Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If one appeals to Paul (and 1 Corinthians in particular) then let me point out the following. Paul indicates that communion is the replacement for Passover. (1 Cor 5:7-8) Passover is something children participate in. Indeed, the Seder is used as a means of instructing the young. Beyond that, Paul indicates that all who are part of the body of the church partake of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor 10:16-17) Therefore, to hold that there is an age at which one can be baptized yet cannot partake of communion would mean that baptism does not make one part of the visible church which seems like nonsense to me. This leaves the issue of 1 Cor 11:17-34. What exactly does Paul mean by an unworthy manner in verse 27? Worthiness certainly isn't based on being learned. Unworthiness comes from acting in a unrespectful manner. So long as a child can comport himself in an appropriate manner, I see nothing in that passage that bars paedocommunion.

[DC Al Fine]

If one appeals to Paul (and 1 Corinthians in particular) then let me point out the following. Paul indicates that communion is the replacement for Passover. (1 Cor 5:7-8) Passover is something children participate in. Indeed, the Seder is used as a means of instructing the young. Beyond that, Paul indicates that all who are part of the body of the church partake of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor 10:16-17) Therefore, to hold that there is an age at which one can be baptized yet cannot partake of communion would mean that baptism does not make one part of the visible church which seems like nonsense to me. This leaves the issue of 1 Cor 11:17-34. What exactly does Paul mean by an unworthy manner in verse 27? Worthiness certainly isn't based on being learned. Unworthiness comes from acting in a unrespectful manner. So long as a child can comport himself in an appropriate manner, I see nothing in that passage that bars paedocommunion.

Hi Ernest, I don't want to turn this into a debate paedocommunion thread, so I'll be brief:

First, I'd dispute your reading of Corinthians on a few grounds:

a) Connection with Passover does not mean absolute identification with Passover.
b) The record of the Fathers makes a paedocommunion position difficult. It isn't defended until Cyprian, and Tertullian attacks infant baptism without mentioning paedocommunion at all.
c) I find your definition of worthy/unworthy odd, particularly in light of the context Paul uses it.

Second, I think you're mistaken about actual Federal Vision. FV paedocommunion often takes the form of infant communion. An infant isn't capable of a) actually consuming the Lord's Supper, and b) examining themselves or discern the body even in the most cursory manner.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not necessarily arguing for a particular age at which entry into the visible church should occur, just that biblically I don't find a ground to justify different ages for communion and baptism which are the two distinctive rituals of the visible church.

[DC Al Fine]

Giving this a final bump before I let it go. Anymore questions?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Giving this a final bump before I let it go. Anymore questions?

Very simple but also very broad question: What is the life of your parish like in practical terms? What does a typical Sunday service look like, what are the social dynamics of the parish, and so forth? Would you say this is representative of PCA parishes in particular? Of Calvinist parishes in general?

[DC Al Fine]

Giving this a final bump before I let it go. Anymore questions?

Very simple but also very broad question: What is the life of your parish like in practical terms? What does a typical Sunday service look like, what are the social dynamics of the parish, and so forth? Would you say this is representative of PCA parishes in particular? Of Calvinist parishes in general?

Could you elaborate a bit on what you're asking for in the bolded portion?

I'll get started drafting the answers to the other questions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Giving this a final bump before I let it go. Anymore questions?

Very simple but also very broad question: What is the life of your parish like in practical terms? What does a typical Sunday service look like, what are the social dynamics of the parish, and so forth? Would you say this is representative of PCA parishes in particular? Of Calvinist parishes in general?

Could you elaborate a bit on what you're asking for in the bolded portion?

I'll get started drafting the answers to the other questions.

Like, is parish life mostly just services? Are there social events? Charity work? Does it all happen in or around the church, or do parishioners do things in one another's homes too? Is the minister in charge of everything, or does he mostly handle the actual services while laypeople handle the other aspects of parish life? Things like that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've had a question in mind for a while, but I've hesitated to ask it, partly because it's the sort of outsider question that might not be of much interest to you, and partly because it's born of something akin to (but not quite) morbid curiosity. If you intend to close this down soon, I guess I'll go ahead and ask.

Does Calvinism provide a specific explanation for why limited atonement is necessary to God's plan, or the only possible manifestation of His greatness, or any other justification for the doctrine that might be the object of debate in the terms of moral theology? Or does the argument for it merely state that this is what God says (based, I would guess, on scriptural evidence), and that His reasons for withholding salvation to some are taken to be beyond the reach of human comprehension?

[DC Al Fine]

Giving this a final bump before I let it go. Anymore questions?

