Differences in Worship

I thought it was very interesting the way the catholics worship in such a way that they would emphasize the phrases considered important and it was very beautiful. While the protestants encouraged participation from their church members. There are very different forms of worship and the way that the  protestants stripped apart all those elements that seemed distracting to them, in order to worship, and worshipped together kind of makes me think of the community of christ where everyone comes together no matter how different they are but they worship together. It is very hard to go choose which one is better though because the catholics might not encourage participation but they do worship with the help of all the things that God has created and the outcome is spiritual and beautiful. It just goes to show how many people can have different worship styles but in the end they get the same outcome.

P.s. I commented on Becca's post

Actions

Today in class I posed the question of whether or not simply changing the word 'choose' to 'accept' in Calvin's question of if faith is something you choose. Changing the word to 'accept' takes the assertive action to a passive action, and while Dr. Brekke countered the question by stating that it was still an action, I would like to take that though a step further. It's like recieving a present; you cannot choose what you are given, just whether or not you will accept it. Accepting God's grace has to be a passive action becasue in order to acknowlede it you have to be willing to humble yourself. While you cannot choose the gift that is grace, you can take down the figurative wall between allowing yourself to accept it.

Happy Medium

I recently started studying the idea of predestination on my own. I asked myself many of the same questions Dr. Brekke brought up in class today that opposed Calvinism, and I struggled with the answers I got. God is a just God, so why would he choose people to be damned to Hell for all eternity while other people are chosen to live life abundant in Heaven. Christ died for the sins of all not only the elect. I can see that Calvin is coming from the point of view that faith is appointed to mankind and we can’t rely on self to be our own “co-savior,” but I believe he may have explored the polar opposite option which is that of predestination and no free will.

I commented on Jamie’s

Calvinism

Well I wasn’t in class today, but I heard that we talked about Calvinism. So I did a little research on that topic for my blog. By definition, Calvinism is “the Protestant theological system of John Calvin, which emphasizes the irresistibility of grace and the doctrine of predestination.” A branch of Western Christianity, Calvinism was founded sometime in the 1500s by John Calvin. There are five points to Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Each point means something specific. Calvinists believe in predestination. In other words, they believe that God pre-picked certain people to go to Heaven and to be a believer.

I commented on Jasmines.

Worship

I actually enjoyed the Catholic worship better than the Reformed. the Catholic worship kept my attention better and it was more relaxing. it seems like protastant worship music is almost a mix between both types of worship. it was interesting to hear the different types of worship, especially when it was taking place in the same era. i really enjoy music and it is fun to get to hear music from other cultures and time periods.

ps. i commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's

A Tough Pill

I think Christians in our day can all agree that Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination are quite the tough pill to swallow. As for myself, I am not quite sure that I believe one side or the other of the debate is completely true. However, there are certain doctrinal ideas in Calvinism that I definitely agree with. We claim that it would be unjust of God to create people with the foreknowledge that they would go to Hell after dying. Now please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that I agree with Calvin on this point, but this particular example helps to talk about a certain concept. This concept is the fact that God is just in whatever He does. This is a scriptural fact. He is perfection, thus having a wholly perfect will. Still, I have no idea whether or not God creates people simply to send them to Hell. The point is, that if He did, how could we possibly stand to judge His action from our incredibly limited standard? How can the pot question the potter?

An interesting thing I heard from a friend of mine this summer was this, that God has a righteous duty unto Himself, to glorify Himself. This blew my mind, yet it is so true. God, being utter perfection, is the highest possible good that exists. If He were to allow us to pursue any other objective in life but Him, it would really be a disservice to us. I am nowhere near smart or biblically literate enough to understand Calvinism or Arminianism very well, but like I said, whether we like it or not, God is infinitely above and beyond reproach. He is perfection and what He does He does perfectly.

