Home > christianity, religion, us society > American Christianity and the pointless source of division, Part 1

American Christianity and the pointless source of division, Part 1

October 9, 2010

Calvinism emphasises that Jesus died only for the elect; Baptists believe Jesus died for everyone. Baptists, by definition, believe that baptism must be an informed choice by the individual, therefore limited to adults; Calvinists believe infants may be baptised. Calvinists think that God selects certain people for damnation; Baptists are more easy-going. reference

Not one piece of this article touches upon anything within the Scripture. Why is that I wondered. Why is a supposedly reputable news source, The Economist, not even doing the investigative journalism that is required? I figure its the same reason they don’t do rigorous research upon our current President and the books from which are his playbook. Maybe The Economist is merely economizing research, don’t want to spend all your research energy on one person or thing. Laughable,  instead just critically research everything and present the case. I know its The Economist, but I think referencing where in the Bible these religious denominations derive their beliefs is critical to accurately reporting on either one when making an article about statistics of division.

So guess what, I decided to do the research The Economist refused to do or simply cannot do because they would rather highlight division through statistics rather then unity in Scripture. I am going to point out relevant Scripture in which the separate Calvinist and Baptist doctrines could be derived, and show how theologically the importance is little, and realistically how both sides need to get their act together in regards to true Biblical exegesis.

The Baptists have missed out on other trends, such as the 1970s charismatic movement. They now have to decide whether neo-Calvinism is a movement they can safely ignore—or whether it may take over their church. reference

Read the language of the quote, “trends”, “charismatic movement”, “neo-Calvinism”. How about hearing terms in the mainstream media like, “Biblical theology” or better yet “Christian theology” and “critical exegesis” and “historical-critical”!? What is so hard about this, they are Christians are they not? The article is about Christian theology isn’t it? These are standard terms for the supposed intellectuals and yet we are losing people left and right to things such as social trends. This happens because of a lack of “theological training and rigorous Bible study.” What pastor Mr. Burleson says Christians are in need of in The Economist article. However I know to many Christians and people for that matter not able to defend or approach honestly the Bible.

The point is the discussion of Biblical topics are so substandard and in the gutter that an elevation and take back of language must be undergone. If we are to survive within the minds of intellectuals, we must approach debate even within public squares in an intellectual manner. In that context I can agree with Mr. Burleson. We need to get rid of the countless ideas by Christians of boilerplate trends and cliches. I want to see acts in the manner of intellectual rigor to articulate Christian theology. I want to see pastors like Mr. Burleson do that in his church and the public square.

Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow as we delve into relevant Scripture to determine what a proper exegesis is of these divisions highlighted within The Economist article. A little Bible study for Sunday!

%d bloggers like this: