To Calvinists: Stress God’s Love Before You Get Into Doctrine

"There is no surprise more magical than the surprise of being loved.  It is God's finger on man's shoulder."  ~Charles Morgan link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Handshake_%28Workshop_Cologne_%2706%29.jpeg

A few years ago, someone very close to me shared a story about her church. A new pastor was about too be hired. He visited and preached a sermon and then answered questions. Curiously, he would only take written questions which were handed to him by an elder. He was given all of the questions to answer, except one. It was hers. What was her question? 

Do you consider yourself a Calvinist?

Her church was not Reformed and the majority of the members were not as well. However, the elder board became dominated by Calvinists who determined that Reformed theology would become the established doctrine of the church. They did not tell the congregation.  When she asked why her question wasn't read, they said that there was not time for her question. The pastor was hired and he quickly set about changing the church bylaws and hiring other pastors who were Neo-Calvinist. Suddenly, Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney books were being touted from the pulpit. Due to comments by our readers, we have reason to believe that this scenario has played out in other churches as well.

My question to my Calvinist friends is "Why not admit that you are a Calvinist when applying for a position?" Could it be that there is some baggage that comes with self-identifying as a Calvinist? From my reading about the Internet, I believe that some aspiring pastors would admit there there is a bias against Reformed clergy in some churches. The question is why?

When I have had the opportunity to speak with Calvinist pastors, they believe that they are routinely misunderstood. They believe that they carefully represent God in their doctrine. Yet, they are regularly confronted by folks who have had run-ins with difficult Calvinist pastors and leaders. These folks apparently believe that all Calvinist pastors are authoritative and negative. However, there are Arminian pastors who are also authoritative and negative. So, what is it about Calvinism, in particular, that lead some to believe that Calvinism that is a problem?

Here is my theory. I believe that many Calvinists, who have come to a place of peace with their doctrine, do not understand how to communicate their beliefs in a way that engenders a sense of the love of Christ in their narrative. They believe that they are logical in their approach to Scripture and do not understand what they perceive to be an illogical objection by those who oppose Calvinist doctrine. I believe that this has been the case since the time of Calvin and continues to this day. 

However, until recently, those of the Reformed persuasion and non-Calvinist beliefs were, in general, able to co-exist peacefully and even participate in joint projects. However, with the rise of the Young, Reformed and Restless crowd, there has been a rise in tensions between these two groups. When you have Calvinist leaders, such as RC Sproul, claiming that non-Calvinists are "barely Christians" and committed Christians like Roger Olson, who are accused by Calvinists of "not being a Christian," something has definitely gone wrong. 

If Calvinists believe that non-Calvinists are suspect, then we have a divide that cannot be overcome. However, I believe that most Calvinists would deny such thoughts. What we are then left with is poor communication and mistaken assertions about one another.

Here are some thoughts to consider.

Please stop saying that non-Calvinists believe in works oriented or human effected salvation. They don't.

Recently, Russell Moore, a Calvinist, wrote a post Why Calvinist and Arminians and Those In-Between Can Unite For Religious Liberty. In it, he admitted to the Calvinist penchant for caricaturing non-Calvinists and clears up the record.

Many of our early Baptist forebears were thoroughgoing Arminians, defining the freedom of the human will in libertarian terms. These include such heroes as Thomas Helwys, who fought against the government’s mistaken belief that it could overrule the conscience.

Sometimes people caricature Arminians, and those who share some convictions with them. The Arminian tradition doesn’t believe that the human will is naturally free in this fallen era. They believe that God graciously empowers human beings with the freedom to choose. In fact, much of what some Christians call “Arminianism” is instead the sort of manipulative, emotional revivalism they’ve seen or heard about somewhere. Arminians are, above all people, opposed to manipulation.

They believe, after all, that the human will must make a free decision to follow Jesus or to walk away. That means a clear presentation of what the gospel entails, with all the “cost-counting” that Jesus tells us about. This must be a personal, free decision, and can’t be outsourced to or vetoed by some emperor or bishop or bureaucrat.

It is important to empathize with those who believe the doctrine of election is painful.

There are many, myself included, who believe that the doctrine of election means that God creates people who He knows are doomed to an eternity in hell.  These people are doomed because He will not elect them to salvation. This is very difficult to understand. 

I know that Calvinists believe that God did not have to save anyone. So, it is amazing to them that He deigned to save a few. But for the rest of us, it appears that God sends some people to hell, not due to their choice to reject Him, but due to His choice to reject them. That is painful and needs to be acknowledged by Calvinists. 

To us non-Calvinists, if some people are  foreordained to be unregenerate, then the Gospel cannot be freely offered to them. They won't be able to understand it. Is there another way to say this that might make more sense?

Russell Moore in the same article says:

Well, like the Arminians, Calvinists are easy to caricature. Some assume they believe the will is like a computer program operated by God, or that the gospel isn’t freely offered to all people. Evangelical Calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel to all people, just as they believe in the universal command of the law of God. They believe that, left to ourselves, we will all run away from the law and we will all run away from the gospel. We see the light of Christ, and we hide because, in our sin, we don’t want to meet our God.

Suppose there are two people who are deaf. The Gospel is being preached over a loudspeaker system and there is no way to show it to them. The local hospital has enough cochlear implants for everyone but chooses to give it to only one person. That person is now able to hear what is being said. The other is still deaf. Can we really say that the audio Gospel was freely accessed by both?

It is very hard for non-Calvinists to understand why God would rejoice and find glory in the eternal torture of people who had no chance to accept the Gospel freely. If this is not what you mean, say it better.

I know that many of you reject Rachel Held Evans. It is important to understand that she says things in her posts that resonate with others. I wish more theologians would calmly answer her questions instead of fussing at her lack of theological knowledge or questioning her motives. If you kindly address her concerns, you will reach many who agree with her. Here she says what many think.

 If Calvinism is true, it means that if that dying little girl that you held in your arms in India was not among the elect, then God did not love her. He never had any intention of loving her. She was nothing to Him. In fact, he would delight and find glory in her eternal torture in hell.”

There are Calvinist who say that infants and the mentally handicapped may not go to heaven. They must be repudiated regularly.

Apparently, there are some Neo-Calvinist leaders who believe that some infants will go to hell. We discussed this is a post recently. We do know that Al Mohler and John Piper believe that infants who die go to heaven. One of the saddest comments we have received at TWW was written by a man who said that he had adopted 5 seriously mentally handicapped children. He said he was quite comfortable in saying that he did not know if they would go to heaven. I am sure that he believed he was showing absolute trust in God. He did not perceive that he came across as a cold fish.

Some of the Calvinist leaders say things that most people find bizarre and do not help your case.

Do you really think that God is against muscular women? Do most women find Piper's comments on enduring abuse for a night comforting? Why do leaders from within the movement go strangely silent when Piper, or other Calvinist leaders, say such things. Statements like this will not resonate with anyone outside the narrowest confines of the YRR movement, except in a negative way. 

Most people do not find comfort in the belief that God causes catastrophes to happen. To think they do shows a low emotional quotient.

Leader after leader seem to believe that they have been given insight into the mind of God. The Huffington Post here focused in on John Piper's regular forays into this area. If Piper keeps this up, he will become the Neo-Calvinist's Pat Robertson. There is a better way as expressed by Rick Warren.

Megachurch pastor Rick Warren tweeted a few days after the tornado, “In deep pain, people don’t need logic, advice, encouragement, or even Scripture. They just need you to show up and shut up.#Love.”

Be careful in your terminology. You can easily present a God who ordains particular pain and suffering. Do not try to convince someone that their childhood rape by their father was ordained by a loving God. It does not sell, no matter how much you believe it. 

Please read Julie Anne Smith's Why Does Calvin’s God Feel Abusive to Me? I Didn’t Choose This! If this does not give you pause, then you need to do a heart check.

Understand that God's love is often the gateway by which many enter the kingdom.

When I became convinced that the Creator God of the universe loved me and cared about me, I became a believer. Then, in a short period of time, I became aware of my sin nature and understood that Christ forgave my sins. Had I been told that God's love is best exemplified by Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of  an Angry God" link, I would have most likely gone running away from Him. 

Do not assume that non-Calvinists have not studied Reformed theology.

Many, including myself, have studied a great deal and still cannot accept Calvinism. It is hubris to say "If you only read Sproul, you will get it." I have and I still don't get it.

There are evangelical and traditional scholars that are on par with Calvinist scholars.

There is a reason why all Christians have not become Calvinists. 

Gotcha verses will not prove your point.

This just shows you took an apologetics course on how to defend Calvinism. Also, if it were that easy, we would all be Reformed by now, right?

Accept that each side thinks the other side is illogical.

Need I say more?

Stop with describing your Calvinist church as: having a great preacher, being strong on discipline, strictly complementarian and having true authority.

I meet many Reformed people who actually describe their churches just like this. It makes me want to run as far away from that church as possible. There is nothing mentioned about love. And Jesus didn't even make it into the top four descriptors. 

But I Do Admire Calvinists.

There is a reason that I tried to force myself to believe in your system of theology. Many of you know your doctrine, cold. You can quote Bible verses, catechisms, creeds, councils and theologians. I respect that greatly. It pains me to say this but I have found Calvinists far more versed in the particulars of their doctrine than many people in the churches that I have attended. I love to debate Calvinists because you make me think, and think hard.

In some respects, the conflicts between our systems is good. Iron does sharpen iron. As I have conversed with you in the past years, I have been forced to define my thinking more carefully. For that I am grateful.

Lydia's CornerEzra 4:24-6:22 1 Corinthians 3:5-23 Psalm 29:1-11 Proverbs 20:26-27

Comments

To Calvinists: Stress God’s Love Before You Get Into Doctrine — 439 Comments

  1. A sad opening story. I suspect this is mostly only true in baptist/independent churches – church traditions with a long history and established creeds tend to be pretty stable, and you know what you are getting into.

  2. Her church was not Reformed and the majority of the members were not as well. However, the elder board became dominated by Calvinists who determined that Reformed theology would become the become the established doctrine of the church. They did not tell the congregation.

    This is called a Stealth Takeover.
    Or a Coup from Within.

    And Calvinists wonder why they’re not trusted?

  3. Stress God’s Love Before You Get Into Doctrine

    Otherwise there is no difference between you and the Communists with their Purity of Ideology. Ask any survivor of Cambodia’s Killing Fields how far Purity of Ideology/Doctrine can go/has gone.

  4. Dee, I think your statement about love is really better put as this: that it is the *only* way.

    While experiencing intense personal crises shortly before what I will (for convenience) call my conversion, I had to read Edwards’ “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” for English class (early american lit). Due to what I was going though at the time, I had to distance myself from the content of the sermon, deciding that while it was what Edwards believed about God, it was not necessarily the truth. (And that partly because some kind people were telling me at that time that God loved me.)

    Had I not encountered those kind people, there’s no telling what might have happened, and I am thankful that I will never know.

  5. New here. Not trying to be a contrarian, but I’m not understanding Rachel Held Evans’ comments about the child in India. Is she comforted that “God loves every lonely, dying child dying queitly in the night” …and does nothing for them? He couldn’t sustain Ankita for a few days longer until she or someone could bring her help. “Love” just seems to be a comfort word for Rachel, not a reality. How does an Arminian perspective solve the problem of that little girl’s suffering? Is it that God is really bumbling and helpless, but trying the best he can? It’s an honest question. I don’t see how that conclusion satisfies.

  6. Paraphrasing theologian Greg Boyd: God holds man morally responsible for doing what He ordained them to do. It doesn’t make sense! I’ve listened to RC Sproul for years and I can follow his reasoning until ). As you have said, not one of us deserves heaven, therefore the issue is not that God has shown favoritism but that He shows any favor at all. But that doesn’t belie the fact that He created creatures in His own image for the express purpose of tormenting them forever. He could have simply not created them.

    I cannot reconcile this God with Christ, in whom the fullness of God dwells bodily. So much of TULIP seems to pit the Father against the Son.

  7. Oopsie. I can follow Sproul’s arguments until I try to articulate them myself. Then I realize it was the delivery that was compelling, not the argument. Or maybe I’m just really dense.

  8. I think of Calvinism as emphasizing the Sovereignty of God in ALL things.

    ie: God never says “Oops, that one got away from me.”

  9. Secondly, there is so much I don’t understand about powers and principalities.

    I believe that God is NEVER unjust. Can I explain all pain and suffering? No, I can’t. But humbly I say.

    “THERE IS A GOD; I AM NOT HE.”

  10. Thirdly, if God is less then sovereign in salvation, then every stupid word I’ve ever said or posted, may have sent someone on their way to hell. I could never live with that. If it were true, I would never speak again.
    But if God is sovereign, then all will stand before Him without excuse. They won’t be able to lay their rejection of Jesus on me. “I didn’t chose you Lord because of something Seneca wrote in a comment.”

    (I actually have great compassion for people who have suffered thru trials and tribulations not of their own making. “Why did you allow that God?” I have cried out.
    But I find myself lacking compassion for those who are complaining, 20 years later, about how their church mistreated them.

  11. Sadly in so many churches today little love is preached or shown by the church leaders and members of the church. It is why IMO so many people are avoiding or leaving churches.

    What is a church without Love?

  12. Great post Dee! I especially appreciated your real life illustration of how a church was taken over by a handful of Calvinists who maneuvered themselves into leadership positions. How sad that they didn't make their theological positions clear to the congregation. How many more times will this play out in churches?

  13. mot wrote:

    What is a church without Love?

    To pick up the baton here: of course there is literally no such thing as a church without love. An organised group, local or otherwise, without love can never in any sense be an authentic expression of the church.

    I don’t for a minute believe that only self-identifying calvinists are capable of falling for the doctrine-then-love delusion. I.e., that first you have to learn the correct doctrine, then love comes as an add-on.

    But it may be that Calvin, as one of the first westerners outside of Rome to attempt to provide a collected set of answers to all possible questions, is an appealing figurehead for people who want to give their personal ambitions and desires the kudos of religious authority. A jam-jar attracts wasps. It also attracts me, since I use jam in many recipes both sweet and savoury. That doesn’t mean I’m a wasp, though, and I don’t hold every act of callousness committed in Calvin’s name against any given calvinist.

  14. I meet people everyday that need to be shown unconditional love before they would ever consider hearing my thoughts on Jesus.

  15. @ Deb:
    Likewise: in the example at the start of the article, it bothers me less that an act of calvinism was committed than that an act of deception was perpetrated by the elders. It is not credible that Dee’s friend’s question was not answered due to “lack of time”.

    Ergo, corporate authority in the congregation had already been taken hold of by wolves who were set on using it for their own agendas. The group had ceased to be a healthy place for followers of Jesus to gather, and would have done so whether the elders had conspired to smuggle in a Neo-Calvinist, an Emergent or Rob Bell.

  16. You bring up a lot of good questions and good points here. I ended up embracing Christian Universalism after struggling through these questions and problems. This article by Richard Beck explains why all three belief systems are actually on equally shaky ground.

    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

  17. @ Nicholas: I have been looking for some information along this line. I do not condone any sort of stealth takeover of an church or denomination. For the Calvinists who do this, they prove that they do not trust in a God who is sovereign.

    i want very much to write on this topic and devote one or two post to it. I am trying to gather as much info on how leaders teach others to be deceptive.

  18. numo wrote:

    Had I not encountered those kind people, there’s no telling what might have happened, and I am thankful that I will never know.

    You and me both.

  19. Wayne W. wrote:

    How does an Arminian perspective solve the problem of that little girl’s suffering? Is it that God is really bumbling and helpless, but trying the best he can? It’s an honest question.

    It is fine for your to be a contrarian. Your question illuminates an essential difference between Calvinist and nonCalvinist. One point that both Horton and Olson make is to carefully represent the opposing viewpoint. Non-Calvinists have a high view of God and do not view Him as a bumbler or helpless.

    They take the position that the Fall, man initiated, has caused pain and suffering in this world. Because of this Fall, God has allowed us to experience the consequences of our sin. Think of the Prodigal Son. The Father could have swooped on in and rescued his son from his foolishness. Instead, he allowed him to experience the pain that eventually brought him back home.

    As a non-Calvinist, I find this narrative compelling. It gives me answers to what I see around me. Why are there serial killers? Why do children like my daughter get cancer? Why are there wars? We have messed it up yet God is still here, promising us that one day it will be better, pointing always to His Son and our ultimate healing which is found in the forgiveness of Christ.

    God is still in control. I believe that He has established boundaries that we cannot cross. For example, I do not believe that He will allow us to destroy this earth via nuclear weapons since the earth will end in His good time and purpose.

    I believe that God is bigger than we give Him credit for. I believe that man can have the freedom to make 10 gazillion decisions and all of them fall with the borders of His will. Such a system allows for both free will and God’s plans and purposes.

  20. Janet wrote:

    God holds man morally responsible for doing what He ordained them to do. It doesn’t make sense!

    I am so glad that you said this. It does not make sense to me, either and it does not make sense to many others. Our Calvinist friends, on the other hand, are able to transcend this in a way that makes sense to them. I accept this. I just cannot wrap my head around it and believe me, I have tried. This is one of those dividing lines between the two doctrinal systems.

  21. Seneca wrote:

    But I find myself lacking compassion for those who are complaining, 20 years later, about how their church mistreated them.

    We all understand where you stand on this particular point. You have made yourself saliently clear in other threads. Please tread carefully.

  22. dee wrote:

    @ Nicholas: I have been looking for some information along this line. I do not condone any sort of stealth takeover of an church or denomination. For the Calvinists who do this, they prove that they do not trust in a God who is sovereign.
    i want very much to write on this topic and devote one or two post to it. I am trying to gather as much info on how leaders teach others to be deceptive.

    I look forward to these posts. Having recently been run out of a church taken over (deceptively) by neo Cals, I too have wondered how such deceitfulness honors the character of God.

  23. mot wrote:

    What is a church without Love?

    Olson discusses this in his book but i need to read more before I comment beyond the statement that he thinks Calvinists have to twist themselves into pretzels to get there.

    From my view, it appears that love is being redefined as “church discipline.” If I love you, I will decide when and how I will discipline you. But, sometimes, it seems as if this love is only about discipline and doctrine. This is a common observation by those outside Calvinism.

    Once again, I believe that the majority of Calvinists believe that they are loving. I just see it a bit differently.

  24. Kathy wrote:

    This article by Richard Beck explains why all three belief systems are actually on equally shaky ground.
    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

    Good article. This morning Richard is thinking “equally controversial ground” might be better. Also his commenter Andrew succinctly describes the 3 systems as ones which:
    – express power
    – offer choice
    – include others
    Leading to churches which define:
    – faith as conformation (holiness)
    – faith as qualification (membership)
    – faith as process (works of mercy).

  25. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … and would have done so whether the elders had conspired to smuggle in a Neo-Calvinist, an Emergent or Rob Bell.

    Smiling as I imagine Rob Bell hiding inside a trunk as the elders cart him into a Scottish church-building by night!

  26. Again, to me the difference is in two definitions of sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean that what you chose happens, it is the ability to make decisions about consequences. So in the U.S., the Congress has sovereignty to make laws, the President and his appointees have the sovereignty to enforce laws, and the courts the sovereignty to decide whether the laws have been broken and to impose penalties, and in civil cases, award reparations. But none have the sovereignty to make choices on behalf of the members of the public to follow or not follow the law.

    To me, the sovereignty of God is like the sovereignty of all three branches of government. But we retain the freedom to choose whether to follow God’s laws or not. The most important commands came from Jesus, which I paraphrase as: Love the Lord God with all of your being and love everyone you encounter as you love yourself. So in everyday activities we make choices that have consequences, and, while some of those consequences are the natural result of our choice (due to the laws of nature that God, in his sovereignty, put in place to begin with) and some are under God’s sovereignly created law, and thus, under his sovereign power to decide. One of those laws is that we are to believe in, love and follow Jesus, and choosing not to do so carries the ultimate penalty.

    All of this is why I do not believe that young children and those who are mentally incapable of making the choice to follow Jesus, are doomed. They do not have the ability to make the choice to love and follow Jesus. As in our legal system, they are not held responsible for what they cannot do.

  27. Deb wrote:

    Great post Dee! I especially appreciated your real life illustration of how a church was taken over by a handful of Calvinists who maneuvered themselves into leadership positions. How sad that they didn’t make their theological positions clear to the congregation. How many more times will this play out in churches?

    How maddening they didn’t do the hard work of starting their own church. They do not have enough faith in God to present the congregation with their positions. Nor do they have any conscience of appropriating the tithes/savings of the church who most assuredly opposed Calvinism. These tactics are abhorrent ….hostile takeovers just as in the business world.
    I think these takeovers will continue until non Calvinists perceive they are being targeted by the neo Cals. Too many churches are ignorant of this happening. They are on guard for heresy, cults, emergent church, universalism, etc. but blind to the operatives of the neo Cals.

  28. Lin wrote:

    They are on guard for heresy, cults, emergent church, universalism, etc. but blind to the operatives of the neo Cals.

    I’ve used this analogy before, but this particular phenomenon reminds me of the way certain bacteria or viruses trick the immune system. The immune system (if trained bio-science practitioners will forgive my crude simplifications here) recognises, latches onto and destroys specific types of protein molecule. The variola virus, which causes smallpox, both disguises itself with human protein and floods the bloodstream with decoy receptors that distract and effectively, block the inflammatory response.

    Neo-cals such as Park Fiscal do something similar. They repeatedly, persistently and at times aggressively claim the authority of the Bible (and you can’t argue with the Biblescriptures), whilst also giving warning of the dangers of women in leadership, rebellious sinful questioners in churches, and inaccurate doctrine; so that churches’ defences are distracted by these things and the real danger, which is loveless counterfeit Christianity, goes unheeded.

  29. @Arce WELL SAID! I appreciate your analogy in this matter.

    I’m new here and have no intentions to quarrel. I have had incredible professors and visited wonderful churches led by Calvinists. Though, I find myself in an area “in between,” as quoted in the post.

    Dee, I very much appreciate this post, and do believe that I find your opening story loathsome. It breaks my heart that as a church body need to be ready to stand against our own brothers and sisters who wish to impose doctrine upon us that we may not agree to.

    Thank you for sharing!

  30. I agree, Arce! Nicely said; especially your comparison of the the sovereignty of God to the three branches of government as they relate to our choices and consequences thereof.

  31. dee wrote:

    From my view, it appears that love is being redefined as “church discipline.”

    Absolutely – and to Chuck O’Neal, shunning (he hates that word) is loving – it’s tough love intended to cause those in discipline (us revilers/slanderers/women of mass destruction) to want to repent and come back to the love of the BGBC family.

    Oh yea, baby, I’m feelin’ the love.

  32. dee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ask any survivor of Cambodia’s Killing Fields how far Purity of Ideology/Doctrine can go/has gone.

    Well said.

    You know the real kicker? Pol Pot’s depopulation program wasn’t based on Stalin or Mao. He went back a little farther, to the Jacobins of the French Revolution and Citizen Robespierre’s Republique of Perfect Virtue. (Someone said if they could change history, they would have given Pol Pot a scholarship to an American university instead of a French one.)

    One of the factions of the Jacobins held that the maximum size of The Perfect Society as held forth in Plato’s Republic was 15 million Citizens. France at the time had a population of 25 million. There was actually theoretical speculation among the Jacobins as to how best to reduce the population to that ideal number, as current methods of “mass liquidation” couldn’t be scaled up; including proposals for “mass asphyxiation using gas”.

  33. dee wrote:

    Once again, I believe that the majority of Calvinists believe that they are loving.

    So do a lot of abusive parents.

  34. @ Dave A A:
    FYI. I conflated what Lin and Nick wrote. And of course, Park Fiscal is not opposed to ALL word studies– just those Not carried out by Godly leaders in preparation for Biblical, Expository, Gospelly sermonizing.

  35. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    They are on guard for heresy, cults, emergent church, universalism, etc. but blind to the operatives of the neo Cals.
    I’ve used this analogy before, but this particular phenomenon reminds me of the way certain bacteria or viruses trick the immune system. The immune system (if trained bio-science practitioners will forgive my crude simplifications here) recognises, latches onto and destroys specific types of protein molecule. The variola virus, which causes smallpox, both disguises itself with human protein and floods the bloodstream with decoy receptors that distract and effectively, block the inflammatory response.
    Neo-cals such as Park Fiscal do something similar. They repeatedly, persistently and at times aggressively claim the authority of the Bible (and you can’t argue with the Biblescriptures), whilst also giving warning of the dangers of women in leadership, rebellious sinful questioners in churches, and inaccurate doctrine; so that churches’ defences are distracted by these things and the real danger, which is loveless counterfeit Christianity, goes unheeded.

  36. @ Lin:

    Am a tad familiar with your analogy. I have a blood cancer, a malignancy of the plasma cell.These rogue clones unabashedly reproduce a protein in my body so as to crowd out the good antibodies. As I only had vague feelings of unwellness, I could not clearly articulate specific symptoms to physicians. All the while the proteins kept reproducing, eventually causing such destruction, it became obvious I was a sick woman.
    These rogue cancer cells have no love for me, but they do need my body to multiply. Counterfeit indeed.

  37. @ Lin:
    Lin wrote:

    I have a blood cancer, a malignancy of the plasma cell.

    I am so sorry to hear about this. How are you feeling?

  38. dee wrote:

    @ Lin:
    Lin wrote:

    I have a blood cancer, a malignancy of the plasma cell.

    Am doing okay. Have had it for eight years,(on and off cycles of chemo) but am still in the land of the living…PTL.

    I am so sorry to hear about this. How are you feeling?

  39. Hey, I just signed the statement on sexual abuse in the church referenced at the top of this page. It’s wonderfully crafted. I’m proud to stand with those who defend the weak.

    And Seneca, it’s only been a year and a half for me. I wish I had had your savvy before the mass assault came from the Lord’s anointed. I wonder: are you be standing with me and my son now, or judging us for for trusting poor shepherds?

  40. (Dee)
    I know what you are saying, and have thought that way from time to time about various individuals or various groups. But now I think, OK, so what.. The Pharisees and the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were good at that too. That does not make them correct, and does not make what they say true. The world is full of people who are frequently in error but never in doubt. Their assurance that they are right can be convincing in itself, but that is a game played by every scammer and con man. Assurance that one is right is only an emotional commitment to one’s own feeling of correctness. It has absolutely no relationship to whether one is, in fact, correct.
    And an ability to sling around Bible verses? Good grief, back in the day when I was a child we all could quote Bible verses before we could say the alphabet. The problem with quoting like that is that the quoter really means, not “the Bible says” but rather “the Bible says and what that means is.” There is the hook. The listener, who may not be able to quote II Whazalonians 6:10 is caught off guard, assumes that the one doing the quoting knows more than the listener, and then is sucked right into accepting the “what that means is” part of the power play.
    Recently I watched a lady at Walmart doing a sales pitch for kitchen knives, and she used the exact same format. She looked and sounded knowledgable, earnest and informed. She talked fast and threw out a lot of information. She looked the potential customer in the eye. She tried to get the potential customer to participate in some way–answer the question, step up to her booth, agree with her statement, etc. She made assumptions and asked for agreement to her assumptions (about the need for a good kitchen knife). She offered a free gift to all (a little appetizer knife). Trouble was, the knives were of moderate quality and grossly overpriced. But it was a product, and she did relieve the customers of thinking for themselves and even told them how they should feel about the product. About half the people bought the knife and went away feeling happy, feeling like they too knew the value of what they had just bought, feeling like it was fortunate they had happened onto this knife selling thing. They also went away poorer and without having informed themselves about kitchen knives or knife prices. People have an opportunity to do that same thing with religion.
    What I don’t know is how do you tell people to “don’t buy the kitchen knife.” Lots of folks just want an answer-any answer-and be done with it. And the doctrine pushing people are in the business of giving out answers–right or wrong. But I guess that is easier than helping the man whose house burned down, or the woman whose husband died or the child who has no shoes.

  41. Oops, when I cut and pasted it left out part of the quote. I was talking about this:” There is a reason that I tried to force myself to believe in your system of theology. Many of you know your doctrine, cold. You can quote Bible verses, catechisms, creeds, councils and theologians. I respect that greatly. It pains me to say this but I have found Calvinists far more versed in the particulars of their doctrine than many people in the churches that I have attended. I love to debate Calvinists because you make me think, and think hard.”

  42. Dee, this is a great post. As regular readers here know calvinism is my bete noir, & the possibility of God being this way reponsible for my current spiritual estrangement from him. I don’t know if I’ll ever pick up the strength to head back towards him…too scary, & yet I pray for restoration to trust & believing God is good.
    I just find it so helpful that people like you understand. Thanks for TWW being a safe place for people like me.

  43. Nancy,

    You said: “…not the bible says, but “the bible says and this is what it means””.

    Wow. Exactly right. For all the claims of biblical inerrancy, we seem to forget, inerrant or not someONE…some HUMAN, has to interpret it. So the question is not “is the bible inerrant?”, but “whose interpretation is inerrant?”.

    An this is the problem. If we concede that truth is not ultimately rooted in individual human context based on a moral value of the human SELF as the objective plumb line for truth and love, then we are forced to trust that God has somehow given some person a “divine” insight you can’t have. And this is why so many Calvinists are comfortable with contradictions in their assumptions. The realize that the only proof of truth they have is merely to agree with whomever they have decided speaks “for God”.

  44. Where Moore says,

    Evangelical Calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel to all people, just as they believe in the universal command of the law of God. They believe that, left to ourselves, we will all run away from the law and we will all run away from the gospel. [emphasis added]

    But the Bible says,

    Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Romans 2:14)

    Regarding this:

    Most people do not find comfort in the belief that God causes catastrophes to happen.

    I actually think I understand (kind of) this outlook by Calvinists (not that I totally believe this way myself).

    Perhaps it makes them think their suffering had a purpose and had meaning (if God orchestrated it).

    Secondly, I think they take comfort in the idea of God being behind every little thing in life because random, horrible things (cancer, auto accidents, people shooting up people in public places) can be scary.

    The thing about this though, is that even if you are a Calvinist, or a righteous believer, who believes in all that stuff, God will not always protect you from calamity and tragedy – look at Job and Joseph.

    Tragedy can still strike anyone at any time, Christian or not, and at that, what appears to be random and unpredictable.

    This:

    Accept that each side thinks the other side is illogical.

    Actually, I’ve often felt the opposite, that a lot of Calvinists are ‘too’ logical, or give logic and education far too much weight.

    Not with all of them, but with most I’ve run into online over a decade, logic, study, and intellectual hubris colors everything else.

    There doesn’t appear to be much room in their theology for love, compassion, and the unknown. Life and pain don’t always have neat little answers, theological or otherwise.

  45. @ Kathy:

    Kathy, thank you for Beck’s link. Finally an academic who can simplify and condense a good deal of abstruse esoterica so that it’s accessible to a lay readership.

  46. This is really good stuff! I wanted to clarify that there are not just 2 positions on predestination, but at least a third- that there is a paradox whereupon God predestines the saved for election, but does not create anyone with the intention that they be damned for all eternity. How God is sovereign,saves by grace alone, does not will that any man would perish, and yet some do perish….I would rather believe that some things don’t add up in my head than believe, as I once tried to, that God designs some people with a built in admission ticket to hell that cannot be shredded and forgotten. However, I do think that one can believe in election according to Calvin and NOT be a heartless person who doesn’t get the love of God- though honestly, it SO often comes off that way.

    G.K. Chesterton had a great quote that (paraphrased) says the the idea that our thoughts have any relation to reality require an act of faith. I believe that, and I believe in a God who loves and who desires that no man would be lost. I believe very much in reason and study, but perhaps the worst part of Calvinism for me was the need to systematically explain everything- sometimes by sacrificing the much needed messages of love and mercy. To me, election is an issue that cannot be neatly buttoned up. (Btw, our church (Lutheran) teaches “Single predestination”, that I have attempted to explain (feebly) above.) And we certainly don’t believe in salvation by works! I wish that there could be less of the “We are Calvinists, and everyone else is questionable” mentality here!

  47. dee wrote:

    They take the position that the Fall, man initiated, has caused pain and suffering in this world. Because of this Fall, God has allowed us to experience the consequences of our sin. Think of the Prodigal Son. The Father could have swooped on in and rescued his son from his foolishness. Instead, he allowed him to experience the pain that eventually brought him back home.
    As a non-Calvinist, I find this narrative compelling. It gives me answers to what I see around me. Why are there serial killers? Why do children like my daughter get cancer? Why are there wars? We have messed it up yet God is still here, promising us that one day it will be better, pointing always to His Son and our ultimate healing which is found in the forgiveness of Christ.

    Thank you for the response, Dee. I find your narrative compelling as well. I think the vast majority of Calvinists could say the same thing, and most would agree with you. I feel comfortable with how you express this, though I would put myself on the Calvinist side of the argument generally (Yes, some 5 Pointers would say I’m not a Calvinist at all, but I would put myself in their camp.)

    I’m sure you’ve addressed the matter thoroughly, but I think on issues like this particular one, you are not far apart from most Calvinists, certainly not those who won’t push past what Scripture explicitly says.

  48. “Apparently, there are some Neo-Calvinist leaders who believe that some infants will go to hell. We discussed this is a post recently. We do know that Al Mohler and John Piper believe that infants who die go to heaven.”
    When exactly did the ‘neo’ in neo calvinism start. None of the Calvinista neo sounds new to me. I had a real compassionate loving pastor at least as far as his demeaner was, but his beliefs still said bad God to me.
    I was taught that in my Christian Reformed Church growing up. I remember thinking back when I was young that I just never could be happy in heaven because I would just think about all the babies in hell, how could I be happy? When I expressed my concern, I was told that when I get to heaven I won’t think about stuff like that..so confusing, sounded so selfish.

  49. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Park Fiscal

    Yes – but he is a master at many things you find in sociopaths:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html

    #1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following
    #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought.
    #4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.
    (“I see things”)
    #5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. (“I cannot worship a guy I can beat up”)
    #6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.

    And – according to this ( http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/blogs/work-in-progress/inside-the-mind-of-a-workplace-sociopath-20130808-2rkz8.html ) – the 10 favoured professions for sociopaths include “clergyman”.

  50. Muff Potter wrote:

    Finally an academic who can simplify and condense a good deal of abstruse esoterica so that it’s accessible to a lay readership.

    Did you see he even has a couple e-books there based on comic strips? I started reading one already. So now, when Reformed elders ask me what I’m reading, and I don’t wish to say “discernment blogs”, I can truthfully say “THE THEOLOGT OF CALVIN……. And Hobbes”.

  51. Dave A A wrote:

    So now, when Reformed elders ask me what I’m reading, and I don’t wish to say “discernment blogs”, I can truthfully say “THE THEOLOGT OF CALVIN……. And Hobbes”.

    You really want to have some fun with your reformed elders? Tell them you’re reading Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” or Rob Bell’s “Love Wins.” That’s what I replied to an elder’s wife in my church, and I will confess it was kind of fun to watch her eyes bug out.

  52. Aww yes, Love Wins, I have it on my Kindle. We can learn a lot from it. At least if I as a semi Arminian can still use stuff from my Calvinist friends, I certainly can learn from Love Wins, it would do any Christian some good no matter where you stand on hell.

  53. @ Wayne W.:
    All this pain and heartache is just another reason that I reason that humans have way more free choice in everything than what John Calvin theorized. God has ‘allowed’ us to experience everything. BUT… God, in Jesus Christ also used his free will and CHOSE to experience what we experience. I believe that Jesus experienced more abuse than is recorded. How do we know what his childhood was really like. I’ve shared this before here but I will say it again, I couldn’t trust Jesus Christ until I really believed that he understood. Because he chose to be born with a male body there was no way he could understand me, so I believed that part of the Bible to be a lie that he understood. But then when I came to learn about
    how whitewashed his crucifixion has been and maybe, who knows, his childhood could have been worse than we ever let my minds think about Jesus also. IDK, but I know that he knows, and He proved that no matter how horrific, it is only temporary. I just can’t believe that it is only temporary for a few lucky folk.

  54. First of all, I think Piper doesn’t like muscular women because, if one of them has been abused by her husband, rather than endure abuse for a night, she will beat the crap out of him, and that would be forsaking her femininity.

    The question behind a lot of the questions we are discussing is “How can an all-knowing and all-powerful God be good despite the presence of evil in the world?” The fancy word for this is “theodicy,” and it’s been debated for centuries. Probably the most comforting answer to this is Universalism – the belief that, eventually, all will be saved, though they have suffered in this life. Of course, that includes the people who have *caused* the suffering – I think some believe that those will undergo some type of punishment before joining everyone else in heaven. I’m pretty sure this is a minority view among the commenters to this blog.

    Let’s say that God is all-knowing (omniscient). Before he creates the world and humans, he knows that the first two will sin of their own volition, and the result of that sin is that sin will spread to all of those yet to be born, and that they will want to sin also. God cannot abide sin, and His punishment for it is hell, but He will give people a chance to escape this destiny – by believing in His Son. (Let’s assume that he will save all infants, the mentally handicapped, those who have never heard of Jesus, etc.) Everyone has the capacity to exercise this belief, but many will not do so. Maybe the ones who do not believe will outnumber the ones who do – but, in any case, there will be a multitude who do not. In contrast to those who believe, who will spend eternity with God, those who do not believe will suffer eternally.

    Assuming that these are facts, was God good in creating a situation that He knew would result in the eternal suffering of an enormous number of people? Would it not have been more loving of God to have not created the human race?

  55. Hi Dee,

    Could you please point me to your sources that certain Calvinist leaders have claimed Arminians as “barely Christians” or worse yet “not being a Christian”?

    For those of you who are interested, I recently listened to a YouTube clip with Roger Olsen and Michael Horton debating Calvinsim. To me it demonstrates how Christians of different theological persuasions should seek to hear the other side and be able to state accurately what the other person believes. They in fact agreed on a number of points (ones that I would consider to be essential) while disagreeing on others (non-essentials in my book).

    Dee, while you made a couple gracious remarks about your Calvinist brothers and sisters, I feel like you mostly caricatured Calvinist teaching I have read or listened to in a way that most Calvinist’s wouldn’t recognize.

    By the way, this is not to say that Calvinists do not caricature the other side in an ungracious way too.

    Blessings!

  56. Thank you so very much, Dee, for covering these last 2 posts. The concept of God abandoning someone whether it be because they are not “elect” or by God allowing abuse to occur is one of the most dangerous things for an abuse survivor to make sense of. It’s one thing to think of a parent abandoning a child by neglect or abuse, but to have the idea of the Wonderful Creator doing the same is incomprehensible and the most painful thought ever. The seriousness of this cannot be minimized. If someone is “stuck” in this thought pattern, please, please feel free to contact me. I get this. I’ve been there. If my experience and struggles can help even one person – then praise God for that. You don’t need to carry this load by yourself. spirituasb @ gmail dot com

  57. A Relevant Wasteland : “Watz Dat Smell?”

    hmmm…

    “The New Calvinism is a growing perspective within conservative Evangelicalism that embraces the fundamentals of 16th century Calvinism while maintaining relevance to the present day. In March 2009, TIME magazine ranked it as one of the “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.”

    *

    Some of the major figures in this area are John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris.[4]”  *** WikiP

    Ahem!

    What?!? (U gotz ta be kidding?)

    Skreeeeeeetch!

    I rest my case…

    “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil…?”

    (grin)

    What about da nose?

    hahahahahaha

    (Whata joke.)

    Whatz dat ostentatiously odiferous smell?

    P Uuuuuuuuuuuuuu

    Crash!

    “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called ‘benefactors’. But YOU are NOT to be so; he that is the greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that  SERVES. ”  ~Jesus

    Rememba, Jesus said : “I am among you as he that serves…” 

    huh?

    Hey, New Calvinists!!!, Leave those church folks alone!

    N’ Quit chas’in kind church folk…Say’in: “Ya hafta listen ta maaaaa A-u-t-h-o-r-i-t-y!!!

    …might wanna put away da big bad religious stick as well, huh?

    (sadface)

    …exchange your ‘Humility’ and your ‘Orthodoxy’ for an apron?

    Wonders never cease?

    Ho hum…

    We’ll leave a ‘light’ on fer ya…

    Sopy
    ____
    Ref:
    ***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Calvinism

  58. @ gus:

    Quite true; and ravenous wolves are perfectly good at generating statistics to prove that they’re producing “good fruit”. Like all the people who’ve “come to know Jesus” or all the “transformed lives” under their ministry, when actually they’ve just been sucked into a pyramid-selling scheme or have changed certain habits from non-church-attending to church-attending. Or just moved from one congregation to another.

    A truly transformed life is a person full of hate now being full of love; a person who was timid and unassertive now having love, power and a sound mind; one could go on. But most people reading Fiscal don’t get to walk around Mars Hill and look at real-life before/after case histories. (Besides, if they really had come to know Jesus and their lives really had been transformed, why would the church need such detailed and highly-maintained structures to enforce conformity and discipline?)

  59. Julie Anne wrote:

    Thank you so very much, Dee, for covering these last 2 posts. The concept of God abandoning someone whether it be because they are not “elect” or by God allowing abuse to occur is one of the most dangerous things for an abuse survivor to make sense of. It’s one thing to think of a parent abandoning a child by neglect or abuse, but to have the idea of the Wonderful Creator doing the same is incomprehensible and the most painful thought ever. The seriousness of this cannot be minimized. If someone is “stuck” in this thought pattern, please, please feel free to contact me. I get this. I’ve been there. If my experience and struggles can help even one person – then praise God for that. You don’t need to carry this load by yourself. spirituasb @ gmail dot com

    Hey Julie Anne,
    I don’t think this affects only those who’ve been either physically or spiritually abused, neither of which has happened to me. But for lots of people like me the idea that God doesn’t love everyone really undermines confidence that God would love me…I’m not even remotely of the mindset that I am so utterly loveable that of course he would.
    I also worry that if God is electing people speciafically to stuff then I may be elected to something very much less than salvation, & I’m sure I’m not the only one. Having heard & responded to the gospel goes against that; having such issues with these subjects & having no deep conviction of love or security goes for it. I just find it unutterably sad that someone could be born into this tough world, unloved by God(salvifically speaking, steady on calvinist friends…) & destined only for separation from the source of life.

    I’m feeling the urge to hide under my bed again…

  60. Dave A A wrote:

    just those Not carried out by Godly leaders in preparation for Biblical, Expository, Gospelly sermonizing.

    You have a way with words!

  61. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Pol Pot’s depopulation program wasn’t based on Stalin or Mao. He went back a little farther, to the Jacobins of the French Revolution and Citizen Robespierre’s Republique of Perfect Virtue. (Someone said if they could change history, they would have given Pol Pot a scholarship to an American university instead of a French one.)

    I always learn something that I did not know from you, HUG. Thanks.

  62. Arce wrote:

    All of this is why I do not believe that young children and those who are mentally incapable of making the choice to follow Jesus, are doomed. They do not have the ability to make the choice to love and follow Jesus. As in our legal system, they are not held responsible for what they cannot do.

    I am doing some reading and plan to devote a post to this issue next week. It is an important issue because it causes me to think about our sin nature versus actual transgression versus means of salvation.

  63. Nancy wrote:

    rather “the Bible says and what that means is.” There is the hook. The listener, who may not be able to quote II Whazalonians 6:10 is caught off guard, assumes that the one doing the quoting knows more than the listener, and then is sucked right into accepting the “what that means is” part of the power play.

    I have never thought about it in this way. That is an excellent observation. I am now quickly checking my Bible to read II Whazalonians so I won’t sound dumb! 🙂

  64. Beakerj wrote:

    I don’t know if I’ll ever pick up the strength to head back towards him…too scary, & yet I pray for restoration to trust & believing God is good.

    You will, one day. Give it time. One day, you may look at the ocean and see God in the beauty and it will gently lead you back to the loving God that is still there in spite of those who delight in presenting a God of wrath.

  65. Daisy wrote:

    I actually think I understand (kind of) this outlook by Calvinists (not that I totally believe this way myself).
    Perhaps it makes them think their suffering had a purpose and had meaning (if God orchestrated it).

    Good comment. I do believe that these folks find peace and comfort in this understanding. The problem develops when they do not understand why others do not.

  66. Laura Smith wrote:

    would rather believe that some things don’t add up in my head than believe, as I once tried to, that God designs some people with a built in admission ticket to hell that cannot be shredded and forgotten. However, I do think that one can believe in election according to Calvin and NOT be a heartless person who doesn’t get the love of God- though honestly, it SO often comes off that way.

    I, too, believe that there are many Calvinists who are loving and kind. IMO the problem they deal with is the lack of empathy for those who do not get it. They could get a lot of mileage of stating things the way that you have.

  67. Julie Anne wrote:

    Thank you so very much, Dee, for covering these last 2 posts. The concept of God abandoning someone whether it be because they are not “elect” or by God allowing abuse to occur is one of the most dangerous things for an abuse survivor to make sense of. It’s one thing to think of a parent abandoning a child by neglect or abuse, but to have the idea of the Wonderful Creator doing the same is incomprehensible and the most painful thought ever. The seriousness of this cannot be minimized. If someone is “stuck” in this thought pattern, please, please feel free to contact me. I get this. I’ve been there. If my experience and struggles can help even one person – then praise God for that. You don’t need to carry this load by yourself. spirituasb @ gmail dot com

    What an excellent comment, Julie Anne! I am keeping you in my prayers.

  68. “Assuming that these are facts, was God good in creating a situation that He knew would result in the eternal suffering of an enormous number of people? Would it not have been more loving of God to have not created the human race?”

    In a way, some women face this same question on a much smaller level when deciding on becoming pregnant knowing there is a genetic factor that will render the child handicapped or worse. At a certain age doctors recommend amnio. I declined it. It did not matter to me. For those who know there will be a genetic problem, it can be a grueling decision whether to have more children or not. I know it is not a perfect example but LOVE is so powerful, so real, many choose to go ahead.

    God created us to have a choice. To choose obedience or not. I won’t argue whether He knew it or not because it does not matter in my construct. I have my opinion about it but it is not worth declaring. That is above my paygrade. He created us and I won’t judge Him for it. It is what He did after creation that I tend to focus on. And I do not see determinism or dualism there. One reason is that determinism means He made them to disobey. There never was any real choice. And I do not like what that ulitmately declares about God.

    The problem I see is that your focus is soley on what “God was thinking” and what God “had to know”.

    Whether Adam/Eve chose to disobey or not, God’s creating us was an act of Love. To have relationship with Him. I cannot count Him as cruel for creating us even if He knew we would choose wrongly. God STILL seeks a love relationship with humans on His end even after they chose wrongly and ushered in evil. Again, God gives us choice in overcoming it. With Jesus Christ, He conquered evil for us and we can choose to fight evil here and now, be the kingdom here and now, salt and light or believe that God has decreed it all to happen just as it did so there is really nothing we can do. It has all been predetermined. Some find that comforting. I find it a culture of death and totally taking any responsiblity away from humans.

    So to even speculate that it would have been more loving for God not to have created the human race brings me to mind all the many moments of pure love in my life along side the evil. A new born baby’s soft head to kiss. A dying mother who spoke of Jesus and His pure radiant sunshine before she left us. The list on both sides of pure love and pure evil is long.

    I won’t embrace the evil as being from God or decreed by God as Calvin does. As Edwards does and so on.

    Yes, the question of evil is ages old. And the answer is so simple it boggles the mind. Evil comes from being given choice by a Great God who wants us to choose Him. Whether it was angels or humans. Choose this day whom you will serve.

    “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” Dt 30:19

    He is constantly giving us choices. He is constantly seeking relationship with us. He is not forcing it or decreeing we love Him.

  69. Wayne W. wrote:

    I’m sure you’ve addressed the matter thoroughly, but I think on issues like this particular one, you are not far apart from most Calvinists, certainly not those who won’t push past what Scripture explicitly says.

    I believe that there are many from the Calvinist camp that would be able to respect my response. It is the New Calvinism, the in your face, my way or the highway, Calvinism that is the problem. Until recently, I would have had little problem attending a Presbyterian church. I would have some differences but, then again, who wouldn’t have differences in any church.

    Thank you for your kind comment.

  70. Interesting. We can declare that no man can know the mind of God, and then decide what “He has to know”.

    We proclaim Him omniscient, and then define the terms of his omniscience.

    Surely God “must have known this or that”, and then we brush over the obvious ethical implications.

    Why do we pretend we get to say what God knows? Have we ever considered that since it has been given for man to act and do that God is under no obligation to know all that man or creation does, and that this knowledge creates a severe metaphysical crisis in terms of actually defining WHO is actually DOING what God knows? Why does “knowing everything” mean the difference between God’s perfection and imperfection?

  71. So many of these objections could be asked of the traditional Arminian perspective by an open theist. “Why would a loving God with an absolute knowledge of the future create a world knowing that children would be raped and that some of the people He creates would go to hell no matter what?” Saying something like “If God knows the future, and created even though he knew child rape would occur, therefore he can’t be true.” Could be a common objection to anyone believe in an omniscient God. It is a canard to accuse calvinism of not having sufficient answers when not even acknowledging that Arminians who believe in God’s absolute knowledge of the future must answer the same questions. Unless we are willing to deny God’s omniscience we must have answers to the questions.

  72. So my son-in-law has stage 4 cancer, and my dear Calvinist former worship pastor has a baby born with dislocated hips who had only partially successful surgery yesterday.

    My FB status yesterday:

    “Scripture tells us that God is omnipotent. He is all-powerful, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everything that happens in the world is the way he wants it.”–H. Norman Wright in “Resilience”

    His FB status yesterday:

    “The unexpected is disappointing, naturally, but we know that there is a reason and purpose for this saga to continue, and there’s great peace in that knowledge.”

    I find more peace in my statement than his. Of course, this is the same guy who told me we couldn’t know if young children go to heaven, knowing I had a granddaughter who died before her third birthday.

    I sincerely pray that he will get out from under the Calvinist spell.

  73. @ Rob:

    It is not a matter of denying God’s omniscience, it is a matter of defining it. How can you possibly claim to define what God knows as a function of what your finite mind calls “omniscient”? By your own dictrinal definition, you cannot possibly apprehend the nature and substance of God’s knowledge.

    This is what gets me about Calvinists. They declare God’s ways unknowable, and then proceed to tell everyone exactly what God knows and how He knows it. They hypocritically define God’s mind for everyone else…well, truly, they say, omniscience means that God knows X, Y or Z, when by definition conceding God’s omniscience means they cannot possibly define what God knows because what God knows is a function of HOW He knows, and this is something humans cannot possibly understand by virtue of some serious metaphysical an existential differences.

    Instead if claiming “divine omnipotence” we should be rejecting the clear violations of God’s own moral standards which occurr when we concede that God “allows” evil based on his categorical awareness of everything, past, present, and future.

  74. Leila wrote:

    Tell them you’re reading Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” or Rob Bell’s “Love Wins.”

    I’d never even heard of Rob Bell prior to the reformed backlash against his book.

  75. dee wrote:

    You have a way with words!

    No– I just imitate a couple of sermonizers who string together several flowery adjectives to soften the noun which presents their real concept. “A little Lilliputian, Leprechaunian leadership instead of heavy-handed husbandly headship”. (a little alliteration makes it sound poetic, and adding “ship” to otherwise good nouns can “improve” their meaning)

  76. Dave A A wrote:

    Leila wrote:
    Tell them you’re reading Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” or Rob Bell’s “Love Wins.”

    I’d never even heard of Rob Bell prior to the reformed backlash against his book.

    I’d never heard of egalitarianism until I read Grudem and Piper’s tome, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Then I realized their position was malarky, and became one. 🙂

    Really, so many of this guys are excellent apologists for their opposition.

  77. Kathy wrote:

    I find more peace in my statement than his. Of course, this is the same guy who told me we couldn’t know if young children go to heaven, knowing I had a granddaughter who died before her third birthday.
    I sincerely pray that he will get out from under the Calvinist spell.

    But Utter Predestination has its own sick comfort. No matter what happens, just sit back and sigh “Whatever Will Be, Will Be.”
    (Or should that be “Why Bother?”)

  78. dee wrote:

    I believe that there are many from the Calvinist camp that would be able to respect my response. It is the New Calvinism, the in your face, my way or the highway, Calvinism that is the problem.

    i.e. Calvinism as Totalitarian Ideology.
    With all the baggage that accompanies a Totalitarian Ideology.

  79. gus wrote:

    #1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following
    #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought.
    #4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.
    (“I see things”)
    #5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. (“I cannot worship a guy I can beat up”)
    #6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.

    #7) Successful Sociopaths are masters at camouflaging what they are.

    And – according to this ( http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/blogs/work-in-progress/inside-the-mind-of-a-workplace-sociopath-20130808-2rkz8.html ) – the 10 favoured professions for sociopaths include “clergyman”.

    “Power doesn’t tend to corrupt so much as Power tends to attract the already-corrupted and the easily-corruptible.” — Frank Herbert

  80. Rob wrote:

    So many of these objections could be asked of the traditional Arminian perspective by an open theist. “

    Welcome to TWW.

    Not only do open theists ask this question but so do atheists which is a group of people that I enjoy engaging on a regular basis.

    The key to this is the free will of man. As a non-Calvinist, I believe that God loves all men and would wish that all men would become part of His family. However, He does not force HImself upon us and have given us the ability to be able to respond, or not to respond, to His grace. He created a world free from sin but allowed for the possibility of sin because if He had not, then there would be no free will.

    The world as we see it is a result of our own ineptitude and our continuing disregard of His Ways. Once again, I refer to the Prodigal Son. The father allowed him his choice, including his choice to take his money and blow it all.

    The father in that story could have chained up his son inside his rich homestead, forcing him to be “good.” Instead, the father did not want to force him and allowed him to bear the consequences of his decision. When the young man returned home, he did so of his own free will.

    As I look at the world around me, i see the effects of man’s sin, including his original decision to throw away a perfect world for the knowledge of good and evil. We sure as heck know evil now. When my daughter was diagnosed with her malignant brain tumor, I did not waste a minute blaming God. Instead, when asked by a neighbor what caused her tumor, my answer was something along the lines of “you and I did.” By this I meant that it was the Fall, caused by men and championed by Satan, that resulted in her disease.

    God has given a way out for all of us. Heaven for those who die now and a new world that we will not screw up in the future. Jesus Christ has forgiven us and given us hope for that which is to come.

  81. Leila wrote:

    Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”

    I believe that this book is their Achilles Heel. The more it is publicized, the more will read it and raise their eyebrows at some of the assertions in the book. Can I say “Muscular women are bad?” by John Piper.

  82. On the flip side, where is the love when an Arminian pastor regularly tells his parishioners that “someday you’ll be in heaven and look down at all the people in hell, people you knew on earth, and didn’t win for Christ. How will you feel then?”

    Argh! At least with a reformed or slightly reformed view you feel responsible, yes, to share the gospel, but not responsible for how it is or isn’t accepted.

    I’ve watched the free will side drive people literally to despair, near suicide, and out of the faith.

    I’m content to say two paradoxical things as a new Lutheran: God is in control, and we are responsible to respond.

  83. linda wrote:

    At least with a reformed or slightly reformed view you feel responsible, yes, to share the gospel, but not responsible for how it is or isn’t accepted.

    As a young Christian, i did feel responsible if people did not respond. But, it truth be told, i was a bit overzealous in my approach. Add to that naiveté and you get a really bad witness style.

    Over time, I studied, thought about how to be a better witness and came to the conclusion that I just needed to be myself with others and God would naturally direct the conversation.

    I do have a question for you. I have seen some of the meanest, self assured people attempt to pound the “gospel” into people with poor results. Some of these people have driven others away from the faith. What responsibility do you feel we have for how we present Christ to others?

  84. I believe, regarding Rachel Evans, you give her far more credit for seriously and thoroughly dealing with issues in your charge toward the Calvinist teachers to answer her calmly and thoroughly. She is quite a demagogue herself and some, BTW, Calvinist and Non-Calvinist (my self-identifier) have answered her succinctly and quite composed so your narrative about her and others I believe is blinded by a degree of zealousness, though I am sympathetic to your cause against Neo-Calvinists who are, in many cases, proprietors of theological and ecclesiastical malfeasance.

  85. @ linda:

    On the flip side, where is the love when an Arminian pastor regularly tells his parishioners that “someday you’ll be in heaven and look down at all the people in hell, people you knew on earth, and didn’t win for Christ. How will you feel then?”

    They have a wrong view of “who” redeems a man. Believers share the love of Christ with unbelievers. They also make disciples of those who are new believers. They are not, however, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, who is the One who actually effects the change. Not to mention, God can accomplish this even without a person ever hearing the “preached word” or a single Bible verse.

  86. Alex Guggenheim wrote:

    regarding Rachel Evans, you give her far more credit for seriously and thoroughly dealing with issues in your charge toward the Calvinist teachers to answer her calmly and thoroughly

    She has an audience which is growing and is now being featured in talk shows and in other media forms. I am making no judgment about her ideas-merely saying that she is being listened to by those who do not listen to the Neo Cals and traditional preachers.

    Alex Guggenheim wrote:

    She is quite a demagogue herself

    Of this I have no doubt. But, those who disagree with her should not trade tit for tat. Demagogue or no, she has an audience and she is engaging.

  87. @ dee:

    Are you guys sure that “demagogue” is the correct word?

    1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

    I checked a number of dictionaries; this is the standard meaning. #2 is “a leader of the people in ancient times.”

    Perhaps “talking head” is closer to what you’re thinking of …

  88. linda wrote:

    On the flip side, where is the love when an Arminian pastor regularly tells his parishioners that “someday you’ll be in heaven and look down at all the people in hell, people you knew on earth, and didn’t win for Christ. How will you feel then?”
    Argh! At least with a reformed or slightly reformed view you feel responsible, yes, to share the gospel, but not responsible for how it is or isn’t accepted.
    I’ve watched the free will side drive people literally to despair, near suicide, and out of the faith.
    I’m content to say two paradoxical things as a new Lutheran: God is in control, and we are responsible to respond.

    It’s great to read you have found comfort and peace in your new found home in a Lutheran Church. Have only been to a Lutheran Church once many years ago. Did listen quite regularlly to, ‘The Lutheran Hour ‘ on our local radio station Sunday mornings, it featured The Concordia Choir.
    Anyway, anyone who preaches (Arminian or non Calvin, that we are responsible for people who are in hell, has a skewed doctrine concerning salvation. We are responsible for sharing the gospel as the Holy Spirit leads us. The H /S alone convicts sinners of their need of a savior.

  89. Dee–I would say we are responsible to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a loving, Spirit led manner. But that said, I would also say that no matter how it is presented there will be those either so in rebellion against God or so hurting over a life situation that there is no way they will respond positively.

    Examples would be: suppose I decided today to start stealing from my neighbor, knowing it is wrong but gosh golly gee I just want to do it so badly, can’t understand why God didn’t give me what He seems to have given my neighbor, etc. And you come over for coffee and truly with kindness and tact mention something about that not being exactly kosher. If my heart is tender to the Holy Spirit, you will have plucked this brand from the burning. But if my heart is hard, I will brand you before all and sundry as a mean hearted person who ATTACKED me at my point of pain.

    We had the experience one Sunday of sitting under my least favorite of all our pastors, the brutal one. But honestly, that day his sermon was pretty light hearted and jovial and the whole church spent most of the sermon laughing so hard tears were flowing. Mostly he was reading excerpts from a Christian book. The gist of the sermon was that even our best efforts are flawed and sometimes hilarious. The text was that “all our RIGHTEOUSNESSES are as filthy rags.” The point was not to take ourselves too seriously. And that sometimes it is just time to let go of the pain and move on.

    When we got home one family member was furious that the “whole sermon” had been “aimed at me and my sin.” We still have no clue what that sin might have been and we LIVED with him. So seriously doubt the pastor knew anything on him. But he told us how he “spent the whole invitation time gripping the pew and vowing not to go forward–not to go forward–not to go forward.” To this day he hates the callousness of the pastor on that day. I would hazard a guess that rather it was a spiritual battle between him and the Lord.

    We’ve heard great and horrible Calvinist pastors. I love to read Michael Horton and wouldn’t walk across the street to hear John MacArthur.

    We’ve heard great and horrible Arminian pastors. I love to read Charles Stanley and were he alive, would not walk across the street to hear Finney.

    I’ve heard great and horrible Lutheran pastors, and read great and horrible patristic universalist writers.

    I suppose while I cheer you on in tackling the Calvinistas (not to be confused with the Calvinists), I’d like to see you ladies tackle just as faithfully the Arminianistas also. And maybe take on those constantly berating us for not being radical enough.

    We’ve been Lutheran before by geographical necessity. This time it is a choice. Lutherans are all over the map from seriously fundy to so progressive you wonder if they are still Christian. We found a group smack dab in the middle, who preach yes, some predestining and yes, some personal choice, but mostly focus week after week on a few basics: admitting we are sinners, rejoicing in God’s provision for that through Christ, spending time with Jesus, and serving the world as best we can.

    Sometimes, like when we feed the hungry or tend to orphans, the world loves us for that. But sometimes, like when we protect children by standing up against the pro marijuana forces in our state, they hate us.

    But as our pastor says, at the end of the day, the only one we really have to please is Jesus.

  90. Bridget wrote:

    On the flip side, where is the love when an Arminian pastor regularly tells his parishioners that “someday you’ll be in heaven and look down at all the people in hell, people you knew on earth, and didn’t win for Christ. How will you feel then?”

    Standard Wretched Urgency guilt trip.

    Mind games to force the listener out on the street On Fire Witnessing 24/7.

    Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it.

  91. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    “Standard Wretched Urgency guilt trip.

    Mind games to force the listener out on the street On Fire Witnessing 24/7.

    Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it.”

    Ends up just becoming works, very little, if any, real fruit comes from it.

    Had a niece who got mixed up in excessive, demanding , witnessing. She used to tell me she was going out “soul winning”, really? Every Saturday, she’d go out with a group from her church,hit the streets of, not so nice areas of Boston handing out tracks.(and mind you she had three children) Finally, it became too exhaustive for as no matter how much witnessing she did, it was never enough.

  92. dee wrote:

    I believe that this book is their Achilles Heel. The more it is publicized, the more will read it and raise their eyebrows at some of the assertions in the book. Can I say “Muscular women are bad?” by John Piper.

    What did it for me was the thing where if a man asks you for directions, you have to answer in such a way so that he understands you are not usurping his authority and not compromising his masculinity, or some such nonsense. It was so utterly ridiculous. Either you’re courteous in responding, or you’re not. It has nothing to do with whether you tinkle standing up or sitting down.

  93. @ Leila:
    Of course it was a slip of Piper’s tongue or pen that the hypothetical directionless man is in the woman’s BACK yard. But we can have some fun— if a strange man is in our back yard, my wife may uncourteously tell him where to go.

  94. Ron Brubaker wrote:

    Hi Dee,
    Could you please point me to your sources that certain Calvinist leaders have claimed Arminians as “barely Christians” or worse yet “not being a Christian”?

    Blessings!

    I’m not one of Dee’s sources, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that this is what the Calvinists in my own family believe and apply to those of us on the “outside”. They also close all communication with “blessings!”

  95. @ Rob:

    You didn’t refer to my comment, but that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Non-Calvinists must also deal with the fact that an omniscient God created a world that would lead to countless people enduring eternal suffering. Does that make God bad? Absolutely not. But Arminians can’t pretend that their emphasis on human free will eliminates troubling questions, as if only Calvinists have to deal with them.

    @ Argo:

    I could quote a bunch of Bible verses that say that all-knowing means…well…all-knowing, but I know (though not with God-like accuracy) that wouldn’t make a dent in your certainty that we have no idea what it means.

    @ Anon 1:

    “God created us to have a choice. To choose obedience or not. I won’t argue whether He knew it or not because it does not matter in my construct. I have my opinion about it but it is not worth declaring. That is above my paygrade. He created us and I won’t judge Him for it. It is what He did after creation that I tend to focus on. And I do not see determinism or dualism there. One reason is that determinism means He made them to disobey. There never was any real choice. And I do not like what that ulitmately declares about God.

    The problem I see is that your focus is soley on what “God was thinking” and what God “had to know”.”

    But Anon 1, when it comes to Calvinism, aren’t you concerned with what God was thinking and what He had to know? Don’t you declare your opinion then? Why, when I posit a non-Calvinist view, is it above your paygrade? My point is that these uncomfortable questions don’t vanish when you take away any form of determinism. There is still God’s knowing about what will happen.

    I’m not saying that there’s no difference in these views. Just that there are disturbing questions with both.

    @ linda:

    “On the flip side, where is the love when an Arminian pastor regularly tells his parishioners that “someday you’ll be in heaven and look down at all the people in hell, people you knew on earth, and didn’t win for Christ. How will you feel then?”

    Good point. That pastor probably skipped the part about there being no tears in heaven. Rick Warren, probably the most influential Christian in the world now that Billy Graham is pretty much retired, states that guilt-inducing belief in The Purpose Driven Life, though he’d probably deny it when speaking to Calvinists. He tries to be all things to all people.

    “Dee–I would say we are responsible to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a loving, Spirit led manner. But that said, I would also say that no matter how it is presented there will be those either so in rebellion against God or so hurting over a life situation that there is no way they will respond positively.”

