Thread: Teaching Calvinism, how often?

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? My kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

I agree with Rev Morecraft III that you don't need to teach Calvinism from the pulpit. Just teach the Bible honestly and you shall teach Calvinism.

I really do not feel an especial need to teach a series of messages on salvation that runs through 5-Points. I don't like topical series much anyway. The only topical series of any kind I've done in the four years I've been ordained I really didn't enjoy.

But the doctrines which the TULIP declare are woven through all the Bible's teaching of salvation. Last Sunday, I preached on Phil.3:12-16 which is a passage that treats largely of Perseverance of the Saints.

I'm fairly new to my church but I haven't heard any series specifically on Calvinism. However, I do find topical series on TULIP helpful so that it's easy to have sermon audio files all on the doctrines of grace and that flow from one to the other. Art Azurdia's TULIP series was a great blessing to me, for example.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? Mu kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

I would say this ranks as one of the top misconceptions I hear from people when they learn I attend a Calvinist church. They assume that all our ministers and teachers ever teach is (a) something related to TULIP or (b) something by the pen of Calvin every Sunday.

Heh, I recall a church I used to go to that had a class against Calvinism. Come to think of it, it really wasn't for anything in particular.

I don't even use the word. When I came here the banner of Calvin was probably flying higher than the banner of Christ. When I candidated I asked one local pastor about our church. He said that they're Calvinist. The interim pastor said they were Calvinist (he isn't). But, every time I'm in the pulpit I teach some soteriological aspect of Calvinism in so much as Calvinism is biblical.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? Mu kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

In being in Reformed and at least Calvinistic churches for almost 20 years I've never once heard a sermon specifically on any of the five points - but as others have said, the doctrines are tightly woven into the fabric of preaching at many of our churches. (perhaps not as tightly woven as you'd like).

I'm not a guy who prefers topical sermons, though, as I believe that sequential expository preaching is the best way to go.

Now Sunday school is a place where they ought to see such doctrines clearly taught - and if they've been taught catechetically at home (or in the church) they'll get it twice or more. Most church programs, though, don't really teach much doctrine to the kids - and much the pity.

Our church has a unique perspective on this. We started off as a good ole free will Baptist church in 2000. After the pastor and elders finally came to understand the doctrines of grace, they became part of our teaching, much like Bruce indicated. We never actually taught Calvinism; we simply taught the sovereignty of God. As time progressed the members caught on. They saw the scriptures plainly. Praise God for the work of the Spirit in all our lives. To this day we have never overtly taught Calvinism. There's no need to.

Pretty much every week from the pulpit in the form of doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Additionally, we are doing a weekly men's bible study. ""What is the Reformed Faith" by Sproul. But Calvinism should bet some frequent exposure in Sunday school classes.

Our next study is going to be from Third Millenium Ministries which has some instructional videos from teachers like John Frame, Richard Pratt and other reformed theologians.

Third Millennium Ministries

Now, if we can only get the women in our church to stop using the Beth Moore tripe.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I really do not feel an especial need to teach a series of messages on salvation that runs through 5-Points. I don't like topical series much anyway. The only topical series of any kind I've done in the four years I've been ordained I really didn't enjoy.

But the doctrines which the TULIP declare are woven through all the Bible's teaching of salvation. Last Sunday, I preached on Phil.3:12-16 which is a passage that treats largely of Perseverance of the Saints.

I agree, and at our church at least one of the five points is discussed - at least indirectly - every single Sunday.

Originally Posted by KMK

I agree with Rev Morecraft III that you don't need to teach Calvinism from the pulpit. Just teach the Bible honestly and you shall teach Calvinism.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I really do not feel an especial need to teach a series of messages on salvation that runs through 5-Points. I don't like topical series much anyway. The only topical series of any kind I've done in the four years I've been ordained I really didn't enjoy.

But the doctrines which the TULIP declare are woven through all the Bible's teaching of salvation. Last Sunday, I preached on Phil.3:12-16 which is a passage that treats largely of Perseverance of the Saints.

