuff solely because they see them as Catholic? Stations of the Cross are meditative. The Rosary can be prayed using the Jesus Prayer instead of the Hail Mary’s. The tradition of meditative prayer predates Catholicism, it started with Judaism, as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying I speak for every Calvinist out there or even every Reformed Presbyterian out there because my experience is limited to one extended family (Two of whose 100+ year old Bibles I ended up with due to them all dying off).

They didn’t pray like that. They didn’t sit around meditating on God. Either you read the Bible, said the Our Father, or you talked to him in your own words if need be.

They sure didn’t pray Rosaries, even with a Jesus prayer. They didn’t repeat prayers multiple times. This would have likely been seen as “vain repetitions” forbidden by the Bible, or else as just unnecessary.

Stations of the Cross contain a lot of stuff not in the Bible. If they had wanted to think about Christ’s Passion, they would have read the Gospel stories on it, maybe looked at a picture or a plain cross (They weren’t big on images), read a Bible history book about Calvary, or gone to their church where they would have listened to a sermon about it.
 
Salibi said:
Or to better phrase the question, how can a “fervent” (hardcore) Calvinist have different beliefs to a moderate one? Is there a disparity in belief within Calvinist tradition?
Click to expand...
There can be a disparity within denominations. and between denominations. A Reformed church will typically adopt a confession of faith–famous examples are the Westminster, Scot’s, Second Helvetic, Heidelberg Catechism, etc.–and ministers will be required to “subscribe” to them. In the US Presbyterian context, there has been a long running debate over the meaning of subscription. Are you subscribing to every word and period of the confession? Or are you subscribing to the “necessary and essential” parts or the vague “system of doctrine” contained in the confession.

The more liberal denominations, like the Presbyterian Church (USA), tend to treat the confessions as less authoritative and more like historical documents or testimonies to the faith of those who’ve come before.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top