    Well put.

  96. @ Ron Brubaker:

    “Could you please point me to your sources that certain Calvinist leaders have claimed Arminians as “barely Christians” or worse yet “not being a Christian”?”

    Part of an interview with R. C. Sproul:

    INTERVIEWER: Must one agree with Calvin in order to be a good Christian?

    SPROUL: Well, I think you can be a Christian and still be semi-Pelagian.

    INTERVIEWER: Our semi-Pelagian readers will be thrilled to hear that. In your book you say that semi-Pelagians are Christians, but just “barely.”

    SPROUL: (Laughs) All of us who are Christians are only barely Christians. But the thing, of course, that I had in mind there was that if a person conceives of that island of righteousness that’s unaffected by the fall and that ability by which the decisive action is made that determines his eternal destiny – if a person conceives of that as the sine qua non of a righteous action that a fallen creature has to do to be saved, then the scary thing – the scary question is; is that person ultimately trusting in their own goodness to get them into heaven? If they are, then that would vitiate any affirmation of sola fide [faith alone], wouldn’t it?

    INTERVIEWER: We’re still looking up sine qua non.

    SPROUL: But again, let me just say, I think that the overwhelming majority of Arminians and other kinds of semi-Pelagians affirm sola fide and don’t want to come to that conclusion. So, however they think about the free action that makes the decisive difference, they tend not to think of it as a meritorious thing or as an inherently righteous thing that becomes the decisive factor for which they are saved. Am I making sense?

    INTERVIEWER: Yes. Now –

    SPROUL: They don’t want to say that. Maybe a few of them will, but, if they say that, then I think they are toast.

    http://www.gorillarevilla.blogspot.com/2006/05/dr-r-c-sproul-on-free-will-and.html

  97. Ron Brubaker wrote:

    I feel like you mostly caricatured Calvinist teaching I have read or listened to in a way that most Calvinist’s wouldn’t recognize.

    Everything that I have said is based on discussions on this blog in both posts and comments. My intent was to help those who are Calvinists to see how they are perceived by people who actually, starting out, had little to know beef with Reformed theology.

    I know you “feel” like I caricatured Calvinists. In order to respond in a thoughtful manner, I would need you to tell me what I said and why it is wrong. That will give me the opportunity to respond beyond “feelings” to concrete examples.

    It is my intent to be helpful to both sides and I need the help of my readers to give insight into the process.

  98. Ron Brubaker wrote:

    Roger Olsen and Michael Horton debating Calvinsim. To me it demonstrates how Christians of different theological persuasions should seek to hear the other side and be able to state accurately what the other person believes. They in fact agreed on a number of points (ones that I would consider to be essential) while disagreeing on others (non-essentials in my book).

    I am happy to hear your assessment. I believe both of them are gentlemen. That is why it upsets me to hear some folks calling Olson a heretic.

  99. KayJay wrote:

    I can tell you from first-hand experience that this is what the Calvinists in my own family believe and apply to those of us on the “outside”.

    Families….the worst critics of all. Some believe that “blood” gives one the license to drag claws through one’s soul.

  100. JeffB wrote:

    Non-Calvinists must also deal with the fact that an omniscient God created a world that would lead to countless people enduring eternal suffering

    But non-Calvinists who know their doctrine do this. They merely see it differently as to what the causal agent is in the pain that surrounds us.

  101. JeffB wrote:

    There is still God’s knowing about what will happen.

    There is a difference between God causing a tornado as a means of punishment(as Piper said to punish the Lutherans for their stand on gay clergy which means He has a direct line to God who lets him know these things) to people and tornados which are a factor of living in a fallen world. In the first, God causes the tornado directly to punish a certain group of people for their disobedience. In the second, it is due to a fallen world which was caused by the Fall.

    I am well aware that some do not see the difference in the two scenarios. I accept that you might not. For me, and others, there is a distinct difference. One is a God deliberately causing a tornado for punishment. The other is due to a Fallen world caused by man. This is one of those points where we might have to agree to disagree about causal agency.

  102. Note to our readers

    I am so glad to have more time to participate in these conversations. This is why I like to blog.

  103. Linda: I noted that you, too, are a “New Lutheran” who finds great comfort in the acceptance of paradoxes. As a former neo-Cal, or whatever the best term is, it is like a spring of cool water, like a giant light bulb that went on! Gods thoughts and ways are sometimes unfathomable! Who would have thought???

    Not to be overbearing about the Lutheran church- though it is an answer to much prayer for us- because no doubt there are other places that don’t preach about the incredible infinity of God, then proceed to attempt to explain His every thought and purpose…

    But I would just encourage people who have become cynical to not give up! And don’t turn the people that you disagree with into bad guys. We all have our blind spots.

  104. “But Anon 1, when it comes to Calvinism, aren’t you concerned with what God was thinking and what He had to know? Don’t you declare your opinion then? Why, when I posit a non-Calvinist view, is it above your paygrade? My point is
    these uncomfortable questions don’t vanish when you take away any form of determinism. There is still God’s knowing about what will happen.”

    The problem I have with Calvinism is the “determinist” god and the dualistic man. I realize you do not think God ordains evil but the determinism logically goes there. So you appeal to mystery as answer why God can be good, control all things but have no hand in controlling evil. How God can be good and totally in control of even the rogue molecule. The answer is secret and revealed will. Now, God has two wills. IT just gets more and more complicated and turns God into a deceptive monster.

    I say that it is more likely as we see throughout scripture God does NOT want control in that fashion. He wants US to be the kingdom here and now. You want to take foreknowledge and turn it into controlling every molecule whether rogue or not.

    You keep saying the God I believe in is the same way ultimately. I disagree. The God I believe wants humans take responsibility. He has given us warning after warning, sent lifeboats, and came Himself as a lowly nobody to gain victory over death.

  105. JeffB wrote:

    You didn’t refer to my comment, but that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Non-Calvinists must also deal with the fact that an omniscient God created a world that would lead to countless people enduring eternal suffering. Does that make God bad? Absolutely not. But Arminians can’t pretend that their emphasis on human free will eliminates troubling questions, as if only Calvinists have to deal with them.

    I don’t think that’s the crux of the issue, or why Non-Cal’s object to Calvinism.

  106. Dee,

    I didn’t want to dominate the conversation, but I’ve got so much to say on this topic. Generally, I fall into the “Calvinist” brand of theology. Generally. I have had a great many concerns over the practices and beliefs of Calvinist churches, teachers and people over the years. I’ve spent 90% of my time in Calvinist churches in my two decades of being a Christian.

    First, as to your title, “To Calvinists: Stress God’s Love Before You Get Into Doctrine.” In reality, a great many “Calvinists” believe that getting right into hard core doctrine IS loving other people. There’s no greater love than telling somebody the truth, the thinking goes. Believing the right thing about God is soooo much more valuable than a cup of cold water. The thinking goes. This is a difficult thought pattern to break because it is so self-supporting and circular.

    But as hard-core as many Calvinist churches can be doctrinally, I have found that there are numerous tender souls within those churches who really do put deeds of love first even while agreeing that the doctrine they hear so much about is true. Those deeds don’t make as much noise as theological pontificating does, so the loving souls don’t get as noticed. My 2c US adjusted for inflation.

  107. @ Daisy:

    This is an interesting quote from Furtick:

    “We technically don’t have membership at Elevation, but we track participation.”

  108. Lin wrote:

    Had a niece who got mixed up in excessive, demanding , witnessing. She used to tell me she was going out “soul winning”, really? Every Saturday, she’d go out with a group from her church,hit the streets of, not so nice areas of Boston handing out tracks.(and mind you she had three children) Finally, it became too exhaustive for as no matter how much witnessing she did, it was never enough.

    How bad did she burn out? All the way to Atheism, or just to the point of despair and “Yeah, Whatever…”

  109. Steve Scott wrote:

    First, as to your title, “To Calvinists: Stress God’s Love Before You Get Into Doctrine.” In reality, a great many “Calvinists” believe that getting right into hard core doctrine IS loving other people.

    This is absolutely the truth. Emotions mean diddly squat. The truth (their hard Calvinist “gospel” truth) is more important than any hurt feelings and they justify that because the Bible says the Gospel is offensive – and so they use passage as license to be rude. If you reject their rude message, then that proves to them that you are an Unbeliever.

  110. @ JeffB:
    Hmmmm, not sure your view of God’s omniscience is well supported. Here’s the thing, the early church viewed all bad things – plagues, drought, illness, and so on as Satanic, not from God, but from evil. Not, in any way does this mean that there is no valid scientific reason behind these events, and, humans alone have been able to use ingenuity (science and engineering) to overcome evil – antibiotics for the plagues, piping water and deep well drilling for the droughts, and earthquake resistant houses for large quakes. If we can overcome evil with ingenuity, if we can create life in a petri dish, if we can clone, and splice phosphorescent genes into lab animals, to see their embryonic development, then why would it be hard for Satan to mess up the world? He knows a lot too, he may well know human’s genetic susceptibility to various environmental hazards, and convince people to do things or go places that, on the surface seem harmless, but have devastating results.

    God does a lot of cursing of things in the Bible, but why did Jesus need to curse a fig tree??? If he is all powerful, wouldn’t that fig tree not misbehave around him? What about that storm Jesus and the disciples encountered on the boat? What was a wayward storm doing? It wasn’t from God, it was getting rebuked by God.

    For an angel to get to Daniel in Persia, he had to battle for three weeks to break through Satan’s defences.

    I guess I see many doctrines attempting to explain this world as ‘missing something’ (that ‘je ne sais quoi’) for lack of a better word.

    Here is where I find (many, Calvinist doctrines included) theodicy discussion lacking. The argument goes – God allows evil. Really? God wanted Satan to fall, remember, Satan was made the Prince and ruler of this earth – he is ruler of the air (Greek word for sky/heavens) – he is over the Kingdoms of this earth. He is the cause of our suffering and pain. No, God did not order this. This happened. He attempted to restore his creation through Adam and Eve, Eden is a place God could commune – it is all temple imagery in Genesis 1, God was in his temple, Adam and Eve were safe with God from the raging evil beyond, but their disobedience opened the flood gates of evil, and God had to wait many more generations to have a temple to dwell.

    The story being painted in the Bible is like the parable of the tears and wheat. The good farmer plants wheat. Satan sneaks in and plants tears (weeds). When the crops grow, the weeds are obvious. God’s angels ask Him if they should rip out the tears. God says no, because you would also rip up the good wheat. That isn’t a magical God who can just wave a wand and zap goes the tears, that is a God who has to be careful with his creation, while fighting evil, innocent victims can get hurt, so God limits his fight against evil forces (Satan/demons) and will get them, and overcome them in the end. Otherwise, if he goes in full force now against evil, too many innocent victims would be lost in the battle that would ensue.

    We do know a) God is creator of all we know (materially speaking), b) God is victor over Satan, c) At some far-in-the-past point in time, God put Satan in charge of this world, but d) Satan fell yet maintains that position over the world. E) God loves his creation, it is not that he cannot abide by sin, rather, he made this world in a way that works by righteousness, Satan is a force that undoes God’s way on earth, and the world (in birth pains groaning) suffers under Satan’s anti-God force. When humans fell for evil, that gave Satan power to wreak havoc on human life too. It is not God’s fault we suffer, it is this world’s cosmic evil’s fault.

    Which brings me to my second point of lacking. In most evangelical doctrines, including Calvinism, people don’t have many clear answers for what happens after salvation. It often turns into a big sin management program, that in turn tells people to avoid evil (and results in Christians shutting themselves off from the world – no TV, movies, hanging out with ungodly people, kids going to school with kids from unsaved families, etc.). But, our purpose in salvation is to beat back evil. Satan wins when we a) hide from the world in fear of being conformed into it or b) consider sin just a part of our nature we can’t get rid of, so who cares if Calvinista leader X did something terrible, he is just human and all sin is the same.

    Christians need to realize we are part of God’s plan to overcome evil, we can’t live in doctrines that teach we are too evil to be any force for good on this earth. And, we were given agency from Pentecost to go out and overcome evil. We need to get back to the early church’s view that Christianity was a powerful force IF we take up God’s call in our lives. So much of the doctrine today stymies people’s effectiveness and reduces the Holy Spirit – likely the MOST powerful member of the God head – to 4th or 5th place in the Godhead, behind “Grace” – a concept and the Bible – a book.

  111. Interpreted Nonsense: “Spiritual  ‘Goto’ Legal-Beagles Sitting In Their Own Poo, Perhaps? ”

    hmmm…

    Sometime ago, I sat in on a sermon where the subject being addressed was who gets to interpret the scriptures. 

    hmmm…

    It was the opinion of the speaker, that – that specific church required – that the church leadership define and interpret the meaning of the scriptures for each member in a attendance. 

    huh?

    It would appear that reading the bible for one’s self was one thing, interpretation, was  an entirely different matter all together , solely resting in the purview of the church leaders. 

    What?

    Skreeeeeetch!

    This smacked of something from an earlier time in church history when bibles were chained to posts, possibly locked in an unknown ‘dead’ language. Where church leaders defined for the individual the content of the scriptures and their humble ‘application’.  History, as you may recall, is profusely replete with blatantly glaring examples of the nefarious abuse this seemly ‘devout’ behavior engendered. Before the Western world woke from its spiritual slumber, hundreds of years had passed, before someone had the wherewithal to challenge the age old church assumptions.  When they did, boy, did the fireworks begin!

    Yehaaaaaaaaaa!

    Soon, the chains on the bibles were gone, the dead language too! Folk even learned how to read and apply the bible for themselves.  

    Imagine that? 

    Today, in some clear respects, we are on a slow crawling descent to some type of so called ‘middle ages’ darkness where the church leadership defines everything fit for daily spiritual consumption.

    Excuse me?

    With the stealth in which certain 501c church officials are introducing respective churches to a wash of Neo-Calvinistic thinking, under the radar, my thoughts are, – this is all quite alarming, to put it mildly.

    Why all the secretcy?

    Are we kept in the spiritual ‘dark’ and fead a steady diet of proverbial spiritual excrement, perhaps?

    For What?

    Mind numbing submission?

    yessssssss! Master….

    march, march, march, march…BUMP!

    Crash!

    figures.

    (sadface)

    Thy “Word” Oh! Lord, is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path!

    Strength renewal?

    hmmm…

    I have mount up with wings as eagles…I shall run, and not be weary; and I shall walk, and not faint, and absolutely no one will make me afraid, cuz YOU hold my widdle hand, Jesus!  

    Whew!

    Blessings!

    S“㋡”py
    ___
    P.S. ♥♥”Don’t let yourself go, or think you are alone, because everybody cries. Everybody hurts sometimes. Take comfort in your friends and your God. Keep holding on and remain strong. You are never alone.” ♥♥ God Is Love ♥♥
    As I grow Lord, I know that it is Your light that shines upon me. 
    It is Your hope that encourages me.
    It is Your love that keeps me alive.
    It is Your timing that is perfect.
    It is Your lessons that make me stronger
    It is Your refinement that helps me do Your work.
    It is Your grace that keeps me going.
    It is You that I have purpose to my life, and I know that with Jesus, there is nothing brighter. ♥♥♥God is the same no matter what our circumstances are, and He is always worthy of praise and gratitude.♥ Psalm 91.15 When they call on me, I will answer; I will be with them in trouble. I will rescue and honor them.♥♥   ;~)

  112. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Besides, if they really had come to know Jesus and their lives really had been transformed, why would the church need such detailed and highly-maintained structures to enforce conformity and discipline?

    Because they trust neither the holy spirit nor their parishioners nor anyone who is not a pastor.

  113. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    Had a niece who got mixed up in excessive, demanding , witnessing. She used to tell me she was going out “soul winning”, really? Every Saturday, she’d go out with a group from her church,hit the streets of, not so nice areas of Boston handing out tracks.(and mind you she had three children) Finally, it became too exhaustive for as no matter how much witnessing she did, it was never enough.
    How bad did she burn out? All the way to Atheism, or just to the point of despair and “Yeah, Whatever…”

    Had a severe crisis in her marriage. Almost gave up on her faith……stumbled around for a few years. She did go back to church ( a less fundamentalist one) but still struggles with some anxiety of not doing enough for the Lord.

  114. Patti wrote:

    I remember thinking back when I was young that I just never could be happy in heaven because I would just think about all the babies in hell, how could I be happy? When I expressed my concern, I was told that when I get to heaven I won’t think about stuff like that..so confusing, sounded so selfish.

    I am going to be discussing this infants in hell stuff next week. Apparently some discussion is starting explode in the SBC and is being reported in a number of places, including the ABP. The view on this subject may very well be the dividing line for many people.

  115. Steve Scott wrote:

    In reality, a great many “Calvinists” believe that getting right into hard core doctrine IS loving other people. T

    I know this to be true and discussed this in my previous post to non-Calvinists. I also know many Calvinists who do come across as loving.

    However, many in the Neo-Calvinist camp also need to be aware that, in spite of their sincerely held beliefs in this area, it does not come across as love to most people. For many of us, the love of God, exhibited in the love of Christ is what drew us to the faith. An emphasis on the wrath or God and the wretchedness of man is difficult for most people outside of Calvinism, good doctrine or not.

    Most people already know they are screw ups. We all have our guilt they we carry around. For many of us, we are seeking someone who gets us and loves us and forgives us. The Holy Spirit in our lives will do the good job of gently leading us to confront our sins which will be a process that will last until we are called home.

  116. Not to belabor the Lutheran thing, but since the tornado Piper referred to did hit a building where Lutherans were meeting, thought I’d pass on what I’ve been told the Lutherans thought.

    Some did indeed agree with Piper. Some weren’t sure God was punishing them with it, but readily agreed God could do so if He wanted, and that sometimes God will do just that sort of thing if it serves His higher good.

    Some felt it was just a quirk of nature. And some felt it was a fresh wind of the Spirit.

    I make no apology for agreeing with the first group, but regularly kneel at the altar with folks who disagree.

    There is room for different ideas, and there is room for paradox.

    Under it all there is the sense that sometimes what doesn’t make sense to us really is God in control and doing all things well. You seldom find, here locally, a Lutheran saying “I could never believe in a God who would_______” That would put God in far too small a box. Rather, it is “let me see what God seems to be doing and how to accept it and rejoice in it and join Him in it”, even when it is painful.

  117. dee wrote:

    @ Lin: It is sad that she cannot rest in the “It is finished.”

    ………………………

    Yes IT is finished! The Lord is not a taskmaster but our loving Father.

  118. @ linda: Y’know, Piper also wrote a horrific post about the tornadoes in Joplin, MO last year (or was it the year before?) in which he said “God killed…” and “Jesus killed…” several times in reference to those who died in the storms.

    he offered not ONE word of comfort to anyone who lost family/friends in that catastrophe.

    Please extrapolate to the ELCA (of which I’m a member; have been since infancy, back when my synod was LCA – long before the merger).

  119. @ linda: You might find Lutherans who *would* say “God would never kill people or attack them with tornadoes/tsunamis/etc.” though.

    I think he’s perfectly capable of “commenting” on the ELCA vote without resorting to violent means.

  120. numo wrote:

    I think he’s perfectly capable of “commenting” on the ELCA vote without resorting to violent means.

    Many times, he lets us face the consequences of our decisions. In fact, I would say he does that the majority of the time.

  121. @ dee: The thing is, if we do have free will/free agency, he is bound by his love and his own will to let us make choices – good, bad and indifferent.

    I cannot reconcile the Jesus of the Gospels with the avenging god of the OT.

  122. @ numo:
    Piper really needs to read more Greg Boyd 🙂

    Besides, Rachel Held Evans just exposed a massive heresy that Piper preaches:

    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/subordination-trinity

    I’ve know for a while that Piper’s (and others) stance on subordination in the Trinity was an ancient heresy – it was the reason the Nicene Creed was written: to affirm Christ’s equality with God. To then undo what the church has held as essential for centuries, and call oneself Orthodox, just makes a mockery out of all who follow Piper. These guys (TGC) prey on the ignorance of the average Evangelical’s lack of knowledge of Church history post-first-apostles. Piper, pipes heresy even Calvin or Luther wouldn’t utter, yet tells millions of young men he is getting Orthodoxy right. Wrong. He is useless and so are his comments. I am glad his teaching are finally getting some air-time.

    I suspect many evangelicals fear their faith would fall apart if they look into, read and ponder early church history. It is difficult to know where to start, but I think it is essential in these times to know where church teachings have come into the church. I started looking at it around women and ordination, and found more surprises there then anyone would suspect. (hint: women were ordained as a matter of course, there is evidence of a woman serving communion with the church’s blessing, women were leaders in Bible coping and translating, etc.). When I saw how far we were from the early church (up to the 6th C there is a lot written), I began to question other views and ideas, and when I looked back, I was surprised to see that Protestantism wasn’t really the big break from Chruch Orthodoxy – the Great Schism was. Since Protestantism occurred in the Western half of the church, Protestantism is much less of a theological revolution than it gives itself credit for. But, to my surprise, Easter Orthodox belief resonated with Christ’s teachings and made more sense. It is NOT unorthodox to be a Universalist, for example, or an Annihilationist. It is Heretical to question the equality of the Trinity. It is NOT unorthodox to deny penal substitutionary atonement views, in fact, you are with the majority of the faithful saints if you do. It was through learning how vast and how beautiful some of the early church writers were that I began to view our western Protestant heritage as lesser. That includes Luther, Calvin and to some degree Menno, but that is because they often demand you sign statements that narrow the broad and beautiful scope of Christianity down to their narrow understanding, without considering the whole of picture. They often lose the forrest for the trees.

    I live in one of the most beautiful places (when its not rainy or clouded over, which is rare). This summer was spectacular and sunny. We would go boating around Vancouver and area. I view Protestant doctrine as someone telling me the most beautiful (and therefore only) area to go boating is Burrard Inlet. It is beautiful, but busy and congested. I much rather Indian Arm, Boundary Bay or Howe Sound. I also know most visitors never see the absolute gem Indian Arm is, as it isn’t featured on tourist maps/info. This is how I view the broad Church’s history. If we listen to the “Orthodox” Protestants, we are only sent to one area of Christianity: beautiful, OK, but there are other, even more beautiful areas to go see!

  123. @ Val: The ESS thing: yes; it’s been discussed quite a bit on this blog in the past – glad RHE posted about it!

    fwiw, I’m not much of a Greg Boyd fa; his views on spiritual warfare are – imo – scary, being pretty much a leaf out of the new Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave playbook. (I’ve got 1st-hand experience of that, btw.)

  124. @ Val: also, I’ve shifted toward a specifically xtian-type universalism over the past couple of years. (See Robin Parry, aka Gregory Mcdonald, though I suspect you might already know of his work.)

  125. @ linda: How does one determine when God specifically does something in order to specifically address a specific problem? For example, Fred Luter, President of the SBC, said that God caused a hurricane because He was protesting the United States allowing gay marriage. I would love to know how anyone has the hubris to know the mind of God.

    Or, do we listen to Piper and blog off Luter? If we listen to Piper, should we listen to Robertson? Does anyone think that Piper could be flat out wrong and is setting himself up as God’s prophet? And what if he is wrong? That would mean he is a false prophet? How do we measure if he is correct in his assessment? If we agree with his theology, we do and if we disagree with his theology we don’t?

    Alternative explanations:
    The hurricane is part of the weather system that is endemic to maintaining life on earth.
    God is really mad about the morality in Amsterdam.
    God si alerting all of us that the Fall continues to affect us.
    God is mad at Deebs for starting TWW.
    God is mad at 9 Marks for not letting a member resign.
    I could continue on and on. I am surprised at the number of people who feel quite comfortable telling us what God is thinking

  126. Val wrote:

    when its not rainy or clouded over, which is rare

    Yeah; I think the name Sunshine Coast is hilarious! 😉

  127. Please note: I did not say Piper was correct in his assessment. What I said was that in many Lutheran circles, there are people that agree and people that disagree.

    But like pre 1979 Baptists, the Lutheran group I have joined holds with the priesthood of the believer. That can get downright messy and rank when we disagree with someone else’s conscience, but if we want the freedom to express our views we have to allow others the same freedom.

    It is above my paygrade to discern when an horrific event is absolutely God sent to discipline us or when it is God allowing free will to play out.

    I’m content with the paradox that it can be either/or, neither/nor, or both/and.

    So I’m content to say, as a member of ELCA myself, that if some in attendance were conscience stricken when the tornado hit the building, that is between them and God. Same if some were not.

    God is quite able to deal with the individual without my interference.

    But I can show from scripture that sometimes calamity just happens, sometimes it is sent to work a higher good, and sometimes it is sent as punishment for evil deeds.

    As a good Lutheran, I would say Piper is entitled to hold and voice his opinion. Those who disagree with him are entitled to hold and voice their opinions also.

    If, harsh as he sounds, Piper is being used of God, good on him.

    If he isn’t, God has a way of teaching lessons and what Piper is doing will fall.

    I don’t personally care for him, follow him, or read his books. I just support his right to voice his opinion. I will admit I do not subscribe to the idea that nothing a Christian says must ever offend another Christian or a non Christian. Jesus made plain enough that if we follow Him, some will be offended. Just saying “Jesus is Lord” has cost some people their heads because others were “offended.”

    So again, I don’t read a lot of Piper. If he said the Joplin tornado was an act of God, I agree since I believe God controls nature. If he got in anyone’s face with a statement such as “you are such a lousy sinner God killed your child in this tornado” I would oppose that as cruelty. If he believes and states that he believes these massive destructive storms are God’s judgment, I uphold his right to do so under the priesthood of the believer. And of course I uphold the right of anyone else to disagree and say so.

    What I don’t uphold is the idea that nothing can ever be said that might be offensive to anyone. I think the Ninevites probably found old Jonah quite offensive, but it was to their good to listen.

  128. @ linda: I’d like to suggest that you might want to read what Piper wrote… could make for a clearer discussion.

    the thing is, the Joplin thing is personal for me. My niece, her husband – and little daughter – barely made it out of the ares (where they’d been visiting family) before the tornadoes hit. they *could* have been injured; even been killed.

    Why did – per Piper’s line of “reasoning” – God “permit” them to survive when others did not? (and so on.)

    More and more, Piper sounds like pat Robertson. But the thing is, Piper has influence and is taken seriously by the Lord only knows how many – in and out of calvinista circles.

    He also talked about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis as being due to “my sin.”

    You can get to all of the posts we’re talking about on his blog, though they might not come up in site searches there. Poking around the archives will get you there, though.

  129. @ linda:

    I am also uncertain as to what you mean by a damaging storm being God’s way of “allowing free will to play out” – could you elaborate a bit? (A sincere question; I am having difficulty making the connection.)

  130. @ Val:

    Val, beautiful comment. I came to similar conclusions reading church history. I felt like I had been cheated.

  131. linda wrote:

    Just saying “Jesus is Lord” has cost some people their heads because others were “offended.”

    So widows were created, as their heads were taken from them? (inverted dimple)

  132. “Please stop saying that non-Calvinists believe in works oriented or human effected salvation. They don’t.”

    True, in most cases, that is. And most Calvinists don’t believe in fatalistic determinism either. Neither side should “go there” in either one of these things. I’d like to summarize the debate, as I see it, by using an analogy of computers, something we all understand because we are using them to read TWW! There seems to be a longing to understand the God’s Sovereignty/Human Responsibility “interface.” Like our computers, where we only see the keyboard and screen, there is an invisible “interface” working inside the computer. To understand, we would need to take a college level course from a computer geek prof, then at the end of the semester we probably still wouldn’t understand anyway. I think there is a relationship between sovereignty/responsibility that we simply will never understand. The Calvinists focus more on what’s on the screen, where Arminians focus on the keyboard. I see in the bible where are BOTH are true, but we can’t follow a logical cause/effect through to its end because we as created ones cannot see the mind of such a large God and how he works both of those things together.

  133. @ numo:
    I get it. I do, coming from my teen years where a demon was under every doily, but the Bible sets up God as the promoter and force of Good in this world and Satan as the promoter and force of evil. When theologians view God as omniscient and then begin debating the question of evil, I side with Boyd on his view that any discussion of tragedy that doesn’t take evil into account is left wanting.

    Greg isn’t apostolic, he’s mennonite but trained at Princeton. He is no flake in my view.

    But, I take the view that when a child is abused, a county is hit with a tsunami or a city is bombed with chemical weapons, that is the work of a destroyer, not a creator. Sitting around debating why a creator would do that is the wrong question. The question is better asked “How can we stop the destroyer”? and I think the Bible answers that question to (we can’t entirely, but we can push back hard on his forces by loving, caring and teaching others to love and care also). We can teach professionals to observe signs of abuse in children, we can have people respond when a child reports something, we can promote peace, ban chemical weapons, build for tsunamis etc. It won’t be perfect, but I can turn the darkness back. More importantly thought, Christians can really be viewed as people who love (not judge) if we figure out why we were called in the first place (I don’t think it was just so we could win a lottery for a spot in Heaven, I think it is about turning evil (chaos) to good (order) on this earth, and recognize that destructive events aren’t the work of God.

  134. I did go and read the article.

    My replies: re free will playing out. Having lived in ND when a tornado took a local farmhouse and hit nothing else, the good Lutheran living there expressed it that “my grandpa, not God, chose to put the house there.” Some Lutherans would see that as free agency (close kin but not the same as free will) playing out.

    I did not see the Piper article as cruel or unloving. Rather, he made the point that the Bible does give us examples of times God used disasters to call ALL to repentance. I also went and found some articles on Joplin. Again, Piper specifically made clear he was NOT saying that the Joplin tornado came because God was mad at Joplin. He did say the Bible is clear judgment will start with believers. So in that sense it was confusing–maybe he was saying Joplin was full of believers? But the basic premise I got was that God has made it clear in the past He can and sometimes does send calamity in response to society-wide sickness. So it is possible these calamities were sent by God. Given that is a possibility, not a fact, but still a possibility when we see calamities we should all do a spiritual checkup to see if our sin is part of the cause. The article I found referenced scripture where Jesus spoke of the mill wheel falling at Siloam and made the specific point that it was not because those killed were worse than anyone else, but it was still a general call to repentance.

    The article I read seemed to be some sort of reply, perhaps to questions being bandied about in the press as to why horrific storms and disasters occur. (I have not yet looked up the bridge one–just these two.)

    His main thought, put in my own words, seemed to be this: if it feels like your Heavenly Father is warming up your fanny with a paddle, instead of yelling “unfair” or “victim” you might ask Him if you’ve done something wrong. The answer might be yes, or it might be no, or it might be that you are part of a group doing wrong and not speaking up about it. (Joplin)

    Or to put it another way: sometimes God doesn’t want His babies to get killed in an epidemic so He gives them very painful vaccinations. (ELCA)

    I’ve lived in tornado alley myself and run to the fraidy hole many times, so tornado discussions are personal to me, also. Been through some major blizzards, dust storms, and earthquakes. Watched my children’s eyes as we huddled in a basement while a tornado raged above.

    My take on storms? Sometimes they really are God’s judgment being visited upon us. Sometimes they are just forces of nature being used by God. And sometimes–like the Lutheran guy who had his house blown away–I just put my house in the wrong place.

    Peace!

  135. @ Val: I think that is ascribing *far* too much power to satan.

    But that’s probably a discussion for another day!

    peace,
    numo

  136. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The group had ceased to be a healthy place for followers of Jesus to gather, and would have done so whether the elders had conspired to smuggle in a Neo-Calvinist, an Emergent or Rob Bell.

    True. But I think the point is that you don’t see a lot of Arminians or Emergents secretly taking over churches. There does seem to be some sort of positive correlation between those who are Neo-Calvinist and those who aggressively (and sometimes deceptively) seek to “convert” churches to their own theological orientation (i.e. Calvinism).

    I don’t see a whole lot of Baptists invading Presbyterian churches. We *are* seeing a lot of Neo-Reformed folks invading Baptist churches (most of which have a long history of Arminianism and Congregationalism).

  137. linda wrote:

    But the basic premise I got was that God has made it clear in the past He can and sometimes does send calamity in response to society-wide sickness. So it is possible these calamities were sent by God.

    Just a thought – there is no record in the New Testament (NT) of God promising to send cataclysmic, communal judgement (natural disasters, etc.) on anyone (believer or unbeliever) until Judgement Day. There are a few instances of an individual being punished (Herod, Ananias and Saphira), but these are significant for their rarity and thus are the exception that proves the rule.