I agree, and at our church at least one of the five points is discussed - at least indirectly - every single Sunday.

The same is true of our church. The only time I've ever heard our pastor talk about TULIP is when there has been a question about it in a Bible study or Sunday school class, but we hear the doctrines of grace and the Gospel every week in our pastor's sermons.

While Sunday School is a good venue, it might also be suggested that the church could do a theology conference, teaching of the tenets of the Reformed faith. This being the 500th Anniversary of Calvin, it might be a good thing to suggest. Perhaps even invite the community and other churches...

Of course, Calvin's 500th Anniversary doesn't preclude anyone from having the conference next year...

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? Mu kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

I would say this ranks as one of the top misconceptions I hear from people when they learn I attend a Calvinist church. They assume that all our ministers and teachers ever teach is (a) something related to TULIP or (b) something by the pen of Calvin every Sunday.

And to be technically correct, TULIP did not come from "the pen of Calvin."

The five points were developed later at the Synod of Dordt to refute the error of the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius).

So even though teaching TULIP is often called "Calvinism" it can also be called "Anti-Pelagianism."

I would never teach about Calvinism but would always preach from a Calvinistic viewpoint. Just teach what the scriptures teach. We should be Christ centred not Calvin centred.

Originally Posted by KMK

I agree with Rev Morecraft III that you don't need to teach Calvinism from the pulpit. Just teach the Bible honestly and you shall teach Calvinism.

That's exactly what I do.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? Mu kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

I would say this ranks as one of the top misconceptions I hear from people when they learn I attend a Calvinist church. They assume that all our ministers and teachers ever teach is (a) something related to TULIP or (b) something by the pen of Calvin every Sunday.

And to be technically correct, TULIP did not come from "the pen of Calvin."

The five points were developed later at the Synod of Dordt to refute the error of the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius).

So even though teaching TULIP is often called "Calvinism" it can also be called "Anti-Pelagianism."

To be technically, technically correct, the so-called "five points" did not originate at the Synod of Dort, either, as the Canons only have four points (heads 3 and 4 are joined since the Remonstrance of 1610 affirmed "total depravity").

The whole nomenclature of "the five points" and "TULIP" is of recent origin. In fact, the Canons do not follow "TULIP" but ULtIP.

The whole nomenclature of "the five points" and "TULIP" is of recent origin. In fact, the Canons do not follow "TULIP" but ULtIP.

Just imagine how much theological wrangling would have been bypassed if the acronym was ULtIP?

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

The whole nomenclature of "the five points" and "TULIP" is of recent origin. In fact, the Canons do not follow "TULIP" but ULtIP.

Just imagine how much theological wrangling would have been bypassed if the acronym was ULtIP?

The "free-will" arguments would have existed, nevertheless.

For those who agree with the doctrines of Original Sin and claim they believe in the depravity of men, contradict themselves when they teach that the will of man is not so totally depraved, and there is enough residual virtue remaining in all persons, that sinners can volitionally choose to believe the gospel.

I'm not a scholar but Dordt's answers did put a death blow to "The Five Articles of the Remonstrants" doctrinally. Yes, calvinism won the battle but is losing the war, even if the word "Reformed" is on the church sign.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610
Article 1.
[Conditional Election - corresponds to the second of TULIP’s five points, Unconditional Election]
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2.
[Unlimited Atonement - corresponds to the third of TULIP’s five points, Limited Atonement]
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]
That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Article 4.
[Resistible Grace - corresponds to the fourth of TULIP’s five points, Irresistible Grace]
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

Article 5.
[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

The Articles of the Remonstrants are adapted from Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996, pp 545ff.

Originally Posted by Gesetveemet

I'm not a scholar but Dordt's answers did put a death blow to "The Five Articles of the Remonstrants" doctrinally.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610
Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]
That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Yes, Dort did respond to the five Remonstrant articles, but the response is in four heads, not five, because there is nothing wrong with the third article cited above, hence Dort's "The Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine."

