Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Per request - Ask a Calvinist
Ok thanks. It seems from my googling that Calvinism = Reformed (and other denominations who adhere to it at times). Its interesting to see you subscribe to that since I know the Reformed churches here do not believe in freewill and are all pretty contemporary.
Yeah. Most days I don't even make sense to myself
The Calvinist churches I have gone to (I'm thinking Presbyterian) are similar to my non-denominational church. They have become more contemporary in order to appeal to the youth of the church (modern worship music, less formal dress standard, etc.) but also offered at least one traditional worship service with hymns and more formal service order.
There is a wide range of Calvinists. I think some of the most hardcore don't believe in using any type of musical instruments in worship (I've heard of this in the Baptist churches) and have some serious modesty rules in worship.
I'm not familiar with Reformed churches at all. I'll have to check one out.
There might not be any. I know there are some in my area, and in NJ and Arizona. I dunno, seems like every movement here in NYS eventually goes to Ohio anyway so maybe that did too, and stuck.
I hear ya on trying to figure out where you "fit in". And I realize its tough when you aren't in diversely religious area and have your own comfort levels that are different with others who are supposedly *like* you. I LOVE traditional hymn music but like contemporary services, so no service makes me totally happy.
I only bring it up since you have the "chance" (as someone who isn't trying to conform to the religion they were brought up with) to explore different denominations/ways to be.
Have you though of looking into non-christian religions? I know that some of them are a whole different way of looking at yourself, so you can be Christian and that at the same time - no giving up the Jesus. I bring it up sort of out of your compulsion for specific types of dress and seeing as how you have said you have a need for more lifestyle habits/rules than what most Christian denominations offer (that aren't cult-y sects).
I would attend a non-Christian service just for fun and to learn about the religion, but I definitely want to be in a Bible-based community for public worship. While I think I could discern Truth in other environments, I feel a sermon on the Bible is an important part of worship for me.
I'm actually fine with the denomination I belong to not having formal rules on dress. I like it that way, because I don't feel like clothing should be an important issue. I feel like a certain amount of modesty is important, only because I feel like some people have a hard time focusing and keeping a heart of worship when they see things that are tempting out of the corner of their eye. But I don't think I would like to worship in a place that has a bunch of rules about how I have to dress. I feel like people should be free to dress how they want to (while considering what it does to others).
At my church I attend the traditional service (we also have two contemporary services). I like that there is a standard order of service from which we rarely deviate. I take comfort in the ritual.
I also realize the public part is only a small portion of my worship life. I have created my own traditions and rituals for worship at home out of that deep need for it, so I guess it doesn't bother me much if Sunday mornings aren't always as structured as I like.
Sorry to insert myself here, but I wanted to say that there isn't one specific way to feel "touched" by the Holy Spirit. In my circle of closest friends, we all feel the Holy Spirit guide us in different ways. I know for me and my husband, we "hear" the Holy Spirit mostly through scripture. Sometimes as we're doing something, a Bible verse will come to mind. Other times, we're reading the Bible and specific verse or chapter will connect with my soul. Every time isn't an earth shattering event, usually for me it's a calm and still peace from deep within. Only a couple times has it seemed world stopping (and those very few times has been for very big things). The one think I take away from every encounter with the Holy Spirit is an undeniable feeling of love and peace.
A lot of words to say that I think most people expect something more, like this very emotional and life changing experience, with flashing arrows. I know for me, the Holy Spirit speaks to me in a still, quiet voice (so to say).
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
What I just don't get is even if you're Calvinist, that does not necessarily meant you are saved, per pre-destination. You could be a part of that sect and do all the right things, but it might not matter.
I don't really believe in anything, so everything is kind of BS, but this seems like a special kind of BS.
As an atheist, this is actually how I first started thinking as I shifted away fom the Presbyterian church. I was very confused how Christianity could have so many questions and differences within - and then when I considered other major religions it really didn't make sense to me anymore to have absolute faith or belief in Jesus and god. Anyway I won't threadjack cause I'm loving the Calvinism discussion, I just found your comment interesting.
And let me be clear that I'm not trying to question your beliefs or devotion.
just a personal anecdote.
I'm new here, and I have to say, this is the most civilized religious conversation I have ever seen on this site. Pretty refreshing.
I'm curious, if you believe that god created the world for himself, and that events in our lives and in the world at large are dictated by him and for reasons only he can understand, why is it important to believe that god is loving? Does it really matter? What does it mean for god to be loving? Why not just think "yeah, he's a jerk, but whattayagonnado?"
Oh, that is fantastic. This...this is wine. Yeah. Look what all these idiots are drinking. Look at these dicks! Obviously it's not really delicious, like hot chocolate or Coke, but for wine...brilliant.
Well, first and foremost God is ultimately the one who judges where someone will end up after they die.
Yes, as a Catholic, it is important to be baptized (which is what makes us Catholic)and do our best to follow all teachings of the Church because we believe that these teachings were revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit via written (Scripture) and oral means (Sacred Tradition). We believe that Christ specifically gave the authority to the Church to loose and bind (through Peter and his successors) when He gave him the Keys.
In addition, in Catholicism, we recognize that not all sin is the same. Gossiping is not the same as murder for example. The first sin hurts our relationship with God (and others); the latter breaks our relationship. The first does not require reconciliation through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (although going to the Sacrament for any sin is always encouraged); the latter does. If we die with the latter type sin on our souls (ie. haven't repented), then we risk Hell.
When it comes to the Bible back and forth, I try to avoid it. I avoid it because there are certain verses that are just not up for personal interpretation. I either believe the Church has the authority to properly interpret or it does not. For example, Christ said This is my Body. There is no other interpretation for that other than exactly what He said.
And FWIW, I'm not the best Catholic either....I continue to work out my salvation in trembling and fear. ;-)
ETA: Updated to clarify comments about reconciliation.
a) a saturday? really???
b) AW, i know this is the most simplistic part of your entire discussion but you brought up the fact that you cover your head out of your own interpretation of the bible. do you keep your head covered all the time or only in public? IIRC, my orthodox neighbors didn't have to keep their heads covered in their own home.
that's my lame contribution.
oh, and kbtmom, i hope you don't stop posting.
Although this was written in such a rude way, I do think he has a good point. How does a Calvinist know they aren't in *that* group?
First of all, I don't really think that most Calvinists think there are "right things" to do. The point of it is that there is nothing we can do on our own. If you are doing the right things (are filled with the Holy Spirit, believe in God, and are living out the Word), I think most Calvinists would agree that you are saved.
I guess that someone could believe in Calvinism and not have the Holy Spirit, but since Calvinism teaches that you cannot seek God on your own, the fact that this person wants to know the Holy Spirit would be evidence IMO that God has already elected them.
Everyone believes in something, even if it's just that a Big Bang and evolution brought us to where we are today. I think it's BS to say you don't believe in anything, so I won't take offense to your statement.
I think there are several reasons that a Christian knows that God is loving. First, the Bible says so. But even if you're not a Bible literalist or if you believe the Bible can contain errors, the fact that you believe in Christ and that He died for your sins proves how loving He is.
But I think most importantly, most Christians that have a personal relationship with Christ have experienced His love firsthand. There is no other word to describe His presence in my life than absolute Love - the kind that brings joy, contentment and peace, and that you can't live without once you've experienced it.
I hope you can recognize how someone else could interpret that differently.
It reminds me of the story of Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus was saying that you have to be born again and Nicodemus is scratching his head saying, "How can I enter my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus is reminding him that there are different ways to be born. Saying the words "born again" doesn't have to mean the earthly definition - some things also have spiritual definitions.
For me, when Christ says, "This is my body" it is kind of the same thing. He isn't saying it with the earthly meaning that the bread is literally His body. He is saying it using the spiritual definition - that whenever we are hungry and break bread we should remember His sacrifice on the cross and whenever we thirst and drink we should remember His blood that was spilled. Communion at church is a symbolic act for me and I also can take part in communion at home whenever I sit down for a meal.
I'm not saying this to argue with you, 2V. Just wanted to show you how someone else can interpret it differently.
Sorry. My husband had the older boys out of the house for the day and I had some free time while DD napped. I figured it might be the only chance I have to sit down and really write out my thoughts for a while.