  138. Mr.H wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    The group had ceased to be a healthy place for followers of Jesus to gather, and would have done so whether the elders had conspired to smuggle in a Neo-Calvinist, an Emergent or Rob Bell.
    True. But I think the point is that you don’t see a lot of Arminians or Emergents secretly taking over churches. There does seem to be some sort of positive correlation between those who are Neo-Calvinist and those who aggressively (and sometimes deceptively) seek to “convert” churches to their own theological orientation (i.e. Calvinism).
    I don’t see a whole lot of Baptists invading Presbyterian churches. We *are* seeing a lot of Neo-Reformed folks invading Baptist churches (most of which have a long history of Arminianism and Congregationalism).

    ……………………………

    Of the three /four churches I know of being taken over, it was the neo Cals doing the taking. Three were Baptist, one was independent /unaffiliated. Covert takeovers too, resulting in major splits.

  139. @ dee:

    “JeffB wrote:

    There is still God’s knowing about what will happen.”

    “There is a difference between God causing a tornado as a means of punishment (as Piper said to punish the Lutherans for their stand on gay clergy which means He has a direct line to God who lets him know these things) to people and tornados which are a factor of living in a fallen world. In the first, God causes the tornado directly to punish a certain group of people for their disobedience. In the second, it is due to a fallen world which was caused by the Fall.

    I am well aware that some do not see the difference in the two scenarios. I accept that you might not. For me, and others, there is a distinct difference. One is a God deliberately causing a tornado for punishment. The other is due to a Fallen world caused by man. This is one of those points where we might have to agree to disagree about causal agency.”

    Leaving aside someone “knowing” exactly why, say, a tornado occurs, I think it’s possible that it could happen both because it’s an event that occurs in a fallen world *and* because God uses it to punish or for other reasons, for example:

    Have you entered the place where the snow is stored?
    Or have you seen the storehouses of hail,
    which I hold in reserve for times of trouble,
    for the day of warfare and battle? (Job 38:22-23)

    I think that when God ordains anything, it means that the thing or event is definitely going to exist or occur. He may use human free will, the “natural” order (in a fallen world), Satan, or anything else to bring it about. So I don’t think that, with God, there’s a clear-cut difference between knowing and doing.

    Let’s say, though, that there is a clear-cut difference. Can’t God know that a tornado will occur, because of natural events, and choose to prevent it?

  140. OK, this is my last post on this thread for a while – I’ve already posted two in a row! (It’s difficult to come in late to a thread and not want to instantly engage everyone’s great comments).

    A thought about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I never really hear anyone take a psychological-critical approach to Christian theology, but I think it would be really helpful. Here’s my thinking:

    (a) Everyone has “issues.” Whether you realize it or not. (and sometimes not realizing it is one of the issues!)

    (b) These “issues” play a huge part in our lives, shaping and influencing everything from career choices to relational choices (who we choose to marry, who we choose to befriend, or not).

    (c) Why would these issues not also influence the specific strain of Christianity that we are attracted to?

    Let me offer a small, specific example. Let’s say John Doe grew up in a very unstable home. No one paid the bills, or went grocery shopping, or helped with homework. As a result, John developed a bunch of coping strategies to enable him to survive. He became very organized, strict, and disciplined. He sought out mentors (in work, in school) who provided clear structure and strong boundaries. He operates best in contexts where there is a strong authority figure and where the rules are clearly established and strongly enforced.

    John became a Christian in college and is now looking for a home church. How might his “issues” influence his choices? What kind of a church would John feel most comfortable in? Why?

  141. Good points, Dee. I look forward to your “fair and balanced” (to coin a phrase) future coverage of the misrepresentations of Calvinism by non-Calvinists and the ways in which non-Calvinists express their theology that Calvinists find troubling. 🙂

    I think that a couple of others here made excellent points in noting that the objections of non-Calvinists to what they perceive as Calvinism’s implications about the nature of God are virtually identical to the objections of atheists to any form of Christian teaching about God. The atheist will say that any belief in God is illogical and irrational and that no form of Christian theology (including one that focuses on human free will) answers their objections about how there can possibly be a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, in light of the existence of evil and the Christian doctrine of hell. I have yet to meet an atheist who considers the “free will” response an even remotely satisfying answer to their questions.

  142. Dee, I had not read your previous post before making my above comment. I see that you already attempted to provide some balance. Fox News would be proud 😀

  143. @ Anon 1:

    “I realize you do not think God ordains evil but the determinism logically goes there.”

    Actually, I *do* believe that God ordains evil. I think, for example, that the Holocaust was evil, and that it would not have occurred if God had not ordained it. As I wrote in my last comment: “I think that when God ordains anything, it means that the thing or event is definitely going to exist or occur. He may use human free will, the “natural” order (in a fallen world), Satan, or anything else to bring it about. So I don’t think that, with God, there’s a clear-cut difference between knowing and doing.”

    A corollary of this, I think, is that nothing occurs that is not God-ordained. I understand that this is disturbing. My words are not written in stone. I could be wrong.

    “So you appeal to mystery as answer why God can be good, control all things but have no hand in controlling evil. How God can be good and totally in control of even the rogue molecule. The answer is secret and revealed will. Now, God has two wills. IT just gets more and more complicated and turns God into a deceptive monster.”

    I would say that God *controls* evil (He ultimately controls Satan, for instance), but that He does not *originate* it. His goodness sometimes seems a mystery because he ordains things that we do not see as good, but that ultimately will lead to good, though we may not see that either.

    God wishes that none perish. Some perish. Doesn’t that alone lead to the possibility of God having more than one will? I realize that if one does not believe that God ordains everything, there’s an easy answer to that question.

  144. JeffB wrote:

    Leaving aside someone “knowing” exactly why, say, a tornado occurs, I think it’s possible that it could happen both because it’s an event that occurs in a fallen world *and* because God uses it to punish or for other reasons,

    But, the difference is that the events in the OT are explained by God through His prophets so that people know exactly why something occurred. When David’s baby died, we knew it was due to his sin with Bathsheba. When the Israelites were defeated and sent into captivity, we knew why that occurred.

    Today’s “prophets” give us all sorts of reasons for the event. A hurricane was caused because America was considering legalizing gay marriage as an example of one big wig mind reader. 9/11 occurred because we took prayer out of the schools. Now, why pick those? Perhaps it was because God was irritated at John Piper for telling women they should endure abuse for a night.

    I do not like it when we play “guess the mind of God” with today’s self appointed prophets. Heck, Driscoll actually has appointed people prophets over at his place.

    And, since everybody seems to listen to the whys of the self appointed prophets, perhaps Deebs should start their own line of interpreting disasters. It rained hard on Sunday and caused all sorts of accidents here in the Triangle. God is telling us that he is mad at some of the football coaches in the area using bad language. No, better yet, it was Miley Cyrus’ twerking. Yep-that’s the one.

  145. @ Mr.H:

    This is a really interesting angle to take. I think there’s something else to throw into the melting pot here, which is that whichever flavour of Christianity he comes across first is likely to influence our John Doe. And maybe quite subtly. For instance, if he is of a non-conforming and/or self-willed sort (as he might be), then he may subconsciously determine to fall in love with it only temporarily, then reject it in favour of something else. Then he can say, of course I started out with X but I always knew better and rejected it in favour of Y. This is surprisingly common in church circles, and probably elsewhere too.

  146. @ Junkster:It’s good to hear from you, Junkster. I try, i really try.

    One person said he felt like I caricatured Calvinism. I asked him to clarify so that I can fix it. My intent was to try to move beyond our differences and try to be understanding of one another. If I caricatured anyone in any way, I want to be told how I did so. So far, no response, but I am waiting and willing to correct anything that I have said.

    The most difficult part of this is that there are a range of Calvinist beliefs from John Piper to a professor at Calvin College as well as a range of nonCalvinist beliefs from Roger Olson to Ed Young Jr. That is why I am emphasizing Noe-Calvinism.

  147. @ Junkster: I have had some success with it when I expand beyond the typical, easy approach. Some will understand the difference between knowledge, free will, and causality. However, they still reject the existence of God, no matter how good the argument. They ask why he won’t just make a big appearance to the entire world, floating up there in the sky. That one is hard to explain. The Jesus came 2000 years ago usually doesn’t cut it.

  148. @ Daisy:

    “JeffB wrote:

    You didn’t refer to my comment, but that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Non-Calvinists must also deal with the fact that an omniscient God created a world that would lead to countless people enduring eternal suffering. Does that make God bad? Absolutely not. But Arminians can’t pretend that their emphasis on human free will eliminates troubling questions, as if only Calvinists have to deal with them.

    I don’t think that’s the crux of the issue, or why Non-Cal’s object to Calvinism.”

    I realize that the crux is determinism, but it does *seem* sometime that non-Cals who are not Universalists forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.

  149. If God is all-powerful and can do anything he wants, why did he create a universe in which bad things could happen, and not thereafter consistently intervene whenever they did?

    Here’s an alternative question.

    If God is all-powerful and can have anything he wants, why would he create a universe in which he could suffer?

    I will not make any attempt to solve the problem of evil (as it’s called) for anyone else; the exercise is next door to hopeless, as we have seen. But I have come to understand (as far as I can) a couple of things. God created a universe in which extraordinary, wonderful and unexpected things were possible; but in which, as an inevitable corollary, s**t would also happen. At the cross, he took full personal responsibility for the latter; whether his direct fault or not. To paraphrase Balin: there is someone I can call King.

    Incidentally, that’s why I will not say I believe in “Penal Substitutionary Atonement”; it’s fine as far as it goes, but it surely doesn’t go nearly far enough.

  150. @ Junkster:

    Based on my experiences with Calvinists, no matter how carefully you try to depict their views, even if you’re read Calvinist web sites that explain it, etc, the average Calvinist will insist you “don’t understand Calvinism” or that you are misrepresenting it, or are erecting straw men.

    A critic of Calvinism can never define it or understand it to the satisfaction of the Calvinist.

  151. @ dee:

    Well, in the quote from Job, we are given a general comment on the issue, not specific reasons. So I think that God may use weather events in that way today. My main point is that, for God, doing and knowing may be virtually the same.

    I’ve written many times that I COMPLETELY AGREE with you about people today pretending to know exactly WHY a catastrophic event occurs without some recent “supplement” to Scripture telling them why. But since both Cal and non-Cal big shots do it, it has nothing to do with any differences between the two groups and everything to do with big shots working above their pay grade. Calvin himself is almost constantly warning his readers to not presume to know things about God that are not in Scripture (according to him, of course), and one of those things is speaking for God about specific events. And I’m sure this warning is in the non-Cal writings also.

    I’m guessing, but it might have more to do with a certain type of charismaticism than with anything else. I know Piper believes that we can receive extra-biblical revelation today, and so does Pat Robertson.

  152. JeffB wrote:

    non-Cals who are not Universalists forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.

    Never do i forget and neither do many non-Calvinists.

  153. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    At the cross, he took full personal responsibility for the latter; whether his direct fault or not. To paraphrase Balin: there is someone I can call King.

    Well said.

  154. JeffB wrote:

    But since both Cal and non-Cal big shots do it, it has nothing to do with any differences between the two groups and everything to do with big shots working above their pay grade.

    Totally, absolutely agreed.

  155. JeffB wrote:

    I’m guessing, but it might have more to do with a certain type of charismaticism than with anything else. I know Piper believes that we can receive extra-biblical revelation today, and so does Pat Robertson.

    I’ve heard a fair number of Neo Cals make assumptions about events. But no one, absolutely no one can outdo that non-Calvinist Pat Robertson who needs someone to protect him from his own words.

  156. JeffB wrote:

    forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.

    No, I don’t think we do.

    But it seems cruel to me to posit a God who willy nilly picks at random in eternity past who will be saved and who will be sent to Hell (picking who will be saved means some are in effect being chosen for Hell).

    At least under Non Cal positions, the sinner has a chance, an actual free will, to choose or reject God for himself. I believe the Holy Spirit plays a role in drawing people to God, but free will is at work, too.

    There are other aspects that Non Cals find troubling about the Calvinist God.

    Pointing out problems with Non Cal views (“You guys have this problem too!”) doesn’t erase problems in Calvinism.

  157. @ Val:

    “Satan was made the Prince and ruler of this earth…”. “He is the cause of our suffering and pain. No, God did not order this. This happened.”

    If Satan was *made* the Prince and ruler, who made him be these things, if not God?

    “At some far-in-the-past point in time, God put Satan in charge of this world, but Satan fell yet maintains that position over the world.”

    Please tell me where in Scripture it says that “God put Satan in charge of this world” before he fell.

    Is Satan a free agent or has he always ultimately been under God’s control?

  158. A quote from a friend on Facebook:

    “Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty , famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it…but I’m afraid that He might ask me the same question.”

  159. Daisy wrote:

    A critic of Calvinism can never define it or understand it to the satisfaction of the Calvinist.

    Probably so, and vice versa. We each do our best (hopefully) to make sense of what we see in Scripture.

    But my point is that atheists object as much to non-Calvinist views of and explanations about God, sin, evil and hell as they do to Calvinist views. This doesn’t minimize or discount the real differences between Cal and non-Cal theology; it just says to me that we ought to speak where Scripture speaks, be silent where it is silent, and acknowledge with love and humility that others who see the Bibles’s teaching on these matters differently are trying to do the same. And we ought to be careful when making accusations that someone’s doctrine of how salvation works necessarily makes “their God” unworthy of worship, when those same exact arguments can be applied to either belief system by a non-Christian.

  160. I believe in free will. I also believe that God knows everything that can be known and knows his plan(s) for us. But I do not believe he knows the future in detail, only how he will respond to what humans choose to do. Among his plans are the opportunity for every person who is capable of choosing will have an opportunity, either to choose Christ by knowledge, or, in places without preaching about Jesus, to choose to believe in God and that God has provided a way (which we call Jesus Christ) for them. I do not believe that one who is unable to choose will be held to account for not choosing, for that would be unjust.

    This deals with the problem of God creating people for the purpose of sending them to hell. And I think we need to be very careful in assuming that heaven and hell are the only outcomes. The word sometimes translated hell is also the word for a place of burial or a grave, and that perhaps indicates a third future place.

    I am reluctant to posit that God creates people he knows will be in hell, without them having a clear opportunity to choose to follow. I fully believe that those who choose to be and do evil will be in hell, including those who pose as Christians but do not live the life of love Jesus set forth in the Second Great Commandment, thereby abusing those God loves.

  161. JeffB wrote:

    I think, for example, that the Holocaust was evil, and that it would not have occurred if God had not ordained it.

    I don’t even know where to start with this statement of yours. I guess my 1st question would have to do with your knowledge of how the Holocaust was systematically planned (down to the last detail) and carried out. (You might want to start with the book The Nazi Doctors, by Robert J. Lifton.)

    and how many lives were brutally snuffed out.

    I cannot believe that God “ordained” this horror – or any other genocide, for that matter.

  162. @ JeffB:

    Here is the teaching. God put Adam in charge of the earth. Romans 6 says that you are the servant of the one you obey. Adam obeyed satan. Satan tricked Adam and got the temporary rulership of the world. Jesus won it back when satan broke God’s law by taking His life when He had never sinned. Jesus will come back and rule one day.

    Not sure how God’s sovereignty plays into that. I think that He still owns the world so sometimes he overrides satan at times. And He still takes all of the messes satan creates and can work them for good.

  163. @numo, @jeffb, and everyone else.

    Let’s let this idle till morning. We’re walking close to the cliff and I’d rather not have to try and recover anyone who goes over the edge.

    I’m not saying anyone is over the edge now but trying to avoid anyone getting there.

    Almost anytime Godwin’s law can be invoked everyone should take a deep breath and take a pause.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    Thanks
    GBTC

  164. i have my doubts that a group tickle fight will go over well right now. DEFINITELY too close to the cliff…

  165. Junkster wrote:

    it just says to me that we ought to speak where Scripture speaks, be silent where it is silent,

    This one is most tricky as I will show next week. There are some who believe that infants go to hell and can show it from the way they view Scripture. Also, I believe in the Trinity. But as you probably know, the doctrine of the Trinity was not immediately accepted in the early church. Doctrine is often formed in areas in which Scripture may be silent or vague.

  166. Arce wrote:

    I do not believe that one who is unable to choose will be held to account for not choosing, for that would be unjust.

    I agree with you and will write about it next week. However, some folks have a peculiar view of just. They would say that, if God chooses to do it, it is therefore just. So, even if it involves the Holocaust, if God was the causative agent (which I do not believe, obviously) then it was just and even loving.

  167. numo wrote:

    I cannot believe that God “ordained” this horror

    I agree with you in this matter. Olson makes an interesting challenge in his book. He claims that, if certain people believe that God ordained the Holocaust and it is therefore just, loving and merciful (since that is God’s character), then they should stand outside of Auschwitz (which i visited as a teen and will never, ever, forget the horror) and preach the love of God.

  168. @ dee:
    That provides a cover for believing in a monstrous evil being instead of a truly loving God. It is akin to the man who beats up his wife while saying “I love you”, or the parent who beats a child, or the man who claims to be helping his child prepare for marriage while raping her. There is no love, in any of the above.

  169. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain: Actually, in this particular case, I believe it is appropriate to discuss the Holocaust. It is one of the most horrific evils of our time. Olson makes a point of it in his book.

    The problem of good and evil is make saliently clear by what occurred in the death camps. The very simple question regarding this horror is “Did God ordain this to occur and,by so doing, was the causative agent or did He not ordain it?” This discussion is different than people accusing one another of being Nazis.

    Since I brought up Olson’s book, and the Holocaust features prominently, I declare the discussion open for business.

    The only caveat that I would make is this. Even if we disagree with someone’s assumptions and theology, we should try to understand that, the person advocating for God’s ordaining of such an event as the Holocaust, still believe that God is just and loving, even if we do not understand the logic of their argument. That is believing the best of one another even if we do not know how they get there.

  170. @ Arce: I agree that such a statement does lead me to think that. But, as Olson said in his book, we have to try to believe the best of the other individual. So, for example, both Jeff B and Jeff S (amongst others) are people of good will and I bet they care for those abused. Jeff S is involved in helping those hared by domestic violence.

    Accepting that, I must attempt to say that even though I do not understand logically what they are advocating (Olson makes this point) I will accept that they are people of good will and do not believe in a God who is a moral monster. But, i must admit, I do not understand their argument.

    Have you read Olson’s book? I know you like him.

  171. @ dee:
    Have not had the opportunity, but have had discussions (in person) with him in the past and sat in Sunday School when he taught. One was in 2004 where we agreed that a problem in hyper-Calvinism is an overemphasis on the (possibly misunderstood) sovereignty of God relative to the love God has for human beings. It was during that conversation that the statement was made that “Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over everything except his own sovereignty.” I still believe that God is sovereign, but disagree that means that His will always determines what happens in the world, rather, it means He is the ultimate judge who allows humans to be human, to fail, to learn, to repent, and to accept the gift of grace and salvation or not.

    I still believe it is heretical to say that what ever happens is God’s will, predetermined. I do not believe that God wills that humans commit heinous atrocities.

  172. JeffB wrote:

    Actually, I *do* believe that God ordains evil. I think, for example, that the Holocaust was evil, and that it would not have occurred if God had not ordained it. As I wrote in my last comment: “I think that when God ordains anything, it means that the thing or event is definitely going to exist or occur….I would say that God *controls* evil (He ultimately controls Satan, for instance), but that He does not *originate* it.

    Yes, it is to this that I wrote to you at end of thread “For Non-Calvinists…” I suspect you have not thought through the implications of your belief. It appears to me that you are more concerned with making correct biblical arrangements than you are with the humans God made. (I don’t mean only you but also many Calvinists with whom I grew up.)

    How do you suggest that Holocaust and child-abuse survivors resolve the terrible deeds done to them with the kind of God you propose? Explain to me the path to healing that they will take.

    I’m not being rhetorical. An explanation of how it works for “the least of these” is required if a believer’s assertions about God are to be taken seriously.

  173. @ dee:

    I understand what you are saying about respecting the persons with this belief. I don’t say that they are evil or vile to believe as they do, but there is a problem, for me anyway, when this theology hits the pavement and is driven around in the world of living, breathing human beings. I’ve seen it many times over. Those who believe in a determinist, sovereign God (a God who can never undo what his sovereignty declared) bring hopelessness and additional pain in the way they declare God to other people. Even their counsel, which should bring hope, brings heartache and confusion when God is the one who is in control of wickedness and ordains everthing that comes to pass.

    I imagine the father of lies loves this scenario. I simply won’t add to his joy. He seems to get a pass and is seldom discussed as the cause of anything. God gets the bad wrap instead of our choices and the liar’s desire to destroy.

  174. @ Bridget:

    Let me just add that it’s hard for me to be around, trust, and interact with those who want to tell me about their all knowing, evil ordaining, for my good, God. 🙁 These are my honest feelings with no implied intentions toward anyone.

  175. dee wrote:

    Auschwitz (which i visited as a teen and will never, ever, forget the horror)

    Mrs A A visited Dachau, and has never been able to forget the horrible smell. The ovens had been cold 20 years already.

  176. dee wrote:

    This one is most tricky as I will show next week. There are some who believe that infants go to hell and can show it from the way they view Scripture.

    One tricky question for next week is, “If no infants go to hell, did Herod do some/most of the Bethlehem innocents an eternal favor?”

  177. dee wrote:

    Doctrine is often formed in areas in which Scripture may be silent or vague.

    Fair enough. What I meant was that we should all be willing to accept that we don’t know the answers to all of the questions raised by those who don’t understand our beliefs. We should be willing to accept that there are tensions between various themes raised in Scripture (God’s sovereignty / human responsibility, God’s love / the existence of evil, etc.), and in humility we should be willing to speak to what we see in the Bible but not feel it necessary to answer questions that might not be directly or easily answered by quoting Scripture.

    Your example of the Trinity is a good one. Most Christians believe, and have for centuries believed, that the Bible teaches that God is three persons in one being. No amount of theological precision or philosophical wrangling can adequately explain exactly how that can be, when it is outside our normal human experience of persons and beings. The best we can do is come up with analogies, all of which break down at some point. When we attempt to understand and explain the infinite in finite terms and with finite minds, we never quite get there.

    My biggest beef with Calvinists is that they (some anyway, particularly neo-Cals) often speak as if they have all the answers to the difficult questions people raise about the implications of their theology. And in the process they sometimes disregard the real emotional struggles non-Cals deal with when considering those implications. They speak often of the love of God but seem to portray a concept of love that is foreign to many people’s experience.

    My biggest beef with non-Calvinists is that they (some anyway, particularly those reacting to neo-Cals) often speak as if they think that their view of human free will answers the difficult questions people raise about the implications of their theology. And in the process they sometimes make railing accusations against the character of God as Cals believe He has revealed Himself in Scripture.

    I think these are the same kinds of things you are attempting to address in these two posts — getting people to see past their own perceptions of other people’s theology, and develop some sense of empathy for the other side’s perspective, and try to be charitable and assume good things about each other. Had the same approach been taken when I used to be a regular participant in this blog I might not have left. So I commend you for making the effort now.

    From your comments, it seems evident that you plan to continue with additional posts that will address more problems / issues you have with Calvinistic theology. As you do so, I hope that you will continue to encourage your readers (especially your non-Cal ones) not to beat up on each other or sling nasty accusations against others and their views of God. A little grace and sympathy goes a long way, and non-Cals aren’t the only ones who get hurt when people say things about God that they can’t relate to.

  178. @ elastigirl:

    after reading more here this morning, I think I take it back. i think it is worthy to discuss the implications of the words God / ordained / holocaust when used together. (no tickle fight, though, for sure)

  179. Junkster wrote:

    From your comments, it seems evident that you plan to continue with additional posts that will address more problems / issues you have with Calvinistic theology

    Actually, the one on infant salvation will be a bit more broad. Seems that, throughout history, lots of folks have travelled down the road.

  180. @ elastigirl:This is a hard one, to be sure. But, I figured if Olson could discuss it, so could we. I could occasionally stand a tickle fight or a hot fudge sundae.

  181. @ Dave A A:They shut the doors on us as e stood in the gas chamber. I still shiver, thinking about it. If that isn’t an example of pure evil, I do not know what is.

  182. Dave A A wrote:

    One tricky question for next week is, “If no infants go to hell, did Herod do some/most of the Bethlehem innocents an eternal favor?”

    I knew this question would come up. Yes, and no. The suicide question is often phrased in a similar vain. And there are lots more question both of these raise. For example, since God already knows who will be saved, via foreknowledge and/or election (I am being inclusive in this example) does He make sure what will be, will be (Que sera, sera).

    Hard, hard questions. That is why I am glad there is a God. I know He’s got it all figured out

  183. Bridget wrote:

    Even their counsel, which should bring hope, brings heartache and confusion when God is the one who is in control of wickedness and ordains everthing that comes to pass.

    I know. I would have been one who such answers would have driven me away.

    That is why I believe that Calvinists need to lead with love. Not I love so much I am going to tell you what a wretch you are and how you deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity. And I bet they know exactly what I am saying.

  184. This comment should aptly be titled: Muff Goes Off the Cliff

    I have read with avid interest the back and forth on the holocaust and those who have suffered horrific abuse as children. Here’s what God told me to tell y’all:

    “…I orchestrated no such thing, so please leave me out of it. When you guys make me out to be some sadistic and petulant tyrant because of my power, not only does it piss me off, it also hurts my feelings. You kids did all that horrible stuff to each other on your own dime, own up to it and learn from your mistakes…”

  185. @ dee: If you read R.J. Lifton’s book on the “doctors” (that I mentioned in an earlier comment), you will see how the Party deliberately practiced on “Aryan” men, women and children who did not meet their standards for carrying on the “Aryan race” – i.e., those who had birth defects, were physically and mentally handicapped, even those who had minor heart problems and the like.

    *Then* – and only then, after the murder of the Lord alone knows how many – did they start on the so-called “Final Solution” for Jewish people, the Roma (gypsies) and gay people.

    I heard a radio segment (on PRI’s “The World”) two days ago about the rise of the Golden Dawn Party in Greece; how Greek Holocaust survivors (and their children and grandchildren) feel about it – many are leaving, others refuse to, because they are Greek and don’t want to be driven from their homes. The reporter talked about hearing the “Horst Wessel Lied” played/and sung in public places there.

    How anyone could ever EVER say that such carefully-planned, systematic mass murder was “ordained by God” is beyond me. The rise of many neo-Nazi groups in both Europe and the US scares me, to be honest.

    If we do not speak up now, history could repeat itself.

  186. Tag on my last: the Germans used a *lot* of material on eugenics that was developed (and, to a horrifying degree, practiced) here in the US.

    We were the leaders in so-called “race science.”

  187. I refuse to trust a Christian that believes God is the author of evil. Now if a Christian can tell me that they simply don’t understand why God has not intervened to prevent certain horrors and in that way still believe that God has a loving agenda somewhere in that decision because they trust that God IS good all of the time and that God simply understands more than we do and we will understand someday then I can still have Christian fellowship with them. But I know many people, Arminian and Calvinist Christians who believe that since God is in charge it doesn’t matter what we think is evil or good, God can do whatever God wants and then whatever they interpret God to be decreeing they follow and copy. They are the ones who can beat a child believing that God said to do it, ignoring all common sense. I think some themselves would wipe out whole ‘sinning’ towns for God’s sake if God gave them power over the weather. That was the kind of God follower that Saul was before he was Paul. He said that he had a certain zeal for God but he was ignorant until he met Jesus Christ.

  188. @ dee:

    “This discussion is different than people accusing one another of being Nazis.”

    Thank you for this, and for your entire comment.

    I regret bringing up the Holocaust because it is so fraught with emotion, and for good reason. As a Jew, I’m particularly aware of this. I could give reasons why I think I mentioned it, but it would not be an excuse. I think it’s consistent with my point, but I could have made the point another way. Also, it tends to lead to many digressions.

    I also regret that the image that people have of me and others (yes, usually Calvinists) who have this belief about God’s ordination is one of coldness and hard-heartedness. It’s embarrassing to say this of myself – even in this rather impersonal medium – but I am so not like that.

    I can have these beliefs and not even think of them when in the presence, or even the knowledge, of suffering. Much less would I express them. I suppose I could be accused of compartmentalizing too well. Maybe. But I also think that, simply, there is a time and place for everything.

    In a tribute to veteran comedy writer-actor-director Carl Reiner, Steve Martin said (paraphrasing): “I would love to discuss the many achievements of Carl Reiner now, but, somehow, this doesn’t seem to be the right time or place.” I think this is the time and place to discuss these things, within reasonable limits, mainly having to do with civility.

  189. Copied from previous thread.

    Bridget on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:39 AM said:

    @ JeffB:
    “God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point.”
    Why would the Bible portray God in such a way (that isn’t true) just to make a point? How do you know that this, in fact, is what the Bible did and is not what God IS like? You seem to know the internal workings of God — which amazes me. I would really like to understand this assertion you made.

  190. @ JeffB:
    OK, this is a huge topic so I am not sure I can do it justice in reply. So here goes my attempt, first let’s go back to the OT – God creates a wonderful world in Gen 1, but, and this is where we are in danger of reading texts in a western way – front to back/ first to last – that is only one of many creation accounts in the OT. All the other mentions of creation involve God battling forces of evil and/or chaos. This is what scholars refer to as the “chaoskampf “. (I’m doing the grammatically English way of putting punctuation past the quotations, I could do the American way, but I was watch Sherlock Holmes last night, so it wins).

    In these other verses of God battling chaos/evil they parallel the Ancient near eastern neighbours of Israel, they battle the evil monsters and forces (ex. the evil waters surrounding earth) their neighbours feared. It is obviously mythical (no I don’t go for Leviathan, Rahab and Yamm being some sort of living dinosaur species), but those mythical creatures God battles are in the Bible for a purpose. What is that purpose? It shows us God faces opposition while he interacts with his creation. So what are the forces that cause the “chaoskampf”? In the NT we learn about the fall of Satan. We don’t know when he fell. But, given that life on earth has so far had at least three (or was it four) mass extinctions over the course of time, and nature is hardly in perfect harmony – even the Bible refers to the earth as groaning under the weight of evil – and much pain and suffering went on long, long before humans ever walked this earth. That, and evil was already roaming around the Garden when God was communing with Adam and Eve.

    So, now I will ask you to show me that Satan (evil) didn’t fall out with heaven long, long before humans entered creation.

  191. The fact is that if God truly is in “control” of good and evil then there is no way to really define either one. What we call “good” and what we call “evil” are merely relative observations. And if this is true then what can we say about any other idea? What is love? What is justice? What is abuse? What is compassion? If God is behind all of it, then there can be no real, human-contextual meaning. Humans can’t define good and evil, thus they can’t define right and wrong. And if they can’t tell right from wrong, then they can no longer properly make value judgements of any kind. And we can easily see then why human beings are so easily destroyed thus in the name of “truth”.

  192. @ Daisy:

    “JeffB wrote:

    forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.

    No, I don’t think we do.”

    In all fairness, what I wrote was (with the emphasis): “I realize that the crux is determinism, but it does *seem* sometime that non-Cals who are not Universalists forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.”

  193. @ dee:

    This kind of question is in the same vein as any other determinist assumption: the quckest and most assures way to moral/existential perfection is DEATH for the human.

    Killing children in service to moral perfection is no different than killing anyone else in service to moral perfection. If you want truth and purity to reign, then humanity should just be killed off.

    Notice the assumption: children aren’t actually GOOD; but they can be saved because they aren’t aware that they are not good yet. Uhh….how does that work? The child is still fundamentally corrupt…which begs the question: how then can the child really be saved? There is no just basis God can have for saving that which is inherently morally corrupt. So why does the age of the child matter? The premise hasn’t changed; children are still depraved. So they should go to hell.

    Which is why any good Calvinist cannot argue that infants go to heaven.

  194. @ numo:

    I am not saying that God either bypassed human free will or that He forced the architects of the Holocaust to do what He did. He took free will into account.

    Even if God in no way ordained the Holocaust, did He not know in advance that it would occur? In that case, could He not have prevented it?

    I know that some say that there is a big difference between ordaining and not preventing. But the result is the same: A Holocaust. One that God was aware of before it occurred.

    Even if I were not a Jew, I think I would be aware of how many lives were lost. On this subject, it’s very easy to assume a superior morality.

  195. @ JeffB:
    OK, so that post above is when Satan likely fell from Heaven. Now, your other question was If Satan was ruler of the earth who put him in charge. Yes, I agree God. But, I wasn’t clear. God put Satan in charge of his creation while Satan was his praise angle in Heaven. In other words, Satan and the demons who followed him were given dominion over earth to share in the cosmic care of the this world with God. Why else would God entrust his creation to a destroyers?

