The trouble with Calvinism.

[Zant Law]

• 

They insist on signed agreement with Calvinist teaching by members, which may be considered tantamount to practice of justification by works. This stance of course excludes from membership people who do not agree with Calvinism.

Unfortunately in the real world people joining churches seldom look deeply into the doctrine of the church. And like I said sometimes you can't even tell by reading their statement of faith what the church believes.

So expression of non-Calvinist views within those bodies cannot be legitimate.

If that's true then please explain this.

So. Baptists Divided Over Calvinism; Debate 'Salvation' Document

Hundreds of Southern Baptists have signed a statement that rejects Calvinist views on the doctrine of salvation and outlines the "traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation."

Some 300 Southern Baptists have signed the document, according to the latest update. Among the signatories are former SBC presidents including Bobby Welch, Jimmy Draper and Paige Patterson, as well as denominational leaders, pastors, evangelists, seminary personnel and church members.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country. According to a 2006 LifeWay Research study, 10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors embrace five-point Calvinism.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/so-baptists-divided-over-calvinism-debate-salvation-document-76043/#weOsCVT8Skrlutjq.99

One cannot preach sola fide and sola Scriptura, then start making exceptions when one starts one's church. One must either accept all views, or not bother with Christianity at all.

I don't even know how to address a statement. I will try to explain you again the Calvinists do not believe Calvinism debate against Arminianism is a salvation issue.

You attended a particular church four times, and even then, could not discover the position of the members on Calvinism. Assuming that this actually was a Calvinist body, and these people knew that it was, the attitude seems to be of ashamedness of Calvinism. This is probably confirmed if many churches are no longer advertising Calvinism.

Agreed.

It's nonsense to say that Calvinism is bravely standing up to women pastors etc. if they cannot even justify their distinctive theology! Of course, this congregation may not have agreed with Calvinism at all, and the poor beleaguered pastor was having to be careful what he said in public.

In the original post makes it clear that Calvinists do standup against having women pastors. But the same cannot be said about Arminians.
Who said they can justify their theology?

It might be added that exclusion of women, subtly or even officially, is by no means unusual, even today; that very many non-religious people are opposed to abortion and homosexuality (despite the relentless brainwashing of the media); and that paederasty is illegal. So it's no big deal if Calvinists (if that's what they really are) oppose such things.

Again the same cannot be said about Arminians.

To commend a faith on the grounds of its basic human decency is almost like admission of failure.

Before I comment on this please explain your last sentence, are you saying that it is only basic human decency to admit women and homosexuals to church leadership?

I wonder if your definition of human decency over rides the Scriptures.

[Fat]

• 

It might be added that exclusion of women, subtly or even officially, is by no means unusual, even today; that very many non-religious people are opposed to abortion and homosexuality (despite the relentless brainwashing of the media); and that paederasty is illegal. So it's no big deal if Calvinists (if that's what they really are) oppose such things. To commend a faith on the grounds of its basic human decency is almost like admission of failure.

1) All non-believers are going to Hell.
2) Do you believe that Buddhist that are good men will be in heaven?
3) You are obviously a woman who holds the view that women should be ordained as ministers. Which also means that you do not believe the Scriptures should be taken literally.
4)  Is it human decency to disobey God?
5)  I also see in your last sentence a trick used by liberal journalist, academia, and politicians. If someone doesn't agree with you than he must be a failure. That's juvenile - My mommy said so.

[calluna]

• 

Unfortunately in the real world people joining churches seldom look deeply into the doctrine of the church.

In that case, they cannot sensibly be described as Christians, anyway. Or even as responsible people.

And like I said sometimes you can't even tell by reading their statement of faith what the church believes.

Even pagans know better than to sign to what they do not understand.

And if pastors sign up to what they do not understand, it's too shambolic, even for Satan, surely! If people sign assent to a tenet, there cannot be legitimate discussion about it among them thereafter, unless there is resignation from the organisation. The time to discuss it is before signing.

I don't even know how to address a statement.

I don't think that anyone can justify saying that justification is by faith, and almost in the same breath, saying that it isn't. Refusing church membership to those who do not assent to Calvinism is making that very contradiction. And if it isn't a salvation issue, why refuse to meet with fellow saints as equals?

And if non-Calvinist theology inevitably leads to such evils as homosexuality and abortion, as you seem to be saying, how can non-Calvinists be Christians?

Would it not be more helpful to everyone if Calvinists simply said that non-Calvinists are not Christians? Or do Calvinists not dare say so, because non-Calvinists have more street cred as Christians than Calvinists? If Calvinists are keeping quiet about their belief, as you stated, then that might seem to be the most likely explanation.

are you saying that it is only basic human decency to admit women and homosexuals to church leadership?

