SO-CALLED BIBLE-BELIEVING CALVINISM DOESN'T JIBE WITH CHRISTIANITY
"Bible believing," how many times have you heard that? Who are the ones who use the expression the most? Fundamentalists do, the ones who also use the expression, "biblical inerrancy."
Let me digress. I don't hold with Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession for the simple reason that they deviated so much from Jesus's teachings and exemplary life that any succession that there ever was (and I don't think there was any) was broken. I don't hold with the tradition of that church. I don't hold with their dogma. I don't follow their Popes for the reason stated. They called for war, and war is Hell. That was not the method by which Jesus divides the goats from the sheep. The war bringers are the goats.
Now, the Fundamentalists make fundamental errors too even as they too reject the Popes. What is their error? They say they believe in the Bible and that it is not in error. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture."
Some Fundamentalists hold that only the King James Version (Textus Receptus) is reliable (was protected directly by God from editing errors).
Okay, that's all extremely simplified. What's the point? Well, the Protestant Fundamentalists rejected Rome; however, do they follow their own preaching?
How can anyone claim to believe but turn around and preach the opposite of what Jesus said? Even removing all the versus and words that are argued over, the Fundamentalists still preach at odds with Jesus' admonitions. The Calvinists are particularly conspicuous.
I just gave the following response to a comment:
Why are you defending, excusing, apologizing for Calvin? Why aren't you using Jesus's standard rather than lowering yourself to Calvin's level?
As for Predestination, the issue is with its application claiming that the poor are poor because they aren't saved – that mammon is (at least in some cases) an outward manifestation of the work ethic from faith and grace and in that sense, a facilitator of capitalism versus Acts 2:44-45, etc., and the logical conclusion that is Christian communism as with the Christian Commons Project?
Calvin was not a magistrate in the sense you have used the term, but he was the chief priest, as it were, who did not resign and did not severely rebuke the magistrates for grievously erring. Where does Jesus tell you to kill people?
"Let us then that have riches . . . consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren." That though falls far short because in the first place, it supports the means by which some have more than others do. Was Calvin saying to all the rich to give it all, as Jesus did? Who owns the means? Calvin, by falling short in his own teaching, and Calvinists, for following that shortfall, left and still leave the door open for Marx and his violent atheists.
Damning the poor can be too subtle to one not on the lookout for hypocrisy; otherwise, Calvin stands in stark contrast. Where did Calvin draw the line concerning excess? He didn't draw it where Jesus did.
Raise your standard. Stop being a Calvinist. Be better than that. Wherever Calvin doesn't jibe with Jesus, reject Calvin's teachings. Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Is ego concerning your current Calvinism going to block you?
If Calvin was a Christian, meaning an Acts-communist, why aren't all Calvinists Acts-communists or more so holders of the very Earth in common?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)