    Total aside:
    In the ancient world, the worst force of evil was chaos. The ancients worshiped things with purpose – my prof pointed out that they would have a god/dess for pottery, but never for the guck at the bottom of the river, where they gathered the clay from. They were, in our eyes, largely uncurious about the natural (undomesticated) world around them, unless it could be of some immediate use to them. So, any force (wind, storms, tsunamis) that could render useful things useful, was a bad, evil, force. To them, ultimate evil was a destroyer. I have mentioned before in these posts that Hinduism is our last remaining religion that is rooted in the Ancient Near Eastern Fertility cults of old (although it too is much more modernized in its philosophy), and, it of course has a pretty famous destroyer goddess (Kali, whom Calcutta is named after).

    Aside continues:
    Although Hinduism saw a cycle in destruction (including death) and rebirth/life – creator god/desses do the rebirth stuff – they didn’t necessarily fear/reject the destroyer god/desses (there are other destroyer deities in Hinduism, and in some areas Kali is worshiped as a male, most places she is female and in a few s/he is both, depending on the phase of the moon), but they worked hard to keep those god/desses appeased. They just viewed destruction as one side of a necessary balance.

    What I learned was that the ancients feared the chaos god/desses (a little different from Hinduism), but, in their fear, they appeased them (worshipped them) too. As no creator (good) god/desses could overcome them. In many ancient motifs a certain human-ish hero over came the destroyer god/desses. The most famous, of course, was Gilgamesh who survived a world wide flood (oceans were the worst form of chaos to the ancients, due to their perceived uselessness, and untameableness) with eight other humans in a boat. In the Hikkadian language, they translated the epics of Gilgamesh to the epics of Noah 😉 No parallels to the Bible whatsoever, right? Gilgamesh was great at tricking the gods – cunning was a good trait in the ancient world (and often is what they mean when they refer to wisdom) – so that is how he survived the god’s mass destruction. But, without constant super-human cunning, one could never overcome the destroyers.

    Aside over:
    To the ancients, no wise or good God would entrust his creation to a destroyer. God didn’t. He put his best angels in charge of the earthly cosmos (I assume there is a whole world out there beyond the material world we see that we know little to nothing about – God, angels, demons, saints witnessing what we do, baptizing the dead, those who are “sleeping” now i.e. the saints, etc. and that is what God put Lucifer and co. in charge of). But, like us and Adam, Lucifer and co. had the freedom to do bad also, and they did. After that fall, they, maintained their power over the earthly cosmos, and have frustrated the world ever since. Why, in heaven would a lion lie down with a lamb? Lions are pure carnivores, you couldn’t feed a lion a plant based diet and expect him to survive. So, go back, pre-lions were the earliest mammals carnivores? yes. So, back again, where the earliest tetrapods carnivores? no. OK, so in this world there are plant eaters and carnivores, but they all evolved out of the same ancestors. The best view is, due to the poor spiritual state of this world (However that works), many species have gone off course and started devouring other animal life forms, but it seems from Revelations, God will restore this world, after victory over evil, to a vegetarian place.

    Note: Don’t think “poor plants” because life in the ancient Hebrew view was “nephesh” or “life” and only creatures that could breath were “nephesh” (therefore plants and fish weren’t nephesh, it is one main reason jewish people can abort a fetus and not view it as life in their religion, because a fetus isn’t “nephesh”, it can’t breath yet, and therefore, in their view, has no breath of God in it yet).

    OK, so back to Satan having power from God and then going bad. Well, like Adam and Eve, Lucifer had free will (even Calvinists believe Adam and Eve had free will). Like Adam and Eve, angles were put in charge of the cosmos while humans were put in charge of the earth (I am using this as “having dominion” over these realms). When Lucifer fell, he seized his power and uses it against God. So, why doesn’t God wipe him out? Go back to the parable of ‘the wheat and the tares’. Explain why an omniscient God can’t rip out the tares and save the wheat at the same time. Why does that God need to wait until harvest to sort it out?

    God is not going to fully battle Satan out of his place of dominion over this world until this world is gone. In the meantime, he has left us with his Holy Spirit, to take back our God-given dominion over this world and begin to turn back evil.

    So, in summary 1) God made Lucifer, and gave him dominion over the earth
    2) Lucifer fell from God yet maintains his iron grip on his cosmic dominion
    3) God will not fully beat Lucifer until the end of the world, when he can gather all the souls that are his to himself
    4) while we are alive, we are called to take back sections of this earth for God. Satan has to relinquish these strongholds that we give back to God (our dominion), but since he is still on the loose, he can conn us (like Eve) into giving them back to himself. Hence all the warnings about him and his power in the NT.
    5) In the end, the very end, after the “harvest” of humans, God will finish this war against Satan, but he cannot do it now, without harming us, which he won’t do, as we are valuable to him. When God wars against Satan, he will win, Jesus’ death has determined this somehow (Christus Victor atonement theory works well here) that Satan will be defeated.
    6) After his defeat, God will comfort us/ heal us from all the sufferings this world has caused us and that we have participated in, and finally
    7) we will be “married” cosmically, to Christ, meaning we will *join the Trinity* for eternity
    -or –
    Neo-Calvinist view of heaven: [insert sarcastic font here] Revelations is too feminized (bride of Christ and all) and Piper is right, women will eternally submit to men like Driscoll in heaven (and I am having a hard time separating that from Islamic Paradise where men get 70-odd virgins for fun).

    Any questions?, please refer to the Bible to prove me wrong, not later, added doctrine (ie Calvinism or Reformed theology), thanks.

  196. @ JeffB:
    No, Satan got the upper hand over the nations (as it is he who has dominion over nations) during the Holocaust, because Christians were too busy debating theology to notice what evil was brewing in their countrymen in the 30s and before. They dropped their calling to follow Jesus and love their neighbour and spent their time debating, ignoring the hurting masses (during the depression of the 30s) and dividing over theological nitpicking – Satan got the upper hand while Christians were busy looking elsewhere.

  197. @ JeffB:
    That assumes that God knows the future choices that humans will make. I do not believe that, nor that that is a necessary interpretation of the scriptures. I believe that God knows what can be known. That includes the tendencies of humans and what God will do when humans take any number of actions, that is, his plans to respond to what our free choices are, regardless of what they are. In that way, there is no “culpability” on God, either from acting or failing to act, because He did not know the Holocaust would occur, only that it could occur.

  198. @ Kindakrunchy:

    “Here is the teaching. God put Adam in charge of the earth. Romans 6 says that you are the servant of the one you obey. Adam obeyed satan. Satan tricked Adam and got the temporary rulership of the world. Jesus won it back when satan broke God’s law by taking His life when He had never sinned. Jesus will come back and rule one day.

    Not sure how God’s sovereignty plays into that. I think that He still owns the world so sometimes he overrides satan at times. And He still takes all of the messes satan creates and can work them for good.”

    I’m kinda confused. Hasn’t Satan always broken God’s law? Satan alone took Jesus’s life? If Jesus won back the world, why do you say that “He still owns the world so sometimes he overrides satan at times.” Why would he need to override Satan if He owns the world?

    “And He still takes all of the messes satan creates and can work them for good.”

    This I agree with.

  199. @ Val: Had dominion, more like – what do you think of jesus’ statement “now is the prince of this world cast out”?

  200. @ Val: Also, I do not believe that Satan ever “had dominion” in hte way that Boyd – and, I guess, you – are framing it.

    It seems more like Zoroastrianism than either Judaism or xtianity to me, but that’s just my observation.

  201. @ Bridget:

    “God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point.”

    “Why would the Bible portray God in such a way (that isn’t true) just to make a point? How do you know that this, in fact, is what the Bible did and is not what God IS like? You seem to know the internal workings of God — which amazes me. I would really like to understand this assertion you made.”

    I made the mistake of anticipating an objection and then making a lame assertion to answer it. I hadn’t thought it out. There are times when it’s pretty obvious that God appears to stoop to the human level in order to communicate with humans – such as when God asked Adam where he was and if he had eaten the fruit – but that doesn’t answer the question about God having internal conflicts. You were right to point that out.

  202. @ JeffB: While waiting for that comment to get out of moderation (it’s upthread a bit), I’ll just note that I grew up with some people whose families were (partly) Holocaust survivors.

    There is no moral superiority in that, just proximity and early awareness… Many people today know very little of what happened – partly due to being born well after WWII – which is why the Holocaust Memorial Museum exists.

  203. Very busy day, but thanks to whoever challenged me to go and read some of Piper’s comments. Like any author, I agreed with him in places and disagreed with others.

    As a newly converted Lutheran (who was geographically ELCA in 2009) I will confine my comments to his re the tornado.

    I put everything through three questions, and will tackle them in reverse of the usual order.

    Was Piper’s article kind? Given the angry rhetoric I heard and still hear from Lutheran pastors and laypeople, Piper’s comments were exceedingly measured and kind.

    Was it necessary? That depends on the next question, was it true? If his opinion is the correct one, it was most certainly necessary. If indeed a whole denomination is leading people astray and hurting their souls, it is indeed necessary to call them out publicly. Same thing we do with child abuse in the church.

    Was it true? Ah, there is the crux. There are those (many in ELCA) who would say yes, it was true. There are many who say no. If you believe he spoke untruth, I would ask what it was specifically with which you disagree? Is it the idea God may indeed send a storm to show His wrath? Seems I remember something about Noah that says yes, He may indeed. So we grant Piper the possibility. Is it that you do not believe ELCA did wrong? Is that where the angry angst came from, that Piper dared say homosexual activity is wrong? Ah, but again, both in the OT and NT one finds that teaching. We may argue which homosexual activity, but even the most liberal understanding concedes that something in terms of same sex sexual activity is forbidden.

    Or is it even deeper? Is it anger at the thought God might still actually be in control? That no matter what we get together and decide in regard to right and wrong, He still controls the universe and our votes are ultimately meaningless?

    At any rate–I like some of what Piper had to say, found some strange and off the wall, and am very grateful I won’t be sitting under his preaching this Sunday.

  204. numo wrote:

    If you read R.J. Lifton’s book on the “doctors” (that I mentioned in an earlier comment), you will see how the Party deliberately practiced on “Aryan” men, women and children who did not meet their standards for carrying on the “Aryan race” – i.e., those who had birth defects, were physically and mentally handicapped, even those who had minor heart problems and the like.

    Oh, it is so horrible for me to contemplate. Precious people, created in the image of God, being considered defective because of their race, or genes, or injury. I will never forget the images
    TRIGGER:
    Lamp shades made with human skin; blankets woven from the hair of those who died, pictures of those who had been experimented upon…
    I sometimes find it difficult to remember yet we all must never forget.

  205. JeffB wrote:

    but I am so not like that.

    I know that. That is why we must believe that you are not like that even if the doctrine can seem to others like me to lead us there. I believe that you are a loving person even if I cannot understand how the doctrine leads to a loving God. Olson said that very well and I choose to take his perspective on this.

    The Holocaust should have been mentioned. It figures prominently in the opening chapters. It is the image of pure evil which I believe was perpetrated by man and fueled by the Evil One. Our theology must lead us to explain such an event and I am quite comfortable with how this discussion is going. It’s hard but, in general, it has been a decent exchange(at least in my view).

  206. @ JeffB:

    Jeff,

    Can you explain how God can be aware of an event “before it occurs”. If it doesn’t exist yet, then there is nothing for God to know, by definition. And if there is something for God to know before man acts to bring it about, then who exactly is the cause of the event which God knows (with perfect knowledge) but man has not yet engaged in? I am confused by your logic.

    Why can’t we say that God did not know the holocaust would occur because it has been given to man to act and God to judge? Would that not take care of the obvious ethical problems with your assumption regarding evil that God sees and allows to happen anyway?

  207. linda wrote:

    f you believe he spoke untruth, I would ask what it was specifically with which you disagree? Is it the idea God may indeed send a storm to show His wrath?

    It is not the idea that He did so. The question is did he and how do we know? Unless we are are 100% sure that God has done this specifically, then we have no business telling everyone He did so. In fact, if one says something is from God, and it is not, they are a false prophet and God does not like false prophets.

    As for Noah, it was saliently clear what was going on. God said it, had Noah build an ark and the rain proved it. I am not so sure that it is so sure in this instance. How do we know? If we take a vote, does 60% in favor carry the vote?

    I also have no trouble with God being in control. Does God sustain the universe? Yes. Did he send a hurricane to punish the US for allowing gay marriage? I have no idea and do not believe that the ones who spout this stuff off do either.

    I look at Sweden and Norway-their high standard of living, their virtual elimination of poverty, the beauty of their land, the good medical care for all citizens etc. and it seems as if God is blessing them. Yet few people acknowledge God, most kids are born out of wedlock in Sweden and gay marriage is the law of the land. If God is irritated at the Lutherans, He must be really, really angry at Scandinavia.Yet, where the heck is the devastation?

    Talk about confusing messages….

  208. @ dee:

    Dee,

    You don’t understand because you rightly see the obvious moral and logical dilemmas inherent in the theology. You don’t understand because you have arrived at the conclusion that truth IS actually something you can grasp. You demand that the theology be consistent with your right understanding of that truth. And you also see that Calvinism can never get there.

    It will likely make you nauseas, but you and I are more alike than you probably want to admit.

  209. dee wrote:

    If we take a vote, does 60% in favor carry the vote?

    That would be election, wouldn’t it? (snicker)

  210. Argo wrote:

    It will likely make you nauseas, but you and I are more alike than you probably want to admit.

    Why would that make me nauseous? I respect your opinion.

  211. @ dee:

    Am I incorrect, but in the bible doesn’t God usually tell someone He is going to do something, so that when it happens there is little doubt as to why, how and WHO? So do we get from specific declarations of God leading to specific actions which He brings to pass, to God causing a bridge to collapse and then telling John Piper a day AFTER, that, by the way, it is because of all those gay people our country refuses to either put to death, put back in the closet, or ship to Holland?

  212. @ dee: Dee – there’s a substantial group of people in Sweden who are either Pentecostal or some flavor of a more hardline Lutheranism than many would credit.

    There was a big Pentecostal movement in Sweden in the early part of the 20th c. I used to know someone whose parents had been deeply affected by that, though one of them was Lutheran. Also, I met more than a few evangelicals from Sweden, Finland and Norway in Europe during the late 70s. while they may not have shown in a high percentage on polls, that does *not* mean that they were AWOL.

    I have this sneaking feeling that americans tend to look at other countries and their societies in hugely general, broad-brushed terms and that this is one case of it. I’m *not* saying that the Scandinavian countries are hugely religious by any means, but they are, in many ways, probably as culturally xtian as the US. Religious holidays are important and are usually civil holidays as well; people *do* (if they’re part of the state church in Sweden and Denmark) go and get their kids baptized and confirmed, and weddings and funerals in churches would appear (afaik, which isn’t very) to be common.

    I’m also not certain that some of the social benefits to be had in the Scandinavian countries and Finland have anything to do with “secularism,” or the lack of it.

  213. @ numo: “more hardline Lutheranism”” = far closer to the Wisconsin Synod here in the US (which is *very* fundy) than the state churches in Sweden and Denmark have been in aeons. (or at very least since the WWII.)

  214. dee wrote:

    elastigirl

    best way to stop being mad.

    Followed by either ice cream sundaes (Breyers natural vanilla, dark chocolate pieces, Fenton’s caramel sauce, lots of heavy whipped cream, nuts, no cherry) or sloppy joes. And loud, fun music.

  215. JeffB wrote:

    Even if I were not a Jew…

    jeff, I somehow missed this – my sincerest apologies!

    Did you grow up observant, or…??? (Just curious; most of my the jewish kids in my ‘hood, and, later HS, were Conservative or Reform – in turn, their parents had been raised orthodox.)

  216. Val wrote:

    angels, demons

    You know, demonology – and the kind of “satan” that’s been part of xtianity – did not come into the picture until the period *after* the writing of the OT. In Judaism, there’s very little emphasis on anything close to the xtian concept of the devil; there were (probably still are, in places) “folk religion”-type beliefs in demons, but still, it’s just not a part of jewish thought and belief in the way that it’s become in many strands of xtianity.

    You can look at something like the book of Enoch – very popular in the Jewish world and also among early xtians – but it’s *definitely* not part of the canon. (With the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church.) This book is crazy – almost like 1st c. sci-fi – and very, very focused on demonic activity and apocalyptic predictions and imagery.

    Don’t know if you’ve read anything by Jeffrey Burton Russell, but his books on the devil/Satan (tracing the history of the belief and also of specifically xtian belief) from ancient times-present are really helpful. I’m *slowly* making my way through them. (they were recommended by another TWW reader some months back, and are pretty much the standard refs. on the topic in many academic circles. Veryw ell researched and written.)

    I wonder if there’s ever been a single society or culture in world history that *hasn’t* believed in the supernatural in some manner or other, though not necessarily in ways we might conceive of these things. fwiw, I was in “strategic level spiritual warfare” circles for FAR too long to look at 99% of what they say as:

    – having anything to do with historic xitanity

    – being anything other than fear and superstition

    It’s a whole separate religion, imo, that isn’t willing to admit as much to itself as yet. I can tell you with certainty that these people are deadly serious; they see themselves as warriors in a “game” with cosmic stakes.

    All the while ignoring the basics of the faith as stated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I think their Jesus has little-nothing to do with either the historical Jesus or the one depicted in the Gospels, although they use the same name for him.

  217. @ numo:
    Yikes – “very popular in the ANCIENT jewish world”!

    That’s more than a typo; it’s a severe misstatement – my apologies!

  218. @ numo: I promise you that I am using their own numbers. I am very close friends with a family in Norway and Sweden. Although many celebrate the religious holidays, they are more cultural in their practice.

  219. @ Val:

    Val, NT Wright makes the point they did not understand the “historical” Jesus, either and that (along with Luther’s writings on the Jews) helped bring the Lutheran church in line with the Party. And that is the importance of knowing the “historical” Jesus because every generation redefines Him to fit their premises’.

    (I do understand the Lutheran church is not like that now so please Lutherans do not be offended. I speak of a historical fact and something we can learn from)

  220. dee wrote:

    they are more cultural in their practic

    that’s largely true in the US – and most of the rest of the world – imo.

    ikwym about people not being religious in many parts of Scandinavia, but do not think that’s the whole story. fwiw, the hardline Lutheranism I mentioned is especially prevalent among the Sami (used to be called “Lapp”) population, in Sweden, at least.

  221. @ Anon 1: Pretty much *all* of the churches – and supposed xtians – in N. Germany were mroe than willing to get in line behind the Party, though.

    Yes, they certainly did use Luther’s “On the jews and their lies,” which is one of the most hateful things ever written (imo), but the Party used religion to accomplish their ends. The higher-ups believed in so-called racial/ethic “purity” vs. the so-called “degenerate ‘races’,” of which Jewish people were only one among many.

  222. @ numo:
    Well, I may not be getting it right but here are a few examples (OK, I’m felling lazy, here are Greg Boyd’s examples that I won’t bother to link to 🙂 ):

    Jesus refers to Satan as “the prince” (archon) of this present age three times (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The term archon was used in secular contexts to denote the highest official in a city or region. (1) When Satan offers Jesus all “authority” over “all the kingdoms of this world,” Jesus does not dispute this claim to authority (Luke 4:5–6). The whole world is “under the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), for Satan is “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) and “the ruler of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).

    But that is the general view – I think there are a few other verses too that Boyd isn’t using, but, yeah, the NT is pretty clear that Satan is an authority over this world – would it not be correct to call it a “dominion”? I thought it was, but I could be off. Canada was a dominion until 1949 – that is, Britain had final say over certain things/appointments in Canadian politics – until Canada became it’s own nation. Maybe Dominion isn’t exactly right, but ruler or authority then would be.

    Jesus has defeated him, yes, but not ousted him, there are a pile of warnings for Christians in the NT about Satan too. Okay, still lazy today, here are Boyd’s verses, I’ll just riff off them, but I am familiar with a lot of them:
    The devil was portrayed as “a roaring lion” who “prowls around, looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). He was understood to be “the tempter” who influences people to sin (1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Cor. 7:5; Acts 5:3) and the deceiver who blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:4). Satan was behind all types of false teaching (Gal. 4:8–10; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 4:1–5, 1 John 4:1–2; 2 John 7), could appear as an “angel of light” (Gal. 1:8), and even perform “lying wonders and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing” (2 Thess. 2:9–10).

    Not sure about Zoroastrian, but remember, it was heavily influenced by Christianity (and later a gnostic group call Manichaeism, which was influenced by Christianity), so it may have riffed off the early church’s views on the spiritual battlefield that the world appeared to them to be. Judaism?? How so? They view the rest of us as unclean, but not sure they view the forces of evil interacting with and frustrating the Christians the way the NT does. There are many branches of Judaism though, I am familiar with second temple Judaism, but less so with contemporary Judaism (Orthodox or not).

    See, the reason I bring this up is not to revive 1980s demonic obsessions, rather, it is a huge achillies heal for Calvinism. They put God in charge of every little (or big) thing, but it makes no sense when you hold it up to all the verses about watching out for Satan, or Satan’s authority (I won’t use dominion, then) over different aspects of this world. I feel the Bible does say evil things, like Holocaust, Genocides, gassing kids for media sensation, etc. are promoted by dark forces. Unlike Calvinists, I don’t see people as helpless to resist the Devil. Or clueless about true evil, as we all have God’s law written on our hearts – we all know it is wrong to kill babies, for example, but we are great at justifying and making exceptions in this or that case (they are Jewish babies who will grow up to control us, they are collateral in a war that we must win, etc.). Why are people driven to such maliciousness? Behind it is fear. Who stirs fear? See Hitler (likely a psycho, and lacking fear) didn’t actually do the killings in Auschwitz or wherever, he probably didn’t even see much of it. How did he get so many non-psycho citizens to do it for him? Likely, they wanted to be the authority, they were afraid of not being the authority. 1930s Germany was easy pickings for fear-power manipulation. They boy’s parents had struggled to feed their families during the post WWI era, mostly due to foreign policies that hurt Germany after they lost WWI. The boys who joined with Hitler were afraid of ending up like their parents. So, when Hitler offered them a solution – be the powerful one against outsiders. Hurt outsiders before they hurt you. Fear is a powerful motivator. It was an easy fear-based decision. It was also straight from Satan according to the Bible.

    This is where, to me, Calvinism is shot dead. Why bother with warning us about Satan sneaking into our churches when false doctrine is taught? Why bother warning us that Satan could influence us to sin, if, in fact, it is really God and we can’t do a thing about it?

    Westerners overlook Satan, he is an uncomfortable entity in our faith. We don’t see a spirit world the way the rest of the world does. We see a very far off God (when he does mean things like “allow” a holocaust) and a very nice God when he is near and cures a sick friend. It allows Calvinist to take false comfort (Oh well, God is in control), but that is deadly. In the rest of the world (and in the past) people were very aware there was evil out there. It was also powerful. God is not always pulling the strings, sometimes Satan is, and then people get hurt.

    Does God allow it? Well, back to the Wheat and the Tares (remember, Jesus mostly taught about the Kingdom in parables). Why couldn’t God just pull up the Tares and save the wheat (since he can do anything, right?). So, his lack of doing that must mean he doesn’t want to, right? Not necessarily. He may not be able to rip out the tares (demons) and keep people safe. So, God being good, goes with the lesser of the two evils. Allow evil to stay (and terrible things will happen) but save more people or start battling evil (which likely is like Revelations and the dragon seeking to devour Mary, and when thwarted, killed every infant in Bethlehem instead), and have many more people parish.

    http://reknew.org/2013/06/why-god-sometimes-cant/

    ^^ On why God can’t do certain things (it has to do with how he created them).

    Hope that helps, but this really has nothing to do with Zorastrianism or Judaism. This teaching has been around the church since the early church fathers wrote about it. Evil was alway credited to Satan. Calvinism is a very late comer to the table and hasn’t really meshed with the spiritual view that was around since the earliest days. Notice, though, the EO are not obsessed with spiritual warfare. It is just how they view good and evil. Pentecostal spiritual warfare obsession is/was as hokey as Ken Ham’s young earth obsession. They are just distractions in my view. Seeing Satan behind evil and God behind good, doesn’t mean we should obsess about all things being spiritual and therefore scary. It is more how we categorize the good and the bad. It is a Calvinist ‘God does everything good and evil’ vs. a ‘Satan does evil, God does good’ worldview.

  223. @ numo:

    plain or peanut?

    I’m not familiar with Portlandia — i’m sure i should be. What is it?

    angry birds…. a kind of facebook game, I believe (?) and people get hooked on it (?) I don’t exist in facebook. by any identity. very primitive here. enlighten me.

    loud, fun music: what do you suggest? i’d say Beatles, 70’s rock, 70’s R&B (what I was deprived of in my elementary school years, and had to resort to clandestine measures with my 7up can transistor radio I won through selling magazine subscriptions under the covers late at night, flipping through the stations & loving it all)

    (I wasn’t selling magazine subscriptions under the covers late at night — that would have been weird — it was the other way around — I was listening to forbidden music under the covers late at night.)

  224. @ Argo:

    Do you believe that God created the universe and can’t be aware of an event before it occurs?

    Is it possible that He exists in a realm outside of time, and sees our past, present, and future in the way that we read a map?

    “Why can’t we say that God did not know the holocaust would occur because it has been given to man to act and God to judge? Would that not take care of the obvious ethical problems with your assumption regarding evil that God sees and allows to happen anyway?”

    Yes, it would resolve *that* particular ethical problem. But how in the world do you derive that God from Scripture? It sounds more like a human judge waiting for someone to be hauled into court.

    Here’s another ethical problem: What do you think the world would be like with that kind of God? If you believe that man is born sinless, I guess it would be pretty good. But what if he’s born with the proclivity to sin – not a monster, but against God, and not too averse to doing whatever he has to do to get what he wants? Meanwhile, God is waiting around to see what each of his creatures will do, and then react accordingly.

    I’ll tell you what I think that world would be like – a living hell – assuming that people haven’t wiped themselves off the face of the earth in a few years. And if you think that I’m just a sour Calvinist with a low view of man, take a look at any day’s paper and imagine how much worse it would be *without* God’s restraining influence. And to restrain, He has to know in advance.

    If he restrains evil, but evil exists, it means that sometimes He does *not* restrain evil. If to “ordain” means to decide in advance, God may ordain certain things without lifting a finger, so to speak. If he sees the evil of man creating a Holocaust out of its own free will, he doesn’t have to force people to do evil – He can merely not restrain it. (This is why ordaining in some cases may only amount to “giving permission”; in other words, God might not have to act directly to cause something to happen – a catastrophic weather event or an evil deed – He ordains it by allowing it.)

    But we don’t see all of the evil that he restrains, that He prevents from occurring. That for many years we’ve had the capacity to blow ourselves up many times over, but haven’t done so, is not, I think, a testament to man’s goodness.

    My overall point: I don’t think that God ordaining means that He is off somewhere pushing buttons that make people do what He wants them to do. He allows for free will – up to a point! Thank God! If he let it go completely free…God help us.

  225. @ Val: the thing is, it’s NOT confined to the 1980s – it’s NOW. But I don’t want to hijack this thread any further!

    let’s just agree to disagree, OK?

  226. @ elastigirl: Plain!

    Angry Birds – the birds against the pigs. It’s war, i tell you! (I downloaded it to my new phone and spent *way* too much time playing it earlier this evening – silly and funny!)

    “Portlandia” is a comedy sketch show – created by Fred Armisen (of SNL) and Carrie Brownstein, set in Portland, OR. It’s been running on the Independent film channel for 3 (short) seasons), but I’m watching it on netflix (streaming). Fred and Carrie have loads of fun with their fairly gentle brand of satire, although i honestly didn’t like most anything in the 1st season… but stuck with it. I have to be in the right mood, or else the characters tend to come across as irritating. (To be fair, many of them *are* a pain!) I think the penny finally dropped for me during their sketch (from season 2) about the couple who got so into the newest version of Battlestar Galactica that… well, if I say more, I’ll be posting spoilers. (Am a BSG fan myself, so I could see myself, in more ways than one, in that sketch.)

  227. @ Val: One last thing: I honestly think that Boyd and others are WAY off balance with this whole spiritual warfare paradigm that they claim is *the* basis for the Kingdom of God.

    But again, I don’t want to hijack this thread to tell you *why* I think that, and who/what I’ve been around within the past decade. it’s a long story, and better explained by others. Let’s jsut say that I’ve become “disenchanted” and leave it at that.

    fwiw, I think it really *is* important to understand Jewish views of Scripture and the supernatural (or lack of it). Again, though, that’s a discussion for another place and time.

    cheers,
    numo

  228. @ elastigirl: I’ve been a big soul/R&B fan since childhood.

    My rec.: Janelle Monáe. she’s young, incredibly creative, dresses like a normal person, and has a message. I am a huge fan!

  229. @ Val: one very last thing: I have heard all of Boyd’s arguments before (starting back in the late 90s), but did not know his name until recently. he and C. Peter Wagner… oh man. Boyd’s “spiritual warfare” views are <b.totally Third wave/New Apostolic Reformation.

    Also, yes – people in other parts of the world view things differently, but so do many people in *this* country. Just because someone believes in the existence of demons does not mean that their beliefs are an accurate representation of reality, imo. (I have had more than my fill of all that, again… it’s a long, long story.)

    I kind of wish I’d done a degree in comparative religion.

  230. @ numo:

    yes, very plain. just being ridiculous & goofy. never heard of Janelle monae — i’m overly aware of some things and totally & completely unaware of other things. PBS, Discovery, & my 70s rock station… I don’t stray too far from those for entertainment. (aside from my very eclectic video & DVD collection) I suspect you’d find what’s in it amusing. Some of it, at least.

    ever see Blott On The Landscape? (BBC something-or-other — David Suchet, Geraldine James)

  231. numo wrote:

    Anon 1: Pretty much *all* of the churches – and supposed xtians – in N. Germany were mroe than willing to get in line behind the Party, though.

    Do you have a resource for that because there was official alignment…signed documents….. giving allegiance to the Party from the Lutheran church. Do you have a resource showing that for other denominations? If you do, I would love to find it.

  232. @ JeffB:

    Jeff,

    If God knows the future, then on what rational basis can He decide that an event needs to be “allowed” or “not allowed”? This would indicate that the future is not set…for God is, at any given moment, in the process of deciding whether to “allow” or “disallow” actions in a future He sees perfectly. But…if God knows the future, then it is set, which precludes any action of God to change that future. Your premises contradict each other. God = Knowledge of the future, versus, God = Evaluation of man’s actions as to what He will allow or not allow man to do. In other words, you are suggesting that God REACTS to future events that He sees as INEXORABLY/INEVITABLY coming to pass. These are mutually exclusive ideas.

    So, the only logical conclusion is that if we concede that God knows the future, then His will is as much constrained by it as you and I are. He cannot act freely upon a future He knows without contradicting His own perfect knowledge. He is as much bound by the determining force which created the future He sees perfectly. This idea, taken to its logical conclusion, argues then that not only is man determined, then God must be determined as well. For as He sees Himself in the future, along with man, He is bound to the future He sees. He Himself has no will to act except in accordance with the perfect knowledge of the future which you say He must have as God.

    In terms of God being “outside of time”. Well, to preface, I believe everything is outside of time because time is merely a mathematical placeholder. It is purely abstract. It doesn’t actually exist. But, back to your question:

    If God is outside of time, then there is NO way to describe what He sees as “the future”. Because by definition, the future is a function of time. If God’s observation of it is OUTSIDE of time, then you,Jeff, being a function of time, cannot possibly understand enough about what God sees to qualify it as “the future”.

    Regardless, you are still left with only two choices: A. God sees what man has done HIMSELF and reacts accordingly, as much as man sees what God does and acts accordingly, as any two people in a normal relationship do. Or B. God creates the future for Creation, and thus ALL is merely a direct function of God’s will Himself; and since God is an absolute, His will IS Himself. Which means Creation and all it does…is God.

    This of course destroys all knowledge and morality. For if all is God, then you cannot possibly know anything. Even what you are thinking right now at this precise moment has been ordained for you. YOU cannot exist to THINK, because you are nothing more than God in action, by His determined absolute will.

    That’s a gutsy, gutsy stance to take, my friend.

  233. @ numo:
    You were arguing with JeffB that the Bible didn’t support Calvinism. If you don’t believe the Bible to be the inspired writings about God, thats OK too – really, God is bigger than just a book and if that is where you come from that is OK too. Probably no point in explaining further on my part.