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

Originally Posted by JTB

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

Do you refer to those who attempt to "extend" God's saving grace to be a common possession supposedly provided to all men?

These days, this message of "common grace" is very prominent in the visible churches.

However, such is not a biblical or historical definition of grace; nor is it orthodox "Calvinism", but rather it continues to be a merely statist, humanistic, and political "Kuyperism" adopted by some churchmen to accommodate and placate secularists, in this modern age.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

Do you refer to those who attempt to "extend" God's saving grace to be a common possession supposedly provided to all men?

These days, this message of "common grace" is very prominent in the visible churches.

However, such is not a biblical or historical definition of grace; nor is it orthodox "Calvinism", but rather it continues to be a merely statist, humanistic, and political "Kuyperism" adopted by some churchmen to accommodate and placate secularists, in this modern age.

I'm not talking about Kuyper's specific view of common grace, but rather his applications of Calvinism to things like literature, art, government, etc.

Or even Klaas Schilder's ideas laid forth in Christ and Culture might be a better example of what I'm thinking about--not utilizing common grace, but pressing Calvinism's implications into every aspect of one's life.

Originally Posted by JTB

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

Do you refer to those who attempt to "extend" God's saving grace to be a common possession supposedly provided to all men?

These days, this message of "common grace" is very prominent in the visible churches.

However, such is not a biblical or historical definition of grace; nor is it orthodox "Calvinism", but rather it continues to be a merely statist, humanistic, and political "Kuyperism" adopted by some churchmen to accommodate and placate secularists, in this modern age.

I'm not talking about Kuyper's specific view of common grace, but rather his applications of Calvinism to things like literature, art, government, etc.

Or even Klaas Schilder's ideas laid forth in Christ and Culture might be a better example of what I'm thinking about--not utilizing common grace, but pressing Calvinism's implications into every aspect of one's life.

What you relate is exactly what Kuyper called the "common grace" of God.

Designating secular and good achievements amongst unsaved humanity, as the equivalent to the redeeming grace of God, is very incorrect and a sorry teaching.

Cultural and civic works of good do not save men. Such cannot alter their condemnation and sentence of death imposed by God for their sins of unbelief.

Civic and human charities, are worlds apart from spiritual regeneration that produces faith in the grace of God.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Do you refer to those who attempt to "extend" God's saving grace to be a common possession supposedly provided to all men?

These days, this message of "common grace" is very prominent in the visible churches.

However, such is not a biblical or historical definition of grace; nor is it orthodox "Calvinism", but rather it continues to be a merely statist, humanistic, and political "Kuyperism" adopted by some churchmen to accommodate and placate secularists, in this modern age.

I'm not talking about Kuyper's specific view of common grace, but rather his applications of Calvinism to things like literature, art, government, etc.

Or even Klaas Schilder's ideas laid forth in Christ and Culture might be a better example of what I'm thinking about--not utilizing common grace, but pressing Calvinism's implications into every aspect of one's life.

What you relate is exactly what Kuyper called the "common grace" of God.

Designating secular and good achievements amongst unsaved humanity, as the equivalent to the redeeming grace of God, is very incorrect and a sorry teaching.

Cultural and civic works of good do not save men. Such cannot alter their condemnation and sentence of death imposed by God for their sins of unbelief.

Civic and human charities, are worlds apart from spiritual regeneration that produces faith in the grace of God.

Excuse me for being obtuse, but how exactly is applying Calvinism to one's own life in every aspect a disregard for God's free grace?

I am of the mind that God's free grace is precisely what enables us to live consistently with His truth in every area of life, and call others to do the same, by faith and according to His commandments.

Are you arguing/assuming that there are no implications for Calvinism beyond understanding and assent to the doctrines of grace?

Originally Posted by JTB

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

I'm not talking about Kuyper's specific view of common grace, but rather his applications of Calvinism to things like literature, art, government, etc.

