Today (6/13/18) I came across a statement on a Reformed site that said, "Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
Do Calvinists not see something wrong with this? I know what the Calvinist belief is. I know they use Calvinist as code word for true Scripture believing. I know that but somewhere along the way their allegiance has gone awry. "...his professed Calvinism is a sham." Who are they aligning themselves with? To whom are they most loyal.
Christ?
Or Calvin?
I know what it means to be a Calvinist. By the standards set in place for that...belief system...I am a Calvinist. I do not, however, call myself a Calvinist. Ever. I also do not ever align myself with the teachings of men. Any man.
My husband often guides me in Scripture studies and discussions. I allow him to do so for two reasons, 1) he always holds to Scripture, and 2) he is my husband. I would not allow anyone else to guide me Scripurally the way my husband does. My allowing him to do so is the result of the nature of our relationship, Scripture even says husbands should lead their wives, washing her in the Word, but it is also a testament to his faith because if he did not see Scripture as I do I would not allow him to lead me the way I do, not with my faith as it is. I simply could not allow a nonbeliever, or a professing believer to lead me in Scripture when my faith is what it is.
Still, I do not align my faith with my husband but with Christ. I do not say I am a husbandist because he holds to the tenets of Scripture and leads me through them. I do not claim to believe in husbandism even though he clearly leads me straight from the pages of God's word.
What is the difference?
My husband is a fallen man in a fallen world. So was Calvin. My husband points out the Truth's in Scripture to me. Calvin pointed them out to others. Sure, my husband isn't going around writing papers and books to explain these things but he points them out to me just the same.
By the thought process of 'Calvinists', shouldn't I be a Husbandist? Let's see if I can make that statement stand out for the unScriptural and dare I say ridiculous statement that it is....
"Husbandism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Husbandism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Husbandism is a sham."
Who would I be aligning myself with if I made such a ridiculous statement? Who is my faith placed in? Who is the one taking first importance in that statement and Who is a follow-up, a second fiddle?
Yes, my husband does lead me through theology. We do hold to a theological system, but that system is Scripture and only Scripture. It is Christ and only Christ. 'Husbandism is deeply affectional'...umm, what does that even mean? Even to say Calvinism is deeply affectional...what does it mean? Affection is a man felt emotion. Here is the definition for affectional:
affectional - characterized by emotion. affective, emotive. emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"
So according to the statement I saw this morning, the very first description of Calvinism is that it is emotional. Is that Scriptural? Do we believe from emotion or do we believe from faith?
Next it is a 'God-centered, cross-magnifying religion'. Okay. I can go with that one. Any Scripturally based religion should be God-centered (although I do need to question where Christ falls in there, are they calling Christ God, if so, fine. If not, there are many religions that believe in God and not in Christ.) and it should magnify the cross. But again, there begs the question, how does it magnify the cross? I know of no religion that magnifies the cross more than the Roman Catholic religion.
"A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism,", that is the changed version, but whether or not one 'loudly trumpet(s) his adherence' to the 'tenet's of Calvinism or Husbandism...who is he 'loudly' trumpeting his allegiance to? That statement clearly says one is loudly trumpeting, or yelling, or proclaiming, their adherence...let me stop here. What does adherence mean? The dictionary defines it as:
Adherence: 1. attachment or commitment to a person, cause, or belief
2. the quality or process of sticking fast to an object or surface
So adherence is 'an attachment to a person, cause, or belief'. It's an attachment to a person, in this case, Calvin, or a belief, Calvinism. Am I the only one seeing a problem here? I very much wish I knew who the original writer of that quote I read was.
That quote goes on to use the word distinctive so I looked up the definition for that one too:
Distinctive: characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.
The next word is tenets, so back to the dictionary I went.
Tenets: a principal or belief, especially one of the main principals or a religion or philosophy.
Okay, now that I have clarified all the words for myself. Let me rewrite that bit of the original quote in basic english.
A man may loudly shout his attachment to the distinguishing characteristics of the beliefs of Calvin(ism).
I see a big problem with that and it's only a small part of the quote. That half a sentence is saying man is shouting an attachment to the teaching, or religion, of a man.
I don't shout my belief in anything but if I did I would only shout my attachment to Christ and His word. Yet at least two people thought this statement worthy of sharing and teaching to others, the original writer and the poster.
