7 posts tagged “calvinist”

It's funny how things just seem to work out perfectly sometimes. I don't know if it's correct or not to say that it's God doing, but often I think that could be appropriate. He really does look after me, in ways that I could never imagine.

For example, earlier this week I was stressing over certain aspects of election, theology, faith, and assurance. Then I just happened to stumble upon this gem of a sermon by J.C. Ryle on an almost equally gem of a blog. I won't really go over it here, because there's nothing more that I could possibly add to Ryle's superb writing style and his insight into faith and assurance. I know that I had had one really long and vague blog post planned, because my thoughts were scatterbrained. But then I read Ryle's sermon, and I really found a selection of his text expressed everything that I've been wanting to say about faith for a while, and in so many less (and more eloquent) words. Take a gander, read the rest, and have a great day everyone!

I believe it ought to be our continual aim and desire to go forward; and our watchword at the beginning of every year should be, “More and more” (1 Thess. iv. 1): more knowledge,-more faith,-more obedience,-more love. If we have brought forth thirty-fold, we should seek to bring forth sixty, and if we have brought forth sixty, we should strive to bring forth a hundred. The will of the Lord is our sanctification, and it ought to be our will too. (Matt. xiii. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 3.) -- J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)

Sometimes, when I worry about loneliness, my homosexuality, and my subsequent self-induced celibacy, I wonder why God has allowed me to suffer so. A reading through the Book of Job over the past few days got rid of that thinking. God is God. He doesn't owe me anything, and I am foolish for being resentful of the situations He has put me in. They are, after all, what makes me the person I am today. And I like that guy. I really do.

I am healthy, I am (more or less) full of hope. In my own respects, I am a teacher and a writer, the two things I have always wanted to be. I have a great family, and a great boyfriend who understands me, and who I can share my faith with. If Job, who was reduced to almost nothing, can still cry out and praise God, what makes it so hard for me to do so sometimes?

I am trying my hardest to trust God more. This is a two-fold mission in a lot of ways. First, I want to trust God with the events of my own life. I want to trust that the situations I have been put in are ones that I can handle, and that He will help me through. My life is rocky a little right now, on several levels. On other levels it is fine. In either case, I have to trust that He will be there for me.

Secondly, I have to trust in my own salvation. It's hard, because Reformed theology (at least in my limited understand of it so far) leaves little room for total assurance. This is good in a way, because it means there is more humility among the Christians who adhere to it (and, hopefully, myself included). A lot of Christians can get it in their heads that their simple statements of faith save them, and that can lead to a lot of arrogance.

So, Calvinists know that the Holy Spirit must be in you and actively working in order to save you, right? The problem is that it's hard to know if that's happening. I stumble and I doubt, and I sometimes wonder if I'm only deluding myself into thinking that God has really saved me, even though I desire Him so badly. Everyone will glorify God in the end, and I rejoice in that. But I can't lie and say that there isn't one side of the schism that I'll want to be on when the end comes. I suppose I have to trust that God is just and beyond my level of thinking, and there are some wonderful friends around to support me in my faith. Disputed Mutability showed me this wonderful sermon by C.H. Spurgeon about the very subject of assurance in hard times. Trust is hard, but it's rewarding, and it comes with time. Patience has never been one of my strong points, but I'm working on it. Welcome to December, everybody!

For starters, any references to "conservative" or "liberal" in this post are not to be taken in a political sense.  They are references to how one sees the Bible and his or her faith.  Granted, often times these Scriptural views do coincide with political views, but not always, and certainly not in my case.  :)

I have often found that in times of stress or temptation, my views on Scripture become more conservative.  Though nothing changes about my beliefs in any major way, I do become more open minded to the prospect of more "literal" interpretations of Scripture.  For example, I'm still of the belief that the Genesis 1 account is metaphorical and that women can be preachers, but I'm reevaluating those beliefs (among others).  I want to see if they truly hold any water, so I'm spending more time with my Bible and other theological writings.

I say this like I have a lot of time.  Do understand that I'm still a Sophomore in college so "more time" probably just translates to an extra fifteen minutes a day or so.  ;-)

I'm also learning more about the Reformed aspect of my faith.  I don't think I've mentioned much about it since my initial post about the shift in my theological views.  Recently, at the long-neglected recommendations of some commenters, I'm reading a lot of sermons by John Piper.  Needless to say, I really like the guy.  I especially like how he treats the subject of homosexuality.  In the sermons I've read (and I haven't read them all), he seems to have a very kind and Christian attitude towards the subject.  Granted, he does use a bit of ex-gay rhetoric, but sometimes that can't be helped.  He does seem to differentiate Christ's version of "change" and our human expectations, and that's a refreshing take.  It is most certainly making me think more about how I view my homosexual desires (mainly just the lust, because I'm beginning to wonder why the desires for emotional intimacy with another man need to be considered homosexual at all).