Or even Klaas Schilder's ideas laid forth in Christ and Culture might be a better example of what I'm thinking about--not utilizing common grace, but pressing Calvinism's implications into every aspect of one's life.

What you relate is exactly what Kuyper called the "common grace" of God.

Designating secular and good achievements amongst unsaved humanity, as the equivalent to the redeeming grace of God, is very incorrect and a sorry teaching.

Cultural and civic works of good do not save men. Such cannot alter their condemnation and sentence of death imposed by God for their sins of unbelief.

Civic and human charities, are worlds apart from spiritual regeneration that produces faith in the grace of God.

Excuse me for being obtuse, but how exactly is applying Calvinism to one's own life in every aspect a disregard for God's free grace?

I am of the mind that God's free grace is precisely what enables us to live consistently with His truth in every area of life, and call others to do the same, by faith and according to His commandments.

Are you arguing/assuming that there are no implications for Calvinism beyond understanding and assent to the doctrines of grace?

I would argue that God's grace does not apply to the reprobates of this world, in any way, shape or form.

Charles Haden Spurgeon lays out in first sermon delivered at the Metropolitan Tabernacle that to preach Jesus in every sermon is to preach Calvinism. That's my paraphrase it's a wonderful sermon.
The First Sermon in the Tabernacle

I would argue that God's grace does not apply to the reprobates of this world, in any way, shape or form.

Then you'd be in good company with Schilder, I think.

I don't disagree with that point.

I was thinking specifically of churches teaching their own about how to live consistently Calvinistic (a synonym here could be "biblical") beliefs in every area of practice.

It was another way of getting at the notion that Calvinism is more than just the doctrines of grace, or the five points (not to diminish either).

I'm curious how systematically churches teach and preach Calvinism in all its facets.

-----Added 9/15/2009 at 11:32:09 EST-----

Designating secular and good achievements amongst unsaved humanity, as the equivalent to the redeeming grace of God, is very incorrect and a sorry teaching.

Cultural and civic works of good do not save men. Such cannot alter their condemnation and sentence of death imposed by God for their sins of unbelief.

I'd like to respond to this quote a bit more directly.

I think it depends upon what we intend to say when we attribute "good" to the accomplishments of the reprobate. It obviously is not "good" for them in any strict sense of that word, but it can be "good" for the elect.

For example, I'm glad that the Greeks spent so much time working out the details of the basic laws of logic, and I'm glad that some of the basic advances in medicine have been achieved, though some were accomplished by the reprobate.

None of these are gracious for the reprobate, but they are good for the elect, for God works all things for His own glory and the good of His people. Am I not experiencing God's grace when I read an exceptional explanation of the appropriate division of powers in government, even though the lecturer fails to see the basic incoherence of his presuppositions?

A consistent Calvinism makes use of what God has provided, even when what He has provided comes from the hands of those hated by God.

Do you agree?

Originally Posted by JTB

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

I have heard mention of Election maybe three times in the last three years. Once with the reminder that, "and by the way that is our Church position."

Originally Posted by JTB

I was thinking specifically of churches teaching their own about how to live consistently Calvinistic (a synonym here could be "biblical") beliefs in every area of practice.

It was another way of getting at the notion that Calvinism is more than just the doctrines of grace, or the five points (not to diminish either).

"Calvinism" has all to do with the Sovereignty of God. Very few non-Calvinistic churches possess such concepts.

I'm curious how systematically churches teach and preach Calvinism in all its facets.

According to the Word of God and the historical Creeds and Reformed Confessions.

-----Added 9/15/2009 at 11:32:09 EST-----

Am I not experiencing God's grace when I read an exceptional explanation of the appropriate division of powers in government, even though the lecturer fails to see the basic incoherence of his presuppositions?

As if grace is extended through the lecturer, to you? No.

