#reformed Calvinism

[theboookwitch]

Any former evangelical cult kids also read this book as a child? I somehow (against my will) learned about the like “trad wife” aesthetic that’s apparently been growing in popularity, and it made memories of this fucking book resurface (also against my will).

I’m currently 32 and we read this book when I was like 12. We had a whole book club with all the “coming of age” girls and we studied this together to learn how to be good, pure godly girls so that we could please our future husbands and be the perfect wives and mothers. I was kind of a black sheep in my church bc i was one of a few girls who wanted to go to college and I also considered loud and rebellious and I like grew up brawling with the boys my age (Gideon Burnett, if I ever see you, I’m beating your ass). I never fully subscribed to like being a Titus 2/Proverbs 31 woman and I didn’t want to get married till I was like 25 - which was ancient in that child bride emporium where everyone didn’t kiss till their wedding days and got married at 18 (I kissed dating goodbye, anyone?).

I’m fully rambling but this tradwife shit has me so livid and concerned and honestly a little triggered. Being raised that way has been so extremely detrimental and I just can’t wrap my head around people doing it for the aesthetic.

[rolkientolkien]

As Christians, we shouldn't be surprised when the world mocks Jesus or us. The world hated Jesus because He convicted people of their sin, the world will hate us for the same reason. One of the oldest depictions of Jesus is a piece of Roman graffiti. It shows Jesus, crucified with a donkey head and captioned, "Alexamenos worships his god." To quote Martin Luther, "They gave our Master a crown of thorns, why do we hope for a crown of roses?"

[wardensantoineandevka]

when someone on this website negatively calls a mentality or a philosophical framework or something "very Catholic", like 7 out of 10 times it's actually something antithetical to Catholic philosophy and doctrine and is actually very Protestant

[forwheniamweak]

“When we are out of the way of our duty we are in the way of temptation…Idleness gives great advantage to the tempter. Standing waters gather filth.”

— Matthew Henry; Commentary on 2 Samuel 11

[merthwyn]

Worst thing about Calvinism in your opinion?

Thank you for asking. Although hard to choose, I think predestination is the worst. The more I learn about it, the more I tend to believe it's demonic.

Up until recently I thought predestination was about certain people going to hell and certain people going to heaven, not because of free will but because God decided who goes where before they were even born. And this happens because He is God and He owns so he does whatever He wants with us. This is highly problematic already.

However, it was only this month when I realised that Calvinists believe that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is predestined. All evil that's happening in the world is predestined. If a child is raped then it's because God planned the rape for some greater purpose. And if you believe this is wrong you actually claim that God does things without any purpose.

I originally thought I misunderstood them. But no, this is what people like John Piper and James White believe. And it's hard for me to not believe they are right because my own life struggles proves them right. I think I told you before what I ended up believing. I'm predestined to be God's punching bag, to be abused, rejected and so on because there's some purpose in all this and somehow His name will be glorified. If I get raped or my future children get molested or my husband leaves me or gets killed I will have to accept it because this is God's plan. It's not that God is unable to stop this. It's all about whether He is willing to do so, if these serve His plans or not. This is what Calvinists like those I mentioned believe.

If you want to hear more about all these, go listen to Leighton Flowers and Sam Shamoun. I recently discovered them and, in case you don't know them already, they are both former Calvinists who more or less expose the "dark side" of Calvinism (I don't know if there's a bright side but anyway). I listened to this video today which describes more or less what I mentioned above. There's even an abstract of a former Calvinist's testimony who is now an atheist because of Calvinism.

What are your thoughts on it?

[apilgrimpassingby]

Views of Christ and Culture

So, this morning I was watching a video on Reinhold Niebuhr's typology of five views of Christ and culture. They are:

Christ against culture: the culture is seen as something bad that Christians are to avoid interaction with as much as possible. The most obvious form of this is Anabaptist groups like the Amish, but less extreme versions of it can be found among most Baptists (and related groups like Pentecostals and Evangelicals) and form the basis for monasticism.

Christ of culture: the culture is seen to be basically good, if flawed, and working for the same things as Christ. This is most associated with liberal theology, although I'd argue that the prosperity gospel is the most prevalent form of this.

