Changing the World Now... Calvinism

[ErikJohnson]

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.
;0)

--Erik

PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

[Elgama]

have to confess living in Scotland I see some of the worst of Calvinist history all around me, its been here for a good portion of its 500 years , and my views of the sect are based mostly off Robert Burns poetry. It seemed to be a major hotbed of hypocrisy, having said that the church of my youth that I attended most frequently was great and Christlike. I do undestand where Daniel Peterson is coming from so did Burns His Ode to His Love Begotten Daughter, Ode to a Louse, Holy Willie's Prayer etc highlight his views.

Like with all faiths for me it holds some truth, misses a lot and is not where God wants me to be. I don't know if you can work out the language but have included Holy Willie's Prayer

O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,
As it pleases best Thysel',
Sends aen to Heaven an' ten to Hell,
For Thy glory,
And no for onie or ill
They've done afore Thee!

I bless and praise Thy matchless might,
When thousands Thou hast left in night,
That I am here afore Thy sight,
For gifts an' grace
A burning and a shining light
To a' this place.

What was I, or my generation,
That I should get sic exaltation?
I wha deserv'd most just damnation
For broken laws,
Six thousand years 'ere my creation,
Thro' Adam's cause.

When from my mither's womb I fell,
Thou might hae plung'd me deep in hell,
To gnash my gums, and weep and wail,
In burnin lakes,
Where damned devils roar and yell,
Chain'd to their stakes.

Yet I am here a chosen sample,
To show thy grace is great and ample;
I'm here a pillar o' Thy temple,
Strong as a rock,
A guide, a buckler, and example,
To a' Thy flock.

O Lord, Thou kens what zeal I bear,
When drinkers drink, an' swearers swear,
An' singing here, an' dancin there,
Wi' great and sma';
For I am keepit by Thy fear
Free frae them a'.

But yet, O Lord! confess I must,
At times I'm fash'd wi' fleshly lust:
An' sometimes, too, in worldly trust,
Vile self gets in;
But Thou remembers we are dust,
Defil'd wi' sin.

O Lord! yestreen, Thou kens, wi' Meg
Thy pardon I sincerely beg;
O may't ne'er be a livin' plague
To my dishonour,
An' I'll ne'er lift a lawless leg
Again upon her.

Besides, I farther maun avow,
Wi' Leezie's lass, three times I trow -
But Lord, that Friday I was fou,
When I cam near her;
Or else, Thou kens, Thy servant true
Wad never steer her.

Maybe Thou lets this fleshly thorn
Buffet Thy servant e'en and morn,
Lest he owre proud and high shou'd turn,
That he's sae gifted:
If sae, Thy han' maun e'en be borne,
Until Thou lift it.

Lord, bless Thy chosen in this place,
For here Thou has a chosen race!
But God confound there stuborn face,
An' blast their name,
Wha brings Thy elders to disgrace
An' open shame.

Lord, mind Gaw'n Hamilton's deserts;
He drinks, an' swears, an' plays at cartes,
Yet has sae mony takin arts,
Wi' great an' sma',
Frae God's ain priest the people's hearts
He steals awa'.

And when we chasten'd him therefore,
Thou kens how he bred sic a splore,
And set the world in a roar
O' laughing at us;
Curse Thou his basket and his store,
Kail an' potatoes.

Lord, hear my earnest cry and pray'r,
Against that Presbyt'ry o' Ayr;
Thy strong right hand, Lord mak it bare
Upo' their heads;
Lord visit them, an' dinna spare,
For their misdeeds.

O Lord my God! that glib-tongu'd Aitken,
My vera heart an' flesh are quakin,
To think how we stood sweatin, shakin,
An' pish'd wi' dread,
While he, wi' hingin lip an' snakin,
Held up his head.

Lord, in Thy day o' vengeance try him,
Lord, visit them wha did employ him,
And pass not in Thy mercy by them,
Nor hear their pray'r,
But for Thy people's sake destroy them,
An' dinna spare.

