Calvinism

[sdowney717]

*ahem* No way of knowing? Pray tell HOW do you KNOW that? Please do give Scripture references. When you've done that, perhaps I might respond in kind with Scripture references, but unless or until you can answer my question and provide a basis, I really have not motivation or burden of proof.

Exactly, there exists a knowing and it is so scriptural and certain, His Spirit bears witness to ours that we are the children of God!
Romans 8
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him,that we may also be glorified together.

Being ignorant of scripture will lead them into darkness, we have many scriptural warnings that we must study His words.

That knowing, that relationship is imparted into our very souls, it is who we are, and we belong to Him and He, Christ manifests Himself to us.

 

[sdowney717]

John 14, On the indwelling presence, tell me you who say you know the Lord, but do not know if you are elect, do you know Him and does He know you? Or do you have no knowledge of God? How long has he been with you and yet you do not recognize Him? Christ does not leave us orphaned.

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

The Gift of His Peace
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

 

[ladodgers6]

Hi everyone, I have recently had a conversation with a Christian who is a calvansit, now I alwasye considered myself an Arminian, I hope I spelled that right,
Now I really dont know which way to go but I am a girl who likes to cover my basses, so if calvanist is true, how would one who strugles with faith know if they are saved?

For instance I am someone who wants God in my life, though faith has never been easy for me, I honestly dont know why, so a more direct question is in the Calvanist systen of belief,

Is my wanting a relationship with god proof of my salvation, or is my strugles with faith proof I am not part of the elect?

See my friend cant seam to tell me.

Thanks for this post,Dear Girl.I was once in this same boat,looking inside of me for assurance and hope,some how questioning my Faith.Do I have enough faith to be saved? But until years ago I heard the Pure Gospel of Paul in Galatians.See Dear Girl,its not what is inside of us,that saves.But what is outside of us that saves! Let me explain,there is absolutely nothing inside of us that will save us,so we look to Christ who in History,was born under the Law to kill sin in the flesh.Christ came not to abolish the Law not to fulfill it,so that we would become a curse for us.Christ lived a perfect Obedient live to merit God's justice through his Holy Law for us! Our sins are imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and received through faith Alone apart from any world we do.Faith Dear Girl is like empty hands,God gives us in Christ everything we need to be saved,because its by Christ's finished works that the Father gave him to do,which earn Redemption for sinners! The Pure Gospel of Paul is for those wretched sinners,who need a Redeemer,a Savior to save them from their sins.God justifies WHILE we are STILL sinners and enemies of God.This is the good news,that God by his Grace & Mercy gives us in Christ,what we could not do through the Law that condemns sinners! So don't despair,Dear Girl. Its God's Promise that he would save us in Christ and Christ and all his heavenly blessings are now our through Faith.So we are now reconciled to God through Christ,and we are sons & daughters of God! Don't place so much emphasis on faith because,always remember we the weakest Faith clings to the strongest Savior,who has sealed and secured our Redemption by his finished works,that no one can undo,including us.So always remember Christ who is our Justification,Sanctification and Redemption for everyone who believes in Christ Alone!

I strongly recommend you pick up a book entitled,"Amazing Grace" by Michael Horton.Its a entry level book that will help you understand Calvinism or better called the Doctrines of Grace!

 

[dms1972]

It's better to just read the Bible, perhaps Mark or Luke's Gospels and Acts written also by Luke. Matthew is written for Jews, but Mark is more aimed at Gentiles and explains aspects of Jewish customs Gentiles would perhaps not have understood. Matthew goes into a lot more Old Testament prophesy.

It also to my mind a good idea to get a commentary on those Gospels such as William Barclay's Daily Study Bible, however there are many others.


There is a book out now called Reading the Gospels Wisely, I have only read bits of it, but it seems quite helpful.

Theology if one has a theology is supposed to be in the background, not the foreground.

 

[hedrick]

Just read the Bible? Let me say why I think there are dangers to that. Most books of the Bible were written in a context. Paul, for example, was responding to situations in his churches, and he was opposed to certain other Christian leaders. He assumed that his readers shared certain ideas taken from the OT and from other Christian thought.

If you read him without the same background that his readers had, you’re likely to misunderstand him. Calvin’s Institutes was intended (among other things) to provide the concepts needed to understand Scripture. Today I’d probably use a more recent work for this. But every good introduction is based on some understanding of what key concepts and terminology are. And those are going to be based on specific doctrinal assumptions. For Protestants, doctrine is, after all, a way of summarizing what Scripture has to say on crucial topics. So any attempt to provide an orientation to, e.g. Paul, is going to be based on the writer’s conclusions about his key themes and approaches.

You can certainly read Scripture without any of this. You’ll get enough for salvation. But you’ll miss a lot of what the authors intended. Presumably that’s why dms1972, after saying just read Scripture, suggested that you start with Barclay.

 

[dms1972]

I get what your saying Hedrick yes there are difficulties with just reading any part of the Bible without know its context. I should maybe have worded that better. I was suggesting reading one of the Gospels , and mentioned a book called reading the Gospels wisely.

Barclay had knowledge of Bible times, and customs etc.

I'd say its best to find a church, but I haven't found one myself that I feel I can settle in yet.

There are loads of excellent books which present the Gospel and deal with objections without getting into the heavy theological disputes.

A few I have seen are:

World on the Run - Michael Green
Mere Christianity - CS Lewis
Simply Christianity - John Dickson

and plenty of others

James Montgomery Boice's Romans commentaries are very accessible (perhaps its something like that you mean Hedrick) and even evangelistic at points. I used to have a couple of volumes.

I could see the sense in perhaps recommending Calvin's Institutes to someone used to actually reading that sort of book in other spheres, like a lawyer, or someone like that - ie the sort of people he wrote for in the 16th century. Or someone who has an issue it addresses. But not to everyone.

 

[hedrick]

Right. Calvin was a 16th Cent author. Lots has changed in the way people write since then. Part of it is that today we would never use the kind of invective he used against people he disagreed with. That continued up until fairly recently even in otherwise responsible scholars. There is also new scholarship.

I like N T Wright's For Everyone commentaries on the NT books. His scholarship is more recent than Barclay's. When Barclay was writing, scholars were only at the beginning of taking account of new discoveries in the mid 20th Cent about 1st Cent Jewish culture. Similarly, while I really liked Mere Christianity, I would never recommend it today. Wright's Simply Christian is intended as an homage to Mere Christianity. I don't know the other works you recommend.

But all of these writers have theological viewpoint. it's just that they may not be as obvious in a commentary for laymen. In a way that's more dangerous. With Calvin, you always know where he's coming from. Other commentators have just as many presuppositions. You just may not be as conscious what they are. Particularly if they agree with what you've always heard. Wright's book "How God Became King" is particularly good in helping people realize just how many questionable assumptions are behind what many people assume are neutral understandings of the Gospels.

 

[dms1972]

Right. Calvin was a 16th Cent author. Lots has changed in the way people write since then. Part of it is that today we would never use the kind of invective he used against people he disagreed with. That continued up until fairly recently even in otherwise responsible scholars. There is also new scholarship.

Well its also that the whole scene is considerably different now that from the 16th Century. The writting then were tended to be polemic. As far as laying out things about Knowing God, and becoming a christian, what Calvin said was needsbe tied up with what was happening in the 16th Century, he was at times writting against the then practices of Roman Catholicism.

I don't like everything that proposes to be new scholarship. As far as Calvin is concerned, or any writter is concerned what draws me someone who can bring home to me that God exists. I would read him for that.

 

[dms1972]

Similarly, while I really liked Mere Christianity, I would never recommend it today.

I know he certainly would not be for everyone, but I don't see why you say you would not recommend him? Its a matter of knowing the sort of person you are talking to and what they will find speaks to them. And Lewis done a heck of a lot of study and talking to people understanding how to put things in the way people could understand. He does have a slightly old-school style of writing, but I think he could be pretty helpful for some people.

I agree that NT Wright may be much better for many people, but of course Lewis wasn't a theologian, that was perhaps a benefit, he could steer people past a lot of the theological hair-splitting towards the heart of the christian message.

But don't get me wrong I know its not for everyone, I just don't see why one would 'never' recommend it?

When I read Lewis's biography and he mentioned Chesterton, I thought I would get a copy of The Everlasting Man, this was one of the key books Lewis said led him back to Christianity. I admit I really struggle with that one. So I do kind of see what you mean, fewer people are following the intellectual path today.

 

[hedrick]

Mere Christianity and Simply Christian have very different strengths. Mere Christianity is based on radio addresses that were basically apologetic. Lewis wasn't a Biblical scholar, and didn't really present even the scholarship available at the time he wrote. Simply Christian spends much of its time giving the historical and theological background needed to understand the NT, and to some extent the OT. That's what we were talking about: work that gives the background needed to understand the Bible.

I'm not quite as convinced about Simply Christian as apologetics. I'd have to think about that if someone was interested.

 

[dms1972]

Yes the two books are quite different and in how they came about.


I think writting a talk for the radio would be quite different from writting a book, its easier to present scholarship in a book, than in a radio talk - the radio talk basically has to be Lewis explaining it. Also its easy to see where someone else's attempt has been lacking in some way and correct it.


The New Testament is NT Wright's primary field of study. Lewis was a Literature scholar (this actually gives him some strengths and powers of discernment that theologians don't always have - see his essay Fernseed and Elephants). But he is weaker on the theology side,

Lewis's two rhetorical skills of which he was a master were Argument and Depiction.

Here is an interesting article on Mere Christianity - I don't particularly agree with it entirely though, but its interesting.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/december/why-mere-christianity-should-have-bombed.html

The article says that the CS Lewis gave his own views on things like Christian Marriage. I don't think this is so reading what Lewis, the views he expressed were common amongst christians when he spoke, and based on the Bible.


Anyway sorry for the off-topic.