When Calvinists Impersonate Muslims

Why does this description of Islam sound familiar?

So I think ISIS is a wakeup call for all Muslims, especially Islamists who see no problem in mixing religion with politics. You want sharia? You want Islam to “conquer” and “dominate”? This is what you get. And when you say, “No, no, that is not real Islam,” you easily become the “apostate” of the “real Islam” that the other guys believe in.

Look at how this works for 2k and neo-Calvinism:

So I think ISIS theonomy is a wakeup call for all Muslims Calvinists, especially Islamists transformationalists who see no problem in mixing religion with politics. You want sharia the Bible? You want Islam Christ to “conquer” and “dominate” every square inch? This is what you get. And when you say, “No, no, that is not real Islam Calvinism,” you 2 kingdoms easily become the “apostate” of the “real Islam Calvinism” that the other guys believe in.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “When Calvinists Impersonate Muslims

  1. Seems a bit too simplistic in that it only recognizes extremists on one end of Islam while it portrays the two positions in Christianity as being extremist. In addition, regarding the degree control being sought, can we really say all transformationalists are the Christian equivalent of ISIS?

    Like

  2. Curt, how about hard (theos) and soft (neos) transformationalists? And does it help to say that, in the same way Baptists don’t actually treat their kids in accord with what their sacramentology entails (like little pagans), hard and soft transformers don’t actually live the way their ecclesiology entails (take over)? Both live like more like paedos and 2kers respectively, so the point is to just get their theology in line with their practice. Getting their practice in line with their theology, not so much.

    Like

  3. Zrim,
    If you are drawing parallels between 2kers and NeoCalvinist (soft transformationalists), I can at least partially agree. Should note that neither 2kers nor NeoCalvinists believe that the Church as an institution should speak out and challenge the state on state sins. As for your reference to paedos, not sure what you meant.

    Like

  4. Curt, the point had to do with theory and practice–if neos and theos live like 2kers (as in living among as opposed to taking over) then why so pushbacky on 2k?

    But the difference between soft and hard transformers is one without a difference and 2k stands as a differentiated alternative to both.

    To the extant that the CRC is a soft transformationalist denom, the take over strategy is more subtle and persuasive.

    https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements

    A 2k church wouldn’t be as given to commenting on various social issues and would further wonder why the list is so short–surely if every square inch is to be redeemed by the organic church then there are many more issues in the wide world which need addressing.

    Like

  5. zrim, Dutch-style development of doctrine:

    The CRC made its first official declaration on the topic of “worldly amusements” in 1928. Synod said that these doctrinal and ethical principles should guide believers in their relation to the world and its amusements: the honor of God, the welfare of humanity, spiritual separation from the world, and the exercise of Christian liberty. It also urgently warned members against the amusements of theater attendance, dancing, and card playing. In 1949 synod decided to study the issue again, and in 1951 it clarified previous declarations.

    Synod 1966 adopted a report titled “The Church and the Film Arts,” which states the official position of the CRC: The art of film is considered a legitimate cultural medium to be used with discernment by Christians. In the late 1970s Calvin College decided to allow social dancing by students on its campus. Its request for synod’s support and/or response led to the study “Dance and the Christian Life,” which was commissioned in 1978, recommended to the churches for study in 1980, and brought to Synod 1982. That year synod reaffirmed the position of 1966 on the relationship of the Christian to the world and on the exercise of Christian liberty. It also adopted recommendations regarding dance as a cultural expression, Christian evaluation of dance forms, and guidelines for Christian institutions. The Liturgical Committee of CRC Publications was asked to study the use of liturgical dance in worship, and it reported on that matter in 1985. Synod received the report as information and referred it to the churches but withheld action regarding the implementation of liturgical dance.

    Like

  6. And Terrible Greg is a 1928 man. 1966 was the beginning of the slide into the absolute moral cesspool of compromised Calvinism from which only a small beginning of a pure remnant remains.

    Like

  7. Zrim,
    Because no neos are conversing with me about their approach to things. Their approach follows the key-kid philogophy that Young Life, a high school parachurch ministry, at least used to use. You target key kids and if they show an interest, hopefully more kids will follow than if you just evangelized at random. In the end, neither the Neos nor the 2kers support the idea of the Church, as an institution, preaching to the state.

    Like

  8. Penetrating theory DH. I lived it. Got my head cracked in the PCA by Mr TR Recon, then jumped ship to the OPC to get busted again by a Neo-Calvinist contingency. Won’t go into the details, but confirmed the theory proposed in practice. It’s the many faced earth-bound Esau intruding into the heavenly delights of Isaac and Jacob. So far, apart from some rumblings from the Mid-West, I have found safe haven with 2K convictions in the URC. But maybe I’m just naive about my “live and let live” notions. Anyway, your little word swaps I found scintillating.

    Like

  9. Curt, right but so? The neos still want the Council to sign the petition against the strip club going up while still pussy-footing around with the member who has had her third child out of wedlock and wants the latest baptized and a chunk of change for the Christian school bill (real life example of this 2ker among the neos). The 2ker would rather the church refrain from being obnoxious, mind her own business and leave her members to live in the world without being of it.

    The point is that while neos and 2kers might share a bit in common against the theos, there remains significant differences between the former two. What’s your point?

    Like

  10. Like I said:

    1 • Reply•Share ›

    Avatar
    Keith LaMothe Krychek_2 • 13 days ago
    All codes of law are driven by some theology or ideology. Some object to Yahweh’s laws, and we object to Molech’s.

    Christian cultures can be pretty good at setting up systems in which those with other commitments can coexist, but in itself that tolerance doesn’t change the fact that it’s a Christian culture with basically Christian expectations about how we treat one another.

    That change is happening in the US, of course, but it is not complete. If we say “if you believe the Bible then your theology is incompatible with the reigning ideology, so you can’t be part of the government” then we’re assuming that the change is already complete and should not be reversed. On what grounds could we make that assumption?

    If we intend to reverse that change, it starts by defending the ground we’re on and not by continuing to retreat until the opposition leaves us alone.
    3 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Krychek_2 Keith LaMothe • 13 days ago
    I flatly disagree that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, but even if it was, at this point it’s pretty thoroughly pagan. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    Be that as it may, of course you are free to try to change the law. What Christian judges are not free to do is pretend the law is something other than what it is. The question before the court is whether the Constitution protects abortion rights, and not whether the Bible does.
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Tim Bayly Mod Krychek_2 • 12 days ago
    Dear “Krychek_2,”

    I do wish you would use your real name so when readers see you telling Christians they can’t fear God if they’re judges, but must always submit to precedent, and that they really shouldn’t be judges at all, everyone would know you are a notorious self-affirming sodomite who has been at work soliciting God’s judgment on our country for decades, now. http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015

    Sadly,
    • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Krychek_2 Tim Bayly • 12 days ago
    If I used my real name, would that change the quality of my argument? Are not the points I make either valid or invalid, regardless of who is making them? If there are holes in my logic, can they not be pointed out even if I’m writing under a pseudonym?

    And you’ve demonstrated why I typically write under a pseudonym: Because when I don’t, the discussion then becomes a discussion about me rather than about whatever we were talking about.

    Here, the question I posed is whether a Christian can do a job that requires him to act against what he believes to be Biblical principles. It’s a legitimate question, regardless of who is asking it. In the meantime, you know who I am, and how to reach me if you need to; it’s not like I’m trying to play some trick since you already know my identity. Plus I comment here so seldom that you can’t justifiably accuse me of trolling the board.
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Keith LaMothe Krychek_2 • 12 days ago
    Was the serpent’s identity relevant in the garden?
    2 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Krychek_2 Keith LaMothe • 12 days ago
    No. The answer to “hath God said?” should have been the same regardless of who was asking the question.

    Paul makes the same point in Galatians 1:8. Even if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. It doesn’t matter who is preaching another gospel, even if it’s an angel from heaven. Again, the identity of the speaker is irrelevant; it’s the substance of what’s being said.
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Tim Bayly Mod Krychek_2 • 11 days ago
    Scripture tells us concerning the self-affirming sodomite that God “gave him over to his degrading passions” (Romans 1:26, 27).

    If this is not pertinent to this man’s arguments concerning public morals and civil magistrates’ responsibilities concerning those morals, we’re all mad.

    On the other hand, if he repents of his degrading passions and turns to Jesus in faith, his repentance will strengthen his arguments concerning public morals and civil magistrates’ responsibilities concerning those morals.

    So yes, your character informs and controls your arguments, as everyone knowing you can see. Sin itself is irrational, making the sinner irrational, also.

    Sadly,
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Krychek_2 Tim Bayly • 11 days ago
    If that’s the case, then presumably the arguments I’m making are irrational, and can be shown on their own merits to be irrational. You’re basically engaging in ad hominem: Because the argument is being made by a bad person, it is therefore a bad argument.
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Tim Bayly Mod Krychek_2 • 11 days ago
    Then you admit you’re a bad person? That’s a start. Now pray, dear soul.

    As to ad hominem arguments, as I’ve said quite often, they’re central to the Apostle Paul’s epistles—which I add are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    With love,
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Krychek_2 Tim Bayly • 11 days ago
    I admit you think that I’m a bad person, and that you also think that that’s somehow relevant to a discussion about the role of the civil magistrate.

    But do you not see how incredibly convenient your argument is? Because you think I’m a bad person, you don’t have to respond to the substance of anything I say. You can simply say “you’re a bad person” and that answers everything. Well, it doesn’t. You haven’t offered a single substantive response to any of the points I’ve made. And I would tell Paul the same thing if I were having a conversation with him.
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    Tim Bayly Mod Krychek_2 • 11 days ago
    Dear Mel,

    I’m not having a “conversation” with you. I’m warning others against having any conversation with you and I’m repeating to you the Word of God’s judgments against what you have staked your life on—the moral goodness of your sodomy. God has judged you and I repeat His judgment for you and all the world to hear.

    Please do not say another word without giving your full first and last names, and do it each time you comment. Otherwise, leave.

    Love,

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s