    I just thought you were arguing from the POV the Bible was authoritative, sorry my mistake. Again, it doesn’t really bother me, we believe what we experience. Living in the foothills of Nepal for a while helps me see how the Bible would have been read in it’s time. The spirit world was felt by the locals, and you couldn’t forget that they felt it. Living here, we can laugh at demons, and that is fine too, but we could also laugh at the idea of a God, or a guy who died that showed up again. Demons are demons. It isn’t something that can be easily dismissed out of the whole of Christianity. It can be reworked. Sickness is evil, so are demons, so people aren’t “possessed” but they do fall ill. God may well have been using their language to describe evil (demons) where we would say tragedy, but the evil is still evil. I am not saying all Germans who liked Hitler were possessed, I am saying the source of Nazism was evil – weather that has a body or distinct individuality is neither here nor there – it was a source of evil, not good that brought about those atrocities. To the ancient world, and much of today’s world they would call that evil a name – demonic or satanic. But, again, if you let go of the concept, the evil still remains.

  234. @ Anon 1: Not at hand, but I think if you look through some lists/bibliographies of books on the church and the N. party, you’ll find it – I know there was a book on this topic published in either the 90s or early in the last decade that got a lot of space in the new York Times Book Review, but that’s all I can tell you.

    Histories of the period (specifically about Germany) will point to this for sure. Keep in mind that the Lutheran church was the state church in Germany at that time.

  235. @ Val: My pov is inspired by the Holy Spirit but not inerrant. There’s a difference!

    Hope that makes sense. Keep in mind that God didn’t impose 20th c. scientific inf. on the writers of the creation accounts in Genesis – instead, there’s a “firmament” (water above the upside down “bowl” of the sky; elsewhere in the OT (Psalms, maybe?) there’s reference to the earth being built upon literal pillars – these things are consistent with what we know of the ancient Near Eastern view of the cosmos. But that doesn’t mean taht we need to believe them literally – or even that everyone in ancient times necessarily believed in these things literally. (hard to prove one way or the other, but I think one has to keep the literary aspects of the bible in mind – there are so many different literary genres represented, and tons of metaphors/similes as well as poetic ways of stating things that were likely not intended literally at the time when they were 1st recorded.)

    As for the NT, there was no real understanding of the causes of physical illness, let alone mental illness, at that time. Again, there’s no imposition of contemporary understandings of medicine and psychology/psychiatry in the NT accounts. So the epileptic boy is presented as being demon-possessed. Do you honestly think that epileptics need exorcism, as opposed to medical treatment?

    There are *many* physical illnesses that can cause mental confusion (often extreme); even delusions/delusional states. Treat the physical cause and the mental difficulties are likely to clear up – am sure Dee, who is a nurse, could provide some examples.

    I can’t imagine that Jesus would have taught people things that were far beyond their grasp – the Gospels aren’t a record of seminars on science and medicine, after all! And the bible – as a whole – is not (as I’m sure you’d agree) intended to be a science textbook.

    During the Middle Ages, and well into the Renaissance, Western medicine relied on astrology, the ancient theory of the “four humors,” the tasting of a patient’s urine and other things that have nothing at all to do with direct examination (and observation) of conditions. I’m not meaning to imply that there was nobody who looked, observed and noted things down – am sure there were more than a few people who did so! – but “medicine” per se was really quite primitive until knowledge from the Arabic world started being introduced into the West (mainly via the Crusades). Even then, astrology was considered an actual science until after the Renaissance – even as advances in what we would probably call “real” medicine were being made in certain urban centers (and the universities there).

    Keep in mind also that things like comets, solar and lunar eclipses, unusually bright objects in the sky (probably planets, for the most part) etc. etc. were *all* seen as supernatural events and objects until *very* recent times – and probably still are in many parts of the world. That doesn’t mean that they *are* supernatural; only that they were understood in that manner for many, many centuries.

    It’s late and I’m rambling; hope what I’ve just said makes sense to you re. how it might be possible to see certain things in the bible through a different lens – or maybe “lenses” is a better word?

  236. @ numo: Erk – my pov on Scripture is that *it is* inspired by the Holy spirit…

    besides, there are many variant versions of passages in the texts that have come down to us. Translators and other scholars have to make their best guesses as to the “right” renderings; even then, there are many things that are lost to us. We can’t recreate the times in which the manuscripts were originally written, let alone the oral tradition that seems to have been behind books like Genesis. It’s impossible to fill in all the backstory on how the bible came into being – and even then, there’s been debate and dispute through the centuries as to what constitutes the canon of Scripture.

    I don’t believe things are as cut and dried as many make them out to be. It can be challenging to start reading and studying material taht deals with these kinds of topics, but ultimately, I’ve found it rewarding and freeing rather than destructive of my own faith. If anything, having some context (literary and otherwise) seems to give more depth and richness to the bible, rather than the reverse.

  237. @ Val: Nepali people: I have spent some time with a number of Nepali xtians who lived in the US for various periods of time. They were lovely people, but it seems to me that their culture – a thin veneer of Tibetan Buddhism over what are essentially animist beliefs – meant that they were quite superstitious and easily believed in supernatural explanations for things that might well *not* have had anything to do with the “spirit world.” (Look, they believed that there are Tibetan Buddhist lamas who could literally fly; given their society – with shamanism so close to the surface; animal sacrifices, “living goddesses” – it doesn’t surprise me. I’m *not* saying this to denigrate their view of the world, but it does seem that Tibetan Buddhism has incorporated animist-era deities and spirits and demons into its cosmology and beliefs in a very big way.)

    Also, look at the US and Canada: tons of people who believe in ghosts and hauntings, even vampires. (There certainly are vampire cults in the US today, although they are mostly of the “psychic vampire” variety.) Wiccans and other pagans who express beliefs in nature spirits and the Celtic Otherworld are also common; then there are Native beliefs – down here, it’s not jsut First nation people, but Native Hawaiians as well. *Lots* of people who live in Hawaii believe in ghosts and spirits, as well as in gods/goddesses like Pele (the goddess of fire and volcanic eruptions). Many people who live in the islands claim to have seen Pele – these stories are very common out there.

    The thing is, when we start believing in ghosts or nature spirits/deities, we’re a lot more inclined to believe that they cause many things that are more than likely to have other explanations. Believing that intensely in something tends to make it “real” for us, even if there’s no real evidence for it. (Whatever “it” is: could be that the earth is flat; that flouridated water is A Communist plot – widely believed when I was a kid; or that foul odors carry and spread diseases – widely believed prior to the development of germ theory.)

    I know some older chinese American people who believe in ghosts – that’s common in their culture. Some of them believe that they have seen ghosts – not scary ones, either, but deceased family members who seemed to be here checking in on the material world and their relatives; paying a friendly visit, basically. I *do* believe that these folks saw something; also taht whatever they saw is real to them and should be treated as such – even though i do not believe in ghosts (never have). I think there’s a great deal more to the interrelationship of the physical brain and what we call the mind + emotions than we can imagine – V.S. Ramachnadran has written a very good book on that for lay people (Phantoms in the Brain), in which he describes a fair number of normal conditions – as well as unusual medical cases – that have physiological causes and would probably be viewed as having a supernatural origin by many (even in the West).

    Basically, I believe that we only know a tiny, tiny fraction of all that there is to know about the world in which we live – and even things that can be explained by scientific means can still be incredibly strange and wonderful! I don’t doubt that many things that are viewed as being spooky or supernatural have very “natural” causes; in many case, we might not know what those are at present, but I suspect that someday, we might know.

  238. Val wrote:

    You were arguing with JeffB that the Bible didn’t support Calvinism.

    Well, not exactly. I was saying upfront that i do not believe that God can “ordain” evils like the Holocaust 9or any other genocide, for that matter). I’m Lutheran, fwiw – not Calvinist, but not Arminian, either.

    My mind boggles at the thought of a divine being who would deliberately “ordain” evil deeds. (Full stop.)

  239. Val wrote:

    Demons are demons.

    Have you ever seen one? (I’m not being sarcastic; this is an honest querstion.)

    I spent over 30 years in evangelical/charismatic circles that had been heavily influenced by old-line Pentecostalism, and have seen/heard pretty much anything and everything attributed to the work of demons, from anorexia to depression and anxiety to addiction to drugs (alcohol, nicotine, the lord only knows what all else). I know a bunch of people who believe that they can “take territory for God” by “prayerwalking” and driving out demons as they go. Educated, otherwise intelligent people. I’ve experienced people attempting to exorcise demons (personally,a s well as seeing/hearing it happen with others – sometimes against the will of those being “prayed for”). I’ve heard and read very detailed explanations supposed demonic attacks (;the phrase was a very common one in the circles I was in); even what demons supposedly sound like and say when they speak through the vocal cords of an oppressed (or supposedly possessed) person.

    I’ve heard a “pastor” tell someone that being under anesthesia – or otherwise unconscious – is dangerous, because demons can enter your body and mind at that time.

    I could go on and on and ON, Val. There’s literally no end to the superstitions that are held in many suppsoedly xtian groups anc churches – even praying in a way that’s frankly talismanic. right here in the USA, being done by people who really ought to know better. (Some of them even paste or tape written-out bible verses to door jambs as a means of “protection” from evil.) The folks I know who believe these things are white, non-Hispanic, middle-upper middle class and, very often, college educated.

    I blush at the thought of what I used to believe! And I found it very difficult to live in two worlds at once – the one being promoted by people in the “churches” I was part of (and by their mentors, which included C. Peter Wagner and George Otis jr. of The Sentinel Group as well as various “apostles” and “prophets” worldwide who are part of the New Apostolic Reformation) and the real, mundane world that I actually lived in most of the time – where I went to grad school and learned to employ very logical methodology in investigating all kinds of things. The cognitive dissonance was extreme! And finally, I started to let go and back away from participation in ceremonies and prayers where NAR tenets – including a boyd-like belief in the primacy of the demonic – were being voiced/practiced. I think the kicker was being involved – as a musician – in a private service where prayers were offered/carried out while facing for different compass directions. it hit me hard that what these folks were doing seemed like something from a fantasy novel; further, what did they think was going to happen? The more or less beleived that demons left geographic areas when they prayed like that, but at the same time, they’d be back praying against those demons the very next day (or even later the same night).

    is that the Gospel? is that what Christ came to give us? I don’t believe so – nor can i find anything in the creeds or other major documents of the early church that suggest that we should live and believe as if these things were so.

    OK, I gotta get to bed! More whenever.

  240. JeffB wrote:

    I also regret that the image that people have of me and others (yes, usually Calvinists) who have this belief about God’s ordination is one of coldness and hard-heartedness. It’s embarrassing to say this of myself – even in this rather impersonal medium – but I am so not like that….I can have these beliefs and not even think of them when in the presence, or even the knowledge, of suffering. Much less would I express them. I suppose I could be accused of compartmentalizing too well. Maybe. But I also think that, simply, there is a time and place for everything.

    JeffB, I think I’d like you very much if I knew you “for real”.

    Compartmentalization is one of the ways we all get through, no? Part of the work of sanctification, ISTM, is bringing wholeness to our minds/hearts, slowly erasing the heavy lines between compartments. A life-long process for everyone.

    I think part of the problem with traumatized people is that compartments no longer function because their minds/hearts have been overwhelmed by damage, and they are forced to find a way to live more wholly tout de suite. (Most don’t accomplish it, of course, being human and all.)

    “Time and place for everything”, yes. This principle is also sometimes used to explain why traumatized people can’t accept the all-ordaining God. Proponents propose that the new victim is too fragile and simply needs time to stabilize before s/he can address these “more complex and larger views of God”.

    And it is true that when a person begins facing the effects of trauma, s/he needs loads of kindness and allowance. But God-issues will come up before long, almost inevitably. If the victim is offered a shallow version of God (keeping back that which s/he is yet too fragile to handle), how effective can that shallow God be when the person is at greatest need for the full complete God?

    And really, why would an incompletely understood God be best for the traumatized, whereas the full God is best for the uninterrupted populace or the theologian? This seems to me a forced dichotomy and also backwards.

    The God I know has no truck with evil. None. He/She hates it and never wanted it and weeps over it. There is in no way a sense that my suffering brought glory to God. The God I learned to know when processing my trauma, recognizes that nothing can be done to “make it as if it never happened” or to “make the evil worth it by the good things that come out of it”.

    I suspect that God has a huge plan going, that He/She intentionally made creatures who could freely choose good/evil. That might be why there was a Tree of Knowledge of Good/Evil in Eden. I suspect that in a way, we are still in the sixth day of creation, that this broken earth-time is the place of our last formations. I feel confident that God will make use of my way-too-expert knowledge of evil when we finally get to the seventh day (the new creation). This is the faith and extrapolation of a very small creature, of course. Because who really knows? 🙂

  241. @ numo:

    Thanks, that is the main point. It had to be official alignment. And they caved. It is a big deal because they were THE state church. Trying to make it a case of “everyone did it so no big deal” is not a great argument considering the situation.

  242. Patrice wrote:

    The God I know has no truck with evil. None. He/She hates it and never wanted it and weeps over it. There is in no way a sense that my suffering brought glory to God. The God I learned to know when processing my trauma, recognizes that nothing can be done to “make it as if it never happened” or to “make the evil worth it by the good things that come out of it”.

    Absolutely.

    The problem is a Calvinist starts with Sovereignty as being the most of important attribute of God………… instead of love. And it leads to the compartmentalization.

    You said:

    “Part of the work of sanctification, ISTM, is bringing wholeness to our minds/hearts, slowly erasing the heavy lines between compartments. A life-long process for everyone.”

    So very true.

  243. Arce wrote:

    I do not believe that, nor that that is a necessary interpretation of the scriptures. I believe that God knows what can be known. That includes the tendencies of humans and what God will do when humans take any number of actions, that is, his plans to respond to what our free choices are, regardless of what they are. In that way, there is no “culpability” on God, either from acting or failing to act, because He did not know the Holocaust would occur, only that it could occur.

    Arce, I like this a lot. One of the things I couldn’t ever get past with the know-all-control-all God (and many non-Cals believe in a variety of this god too), is how incredibly bored He/She must be. Yes, for God, a thousand years is as a day and a day a thousand years, but think about those days that are as a thousand years!!

    This is silly, I know, but what kind of God do we have anyway? Where’s the fun/surprise/delight for Him/Her?

  244. @ Patrice:
    We criticize Deists for turning the world into a clock, but we tend to turn God into a clock.

    Clocks are so Western, industrialized, and overrrr! w00t!

  245. Anon 1 wrote:

    It had to be official alignment. And they caved. It is a big deal because they were THE state church. Trying to make it a case of “everyone did it so no big deal” is not a great argument considering the situation.

    Yep, and also throws light onto the loneliness of Bonhoeffer, fighting both the state and his own church, a fool’s errand.

    And unfortunately, it is not required that a religion be state-sponsored for the salt to go out of it.

  246. @ Val: One of the best descriptions that I ever heard about the role of Satan in this world was by a woman Anglican pastor which should allow for may to dismiss her thoughts.

    She said that man is sinful and will choose to do sinful things. Satan is in the background, fueling the fire, egging it on. He is the deceiving encourager.

    Satan and his gang rebelled and fell. He is here on earth with the rest of us “rebels.” We kind of deserve each other.

    Just as I believe that the world will never be destroyed by natural means because God has said the time will come when Jesus returns and then He will destroy Satan and make a new heaven and earth, I believe that God puts some limits on precisely what Satan can and cannot do.

  247. @ Patrice:
    I am not saying that God does not have the ability to control and to micro-plan and micro-manage. However, when he created humans and gave the wills, so that they could love him freely, he forsook many of his abilities, in order to have a love relationship with his creatures.

  248. JeffB wrote:

    ’ll tell you what I think that world would be like – a living hell – assuming that people haven’t wiped themselves off the face of the earth in a few years. And if you think that I’m just a sour Calvinist with a low view of man, take a look at any day’s paper and imagine how much worse it would be *without* God’s restraining influence. And to restrain, He has to know in advance.

    I totally agree with you here.

    I have discussed this with atheists who believe that man is evolving into something better and good. They point out that we have eliminated slavery but then I point out other forms of slavery. For every step forward we make, trying to the right and good thing, there are others who illustrate out inability to do so.

    For me the best example is the church’s inability to deal with child sex abuse. We ignore it, pat our buddies on the back for avoiding punishment and think we are wonderful because we put out some paper that we are against it. When I see such sin in the church, I truly understand that even with the help of Christ, we ignore Him and continue on our path of destruction.

  249. Patrice wrote:

    @ Patrice:
    We criticize Deists for turning the world into a clock, but we tend to turn God into a clock.

    Clocks are so Western, industrialized, and overrrr! w00t!

    Well, I am thrilled with some Deists who believed in self determination in 1776. :o)

  250. dee wrote:

    For me the best example is the church’s inability to deal with child sex abuse. We ignore it, pat our buddies on the back for avoiding punishment and think we are wonderful because we put out some paper that we are against it. When I see such sin in the church, I truly understand that even with the help of Christ, we ignore Him and continue on our path of destruction.

    This brings up another question. Why would God want His name used to not only hide but perpetuate abuses/evil against children. Why would He want someone to use His name when declaring the abuser the same sinner as the abused? Where is the “total control” over everything when that is happening so much?

  251. @ Arce:
    Yes, I understand. God is certainly big enough to do the smallest thing.

    I go a little further than you on that. I think He/She also sometimes moves things around so that life doesn’t get too awful as we go along. If God was sorry He/She sent a flood, He/She must be doing something else to keep us ticking along with our power-hunger (because it’s not as if that has improved over time). Out of that desired loving relationship and hope for our growth/development.

  252. @ dee:
    Foreknowledge of what people are going to do is not necessary to predict with fairly good probability what they will do. And who better than the creator to know the probabilities and plan for the different choices we can make.

  253. @ Anon 1: No. I mean that C. Peter Wagner and some of his then-colleagues at Fuller Theological Seminary got on the bandwagon about strategic level spiritual warfare, and others – from diverse backgrounds – also got into it. Doesn’t mean they’d agree with one another about other issues, but spiritual warfare and related views gained a LOT of traction in the mid-late 90s and have kept on going. (Like the Energizer Bunny.)

  254. Argo wrote:

    So, the only logical conclusion is that if we concede that God knows the future, then His will is as much constrained by it as you and I are.

    I am trying to make a point by this series. I know it is *logical* to you. The problem that we have is that both sides believe the other is illogical. Either side can make their best *proof* arguments and nothing will change. This discussion will go on until Jesus returns.

    I believe that we should, out of courtesy, acknowledge that both sides believe they have done a great job in proving their point of view. My goal is to accept that both sides think they are logical. When you say that the *only* logical conclusion is x, you are saying that it is only logical to you. Others would disagree.

    I am not a Calvinist. I don’t like a lot of what goes on in the Neo-Calvinist movement. But, I will believe that they think they are being logical. I will also accept that they believe that they are being loving even though sometime I cannot see the theology leading there. There are many brilliant theologians on both sides of the issue throughout the ages. I also know a bunch of loving Calvinists.

    I know I will not change the mind of John Piper, etc. However, what I can do is pick at the side issues which cause the most pain or our just plain ridiculous. I am thinking about the handling of child sex abuse in reality (not in *official* statements) and some gender statements (muscular women for one).

    I know that you believe you are logical. I know that you spend a lot of time researching what you believe. I respect that. My goal here is to open some conversation between the two groups so that both sides go away being heard. Maybe it is impossible?

  255. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: No. I mean that C. Peter Wagner and some of his then-colleagues at Fuller Theological Seminary got on the bandwagon about strategic level spiritual warfare, and others – from diverse backgrounds – also got into it. Doesn’t mean they’d agree with one another about other issues, but spiritual warfare and related views gained a LOT of traction in the mid-late 90s and have kept on going. (Like the Energizer Bunny.)

    So you think Boyd fits into that category at that level?

  256. Val wrote:

    God may well have been using their language to describe evil (demons) where we would say tragedy, but the evil is still evil.

    This is a very good comment. I have often struggled with the language when people have obvious symptoms of epilepsy but are said to be demon possessed. Nowadays, we can use EEG to monitor the seizures in the brain. They could not do so back then.

  257. @ Anon 1: i believe that we have choices, to do good or to do evil.

    I do not believe that the serpent in Genesis was Satan. It was a talking animal (well, reptile); not uncommon in the mythology of many cultures. It lost its feet, per the story, due to what it did. This seems more like a myth/folk legend than an actual *thing* that happened.

    I also believe that facing up to the evil of which humans are capable is frightening to us; it’s easier to blame the devil and demons for many things that originated solely in the human heart/mind.

  258. @ Anon 1: I think he is part of the trend, yes; not part of the NAR in any “official” way, though he probably does have ties. (My hunch.)

  259. @ dee: I dunno, Val – I mean, the common clod (noroviruses) is very unpleasant to us, but I do not think it is “evil.” (I’m being somewhat jokey, but not really, if you see what I mean…)

  260. numo wrote:

    There are *many* physical illnesses that can cause mental confusion (often extreme); even delusions/delusional states. Treat the physical cause and the mental difficulties are likely to clear up – am sure Dee, who is a nurse, could provide some examples.

    Great comment. Brain tumors and migraines are famous for creating hallucinations. Also, cirrhosis of the liver in another one. Mess up those blood chemicals and can you get “visions.”

    Funny story-i worked for a short time in a hospital devoted to the treatment of alcoholism and substance abuse. I walked into a room to check on a patient. He sat up and said, “Watch out. There are big, fat birds flying around the room.” Just to be sure, I looked up. Told the poor man that he would be fine and went out to tell them they needed to up his dose of sedative while he was detoxing.
    Real nice guy when sober.

    Do you know that I still have a recurring dream of big, fat birds flying around rooms?

  261. @ dee: I’ve seen “visions” caused by migraine, so… guess what? Not all that long ago, people would have attributed my brain’s slight malfunction to demons or to involvement in witchcraft (mine or someone else’s).

    And then there are things like phantom limb syndrome – is that a “ghost” of an amputated limb, or is it the nervous system’s attempt to cope with the loss of a once-connected part of its own “network”?

    Big, fat birds: yow! (Resonates with me, after playing umpteen rounds of Angry Birds last evening.)

  262. @ dee: Then there are hallucinations caused by sleep deprivation, by starvation, by lack of oxygen, and on and on….

  263. @ numo: There was one time in my life, and only one time, that I thought someone might be possessed. Remember, i reject that schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are caused by demons. In this particular case, it involved an older teen. It was so bizarre, that my church and some university based physicians got involved. Someday I will tell the story but so many details will need to be changed to protect those involved. (I know, I am starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Keep repeating…this was only one time in my whole life).

    The people involved in this situation were not ones to see demons. Even the pastor was completely weirded out as were the doctors at the university hospital who were definitely not into this type of thing. Could we have been wrong about this? Absolutely but this one was a strange one….

    Since that time, I have come to have a great deal of respect for the Roman Catholic church which has a rigid protocol on examination, both by church officials and by medical doctors. Only a few cases in the world make it through to the exorcism phase.

    OK-Dee is prepared to be accused of being a kook.

  264. Patrice wrote:

    I think part of the problem with traumatized people is that compartments no longer function because their minds/hearts have been overwhelmed by damage, and they are forced to find a way to live more wholly tout de suite.

    What a great observation! I never thought of it that way.

  265. numo wrote:

    I also believe that facing up to the evil of which humans are capable is frightening to us; it’s easier to blame the devil and demons for many things that originated solely in the human heart/mind.

    I totally agree with this and find the “devil made them do it” excuse quite common even in shallow seeker type churches. What do you do with earthquakes, tornados etc?

  266. Patrice wrote:

    Yep, and also throws light onto the loneliness of Bonhoeffer, fighting both the state and his own church,

    His writings have challenged me through the years.

  267. @ dee: there are many truly weird and deeply scary things in this world. so no, i hardly think you’re a kook!

  268. Anon 1 wrote:

    Why would He want someone to use His name when declaring the abuser the same sinner as the abused?

    That is another doctrine that needs to be challenged.

  269. Arce wrote:

    Foreknowledge of what people are going to do is not necessary to predict with fairly good probability what they will do. And who better than the creator to know the probabilities and plan for the different choices we can make.

    I have no problem with that view.

  270. @ dee:

    Dee,

    Logic is not subject to subjective interpretation. One does not get to decide what is logical. Assumptions have conclusions. You don’t get to hold an idea that leads to contradictory conclusions and then claim “well, it makes sense to me” when some points out that your idea doesn’t in fact mean what you think it means. What you are doing is nothing more than arguing that truth is subjective. If that is your view, then there is no point in discussing anything.

    I do indeed get to declare a logical conclusion if it is in fact logical. If I am wrong, show me how. But don’t tell me that my logic is merely my subjective opinion. You need to show me. If everyone gets to decide what seems logical to them, then why preach Christ? Why argue against abuse? If it seems logical to them, then you have no grounds by your own presumptions to disagree.

  271. @ dee:
    Dee,

    Yes…your motives are great. And both sides can and should be heard. For me, the more Calvinists speak. The easier it is to spot the rational equivocation. Case in point, Jeff Bs idea that God can both know the future and change the future. That is not a logical assumption regardless of what he might think. If God changes what He knows, He contradicts His knowledge.

    I never want to ban ideas, but they need to be defended. If the defense is “well, who can really say?” Then all truth becomes relative. So… why do we even bother talking about anything? No one is ever proven wrong, so…who cares?

    Why don’t you believe in Calvinism? You must have a reason. So…what is your defense of your position? By what standard do you measure what you will or won’t accept?

    Does that make sense?

  272. Val – I haven’t forgotten your responses to my comments on Satan. Will get to it. I will say right now that I must have undergone some kind of brain fart when I implied that Satan did not fall before The Fall.

  273. dee wrote:
    I am trying to make a point by this series. I know it is *logical* to you. The problem that we have is that both sides believe the other is illogical.

    Logic is flexible and predicated on the biases informing the logic. There is no such thing as an illogical human, all humans are acting logically according to what they think.

    That’s why you also need reason, and a diverse social base to interact with. Those two things will change your logic.

    Logic alone only leads to logical conclusions. That’s why both sides accuse the other of being illogical.

    It goes back to the main problem we have in Christianity today… severe lack of critical thinking (reason) and disassociating with, either physically or mentally, anyone who disagrees with us (If you interact with people without an open mind you are still disassociated eg a YCE telling a PHD geologist that there is no evidence that the earth is old or a hardcore liberal and conservative arguing with each other)

  274. As for myself I take issue with God as direct drive puppetmaster of all for several reasons:

    1. It makes all of this pointless.

    2. The universe works like a machine. God designed it as such, why would he make it work like a machine and then have to micro manage every atomic interaction to keep it together.

    3. An all-knowing all-present being can, like a computer playing chess, instantly see every possible outcome to every possible set of moves. If he wants to accomplish any specific plan, all he would have to do is make slight nudges to get things rolling down the right path, not control every step of the way.

    A good picture of this is the medical field. I know of people who think that you cannot subtract or extend your life one day through anything you do because God has “fixed” one static amount of time for you to live, and nothing you do will kill you before that date and nothing you do will let you live after that date. However in the context of history this is bonkers, because the average lifespan has increased by multiple decades and you can kill yourself any time you want.

    God is all seeing and all knowing. He knows exactly how long you will live no matter what path in life you choose because he can see every possible string and where it ends. Maybe you become a soldier and die on a battlefield at 30, one possibility. Maybe you discover a miracle drug and live to 247, another possibility. Both and more in between are anticipated. It’s not like any set of choices would take God by surprise because he has already seen all of them. So a set in stone RIP date for you is both unnecessary and irrelevant from the point of view of someone with such a power.

    4. It makes concepts like good and evil irrelevant. Why? Because if God is the direct drive puppet master of all, then he is directly responsible for every good act and every evil act that ever has or ever will take place. It wasn’t the allies fighting the axis, it was God. It wasn’t Nazis killing the jews, it was God. It wasn’t MLK marching for civil rights, it was God. It wasn’t the KKK lynching the marching black americans, it was God. etc

    In short, it makes God either his own worst enemy or just playing a giant mass mind control game for giggles.

    5. It makes Jesus and also every prophet in the bible irrelevant. Why call people to repent, if they are all just mindcontrolled? And how can they repent of sins that they were not really responsible for anyway because of said mindcontrol?

    In short, God directly controlling everything makes absolutely no sense on any level at all. This is not to say that he isn’t capable of such comprehensive control, it’s just that there is nothing to suggest that he does or ever has used his power that way.

  275. @ numo:

    “I do not believe that the serpent in Genesis was Satan. It was a talking animal (well, reptile); not uncommon in the mythology of many cultures. It lost its feet, per the story, due to what it did. This seems more like a myth/folk legend than an actual *thing* that happened.”

    Well, compare Gen. 3:15 with Rom. 16:20. Also, there’s Rev. 12:9 and 20:2.

  276. Anyway, it all goes back to how you approach a discussion.

    If you approach from the direction of “I already know the answer and I’m going to tell it to you”, then it’s not a discussion, it’s simply you being a one sided know it all. Possibly the other participants are doing the same, essentially making the conversation a fantastic display of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

    If you approach with an open mind, knowing that you really don’t know much of anything and telling the other participants why you think a certain way but being truly open to why they think another way (maybe their way is better, maybe not) then you have a real discussion. Especially if all participants are using this same approach.

  277. JeffB wrote:

    @ Bridget:

    “God doesn’t have internal conflicts, though sometimes the Bible portrays it this way to make a point.”

    “Why would the Bible portray God in such a way (that isn’t true) just to make a point? How do you know that this, in fact, is what the Bible did and is not what God IS like? You seem to know the internal workings of God — which amazes me. I would really like to understand this assertion you made.”

    I made the mistake of anticipating an objection and then making a lame assertion to answer it. I hadn’t thought it out. There are times when it’s pretty obvious that God appears to stoop to the human level in order to communicate with humans – such as when God asked Adam where he was and if he had eaten the fruit – but that doesn’t answer the question about God having internal conflicts. You were right to point that out.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I thought maybe you “knew”
    God is some mysterious way 😉

  278. @ JeffB: Yes, those are interpretations that developed during the period *after* the writing of the OT, when demons (including hierarchies of them) started to become a commonplace in much Near Eastern thought.

    Again, I would suggest checking out Jeffrey Burton Russell’s series of books on the development of belief in the devil/demons and subsequent theologies (early xtian, medieval etc.).

    Google “book of the watchers” (the 1st section of the book of Enoch), which can easily be found online in its entirety, read a bit and you can see how elaborate and multilayered these beliefs had become by the time of Christ.

  279. @ JeffB: There’s plenty else in the same vein as Enoch; many of the descriptions in Revelation come from apocalyptic literature that was commonly read in the 1st c. and that was anything but what we’d call canonical.

    Same for the refs in Jude to the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres and a couple of other things.

  280. @ JustSomeGuy:

    Just Some Guy,

    You are correct regarding the strict definition of logic. All human beings proceed from their own logical assumptions. True.

    A better way to have said it is that ideas need to flow with rational consistency from one premise to the next. Black is a color and white is a color means that black is white and white is black may be “logical” to someone, but that doesn’t make it a rationally consistent argument. When I say “logical conclusion”, I mean “where your reasoning actually takes your idea.”

    I make no claim to be a know it all. People tend to get offended when their arguments do not stand up to rational scrutiny. I don’t know why, exactly. I am happy for someone to explain how a thing which does not actually exist by definition, the future, can be known by anyone, even God. If you can show me where my logic is flawed…where nothing can exist as something with attributes which can be known, I am happy to concede.

    But you don’t get to claim “God’s view outside of time” because now you have changed the definition of future from human context to God’s context. You can’t claim reason or rational consistency by constantly redefining terms.

    Unless I can be shown without the ultimate punting of truth into the great cosmic abyss of “mystery” I stand by my assertions because they are objectively true according to reason. That is, they flow consistently from one premise to the next. As much as you may not accept that I refuse to concede that “I could be wrong” is the cornerstone of all understanding.

  281. @ numo: Note: J. B. Russell came to believe that an actual being named Satan exists over the course of the decades he spent writing and researching his books.

    But that doesn’t mean that he believes what others in history have believed, including the medieval (and later) view of hell as being populated by swarms of demons. (Plenty of medieval and Renaissance-era art illustrates this; so does literature, like Dante’s Inferno – where *the* worst circle of hell is not hot, but colder than ice.)

  282. numo wrote:

    My mind boggles at the thought of a divine being who would deliberately “ordain” evil deeds. (Full stop.)

    Mine too numo. Although I can respect the beliefs of those who arrive at this conclusion based on their reading of Scripture, it is not my conclusion from Scripture, not by a long shot. I am further boggled by the belief that this alleged being somehow brings glory to himself by orchestrating the abuse of children and the horrors of war. An insecure cosmic narcissist? Yes. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? No.

  283. @ Anon 1: I think it’s a very big deal regardless of *who* did it, you know?

    A friend who has reason to know once said to me that at that time, everyone in Germany was a least “a little bit Nazi.” (With the exception of those who were against the Party, of course.)