That same sentence that I just translated goes on to say, 'but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham.' Where to start, where to start? Can I even put this into words? That second part starts out good, 'if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel'. What a wonderful measure for anyone. I personally think that would be a great way to look at all of mankind...do they delight in God and His gospel...the real God, the true Gospel...or do they not.
As my husband and I both often say, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. We use that line when referring to anyone holding to beliefs in Scripture that differ from our own. We obviously can't both be right. One of us is in error. We believe we are right, the others usually believe they are, yet something that is opposite of each other cannot both be right.
This isn't a right or wrong issue, exactly. It's a case of me questioning who Calvinists identify with. I rarely have encounters with people claiming to be Calvinists and now I have had several in the last week and not all in the same place. I wasn't looking for these encounters, they just happened.
There is a line in the sand, so to speak. On one side are those that delight in the true God, the true gospel. On the other side are those that do not. I'm not going to hazard a guess where much of anyone is standing in accordance to that line. That is between them and Christ. We can pretty easily assume that anyone denying the Lord in any way is on the side of the line for those that do not delight in God and His gospel but that's about as far as I will go in saying who is on which side of that line.
But back to the original quote...the first part of that last little bit is good, really good, assuming we are delighting in the true God, the true Christ, and the real Gospel. The second part, however, isn't so good. With the next portion we are back to following man rather than Christ. 'His professed Calvinism is a sham.'
So if I am interpreting this correctly, that quote says that unless one delights in God and His gospel than his claim to being a Calvinist is a fake.
The original quote said, 'Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
I had to look up 'natively experiential'. The only thing I got was links to some book, which I am now wondering if that might not be the source of the original quote. In any case the best explanation for natively experiential that I could find was by Tom Nettles who said, "an experiential theology, or experimental Calvinism, pursues the purposeful application of every doctrine to some area of life that needs further conformity to Christ's perfect humanity.'
I have no idea who Tom Nettles is (was?) but I can agree with that statement but the original 'natively experiential' sounds a lot like too much man and not enough simplicity of Christ. It's big words that boggle the mind to describe that we need to be more Christlike...at least that's what I think it means.
From there, Natively experiential, we move on to a 'theological system'. So studying Scripture and learning about our Lord is now a system. Shouldn't that be a way of life? Paul said it best, I have decided to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified. We don't need a system to study Christ. We need Christ. Period.
That does not appear to be the case for 'Calvinists'.
The quote then moves into it being deeply affectional, or emotional, and man may loudly shout his allegiance to Calvinism, a man made belief system, even if it is based off Scripture, but unless he delights in God and His gospel his profession of being a Calvinist is a fake.
Umm...yeah. I'm right back where I started from. This is a fancy statement that gives allegiance to one man and his theological system over allegiance to the Lord.
It's only been a few days since I had a couple of encounters with people in a supposed...I don't even know what to call it...reformed, Calvinist, Truth based, group that turned out to be a group of people that for the most part worshiped men more than Christ. They were just as Churchianitied as Arminians, if not more so. I do not want to call names but they almost seemed to be educated idiots, to use one of my Grandpa's terms. They knew so much that it impeded their ability to understand that which was simple. They grabbed onto the teachings of men rather than grabbing onto their Bibles and holding tight to the simplicity of Scripture.
They promoted the studying of men's writings to better understand Scripture. Not all that long ago I hesitated to write that I had gained an interest in reading the writings of A.W. Pink. His writings are Scriptural but they are still written by fallen man. I do not need his writings to teach me of our Lord. All I need is my Lord's own words. But I had gained an interest in Pink and therefore acquired a couple of his books. I happily started to read one of them. It's been a few weeks now. I am enjoying Pink's writings. They are very good and very Scriptural. And I have made it all the way through about four chapters in the first book I started.
The teachings of men are just that, teachings of men. As I have been reading Pink's book, which is edifying, I have also read straight from Scripture. Reading Scripture is like giving water to my parched soul. Every word is like drops of water on a long dried up ground. My soul soaks it up.
It would appear that these 'Calvinists' soak up the writings of men in the way my soul soaks up Scripture. I still can't grasp that. How can one love the writings of men so much that they grab onto them over Scripture?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths 2 Timothy 4:3-4
I'm not going to hazard a guess at which of these people fall into that category but I'm going to step out on a limb here to say that as a whole, 'Calvinists' seem to be just as ingrained in those 'having itching ears' as arminians.
