What is Calvinism?

[smiling_bandit]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

I’ll remember you lumping me in with the Westboro baptists.

Mate, I’m teasing. Seriously, I thought people would kinda get the joke, but whatever.

I do think your theology wrong, along with Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Arians, Muslims, Jews, Manicheans, Ba’ha’i, Wiccans, Pagans, Neo-Pagans, Canadians, all Mahayana and some Theravada Buddhists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Hindus*, Jainists, Sikhs, tribal shamanism, and atheists.

Taoism and some philosophic Buddhism slips by because it’s kinda demi-theological at best.

*I am not sure what the word for “people who worship at least some of the pantheistic gods worshipped in India”.

[Derleth]

@smiling_bandit

atheists

We atheists don’t have a theology. We’ve opted out of the whole system, despite the best efforts of those who believe opting out is impossible.

Not believing in the supernatural isn’t another form of believing in the supernatural, much like not wearing a dress isn’t another form of wearing a dress.

[John_DiFool]

@Great_Dave

Perhaps you’ve heard of Presbyterians. They are probably the largest denomination in the Reformed branch of Protestantism, which would also include the Reformed Church of America, the Christian Reformed Church in N. America, at Dutch Reformed Church, and, somewhat embarassingly, the South African Reformed Church.

Any churches which proudly proclaim themselves as being UN-Reformed? Would that be Catholicism?

@Chief_Pedant

Sure, but you got problems either way:

If it’s not all God, he’s not omnipotent. Man is in charge of his own destiny.

If it’s not all Man, he shouldn’t be condemned for a system God created.

But if we posit no separation between God and man at all, then by being in charge of his own destiny man is fulfilling God’s will, right?

[KneadToKnow]

@Chief_Pedant

If it’s not all God, he’s not omnipotent. Man is in charge of his own destiny.

My personal theology is ill-defined, but here’s how, for me, I understand the God-knowing-how-it-all-ends-but-us-having-free-will thing works: At the beginning of a game of straight pool, you know how it’s going to end. All the balls are going to be off the table. But how it gets there is in the hands of the players.

[Carson_O_Genic]

@Captain_Amazing

In 1997, speaking before the Truth and Reconciliation Committe, a spokesman for the Dutch Reformed Church “confessed to great wrongs in the past and said the Church was guilty of spiritual and structural injustices under apartheid.”

In 1998, the Dutch Reformed Church announced “apartheid was wrong and sinful, not simply in its effects and operations, but in its fundamental nature.”

The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa did throw its support behind apartheid in the past, and still hasn’t fully come to terms with its past actions and racist attitudes, but your description of it is completely off the mark.

Are you maybe trying to describe the Afrikaans Protestant Church, which split off of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1987?

   The group I describe are called "Doppers", a couple splits away from the NGK. They never had an official government position, but are Calvinistic nonetheless.

[Velma]

Your questions will all be answered if you go to Calvin College.

Calvin University

[Chief_Pedant]

@KneadToKnow

My personal theology is ill-defined, but here’s how, for me, I understand the God-knowing-how-it-all-ends-but-us-having-free-will thing works: At the beginning of a game of straight pool, you know how it’s going to end. All the balls are going to be off the table. But how it gets there is in the hands of the players.

You may be alone in understanding free will. For most thinkers, the notion that we have a free will in deciding what to believe breaks down rapidly. The biggest single influencer of what religion you belong to is your parents, for example; not your independent choice among a variety of beliefs all equally presented like a buffet of possibilities. Then there is the problem of lumping the stupid with the bright…the stupid may have a free will, but it is surely not as informed as the bright. Then there are those who never heard the Good News. What free will should they exert? Then there is the little problem of needing to choose to believe the intangible. If you give me a choice of jumping off the cliff or staying behind the fence, I’ve got a choice. What is my free will if you tell me I have to just believe there is a cliff there but none of my senses can perceive it?

And so on…

You may posit an omniscient God who knows the outcome–who exists outside of time, even, and already exists at the end of time–none of that has anything to do with the problem of free will, nor condemning those who do not exert that free will appropriately.

[KneadToKnow]

I ask this solely because I honestly have no idea whether any of the "you"s in that post refer to me personally*: did you mean to suggest that I have spoken ill of others?

• I like to think that the first one does but none of the rest.

[Great_Dave]

@Velma

Your questions will all be answered if you go to Calvin College.
http://www.calvin.edu/

Not necessarily. I am a member of the class of '98, and managed to graduate without learning much at all about Calvinism. Instead of taking the generic theology and religion classes, I opted for some upper level classes- eschatology, wherein we explored various viewpoints, not just the Reformed view, and non-Pauline letters. In fact, the philosophy of Kuyper- the redemption of creation- is probably the chief guiding principle there now.

[ralph124c]

Why was this doctrine attractive (in contrast to Catholicism)? Seems like it is also a philiosophy that negates the need for worship, services, churches-you are saved or damned, and NOTHING you do will make any difference. So, why bother?

[Great_Dave]

@ralph124c

Why was this doctrine attractive (in contrast to Catholicism)? Seems like it is also a philiosophy that negates the need for worship, services, churches-you are saved or damned, and NOTHING you do will make any difference. So, why bother?

Guilt. So I guess it isn’t so reformed after all.

[CalMeacham]

:
Originally Posted by KneadToKnow
I thought Calvinism was the religion that let you make up the rules as you went along?

No, that’s Calvin and Hobbes-ism.

More properly (as I think he was implying) it’s Calvin Ball-ism.

[KneadToKnow]

@CalMeacham

More properly (as I think he was implying) it’s Calvin Ball-ism.

ding!

[Chief_Pedant]

@John_DiFool

But if we posit no separation between God and man at all, then by being in charge of his own destiny man is fulfilling God’s will, right?

I am probably the wrong apologist to ask…

2n Peter 3:9: (God is not willing that any should perish) is at odds with proclamations elsewhere that some (plenty…most?) are gonna perish.

One can posit “no separation between God and man at all” but I submit that plainly there is a separation–a separation to the point where many people do not feel or sense the hand of God anywhere. (I think many Christian apologists would posit that the cause of that separation is sin, but it becomes a chicken and egg question. Separation from God causes sin, or sin causes separation?)

If Man is “in charge of his own destiny” and he sins, he is certainly not fulfilling God’s will.

[Velma]

@Great_Dave

Not necessarily. I am a member of the class of '98, and managed to graduate without learning much at all about Calvinism. Instead of taking the generic theology and religion classes, I opted for some upper level classes- eschatology, wherein we explored various viewpoints, not just the Reformed view, and non-Pauline letters. In fact, the philosophy of Kuyper- the redemption of creation- is probably the chief guiding principle there now.

That was a little tongue-in-cheek on my own part. I graduated in '99. (I wondered if you were a fellow grad based on some of your other posts. I am sure if we play Dutch bingo we know each other.)
I agree that the theme there is reformed worldview - redemption of all of creation.

Trying to explain Calvinism is difficult, at best. Many a class discussion was based on free will vs. predestination. But it is not all doom and gloom. Many find comfort in the fact that they cannot mess up somehow and remove themselves from God’s grace. You don’t have to constantly ask “am I good enough to be saved?” because no one is.

[Chief_Pedant]

(by the Pedant “… The biggest single influencer of what religion you belong to is your parents, for example; not your independent choice …blah blah blah”

@KneadToKnow

I ask this solely because I honestly have no idea whether any of the "you"s in that post refer to me personally*: did you mean to suggest that I have spoken ill of others?

• I like to think that the first one does but none of the rest.

Damn language. I coulda, shoulda, said, “…The biggest single influencer of what religion one belongs to is one’s parents, for example; not one’s independent choice…blah blah blah” but it sounds so frigging stilted. Upper class British, even. One can see why one should phrase it that way, but it’s so pedantic. Nuttin’ personal.

I can barely remember what I said, much less what anyone else has said.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Velma

Trying to explain Calvinism is difficult, at best. Many a class discussion was based on free will vs. predestination. But it is not all doom and gloom. Many find comfort in the fact that they cannot mess up somehow and remove themselves from God’s grace. You don’t have to constantly ask “am I good enough to be saved?” because no one is.

