This is a very interesting article as I have been trying to find the positive aspects of Calvinism , as he seemed to have gotten or stayed with many wrong understandings which made me wonder if Calvin may have missed the boat, but this article puts him back in play as a true reformer, very enlightening.

Here are some of the interesting parts..."America's Christian faith is experiencing a comeback of Calvinism and its God-first immersion in Scripture

What newcomers at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) hear is hardly "Christianity for Dummies." Nor is it "Extreme Makeover: Born-Again Edition." Instead, a young woman named Kasey Gurley describes her disobedience and suffering in Old Testament terms.

"I worship my own comfort, my own opinion of myself," she confesses. "Like the idolatrous people of Judah, we deserve the full wrath of God." She warns the women that "we'll never be safe in good intentions," but assures them that "Christ died for us so we wouldn't have to." Her closing prayer is both frank and transcendent: "Our comfort in suffering is this: that through Christ you provide eternal life."

Welcome to the austere – and increasingly embraced – message of Calvinism. Five centuries ago, John Calvin's teachings reconceived Christianity; midwifed Western ideas about capitalism, democracy, and religious liberty; and nursed the Puritan values that later cast the character of America.

Today, his theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism's unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians – especially the young.

Now come the New Calvinists with their return to inviolable doctrines and talk of damnation – in essence, the Puritans, minus the breeches and powdered wigs. Is this just a moment of nostalgia or the beginning of a deeper revolt against the popular Jesus-is-our-friend approach of modern evangelicalism? Where, in other words, is Christianity going?

• • •

When people today hear the name John Calvin, they think mainly of predestination – the controversial idea that God has foreordained everything that will happen, including who will and won't be saved, no matter what they do in life.

What people often forget is that the 16th-century French theologian transformed Western thought both by what he taught and how he taught it. His 700-page "Institutes of the Christian Religion" became the reference manual for Protestant faith. And his detailed and explanatory style of preaching – he spent five years expounding on the book of Acts, verse by verse – became an example for generations of clergy.

Detractors, and there are many, see Calvin as a harsh theocrat who punished heretics (including one who was famously burned at the stake) while molding the city where he preached, Geneva, into a model of his fatalistic and hopeless ideology.

But supporters view him as a man who recovered God-centric Christianity, set the stage for religious freedom, and encouraged countless believers to read the Bible for themselves...."


Take a look at the full article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0327/Christian-faith-Calvinism-is-back

New Calvinists appear to be swinging from excessive licence with Christian religion and society to the other excess of God running everything. Free will is the loser, or is it just tied in shackles?

Detractors find fault with Calvin because of his punishment of heretics, including one who burned at the stake. Imagine that.

Well, the fact is, Luther also had his problems with the Jews. But they preached the truth, and we shouldn't throw away their theological contributions in other areas because of their narrow-mindedness on some points.

I forgot that about Luther, seems like he has so much truth that the mistakes are set aside, but Calvin was a fire breather, it seems like he had doctrines that he would literal set others on fire if they disagreed. A bit harsh in my estimation...

Burning people at the stake is "a bit harsh"?

I would think his ideas on predestination were worse, man has no freewill in this scenerio, we have no way to choose salvation..that is billions with no way to be saved, that is worse...

They don't say that man doesn't have free will, but they use a stricter definition of free will than non-Calvinists generally use. A Calvinist defines free will as being able to do that which you choose or want to do. They believe that men are free to do that which they choose, or want, to do.

The definition non-Calvinists use is generally that a person has free will if they can effect (bring about) one of multiple options.

Here's a concrete example. Say there's a fork in the road, and you can choose to go right or left. A Calvinist would say that it's only possible to go one way or the other (whichever way God has predestined) but the man's free will is not violated because he is free to go the direction he choose, or wishes, to go. A non-Calvinist would say the person has free will only if he can actually go either direction.

The free will choice seems to me somewhat similar to discussions regarding Open Theism. That is, I see that those who hold the traditional viewpoint are open to some logical problems, as are those who hold the Calvinist position. However, most Calvinists don't see things this way, and the same is true among the non-Calvinists.

What all those goes to show is that this is a rather theological pie-in-the-sky type of argument, to some extent, if one doesn't understand or perceive the logical difficulties involved. But actually choosing to burn someone at the stake is another matter. That's a moral decision one is undertaking.

I understand the point that having the Calvinistic idea presents God is a very negative light, which is certainly a big concern, but God's character is misrepresented in so many different ways, this is just one of many examples of this. Actually choosing to burn someone at the stake speaks strongly to one's understanding of God's character, and is to me a very strong argument against Calvinism, at least that specific application of it. If one's theology leads one to conclude that this sort of behavior is OK, that makes the whole theology suspect, to put it mildly.

But Tom, according to the standard you are presenting here I think Moses' theology would also have to be classified as suspect, since I understand you see the death penalty in the OT as also presenting God in a negative light.
(Let me make clear I don't approve of heretics being burned.)

Moses didn't have the light that Christ had, but Calvin did. I don't think these are comparable.



Do you approve of them being stoned?