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner's "Calvinism"

Worship Euphoria

Worship Euphoria

Today as we discussed the different types of worship in honors today,and as we listened to both types of worship,I was struck by a thought: Worship can be dangerous to one's soul.  I realized why a person would prefer a simple type of worship over a complex hymn sung in multiple parts. As I listened,I started to become lost in the beauty of it, and focused less and less on the words and meaning behind them. This can be dangerous because if one loses focus on truly worshiping, they begin to either glorify themselves (enjoying the sound of your voice) or they begin to praise the performer, not The Creator. The music played was beautiful,it truly was. But too much of a good thing can be harmful. Now, do not misunderstand me. I believe you can worship in all that you do, all types of music, and even without music. Music does bring people together though, and there is nothing like the sound of devoted Christians lifting a song of praise to their Creator. So yes, we should enjoy beautiful music, but we should never let ourselves be overtaken by the beauty of it. I believe that you must find a form of worship that you truly can worship through. For some, hymns and psalms allow them to truly embrace worship. For others, a contemporary worship service accomplishes the same effect. To each his own,as they say.

P.S. commented here

Modern Reformed

I have the unique position of growing up with my dad as the worship pastor at a VERY Calvinistic, Reformed Presbyterian Church- while none of my family is Calvinist. 

So I have learned a lot about Calvinism. A lot.

But one thing that is so interesting is the pervasiveness of the reformed tradition in music. It's been interesting that there really is still a sense of the value of simplicity. I once had a friend in highschool tell me that simple and old hymns were better than new songs because older songs have more meaning. Which doesn't actually make any sense. 

The sanctuary to our church actually looks exactly like all those pictures we saw in class. Whitewashed and clean with no decorations. 

Interesting isn't it? How old habits die hard.

Ramblings on Calvin

One of the problems I had with Calvin on Predestination is the line, "You can see how he gives as cause for both salvation and damnation the mere pleasure of God" (page 4). This line made me pause and think... so the pleasure of God is to damn some people to hell? Surely not. The verse that immediately popped into my head was 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." He wants everyone to come to repentance- to join him in eternal life in heaven- so how does that line up with Calvin's theology of predestination? God can harden or soften hearts, and we are unable to love Him without the love that He first put within us, and He knows who will choose Him, but that doesn't mean that we have nothing to do with the choice. Just a thought...

P.S. commented on Skylar's "Music During the Reformation..."

Calvinism

                While Calvin's beliefs on predestination are easily understood, they are difficult for me to accept.  Calvinism is very systematic and comes to a simple conclusion through a precise explanation.  Unfortunately, while it claims to give God all the glory for saving sinners from Hell, it is completely devoid of emotion.  If there were truly elect people who could go to heaven and those who are chosen to go to Hell, there is no reason for a Christian to try at all in life.  This idea claims to give God all of the glory, but what for?  For deciding that one man is better or more deserving than another, or because God just likes him more?  No, this is not the God that I have come to love throughout my life.  Calvin uses the example of a banker giving loans to explain his beliefs.  He says that a banker gives out loans as he sees fit, allowing one man to have money but not the other.  However, there is a system behind this.  The banker does not just chose who he does because he feels like it.  The banker giving a loan looks at credit, decides who is more likely to pay the money back, and what will be done with the money. Also, a person must ask for a loan before a banker can either give them the money or deny it to them.  I think in some ways it is the same with salvation.    

I commented on Rebekah Dye's blog

-Susan Berner

Palestrina and His Venues

In class, we listened to a little Palestrina. Let me start by saying that I love his works. I have performed many of his pieces in numerous cathedrals, and they never get old.

I know Calvin had a bone to pick with musical works like this, namely because they were emotionally charged songs being sung in church. However, there's something else about Palestrina that I cannot put my finger on that makes his works an element of worship on a completely different level than any other musical piece.

As a performer of such works, I find that when singing them, the acoustics in many cathedrals reflect the sound to appear as if the music is coming from all different directions. To the performer, they begin to feel as if the song is not originating from themselves. The performer simply becomes the channel for praise that comes from nature itself. The song comes from all creatures on the earth, and the performer merely manifests it in a physical form.

Also, this is my favorite Palestrina piece to listen to, as well as sing along with. I hope this counts as a quote.