The problem with John Calvin’s approach is not the saved, but the damned.

[WoodenTaco]

Regarding all this “why bother” stuff:
Predestination is a small part of Calvinist theology and one of the most misunderstood ideas in history: it is a logical consequence of God’s omniscience, that’s all. Since God knows everything, he must know who is going to be saved and who damned; since he is omnipotent, he must have chosen those people. But that doesn’t mean that everything is irrelevant, since Calvinism doesn’t assume a totally absent, passive God who picks people for salvation and then watches the world run. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: God is completely and totally active, and will strike down anyone who mocks him quickly and without any mercy. Acts of providence, on the other hand, are signs of God’s approval and support for those waging a war against the ungodly (in practice, this was interpreted as Catholics, Muslims, and Jews, for the most part).

The most important part of Calvinism is that absolutely everything is a consequence of God’s will. Random accidents - you slip and stub your toe, you find five bucks - are signs from God. Calvinists didn’t pretend to understand all of God’s actions, of course. And obviously sometimes good things happen to bad people. This was merely due “to God’s free love and grace that will show mercy to whom he will show mercy,” as Nehemiah Wallington said. And sometimes bad things happen to good people, but this is just a consequence of the assumed fact that all people are sinners - no one is believed to be basically good.
In addition, both of these problems - that the unholy are sometimes blessed, and the holy are punished - were also sometimes hailed as signs of the coming of the Antichrist which was, somewhat counterintuitively, viewed as a good thing. The coming of the Antichrist would signal the return of the Messiah in a huge war of believers versus sinning followers of the Antichrist. The godly would inevitably win this war and be rewarded with eternal salvation, so many Calvinists looked forward to that battle, or viewed daily events as small battles in the broader war that they believed was already going on (at various times various Calvinists accused the Pope of being the Antichrist).

This idea of divine influence in all things also provided a comforting level of stability and order to things, even if people can’t understand it. It’s a way of completely ceding control of things to God, which can make people feel more secure and give them a way of making sense of the chaos of the world - or if not make sense of it, at least believe that there is an underlying system, not random actions.
It also lends comfort in promising the inevitability of a victory for believers. This is easily seen in Puritan texts and sermons in the years leading up to the English Civil War. Nehemiah Wallington again: “The wicked always hate the godly and plot against them,” so “you may see now how Antichrist, even these bloody-hearted papists, doth plot against the poor Church of God, as in '88 and that hellish Gunpowder Plot. And how have they laid snares for the poor children of God, as with the cursed Book of Canons with that execrable oath… But He that sits in heaven laughs them to scorn and hath brought all their devices to naught.”

Once Calvinism started spreading, social factors kept it alive. In practice, Calvinist culture was extremely religious, since those who aren’t members of the elect (ie, people who won’t be saved) are shunned by the religious community. So, to stay within the society, people want to prove that they are part of the elect by living extremely religious lives. By merely saying “it doesn’t matter what I do,” you are indicating a lack of religiosity and an apathy towards God. Calvinism emphasizes praising God for his mercies as well as his punishments, not because of a belief that this will lead to salvation but because it should show that you are living a saintly life, and therefore a member of the elect.
People who didn’t follow a godly life were quickly shunned by the entire community. Think Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter: she’s seen as a sinner, and so she is completely exiled. Even being seen with her is a scandal.

Edit: I’d hasten to add that I am** not** a Calvinist, I merely study the period in European history.

[KneadToKnow]

@Chief_Pedant

Nuttin’ personal.

Thanks.

[smiling_bandit]

@Derleth

We atheists don’t have a theology. We’ve opted out of the whole system, despite the best efforts of those who believe opting out is impossible.

Not believing in the supernatural isn’t another form of believing in the supernatural, much like not wearing a dress isn’t another form of wearing a dress.

Having a Theology with nothing in it doesn’t mean you don’t have one, any more than having an equation which equals “0” means there’s no equation. You have specific, definite views about the existence and nature of the divine. That is a theology. You will not that I did not include agnostic.

The Smack, She is Laid Down and Sexified.