I'm saying that many Westerners, particularly of the political right wing, are not keen on women in positions of leadership, despite the PC ethos of the West. So, whether they are right or wrong about that, how is Calvinism better? It could be a political expression of right wing people, as indeed Calvinism was in 16th and 17th century Europe. And if ordinary people without a religious thought in their heads reject homosexuality, how is Calvinism better? And of course, many non-religious people are greatly opposed to abortion, considering it murder; how are Calvinists better than they? How is Calvinism better than the way of the world? It does not seem to want to admit to being Calvinist, or even to know what Calvinism is. And it seems to think that, because its morality is as good as that of the world, it is better than the world.

It makes no sense.

[Zant Law]

• 

In that case, they cannot sensibly be described as Christians, anyway. Or even as responsible people.

Even pagans know better than to sign to what they do not understand.

And if pastors sign up to what they do not understand, it's too shambolic, even for Satan, surely! If people sign assent to a tenet, there cannot be legitimate discussion about it among them thereafter, unless there is resignation from the organisation. The time to discuss it is before signing.

I don't think that anyone can justify saying that justification is by faith, and almost in the same breath, saying that it isn't. Refusing church membership to those who do not assent to Calvinism is making that very contradiction. And if it isn't a salvation issue, why refuse to meet with fellow saints as equals?

And if non-Calvinist theology inevitably leads to such evils as homosexuality and abortion, as you seem to be saying, how can non-Calvinists be Christians?

Would it not be more helpful to everyone if Calvinists simply said that non-Calvinists are not Christians? Or do Calvinists not dare say so, because non-Calvinists have more street cred as Christians than Calvinists? If Calvinists are keeping quiet about their belief, as you stated, then that might seem to be the most likely explanation.

I'm saying that many Westerners, particularly of the political right wing, are not keen on women in positions of leadership, despite the PC ethos of the West. So, whether they are right or wrong about that, how is Calvinism better? It could be a political expression of right wing people, as indeed Calvinism was in 16th and 17th century Europe. And if ordinary people without a religious thought in their heads reject homosexuality, how is Calvinism better? And of course, many non-religious people are greatly opposed to abortion, considering it murder; how are Calvinists better than they? How is Calvinism better than the way of the world? It does not seem to want to admit to being Calvinist, or even to know what Calvinism is. And it seems to think that, because its morality is as good as that of the world, it is better than the world.

It makes no sense.

 The last church I joined it only took the letter from me explaining when and where I was converted.
 I would respond to your post point by point but you seem very disjointed. I can't even understand where you come up with some of these statements

And if non-Calvinist theology inevitably leads to such evils as homosexuality and abortion, as you seem to be saying, how can non-Calvinists be Christians?

No where can I see that anybody said not being a Calvinist will lead you to homosexuality and abortion.

 I really believe what is going on here is that you have an agenda, either a woman's rights or homosexual agenda, or maybe both. For your information this is not a politically correct board we do not believe that God has changed over the years, he is as he was at the day of creation. Political correctness, as stated so many times on this forum, is a cancer in the church.

 By the way he should learn the difference between doctrine and theology.

ZLaw

[JB Horn]

• 

Law, phat

It's just that she/he doesn't understand the post before answering. I ran into this on the angels thread with her/him. ESL maybe.

[Zant Law]

• 

Law, phat

It's just that she/he doesn't understand the post before answering. I ran into this on the angels thread with her/him. ESL maybe.

JB, I think not. It's an attempt to silence and justify. Same old, same old.

[calluna]

• 

The last church I joined it only took the letter from me explaining when and where I was converted.

Anyone can write a letter. No wonder we are not at all on the same wavelength.

A church is composed of members whose practical fruits of the Spirit as well as understanding of Scripture are tested thoroughly at home and in the congregation over at least six months. Two years 'on trial' is not unusual. Certainly, anyone who supposed that a mere letter would gain entrance would never be permitted to write or speak on behalf of a church.

No where can I see that anybody said not being a Calvinist will lead you to homosexuality and abortion.

Unfortunately, that is what, in effect, you have written. You and others here are also guilty of libel, and you would be swiftly removed not only from a church, but from any respectable organisation. The irony is that non-religious people have better standards.

Inexperienced Calvinists reading this must be hoping that your posts here, and those of others here, are not representative of themselves. Which, for at least some Calvinists, they are not, they may rest assured.

I seem to have been wasting my time on this thread, anyway. Though perhaps some passing readers have with horror had their eyes opened.

[Fat]

• 

Law, JB

Check post #16, beat you both!

Calluna -

Each church is different with different regulations. Some churches are held in homes and only include neighbors and families. Some churches meet secretly and their only oath is to keep the members identities from the government. A church is an assembly of believers, not a corporation under contract.There are churches that only have one Bible, and that Bible is brought out after meeting and read, it is the only time the membership hears the word of God. Some churches require that you go to school and pass a course before you become a member, some churches only require that you be baptized and confess your faith at baptism.