As I sit here, writing this, having every intention of running it past my husband before I let it post to this blog, I can't help but marvel at their ability to claim a belief system that is supposed to be the very essence of Scripture, it's supposed to be the same Gospel given by Christ, given by the apostles, and yet they not only allow it to be labeled by a fallen man's name but they almost glory in following a man's teachings of what the Gospel, what true Christianity, er...being a member of the called out ones...is.
I can't even figure out how to describe true regeneration and the people blessed to receive it anymore. Reformed Christian is not the answer. Not for me anyway. Not any more. There's too much of man in there and not enough of Christ and Scripture. Calvinist was never an option for me. Christian is too broad a term and has lost what little meaning it once had.
What's left?
If I say I am one of the called out ones...who will know what I am talking about? If I say I am reformed, I am putting myself into the category of the same people that prize men's teachings over Scripture. If I say I am a Calvinist, not an option, I am aligning myself with a man, almost worshiping him by the very fact that I put myself under his teachings, something I refuse to do.
Calvin is just another fallen man. He had a gift for writing and interpreting Scripture so that he was able to put what being a true regenerate believer meant. That is great. He was given the gift of writing out the Lord's words in a way that simplified things for many. The trouble is he is now given a status that very nearly turns him into a god by people that should know better.
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[e] which he obtained with his own blood.[f] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Acts 20:28-31
Paul even admonished those he thought to be believers in the gospel he was basically giving his life to spread, warning them of how wolves would rise up in their midst not even sparing the flock.
I am not saying Calvin was a wolf. What I am saying is that those claiming to be reformed or Calvinist are allowing others, men, to 'rise up' among them, leading them down paths written by fallen men on what Scripture says, rather than turning to Scripture itself.
And I am once again left mentally scratching my head and asking...
Why the teachings of men?
You raise some valid questions and for the most part valid conclusions. "Calvinism" has turned itself into a monster, as have those who revere the 'reformed faith' all too highly; both have become gods unto themselves. Today's "reformers" hold little to no resemblance to their champion, Martin Luther. Instead, they have massaged the truth out of his stance and writings for their own gain. By doing so they have showed themselves to be the wolves of Acts 20. It has gotten to the point with some in their ranks that one is not considered a "brother" unless he is of the "reformed faith"; a statement taken from the Jesuit handbook where the pope and the RCC must be all in all or one is not "saved."
ReplyDeleteA couple of other questions to be pondered while you search out this thing about 'men's writings.' Why did the Lord give the Church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, all of whom were for the equipping of the saints, etc. Eph. 4:11-16? And in Heb. 5:12-14: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers..." but are still babes in the 'word of righteousness' due to the fact that such people have not had their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. I understand your disdain for today's crop of mouths that speak lies in the Name of the Lord, a disdain which we share, but to give a blanket condemnation to all the words of others is just as ill-gotten as believing the rot that passes itself off as truth---back to learning to discern of Heb. 5. If all the words of men are worthless, then why speak at all? Pink is a good place to start. Is he perfect? No! Is he right most of the time? Yes! This is where discernment as given by the Holy Spirit is so vitally important.
For most "professing Christians" Christ is not enough, they must add something in order for their mind to have a 'play thing' to fondle. Such are the wolves of Acts. 20.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, Darrel. I do so appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
DeleteUnfortunately this blog does not allow me enough space to answer you in one comment so I'm going to give the easy answers first and then will reply again on the Scripture you shared with me as that is a much deeper subject and requires more though, response, and time to give.
I do not have disdain for all the writings of men. I think many writings can be profitable once one has studied the Scriptures enough to be able to discern the good writings from the bad ones. Although I own multiple books written by men (Mcarthur, Pink, Matthew Henry, even an antique commentary of Romans written in the 1800's and the Geneva Bible with original notes, among others) I personally do not have a preference for reading the writings of men beyond a few snippets here and there. I am currently reading one of Pink's books but I do so for a gleaning of edifying work and not for studying Scripture. I much prefer to soak my mind and soul in the Lord's word than in the writings of any man.
What I am very much opposed to is the idolatry of the men and their writings by people that should know better. If one claims to be 'reformed' or a 'Calvinist' than they should have enough Scripture knowledge to realize that aligning themselves with any man and holding the teachings of that man to such high standards so that they weigh themselves against the tenets of that belief system is idolatry and aligns them not with Christ but with the man who came up with those ideas in the first place.
To me professing Christians are not the problem here. It's quite understandable that those without the eyes to see the Truth in Scripture or the ears to hear it would need their hands held as they struggle to grasp truths too deep for them to understand. It would be like putting a five year old in an advanced college level math course and expecting them to understand. It just can't be done.
