Politics: One More Reason to Hate Calvinism
Calvinists are sooooo much more spiritual than we are that we can’t even talk about real life without being corrected. So, let me instruct you on how to discuss last night’s election without being chastised by a Calvinist:
‘Like, praise Jesus. But like, I was watching the election last night, not caring about who won because Jesus should be the king anyway. I just wanted to see how like, you know, the gospel narrative was going to unfold. It was just so awesome to see what Jesus already planned to do. Praise Jesus. I am still contemplating what the election results mean in their gospel context. Like, it’s really, really deep. In my own part of the gospel narrative, I read from the Scriptures about Jesus (of course) for several hours and then went to the polls to see what gave me joy. When I voted, it was like, a mere natural flow dude.”
Seriously, you can’t say anything. I tweeted something about political conservatism, and the next thing I know, I’m getting blasted for “hoping in conservatism instead of Jesus.” I saw where other tweets that referred to needed political change in this country were met with,” Only Jesus can bring about change.” Right. How dare we be so unspiritual! Folks, these people are making me gag. And I think the primary source of my gagetry is the hypocrisy on steroids. In regard to politics, Calvinists in this country posit a mindset of being above the fray, or endeared to loftier concerns unlike the everyday spiritual peasants among us.
The truth of the matter is that Calvin and his followers throughout the centuries have been rabid, political animals. The Puritans were up to their ears in political intrigue, and the executions of many Reformers/Puritans were for political reasons and not martyrdom for the faith (though factiously represented as such). In fact, the Puritans who came to America were political refugees and little more than that.
While pretending to be above the concerns of mere worldly governments, American Calvinists walk about quoting the Westminster Confession constantly. Do you know what that is? It was a document prepared by Reformed “Divines” at the behest of the English Parliament! It was a religious rule of law for the church and state. The European marriage of church and state resulted in the innumerable slaughter of thousands in Christ’s name.
But American Calvinists are above getting involved in the political system that put an end to all of that. It’s like, so unJesus.
I mean really, how petty can a system be when it lacks so much blood and torture?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“I am not sure in what sense you are using the term “Calvinist” in regard to making informed choices. I would certainly consider myself a Calvinist in the soteriological sense, but I believe I am as well informed as anyone about the issues facing our nation. I also believe the informed choice I made was decreed by God. It is not necessary to surrender one of those concepts in order to embrace the other.”
Afraid it is. It means God did not allow you to be borngrow into a rational mind to think and make any decisions with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You were not given that ability. So it was not really you voting. It was “God” forcing you to vote in that way. You simply had no other choice as the puppet. :o:
LikeLike
Lydia,
With all due respect, your statements merely proves you either don’t understand our position or you are simply willing to twist it for your own purposes. No one who truly understands the biblical doctrine of predestination would ever state the position as you have. Embracing the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in no way prevents us believing we act freely and without external constraint.
I guess I will have to take back my thanks to you for acknowledging that a person can believe in soteriological Calvinism and political Calvinism. I have no question there were aspects of Calvin’s doctrine that dictated his practice relative to sacralism. But those aspects of his doctrine have nothing to do with his political views and consequent practices.
I agree the times were not the problem. To some extent, at least, I think Calvin’s and Luther’s theological stances [infant baptism, for example] were dictated by their political situation and not visa versa. There were clearly those who understood the separation of church and state during those times. My point was that people see things differently due to their theological background. These men were not that far out of a system that has prevailed for centuries. The apostle Peter was a man in transition. There were people, the apostle Paul, for example, who clearly understood certain truths much more clearly and quickly than he did. In that sense, he was a man of his times. Do I believe they should have taught and acted differently? Of course! Can I say for sure I would have taught and acted differently had I been in their place? Who knows?
LikeLike
Lydia,
I am not sure my reply posted. I had an internet problem in the middle of posting it. Here it is again with a correction.
Lydia,
With all due respect, your statements merely prove you either don’t understand our position or you are simply willing to twist it for your own purposes. No one who truly understands the biblical doctrine of predestination would ever state the position as you have. Embracing the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in no way prevents us believing we act freely and without external constraint.
