The preacher’s “business is not to involve into the text, something that is extrinsic, but to evolve out of it, something that is intrinsic” (Shedd, Homiletics and Pastoral Theology, pp. 168-169).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Theology That Bites Back
True it is. That is how I got free from Calvin’s irresistible inferences.
Ironic*, that’s (partly) what made me a Reformed** believer.
*Hope ironic is acceptable here, I know it’s a contentious and potentially meme-eliciting term.
**I prefer Reformed over Calvinist, as per 1Cor. 1:12 I follow neither Paul nor Cephas nor Apollos, but rather Christ and His Word.
I hear you jg; you are not alone in this claim but in a battle of biblical inferences the non Calvinist (non Reformed) wins. He has more explicit texts backing him up. For every text that might possibly infer that Jesus did not die for every sinner we can find three that infer that He did. For every text, which might infer that everyone’s eternal destiny was irresistibly predetermined (based on *nothing* foreseen in their lives) we could find three that infer our eternal destiny will be determined by what we actually did in our lifetime. Keep studying the Scripture… Read more »
Scriptures are a good source of info for this type of study — being trustworthy & (as far as they go) authoritative.
But will you also take into account your own ruminations about what you see around you?
If so, or if you’d stipulare just for snicks, what does this lead you to believe about how & why you’ve come to think you’re bound for glory?
PH, Scriptures are a good source indeed! Not to be trumped by any other form of divine revelation. You ask, “But will you also take into account your own ruminations about what you see around you?” If you are asking me to wax eloquent about the conscience and natural revelation, I’ll try, but it would have to be for more than “snicks.” The character of God and the nature of His salvation ought not be seen as merely academic stimulation. Our goal ought to be to get the truth through our minds and into our hearts. The burden may be… Read more »
I see the rather recent advent and limited availability of Scripture — a book that itself testifies to the possibility of a life of faith and knowledge of God possible without Scripture.
Your seeing what God says around us might imply that you see something there about how folks get drawn to faith?
Obviously we can and do resist the Truth, when allowed.
Do you see times and places where we must give in or when cheerful obedience becomes irresistible?
PH, trying to be brief but… God’s revelation of Himself in creation and conscience does indeed draw us to faith. I think this is confirmed in the heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11. All of them lived prior to Jesus and some lived when, and where, Scripture was not available, yet they are memorialized for their faith in the revelation to which they were exposed. They looked for a city whose Builder and Maker was God. This would be part of the necessary “drawing” (teaching and learning) mentioned by Jesus in John 6. Here we see the principle… Read more »
Whilst surveying nature, spy any resistance?
From whom? To what?
T
From any creature, to its creator?
See previous.
Except by “Reformed” you mean “Calvinist”. How do you distinguish yourself from Reformed Arminians?
Fair enough, but a bit of a pedantic point. In common contemporary theological vernacular, most today indeed use Calvinist and Reformed interchangeably. My personal, and arguably scriptural, reason for preferring the latter term stands. I simply feel there’s a connotative difference between saying “I agree with (most of) Calvin”, and “I’m a Calvinist”. The term “Reformed” doesn’t contain a person’s name. Similarly, though I agree with most of Luther’s doctrines, I may call myself a Protestant (distinguished from Catholic) but not a Lutheran (also knowing that term has taken on other theological and denominational meanings as well). For various reasons,… Read more »
I don’t think “Calvinist” is problematic. It refers to a system of thought. Paul’s comment about Paul vs Apollos had more to do cliques than right theology. I think names are helpful to distinguish positions. I find the drive to claim terms unhelpful. I don’t particularly mind Reformed for Calvinist, though most Protestants come out of the reformation. And there are people who have used Reformed (for a long time) without being Calvinist. “Bible-believing” already has a attachment. I find “Biblical” arrogant. Plenty of Christians seek to be biblical and are not Calvinist. [I also oppose “Biblical Creationist” for the… Read more »
“I don’t think “Calvinist” is problematic. It refers to a system of thought. Paul’s comment about Paul vs Apollos had more to do cliques than right theology.” I know this and agree, but followers of Paul/Apollos could have had right theology (though lacking proper application, as seen elsewhere in 1&2Cor). Moreover I wouldn’t presume Calvinists or any other contemporary group to be immune to such cliquishness, I’ve seen it firsthand. If you’re immune, more power to you (seriously). “I think names need to be short and understood.” I agree and understand. Where did I suggest differently? “Claiming terms that gives… Read more »
With due respect, I wasn’t claiming anything or seeking any upper hand,
Not at all!
You weren’t using the term “biblical”, and I gave a negative example from my own camp. I was merely expanding the conversation with some further thoughts on the matter.
Blessings
The preachers business is to encourage the congregation to study The Bible for themselves