Christ above culture: the culture is seen to be good, but its natural, temporary good must not be confused with or used as a substitute for the supernatural, eternal good of Christ. This is the view of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Christ and culture in paradox: Culture and the church are two separate institutions that, though Christians have duties in both of them, are not to be confused or allowed to dominate the other. This is the traditional stance of Lutheranism and Radical Two Kingdoms theology among the Reformed.

Christ as the redeemer of culture: the culture is seen as basically bad, but Christians are to put it under Christ's dominion for Him to redeem. This is the view of the Theonomist and Kuyperian theologies among the Reformed.

Everyone who'd like to, respond with which one you support and why! Tagging @sapphosremains and @idylls-of-the-divine-romance to see if the "progressives support Christ of culture" is accurate to the ones I know.

[psalm40speakstome]

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight.” C.S. Lewis

[tanadrin]

A Really Obnoxious Standard German Spelling Reform

Rules:

Abolish the umlauts. ä becomes e, ü becomes y. A distinct graph is kept for ö, but we replace it with ø, to conform to the IPA.

ß is abolished entirely; for its replacement, see s.

ie becomes i when it represents a monophthong.

Diphthongs are rewritten to reflect their actual values: ei becomes ai; äu and eu become oi.

H as a long vowel marker is abolished. Vowels are instead doubled when they are long (as they are already in certain words)

Double consonants to indicate a short vowel are abolished.

The trigraph sch becomes š. The tetragraph tsch becomes č. The affricate /ts/ becomes c. The tetragraph dsch becomes ǰ. The digraph ch becomes either ç (in the case of ich-laut) or x.

S remains where it represents the actual sound /s/. Where it represents /z/, it is replaced with z. As an alveolar fricative, it becomes š.

V is entirely replaced with f. W is entirely replaced with v, except in placenames where it acts as a final vowel lengthener--then it is dropped.

Final devoicing is reflected in the spelling of words.

Non-rhotic pronunciations are reflected in spelling.

The obsolete digraph th is abolished.

Capitalization of nouns is abolished.

Sample text (part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

Atikel 1: Alle menšen zint frai und glaiç an vyrde unt reçten gebooren. Zii zint mit feanunft unt gevisen begaabt unt zolen ainanda im gaist der bryyderliçkait begeegnen. Atikel 2: Jeeda hat anšprux auf dii in diiza eakleerung feakyndeten reçte unt fraihaiten oone iagentainen untašiit, etva nax rase, hautfaabe, gešleçt, špraaxe, religion, politiša oda zonstiger ybercoigung, nacionaala oda zociaala heakunft, feamøøgen, geburt oda zonstigem štant. Dez vaiteren darf kain untašiit gemaxt veeaden auf grunt dea politišen, reçtliçen oda intanacionaalen štelung dez lantez oda gebiic, dem aine peazoon angehyrt, glaiçgyltiç op diizez unaphengiç ist, unta troihantšaft šteet, kaine zelbstregiirung bezict oda zonst in zaina zuvereeniteet aingešrenkt ist. Atikel 3: Jeeda hat das reçt auf leeben, fraihait und ziçahait dea peazoon.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Okay so... I'm gonna dunk on the concept of election for a second. Specifically it's that idea of election where "the elect" are those that God predestined to go to heaven when they die as opposed to the "non elect" who are either directly or indirectly condemned to hell (as if those are different things). My main problem with this concept is that it is (probably unintentionally) completely divorced from the concept of election in the HB.

Election in the tanakh is not about who gets the privilege of going to the "good place" instead of the "bad place", but rather it's about who gets the responsibility of bringing the good place to everyone else. Not about who goes "up" to heaven, but who brings heaven "down". Nor about any personal or individual salvation, but about who is called to bring salvation to the rest of the world and rescue them from the promise of evil and the curse of destruction.

Abraham. Isaac. Jacob. Judah. David. Bethlehem. These people (and a town) are not chosen because God wanted to save them and smite everyone else. They're chosen to be the vehicle through which God blesses the others. They are the people through whom God will defeat evil and elevate all peoples. God desires that all be saved. He elects some to rescue others.