I guess I will have to take back my thanks to you for acknowledging that a person can believe in soteriological Calvinism and political Calvinism. I have no question there were aspects of Calvin’s doctrine that dictated his practice relative to sacralism. But his beliefs regarding soteriology have nothing to do with his views regarding sacralism.
I agree the times were not the problem. To some extent, at least, I think Calvin’s and Luther’s theological stances [infant baptism, for example] were dictated by their political situation and not visa versa. There were clearly those who understood the separation of church and state during those times. My point was that people see things differently due to their theological background. These men were not that far out of a system that has prevailed for centuries. The apostle Peter was a man in transition. There were people, the apostle Paul, for example, who clearly understood certain truths much more clearly and quickly than he did. In that sense, he was a man of his times. Do I believe they should have taught and acted differently? Of course! Can I say for sure I would have taught and acted differently had I been in their place? Who knows?
LikeLike
Randy, we could do this all day. The fact is, the only way your determinist God system works is for you is to admit man is a puppet. When it gets down to the nitty gritty in debate, many Calvinists realize how ridiculous they look, admitting they have no control or responsibility for their actions/words. Then they resort to “you just cannot understand it”. The problem is they have tried to market Calvinism for the “intellectuals”. And is anything but intellectual. It just uses complicated systems.
This debate has gone on for a while now and the best one I have seen is on a blog of scholars. The bottomline is the seminary educated Calvinists ALWAYS resort to one of these in some variation:
-You just do not believe God is Sovereign.
-You cannot understand it.
-You are an open Theist
-You are Pelagian or semi Pelagian
That is it. I really do believe had the internet and public debate been allowed and people had been allowed to think for themselves, this deadly system would have been snuffed out long ago in basic debate. It does not do well in free open debate.
. The internet has been horrible for Calvinism. But it will live on and reinvent itself after this wave. It always does. Tyrants love it. And lemmings need it. There is always a place for despots and tyrants.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I have no problem dealing with verses that teach human responsibility. Perhaps you could share with me how you explain the multitude of verses that make it clear that God is in sovereign control of his universe. My view is we don’t have to deny either one of those truths to beleive the Scriptures. In regard to puppethood, I only wish I were God’s puppet. I would the be completely obedient in all things.
LikeLike
Perhaps the internet has been horrible for Calvinism in the same way Obama’s negative adds against Romney. It didn’t seem to matter to Obama and his supporters that they regularly misrepresented Romney’s positions. They even continued to beat the same drumb after Romney had said, “That is not what I am proposing.” As long as people are willing to embrace “straw man” arguments, the truth will never prevail. This is why I have suggested we engage in open debates in which both sides must first state their opponent’s view to his satisfaction before he attempts to answer him.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Just so you know, I would be happy to debate these issues any time and any place, provided we followed rules such as the one I have stated.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Apparently, I have had difficulty posting this again. Trying again.
I have no problem dealing with verses that teach human responsibility. Perhaps you could share with me how you explain the multitude of verses that make it clear that God is in sovereign control of his universe. My view is we don’t have to deny either one of those truths to beleive the Scriptures. In regard to puppethood, I only wish I were God’s puppet. I would the be completely obedient in all things.
LikeLike
He who defines, wins
He who makes the rules, wins.
The debate is a waste of time. I do not read the scriptures with the Augustinian/Cavlin filter and that means we are starting with a different foundational premise and definitions about the attributes of God and what they mean. I simply believe that God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty. In fact, according to your beliefs, God decreed you would write all the above before the foundation of the world. :o)
LikeLike
The debate is a waste of time if we only debate conclusions. We must debate presuppostions and seek to discover whether our presuppostions are founded in Scripture. Whether you will admit it or not, you examine everything through a filter. Our filters may be different, but they exist nonetheless. We simply need to be honest enough to admit that we have one, or more.
To say that God is sovereign over his own sovereignty is really a nonsensical statement. No one can be autonomous or the greatest in status and authority over a government that is free from external control. If he were sovereign over his sovereign government, his sovereign government would cease to be sovereign.
And yes, I believe God works all things according to his predestined purpose (see Eph. 1:11).
LikeLike