I cover my head when I am home somtimes. More out of habit than anything else (I just don't feel dressed sometimes without it). But whenever I am lounging in my PJs or just hanging out before I get dressed, I don't wear one. For me it's a symbolic act that is necessary in public, but not when I am alone or at home. When it is just God and I in prayer alone, I don't feel like He needs to see my headcovering, because He sees my heart.
Plus, DH likes my hair and I feel like it's nice to let him enjoy it sometimes too.
I guess I can see how someone would interpret it differently, but then I go back to the part where disciples left him over this teaching. They said it was a hard teaching. What you describe is not a hard teaching. And yet, Christ did not follow them to clarify what he meant to allay their concerns. He did not follow up with a "Wait a minute guys, you misunderstood me, I was talking metaphorically".
Regardless, because I am a Catholic, I recognize that certain Scripture readings are not up for personal interpretation. If you're not Catholic, "you" believe otherwise. I think I will always have trouble understadning this thinking because two people can come with opposite meanings from their personal interpretations and both will say the Holy Spirit guided them to their personal meaning. Although some verses lend themselves to multiple meanings, others do not. Either Christ meant a symbol or He did not.
What I described may not be a hard teaching for us, as Christians living in the year 2012, but it certainly would have been for the early Church, which was comprised mostly of Orthodox Jews. The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Correct me if I'm wrong Jewish nesties, but bread (manna) was traditionally broken during that meal to remember Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt and the wine was drunk to remember the lives that were lost then. What Jesus commanded (even symbolically, as the Seder was symbolic) was to replace Moses with Himself. He was saying that Moses represented the Old Covenant and that Jesus represents the New Covenant (leading us out of our bondage to sin like Moses led the Jews out of bondage in Egypt). Instead of eating these meals in remembrance of what Moses did, remember me and my blood shed instead. That would have been a hard pill for a Jew to swallow, I think, even if they had faith in Christ, because it goes against the thousands of years of tradition that were engrained into them.
Some people could argue that Jesus was only talking about the Passover Meal and was saying that Christians are commanded to take part in the meal at the traditional time in remembrance of Jesus. Some could also argue that the bread has to be manna, since that is what Jesus broke (take THIS bread, not leaven bread). There are hundreds of interpretations that could be made from that one sentence from Jesus.
And the Early Church certainly was divided on these topics. Because you're a Catholic and believe the church that Peter founded is the only true Church, you probably feel that what the other churches were doing at the time was irrelevant. But as a Protestant, who has a different interpretation of Jesus telling Peter that He will build His Church on him (I believe He meant on faith like him), I believe that there wasn't one church that sprang out of Christianity early on. Different areas had different customs, as is obvious in Paul's Epistles. Paul was clearly trying to unite the churches under the same teachings and traditions, but just as it is now, the Holy Spirit was moving different people differently even then.
I am of the belief that the Roman church took the stance that Jesus literally meant to eat his flesh because the body of believers there (primarily non-Jews) came from a pagan background in which the eating of blood and flesh was common. As we know was the case with many other early church customs (like the placement of holidays and even some of the rituals associated with them) pagan life had a huge influence on the church. We can't deny that. And we know that culture tends to effect the teachings of the Catholic church, because it is still happening today. It also happens in Protestant churches too.
It doesn't bother me that the Holy Spirit can cause different people to interpret the Bible differently. All I know is what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me in Truth. I can't know the inner spiritual workings of another person, and for all I know, they know Truth too. It doesn't have to be black and white for me. And I feel that if Jesus wanted it to be that way, He would have found a way for it to be that way. He would have spoken more clearly and defined things with certainty. But as we know from the Gospel, that wasn't Jesus' style. He spoke in riddles and stories, leaving interpretation up to the individual (and once God pulls away the blinders, the truth it obvious). Because there is so much grey area in the Bible, it leads me to believe that Jesus wanted it to be that way.
I actually have more of a problem with the Catholic church denying that there is that grey area and saying that Jesus left it that way so that they could interpret it in whichever way they want to for the times. I realize that your faith tells you that this is the way it is meant to be, but to me it just seems too convenient and gives way too much power to fallible, sin-ridden human beings and denies a personal relationship with God.
