Theology QUESTION

Pearls Before Swine
I’ve only been a Presbyterian for about seven years. So I know far less about John Calvin than I do about John Wesley, a founder of Methodism. Calvin, who founded a reformed movement that is represented in the United States by, among other denominations, the Presbyterian church, was born 500 years ago on July 10. One of the most difficult concepts for me is this:

John Calvin: On Double Predestination

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.

In other words, if I understand it correctly, some are born to be saints going to heaven, and others sinners going to hell. As one theologian friend of mine opined, “And you may THINK you have free will, but it was predestined that you think that.”

This hurts my head.

Here’s another take on double predestination.

Am I a bad Presbyterian because I’m a “free will guy? Where do you stand on this?

***
BTW, I went to the Pearls Before Swine website, having seen the strip in the newspaper, and the SITE provided the specific URL for the graphic. Cool.

ROG

More Light

This Sunday is More Light Sunday in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. So what is “more light”? “Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA).” But as it’s been the case in other mainline Protestant denominations, there are wide-ranging beliefs within the faith. As one article reads: “Will the religious conflicts about homosexuality be settled by compromise or schism?”

I was, for nearly 20 years, a United Methodist, another denomination having the same internal struggle. The Methodists’ Book of Discipline reads: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” Yet there are undoubtedly gay UM clergy. Indeed, on the season finale of the (fictional) Brothers & Sisters on May 20, the senator’s brother turns out to be a gay UM minister.

I don’t have a problem with gay clergy, or gay members of session or other boards. What I guess is bugging me is the fact that the denominations have rules of prohibition, yet it is well-known, by me, e.g., that the rules are ignored in some parts of the country. I guess I’d be more comfortable if the written rules of the denominations could be changed to become more inclusive, but based on the divisive nature of the issue, I can’t imagine that happening any time soon.
***
I’ve been fascinated by the fact that my former church, indeed m, my former pastor, has been fighting with the city of Albany over rock concerts in the church basement. Now, the pastor has been suspended by the church hierarchy. While the newspaper says that the suspension is unrelated to the court dispute, a reasonable person could reasonably infer from the story that the suspension really IS about the court case. That inference would be wrong. I’ve talked to some members of the church; I’m positive that the suspension and the court case are unrelated. But since the church hierarchy can’t talk about the situation, based on privacy concerns for the minister, I can’t really fault the paper for not getting it quite right.

ROG

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial