TIME names "New Calvinism" 3rd Most Powerful Idea Changing the World

John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

What I did say was, based on what AG wrote, that some people are saved because they were given the 'ears' and others are damned because God chose not to give them the spiritual ears.

You misrepresent what I said. The following is excerpted from my post 819 on this thread:

Again, it is not a matter of punishment. Man is condemned already as the Scriptures offered earlier explain. [Refers to post 775, excerpted below:]

God did not “owe” Adamic man anything. Our salvation is a gift.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [literally, muwth muwth or “death death”]. – Genesis 2:17

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. – John 3:18

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

However, there is a kind of man who will be punished for cause. And that cause is that he willfully chooses to reject the knowledge of God which is given to all men. God gives such a one over to a reprobate mind. (emphasis mine)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:18-20

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1:28-32

God's Name is I AM.

It was witnessed by the disciples when Jesus came into the house later that day, as well as up to 500 at different times. And even to Paul who wrote -

There are some problems with that. The Gospels were written with an agenda intended to lead and convince the reader to believe their side of the story. It is not an objective historical account.

The '500' are allegations made by Paul without any reference of corroboration. No other author (all of whom write after Paul) mentions it. But you will say it's an argument from silence. A significant event is worth repeating, especially considering that non of the Gospel writers even mention Paul. And, usually, credibility is assigned to multiple eyewitnesses, so it is very likely that such a number would have been mentioned again.

But eyewitness accounts are not reliable. The 1917 Fatima "miracle" of the "falling sun," and even "increased heat," in Portugal was "witnessed" by 70,000 people. It never happened. The sun was not falling. The people were simply hallucinating.

The apostles probably had visions of Christ after his crucifixion. My ex sister-in-law swore up and down that she "saw" my late brother standing on the balcony of their home looking at her two days after he died. Visions (especially in a state of trance) are mentioned in the Bible and are treated as "real" phenomena.

Because of that they probably came to believe that Jesus did resurrect. And when two or more confessed to similar 'visions' they became convinced that they all saw real resurrected Jesus.

Thank you for your reply, dear kosta50! And thank you, dear sisters in Christ, for all of your insights!

me: The scientific method likewise can only measure the physical effects of the mind.

kosta50:That's not correct. Scientific method also involves human inquiry which deals with verbal descriptions and definitions of mental phenomena in "real" terms. It is the so-called "spiritual" terminology that departs from the reality of this world.

Science proceeds under the principle of methodological naturalism, i.e. the assumption that nature is knowable and predictable and therefore, whatever the explanation for a thing is, it will be natural, or material, or physical.

This is evidently the extent of the “real” terms to which you claim verbal descriptions or definitions would apply, e.g. taxonomy.

In practice, methodological naturalism entails the exclusion of psyche, mind, soul and spirit. Which is to say, such things are beyond the reach of natural, material or physical explanation.

The consequence - which spirited irish keeps trying to drive home - is that such things are considered by science to be epiphenomena, secondary phenomena which cannot cause anything to happen. By this of course it means physical causation.

Being beyond the reach of the scientific method, the appeal to epiphenomena is tantamount to denying they exist - despite all of the experiential evidence they do exist.

kosta50: 'Mind' is a collective concept that represents an observed characteristic way a person appears to operate in the world to given situations, how he or she answers questions, reacts, etc. It falls in the same category as 'experience,' which is another general conceptual term. We can observe how someone does things and we can conclude that he or she has 'experience.'…

But the soul or spirit cannot be described in real terms, cannot be detected (it ain't the breath!), so we really don't know what the 'spirit' is; it's neither mental nor subjective, nor is there a consensus about it in terms of real life experience. Rather, it appears that the spirit is a human invention to explain some things ancients couldn't explain.

The experiential evidence for soul and spirit is every bit as strong as the experiential evidence for mind. Indeed, they all share in common the same information theory we see in molecular biology – namely in discerning life v. non-life/death in nature. And the same metaphors apply, e.g. transmitter/receiver, computer.

Lurkers might be interested in the Hebrew delineation of the terms for life, soul, mind, spirit:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

You continued.

me: science admits to such things as massless particles which have no direct or indirect measureable affects, i.e. they cannot be said to not exist.

kosta50: Sure they do. They balance out the formula.

There is no balancing involved with a massless particle which has no direct or indirect measurable affects.

kosta50: Save for cosmology, science deals with practical matters that make our lives more comfortable, safer, etc. by providing working models and inventions that makes use of the world as we see it, and the world we live in. That's a heck of a lot more that what the 'spiritualists' or cosmological prima donna physicists have to offer.