  284. @ Argo:

    I’ll try to be more clear. The following is what I posit as a possibility.

    Though time may not actually exist, it exists for *us*, and God, of course, knows this. Therefore, from what we experience, there is such a thing called a “future.”

    Because God exists in a timeless realm, and because he is creative, He can, and does, create the future.

    God sees many possibilities for the future He creates. From all of these possibilities, He decides that only one of them will actually be manifested by Him. This is the one that he “ordains.”

    Contrary to what anti-Calvinists believe, God genuinely takes into consideration man’s free will when He is deciding what He will ordain. Man’s free will has a real effect on what the future will be, but it is not necessarily the *determining* effect. Or maybe it would be better to say that God *allows* man’s free will to have an effect on the future.

    Let’s say that He sees that in the future certain people “will” (if He allows it) do something that he does not wish to occur. He does not say, “Golly, I don’t like this, but there’s nothing I can do about it because the future is already fixed.” No, it’s not fixed until He ordains it. So He can prevent what these people “will” do, or he can incorporate it into His own plans. (cf. Joseph’s and his brothers’ story) Or He can do other things, I suppose.

    Maybe He likes what He sees certain people “will” do. So He ordains that it come to pass.

    So God creates the future, but, in doing so, He doesn’t necessarily hinder man’s free will. In a sense, man’s will is a possible “ingredient” of what He creates. And, man being what he (she) is, it’s a good thing sometimes when his/her will is thwarted.

    Argo, you will reject this. But is it illogical?

  285. @ dee:

    I’m genuinely gratified that you agree with what I envision the world would be if God did not restrain evil, which He would have to know about in advance in order to restrain it.

    I know that some have said that God, knowing man so well, would be pretty accurate in His “guesses” of what people will do. But why limit Him to this? I think this is closer to what Satan’s knowledge of man is. (And, no, I’m not accusing anyone of saying that God and Satan are alike.)

  286. @ numo:
    Yeah, it was in the Vineyard too, before everything came down to Naturopathic cures (which, conveniently, half the church sold in MLM schemes).

    No, I’m not saying that. People do evil acts – Peter tells Jesus he won’t die or Judas betrays Jesus and it is called “going over to Satan”. That doesn’t mean Satan did it, that means humans chose which side to worship/follow, and ended up on the wrong side – this is not demon possession, but demon/idol worship. Peter idolized power he would have at Jesus’ side and Judas thought Jesus was going to kick some Roman butt and be a rich Solomon-like ruler of ancient Palistine – Judas’ idol was the access to loot, power and prestige he thought Jesus would ensure him. I am not really into the idea of a Demon jumping in and controlling people, but Jesus’ point was we become like those who we idolize.

    Have I “seen” demons? Can we see demons? (read further down for my own experience)

    How would one see a spirit? Not sure our eyes can register the cosmic world. When Angels appear to humans, they seem to take on a human form, so I’m not sure we “see” them either.

    A better question would be, Have I see the effects of demons?

    So, I said earlier I lived in India and Nepal. There was a lot of sickness there. Infertile women in those countries were in danger of being killed by their MILs – to keep the dowry and allow the hubby to get a new wife (’cause infertility is always the woman’s fault, right?). These desperate people (with little access to good health care) flooded to pilgrimage sites, or, if Muslim, to sufi healing sights. Like any faith healer, they had wild claims. One sufi moseleum had piles of crutches leaning against it’s outside wall. Did women get healed of infertility? Yes, one woman I knew of had been infertile for 14-15 years, she was “old” by Indian standards, she made a pilgrimage from the Kashmir down to the Rajasthan area to see a famous Sufi, and then she got pregnant.

    I never went into a Hindu temple. I know one missionary who went on a tour of a beautiful Hindu temple – it was rarely open to non-Hindus. He was young, maybe 12, with his mom and older sister. They were taken around and in one area were overwhelmed with a sense of evil pressing in, all three independently. They could barely breath and had to leave. Hindu temples are very open, it wouldn’t have been air quality. He just remembers it as dark, a feeling he never experienced.

    So, my experience is the demonic can do things – healings, getting people pregnant – it has some form of power – or it is all in their heads, yet they turn to that power to be healed – either way, they aren’t getting better not turning to that power.

    Personal experience:
    My experiences with the demonic/satanic (whatever it is called?): I was praying for a friend who was slipping away from Christianity, she was angry and hurt by a lot of things, I figure, now, she was raised in a strict IFB like denomination, but I didn’t know about that when I was in University and would have just heard the word ‘Baptist’ and not realized the difference. Anyways, she was really angry about her past and felt she was a leader but as a woman, the church was holding her back. I pointed out to her David had to wait years to be leader and endure all sorts of injustices, so she may have to wait and not give up. She really listened that night and I was really glad, I went home and was in bed praying. It was the freakiest, scariest experience ever. It was like and ice-cold hand was encircling my heart, then I couldn’t breath. I was praying in my head. I used to think Satan couldn’t know our inner thoughts, so if I prayed in my head, he wouldn’t know if I was praying, but, if I stopped praying, the squeezing sensation and breathing problems stopped. I couldn’t believe it was Satan, how would it know if I stopped praying. So, I began praying (in my head) again. As soon as I started, the squeezing and breathing problems began. I stopped again. It stopped. I finally gave up praying, figuring if Satan was this powerful in my life, I couldn’t be a Christian, etc. I was crying the next day at church (in the back) cause I thought I wasn’t saved (yes this was silly). A friend came up and asked me what was wrong, so I tried to explain it all to him. He told my youth pastors and they all prayed for me later. They didn’t agree Satan couldn’t tell when I was praying/not praying and I realized Satan wasn’t exactly happy that I was having an effect on a woman who he was successfully isolating from the church, so I guess that is as close to any demonic stuff I ever want to be. I remember going to the bathroom afterwards and wondering if I could clean off the yucky sense. It was gross and overpowering and in no way medical. I never considered myself possessed, or her possessed, in a charismatic sense. Just that the spirit world moved close to our College and career group that year and there were many amazing times with God too. So, as the Holy Spirit moved powerfully, so did the demonic (it is, unfortunately, one of the few times in my life I was close enough to God and in tune with God that Satan had to worry, most of the time, I think, I am not much of a concern for him).

    Sadly, that young women left the church later on and hasn’t, as far as I know, returned.

  287. @ Patrice:

    “JeffB, I think I’d like you very much if I knew you “for real”.”

    Ditto.

    Good points about compartmentalization.

    “And it is true that when a person begins facing the effects of trauma, s/he needs loads of kindness and allowance. But God-issues will come up before long, almost inevitably. If the victim is offered a shallow version of God (keeping back that which s/he is yet too fragile to handle), how effective can that shallow God be when the person is at greatest need for the full complete God?

    And really, why would an incompletely understood God be best for the traumatized, whereas the full God is best for the uninterrupted populace or the theologian? This seems to me a forced dichotomy and also backwards.”

    I agree with you here, though we have somewhat different views of God.

  288. @ numo:

    “JeffB wrote:

    Even if I were not a Jew…

    jeff, I somehow missed this – my sincerest apologies!”

    No apologies necessary.

    “Did you grow up observant, or…??? (Just curious; most of my the jewish kids in my ‘hood, and, later HS, were Conservative or Reform – in turn, their parents had been raised orthodox.)”

    We went to a Conservative synagogue, at least when my grandfather was alive, but even then it was only during holidays. Then we stopped going anywhere, as I recall, except to return there for Bar Mitzvahs. We were “cultural” Jews, that’s all. I had to learn to pronounce enough Hebrew words to get through my Bar Mitzvah. Wasn’t taught what the words meant.

  289. @ Patti:

    “I refuse to trust a Christian that believes God is the author of evil. Now if a Christian can tell me that they simply don’t understand why God has not intervened to prevent certain horrors and in that way still believe that God has a loving agenda somewhere in that decision because they trust that God IS good all of the time and that God simply understands more than we do and we will understand someday then I can still have Christian fellowship with them. But I know many people, Arminian and Calvinist Christians who believe that since God is in charge it doesn’t matter what we think is evil or good, God can do whatever God wants and then whatever they interpret God to be decreeing they follow and copy. They are the ones who can beat a child believing that God said to do it, ignoring all common sense. I think some themselves would wipe out whole ‘sinning’ towns for God’s sake if God gave them power over the weather. That was the kind of God follower that Saul was before he was Paul. He said that he had a certain zeal for God but he was ignorant until he met Jesus Christ.”

    You didn’t address this to me specifically, but, FWIW, I agree with you. We shouldn’t say that evil is good because God did not intervene to stop it. But we can, as you say, “still believe that God has a loving agenda somewhere in that decision because they trust that God IS good all of the time and that God simply understands more than we do and we will understand someday.”

  290. @ Daisy:

    “JeffB wrote:

    forget about the eternal suffering that is included in their “system” also.

    No, I don’t think we do.”

    Yes, that was too big an assumption. Later in the comment, I wrote “seems to forget.”

    “But it seems cruel to me to posit a God who willy nilly picks at random in eternity past who will be saved and who will be sent to Hell (picking who will be saved means some are in effect being chosen for Hell).

    At least under Non Cal positions, the sinner has a chance, an actual free will, to choose or reject God for himself. I believe the Holy Spirit plays a role in drawing people to God, but free will is at work, too.”

    Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.”

  291. @ JeffB:

    Jeff, this is something that maybe you can help with. I’m not sure I’ve asked this before:

    If we don’t fully understand what God understands now with respect to our lives, why should we expect that we will understand later? (Presumably in heaven?) I mean, if understanding isn’t relevant now, why should it be relevant in heaven where there will be no situations to vex us? And if God is a mystery now, because He is so far above us…will He not be equally above us then?

  292. @ JeffB:

    Jeff,

    I will defer to JSG’s understanding of logic. Yes, it could be a relatively “logical” position, depending on the person. But does it maintain rational consistency?

    Not at all.

    We can move through your assumptions and see where the disconnect arises:

    “Because God exists in a timeless realm, and because he is creative, He can, and does, create the future.”

    In this statement, time is a direct function of NO time (God). Time then, itself, is static (doesn’t move…it just “is”). The reference unit then for any amount of time, or location of time (like “future”) is zero. So, you are measuring, say, sixty seconds as a function of nothing, which means that sixty seconds can only be actually (non-abstractly) defined as a specific amount of nothing (zero). So, if time doesn’t exist for God,it doesn’t actually exist for man, either. God cannot make “time”. Time is purely a human cognitive abstraction. This is why I utterly deny time even in math and physics. Physics does the same thing. Time starts at the “big bang”, or NO time. Which leads us to the same place. Time cannot ever have an actual value. It is an agreed upon but wholly arbitrary mental concept.

    Given this, it is hard for me to accept your version of God’s view of “future”.

    And there is more I can say about what you wrote, but because I can write posts which rival a magazine article for word count, I’ll just go to this:

    “God sees many possibilities for the future He creates. From all of these possibilities, He decides that only one of them will actually be manifested BY HIM (emphasis mine). This is the one that he “ordains.””

    You have correctly identified the source of why I say your argument is ultimately logically flawed. God does not see THE future, He only sees a possibly future. In this situation then, someONE or someTHING must be the final arbiter on what actually comes to pass. If it is man, then his future must be ultimately dependent upon his free will: what man does comes to pass, and the future is revealed by his actions FIRST, before the future can be known by God (my belief).

    But you are arguing that God is the final arbiter of what happens. Therefore, ALL that comes to pass is a direct and absolute function of God’s will, never man’s. God “allowing” man’s “free will” to produce GOD’S determined future is absolutely NO different than God merely directing man’s actions to produce GOD’S own determined future. There is no actual difference between man’s “free will” and God’s “determining” will. Everything that happens happens, even by your own admission, directly because God determines it. There isn’t any difference in how we qualify it (allow, disallow)…it happens only and directly because God wants it that way.

    The truth is that “free will” and “determinism” are absolutes. There is no way to reconcile them; to mitigate them; make them work together. Either we act freely, full stop, or God acts for us. God can effect outcomes, but he cannot do it by knowing the future…any future. Merely by acting in the same way man acts, by His free will, to cause events, which did not exist until He did them.

  293. Isn’t one of the hallmarks of the reformation that scripture is perspicuous; that is, easily understood by all Christians with the Holy Spirit?

  294. BTW, I am not trying to start a debate on Catholic versus Protestant view of scripture here. I’ll leave the question of perspicuity of scripture to you all.

  295. @ Mark: Even when the matter is left to the theologians and the church, things change. Take a look at the disposition of infants who die. I will be covering this subject on Monday. The Catholic church had them in limbo until the last decade when they changed their mind. This confusion affects everybody, not just post Reformation Protestants.

  296. JeffB wrote:

    Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.

    Even Russell Moore acknowledges that non-Calvinists believe that God is essential in moving the person to Himself. Non-Calvinists believe that all souls have this chance.

  297. @ JeffB:

    “Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.”

    ………………………..
    I can see why some would chose a universalism position. None of us would choose God anyway, therefore God does the choosing. The problem for me is if God picks some for heaven and some for hell ( all for His glory) then why is it such a stretch to believe He might choose all the unworthy for heaven Why just some? How w much is “some” anyway? Maybe it’s a very, very few? Maybe most souls are pre-condemned to hell. Who knows the number of elect? And all of this picking and choosing of the unworthy (some heaven bound, some hell bound) is done because why???

    I do believe by God’s grace, all mankind can (not will), accept the free gift of salvation. God has enabled humans with the ability to make a free will choice, yes or no, in choosing or refusing, to accept His free gift of salvation. He designed the plan, He makes it possible for us to respond. It’s an open invitation to all but not all will chose to accept His invitation. Not because they can’t (because they are already preselected, elected for damnation)but because they refused it.

  298. Dee, thanks. I look forward to reading your next article. As for “theologians and the church” I would ask you to define who you mean.

    As for the Catholic church teaching on limbo, I would just say that one of the problems with understanding Catholic doctrine is understanding what is dogma versus a “non-binding” teaching (which isn’t dogma). Pope Benedict said this about limbo: it is “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith”.

    There are things which the Church says we must believe and those which are not binding on the Christian. The fate of the innocents is something that God hasn’t explicitly revealed to us at this time, through apostolic tradition or scripture. This teaching on limbo was therefore non-binding. The church simply doesn’t want to overstep the bounds of revelation. To me, this says a lot about the Catholic Church and not being so black and white on this issue.

    This isn’t true for all teachings on faith and morals, however.

  299. @ Val: Val, your description of what happened to you (ice-cold, etc.) sounds very much like a panic attack. (About which I know more than i wish I did, though it’s been a very long time since I last had one.)

    About the woman with the infertility issue: how do you know that she was actually “healed”? Do you have medical evidence? (And – I hate to say this – perhaps it was her husband who was infertile? She could have been with someone else; it’s by no means beyond the realm of possibility – especially given the desperateness of the situation. Could even have been the Sufi “holy man.”)

    You know, one of the key people (a Hindu, am blanking on his name right now) in India who spent years publicly exposing the tricks and fraudulent “miracles” of “holy men” and sadhus was murdered two weeks ago, likely by someone who was angry at his having taken away their livelihood. (Because he had exposed them as a fraud.)

    I’m curious – still – as to why you think that Peter and others literally gave themselves to the devil when they sinned. Don’t you think that they were acting out of what was, in essence, selfishness/self-preservation? Peter was frightened about what would happen to him if he said that he knew Jesus… even though, per one account, John was there, too and “was know to” someone (or more than one someone) important. Peter acted out of fear, to save his own skin – in that, he was very human.

    Again, I think it is FAR easier to ascribe many things to the devil than it is to honestly face up to the fact that we are capable of great evil as well as great good.

    As for your time in a Vineyard church, that makes sense. They’ve always been much too willing to see demons and the devil and other supernatural things, like many charismatic cults. (And yes, i think the Vineyard is a cult, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

    per things that feel dark and oppressive, I’ve experienced some odd things, but at least one of them *is* explainable by medicine – a type of nightmare that appears to be common to most all cultures, in which the sleeping person feels like there’s something sitting on their chest, trying to suffocate them. There are clear medical and neurological explanations for these dreams, and yet… in some cultures, people who have them believe that they are going to die. And they do. (I was reading about some of the medical studies on this a couple of weeks ago.)

    Belief is a very powerful force for good – and for harm, too.

  300. @ Val: Let me ask you another question – how do you know that Satan was the one who was “isolating” your friend, keeping her away from church?

    To me it sounds like she was processing *a lot* and probably got scared/weirded out.

    But then, a lot of people I knew back when I was in charismatic churches would likely think that I’ve gone around the bend, lost my faith etc. etc. etc. if they were to read this blog and know that “numo” = [name].

    I think you need to allow yourself to accept the possibility that many things you believe to be supernatural might have entirely understandable causes and explanations. But I also understand that it’s *hard* to come away from the kind of charismatic immersion you’ve had, even when there’s a part of you deep inside that might be deeply skeptical of what you’ve believed/been told/whatever.

    Often people see what they want to see, rather than what’s really there.

  301. @ JeffB: Gotcha! I’ve known a lot of folks from a pretty similar background – including people who forgot the Torah portion they memorized for their Bar Mitzvah not long after the actual event. (That’s a lot of pressure on a kid, imo, especially if they haven’t been going to Hebrew School or studying at home.)

  302. @ Mark: Oh, I know that to be true. The point that I was making is that all of us: Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox struggle with the interpretation of Scripture and its application to difficult issues such as the death of infants. I wish that it was saliently clear so that all of us would get it and be of one accord. But, I do not think that is to be until he comes again. *Sigh*

  303. Val wrote:

    Peter tells Jesus he won’t die or Judas betrays Jesus and it is called “going over to Satan”

    Well, the way I know the quote is this: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Am sure you know that “satan” means “adversary”; the satan in Job is understood by many Jewish scholars (throughout history) to be a member of God’s heavenly “court” who is acting in an almost legal capacity, challenging what God says about Job. xtian Bible translations make it sound like the satan in Job is the devil; that is not the Jewish understanding – and really, the book makes *much* more sense (to me, at least) with that in mind; it’s highly literary and the whole “plot” and all of the monologues are very carefully framed and written. I do not believe that Job was a real person; nonetheless, I do think the book is an amazing exploration of the problems of evil, pain and suffering and how we do – or don’t – understand them. (Keep in mind, too, that one of Job’s friends goes on and on and on about how he must have sinned in order to have such misfortune befall him – kind of reminds me of the disciples saying “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” re. the man blind from birth in the Gospel of John.)

  304. @ numo: P.S.: when I had that vivid – and terrifying – nightmare of being suffocated, I was a teenager and thought that it might have been a real occurrence – literally, that an evil spirit might have been sitting on my chest.

    (Talk about telling tales out of school!)

  305. @ Dee: I only disagree with your assertion that it has to do with the interpretation of scripture. I love scripture, but it is silent. Alongside is that the Church doesn’t declare one way or another on it.

    I lost a brother who was only 13 when he died. He wasn’t baptized nor went through the “born again” traditional roll call of 20th century Protestants. What I believe, from his questioning, is that he had a baptism of desire. But whatever his eternal fate, he is with God, who is ultimately just.

  306. Justsomeguy,

    I will add one more. If God is controlling everything and foreordained all things, including the evil, then He foreordained that SOME humans would be more moral than He is.

  307. numo wrote:

    per things that feel dark and oppressive, I’ve experienced some odd things, but at least one of them *is* explainable by medicine – a type of nightmare that appears to be common to most all cultures, in which the sleeping person feels like there’s something sitting on their chest, trying to suffocate them. There are clear medical and neurological explanations for these dreams, and yet… in some cultures, people who have them believe that they are going to die. And they do.

    Have been following this conversation with some interest, and though I generally side with Val, on this one I’m with you. True story. One morning I was minding my own business when a demonic black mist or mass rushed at me, knocked me on my back, and proceeded to squeeze the breath out of me. I politely requested it to return to the place of eternal perdition. (Go to HELL!) It did not oblige me. I repeated my request twice (demons may be a little deaf, after all). Still…not… breathing….about to die… Then, faith-filled believer that I be, and slapping my figurative forehead, I added, “In the name of Jesus Christ”. I wish I could say that I was gloriously delivered from death-by-demon. Instead, I instantly woke up! All this took less than a minute, and was as frightening as anything in my waking life.

  308. @ Dave A A:
    Too bad I can’t forget the “waking up” part or I’d have a great delivered-from-demon story to tell.
    Speaking of forgetting, Anon 1 or others still awake, do you remember an RBD who speculated that God might cause the elect who went to heaven to just forget all about loved ones who went elsewhere?

  309. dee wrote:

    The point that I was making is that all of us: Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox struggle with the interpretation of Scripture and its application to difficult issues such as the death of infants. I wish that it was saliently clear so that all of us would get it and be of one accord. But, I do not think that is to be until he comes again. *Sigh*

    This brings up yet another question. Does Scripture have to speak explicitly to everything in this life, or does the Almighty endow us with enough of the divine to make our own decisions based on reason and the better angels of our nature?

  310. @ Dave A A:

    Well, I’d say it could be any ‘one’ (or all) of the dozens that seem to speculate on what God just might do. 😉 Listening to some of their sermons often leaves me wondering where truth ends and speculation begins.

  311. @ dee:

    I remember when I was reading Dante’s Inferno. Virgil and Dante were at the outer circle of hell, when they heard the sounds of infants crying. Virgil told Dante that those were babies who died before they were baptized. I threw the book across the room and never read it again.

  312. @ JustSomeGuy: I may be wrong about this since I am not a Calvinist but, it is my understanding that we do not have a choice in our salvation. Our choice comes afterwards when we can ignore the Holy Spirit in our lives. It appears to me that the call of God to salvation is considered irresistible but the working of the Holy Spirit in areas such as conviction of sin, etc. is not.

  313. Dave A A wrote:

    do you remember an RBD who speculated that God might cause the elect who went to heaven to just forget all about loved ones who went elsewhere?

    I have heard this frequently. i will try to figure out who said it.

  314. @ Muff Potter: Since Scripture does not address everything, that must be the case. Besides, there are a fair number of church leaders who claim that they knew what God was saying (Galileo experienced that stupidity) and screwed up things royally.

  315.  “A dead man,  a Monk, a hammer, a nail, and a piece of paper, a printing press, changed Western history…”

    What?

    (rewind)

    John Huss, a religious scholar who lived 100 years before Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) , was convinced and taught openly :

    1. That the Bible should be presented in the language of the people. (Martin Luther & Wm. Tyndale fulfilled this vision in 1521 [German bible] and 1526 [English bible] respectively.)

    2. That salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ. (we are saved through grace, by faith in Jesus, it is the gift of God, not of works…)

    3. That the Word of God is the final church authority. 

    *

    What happened to him (John Huss), anyway?

    (good question.)

    Skreeeeeeeeeeetch! Bump!

    Crash! 

    As you may recall, he (John Huss) was summoned to the Council of Constance with promises of safety,  but in reality,  betrayed, accused, imprisoned, charged with heresy, condemned, and burned at the stake as a heretic, and his ashes unceremoniously thrown into the Rhine River…

    All because he held the three simple ‘convictions’ above.

    Well I’ll be.

    K-i-l-l-e-d (6 July 1415) because he challenged the religious ‘Orthodoxy’ of his day? 

    huh?

    What you may find startling was the prevailing ‘religious’ winds at that time were:

    1.That the Bible should remain in the language* of the church, and administered by church officials only.  (*Latin, which the common folk did not know.)

    2.  That salvation ‘essentially’ comes by faith in the church.

    3. That the church’s ‘final authority’ exist somewhat equally with the word of the Pope, church tradition , and the holy scriptures, seemly, in that order.

    The ‘church authorities’ at the time were simply, blowing smoke.

    -snicker-

    What?

    (Fast forward a hundred years…)

    A German Monk, a hammer, a nail, a pen, some ink, and a piece of paper changed all of that in 1517. 

    (The reformation happened!)

    dunt, dunt, dunt….dah!

    Erasmus and  printing press did the rest.

    (fast forward some 496 years…)

    Now we have the Internet.

    hmmm…

    What about these three ‘convictions’ today?

    A. Is the Word of God alone still the final authority as far as the true Christian church is concerned?

    B. Does salvation ‘essentially’ still come by faith in the Son of God alone?

    C. Has the ‘true’ Sacred Scriptures continued to be presented ‘accurately’ in the language of the people?

    hmmm…

    These ‘convictions’, if followed,  today, would appear to be consistent with the true continuation of the Reformation in its essential form, and adequately reflecting heaven’s purpose for humankind till the Son ‘unceremoniously’   🙂  returns to the Earth.

    Datz da story?

    hum, hum, hum, hum-hum…

    Da Gates O’ Hell, shall not prevail…
    Da Gates O’ Hell, shall not prevail…
    Da Gates O’ Hell, shall not prevail…

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Who’s blowing smoke now?

    Sopy
    ___
    Source(s) :
    “1,   “
    “2”

    ;~)

  316. Junkster wrote:

    necessarily makes “their God” unworthy of worship, when those same exact arguments can be applied to either belief system by a non-Christian.

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But anyway. I’m a life long Christian who is teetering on the brink of leaving the faith… so this sort of thing matters to Christians who are easing into atheism or agnosticism. If I am to remain a Christian/theist, it won’t be in the God of Calvinism, which is not the same as the God of the Bible or Jesus Christ IMO

  317. @ Argo:

    There are some things in life where both sides in a debate can be right, or partially right.

    Some people look at this drawing and see a young woman, some see an old woman. Neither side is necessarily wrong, they just see things differently.

    Young Woman/ Old Woman

  318. Argo wrote:

    If the defense is “well, who can really say?” Then all truth becomes relative. So… why do we even bother talking about anything?

    I don’t think I can agree with that. There are some things in life that people will never know the answer to completely.

    To know everything perfectly and exhaustively, wouldn’t one have to be omniscient?

    The Bible has verses which says stuff like, “we see as through a glass darkly now,” and “the secret things belong to God,” all of which implies to me that humans aren’t meant to know with absolutely certainty or in detail everything about everything.

    And if they did and they could, faith to believe in God would not be necessary, I don’t think, but the Bible says God requires faith.

  319. JeffB wrote:

    Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.”

    That doesn’t make me feel any better about Calvinism, nor does it necessarily prove Calvinism is true. Oh, and people who God woos? They can reject him freely; his grace is not “irrestible.” There are examples in the Bible of people who resisted God and His will and His grace/plans.

  320. @ Daisy:

    I am not suggesting that everything is known completely, or that it ever will be. I am only asking the root epistemological question: how do we know what we claim to know? How do we evaluate ideas or things we observe? There are only two ways: the first is to appeal to man’s reason; we gauge truth by the logical consistency of the idea or the observation, and reconcile ostensible paradoxes by appealing to reason. Or, we accept that the root of all understanding is “unknown”. That there are foundational truths and ideas which we will see and hear and observe and entertain but which cannot be understood because man does not possess the capacity to ever understand them.

    And this is the fundamental assumption of many Calvinists. They never concede arguments because their plumb line for truth is “revelation”. In other words, the fact that you disagree with them is proof that God has not “given you grace to perceive”.

    But if that is true–that we will see ideas that we do not possess the capacity to explain understand/apprehend–then we cannot even properly DEFINE the idea in the first place. So to claim that you have a “truth” as a Christian, and that you want to teach this truth, which by definition cannot be taught but only bestowed because it is ultimately beyond human capacity to explain, is a contradiction in terms. If we claim to know something, we must have a standard of reason by which we accept it.

    Faith can only be rooted in a standard by which it can be known that it is reasonable to have faith. That standard can either be rationally inconsistent (relative) which means that at the end of the day some “authority” has to force or compel in some fashion others to believe what they cannot learn; or it can be consistent (objective) according to the human ability to properly judge the consistency of ideas, and this must be based on the ability to correctly judge VALUE (good and bad). And this means that an objective object must first be identified as having intrinsic, ineffable value so that it may serve as the objective plumb line for moral GOOD. Which I submit is individual human life.

    But blind faith is impossible.

  321. JeffB wrote:

    Virgil told Dante that those were babies who died before they were baptized. I threw the book across the room and never read it again.

    So it sounds to me JeffB, that your own conscience spoke to you loud and clear. Who and what then are you gonna believe? The template, the real McCoy (the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) inscribed within, or the manufactured god of men who have allowed themselves to be stripped of their humanity?

  322. @ numo:
    I like that view in Job, never heard it before, but it’s good.

    Yeah, there are times Jesus tells people why someone is sick (or whatever) and it isn’t in the bonds of Satan. I have a little boy with a serious genetic condition. I don’t know that he knows, and he is fine with who he is (he’s only four). So some people have disabilities that aren’t explicitly described as evil. But then, there is a lot that is credited over to evil too. My view is illness/disability can be a) for God’s glory – to heal!!!, but how many permanently, genetically disabled people do you know who got healed? b) Wrong place/wrong time (like that tower that fell on people) c) A thorn in the flesh to keep one humble (like Paul) or Satanic. My point is even if there are other reasons, Satan is also a force of destruction and oppression in the Bible and he (in a force form, I mean) has authority to do things on this earth. That “right” means God warns us to watch out for him/it. The devil is described in numerous ways – accuser, dragon, unclean spirit, oppressor, and so on. In Revelations, it seems all those ways were really one force (or something, really theological right?) and God throws it into some lake of fire (or just destroys it, can’t remember which).

    BTW, I’m not sure I want an accuser sitting their telling God to go find my weak spot (it wouldn’t be a very difficult job in my case), I’d sort of like that accuser destroyed in a Lake of Fire yesterday IMO.

  323. @ Val: I think that we have to keep in mind viruses, bacteria – you know, microbes and all of that.

    I don’t know that I totally buy the “disease is a consequence of living in a fallen eworld” line anymore, but I *do* believe that disease (and natural disasters, etc.) are part of living in an *imperfect* world. And yes, some diseases are truly (imo) “evil,” in that they ravage people (smallpox, cancer, polio, cholera, typhoid, etc.).

    But *if* the world worked in such a strictly spiritual way (governed by spiritual causes) as you are suggesting, why would we have learned to develop medicines and vaccines for the treatment – and prevention – of diseases?

    I do NOT think we’re caught in some kind of cosmic chess game and hope that maybe you can start to see this from a different pov – one where God is clearly good, but where evil spiritual forces aren’t the powerful entities that you seem to believe they are. Please understand that I am *not* meaning to be unkind or to put you down – only to say that there are other legitimate ways of viewing (and living in) the world.

  324. @ numo:
    I agree, Satan is a character that is slowly developed over the millennia of cannon writers. So is the concept of only one God. There are verses in pre-exilic period that refer to god as jealous of the other gods and better than the other gods.

    Satan is more fleshed out in the NT, I agree. So is the Holy Spirit.

    The Bible is about people gaining a sense of trust and awareness of God over time. As they leave their old beliefs, change cultures, learn new languages and philosophies, their views on God, Trinity and Satan change and that can make the Bible seem very inconsistent to a literalist (many people criticize Christianity because of their view of these inconsistencies). But, we are the inheritors of Gods work on earth – his revelations over time too. I don’t ascribe all things (good and evil) to God. I ascribe good things to God and evil/wicked (not necessarily just things I don’t like, but truly wicked things) to Satan. I am not all into that Spiritual warfare stuff. The battle is won, our work is cut out for us. We aren’t called to go make war with demons anyway, we are told to go reach people and bring love to a hurting world. I view the warnings to watch out for the enemy as a “you will encounter hardships on the way, don’t let that discourage you, it is not humans you are battling – you are to go love and help humans – avoid/watch out for the Devil, he will pick you off if he can (i.e. stick with following in the foot steps of Christ, don’t give up, get upset, the road will be hard, don’t let that mess you up). I don’t see Jesus telling us to stand in a place and pray over all the demons there. I do see him telling us to go to a place and tell people about Jesus, help them and love those who are there. If you encounter something dark/scary pray, but the focus is so you can get back to being Jesus’ ambassador to the people.

    I knew people who felt they must go all over the world to stand in certain places and pray back the demons. It didn’t seem to connect to the people there – I just rolled my eyes at the waste of money raised to send people there who couldn’t speak the language, barely interacted with the people beyond the church they were connecting with. And acted like they were so essential, when, after a few weeks, they had done little to nothing for anyone, except the airline co. who got seat sales. To be fair, many people go to those places and hide out in resort areas and don’t go to remote places at all, so, at least they brought some tourist dollars to poorer areas. But, that was honestly about it. I went and lived in Nepal, learned some of the language. Hung out with all types of people, volunteered at a school. Learned about their culture, etc. I never could stand the “two-weekers” who showed up in packs and went back home acting like they knew all sorts of things about a place and proceeded to get everything wrong (“they are all so happy being poor”) <- I will clock the next person who tells me that!