If you have any conviction that you are part of "the elect" who am I to tell you if you are not? But I can say this: you are not elected to whatever position you are in so you can sit comfortably in your salvation. You are elected to go out of your comfort place, out into the wild and waste land, and to bring God's blessing of life and love and goodness and beauty to the nations. Anything less than that is an abuse/misuse of God's blessing upon your life

[gayagendacommapangenda]

I see so many Queer Christians walking very synergistic paths, but I want to share that I ended up taking my adopted tradition’s Reformed heritage far beyond what many would deem truly Reformed.

I moved to The Episcopal Church from lapsed Catholicism because I thought it was similar in the right ways. The differences ended up being more significant.

I say with the Articles that do not bind me that “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, that “Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God”, and that we are saved not “by the Law or Sect” we profess, but “by the Name of Christ”.

My heart says, with the 1979 BCP, that I worship “one perfect sacrifice for the whole world”.

God has set me to peace in my casualness, my empty faith in his full omnipotence.

I no longer fear my own fate, because I am granted assurance on behalf of my enemies.

I do not hope to be saved; I know that I am.

Edit: to be clear, every doctrine I listed is shared by the Catholic Faith. I simply found it through Reformed Theology.

[tmarshconnors]

"It will be a sad day for the church and the world when there is no distinction between the children of God and those of this world."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was an English Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon remains highly influential among Christians of various denominations, to some of whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers."

Born: 19 June 1834, Kelvedon Died: 31 January 1892 (age 57 years), Menton, France

Prolific Preacher: Charles Spurgeon was one of the most prolific preachers of the 19th century, delivering thousands of sermons. His powerful and eloquent preaching earned him the title "Prince of Preachers."

Metropolitan Tabernacle: Spurgeon became the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London in 1861, where he preached to large congregations. The Tabernacle became one of the most famous churches in England under his leadership.

Published Works: He authored numerous books, including "The Treasury of David," a commentary on the Psalms, and "Morning and Evening," a popular daily devotional. His sermons were widely published and remain influential to this day.

Philanthropy: Spurgeon was also known for his philanthropic efforts. He founded several charitable organizations, including an orphanage and the Pastor's College (now Spurgeon’s College) to train future ministers.

Calvinist Theology: Spurgeon was a staunch Calvinist and held firmly to Reformed theology. His preaching and writings emphasized doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, salvation by grace, and the perseverance of the saints.

[rolkientolkien]

“They say of some temporal suffering, ‘No future bliss can make up for it,’ not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say ‘Let me have but this and I'll take the consequences’: little dreaming how damnation will spread back and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin.”

- C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

[fuckyeah-pavement]

 Presbyterian is a really popular church in America. There’s a lot of members dude.

-Stephen Malkmus

[forwheniamweak]

[paintbrushfreckles]

My sister was telling me about her reformation history class, and via game of telephone, I have put my impression of several plot beats together in meme format. The idea of theology interacting with historical political drama cracks me up. And so does the idea of Calvin gentle parenting Knox.

Fun fact! I named my first car J. Cal, and then it got totaled. My car now is J. Knox because someone decided to build a parking garage over his grave. Such is the common dilemma of dying in Europe pre-industrial revolution, I suppose.

And finally, shout out to our boi P. Hammy, one of the coolest martyrs to ever go out...in a blaze...of glory... He also had an epic beard.

[awideplace]

I really like David Guzik; I know him personally from when I completed my Theology degree. I am not a Calvinist, but I go to a Calvinist church and read/listen to probably 90% of Calvinist theologians. I consider myself a follower of Christ: not a follower of another human such as John Calvin. I follow Christ, not Calvin, so I do not call myself a Calvinist but a Christian. I think words matter and my identity is in Christ and not in a human. When people ask my denomination, I would say non-denominational with a lean towards Reformed theology, but the mouthful would be: a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, born-again follower of Christ (by the grace of God).

For theological podcasts, I listen to a staunch Calvinist, James White. His takes on culture are spot on, though oft heated, but flawless for the most part in the sense of discernment. I also met James in person and he's a great man and someone I like the personality of and even find funny. I love John MacArthur, probably my favorite modern-day pastor. I love my pastor who is a Calvinist. Some of the "best men" and theologians I know of ever are Calvinist. To me it comes down to this: is the Word of God being taught? The whole counsel (Acts 20:27), not just cherry-picked topical messages and Jesus is my guru. No, He is Lord and King and His Word is to be taught, embraced, and obeyed.