You just put betty boop, spirited irish and me in the same league with Einstein, deSitter, Lemaître, Penrose, Hawking, Tegmark, Steinhardt, Turok and other cosmologists. Thank you.

Of course, you evidently exclude yourself…

Physical 'laws' are just concepts how the real world works based on our observations. Does that mean they are generally/universally true? Of course not.

Physical laws are universal by definition. If one were invalidated, it would no longer be called a physical law.

spirited irish: The notion of ‘collective mind’ is the particular gibberish of evolutionary monism, which today has three permutations: atheist-materialism, idealist-pantheism, and the highly developed materialist pantheism known as Buddhism. At bottom, all are based on the scientifically discredited notion that life and consciousness somehow magically emerged from nonlife. All three deny ‘being’ as well.

So very true!

betty boop: I'd like to point out that, without the Christian tradition, it is highly unlikely that science as we know it could have arisen in the first place. Notice that systematic science is a legacy of the Christian West; it did not arise in the pantheist East; for pantheism offers no rational principle on which science could be founded. Thus kosta is abusing science to destroy the very tradition that makes science possible.

Oh, the irony!

What I did say was, based on what AG wrote, that some people are saved because they were given the 'ears' and others are damned because God chose not to give them the spiritual ears.

That's what the Bible tells us.

I do understand that the Bible commands you to preach the Gospel, but it is not your preaching (which is works) that gives 'ears'; rather it is God who does. And he decided that before the foundation of the world and not as a result of your preaching. Because preaching is works of men, it can not be an instrument of salvation, lest one is saved by works.

Preaching the truth of the Gospel is not a work of men, but a work of the Holy Spirit through men.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63

But God doesn't give a repentant heart to everyone, does he? Ergo, he rejects some, doesn't he?

Certainly we learn that in Romans 8 and 9. And here...

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." -- Jude 1:4

That's "soft Calvinism" in my opinion, Dr. E. Seeking is works, and seeking does not save. I think your fellow Calvinists would say that you are either saved or not, no matter what you do or think and that what you do with your repentant heart is not your will but God's.

There's no "soft" or "hard" Calvinism. There's just the Bible which tells us that all men are fallen and none seeks God unless and until God first replaces their stony heart with a heart of flesh so that they can want to know the things of God.

The natural man does not want God. The spiritual man wants God. And who makes us to differ? God.

In other words, I think Calvinists would say that if you don't seek it's not because you don't want to find him but because God doesn't want you to find him! Ultimately, who gets saved and who doesn't is God's decision and doing, not yours.

Ultimately, that's true.

"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65

Now I'm aware you might very well respond that the Scripture I offer constitutes no real proof of anything. But that hasn't been my experience. The words of God tangibly and literally have changed my life and outlook and personality and family and habits and desires and productivity and on and on.

So I have evidence that satisfies me. And all I can offer you are the same words of Scripture along with the hope you respond in a similar manner.

But that's not up to me. It's not even up to the words. It's up to God who gives the Holy Spirit to whomever He wants in order to make His words meaningful and productive.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." -- 1 Thess. 2:13

There is no balancing involved with a massless particle which has no direct or indirect measurable affects.

Really? Which massless particles? Photons have no measurable effects? Gluons? But they are never observed as independent particles. Neutrinos used to considered massless.

But it is all a matter of balancing out the formula. Since they have no mass, they must move at the speed of light. Take the formula E = mc² , where c = speed of light and m = mass. It's obvious that 'massless" particles are not massless or else the Energy would be zero. Anything multiplied by zero is zero.

So, a physicist would say that a 'massless' particle does have a mass after all, equal to unity (m= 1), conveniently, but only when it moves at the speed of light, or else its mass is zero. Thus at lower speeds the mass is presumed to be zero which then makes E = 0 and with zero energy a particle has no measurable effect and indeed doesn't even exist! (i.e. the energy is absorbed)

The formula, however, doesn't explain how the light passes trough glass and remains visible because Einstein's famous formula "works" only in a vacuum!

Assuming that the space is really a "vacuum" (it was when it was convenient to balance out the formula!), obviously 'universal' physical laws 'change' on earth, and photons "morph" into different energy species, so to say, and are no longer 'massless' at lower speeds because obviously we can see the light refracting through glass!

But of course it's much more mysterious when one reads about 'massless particles' and all sorts of imagery wells up in human fancy. When scientific observations show that vacuum could not account for the necessary mass of the universe, they invented dark matter an dark energy to balance out their formula. Thirty years from now they will be laughing at these theories the way they laugh at the Steady State theory, or at the luminescent aether as the invisible interspace 'medium'.

I could respond to the rest of your post but it's getting old, sorry nothing personal.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.