~~Cody Martin

ps- I commented here

Predestination. Yes, I brought it up :)

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man.  All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of these purposes, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death. …" 

If I had five dollars for every time this statement has brought contention in a discussion, I think I would be the richest person on earth.  I'd never read the actual works of Calvin before, although I've discussed predestination vs. free will way too many times with fellow believers, and his wording truly surprised me.  He addresses arguments and what he considers truth in blunt, forceful arguments, making statements most Calvinists would quail before.  However, while I do have a very strong opinion on this subject, as I'm sure most people in this class do, my opinion does not matter.  However, the salvation of others does, and that's what is a major concern with this belief.  To never have certainty in the faith, to forever have that chance that God had condemned you to Hell before your birth... it's really too awful to think about.  I've personally seen this kind of thinking turn in a very negative direction, where people refuse to have anything to do with the church or believers as they say that no matter what they do, it doesn't matter.  They're already stuck going to one place or the other.

While Calvin's logic is incredible, as a believer, I see many practical flaws.  In concept, it makes sense.  In the real world, does it?  I don't believe so.

Commented on Jamie's "Oooo... Shiny..."

Oooo... Shiny...

I do not have ADD, and I love art and music, but I have to admit the sensory overload of music and artwork in the catholic churches we talked about this morning would be too much for me.  With so much to take in, I don't think that I personally could focus on worship.
In this aspect, I think Calvin had a valid point. Take it all down and leave no distractions.  Make the worship an actual corporate worship experience focused on God and his Word instead of a concert focused on beauty and performers.

Commented on Rebekah's "No Lesser Values of Scripture"

Palistrina vs. Calvin

Coincidentally, I've been taking music appreciation this semester, so listening to music for most of a class period is not out of the ordinary at all. Luckily, we just studied the Renaissance period in music, so I got to hear Palistrina. Hearing it again while talking about Calvinism and Catholicism put a different spin on it though. I loved hearing Palistrina with all the honors people, but it made me think about what worship music really is and if someone should restrict worship music like Calvin wanted to. Are we allowed to do that? Are we allowed to say what kind of worship everyone should offer? Since we're all different people with different backgrounds, I think it would be like imposing who we are another person. I think what matters the most is what the heart of the worshipper is. It's all about glorifying God and that might look different to different people. P.S. Commented on Skylar's

Music during the Catholic Reformation: Majestic to Simple

Today in class were listened to and talked about the  music before and after the Catholic Reformation. We talked about how the main purpose to reforming music from the grandeur and majestic version of Palestrina to the more simple and "catchy"  music was because it provided a way for people to participate. It also allowed people to focus on the words of the songs and not the actual music.

In today's society we are encountering a similar problem where people get lost in the music and not in the purpose behind the music, which is to worship. While I understand the purpose of making music simpler to allow people to focus on worshiping and not on the complexity or build of the music, I also don't think we should minimize the beauty music can have. In my opinion, God gave man the ability to create music and we are also called to give our all to Jesus. Therefore, if God calls us to music in any shape or form creating simple songs and not putting forth your best effort when creating music and worship songs is probably not what God had in mind. While I have no ability to know or say what God is thinking or intends for other people, I do believe that both forms of worship can coexist. A great worship song to me is one that holds great truths in it's lyrics while also displaying a beautiful melody that evokes the ear to listen and points to the hand of God. Therefore, reforming music to the extremes of the Catholic reformation may not be necessary but making sure that the lyrics equal the importance of the music is in today's society.

p.s. commented on Rebekah Dye's No Lesser Values of Scripture

Calvin and Dante

I know that I do not know or fully understand everything both Dante and Calvin believe, but I think they are very interesting and seem to contrast. I think it is interesting that for Dante, we choose our own Hell. Our sin turns into our own punishment, and that there is justice in that. For Calvin, God is the dispenser of justice, and it seems to have nothing to do with our own choice. On this ground I don't fully agree with Calvin. I think in a way it is a bit of a double standard, for it is all God who saves us, but it is also all God and all man that causes damnation. For each sinner had one sin that dominated his life and consumed him not with God. I think that is more realistic than saying passive man had no part in his ultimate destination.
I don't know, not to start a theological debate. Just some thoughts.