Very simple but also very broad question: What is the life of your parish like in practical terms? What does a typical Sunday service look like, what are the social dynamics of the parish, and so forth? Would you say this is representative of PCA parishes in particular? Of Calvinist parishes in general?

Could you elaborate a bit on what you're asking for in the bolded portion?

I'll get started drafting the answers to the other questions.

Like, is parish life mostly just services? Are there social events? Charity work? Does it all happen in or around the church, or do parishioners do things in one another's homes too? Is the minister in charge of everything, or does he mostly handle the actual services while laypeople handle the other aspects of parish life? Things like that.

Before I start, I should mention that Calvinism has a divide similar to the Anglican high-low one between traditionalists who want to maintain our distinctives and modernizers who want to be more like mainstream Evangelicals. My congregation is typical of the 'broad church' tendency, but like Anglicanism, there can be substantial variation in either direction.

Worship service
We follow a word and table liturgy typical of many older Protestant​ churches:

Call to worship (responsive Psalm)
Singing
Lords Prayer+Common Doxology or Gloria Patri
OT reading

Call to repentance (Isaiah 1:18 or similar)
Corporate confession of sin (from BCP)
Declaration of forgiveness (1 John 1:8 or similar)
Singing

Epistle reading
Prayer
Gospel reading
Sermon

Creed
Lord's supper
Singing
Benediction

Singing is about 50/50 hymns, CCM. Modernists will omit some of the liturgical bits and sing more CCM. Traditionalists will swap out CCM for Psalms.

Parish life
We do a fair amount of socializing and charity work but it would probably seem a bit paltry for a Catholic/mainline like you. We're a pretty tight knit group so there's lots of formal social events like potlucks, baby showers etc, as well as informal stuff like the 20 somethings going for a beer every week. Most of the big social events are in the church, but Bible studies and smaller events are held in homes.

Our main charitable works are helping to run an ecumenical food bank in our neighborhood and running a ministry for international students at the local university.

The pastor doesn't run any of that stuff. One thing that non-Calvinists always notice is that we expect a lot of teaching from our pastors. Our pastor preaches 2-3 sermons a week, teaches adult Sunday school and catechism class, and provides counseling, so he doesn't have a lot of time for other things. The pastors job title in the PCA is 'teaching elder' as opposed to our lay 'ruling elders' and we take that distinction very seriously.

Because of the teaching expectations, our elders have to do a lot of the stuff a priest would do in other churches.  Each elder is assigned a 'flock' of several families that they look after, and each elder is expected to lead a Bible study, and look after one of the ministries of the church.

Does that answer your questions?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

Even as an Arminian I view both as quite objectionable.

[RFayette]

Interesting stuff with respect to the worship service.  Our church has 6 elders and a similar distinction of one main pastor who delivers all sermons (albeit for us just once a week), titled "pastor-teacher."  On Sunday mornings, do you have a "Sunday school" period where folks are broken up into groups (like high schoolers, young adults, married couples w/ children, etc.) when the different elders do their Bible study?

Also, are the sermons mainly expository preached by your pastor?  I found this a big change from the more liberal Christianity I was brought up with - I'm used to 15 minute-ish sermons with one or two verses followed by anecdotes, in stark contrast to the extreme depth given at the Reformed-flavored non-denominational church I attend now.  Your statement about pastors having a huge teaching responsibility definitely applies where I go as well, since membership requires participation in a ministry and there are multiple paid, full-time elders, the main pastor says he devotes nearly 40 hours a week for Bible study and Sunday sermon preparation alone. 

[DC Al Fine]

I've had a question in mind for a while, but I've hesitated to ask it, partly because it's the sort of outsider question that might not be of much interest to you, and partly because it's born of something akin to (but not quite) morbid curiosity. If you intend to close this down soon, I guess I'll go ahead and ask.

To clarify, I'll answer questions as long as people ask them, I'm just going to stop bumping the thread if no one is asking me anything.

Does Calvinism provide a specific explanation for why limited atonement is necessary to God's plan, or the only possible manifestation of His greatness, or any other justification for the doctrine that might be the object of debate in the terms of moral theology? Or does the argument for it merely state that this is what God says (based, I would guess, on scriptural evidence), and that His reasons for withholding salvation to some are taken to be beyond the reach of human comprehension?

You touched on an issue that hasn't been settled yet, so I had to do a bit of reading on this one. I did a brief survey of several pastors and theologians blogs, asked a few Calvinist clergy I know etc.

The majority position was that we can only logic out limited atonement from scripture, and humanity isn't privy to the reasons why (as Calvinist rapper Shai Linne, put it "Why does he choose some and not others to see Jesus? Our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.").