But, Lord, remember me an' mine
Wi' mercies temporal and divine,
That I for grace an' gear may shine,
Excell'd by nane,
And a' the glory shall be Thine,
Amen, Amen!
Epitaph on Holy Willie

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Yeah, I second Erik's suggestion that you go find Dan Peterson's threads on the subject, and put them in context. For example, here's Dan clarifying his comments, responding to the poster he was conversing with:

I imagine that this will show up in some future propaganda item that you publish. Too bad. I thought we were just having a conversation. You made some rather negative comments about my religious beliefs; I have never said a word about yours, but decided that you should realize, at least on this one occasion, that it's a two-way street.

But now that I know that you're playing "gotcha" and looking for ammo for your publications, I'll understand better how to interact with you in the future. (Like, preferably not at all.) My mistake. I should have realized it.

Here's where things actually stand:

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker. But I find "Five-Point" Calvinism exceptionally unappealing -- one of the most unattractive religious options on the planet, to be completely candid -- and cannot remotely imagine why anybody would find it "good news." (Well, actually I can figure why some would: I'm reminded of what a prominent Arminian theologian told me one night over dinner: He said that he would think more highly of Calvinism and Calvinist theologians if he had ever met even one who, while professing belief in "unconditional election," didn't believe himself to be among those foreordained to be saved. But, although he had spoken with scores and scores of Calvinist theoreticians, he said he had never met any who were not confident that they were destined for heaven. Hell is for everybody else.) I recall a lengthy conversation with one of cksalmon's fellow Calvinist anti-Mormons some years ago. We were talking about the fact that the majority of those predestined to salvation appeared to be northern Europeans and descendants of northern Europeans. I raised the matter of the Chinese. "Maybe God doesn't like the Chinese," responded the good reverend's wife. I've pondered that remarkable comment for several years now.

Yet I do not write, publish, or edit attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists. The only things I've ever published on the subject have been either positive or, at worst, neutral and explanatory. I participate in no "ministry" to counter Calvinism. I've never picketed any meeting of Calvinists, or opposed the construction of any Calvinist place of worship. I don't go on Calvinist message boards, or any other message boards, to criticize Calvinism.

In response to unprovoked negative remarks about my religious beliefs here on this thread, I for once stated my own personal reaction to Calvinist dogma here, and now one of the saved elite, not content to contemplate my imminent and everlasting torture as among those (probably the vast majority of the human race) foreordained to damnation, evidently intends to use it as a weapon against me in some of the anti-Mormon materials that he produces. And he apparently feels very good about this.

I'd hazard a guess that Erik seconds that good feeling.

LM

[wandering]

Perhaps those that believe they are predestined for salvation are actually right...may perhaps be a self-fulfilling prophecy ...certainly the concept of being a 'chosen people' is not unique. On the other hand you have to continue to maintain the belief that you are predestined and will act in a 'saved way' for your entire life...otherwise you might fit into the oposing category.

The we think we have it right and are saved and they have it wrong and are not saved concept is not a Calvinist monopoly. Predestination or 'more valiant spirits' ????

Heh heh, all sorts of fun scenarios from predestination, you may be predestined to believe that you are predestined to be saved when really you are not....a bit of a headspin. Admittedly I don't know enough about Calvinism to understand it.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

I don't know about abhorrence but it certainly does paint a picture of an immoral god if by moral we mean just, fair and benevolent.

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

I think there made a move by some evanglelicals to look for a deeper theology than is sometimes presented especially in evanglelism driven mega churches and some pentecostal churches. Calvinism is a thorough and complex system having some very capable defenders over the years even from an evanglelical angle. (Spurgeon, Whitefield)

However my guess is that it will at most be 4 point rather than 5 point. Limited atonement I think is never likely to be widely held. Billy Graham, the evanglelical movemen and the odd "bannerman" has made John 3:16 ubquitious, as almost the most well known verse in the bible. I know people manage to get around it but "...God so loved the world..." tends to cause problems if your veiw is that God only loves the "elect" (and the corollary from Rom 9 that God hates the "non-elect".)