    Did I worry about the demons? apparently not enough according to some Christians I met. I hung out with Nepalis, let them put a snake around my neck (apparently that was totally demonic and blah, blah, blah – and that was the pastor's wife, she didn't appreciate that I didn't take her seriously). I took my shoes off at a mosque (apparently that is conforming to Islam and evil and I will poof into thin air for even thinking about doing that) – I may have rolled my eyes at her, she was annoying beyond belief, and her husband was an idiot, but that was who our church sent so I was stuck with them for three, very long, weeks). Nah, I just mostly find people in a church who I can eye roll about that sort of behaviour with. There are people in all churches who get way too caught up in that stuff. I agree, it is to shirk actually having to struggle through learning a new language and hanging out with strangers, yet convincing yourself you are doing something amazing.

    Most work overseas in not glamourous or exciting. The pay is lousy, going from first world to third world is like going from the Ritz to the seedy motel. It is never equivalent. SOme places have a good "front" – tourists love it. The problem is, the people living there don't live like the tourists, and the longer you stay, the more you can't live like you are accustomed to. Pens break, but there is no quality control in those places, so you buy more, yet they all bleed ink all over your hands, work, etc. You begin to beg tourists for pens. Try buying feminine hygiene products there if you run out, actually just don't bother. There are no washing machines (or weren't when I was there) all your clothes take on a grungy look (new or old). And the other ex-pats are often not the people you would chose to hang out with (grumpy older women who are bitter at the mission board, just way to happy guy who would never have a high church position back home). And it is always 2 steps forward 5 steps back, with cultural hurdles everywhere. I loved it, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't glamourous. No long-term missionaries were all caught up in spiritual warfare, they were just trying to pray to get their visas processed with minimum bribes being extracted. Many were generous hosts to tour-buses full of youth/university groups who were work to host. The hardest part of any orphanage work was when to say "no", often there was a never ending stream of requests to take kids, and not enough finances. Working in medicine was different, more rules, but more opportunities. Teaching was tough (60 kids per class, huge learning range, as kids were put in their age group, whether they had previous schooling or not) but rewarding too. But no one I know had time to just pray against demons. Life was too busy – it took me all day to get banking done. Nothing else, just converting traveler's cheques into cash. Then I had to hand wash all my clothes.

  325. Patrice wrote:

    The God I know has no truck with evil. None. He/She hates it and never wanted it and weeps over it. There is in no way a sense that my suffering brought glory to God. The God I learned to know when processing my trauma, recognizes that nothing can be done to “make it as if it never happened” or to “make the evil worth it by the good things that come out of it”.

    Yes, this. Our God still bears His scars in His hands, feet and side. He will never make ‘as if it never happened.’ He’s been there.

  326. @ Val: I understand and empathize, believe me.

    At the same time, though, you seem to subscribe to a belief system that gives an evil being not only minions but tremendous power. (As in the story you told where you were wondering if Satan could see into your thoughts/emotions/mind.)

    what you might not be able to see (yet) is that what you’ve written actually does *seem* to come from a POV very, very similar to that of the NAR types who go around supposedly driving out demons. I’m *not* saying this to be unkind, only to reflect back to you the way that I am seeing many of the things you’ve said in your previous posts.

  327. @ Val: Also, I wonder why it is that so many of us Westerners are quick to see what we might call “the spiritual world” in other societies, but to look right past clear evidence of belief in very similar (even the same, in some cases) ideas in our own countries?

  328. @ Argo:

    “If we don’t fully understand what God understands now with respect to our lives, why should we expect that we will understand later? (Presumably in heaven?) I mean, if understanding isn’t relevant now, why should it be relevant in heaven where there will be no situations to vex us? And if God is a mystery now, because He is so far above us…will He not be equally above us then?”

    Well, there is 1 Cor 13:12.

    “The truth is that “free will” and “determinism” are absolutes. There is no way to reconcile them; to mitigate them; make them work together. Either we act freely, full stop, or God acts for us. God can effect outcomes, but he cannot do it by knowing the future…any future. Merely by acting in the same way man acts, by His free will, to cause events, which did not exist until He did them.”

    How is “effecting outcomes” different from determinism? Do you mean He acts in the present but does not know the results of His actions? Does Scripture not tell us that certain things will occur in the future? How does Scripture know it but God does not?

  329. @ dee:

    “JeffB wrote:

    Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.

    Even Russell Moore acknowledges that non-Calvinists believe that God is essential in moving the person to Himself. Non-Calvinists believe that all souls have this chance.”

    Yes, non-Calvinists (Arminians, anyway) believe that God gives everyone something called “prevenient grace,” which gives them the ability to believe if they choose to exercise it. However, Scripture doesn’t speak of prevenient grace.

  330. @ Lin:

    “I do believe by God’s grace, all mankind can (not will), accept the free gift of salvation. God has enabled humans with the ability to make a free will choice, yes or no, in choosing or refusing, to accept His free gift of salvation. He designed the plan, He makes it possible for us to respond. It’s an open invitation to all but not all will chose to accept His invitation. Not because they can’t (because they are already preselected, elected for damnation)but because they refused it.”

    There would still be a mystery, though: Why do some choose, and others don’t?

  331. @ numo:

    “@ JeffB: Gotcha! I’ve known a lot of folks from a pretty similar background – including people who forgot the Torah portion they memorized for their Bar Mitzvah not long after the actual event. (That’s a lot of pressure on a kid, imo, especially if they haven’t been going to Hebrew School or studying at home.)”

    Yep, I forgot mine pretty quickly. I don’t know of any who didn’t have lessons somewhere though.

  332. @ dee:

    “I may be wrong about this since I am not a Calvinist but, it is my understanding that we do not have a choice in our salvation. Our choice comes afterwards when we can ignore the Holy Spirit in our lives. It appears to me that the call of God to salvation is considered irresistible but the working of the Holy Spirit in areas such as conviction of sin, etc. is not.”

    Calvinists believe that, when God regenerates us, we see His Beauty and Goodness for the first time, and we choose Him. We then go through the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. All believers resist the Spirit sometimes.

  333. @ Daisy:

    “JeffB wrote:

    Please remember that Calvinists believe that Scripture says that, without God’s intervention, *no one* would choose God. So the difference is between “no one” and “some.”

    That doesn’t make me feel any better about Calvinism, nor does it necessarily prove Calvinism is true. Oh, and people who God woos? They can reject him freely; his grace is not “irrestible.” There are examples in the Bible of people who resisted God and His will and His grace/plans.”

    I don’t recall anyone explicitly rejecting God’s offer of salvation.

  334. @ Muff Potter:

    “JeffB wrote:

    Virgil told Dante that those were babies who died before they were baptized. I threw the book across the room and never read it again.

    So it sounds to me JeffB, that your own conscience spoke to you loud and clear. Who and what then are you gonna believe? The template, the real McCoy (the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) inscribed within, or the manufactured god of men who have allowed themselves to be stripped of their humanity?”

    I was disgusted because water baptism was made the deciding factor of salvation, and it was particularly stupid and heartless when it involved babies.

    I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Are Calvinists the “men who have allowed themselves to be stripped of their humanity”? In what way?

  335. Jeff B

    Scripture doesn’t speak of the Trinity, infant salvation, etc. However one can extrapolate.And that is why we all disagree.

  336. @ JeffB:

    Jeff,

    1 Corinthians 13:12 does not answer my question. If understanding is not relevant now, when situations vex us, why will understanding be relevant later in paradise, when there will be no situations to vex us? It would seem incongruous to provide a solution to the problem AFTER the problem is solved.

    In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul is arguing precisely what I am arguing…and it would help if you gave the context of verse in chapter. The relevant understanding is LOVE in that chapter. What we understand in part now is not as important next to what is perfect, LOVE, which has (through Christ) now com. The love of human beings is the root of perfect understanding; which is why God is love. Understanding that human life is THE standard of moral GOOD (value) means that whatever we don’t understand is ultimately not a hindrance to actions that please God and promote an efficacious PURSUIT of a complete understanding of life and our environment.

    And Paul says what is in part will be “done away with”, not “cleared up”.

    Jeff, you said:

    “How is “effecting outcomes” different from determinism? Do you mean He acts in the present but does not know the results of His actions? Does Scripture not tell us that certain things will occur in the future?”

    There is a massive difference between actions leading to effects (effecting outcomes) and determinism. First, what is an outcome resulting from an action can be observed. What is determined cannot be observed, because determinism is not an action it is an absolute abstraction–merely a human cognitive concept. Determinism effectively says that an “event” of some kind exists before it is observed as existing, which I submit is a logical impossibility. One is a mystic superstition, the other is a well-know, experimentally verified and empirical physical “law” (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

    Scripture speaks of “future” events because that is how man quantifies “time”. There is no presupposition of determinism necessary whatsoever for two reason. The first is that God, even by your own admission, is “outside of time”, and thus does nothing “in the future”. And two, Creation should be able to act completely free and still, by virtue of God’s omnipotence, observe those events which God has declared will be. This is not determinism, this is merely the God of Creation saying He is going to manifest something…like, if I say I’m going to the store at 5, it doesn’t mean I have to control the actions of everything around me directly in order for me to go to the store…I only need to act, myself. I don’t violate ANY free will of another human being or the innate ability to BE what IT IS of any object in my environment. And one would not qualify my decision to go to the store as “determinism”. It is just a declaration of an intention of a “future” action. And the Bible has examples of God declaring an intention of a “future” action and yet not following through. Does this mean that His knowledge of the “future” was incomplete when He made His declaration? Of course not. God isn’t a liar because an intention is not a resolute ACTION that can be violated. God can change His mind without contradicting Himself just like we can change our minds without contradicting ourselves.

  337. @ dee:

    It also doesn’t speak of Original Sin, the “Fall from Grace”, Total Depravity, or ESS or Penal Substitution, or Complementarianism, or “preaching the gospel to yourself”.

    And yet these are all well accepted tenets of neo-Calvinism. They are not found in the Bible without some seriously subjective inference.

  338. @ numo:
    Oh, there is lots here. I grew up among the first nations in Canada’s North. They were very prophetic. Christian for a day or two, and could prophesy in clear detail. Caucasians, yeah, some are quite prophetic too.

    The spirit world is around us, both good and bad. So is the bacterial world. I only used paper towels to turn off taps and open bathroom doors for a few years after University (and seeing all that bacteria in petri dishes). I still grab my sleeve to open bathroom doors and wont’ let the kids grab it with their bare hands. But I don’t obsess over the fact bacteria is everywhere or carry around hand sanitizer. It is there, some of it can be very damaging, but focusing on killing all of it, just leads to more resistant strains. Some people obsess over dangers, some use caution, others just don’t want to know. I doubt any one way has a better outcome in the long-run.

    Anyways, if you are brought up to be aware of germs/bacteria you are more cautious and live your life differently that in a very poor place that has no understanding of germs (medieval Europe comes to mind). If you are brought up to be aware of good and evil supernatural occurrences you are more cautious of that and live your life differently than a very unaware place that has no understanding of the supernatural.

    My view is both exist. What to do about it, well, that is the problem. Getting focused and obsessed is not healthy, or how Jesus lived. He had many interactions with demons, yet that was not his focus or the job he called us to do on earth. However, he definitely made people aware that they existed. Not sure why he would do that if they didn’t really exist. Yet, he didn’t really want people running around going “look, demons listen to me!” No, he wanted his followers to go and heal the sick, reach the rejected, bring the good news. So, there are several ways to live if you believe demons (some force of evil) exist. One, obsess, two, take note, three, ignore it (or make a theology that makes it irrelevant – Calvinism, where God does everything, so all warnings abut demons are superfluous, that was my earlier criticism of Calvinism).

    I certainly don’t think demons are essential doctrine. One could be a Christian and not regard that whole area, as it is secondary to the faith. But, if the Calvinists are so convinced they have the Bible right, they have a lot of explaining to do, because those verse about evil doing this and that contradict what the Bible says. My view is, the onus is on the Calvinists to explain themselves.

  339. @ numo:
    Well that story happened. So it is what it is.

    I look at it this way. Christ paid a ransom for us (Matthew 20:28: just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”) and (Mark 10:45: For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”). Why on earth would he pay a ransom to Satan for us if Satan was so weak? It wasn’t a Ransom to God, as he is God. Sooooo, God is the biggest, strongest, being. Satan, however, tricked us into his lair (we sinned, he got us). He is far too powerful for us, but we can get out of his lair in Christ. He will then try to trick us back in. So to us, Satan is all powerful (no contest between us and him/it). Yet, between God and Satan, God is way more powerful, but Satan has us, and if God were to go fight Satan for us, we would be destroyed, so, instead, Christ came and paid a ransom for us. Satan cannot recapture those of us that are freed by Christ, but he can make our lives miserable – via others (persecution in ancient Rome for example), by disease, injury, or whatever he is capable of (in Job he was capable of an awful lot – tornadoes, thieves, death, disease). Despite this, God tells us to go back to the enemies lair and rescue others caught in it. We, freed by Christ, can walk freely in this world ruled by Satan, but he will put up a stink if we try and get others to join us. If this isn’t a problem for North Americans, than maybe we aren’t much of a threat to him? Who knows.

    In summary: God (like [three] Elephants), Satan (like a cheetah) and us, (like a bush baby). From a bush baby’s POV, cheetahs are deadly, but in the scheme of things, and Elephant can toss an attacking cheetah off himself with ease. Without being able to call on the Elephant for help, the bush baby is dead when the cheetah is after it. But, if the bush baby can call the Elephant, then he is safe from the cheetah.

  340. @ Val: where does your information re. the devil and his power come from, specifically? also, do you accept only the “ransom” concept of the atonement? i mean, there *are* others, and they certainly aren;’t mutually exclusive…

    the thing is, i don’t really see proof here – admittedly, *all* of this is about belief – only God knows the absolutes. but saying that the devil can know one’s thought seems far too close to saying that the devil is omniscient.

    i personally think that if the devil was so important, there’d be far more about him in the Gospel and epistles. but there really *isn’t* much – especially when comparing what little is said to Jesus’ many parables as well as his more straightforward statements about loving both God and one’s neighbor – not to mention who is truly a “neighbor.”

    Jesus cosntantly upended the applecart of peoples’ expectations – mainly through his love and mercy, not via exorcisms.

  341. @ Val:my other observation is that spending time on figuring out what angels and demons do is, well… foolish (a la Paul in Galatians).

    there are far more important things to focus on, as stated in my last post.

  342. @ Val: Keep in mind, too, that Jesus was born into a world – and time – when there was a widespread belief in supernatural causes for just about anything you could name.

    He had to work within that cultural framework, and how people around him *interpreted* what he was doing is yet another “???” for us today. (as with the healing of the epileptic boy that is described as an exorcism.)

  343. @ numo: Ditto for the “demoniac(s)” in Gadara – such a sad story of him/them being chained up and in such a terrible state physically and mentally. It’s closer to the conditions at Bedlam in London (you might want to Google it) than anything approaching a humane way to treat psychotic and potentially violent people.

    But those around them didn’t know any better, and perhaps they were truly afraid… or had exhausted all their options, or both.

  344. @ numo:
    It’s actually more comforting and less scary for some of us to hang on to our belief that our experience with demons was exactly that. I am talking about myself here. For me to believe that my experience was that I was crazy and/or schizophrenic is horrifying to me, I guess because that would mean accepting that I am not living in reality, but living in my sick mind. To believe that it was actually demons and that I am sane today because God supernaturally delivered me from demons is what at least makes me appear to be sane, but I don’t get upset if it is less scary for others to believe that I am crazy and this belief is just my coping mechanism. If you were there with me you certainly would have seen something difficult to explain. After my experience though, I sure became a lot less opinionated about explanations for others’ experiences.

  345. numo wrote:

    Jesus cosntantly upended the applecart of peoples’ expectations – mainly through his love and mercy, not via exorcisms.

    Numo – I find several things in your comments interesting. Most of all, though, if you don’t mind answering this in what is a fairly public context – when Jesus upended the applecart of your expectations, how did it happen and what was it like?

  346. JeffB wrote:

    I agree with you here, though we have somewhat different views of God.

    Suspect we are like those blind men surrounding the proverbial elephant. When I meet God face to face someday, I’ll be delighted to let go any precious-but-silly ideas I hold here/now. You too, likely. What fun that will be!

  347. @ numo:

    Dee – could you oblige? I’m pretty sure you’ve got my email address.

    Alternatively, there’s an anonymous contact page on my blog which, as has been said before, is so good it could literally change the world.

    Provided you’re willing to be a little flexible regarding the precise definitions of “change”, “world” and “literally”. Oh, and “could”.

  348. @ numo:

    I actually agree with you. When I compare the percentage of demonic experience in my Christian walk to the other aspects you mentioned of Jesus and the scriptures, the ratio is about the same.

  349. @ Patti: I would be willing to bet that what Jesus says about Satan/demons is minuscule compared to what he says about loving God and loving one’s neighbor – and all the ways to go about doing both.

    Am also willing to bet that close to 100% of what is said about jesus re. demons is really about other kinds of problems (epilepsy and other physical illnesses, mental illness, diseases that affect both body and mind). If anything, there’s a great deal more attention paid to his healing sick, blind, lame etc. people, if we’re talking miracles that are identified as such (and not exorcisms) in the Gospels.

    Interesting, too, that there’s very little in the epistles (all of them, not just Paul’s) about exorcism. there’s a lot about standing against evil, but it seems to – mostly – be framed in terms of an individual’s life, as opposed to references to fighting demons, etc.

    Someone who can crunch numbers should do a spreadsheet with percentages…

  350. @ numo:
    Jesus cosntantly upended the applecart of peoples’ expectations – mainly through his love and mercy, not via exorcisms.

    Totally agree with that Numo. You don’t seem to hear what I write. I agree that Jesus mainly upset the applecart through his love and mercy. Do you think I say anything differently? I think you are arguing with people from your past. I was never into any high level spiritual warfare stuff. Years ago, another Christian club on campus (likely Crusade, but I don’t remember which) had the author who wrote the Bondage Breaker come and speak. A whole bunch of my friends and I went to hear it. It bothered us for many reasons – for me, Neil talked about passing a girl on the street and knowing all this personal stuff about her. I was like “how on earth would you know if you knew that if you never verified your supposed knowledge?” We questioned him and he shut us down pretty quickly. No, I never hung out with people who were like that. It was a group who practiced mostly love and mercy. Prophecy too, but good stuff, and stuff that has always let me know there is a God, some stuff others cannot just guess, the timing was too perfect. I never heard my closest friends pray for demons to come out of people. Even when I went to my pastors over that dark experience I mentioned earlier, they never tried to do some sort of exorcism, they were focused on Jesus and having me know Jesus was the centre. So, I don’t think my experiences line up with yours. Yours sound very painful for you, and I am sorry for that. I have had painful experiences with people in the neo-reformed movement, but not the charismatic movement. I know there is a lot of dark and crazy stuff in the Charismatic movement, but I never got into that stuff. I once went to a conference where a guy named Todd Bentley and others were speaking, we got annoyed when Todd talked and left, it was nothing like what I was used to in my Charismatic circles. He was calling all cases of ADHD and autism demonic. My husband (who was way beyond unimpressed) noted, anything without a medical cure seemed to be on his list.

  351. @ Nick Bulbeck: In answer to your question, I think – in essence – that the applecart got upended after I spent many decades in various charismatic/evangelical groups that had deep roots in discipleship movement-type stuff. There was a premium on perfectionism; nobody could EVER, seemingly, be quite good enough.

    When That Church (the last I attended) booted me almost 11 years ago, the door got kicked open for me to come to a different understanding of God and of Jesus Christ… but given all the pain that came from that situation, and the years and years of hurtful ideas and really twisted views of God that were part and parcel of these groups, it took me a long time – and some personal crises – to actually begin to see that *none* of that stuff had much, if anything, to do with the Christ of the Gospels, nor with his Father. And I knew all the words – could practically recite chapter and verse about God’s love – but had never, ever been able to believe or accept that he actually loved me.

    That’s changed. The applecart’s been upset, thoroughly and, I hope, permanently.

    Don’t know if you’ve ever read Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay Are Women Human? (and related material), but she puts it quite well – and in slightly different terms.

    I think it is all about being, and allowing oneself to be loved, and letting actions follow from that – and not from some crushing weight of guilt/obligation/fear. So much religion (of all stripes, not just xtianity) is, in practice, about fear. That’s *not* the Gospel; that’s *not* what Jesus came to do and to be and to teach.

    If he *were* bound by fear, he would never have healed, or spent time (considerable time, from the sound of it) with all the social outcasts and people who just weren’t quite up to par. He wouldn’t have let children crawl into his lap. and I’m sure he wouldn’t have gone to Bethany and raised lazarus. (let alone willingly chosen to die.)

    We see a perfect person in the Gospels – emphasis on *we*, not necessarily on what’s there. I’m not saying that i believe Christ sinned – rather that we’ve got pretty thick goggles on, ones with lenses that are anything but clear, when it comes to reading the Gospels in a fresh, immediate way.

    I think the real picture (could be plural, I’m thinking – “pictures”) – is much more complex, multilayered, and rather confounding.

    If jesus were to walk in the door of most churches here in the US, well… I doubt he’d find much of a welcome. In some places he’d more than likely be shown to the door – and quickly.

  352. @ numo:
    No kidding, my critique too. But, if it comes down to Calvinism, I will state that the Bible doesn’t support a one God doing all good and evil. I won’t discuss it any more. If you want to take the Calvinist view, that is fine. In the end, it is how you love others, and love God. For me, the Bible shows a dualistic world of Good and Evil, God is Good and he wins/has won and that is good enough for me.

  353. @ Val: You may well be right – though (not to go through all of this again), I have serious problems with Greg Boyd’s presentation of spiritual warfare as *the* paradigm for the kingdom of God, which is (I think!) where we got started.

    but yeah, this has been a tangent, and when talking mainly about the tangent, I’ve neglected the other things. My apologies for that, Val.

    and fwiw, I don’t disagree with you on essentials by any means – I just think that we do part company on some other stuff that (believe it or not) you might come to see a bit differently in time.

    Back to square one, though – essentials! 🙂

  354. @ Val: Val, I am not now – nor have I ever been, a Calvinist/Reformed, or even remotely close! I’m Lutheran, and even during my decades in the evangelical/charismatic wilderness, there were certain things from my background that I never let go of.

    I honestly don’t come here to argue or debate about Calvinism; it doesn’t interest me and I find the logic of it all very hard to care about, let alone understand!

    about “dualistic,” though: you might want to look that one up. The classic example of a dualistic religion (and dualistic understanding of the supernatural) is Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia (which is still practiced in some parts of Iran, India, and among the Indian disaspora). That posits a good force locked in constant battle with an equally powerful evil force – which one will win? Zoroastrians believe that good will triumph in the end, but believe me, the basic outlines of it all seem far closer (to me) to what many charismatic xtians believe than what’s actually in the Gospels. (I think “strategic level spiritual warfare” is entirely based on a dualistic view of the world – natural and supernatural – and that it’s *not* the same system of beliefs as those found in historic xtianity – but that’s a whole ‘nother subject!)

    peace,
    n.

  355. @ numo:
    He could have been, but it would still be evil that caused the epilepsy, not God. So, not a pro Calvinist story by any stretch.

    How many people who pray for other’s healing are willing to fast for someone for three days? That is a whole other apple cart to tip over for another post (works vs. no works), because there is a large call in the gospels to do something once saved, and warnings that salvation can be lost if you don’t.

    Again, I am not Calvinist, and stories like the epileptic boy still say the force behind it is evil (sickness was also viewed as demonic in the NT). If that bothers you so much, does it not bother you if God made him epileptic? I don’t get why people can freak if something is evil, but then ascribe that same condition to God’s doing (that bothers me way more). Either you don’t believe in the supernatural at all (God or devil – whatever term one applies to Satan) or you believe there is a supernatural world. Demons may not be provable but God is not provable either. Can you prove Jesus raised from the dead? It is all by faith in the end.

  356. @ Val: Oh, but I was in a church for over 10 years that was sold out on “intercessory warfare prayer” and fasting – so much fasting!

    Really, this stuff is all very difficult for me; I believed in a lot of it for a long time. Still processing, after 11 years out of that milieu…

  357. @ Val: this boy was sick and he had what sound like severe grand mal seizures. He had an illness that affected his brain and nervous system – it was malfunctioning.

    That’s not “evil” as I understand it. It *is* a serious malfunction of the body and brain, though.

  358. Val wrote:

    and warnings that salvation can be lost if you don’t.

    not sure you want to open this can of worms here! (Not blaming you, but this is a tough one for many, on all sides.)

  359. @ numo:
    Numo writes, “where does your information re. the devil and his power come from, specifically? also, do you accept only the “ransom” concept of the atonement? i mean, there *are* others, and they certainly aren;’t mutually exclusive…”

    Seriously Numo? I have been on this thread for ages, talked about many different historical points in the church and am reading a book right now on Models of Atonement. Yeah, I can list 6 Atonement theories off the top of my head. I can even say when they began to take root in the church. Some atonement theories are more mutually exclusive than others (Calvinism’s penal substitutionary atonement theory, for example – just try to fit that one into Christ Ransom Theory).

    Anyway, it is best we stopped. I don’t feel Calvinism can properly explain some portions of the Bible. It has holes in it’s theology and that was all I meant to point out, I don’t want to get into comments of one up-manship here. I am very well versed on the Bible, I was saved evangelical, not charismatic and reading and studying the Bible was drilled into me from a young age. I, like Rachel Held Evans, refused to gloss over the hard parts and asked way too many questions. So, my knowledge is not lacking, nor do I ignore or get irate with the parts of the Bible I don’t like (I don’t like the women submitting verses, mostly), I acknowledge they are there, then counter argue with all the Women that did lead and teach that Paul commends. But I will thank you for not attacking what I say with false characterizations of me, and I won’t do the same to you. We both have had our experiences and they have led us to where we are today. The important thing is to know and love God, and if that had been done in your charismatic experience or my neo-calvinist experience, then we would likely not be so hostel/doubtful to/of the other side. However, I am not levelling this at you personally and I thank you for not doing it to me.

  360. @ numo:
    OK, now I am just scratching my head. I felt each time I tried to point out a weakness of Calvinism, it was countered quite strongly from you. I thought you were standing up for it??? I thought Luther did talk about demons (he thinks one came into his room or something) and Calvin didn’t. Now I am confused. What are Lutheran teachings on evil then? From God or not?

  361. @ Val: I was trying to *not* talk about Calvinism, honest!

    Luther believed in demons; he was a man of the late middle ages. The Lutheran churches (and they are diverse) don’t necessarily believe everything eh wrote – not by a long shot! If we did, we would be moral monsters, because he wrote one of the worst anti-semitic screeds ever, in which he advocated killing jewish people, utterly destroying their homes and synagogues and businesses, etc.

    I am confused now, too, as I didn’t realize you were trying to counter Calvinism and Calvinist beliefs in answer to my posts – I was not and am not talking from a Calvinist perspective, I promise you.

    all the best,
    n.

  362. @ Val: I can’t imagine viewing evil as coming “from God”!

    btw, the whole concept of “limited atonement” seriously freaks me out. (I wish I had never, ever heard of it.) Either Jesus died for all, or else what’s the point?!

    I hope that helps clarify a bit, along with my comments to JeffB early in the thread challenging his belief that God “ordained” the Holocaust.

  363. @ numo:
    Sounds good – I think I need to get a chart with Calvinism, Lutheranism and Holiness and Wesleyan all compared. I had thought you would agree with me that the holocaust wasn’t from God, then got confused when you didn’t seem to view it as evil and thought maybe you were a more mainline Reformer and didn’t view evil as part of the equation at all – as in, viewed all things from God. Phewph, glad to know the Numo I have seen on here for year(s) hasn’t gone over to the dark side (Calvinism) 😉

  364. @ Val: I think the Holocaust was utterly evil (see my comments *very* far upthread!), and I do not believe that God could ever will or send something evil, because he is essentially (in his essence, that is) good and nothing but good can come from him,

    I have a suspicion, though, that your definition of “evil” might not be quite the same as mine – ???

    Here’s a link to my church’s “What We Believe” pages, which might help some. Please note that there are all kinds of “flavors” of Lutheranism, from fundamentalist to very “liberal.” I think the Creeds (Apostles, nicene and Athanaisan) are bedrock, but disagree on the interpretation of a number of things, such as “original sin.” Still, the creeds don’t talk about it, whereas they do talk about Christ’s death, resurrection and redemption, in which I believe. so…

  365. @ Val:

    Sorry – I was eavesdropping on your conversation with numo, and read this:

    “How many people who pray for other’s healing are willing to fast for someone for three days? That is a whole other apple cart to tip over for another post (works vs. no works), because there is a large call in the gospels to do something once saved, and warnings that salvation can be lost if you don’t.”

    I would be interested in knowing where in the gospels this is written. If you don’t want to get into it now, that’s okay, of course. I neglected to interact with you about demons (except for conceding a point to you) even though I said I would, and I apologize for that.

  366. @ JeffB:
    Hebrews for starters: Heb 2:1 “Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.” and 3:12 “Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” and verse 12s feature big here, 5:12 ” For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food;” and the kicker:

    Heb 6:4 “4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.”

    All of Hebrews actually. I know some people debate whether those who experienced the Holy Spirit really experienced it, but that is too “fantasy wishing” for me. Hebrews is pretty clear we have to live in the Spirit, not just “be saved” once, for there is no second repentance if we reject the Holy Spirit.

    In Matthew (and elsewhere) there is the parables of the sower (Matt 13:1-9) and then the explanation (matt 13:18 -23) of the parable indicate some respond, but don’t bear good fruit.

    Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able.”

    and the parable of the Rich Young Ruler – who had to do things in order to inherit eternal life – that weren’t just “say this prayer and believe”,

    There are more, but I have to run now.

  367. @ numo:
    I just reread my comment, I could have written what I meant more clearly. I did not mean that my different experiences in my walk with the Lord were in ratio to each other. I meant that they seemed to be in the same ratio as the scriptures. So yes, much less time in experience with the demonic than the other aspects of life as a Chrstian.

  368. numo wrote:

    Tag on my last: the Germans used a *lot* of material on eugenics that was developed (and, to a horrifying degree, practiced) here in the US.
    We were the leaders in so-called “race science.”

    May of Steven Jay Gould’s essays on the history of science relate how bad science was used to prop up ideas of race supremacy.

    I can’t help but think that the Nazis actually did everyone a service by taking Eugenic theory and firewalling it to the max at the cost of over 12 million lives. If it hadn’t been for the NSDAP’s example, Eugenics and Master Race Theory might still be respectable mainstream science.

  369. CREED BOOKS?

    If what is written in creed books is exactly what is penned in the Bible, then, what is the purpose of creed books? The reason to have a creed book is to add or take away from Scripture.

    Creed books in most denominations are the final authority when it comes to teaching about faith and practice.

    Could the doctrinal positions taken by your denomination be supported by using the Bible and the Bible alone? If not why not?

    Proverbs 28:22 5-6 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield of those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do no add to His words, Lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.

    Is every word found in your creed book pure? Creed books do add to God’s word. Are you putting your trust in God when you use you creed book as your authority or are you trusting the writers of the creed book?

    Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If any one adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things written in this book.

    If your denomination is using modern day creed books of so-called new revelation? Why would you not question that teaching.

    Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I commanded you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I commanded you.

    God has never left it up to men to write their own commandments. God has not given men the authority to devise their own terms of pardon. GOD HAS NOT CHANGED THE TERMS FOR PARDON UNDER THE NEW COVENANT. THE BIBLE WAS COMPLETED NINETEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

    GOD WROTE THE BIBLE. MEN WRITE CREED BOOKS.

    (Scripture from: NKJV)
    Note: Philip used the Scriptures to teach the Ethiopian eunuch. He did not open a creed book. (Acts 8:35)

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>> steve finnell a christian view

  370. @ Patti: No worries, patti – I’m not always as clear as I’d like to be. (One of the hazards of text-only communication.)

  371. @ Val:

    Well, I believe that there are too many passages in Scripture that say that saving faith is eternal for me to think that a true believer can lose his/her salvation, but you’ve compiled a pretty good list of passages that, in most cases, at least seem to say otherwise. I’m sure you know the arguments in opposition, so I won’t go through them. Too lazy anyway.

  372. I’m sure Calvinist attempt to emphasize or stress God’s love. What I have witnessed by a Covert or Stealth “5 Pointer” was his inability of actually practicing God’s love. He went so far as suggesting he would be “Ear Tickling” if he didn’t preach his harsh style of what he referred to as preaching “Truth” which involved an “Exegetical chewing out” week in and week out making love unrecognizable.

    He embraced his Method more than the Message.