However, a significant minority do try to find the reasons for it. The most common argument goes roughly:

1) The creation exists for God's glory
2) God's glory is maximized when he both saves and damns. That is, his mercy is made all the more glorious when combined with his justice, and his justice is made more glorious by his mercy.
3) Therefore God will neither save all or damn all.

I'm in the majority camp personally, and reject the above argument on the grounds that Christianity and utilitarianism do not mix.

[DC Al Fine]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

Even as an Arminian I view both as quite objectionable.

I wouldn't really consider those Calvinist/Arminian things to be honest. If you made a the political compass and replaced left/right and authoritarian/libertarian with Calvinist/Armininian and paedo/credo, you would be able to find plenty of people in all four quadrants.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You touched on an issue that hasn't been settled yet, so I had to do a bit of reading on this one. I did a brief survey of several pastors and theologians blogs, asked a few Calvinist clergy I know etc.

The majority position was that we can only logic out limited atonement from scripture, and humanity isn't privy to the reasons why (as Calvinist rapper Shai Linne, put it "Why does he choose some and not others to see Jesus? Our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.").

However, a significant minority do try to find the reasons for it. The most common argument goes roughly:

1) The creation exists for God's glory
2) God's glory is maximized when he both saves and damns. That is, his mercy is made all the more glorious when combined with his justice, and his justice is made more glorious by his mercy.
3) Therefore God will neither save all or damn all.

I'm in the majority camp personally, and reject the above argument on the grounds that Christianity and utilitarianism do not mix.

Oh wow, I had no idea this wasn't a settled issue among Calvinists. Thanks for taking the time to do research and ask around to answer me.

I guess that, if I had to choose between the two arguments, I'd rather go with the majority as well. Utilitarianism aside, the minority one also relies on some... peculiar ideas of "glory" and "justice" that raise new disturbing questions. It's harder to argue against the idea that some of God's choices are simply beyond humans' ability to comprehend (though "he does whatever he pleases" strikes me as a terrible way of putting it).

[DC Al Fine]

Interesting stuff with respect to the worship service.  Our church has 6 elders and a similar distinction of one main pastor who delivers all sermons (albeit for us just once a week), titled "pastor-teacher."  On Sunday mornings, do you have a "Sunday school" period where folks are broken up into groups (like high schoolers, young adults, married couples w/ children, etc.) when the different elders do their Bible study?

Our elders are opposed to that degree of age segregation in the church. Once you finish catechism class, and are confirmed as a member of the church (usually mid teens), you are expected to integrate with the rest of the adults.

What this works out to in practice is that on Sunday mornings the pastor leads one Sunday school for anyone who is interested. During the week the elders run their own Bible studies. The pastor instead of leading a Bible study, teaches catechism class during the week.

Of course that does not mean people still don't try to find friends their own age. Young mothers hang out together on weekday mornings, I have a standing date at a pub with the 20 something men etc, but the church doesn't formally set up these groups.

Also, are the sermons mainly expository preached by your pastor?  I found this a big change from the more liberal Christianity I was brought up with - I'm used to 15 minute-ish sermons with one or two verses followed by anecdotes, in stark contrast to the extreme depth given at the Reformed-flavored non-denominational church I attend now.  Your statement about pastors having a huge teaching responsibility definitely applies where I go as well, since membership requires participation in a ministry and there are multiple paid, full-time elders, the main pastor says he devotes nearly 40 hours a week for Bible study and Sunday sermon preparation alone. 

Yes absolutely.

I had a brief flirtation with Catholicism a few years ago, and what you described was the hardest non-doctrinal thing to stomach. I went to a mass where the sermon was seven minutes long. My wedding homily was longer than that! I would consider seven minutes an appropriate length for an introduction to a sermon, so hearing <20 minute sermons wasn't feeding me much.

Now, obviously a Catholic priest comes from a tradition that doesn't emphasize preaching as much as the Reformed tradition, and obviously he is going to have different demands on his time than my pastor, but I do find the more liturgical/liberal churches (and to be fair, some Evangelical churches these days) could do much better on preaching even considering their limitations.

[DC Al Fine]

You touched on an issue that hasn't been settled yet, so I had to do a bit of reading on this one. I did a brief survey of several pastors and theologians blogs, asked a few Calvinist clergy I know etc.

The majority position was that we can only logic out limited atonement from scripture, and humanity isn't privy to the reasons why (as Calvinist rapper Shai Linne, put it "Why does he choose some and not others to see Jesus? Our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.").

