Teaching Calvinism, how often?

[TeachingTulip]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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.

 

[KMK]

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

 

[TeachingTulip]

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.

 

[TeachingTulip]

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

 

[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.

 

[TeachingTulip]

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.

 

[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.