I was tempted to Calvinism (four point) cause I longed to maintain the sovereignty of God. However for me, placing God outside the human time continuum resolved my issues. No need to try work out fore-knowledge and predestination with a God that "fore-exists" our entire time spectrum. The "elect" are already in eternity (outside of time) and hence are already elected before they or God decide in the here and now of our time.

As for Jean Calvin, even though he had brilliant mind, how I can I celebrate a man who supported judicial execution for believers of credo-baptism (believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism). Michael Servetus was condemned to death for denying the trinity and infant baptism. No man should ever be executed solely on account of his beliefs.

On a lighter note, and with all due respect to your church and its leadership, which form all reports is excellent, there is however one thing that I and vast majority of reformed believers do hold in common. Reformed credo-baptist is an oxymoron.

[gabelpa]

For me,God's foreknowledge of events does not equal predestination. Mortality is our journey, not God's. He may know where we will wind up, who will be "saved" and who not, but we do not know.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.
;0)

--Erik

PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

I do share Dr. Peterson view on Calvinism.

As a believer in the Book of Mormon, but not LDS, I wouldn't approach them with this view as a warm up session. I would, as any Book of Mormon Believer should do, invite them the read the Book of Mormon and pray to Heavenly Father about it, waiting for the fruit of the Spirit to confirm it's validity. I would then share the verses that speak of how Jesus invites ALL men to come unto Him and how we are not merely creatures to be acted upon, but we have a choice whether to follow God or not.

By the way I love Pastor Mark, he is just simply wrong on this issue.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Erik,

I think there made a move by some evanglelicals to look for a deeper theology than is sometimes presented especially in evanglelism driven mega churches and some pentecostal churches. Calvinism is a thorough and complex system having some very capable defenders over the years even from an evanglelical angle. (Spurgeon, Whitefield)

However my guess is that it will at most be 4 point rather than 5 point. Limited atonement I think is never likely to be widely held. Billy Graham, the evanglelical movemen and the odd "bannerman" has made John 3:16 ubquitious, as almost the most well known verse in the bible. I know people manage to get around it but "...God so loved the world..." tends to cause problems if your veiw is that God only loves the "elect" (and the corollary from Rom 9 that God hates the "non-elect".)

I was tempted to Calvinism (four point) cause I longed to maintain the sovereignty of God. However for me, placing God outside the human time continuum resolved my issues. No need to try work out fore-knowledge and predestination with a God that "fore-exists" our entire time spectrum. The "elect" are already in eternity (outside of time) and hence are already elected before they or God decide in the here and now of our time.

As for Jean Calvin, even though he had brilliant mind, how I can I celebrate a man who supported judicial execution for believers of credo-baptism (believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism). Michael Servetus was condemned to death for denying the trinity and infant baptism. No man should ever be executed solely on account of his beliefs.

On a lighter note, and with all due respect to your church and its leadership, which form all reports is excellent, there is however one thing that I and vast majority of reformed believers do hold in common. Reformed credo-baptist is an oxymoron.

Limited atonement does seem to be a frequent sticking point, even at Mars Hill. It's considered an open-handed issue.

Regarding Servetus, Wikipedia gives a pretty even-handed treatment of what is obviously a difficult matter for admirers of John Calvin.
John Calvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Erik

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth_Mormon

I'd hazard a guess that Erik seconds that good feeling.

LM

No need for you to guess, LM, I'll be glad to share my thoughts on the matter. Daniel Peterson made a highly inflammatory statement and got called out on it. So what does he do (in the quote you provided)? He throws out an outrageous strawman ("God doesn't like the Chinese") and then follows up with an assertion of his seemingly perpetual victimhood ("a weapon against me"). I'll leave it to fans of FAIR/MA&DB to decide if there's any pattern here...

--Erik