However, a significant minority do try to find the reasons for it. The most common argument goes roughly:

1) The creation exists for God's glory
2) God's glory is maximized when he both saves and damns. That is, his mercy is made all the more glorious when combined with his justice, and his justice is made more glorious by his mercy.
3) Therefore God will neither save all or damn all.

I'm in the majority camp personally, and reject the above argument on the grounds that Christianity and utilitarianism do not mix.

Oh wow, I had no idea this wasn't a settled issue among Calvinists. Thanks for taking the time to do research and ask around to answer me.

I guess that, if I had to choose between the two arguments, I'd rather go with the majority as well. Utilitarianism aside, the minority one also relies on some... peculiar ideas of "glory" and "justice" that raise new disturbing questions. It's harder to argue against the idea that some of God's choices are simply beyond humans' ability to comprehend (though "he does whatever he pleases" strikes me as a terrible way of putting it).

Haha, yes we do a terrible job of putting our best foot forward

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Does that answer your questions?

It does, yes! This was actually a very enlightening read; thank you.

[DC Al Fine]

You touched on an issue that hasn't been settled yet, so I had to do a bit of reading on this one. I did a brief survey of several pastors and theologians blogs, asked a few Calvinist clergy I know etc.

The majority position was that we can only logic out limited atonement from scripture, and humanity isn't privy to the reasons why (as Calvinist rapper Shai Linne, put it "Why does he choose some and not others to see Jesus? Our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.").

However, a significant minority do try to find the reasons for it. The most common argument goes roughly:

1) The creation exists for God's glory
2) God's glory is maximized when he both saves and damns. That is, his mercy is made all the more glorious when combined with his justice, and his justice is made more glorious by his mercy.
3) Therefore God will neither save all or damn all.

I'm in the majority camp personally, and reject the above argument on the grounds that Christianity and utilitarianism do not mix.

Oh wow, I had no idea this wasn't a settled issue among Calvinists. Thanks for taking the time to do research and ask around to answer me.

To follow up Tony, I was at my parents' house over the weekend and dug out one of the books I used in catechism class when I was being confirmed.

Your question got a one liner in the Limited Atonement chapter about how this is an ongoing issue and hasn't been settled. No definite answers I guess:P

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's really interesting. My image of Calvinism was that of a very structured, comprehensive, and more or less set in stone theological doctrine. It's fascinating to see that crucial aspects of it are still being debated.

[SingingAnalyst]

Two questions:

(1) are you an young-earth Creationist, and if so:

(2) did G-d deliberately deceive his creation (starting with Darwin) by creating fossils and the appearance of the earth as being ancient? Why would (s)he do that?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ BTW, God is not censored. No need for the hyphen.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

^^ BTW, God is not censored. No need for the hyphen.

I think he might be Jewish.

[DC Al Fine]

Two questions:

(1) are you an young-earth Creationist, and if so:

No. I don't really think of the issue much, since I find science kind of boring compared to history. That said, I guess I'm a theistic evolutionist.

(2) did G-d deliberately deceive his creation (starting with Darwin) by creating fossils and the appearance of the earth as being ancient? Why would (s)he do that?

I know I didn't answer your previous question yes, but I still want to address this since it is one of my bugbears.

If we accept the premise that God is an infinite being, it's foolish to think we can try to understand him the way we might understand the guy sitting next to you in Biology, yet both religious and secular people try to do it all the time.

If a child often cannot understand why their parents do what they do, because they simply aren't on their parents' level, then the same goes for finite humans trying to grok an omnipotent, omniscient being. We can know about God what he tells us, and infer a few more things about him based on what is told, but that's about it.

So to answer your question (pretending I'm a young earth creationist for a moment): Who knows? He does what he pleases.

That's really interesting. My image of Calvinism was that of a very structured, comprehensive, and more or less set in stone theological doctrine. It's fascinating to see that crucial aspects of it are still being debated.

Yes, I mean TULIP is settled and a few other primary issues, but a lot of the stuff that follows out of it is still up for grabs.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

Even as an Arminian I view both as quite objectionable.

I wouldn't really consider those Calvinist/Arminian things to be honest. If you made a the political compass and replaced left/right and authoritarian/libertarian with Calvinist/Armininian and paedo/credo, you would be able to find plenty of people in all four quadrants.

That is quite possible.

[SingingAnalyst]

Question: in your opinion, must a conversion be instantaneous and certain, with no misgivings, to be valid? If someone hems and haws, researches the pros and cons of Biblical Christianity for a while, etc. and reluctantly submits to conversion, would you doubt the validity of their conversion?