No, I'm not speaking against professing Christians. Their need for the writings of men is completely understandable. My issue of late is the ones that claim to know so much about Scripture yet twist it to support their own ideas or cling to men and their teachings rather than to Scripture. And the worst of all, for me anyway, is the identifying of themselves as anything other than a Child of Christ.
They claim to be a 'Calvinist', spouting off man's rules for 'Calvinism', as if Calvin is Christ and our alignment belongs to him.
I'm going to leave my answer at this for now but will address the rest of your comment soon.
Thank you again for visiting and for sharing your thoughts with me.
DeleteDarrel,
I am going to try hard to keep my response here short but the verses you brought up and the topic at hand are hard to keep short.
I appreciate you giving the verses to me and questioning me on them. As always, I appreciate the use of Scripture when one differs with me on something and I welcome the different opinion so that I might learn something new.
The verses you gave have been under great study in my home the last month or so. We have studied them so in depth as to have nearly picked them apart under a microscope.
They may possibly be the subject of a post in the not too distant future. But to give what I hope will be a brief coverage of our, my husbands and mine, take on them here...
We cannot look only at the verses you gave. To do so would be to pick the verses we want to use for our purposes and not to look at the entire context. We must, and my husband and I did so, even after reading your comment, get the entire context. We backed up and began to read at Ephesians 2.
Just a quick summary here, Paul is speaking to a group of people at a specific time. During that time there were still apostles, men appointed straight from God, a few prophets, also appointed by God, men that saw Christ alive, and the men that Paul and the other apostles were directly teaching.
The crowds to which Paul spoke were a mixed lot, made up of born again believers and unregenerate alike. They were also groups that were new to this 'calling', being the calling to regeneration and were new to the faith. It was a whole new idea to them and they had nothing with which to compare it. They also had no Bible, no Scripture, to turn to in order to learn anything about Christ or how a born again believer should act.
Paul tells them, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers,[b] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[c] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."
There was a certain task assigned to the 'apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers' and that task was 'to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ'.
This was a time when the body of Christ was a brand new thing. It was something the likes of which it had never been before. Christ had come and basically turned the world upside down.
Who would know what to do?
Apostles were appointed by Christ's own hand. He called them to the ministry of spreading his Gospel in a way that no one has been called since then. He equipped them for the job he assigned them, delegating them tasks. They were getting direct insight from the Lord. All the others were appointed to their tasks but not in the same way.
1 Corinthians 12:4-11 says:
DeleteNow there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
This speaks of all called out, born again, regenerate believers. We are all given gifts but they are not the kinds of gifts that Paul and the other Apostles or prophets had. We are not getting divine revelations or powers to carry out our gifts.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says:
As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
The only gift that did not pass away is love (per the rest of 1 Corinthians 13). All the divinely appointed gifts are no more. They were here when Christ's kingdom was new and people, including us today, needed guidance and leading. Those gifts were shared far and wide by "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers".
These were the men appointed by God, appointed by Christ, and appointed by the prophets and apostles that had been appointed directly by the Lord. Scripture is not referring to other men through other times. It points us always to Scripture. Christ did not ask if people had read the writings of men, He asked if they had read the Scriptures. He said, 'it is written' and 'have you not read', referring to the Scriptures, or the Old Testament.
Paul did not speak of books written by Scribes or others. He referred to Scripture and to what he had been divinely taught.
Yes, believers in Paul's day needed the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers just as we need them today but those apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers are the men of Scripture not fallen men that came at any other time in all of history.
You mentioned Hebrews 5:12-14:
DeleteFor though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Our understanding of this verse is that it refers first Scripture. The best teacher of all comes straight from God's own word and Paul is still a teacher even today. We truly need no teacher beyond those in the words of the Lord. However, our fallen minds and hearts often do better when told, 'look here' and 'see this', especially when we are new in the faith.
That is where those mature in the faith come in, not as leaders over others, not as preachers in 'Churches', but as brothers in Christ, much like an older brother teaches a younger brother. These older brothers in Christ can lead their younger brothers, or older sisters in Christ can lead younger sisters in Christ, to 'look here' and 'see this'.
When we are first born again the majority of us do not understand what is happening and it is an immense help if someone else takes us by the hand and leads us, not with their own words but to the pages of Scripture. 'Read here' and 'study this' are of untold value when one is newly regenerate.
