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?

I beg to differ. To me, Moses had more light than Calvin, not the other way around.


I don't think this was Moses' idea, but God's command, which had specific purposes - abbreviating the miserable life of lost sinners and trying to save those who could still be saved. The commands of a wise God are wise.

I posted this in one of the threads but it is usefull in our understanding of Calvinism...

For those who are not familiar with the debate (Calvin vs. Arminius) or the acronyms, here is a brief summation of both.

Jacobus Arminius was a Professor of Divinity at Leyden University in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century. He was the protege of Theodore Beza, who was John Calvin's successor. Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergient from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted a following. Some time after his death in 1609 some of his followers consolidated his teachings into 5 concise points (Later identified by the acronym DAISY) and presented them in a formal letter of Remonstrance (or objection) to the Reformed Church of Holland in 1618. The Church conducted a formal inquiry into the claims of the Arminians, and thus, the Synod of Dort was formed. In 1619 the Arminians got their answers in the form of an article known as The Canons of the Synod of Dort. The synod answered each of the five points presented by the Arminians with five contrary points that we now call "The Five Points of Calvinism," otherwise known by the acronym TULIP. Thus, the Synod of Dort absolutely rejected Arminianism as heretical, and confirmed Calvinism as the true doctrine of Christ's church.

However, far from being dispelled, the controversy between these two doctrines exists in the church today. Although both Arminius' and Calvin's doctrines go much further and much deeper than the "boiled down" points outlined by the acronyms, they do suffice to provide the basics of what each theolgical position entails. The acronyms are provided below:

Calvinism

T = Total depravity/ Total inability. Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not -- indeed he cannot -- choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ -- it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation -- it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

U = Unconditional Election. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

L = Limited Atonement. Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.

I = Irresistable Grace. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

P = Perseverance of the Saints. All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end. According to Calvinism: Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.


Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

That seems odd to me, since Christ had not yet come.



You wrote:



You wished to make clear you don't approve of heretics being burned. Why not?

Also, do you think there's no connection between wishing to have one who disagrees with you harmed, and one's theology?

As I pointed out earlier, Luther also had his problems with the Jews. He argued "that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these 'poisonous envenomed worms' should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing '[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.'[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

However, we shouldn't discard Luther's theological contributions because of his narrow-mindedness on this point. The same is true of Calvin.
Ellen White doesn't speak unfavorably of Calvin. Quite the opposite is true (See GC, chapter 12).
We can agree with some of the things he said and disagree with others (as is the case with almost every theologian), but I don't think it's fair to say his whole theology is questionable because of a particular incident or because of a particular aspect we disagree with. Besides, what I know is that Servetus was denounced by Calvin, but did Calvin ask for his death?

As to heretics, of course I don't think they should ever be persecuted. God didn't give this comission to His children.

Calvin in Geneva is like Cromwell in England. Both are still controvesial figures. But from what I've read both of them were great men of God. We can learn from them in the struggles they faced and how God lead them.

Well the bible has many times were a pretty horrible death was the result for a violation....

Numbers 25:8
And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.