I think my newfound "conservatism" is due to the fact that I'm in a relationship that could potentially be harmful (but could also potentially be helpful).  Because I am being faced with more temptation nowadays, I'm relying on God and His Word more.  This is a good thing, and might be the reason God allowed the relationship to happen in the first place.  I'll admit I had been getting a little complacent about the whole reading Scripture and praying thing.

Of course, it's probably a stretch to say that a Christian guy with a boyfriend is "conservative," but I don't think my views are liberal, either.  Maybe I'm a mix of both: a Conservaliberal perhaps?  Either way I'm excited about a lot of things going on in my life, and a deeper understanding of my faith and the wonderful mysteries of God's Word is probably up there at the top of the list.

Speaking of Reformed theology, I found a lovely little cartoon on deviantART from the user *spacecoyote depicting John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes playing the part of two similarly-named comic strip characters.  ;-)  I busted out laughing when I saw it the first time.  I couldn't upload it onto Vox, but click the deviantART link and you'll see it.  Have a great day, everyone!

Recently, various sources have brought the subject of celibacy to my attention. Not being one to miss an opportunity to speak (or write) my mind, I decided it would be a good time to write a post about the subject. It was then that I realized that I had a lot more to say about it than I previously thought, which is why I intend to spread all my thoughts, reflections, and questions about celibacy across three posts. This is, of course, the first, and it is about a concept that often goes hand-in-hand with celibacy: calling.

I don't think it is strange to hear celibacy referred to as a calling. After all, in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, Paul calls it a "gift." But what, exactly, is a calling? As a Calvinist (albeit a new one), I should know a thing or two about it, because I believe Christians are called to belief (and I believe the Bible makes a strong case for that). But when we think of callings, are we thinking of them correctly? Personally, when I first hear the word "calling," what I think of is a burning bush, a voice from the sky, or some cathartic life experience that points directly to what God has called a certain individual to do. I mean, callings are supposed to be dramatic, right?

I don't think so. Sure, sometimes they are, but I also believe that callings can manifest themselves through basic circumstances. For example, the fact that I was raised in a Christian home is a good indicator that I was called to be a Christian. It wasn't definite, because I had many opportunities to fall away from Christ. I actually tried to on some occasions and found that I couldn't. But we can talk about Irresistible Grace some other time. :)

Or to put it another way, I absolutely love kids. I can't see anything better for my life than working with kids daily. Is it too bold of me to say that this love for children is a call for me to be a teacher? Again, I don't think so. I think that's exactly what a calling is. It may not be dramatic, but it's pretty real.

But here is where it gets tricky. What if you are called to do something that you just don't want to do? It's nothing new. Moses is an example right off the top of my head and I'm sure he's not the only one. However, his calling was dramatic. There was no doubt of what the call was and that God was doing it. Let's say your calling is not so dramatic. It's a calling of basic circumstance. We're willing to accept these kinds of callings when they are things we want, but what about when we don't want them? From what I've seen, it's these kinds of callings that are seen as tragic circumstances that must be overcome at all costs. It's the overcoming that can make things a little messy sometimes.

I recently came across an interesting Catholic blogger called The Anchoress. She had made a post about obedience, and though it originally concerned infertility, it was this paragraph that caught my attention:

"How about another scenario - and this one will really tick some off - you’re gay. You’re a human being, with a human sexuality and a human sex drive, but you’re gay. The church in which you’ve been raised says, "okay, so, you’re gay. No sin in that, but as such, you may not marry - because marriage is the province of men and women whose coming together assists in the continuation and revitalization of all creation - therefore, since you may not marry, you are called to the same celibacy as any unmarried person. One gift has been denied you, but if you pay attention you will be shown your gift, and your calling - perhaps you are called to be a necessary other…do you accept the calling? Do you accept this dangerous blessing?"

Interesting, isn't it? I don't know much about the "necessary other" stuff (Is that a Catholic thing? Anyone?), but I do know that the view expressed coincides with my own. Not to mention it's another reason why I love Catholics. :)

A lot of people are going to disagree with the notion that homosexual feelings are a call to celibacy, and I don't want to suggest that. Each case is individual and should be dealt with as such. However, I also don't like the notion that only those without sex drives are called to celibacy. For one, do such people exist? I know Paul said it was better for a man to marry than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9), but does that mean the only people called to celibacy are those that don't want sex?

Personally, I like sex. I like it a lot. The thought that all gay men aren't supposed to have it is a little daunting (let's face it; a lot of them are really hot!) But let's look at it this way. God called a shepherd with a speech impediment to stand before Pharoah and lead the Jews out of Egypt. He called a very elderly man to be the patriarch of the nations. He called a shepherd boy to be a king. He called a group of fishermen to lead a new and radical religious movement. So, what makes anyone think that to be called for something, you have to be ready-made for the task?