Is Pink such a 'teacher'? I would have to say yes. I would have benefited greatly from having his writings in my hands when I was first born again. I was blessed enough to have an 'older brother' take me by the hand and lead me to Scripture and to certain writings of Pink in my early days of regeneration.
Can other men's writings be just as effective...maybe. I'd say it depends on the man and on what he's writing about. But the best teacher of all is Scripture and sooner or later a truly born again believer should no longer need 'training wheels' to be able to ride on their own. Sooner or later, if they are truly born again, they should be able to leave the teachings of men behind and depend only on Scripture and not on what other men, through writing or conversation, dead or alive, are teaching them.
And above all else they should learn to align themselves with Christ and only Christ.
Paul said it best...
I have decided to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.
I hope this helps clarify my thoughts on these verses and on the writings of men. I never set out to study on this matter. I hadn't even given it much thought but as with so many things, the Lord brought it to my attention, time and again. And it became the focus of much Scripture study in my home and in my head and heart.
Sister,
ReplyDeleteYou have addressed something that has troubled me for a while - the idolatry of John Calvin. Many proudly label themselves as 'Calvinists' and accredit Calvin with writing the doctrines of grace - this is beyond tragic. Calvin was mortal and fallible, like us. To hold him in such high esteem is sinful.
I want to give Revelation 22 as an example, I think it is similar to what we are seeing - And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
The fact is we are to worship GOD and HIM ALONE. Yes, we can glean much from the writings of men, and we have. However, it goes beyond that with Calvin doesn't it?
The man-made 'camps' of 'Calvinism' and 'Reformed' have bred idolatry and haughtiness. Where does the bible command such?! It doesn't. We are to worship God and follow Christ alone...period.
You are addressing an issue that is LONG overdue! May the Lord bless you
I'm sorry for the late reply. I wasn't feeling up to writing out a response yesterday due to a headache. I did read your comments though. As always I appreciate the reply and the chance to speak with you.
DeleteI must admit that I did not set out to tackle this subject. It just sort of happened. Now that it has happened, it is much on my mind and heart.
I remember back when I first became aware of 'Calvinism'. I was very much opposed to being labeled as a 'Calvinist' and flat out refused to go by such a label, even in my early days of knowing and understanding the true Truth of Scripture and my own heart and souls condition. I'm sorry but I really don't know a better way to word that. I can't say it was when I was first born again because I am not sure of the moment that happened, it seems to have been a gradual thing. I do, however know when I began to see and understand all of the Truths of Scripture, not that we can ever understand all of it. The Lord's ways are just so mighty and big that they defy our human understanding.
Anyway...I refused to be labeled as a 'Calvinist' back in my early days of understanding. I still refuse to be labeled as one today. 'Reformed' isn't much better as I have recently discovered.
There seems to be a deep, almost pridefilled, puffing up of those in the 'Calvinist' and 'reformed' camps. I know there are exceptions and I can understand to an extent how it happens. I am guilty of not always responding with gentleness or humility when challenged on something pertaining to Scripture.
I believe it was on the post I titled the Black and White of Scripture that someone of the Anabaptist faith challenged what I said. I very much enjoyed that discussion as it tested my own understanding of Scripture but I also recall that person making a statement that basically accused me of not being humble or loving in my replies.
I am guilty all too often of getting caught up in writing and fail to remember there are people on the other side of my screen, reading what I'm writing, being the recipient of my words. Sometimes I say things in ways I would never say them in real life. I also have the misfortune of tending to be blunt in my dealings with people and appreciating bluntness when they deal with me. It does not always bode well for being humble or loving.
So I can understand how 'Calvinists' and 'Reformed' people can get caught up in their own knowledge and understandings. I'm only guessing here but I'm assuming that a good deal of the time they may be sincere in trying to share their knowledge of Scripture with others but their own knowledge may be what gets in their way.
I know one of my encounters with a 'Calvinist' on that reformed site had someone warning me off of Pink, telling me that he was wrong because he believed God reprobated some people.
DeleteThe thing is, I truly believe that person was trying to help me, trying to warn me against something they believed to be a heresy. I don't happen to share their belief on that matter and I have very much enjoyed reading Pinks words on reprobation in The Sovereignty of God, which happens to be the chapter I am stuck on at the moment, but I think the person warning me was truly sincere.
The trouble comes in when their knowledge, often coming through the hands of some fallible teacher and not from Scripture,is in objection to Scripture.
Then there is the fact that if these people can see so many of the Truths in Scripture...why are they blinded to the rest?
