awesome postWe have to put Calvin into the historical context in which he lived. He was the first real Protestant theologian. Luther did a lot of teaching, but he never set out a systematic theology in the way that Calvin did. Calvin was a pioneer in the area of Protestant systematic theology and a lot of his theology is in reaction and opposition to much of the Roman Catholic theology that existed. Although he got a lot of things right, it has to be understood that his theology, just like everyone else's, is not perfect. It is just that he concentrated on predestination and election because Catholic theology ignored that side of God's dealing with mankind. My view of Catholic theology is that it is more allied to Arminianism which concentrates on man's responsibility to maintain his faith and a holy life before God. There is no assurance of salvation in Catholic theology. One has to wait until the judgment to find out whether his good works outweighed his sins or vice versa. Calvin attempted to put another view so as to give believers a better sense of assurance and therefore a better sense of peace and security in the faith. So, he didn't do it perfectly; so what? At least it was one step toward giving Christian believers a strong foundation of faith and security in Christ than they had before. It is too easy to look back 600 years and rubbish Calvin just because he got a few points wrong. After all, whose theology is absolutely perfect? We have the treasure in earthen vessels, so no one's theology is perfect.
Calvin's influence through the next 200 years brought a lot a folks to salvation and security in Christ. The Puritan and Welsh Revivals were based largely on Calvin's theology. George Whitefield was Calvinist, and he was possibly the most effective evangelist that America experienced before Billy Graham!
By the same token, John Wesley, who had Arminian leanings, had thousands of conversions and was the catalyst in starting a totally new denomination that remained fired up and effective for Christ for over 100 years after his death. The Methodist Holiness movement gave birth to the Pentecostal revival that brought thousands upon thousands into the kingdom of God. Some might not agree with some of the Pentecostal theology but it cannot be denied that it was and still is an effective force to getting people saved, much to the jealousy and envy of less powerful denominations. I would say that most of the criticism of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements arises out of just shear jealousy and envy because they are much more attractive to seekers after salvation than those who are critical of them.
If Arminians don't love Calvinists, then they don't love Jesus because He instructed us that loving others is the central principle of the gospel. In the same way, Calvinists who don't love Arminians are guilty of the same sin. So those taking sides against the other are just as bad as the other.
Let's face it, souls are won for Christ by both Arminian and Calvinist churches. Charles Spurgeon was Calvinist in his theology and he was perhaps the greatest soul-winner of the 19th Century and in all his sermons there is the appeal for people to choose Christ as Saviour. Who among us is going to rubbish him because of his Calvinist theology? Those who would like, as I read on another post, to throw Calvinists into the deepest pit of hell, are saying that they would throw George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Billy Sunday, and all the Puritan Calvinists who were burned at the stake into that pit as well! What a ridiculous thought, but then that's what religious intolerance does to people.
who today would be like arminians
most non-calvinists seem to declare they are neither calvinist nor arminian
what iyo would most non-c non-a's be?
Upvote
0