ETA - I hope that didn't come across harsh or like I was bashing your faith. I'm just discussing my take on it all. I completely respect your faith
I just want to say that threads like this, and the manner/attitudes in which they are conducted, are the main reasons I totally am addicted to this board. As such:
I've been going to United Methodist churches for almost ten years now and as far as I'm aware, we don't ascribe to predestination. But I could be wrong. Like AW, I'm not really as concerned with the tenets of my church's beliefs as I am with finding a community of believers where I feel welcomed, with sermons I connect to, activities for the kids, etc.
FWIW, I cannot reconcile predestination with a loving God so I'm fascinated by this thread explaining how others do. Thanks, AW.
Click me, click me!
(1) Your connection to the Passover seder does not work here because the Bible passage I am referring to is not the Last Supper passage. It is the Bread of Life discourse in John (If you do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you). A better connection is the manna sent down from Heaven to the Jews. The Jews did eat the manna. Jesus is talking about eating His flesh as they ate the manna. The Greek word he uses is "gnaw" in fact. The Old covenant prefigures the New. The New always supercedes. The Old Covenant manna was not a symbol. Therefore, the New Covenant bread is not a symbol. It is more than a symbol. It is the actual flesh of the Lord. *That* would have been the hard pill for Jews to swallow. And this was the belief of early Jewish converts, not just pagans. So it was a teaching of the Church since before the conversion of pagans.
(2) If Jesus wanted to speak in grays, then he wished there to be confusion. The Holy Spiri/Godt does not cause confusion, the Devil does. Yes, of course there was confusion and division, but that is not of the Holy Spirit. Of course some things are black and white and you already believe in some things that way (ie. you take certain parts of the Bible literally). You just don't see this particular part of what Jesus said as black and white.
(3) To be clear, I have a personal relationship with God...and I think my relationship with God is closer as a Catholic who believes and follows the Church teachings than at any other time in my life. Just because the leaders are sinful and fallible as men doesn't mean the Church was not given authority directly from God to teach faith and morals. When one accepts that, there is no confusion whatsoever. It took me awhile to get to that point, but once I did everything clicked.
::butting in real quick::
I obviously have no beef here, but just wanted to say that I don't agree that if Jesus (or anyone, in any context) wanted to speak in 'grays' that their intent was to cause confusion. I'd argue that it is equally possible that the intent was rather to cause interpretation - of which would reveal one thing or another about the person doing the interpreting. And I don't think that's a mere semantics game.
But it's supremely probable that I'm missing an element here that'd support the view that I don't know wtf I'm talking about.
::butting out::
2V - Can you explain to me a little about how Catholics believe the bread turns into literal flesh? Is it a prayer that is said? Where did the prayer come from? I admit I know nothing about transubstantiation.
As far as my interpretation of John 6, I believe Jesus is simply talking about the fact that He is a life source. He is the Word made flesh. We are to eat His Word if we want to live. It reminds me of the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus says to her that He is living water and that only the people who drink His water will have everlasting life. If we want to be literal, in my mind we would have to be drinking "Jesus water" too in order to get to Heaven. In both cases, I think Jesus is simply saying, "Listen, you eat this manna and drink this water for your earthly body to survive. But remember that I am here now and I am a form of spiritual manna and spiritual water that will feed you for eternity. If you want to live on earth you have to eat and drink these physical life sources. If you want to live with me in Heaven, you have to "eat" my spiritual life sources - take my Word into you and live it out."
I did not mean to imply that you do not have a personal relationship with God. I am certain you do.
About the confusion - I don't believe that I am confused and I don't believe that people with a different interpretation are confused. We are all certain in our own understanding of Truth, which we feel is of God. And the things that are black and white to me (the things I take literally) are only black and white for me. I recognize that others interpret things differently, which is why I don't apply my lifestyle choices to others as salvation issues. I firmly believe that my faith is mine and mine alone.
I think you nailed it here.
I tend to think that where Jesus is speaking in "grays" as it were, those would be areas that are up for personal interpretation, where there is no right or wrong provided one is earnestly seeking the Lord's direction and/or the right way for them. Does that make sense?
But I'm neither Catholic nor Calvinist so take that as you will.
Click me, click me!