I guess possibly because they are putting so much of their faith in men instead of putting all of their faith in Christ.
I prefer Scripture over men's writings because I do not want my thoughts and heart influenced by fallible men. I much prefer to let the Lord guide me and then I only have my own fallen nature to contend with and not someone else's.
But somewhere along the way many people that can see so much of the Truth do fall into the worshiping of Calvin and not clinging to Christ and His word.
This is what has me troubled of late.
I have no issues with anyone reading men's writings of men for edification purposes. Where I fall into trouble is when these men are held to such a high regard that their words, or the belief systems that have come because of their words, are held to much higher standards than Scripture.
It's almost like there are those that, when their thoughts or the writings of their chosen 'scholars' or 'teachers' or 'preachers' differ with Scripture then Scripture must be wrong and it's the men that are seen as right.
Thank you again for commenting. I do so appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me and the chance to converse with you.
God the Spirit is the Teacher of God's elect-'But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him'.- 1 John 2:27
ReplyDeleteMen can teach you things, but true truth comes from God the Spirit as He opens the understanding.
The teachings of men must always be compared to the word of God, being a good Berean will keep the elect from error. That is how we know we are in Christ, God the Spirit reveals truth to us and we know error when we see/hear/read it.
I too have benefited from the writings of Pink, Spurgeon, and others. However, they are not 100% correct all the time, no one has full, complete revelation. The word of God is the only source of truth, and it must be studied and prayed over by the believer. We must search for truth as one seeks riches. We cannot rely on others and their writings to instruct us fully, that's like using a 'cheat sheet' when studying for a test. We can learn, but the learning is limited and the source must be kept in its proper place.
I recall some time ago reading about Pink and his holding to a 'gap theory', which really troubled me. Yet, he is fallible in his writings isn't he? Here is a link - https://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis.htm
I think it is dangerous to believe we can be taught truth from most men, that isn't to say there are not true, called preachers both in the past and now. The safest way to learn is on your knees first, followed by an open bible.
Thank you for the link. I looked at it briefly yesterday but did not feel up to doing any reading at that time. I will be exploring it further.
DeleteI agree that we have had many great men that have left us legacies of their writings and sermons. I am not, in any way, opposed to men's teachings so long as they can be shown to be true according to Scripture.
My problem is when these men and their writings are held in equal or higher regard than Scripture.
I also think our modern minds are conditioned to think of preachers as being anyone in a pulpit...and I am just as guilty of that as anyone else...when if we look to Scripture for what a preacher was we can see that it's basically anyone that is deeper in the faith, so not new to it, that is teaching the Lord's word.
Preacher's are often portrayed as seminary educated men (or women) that stand before a congregation and teach whatever their version of the gospel is. Even Spurgeon and Pink were guilty of being pulpit preachers.
I'm not saying pulpit preachers are bad or wrong, just that our modern eyes are inclined to see all preachers through that light for the sole reason that it is what we are accustomed to. And we are blessed to be able to discern which of those preachers are teaching Truth and which are not.
I run into issues with preachers today using the term called because the calling that was given in Scriptural times is not the same calling as we have today.
The Lord controls our hearts, He controls our likes and dislikes, leads our wants and want nots, and it's through that control that preachers get their leanings today. They are called into preaching because their hearts lean that direction. In Scriptural times preachers were called straight through divine revelation or the appointing to the task by apostles that had divine revelation.
And that's where I run into issues with our modern preachers, or preachers of the past, that pass themselves off as called by God. We are all called by God to do whatever it is we do in life. Preaching is only one of many callings.
Yet so many preachers, even the one's that hold to the Truth of Scripture, would have us to believe that their 'calling' is something different, something special.
We should always approach everything through prayer and Scripture. I love how you put it, 'on your knees first, followed by an open bible'. Oh, if everyone, everywhere, could just approach life with that philosophy. Even the reprobates could gain from viewing life that way.
I often tell my husband that the verse, 'chose this day whom you will serve', would be a good one for everyone to wake up thinking about. I know to use it in such a way is to take it out of context but no one could ever go wrong viewing every day, every moment, through the mindset of 'chose who you will serve today', God or Satan, Christ or man, Christ or evil, Christ or sin.
It sounds so simple. Prayer and Scripture. Christ or sin. Yet it's anything but that simple for most. And it would seem even many that align themselves with true regeneration status cannot grasp that simplicity.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine. May our Lord be with you always.