Charles Spurgeon noted rightly that Calvinism is simply a nickname for our belief in the biblical doctrines of grace. Mark Kelly, however, has a problem with people adopting the Calvinist label. He doesn't like the fact that a 16th century Reformer is able to disrupt Southern Baptist unity: "There is something decidedly un-Baptistic -- and, I would argue, un-Christian -- about exalting any mere mortal to such a status." So, remember: it's perfectly fine for you to identify yourself as a Baptist and set yourself apart from your Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian brothers and sisters. Just don't call yourself a Calvinist. That's divisive.
After all the bridge-building in the SBC regarding Calvinism, Norman Jameson remains "just as befuddled by it, not a whit more attracted to it, and just as certain it has severe potential to divide."
Phil Johnson reminds us: "The gospel is the greatest sign of all, and it is the greatest wisdom of all unto them which are called. The elect see it, even if no one else does. It is 'the power of God' -- more potent than any cosmic sign."
Gee, Lee. That post was about exalting a man's systematic theology above Jesus Christ and God's own Word and submerging our own identity in Christ in deference to another mortal. If that's what you mean by adopting a Calvinist label, you ought to be concerned about it yourself.
I just don't see how you can call defending the biblical doctrines of grace "exalting a man's systematic theology above Jesus Christ and God's own Word." Now, granted, there are some who claim to be Calvinists who would put their "theology" (which is actually more of a crutch for their over-inflated egos) above scripture. But as Spurgeon noted, Calvinism is merely a nickname. If that is somehow divisive, you can thank the Remonstrants for that.
You said you were "puzzled why anyone would prefer to identify themselves by another man's name" and that the problem "won't be completely resolved until people get over their need to divide themselves into camps and fly flags emblazoned with their hero's name." Those sounded like all-inclusive remarks. I apologize if I was wrong.
I simply place ultimate value in the Scripture. If a teaching is true, it isn't because Calvin taught it but because it is biblical. Much of what Calvin taught was biblical; it's value lies in that fact. Some of what he taught and practiced was not - infant baptism, the persecution of other Christians.
My concern is that some - Calvinist and non - have lapsed into a factious, contentious spirit that is itself evidence of a spiritual problem. What a shame to proclaim the doctrines of grace but not demonstrate grace toward other Christians.
"That doctrine that is called 'Calvinist' did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth." -Charles H. Spurgeon
8 comments:
Gee, Lee. That post was about exalting a man's systematic theology above Jesus Christ and God's own Word and submerging our own identity in Christ in deference to another mortal. If that's what you mean by adopting a Calvinist label, you ought to be concerned about it yourself.
I just don't see how you can call defending the biblical doctrines of grace "exalting a man's systematic theology above Jesus Christ and God's own Word." Now, granted, there are some who claim to be Calvinists who would put their "theology" (which is actually more of a crutch for their over-inflated egos) above scripture. But as Spurgeon noted, Calvinism is merely a nickname. If that is somehow divisive, you can thank the Remonstrants for that.
maybe they're the ones I'm talking about, ya think?
You said you were "puzzled why anyone would prefer to identify themselves by another man's name" and that the problem "won't be completely resolved until people get over their need to divide themselves into camps and fly flags emblazoned with their hero's name." Those sounded like all-inclusive remarks. I apologize if I was wrong.
I simply place ultimate value in the Scripture. If a teaching is true, it isn't because Calvin taught it but because it is biblical. Much of what Calvin taught was biblical; it's value lies in that fact. Some of what he taught and practiced was not - infant baptism, the persecution of other Christians.
My concern is that some - Calvinist and non - have lapsed into a factious, contentious spirit that is itself evidence of a spiritual problem. What a shame to proclaim the doctrines of grace but not demonstrate grace toward other Christians.
No disagreement here!
See? I knew we had to be on the same page. We're both Watterson Calvinists!
Thanks Lee for the heads up at my blog, that no one ever reads!
Check out my latest posts on "soul sleep", tis not what you may think.
Blessings
Mark
Post a Comment