Calvin & The Regulative Principle of Corporate Worship

In Christianity there are two opposing principles that govern corporate worship: normative and regulative. In the normative principle, the church may do anything Scripture doesn't prohibit--this would include liturgies, instruments and images. In the regulative principle, the church only does what Scripture prescribes--prayer, singing the Psalms and reading Scripture. John Calvin falls neatly on the regulative side.

Regulative worship restricts, but the purpose of restriction is not cold restraint, but freedom from sensuality. Calvin believed simple, reverent worship where the Word is central enables the church to praise God as he so desires. Controversies over the form of liturgy and congregational preference do not enter into his scheme; instead the church is free to worship simply with a clean conscience.

In his view, regulative worship offers freedom from idolatry. Calvin asserted that "the human heart is a factory of idols," and as such, people are prone to corruption even in the worship of the true God--hence simplicity was necessary. In 1543, Calvin wrote The Necessity of Reforming the Church, addressed to Emperor Charles V. He said,

But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, 'Obedience is better than sacrifice.' 'In vain to they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' (I Sam. xv. 22; Matth. xv 9). Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate."

To us this seems narrow-minded, perhaps legalistic. Weaned on youth group, Sunday morning praise bands and a paradigm of all-inclusiveness, we are prejudiced, culturally conditioned against his way of thinking. We are slow to hear and quick to react, saying, "How is it good, or even Scriptural, to restrict other kinds of heart-felt God worship?"

First, Calvin would warn us against excess in corporate worship, a legitimate danger. Church can become more like a rock concert than anything worshipful. There have been abuses of the normative principle in our own day, with churches playing AC-DC's "Highway to Hell" just because Scripture doesn't prohibit secular rock music in the divine service. Worship becomes banal when we lose the centrality of the Word.

Second, he would tell us regulative worship is Scriptural precisely because it doesn't go beyond what is written. What may seem to us stuffy, dull and emotionless to us may be another man's idea of pure and heart-felt worship before God.



EDIT: Commented on Jannah Lyons' Predestination and Susan Berner's Calvinism.

No Lesser Values of Scripture

In the reading for today, there were lots of times when Luther referred to Scriptures he believed were more or less significant then others. He liked to say things such as, Jesus' works and words were less important than say, Peter and Paul's...and other such things. I had some interesting feelings on this.
I cannot really fathom the idea of a certain Scripture being more or less important then another. And I think to put more value on a certain Scripture is a horrible mistake. The Bible specifically says, "All Scripture is inspired by God". Therefore, it is all worth His mentioning. :) I go back and forth on how I feel about Luther... I think he had a few sort of twisted perspectives.

I commented on Jannah Lyon's, "Predestination" blog.

Predestination

    I know, I know this is a first, I'm posting before a Thursday night! Alright, now that we have that cleared...I'll get on with the real reason I'm here, John Calvin and his writing on Predestination.
     First off, I want to say I agree with Calvin, for the most part.  One has to admit that as Calvin says, "God foreknew what end of man was to be before He made him and he foreknew it because He had ordained it by His decree," is indeed correct. Also that God's will is necessity and it is shameful of us to accuse God of injustice by 'unequally' distributing grace.  Now, this is where I argue with Calvin.  Does God actually unequally distribute grace?   2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."  God's will is not for some to perish... It says so right here. God is not wanting anyone to perish, He wants all to come to repentance. Though, God through His justice will allow man to make their own decisions, and they will have to decide between God's grace or death. When they choose death, God will give them what they chose. 
     Is predestination real? For sure, but maybe not in the way Calvin describes it. Any believer will have to admit that predestination exist in the life of a Christian, the Bible says it does.. But not so much where people cannot choose whether to be saved or not. Calvin would like to say that Salvation isn't a choice, instead God forces salvation upon you or denies it of you.  Clearly, this is not how God operates. Take John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." If God forces salvation upon the Christian would it be belief or trust?   
     No matter if you believe in Calvin's Predestination or not, Calvin makes an excellent point.  The Christian does not know who is an 'elect' in Christ, or who is predestined. So, the Christian's purpose does not change, he still has to spread the Gospel to all, because someone he speaks to could be predestined. We still have to preach to Gospel to Jerusalem, Samaria and the ends of the world.