Again, I'm not asking all gay men and women reading this that they should automatically think celibacy is their calling. Perhaps the fact that I have interpreted it as such is just another reason why it is a calling for me. All I would ask is that people pray, reflect, and read God's Word. Just because you don't desire it, doesn't mean that God hasn't set it out before you. The Anchoress closed her post with a good line, and I hope she doesn't mind me repeating it:

"Okay, God, you dealt me this hand. I don’t particularly appreciate it - it’s not the hand I would have chosen. Therefore, I’ll let you play it, I’ll follow your lead and trust that it will not come up a stinker."

Now, for those of us who have decided that celibacy is what God has meant for us (at least for now), then there's the question of "What next?" That's the subject of the next post. Stick around. :)

One of the coolest things about life is that you never know where it's going to take you. People change, sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly, sometimes profoundly, sometimes minimally. In any case, change happens. People grow, and often times one will find himself ending up in a place that is the polar opposite of where he thought he'd be.

Such a thing happened to me recently. I think some of you might remember the post I made about Calvinism vs. Arminianism back in November. Back then, I was a very devout Arminian, and I responded to Calvinism with strong opposition. It was actually very draining on me, and I remember becoming very spiritually hurt during the debates that followed the post (to this date, it's still the most comments I've ever had for a post -- 52). I eventually just gave up on the whole situation. That was five months ago.

In the time between then and now, I considered myself somewhat of a Calvinist. I definitely believed in the concepts of Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, but Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement still gave me the same knee-jerk reaction that they had in the past. I just didn't think they were "fair." Then, very recently, something hit me. Who was I to hold the God that created me to my version of "fair?" Heck, I had mentioned in this post how Arminian theology didn't seem "fair" either. If I wanted total "fairness," the best bet would be to not be a Christian at all.

But enough about that. The funny thing about this situation was that I didn't really realize that I had actually embraced Reformed theology until a few nights ago at Bible study. We were reading from Ephesians 1, one of those Bible chapters that mentions those big scary words like "predestination." ;) The group leader knew from the get-go that debate might ensue, so we prayed that God would guide the discussion in a way that would glorify Him.

Lo and behold, debate happened, and for some strange reason I found myself defending the literal meaning of the verses, and even such things as Unconditional Election, concepts that I had once hated. The study ended on a good note, thankfully, with mutual respect between both sides and reassurance that doctrinal differences didn't affect our statuses as brothers in Christ. My thoughts after the study could pretty much be summed up by the phrase: "By Jove, I'm a Calvinist!" :) I was reminded of the line Bob Hope said in reference to his first television appearance: "Well, they got me!"

To be honest, embracing Reformed theology really shouldn't have a big impact on my Christian living. By no means do I think every Christian needs to be Reformed, and personally a lot can be said for seeing the debate as irrelevant. This doesn't affect my thoughts on witnessing, charity, mission work, or even God's love for the world. If anything, it's just a way for me to greater understand God's grace and His love for me. In my book, it's one the best way to look at God and say "Yours is the glory!"

It's just so fascinating how things change over time. Who knows where I'll be in the next five months?

This post is more or less a response to all the commenters on my Blogspot blog.  But in a lot of ways its also a resolution to the questions I raised in the "Calvinist vs. Wesleyan" post.  So it might not be so relevant to you VOX guys, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Hello all. As you can see, I'm back and (hopefully) in top form. I had the down time I needed, and though it was brief, it was pretty good. Introspection is sometimes a very difficult thing to pull through, and I've been going through a lot of it lately.

First let me thank everyone who commented on the "Calvinist vs. Wesleyan" post. Yes, some of the comments did overwhelm me a bit, but that's mainly because I've been overwhelmed lately anyway, and with a variety of things. As far as whethor or not I'm a Calvinist or a Wesleyan...well, right now I'm still a Wesleyan, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. However, I do realize that I (along with Calvin, Wesley, and the rest of us) am just a small, insignificant human being. When we're talking about a God who created the very fabric of reality, then we have to have the humility to admit that our human doctrines and systems of belief can end up being infinitely fallible when compared to His infinite perfection.

The one thing I knew after that post was that I know very little. But I do know what I think matters most. I know God exists, I know Christ died for my sins, I know His Word, and I intend to keep it. Both Calvinists and Arminians (and many, many others) know these things, and so really, what's all the arguing about? Do not both Calvinists and Arminians preach the Gospel to the nations? Do they not both help the poor, sick, and needy? Do they not both aspire to love Christ and God with all their hearts and all their souls? Do they not both rejoice when sinners come running to the grace of the Cross? Do they not both weep for the lost souls in this world? As you can see, I could go on. My point is that it doesn't really matter whether or not we think God predestined all of this or merely foreknew it. Either way, in all things we seek to glorify Him, so I don't think He'll mind.

That post did lead me to learn some things about myself. I realized that all of my objections to Calvinism stem from something within me that I believe is ultimately good: the belief that, deep down, all men are good; no one is rotten to the core. Even in the darkest of hearts, there is the glimmer of the perfect Creation that we were all intended to be, and that many of us will be again. I do not want to see anyone that I've known in this life sent to Hell (whatever its nature may be). Truly, I'd like to see all of mankind resolved to God (even though I know that isn't going to happen), and I believe in a God who would like to see the same thing, who does not wish that any should perish but that all should be brought to Him.

I know this confidence in the goodness of humanity is something that a lot of Christians (and even many secularists) warn against. Not necessarily because they think it's totally wrong but because it often sets an individual up to be hurt when a person doesn't turn out to be as good as they hoped. But that's the kind of pain I'll gladly live with.

I hope those above two paragraphs didn't sound too proud. They're merely things I've come to notice about myself. Trust me, I notice a lot of things that I don't like so much, so it's nice to find something within you that you can know is good. One thing that I know is bad is my habit to start rambling, like I've done now. :-) Let me get back on track...

Like I said, I'll still hold to Arminianism, but I'm open to Calvinism and I don't believe that either are perfectly right or perfectly wrong. Whichever path you take shouldn't affect your path as a Christian, and that's the most important thing in my eyes. I'm grateful for the debate. It really did help me grow, even though I didn't really change my mind about anything. I didn't throw my hands in the air and give up like usual. I did, though, throw my hands in the air and praise God, for being a Creator that I know created me with a care that made the worlds.

You know what? I think too darn much. That seems to have been the main theme of my life these past few days. I've been questioning things--everything from politics to my own personal relationships. I present myself with different points of view--all of which seem to have merit--and knowing that a decision has to be made between the contradictory stances, I become complacent and throw my hands in the air. "I give up!" is the verbal equivalent. I just can't make a decision about what my convictions are sometimes. And so I take non-movement as the best course of action, even when I know it isn't.

Case in point: Today I somehow got myself into an argument (with myself) about Calvinism vs. Wesleyan/Arminian theology. I think someone mentioned the opposing schools of thought in a comment thread somewhere, and so I decided to look them up myself (ain't Google great?). The first thing I came across was an objective, point-by-point comparison of the two. After looking at that, I pretty much figured I was a Wesleyan (no surprise there, really--I was raised Methodist after all).

But I always love hearing opposing sides, so I found a comparison from a Calvinist perspective. That made me pretty confused. For one, it was pretty persuasive. It really does seem like the Bible presents more evidence for a Calvinist theology than an Arminian one. Basically, there are just a lot of verses where God "hardened their hearts" or "gave them over to sin." Those are the verses that I've always had trouble with, and it's a shame that they seem to outnumber the ones that advocate a freedom of will and conscience.

But, despite the persuasiveness of the comparison, I really just don't like Calvinism. It seems totally unfair and downright illogical to think that God put effort into creating human beings and then predestined them to Hell. I mean, "What the...?" God knew us while we were still in the womb, if I'm not mistaken. Saying that He knows whether or not we'll get saved is one thing, but saying that He elects those of us who will go to Heaven is quite another. Plus, there's really no security in Calvinism, is there? I mean, what if you think you believe, but at the end of your life you find that God really didn't elect you, and you were just fooling yourself?

Plus, Calvinism just doesn't sit well for those of us of the homosexual persuasion. It's hard to believe that one of God's elect would have to deal with being gay. And a lot of hyper-Calvinists (like the psychotic Fred Phelps--who doesn't deserve to have any term associated with Christianity attached to his name) use this as an argument as a way to say that gay people are gay because "God gave them over to shameful lusts." And hey, that's in Romans 1, so it has merit. But it just doesn't sound like something a loving God would do.

So, I'm not exactly at a crisis of faith right now, but I am trying to figure out exactly Who God is. There are places in the Bible that don't make Him out to be so pleasant, and I'm trying to reconcile those places with the image of the all-loving, all-knowing, great God that I've known since childhood. It's dangerous territory. A lot of people don't make it out of these questions with their faith intact, but I feel that if I want to have a real, solid faith, then it needs to be challenged. Otherwise, is it not built upon sand?

(Oh, and I found a comparison of Calvinist and Wesleyan theology from a Wesleyan perspective, but I'm too tired to read through all of it just yet. That's the thing I've come to notice about myself. Any rational, persuasive argument usually has the ability to get me second-guessing myself. I don't want to be a flip-flopper, but I need to find my convictions. Pray for me, guys. Things are still going well here regardless).