Late to the party but this struck a chord with me. I don't know how you would classify my faith... I was born and raised baptist and baptized into a baptist church. My husband and I now attend a non denominational christian church but I have never really felt like a specific church has met my personal beliefs. Although I don't know that anyone can be 100% aligned with a church because I believe someone's beliefs are completely their own. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is what saves us, no one can come to Christ without it.
You've brought up a lot of interesting ideas to me personally. It's interesting to me when you say that only those elect can respond to the holy spirit. It makes sense that way I suppose but I also have a hard time thinking about others never having the opportunity to know God because they aren't one of the elect few. MH and I have discussions all the time trying to wrestle the concept of free will and an all knowing God. I've enjoyed reading
I'm in agreement here. This is what I have been saying all along. There are verses that are up for personal interpretation as in "How does this fit into my life?" and certainly different people can come up with different responses. However, there are other verses that have got to have a specific meaning. And of course, there's always the thinking that not everything we need to know is written down in the Bible. Heck, the Bible canon as we know it didn't come into being until the 4th century. Again, this is why I don't normally get into the "Bible back and forth".
I do not believe that Jesus would leave us to figure out which ones those were or to allow individuals interpret those things incorrectly (ie. purposely cause confusion)....hence, why it makes sense that he would leave us the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Despite the fact that they were just mere men, he gave Peter and the apostles the authority to loose and bind. This authority has been maintained through their successors. To me, this teaching authority clears up any confusion, any questions as to which verses mean a specific thing. This authority helps clarify when I am struggling with something I am unsure is right or wrong (because the Bible does not always have those answers).
Someone who does not believe in this teaching authority would probably say that they can read the Bible and the HS will guide them to Truth. Just to make my point, let's take sex outside of marriage. I'm not aware of a Bible verse that addresses this directly. One Christian will read the Bble and say that the HS tells them it's okay. Another Christian will read the Bible and say the HS says it's not okay. It's either okay or it's not okay. How can the HS tell one thing to one person and another thing to another person? Here then the HS is contradicting itself and the HS can not contradict itself.
Anyway, I'm not sure how this happened, but I think we veered way away from the OP. We're no longer talking about Calvinism and I probably should have stayed out of this thread.
Here is a link to the portion of the catechism that discusses the Eucharist. It will do a much better job of explaining than I could ever do. There are also other websites out there that discuss this Catholic belief.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1413
Wrt to your comments re: John 6, this doesn't explain why disciples of Christ (so in other words, they already bought into Christ's teachings) walked away from him when they heard this hard teaching. Something about this teaching goes above and beyond. Since the manna was an actaul food source, it makes sense that He was referring to His flesh as actual food source, not just spiritual. The woman at the well did not walk away saying this was a hard teaching so those two situation are not the same.
Not to engage in Bible back and forth
, but 1 Corinthians 7 is pretty clear about sex outside of marriage. Paul says if you can't control your sexual impulses, you are supposed to be married because any sexual activity outside of that union is considered sexual immorality.
Now, there are some red letter Christians who would argue that since Jesus didn't say it, it's not a command. So I guess there is always room for interpretation.
I don't mind that the post veered off topic. I am curious about which Biblical Truths you feel are clear cut and have no room for interpretations (obviously you feel that way about the Eucharist).
As a Catholic, do you feel that the Holy Spirit can guide you individually? You mentioned that the Holy Spirit works through the church? Does this mean that the Holy Spirit can't convict a certain person to do something that goes against church teachings? Like if the church was doing something that you viewed as wrong, could the Holy Spirit be telling you not to accept what the church is doing?
For me, it isn't that the Holy Spirit is contradicting itself. It's revealing Truth to each of us in the ways we need it for our own spiritual gifts, flaws and needs. And Truth can change as we evolve spiritually. My faith has definitely changed throughout my life, but even when my views on certain issues were completely different than they are now, they were still Truth to me at the time. Perhaps that's what God needed me to believe in order to do His work at that point in my life. He knows I am a work in progress and that certain ideas will be digested differently at different points in my life. IMO, as I grow in wisdom and maturity, I am able to understand different things.
If God doesn't love everyone, and I'm created in his image, this revelation really lets me off the hook for being an @sshole to people. From here on out, if you find me offensive, you're just not one of the elect few.
It's what the Lord wants.
Who "me?"