You might be providentially given knowledge through such sources, but not according to any Godly grace or Godly wisdom bestowed upon the unbelieving lecturer.

Only God's grace and God's wisdom, known because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God, will enable you to interpret and gain blessing from the knowledge you gain from from worldly sources. For those worldly sources are not recipients of God's grace or God's wisdom.

A consistent Calvinism makes use of what God has provided, even when what He has provided comes from the hands of those hated by God.

Do you agree?

Yes, but this does nothing towards accrediting God's grace or God's wisdom to those worldly, political, statist, and ungodly sources . . .as Kuyper attempted to sell to his brethren in his times.

I can see that brining up Kuyper was a poor choice on my part. I wasn't attempting to open up the baggage on the front.

I'm curious though, have your read Kuyper's Lecture on Calvinism, and if so, what do you find particularly objectionable in them, if anything?

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

How ofter does your Church teach about Calvinism? My kids are in high school and college and have never heard a series on TULIP. (except from me)

I think that Tulip belongs in the classroom enviroment. I also think that series preaching is an area of concern. Sometimes there are good ones, but I believe that the pastor should preach to the needs of the congregation whatever God lays on his heart each Sunday always proclaiming the gospel and rightly dividing the word of truth.

A prescheduled series causes concern for me. I wish that Pastors would stop that.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

Originally Posted by JTB

I have a question:

How often does your church teach about Calvinism that extends beyond exposition of the doctrines of grace into the various spheres of life (family, church, government, vocation, culture, etc.)? Or, to put it another way, how often does your church do something like Abraham Kuyper did in his lectures on Calvinism and talk about its implications for all of life?

I have heard mention of Election maybe three times in the last three years. Once with the reminder that, "and by the way that is our Church position."

Terms like 'election' should be used sparingly and ordinarily for the purposes of assurance

LBC 3:7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election;18 so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,19 reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility,20 diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.21

Originally Posted by KMK

Terms like 'election' should be used sparingly and ordinarily for the purposes of assurance

LBC 3:7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election;18 so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,19 reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility,20 diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.21

It is my opinion that teaching the truths of Unconditional Election is foundational to discerning the federal headship of Christ, and understanding His mediation and atoning work on the cross, as well as appreciating the depths of His love and grace for His people.

Handling the facts of sovereign predestination with "special prudence and care" does not equate with neglecting the teachings of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.

These are vital doctrines that Reformers need to be soundly grounded in, so that their gospel message remains true.

Originally Posted by JTB

I can see that brining up Kuyper was a poor choice on my part. I wasn't attempting to open up the baggage on the front.

I'm curious though, have your read Kuyper's Lecture on Calvinism, and if so, what do you find particularly objectionable in them, if anything?

I object to his or anyone's attempts to water down the antithesis between the church and the world. I John 2:15-17

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

I can see that brining up Kuyper was a poor choice on my part. I wasn't attempting to open up the baggage on the front.

I'm curious though, have your read Kuyper's Lecture on Calvinism, and if so, what do you find particularly objectionable in them, if anything?

I object to his or anyone's attempts to water down the antithesis between the church and the world. I John 2:15-17

Granted, but I was asking about anything specific from those lectures that you were willing to point out as guilty of being an "attempt to water down the antithesis" between the church and the world.

Originally Posted by JTB

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by JTB

I can see that brining up Kuyper was a poor choice on my part. I wasn't attempting to open up the baggage on the front.

I'm curious though, have your read Kuyper's Lecture on Calvinism, and if so, what do you find particularly objectionable in them, if anything?

I object to his or anyone's attempts to water down the antithesis between the church and the world. I John 2:15-17

Granted, but I was asking about anything specific from those lectures that you were willing to point out as guilty of being an "attempt to water down the antithesis" between the church and the world.

Understanding most of Kuyper's arguments are presented to counter the Roman system, he throws out the baby with the bath water, by rejecting religious distinctions between the church and the world. Sample:

"Now this whole view of the matter is squarely antagonized by Calvinism, which vindicates for religion its full universal character, and its complete universal application. If everything that is, exists for the sake of God, then it follows that the whole creation must give glory to God. The sun. moon, and stars in the firmament, the birds of the air, the whole of Nature around us, but, above all, man himself, who, priestlike, must concentrate to God the whole of creation, and all life thriving in it. And although sin has deadened a large part of creation to the glory of God, the demand,–the ideal, remains unchangeable, that every creature must be immersed in the stream of religion, and end by lying as a religious offering on the altar of the Almighty. . .

The same character of universality was claimed by the Calvinist for the sphere of religion and its circle of influence among men. Everything that has been created was, in its creation, furnished by God with an unchangeable law of its existence. And because God has fully ordained such laws and ordinances for all life, therefore the Calvinist demands that all life be consecrated to His service, in strict obedience. A religion confined to the closet, the cell, or the church, therefore, Calvin abhors. With the Psalmist, he calls upon heaven and earth, he calls upon all peoples and nations to give glory to God. God is present in all life, with the influence of His omnipresent and almighty power, and no sphere of human life is conceivable in which religion does not maintain its demands that God shall be praised, that God's ordinances shall be observed, and that every labora shall be permeated with its ora in fervent and ceaseless prayer. Wherever man may stand, whatever he may do, to whatever he may apply his hand, in agriculture, in commerce. and in industry, or his mind, in the world of art, and science, he is, in whatsoever it may be, constantly standing before the face of his God, he is employed in the service of his God, he has strictly to obey his God, and above all, he has to aim at the glory of his God. Consequently, it is impossible for a Calvinist to confine religion to a single group, or to some circles among men. Religion concerns the whole of our human race. This race is the product of God's creation. It is His wonderful workmanship, His absolute possession. Therefore the whole of mankind must be imbued with the fear of God,–old as well as young,–low as well as high,–not only those who have become initiated into His mysteries, but also those who still stand afar off. For not only did God create all men, not only is He all for all men, but His grace also extends itself, not only as a special grace, to the elect, but also as a common grace (gratia communis) to all mankind. To be sure, there is a concentration of religious light and life in the Church, but then in the walls of this church there are wide open windows, and through these spacious windows the light of the Eternal has to radiate over the whole world. Here is a city, set upon a hill, which every man can see afar off. Here is a holy salt that penetrates in every direction, checking all corruption. And even he who does not yet imbibe the higher light, or maybe shuts his eyes to it, is nevertheless admonished, with equal emphasis, and in all things, to give glory to the name of the Lord. All partial religion drives the wedges of dualism into life, but the true Calvinist never forsakes the standard of religious monism. One supreme calling must impress the stamp of one-ness upon all human life, because one God upholds and preserves it, just as He created it all."

Believing in particularism, I object to and reject any teaching that converts Sovereign providence into a kind of universalistic "common grace" from God.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by KMK

Terms like 'election' should be used sparingly and ordinarily for the purposes of assurance

LBC 3:7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election;18 so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,19 reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility,20 diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.21

It is my opinion that teaching the truths of Unconditional Election is foundational to discerning the federal headship of Christ, and understanding His mediation and atoning work on the cross, as well as appreciating the depths of His love and grace for His people.

Handling the facts of sovereign predestination with "special prudence and care" does not equate with neglecting the teachings of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.

These are vital doctrines that Reformers need to be soundly grounded in, so that their gospel message remains true.

Let me clarify...

The word 'election' only occurs 6 times in the KJV. The word 'faith' occurs 247 times. Assuming an expositional method, the word 'election' is probably not going to come up that often compared to the word 'faith'. That is not to say that the doctrine of the sovereignty of God does not come up often, if not always. In fact, there can be no exhortation of assurance without the absolute sovereignty of God.

Therefore, 'election' as a word is sparse, but 'election' as a doctrine is ubiquitous. There is no need to force the term 'election' into texts where it is not necessary.